HomeMy WebLinkAbout20000846 Ver 1_EIS Volume 1_20060526L.lDEPARTMENT 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 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 1: DOCUMENTATION
APRIL 2000
PIEDMONT
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
`V
U
Q
FAA's design guidelines, which were developed to enhance the protection of people and property on the
ground, prohibit the development of places of public assembly within a RPZ, and further recommends that
it is desirable that the RPZ remain clear of all objects. The development of the sorting/distribution facility
within the RPZ would not be in keeping with the above referenced FAA design and safety standard. Since
none of these five alternatives met all of the Level 1 purpose and need screening criteria, they were not
retained for further evaluation in this DEIS.
Alternatives W2 -A through W2-E - Alternative W2-A, which is the sponsor's proposed project, would
meet all of the Level 1 purpose and need criteria; therefore, it was retained for further evaluation in the
Level 2 analysis. Runway-sorting/distribution facility site Alternatives W2-13 through W2-E would only
partially meet the purpose and need criteria for the proposed project. All of these alternatives would
locate the overnight, express air cargo hub at PTIA, provide redundant 9,000-foot Transport-Category
runways, provide the ability to conduct dual simultaneous independent IFR operations and provide the
capability to conduct head-to-head operations during times of peak air cargo operations. However, none
of these alternatives would provide a sorting/distribution site located between parallel runways, which, as
described in the TAAM analysis, is critical to meeting cargo hub operational needs. The location of the
sort/distribution facility site associated with Alternative W2-C does not meet FAA Standards and
Recommendations for Airport Design (Advisory Circular 150/5300-13) because a large portion of the
proposed site (approximately 40 percent) would fall within the future RPZ of proposed parallel Runway
5U23R. FAA's design guidelines, which were developed to enhance the protection of people and property
on the ground, prohibit the development of places of public assembly within a RPZ, and further
recommends that it is desirable that the RPZ remain clear of all objects. The development of the
sorting/distribution facility within the RPZ would not be in keeping with the above referenced FAA design
and safety standard. Since none of these four alternatives met all of the Level 1 purpose and need
criteria, they were not retained for further evaluation in this DEIS.
Alternatives W3-A through W3-E - Runway-sorting/distribution facility site Alternative W3-A would
locate the overnight, express air cargo hub at PTIA, provide redundant 9,000-foot Transport-Category
runways, provide the ability to conduct dual simultaneous independent IFR operations, provide the
capability to conduct head-to-head operations during times of peak air cargo operations, locate the
sorting/distribution facility site between the parallel runways to meet operational needs. Since this
Alternatives E7-A through Ei-E - Runway-sorting/distribution facility site Alternatives E1-A through
E1-E would only partially meet the purpose and need criteria for the proposed project. All of these
alternatives would locate the overnight, express air cargo hub at PTIA, provide redundant 9,000-foot
Transport-Category runways, provide the ability to conduct dual simultaneous independent IFR
operations and provide the capability to conduct head-to-head operations during times of peak air cargo
operations. However, Alternatives E1-A, E1-C, and E1-D did not meet the Level 1 criteria because they
did not provide a sorting/distribution facility site between the parallel runways. Alternative El -B and El -E
did not meet the Level 1 purpose and need criteria because with the 3,400-foot runway centerline
separation, they did not provide a sorting/distribution facility site of sufficient size to meet the air cargo
carrier's operational requirements. In addition, the location of the proposed parallel runway in all of the E1
alternatives would require the relocation of existing railroad infrastructure, which would take a minimum of
5 to 7 years to accomplish because of the required coordination with other agencies (Surface
Transportation Board), and because new construction could not occur until the railroad was relocated.
Since none of these five alternatives met all of the Level 1 purpose and need criteria, they were not
retained for further evaluation in this DEIS.
Alternatives E2-A through E2-E- Runway-sorting/distribution facility site Alternatives E2-A through E2-E
would only partially meet the purpose and need criteria for the proposed project. All of these alternatives
would locate the overnight, express air cargo hub at PTIA, provide redundant 9,000-foot Transport-
Category runways, provide the ability to conduct dual simultaneous independent IFR operations and
provide the capability to conduct head-to-head operations during times of peak air cargo operations.
However, Alternatives E2-A, E2-C, and E2-D did not meet the Level 1 criteria because they did not
provide a sorting/distribution facility site between the parallel runways. Alternatives E2-B and E2-E did
not meet the Level 1 purpose and need criteria because with the 4,300 foot runway separation, these
alternatives would not provide a sorting/distribution site of sufficient size to meet the air cargo carrier's
operational requirements. All of the "E2" parallel runway alternatives would require the relocation of
existing railroad infrastructure, which, as discussed for the E1 Alternatives, would take a minimum of 5 to
7 years to accomplish. Since none of these five alternatives met all of the Level 1 purpose and need
criteria, they were not retained for further evaluation in this DEIS.
Alternatives N-A through N-E - Alternatives N-D and N-E met all of the Level 1 purpose and need
criteria; therefore, these alternatives were retained for further evaluation in the Level 2 analysis.
Alternatives N-A and N-C did not meet the Level 1 criteria because they did not provide a
sorting/distribution facility site between the parallel runways, which is critical to meeting the cargo hub's
operational needs. Alternative N-B did not meet the Level 1 purpose and need criteria because it did not
provide a sorting/distribution facility site of sufficient size to meet the air cargo hub's operational
requirements. Since none of these three alternatives met all of the Level 1 purpose and need criteria, they
were not retained for further evaluation in this DEIS.
Alternatives S-A through S-E - Alternatives S-A, S-B, S-D, and S-E did not meet the Level 1 criteria
because they did not provide a sorting/distribution facility site between the parallel runways. Alternative S-
C did not meet the Level 1 purpose and need criteria because it did not provide a sorting/distribution
W.\PIEDMONl1DE1S\Exsum\fnl_exs.doc\03123100 5-12 Summary
facility site of sufficient size to meet the air cargo hub's operational requirements. All of the "S" parallel
runway alternatives would require the relocation of existing railroad infrastructure, which, as discussed for
the E1 and E2 Alternatives, would take a minimum of 5 to 7 years to accomplish. Since none of these five
alternatives met all of the Level 1 purpose and need criteria, they were not retained for further evaluation
in this DEIS.
Citizens Scoping Alternative - Review of the citizens Scoping alternative indicates that it would only
ect at PTIA. This alternative
ALTERNATIVES RETAINED FOR DETAILED EVALUATION
Five runway-sort/distribution facility alternatives (W2-A, W3-A, N-D, N-E and W1-A1) as well as the No-
Action Alternative were retained through the two level screening process. Table S-2 and the following
paragraphs present a summary of the results of the evaluation of each of these alternatives.
No Action Alternative - (See Figure S-3) The No-Action Alternative infers the overnight, express air
cargo sorting and distribution facility (FedEx Mid-Atlantic Hub) would not be developed at PTIA. This
alternative would involve no new construction of airside facilities or landside facilities associated with the
air cargo facility, and no other PTIA airside and landside developments beyond those that are already
programmed or undertaken by the PTAA for safety and maintenance reasons. The PTAA plans several
surface transportation improvement projects that would be initiated whether or not the air cargo facility
were to locate at PTIA. These projects would be funded by the FHWA and NCDOT. Infrastructure
impacts from development of the surface transportation projects associated with the No-Action Alternative
include closure and relocation of a portion of Regional Road, realignment of a portion of Old Oak Ridge
Road, construction of a new interchange for Bryan Boulevard and Old Oak Ridge Road, construction of a
new airport entrance interchange for existing North Triad Boulevard and development of a new
interchange for South Triad Boulevard.
Implementation of the No-Action Alternative would require the relocation of one home and the acquisition
of approximately 13.66 acres of property for right-of-way acquisition for the roadway projects. The right-of-
way acquisition would include any realigned roadway as well as the cleared/maintained safety areas off
the sides of the roadways. The surface transportation improvements would result in adverse impacts to
approximately 9.8 acres of wetlands and 23.1 acres located within the 100-year floodplain (see Chapter
5.0, Environmental Consequences). This alternative would not result in direct or indirect impacts to DOT
Section 303(c) resources or direct impacts to Section 106 Historic Resources. Existing indirect impacts to
one Section 106 historic architectural site (Campbell-Gray Farm) from aircraft generated noise would be
lessened, with DNL levels decreasing from DNL 70.5 dBA in 1998 to DNL 68.6 dBA in Phase 1 and DNL
69.2 dBA in Phase 2. Based on FAA noise compatibility guidelines, noise levels from aircraft operations
would be above FAA's threshold of compatibility (which is DNL 65 dBA) at this site with the No-Action
Alternative. The total cost for the No-Action Alternative is estimated to be approximately $25.7million,
including construction, acquisition, and relocation-and wetlands mitigation.
Alternative W2 -A - (See Figure S-3) Surface transportation impacts from development of the parallel
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
Table
5.1.3-2 Area By Land Use (Acres) within 1998 and Phase 1/Phase 2 No-Action Alternative Noise
Contours
5.1.3-3 Estimated Population and Housing Units within Noise Contours - All Alternatives
5.1.3-4 Estimated Noise-Sensitive Receptors within Noise Contours - All Alternatives - All Study
Years
5.1.3-5 Phase 1 Specific Point Analysis - All Build Alternatives
5.1.3-6 Land Use Area within Noise Contours - Phase 1 Build Alternatives
5.1.3-7 Significant Noise Impacts (+1.5 dB and +3.0 dB) to Population and Households for
Comparison of Phase 1 and Phase 2 Build Alternatives to No-Action Alternative
5.1.4-1 Phase 2 Specific Point Analysis - All Build Alternatives
5.1.4-2 Land Use Area within Noise Contours - Phase 2 Build Alternatives
5.2.3-1 Land Use Acreage within the + 65 DNL for the No-Action and Build Alternatives, Phase 1
5.2.3-2 Noise-Sensitive Receptors By Use Category for the No-Action and Build Alternatives,
Phase 1
5.2.4-1 Land Use Acreage within the + 65 DNL for the No-Action and Build Alternative, Phase 2
5.2.4-2 Net Increase in Land Use Acreage for the Phase 2 + 65 DNL Contour for the No-Action
and Build Alternatives
5.2.4-3 Noise-Sensitive Receptors by Use Category for the No-Action and Build Alternatives,
Phase 2
5.3.2-1 Availability of Vacant Housing Units for Potential Relocation Areas
5.3.2-2 Evaluation of Factors for Potential Environmental Justice Impacts
5.3.3-1 Off-Airport Property Relocations from Construction Acquisitions, Phases 1 and 2
5.3.3-2 Population Below Poverty within Phase 1 and Phase 2 +65 DNL Contour and
Construction Acquisitions All Alternatives
5.3.3-3 Income Distribution of Households within Phase 1 +65 DNL Contour and Construction
Acquisitions
5.3.3-4 Racial Characteristics of the Population within the Phase 1 +65 DNL Contour
5.3.4-1 Income Distribution of Households within the Phase 2 +65 DNL Contour
5.3.4-2 Racial Characteristics of the Population within the Phase 2 +65 DNL Contour and
Construction Acquisitions
5.4.3-1 No-Action Alternative Population Growth for Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area, 2000
to 2020
5.4.3-2 The No-Action Alternative Wage and Salary Employment Projections for the Six-County
Socioeconomic Study Area, 2000-2020
5.4.3-3 No-Action Alternative Employment Projections by Economic Sector for the Six-County
Socioeconomic Study Area, 2000 to 2020
5.4.3-4 All Build Alternatives Projected Employment - Mid-Atlantic Hub, 2004-2020
5.4.3-5 Total Employment Attributed to All Build Alternatives in the Piedmont Triad, 2004 to 2020
5.4.3-6 Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area Employment Attributed to All Build Alternatives,
2004 to 2020
5.4.3-7 All Build Alternatives Economic Impacts of the Mid-Atlantic Hub for the Six-County
Socioeconomic Study Area, 2004-2020
5.4.3-8 Tax Impacts of the Air Cargo Sorting and Distribution Facility for the Six-County
Socioeconomic Study Area and North Carolina, All Build Alternatives, 2004 to 2020
5.4.3-9 All Build Alternatives Mid-Atlantic Hub Cargo Volume, 2004-2020
5.4.3-10 Comparison of No-Action and All Build Alternatives Cargo Volume for Mid-Atlantic Hub,
2004-2020
5.4.3-11 Mid-Atlantic Hub Projections of Regional Share Cargo Growth, All Build Alternatives,
2004-2020
5.4.3-12 Potential Cargo-Generated Change in Regional Employment for the No-Action and All
Build Alternatives, 2004-2020
5.4.3-13 Cargo-Generated Economic Impacts for the Six-County Region, All Build Alternatives,
2004-2020
\\c1 nt01\wp_wpro\PIEDMOMIDEIS\lot-lot.doc\03/28/00 xlv
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
Table
5.4.3-14 Cargo-Generated Tax Revenues for the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area and
North Carolina, All Build Alternatives, 2004-2020
5.4.3-15 Summary of Economic Impacts for the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area All Build
Alternatives, 2004 to 2020
5.4.3-16 Summary of Tax Impact Analysis for the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area, All Build
Alternatives, 2004 to 2020
5.4.3-17 Comparison of No-Action and All Build Alternatives Population Growth for Six-County
Socioeconomic Study Area, 2000 to 2020
5.5.3-1 Air Emissions Associated with Phase 1
5.5.4-1 Emissions Associated with Phase 2
5.6.3-1 Disturbed and Impervious areas within the Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek, and East Fork
Deep River Sub-Basins
5.6.3-2 Mean Concentrations of Pollutants Associated with Heavy Commercial Land Uses in the
City of Greensboro, North Carolina
5.6.3-3 Summary of Groundwater Impacts
5.6.3-4 Estimated Water Supply Demands at PTIA without the Overnight Express Air Cargo
Operator (FedEx)
5.6.3-5 Water Supply Demands
5.7.3-1 Potential Indirect Impacts to Section 303(c) Sites within Alternative N-D 65 DNL Contour
5.7.3-2 Potential Indirect Impacts to Section 303(c) Sites within Alternative WE 65 DNL Contour
5.8.3-1 Indirect Noise Effects to Campbell-Gray Farm National-Register-Eligible Site
5.9.2-1 Total Acreage and Percent Cover of Impact Areas Located within each Alternative's Area
of Disturbance
I 5.9.3-1 Acreages and Percentage of Impact Located within Phase 1 Area of Disturbance
5.9.4-1 Acreages and Percentage of Impact Located within Phase 2 Area of Disturbance
5.10.2-1 Acreage of Preferred Habitat within the Detailed Study Area for Threatened and
Endangered Species with a Moderate Potential of Occurrence
5.11.2-1 Acreage and Percent Cover of Impacted Wetlands Located within the Detailed Study
Area for each Alternative
5.12.3-1 100-Year Floodplain Impacts (Acres)
3
5.12.3-2 /s)
Pre- and Post-Development 2-, 10-, and 100-Year 24-Hour Peak Runoff Flows (ft
5.15.2-1 Analysis of Agriculturally Zoned Prime and State Significant Farmlands
5.18.4-1 Estimated Annual Municipal Solid Waste Generation Rates (cy)
5.20.4-1 Summary, by Alternative, of Involvement with Sites Reported, or with the Potential, to
contain Hazardous Substances, Environmental Contamination and/or Other Regulated
Substances
5.20.6-1 FAA Criteria and/or Requirements for Evaluating Project Involvement with Hazardous
Substances or Environmental Contamination
5.21.3-1 Summary of No-Action Surface Transportation Impacts
5.21.3-2 Summary of Alternatives W2-A and W3-A Surface Transportation Impacts
5.21.3-3 Summary of Alternative N-D Surface Transportation Impacts
5.21.3-4 Summary of Alternative W1-A1 Surface Transportation Impacts
5.21.3-5 Summary of Alternative WE Surface Transportation Impacts
6.2.1-1 Mitigated Phase 1 Runway Use Percentages for Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, and W1-A1
6.2.1-2 Mitigated Phase 1 Runway Use Percentages for Alternative N-D
6.2.1-3 Mitigated Phase 1 Runway Use Percentages for Alternative WE
6.2.1-4 Phase 1 Specific Point Analysis (w/Mitigation)
6.2.1-5 Land Use Area within Phase 1 Build Noise Contours (w/ Mitigation)
6.2.1-6 Estimated Population and Housing Units within Noise Contours - All Alternatives - All
Study Years
\\c1 nto 1\wp_wpro\PIEDMOMIDEIS\lot-lof.doc\03/28/00 xv
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
Table
6.2.1-7 Estimated Noise-Sensitive Receptors within Noise Contours - All Alternatives - All Study
Years
6.2.1-8 Significant Noise Impacts (+1.5 dB and +3.0 dB ) to Population and Households for
Comparison of Phase 1 Build Alternatives to No-Action Alternative
6.2.4-1 Estimate of Required Volumes and Areas for Wet and Dry Detention Ponds
\\ct nt01 \wp_wpro\PIEDMONnDEIS\Iot-fot.doc\03/28/00
XVI
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
S-1 PTAA Proposed Project
S-2 On-Site Runway and Facility Alternatives
S-3 Alternatives Retained for Detailed Evaluation
1.2-1 1994 Airport Layout Plan
1.2-2 PTAA Proposed Project
1.2-3 Project Location Map
1.2-4 Vicinity Map
3.3.1-1 Alternative General Aviation Airports
3.3.1-2 Alternative Air Carrier Airports
3.3.2-1 On-Site Runway and Facility Alternatives
3.3.2-2 Citizens Scoping Alternative
3.4-1 No-Action Alternative
3.4-2 Alternative W2-A
3.4-3 Alternative W3-A
3.4-4 Alternative N-D
3.4-5 Alternative W 1-A1
3.4-6 Alternative WE
4.1-1 Detailed and Generalized Study Areas
4.2.1-1 Land Use Within the Generalized and Detailed Study Areas
4.2.1-2 Generalized Zoning within the Generalized and Detailed Study Areas
4.2.3-1 Section 303(c) Sites within the Generalized Study Area
4.2.4-1 Historic Architecture Area of Potential Effect and Historic Resources Map
4.2.5-1 1998 Existing Condition Flight Tracks
4.2.5-2 1998 Existing Condition Noise Contours
4.3.3-1 Water Resources
4.3.3-2 Water Quality Monitoring Stations and NPDES Permitted Discharge Sites
4.3.4-1 FEMA Floodplains
4.3.5-1 Soils Map
4.3.5-2 NRCS Classified Farmland Soils
4.3.6-1 Existing (1998) Air Emissions by Source Category
4.3.7-1 Sites/Facilities with the Potential to Contain Hazardous Substances, Environmental
Contamination, and/or Other Regulated Substances
4.4.1-1 Biotic Communities
4.4.3-1 Proximity of Bald Eagle Nesting Sites to the EIS Project Study Area
5.1.3-1 Specific Point Analysis Locations
5.1.3-2 Phase 1 No-Action Alternative Noise Contours
5.1.3-3 Phase 1 Alternative W2-A Noise Contours
5.1.3-4 Phase 1 Alternative W3-A Noise Contours
5.1.3-5 Phase 1 Alternative N-D Noise Contours
5.1.3-6 Phase 1 Alternative W1-Ai Noise Contours
5.1.3-7 Phase 1 Alternative WE Noise Contours
5.1.4-1 Phase 2 No-Action Alternative Noise Contours
5.1.4-2 Phase 2 Alternative W2-A Noise Contours
5.1.4-3 Phase 2 Alternative W3-A Noise Contours
5.1.4-4 Phase 2 Alternative N-D Noise Contours
5.1.4-5 Phase 2 Alternative W1-A1 Noise Contours
5.1.4-6 Phase 2 Alternative WE Noise Contours
W :\P I ED MONT\DEI S\Iot-lot.doc\03!23/00
XVII
LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)
Fi ures
5.4.3-1 Projected Employment for the Mid-Atlantic Hub, All Build Alternatives, 2004-2020
5.4.3-2 Comparison of the Employment Projections for the No-Action and Build Alternatives
for the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area, 2000-2020
5.4.3-3 Comparison of the Population Projections for the No-Action and Build Alternatives
for the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area, 2000-2020
5.5.3-1 Air Emission Inventory by Pollutant and Alternative
5.6.3-1 Water Resources with No-Action Alternative
5.6.3-2 Water Resources with Alternative W2-A
5.6.3-3 Water Resources with Alternative W3-A
5.6.3-4 Water Resources with Alternative N-D
5.6.3-5 Water Resources with Alternative W1-A1
5.6.3-6 Water Resources with Alternative WE
5.7.3-1 Section 303(c) Sites with Alternative N-D, Phase 1 Noise Contours
5.7.3-2 Section 303(c) Sites with Alternative N-E, Phase 1 Noise Contours
5.7.4-1 Section 303(c) Sites with Alternative N-D, Phase 2 Noise Contours
5.7.4-2 Section 303(c) Sites with Alternative N-E, Phase 2 Noise Contours
5.9.2-1 Biotic Communities with No-Action Alternative
5.9.2-2 Biotic Communities with Alternative W2-A
5.9.2-3 Biotic Communities with Alternative W3-A
5.9.2-4 Biotic Communities with Alternative N-D
5.9.2-5 Biotic Communities with Alternative W1-A1
5.9.2-6 Biotic Communities with Alternative WE
5.12.3-1 FEMA Floodplains with No-Action Alternative
5.12.3-2 FEMA Floodplains with Alternative W2-A
5.12.3-3 FEMA Floodplains with Alternative W3-A
5.12.3-4 FEMA Floodplains with Alternative N-D
5.12.3-5 FEMA Floodplains with Alternative W1-Ai
5.12.3-6 FEMA Floodplains with Alternative WE
5.15.3-1 Prime Farmland and Farmland of State Importance with Alternative W2-A
5.15.3-2 Prime Farmland and Farmland of State Importance with Alternative W3-A
5.15.3-3 Prime Farmland and Farmland of'State Importance with Alternative N-D
5.15.3-4 Prime Farmland and Farmland of State Importance with Alternative W1-A1
5.15.3-5 Prime Farmland and Farmland of State Importance with Alternative WE
5.16.3-1 Fuel Consumption - Phase 1 and 2
5.20.3-1 Sites/Facilities with the Potential to Contain Hazardous Substances, Environmental
Contamination, and/or Other Regulated Substances - No-Action Alternative
5.20.3-2 Sites/Facilities with the Potential to Contain Hazardous Substances, Environmental
Contamination, and/or Other Regulated Substances - Alternative W2-A
5.20.3-3 Sites/Facilities with the Potential to Contain Hazardous Substances, Environmental
Contamination, and/or Other Regulated Substances - Alternative W3-A
5.20.3-4 Sites/Facilities with the Potential to Contain Hazardous Substances, Environmental
Contamination, and/or Other Regulated Substances - Alternative N-D
5.20.3-5 Sites/Facilities with the Potential to Contain Hazardous Substances, Environmental
• Construction and operation of Phase 1 (approximately 174,000 square yards) of air cargo
aircraft parking and air cargo ramp associated with the air cargo sorting and distribution
facility;
• Construction of a tunnel for Bryan Boulevard under the proposed runway;
• Relocation of on-airport rental car service lots;
• Relocation of two existing air cargo buildings;
• Construction of one connector taxiway bridge and cross field taxiway over Bryan
Boulevard;
• Initiation of actions to obtain State Water Quality Certification Section 401 and USACE
Section 404 permits and implementation of mitigation measures, and
• Implementation of air traffic procedures below 3,000 feet above ground level (AGL).
Other Phase 1 projects, also illustrated in Figure 1.2-2, consist of projects which would occur, according
to PTAA, whether or not the proposed runway project was implemented. These projects include:
• Construction of a new interchange for Old Oak Ridge Road and Bryan Boulevard;
• Relocation of a portion of Old Oak Ridge Road;
• Closure and relocation of a portion of Regional Road; and
• Construction and operation of new airport entrance interchanges off Bryan Boulevard to
the PTIA terminal area (modification of existing South Triad Boulevard and construction
of a new North Triad Boulevard).
Phase 2 projects are also illustrated in Figure 1.2-2. It is anticipated by the PTAA that Phase 2 of the
proposed project would be constructed between the years 2005 and 2009 and be fully operational in the
year 2009. The Phase 2 projects include:
• Construction and operation of Phase 2 of the air cargo sorting and distribution facility
(expand the Phase 1 facility by approximately 509,000 square feet):
• Construction and operation of Phase 2 of the air cargo aircraft parking and air cargo
ramp (expansion of the Phase 1 parking/ramp area by approximately 281,000 square
yards);
• Extension of the north cross field taxiway to the Phase 2 apron area, and
• Construction of a second connector taxiway bridge and cross field taxiway over Bryan
Boulevard.
Although the proposed PTIA development program is divided into two phases of activity, this DEIS will
consider the proposed project's direct and indirect impacts for all project elements within the Phase 1 and
2 development envelope. This will include the cumulative evaluation of impacts to 21 environmental
categories, as discussed in Chapter 5.0, Environmental Consequences.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_l\Ch_l.doc\03/23/00 1-6 Chapter 1.0 Introduction
?' . 1.2.2 AIRPORT HISTORY
PTIA was originally established in 1927 and has handled scheduled air and passenger service since
1928. Since the early 1930s, FAA and other PTAA projects have resulted in the present configuration of
this airport. One primary and one cross wind runway and a full array of parallel and connecting taxiways
are the foundation for the current airside facilities.
In October 1982, a new air carrier ramp and a terminal area were completed. This allowed the PTAA to
construct and then relocate the terminal facilities from its old location on the southwestern side of the
airfield to a more centrally located position northwest of the main runway and centered within the current
airfield operations area.
Supplementing the construction of the new terminal building was the construction of maintenance
facilities by Piedmont Airlines (now TIMCO), Cessna and Tradewinds. These facilities are located on the
opposite side of the main runway from the new terminal building and include hangar and ramp capabilities
for aircraft as large as the Boeing 757. Within the timeframe of 1980 to 1998, the following major
occurrences have impacted PTIA enplanements:
• Opening of Charlotte US Airways Hub -1979;
• National Economic Recession -1981;
• Initiation of People's Express Flights -1985;
• Opening of Raleigh/Durham Hub -1987;
• Suspension of People's Express Flights -1989;
• National Economic Recession - 1990,1991;
• Increase in Continental Daily Flights from 3 to 34 -1994;
• Increase in Continental Daily Flights from 34 to 84 -1995; and
• Reduction in Continental Daily Flights to 9 -1998.
Dramatic air carrier operational increases occurred during 1994 and 1995 with the introduction of
Continental Airline's hub services at PTIA. This hub activity was accompanied by increasing regional
airline activity. Since 1995, total enplanements have declined due primarily to activity reductions by
Continental Airlines and, secondarily, US Airways (PTAA, 1999). Within the timeframe of 1995 to 1997,
three new airlines were introduced to PTIA (i.e., Northwest, Eastwind, and Airtran). These airlines
accounted for 11.7 percent of the 1997 PTIA market share.
While the total number and percentage of regional (short haul) airline activity decreased between the
years 1996 and 1997, the regional activity in 1997 was still at a much higher level than 1988, i.e., 35.4
percent of operations compared to a previous 21.5 percent.
\\c1MO1\wp_wpro\PIEDMONTDEIS\Ch_1\Ch_1.doc\03/23/00 1-7 Chapter 1.0 Introduction
1.2.3 AIRPORT DESCRIPTION
PTIA is located approximately 10 miles west of the central business district of Greensboro, 13 miles east
of Winston-Salem, and 10 miles north of High Point, North Carolina. The area is referred to as the
Piedmont Triad Urban Region. Encompassing 12 counties and more than 1,340,045 people, this area of
North Carolina is a major manufacturing, trade, transportation, and financial center for the state and the
southeastern United States. The region's core metropolitan area, officially termed the
Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), is known as the Piedmont
Triad. An airport location map and an airport vicinity map are provided on Figures 1.2-3 and 1.2-4,
respectively.
Currently, PTIA has two runways: Runway 5/23 and Runway 14/32. Runway 5/23, PTIA's primary
runway, is 10,001 feet long, with runway centerline lights, a Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System
with Runway Alignment Indicator Lights (MALSR) and a Visual Approach Slope Indicator System (VASI)
on the Runway 5 end, and a High Intensity Approach Lighting System with Sequenced Flashing Lights,
Category II (ALSF2) with Touchdown Zone Lights (TDZ) on the Runway 23 end. Runway 5 has CAT I
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) capability and Runway 23 has CAT II IFR capability. Runway 14/32, PTIA's
secondary runway, is 6,380 feet long, with a MALSR on the Runway 14 end and Runway End Identifier
Lights (REILs) with a VASI on the Runway 32 end and CAT I IFR capability. PTIA currently encompasses
approximately 3,000 acres.
1.2.4 PT/A's ROLE
PTIA is designated as a small airport hub in the region and accounts for less than 0.25 percent of total
revenue passengers enplaned by U.S. flag air carriers in the United States. In 1999, the airport was
served by five commercial air carriers, six regional airlines, and four air cargo airlines.
1.2.5 RECENT RELATED STUDIES AT PTIA
In 1994, PTAA completed a comprehensive Master Plan study called the Piedmont Triad International
Airport Master Plan Update (MPU). The study consisted of an examination of aviation forecasts, demand-
capacity analysis and facility requirements. Development projects were recommended in the MPU to
meet the future landside, and airside needs of PTIA. These recommendations included:
• An extension of Runway 14/32 to a length of 9,000 feet;
• The addition of high speed taxiways to Runway 5/23;
• Land acquisition in connection with runway extensions;
• The extension of Runway 5/23 to a length of 13,000 feet;
• The development of a new 10,000-foot widely spaced Transport Category runway parallel
to existing Runway 5/23, and
W:\PIEDMON-nDEIS\Ch_l\Ch_l.doc\03/23/00 1-8 Chapter 1.0 Introduction
/ k.
r <
r ,<> fbtemation i
y r ` Airport
pr` -0 nab
org-
fns ->3 `" ??
- R6c y ?Aount',
pFr ol?{t R L v?
?y? ? ? ? ? vljlle ?;
WI rlfnin to ?
t'
Atlantic
Ocean
50 0 50 Miles
0
IQ
P"
e: -
e
Legend
General Features
A rport Property Boundary
Roads
Rallroad
/V Streams
O Lakes
0 scalal".6000' 5000 Feet
Figure PIEDMONT
1.2.4 Vicinity Map TRIAD URS Greiner Woodward Clyde
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT'
Date: 11/01/99 Environmental Impact Statement
The development of a new 10,000-foot widely spaced Transport Category runway parallel
to existing Runway 5/23, and
• Air carrier terminal/ramp expansions.
The 1994 Master Plan Update was adopted by the PTAA in 1995. Of the above listed projects, only land
acquisition activities have been accomplished to-date. In 1998, the PTAA initiated a study to update the
1994 Master Plan Update. It is expected that this update will be completed in mid 2000. PTAA has
indicated that the new MPU update will not affect the current proposal for improvements to PTIA because
PTAA is moving forward with trying to implement the proposed project.
1.3 FORECASTS OFAVIAT/ONACTIVITY
Forecasts of aviation activity for PTIA were recently updated by the PTAA as part of the ongoing PTIA
MPU. This effort included the development of revised Air Cargo forecasts and total operations forecasts
as a result of the April 1998 announcement by FedEx and the PTAA to locate the Mid-Atlantic Hub at
PTIA. The MPU forecasts were compared to the FAA's own Terminal Area Forecasts (TAF) during their
development. Coordination with the FAA determined that the Master Plan forecasts were within the
required 10 percent of the FAA's TAF, which is the variance level deemed acceptable by the FAA.
Subsequently, the MPU forecasts presented in Tables 1.3-1 and 1.3-2 were reviewed by the FAA and
determined to be reasonable and were accepted by the FAA on October 20, 1998. The FAA has since
revised the PTIA TAF to incorporate the MPU forecasts resulting from the ongoing PTIA Master Plan
Update. These forecasts are used throughout the DEIS in the establishment of the Purpose and Need in
Chapter 2.0, the Alternatives in Chapter 3.0 and the Environmental Consequences in Chapter 5.0. The
forecast assumptions are available for review at the FAA's Atlanta District Office in Atlanta, Georgia.
W:\PIEDMONTDEIS\Ch_l\Ch_t.doc\03/23/00 1-9 Chapter 1.0 Introduction
TABLE 1.3-1
AIR CARGO ACTIVITY FORECAST WITH PROPOSED AIR CARGO HUB
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
Avera a Dail O erations'
19982 2004 2009 2014 2019
Proposed Air Cargo Hub 26 48 126 126 126
Other Air Cargo 14 22 29 34 39
Total 40 70 155 160 165
Annual Air Cargo Op rations 1
19982 2004 20Q.,9 2014 2019
Proposed Air Cargo Hub 6,760 12,480 32,760 32,760 32,760
Other Air Cargo 3,640 5,720 7,540 8,840 10,140
Total 10,400 18,200 40,300 41,600 42,900
Sources: The LPA GROUP of North Carolina, p.a., 1999.
Federal Express, 1999.
' Based on 260 operational days per year.
2 Existing operations of overnight express air cargo operator.
W API EDMONT\DEIS\SEC_1 \T_13-1.xls\1 /31/2000
TABLE 1.3-2
PTIA FORECAST SUMMARY
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
Annual Aircraft O ration
Annual Passenger Air Regional Air Air Taxi/ General
Yep.: rt jAq ipnts rrier Aj.(line o C as r A:: tio.0 ilit r._ Totq(
1998 1,231,986 37,228 19,048 10,400 4,500 55,100 1,100 127,376
2004 1,499,619 41,834 24,922 18,200 5,100 57,500 1,100 148,656
2005" 1,544,608 42,600 25,774 21,336 5,196 57,895 1,100 153,901
2009 1,738,469 45,808 29,486 40,300 5,600 59,500 1,100 181,794
2014 1,965,000 48,616 32,558 41,600 6,100 61,500 1,100 191,474
2019 2,221,049, 53,884, 34,450, 42,900, 6,600, 63,500 1,100 202,434
Source: The LPA GROUP of North Carolina, p.a., 1999.
Notes: Air cargo forecasts include estimates of proposed air cargo hub activity from Table 1.3-1.
Forecasts approved by FAA on October 20, 1998.
Year 2005 forecasts derived from straight line interpolation between years 2004 and 2009.
W API EDMONT\DEIS\Chp_1 \T_ 13-2.xls\1 /31 /2000
e
rt 1
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PIEDMONT TRIAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
CHAPTER 2
PURPOSE AND NEED
CHAPTER 2.0
PURPOSE AND NEED
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The FAA has statutory authority and responsibility to both support and promote national transportation
policies, and to respond to project-specific needs for aviation development. This chapter of the DEIS
describes the Purpose and Need for the proposed project at PTIA and identifies the Federal actions
requested of the FAA. The identification of a proposed project's purpose and need is the primary
foundation for the identification of reasonable alternatives to the project and the evaluation of the impacts
of the alternatives. The requested Federal actions being considered by the FAA in this DEIS include
FAA's approval of portions of the existing 1994 ALP to accommodate the proposed expansion of PTIA as
an air cargo hub, and FHWA's approval of the proposed surface transportation improvements associated
with the proposed project. The 1994 ALP identifies major development items that constitute PTAA's
current project proposal, including the construction of a parallel air carrier runway, air cargo facility
improvements, roadway improvements, and associated developments.
As a cooperating agency for this DEIS, the FHWA is responsible for reviewing the surface transportation
components of the proposed project. Appendix I of this DEIS contains a technical document that
identifies the Federal actions requested of the FHWA, and describes the purpose and need, alternatives
and environmental consequences of the surface transportation components of the proposed project at
PTIA.
The nature of the proposed project at PTIA and the nature of the various requested Federal actions which
are the subject of this DEIS dictate that the purpose and need for the proposed project be clearly stated
and fully described. PTAA proposes expanded aviation facilities at PTIA to accommodate the operational
requirements of a proposed overnight, express air cargo sorting and distribution facility (FedEx Mid-
Atlantic Hub). The facilities proposed by the PTAA are a new widely spaced Transport Category parallel
runway with associated taxiways and NAVAIDS and a proposed overnight express air cargo hub facility.
This DEIS discloses the potential environmental impacts associated with these projects, their reasonable
alternatives, and other cumulative actions in Chapter 5.0, Environmental Consequences.
Based on FAA planning guidelines contained in FAA Advisory Circular 5090.313, Field Formulation of the
National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems, Table 3-2 (FAA, September 1985), planning for runway
capacity improvements at PTIA, which might support the need for an additional runway, could
conceivably be needed in the year 2001, in anticipation of long-term capacity needs of PTIA starting in
the year 2015, without the introduction of the overnight, express air cargo carrier. That possibility,
however, is beyond the scope of this EIS. This EIS is limited to considering the project request submitted
by the PTAA, and the scoping process itself, to considering airside improvements that would
accommodate an overnight express air cargo carrier beginning in the year 2004.
The following sections of this Chapter present the purpose for the proposed improvements at PTIA and
describes why the proposed improvements are needed.
\\clnt0l\wp_wpro\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_2\Ch_2.doc\03/23/00 2-1 Chapter 2.0 Purpose and Need
2.2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
2.2.1 INTRODUCTION
The PTAA has been approached by an overnight, express air cargo operator (FedEx) which, after a
detailed evaluation of potential locations, has selected PTIA as the site for establishment of a new hub to
serve it's eastern United States market. PTAA, in turn, wishes to develop an air cargo hub at PTIA, and
has requested that the FAA take the necessary Federal actions to implement the proposed development
of a parallel runway and associated projects at PTIA. One of the missions of the PTAA is to support the
growth and development of PTIA such that the airport is capable of accommodating the air transportation
needs of the Triad. It is also a mission of the PTAA to continue to allow PTIA to be a major employment
center and economic generator in the Triad. Development of an overnight air cargo hub at PTIA would
facilitate PTAA's meeting their stated mission. Likewise, the FAA has a statutory authority to both §upport
and promote national transportation policies, and to respond to project-specific needs for aviation
development. The immediate action required of the FAA is the processing of a draft and final EIS, and the
issuance of an environmental finding in a ROD.
2.2.2 PURPOSE FOR THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
2.2.2.1 Consistency With Federal Transportation Policies
The FAA is charged with the implementation of Federal policies under its statutory authorities. The
National Transportation Policy was established by §502(b) of the 1990 amendments to the Airport and
Airway Improvement Act of 1982 and is codified at 49 U.S.C. § 47101(b). It is within the framework of
NEPA and the Airport and Airway Improvement Act, as amended, that the FAA is responding to the
PTAA's proposal. The language of 49 U.S.C. § 40101(b) further directs the Secretary of Transportation to
consider the following to be in the public interest in regard to air cargo transportation:
(1) Encouraging and developing an expedited all-cargo air transportation system provided by
private enterprise and responsive to:
(A) The present and future needs of shippers;
(B) The commerce of the United States;
(C) The national defense.
(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.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch 2\Ch_2.doc\03/24/00 2-2 Chapter 2.0 Purpose and Need
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.
2.2.2.2 Develop an Air Cargo Sorting and Distribution Facility
Demand for the air cargo hub at PTIA is driven by existing and projected demand for express overnight
air cargo movements within the eastern United States. The development of such a facility at PTIA is
congruent with that of the PTAA's stated interest in on-going airport development and expansion to meet
the air service needs of the Triad and to be a major economic generator. The decision to site an
overnight air cargo hub anywhere in the U.S., including at PTIA, is a decision reserved to the private
sector and to local authorities (i.e., other than evaluation of proposals under NEPA, the FAA lacks
statutory authority to participate in airport site selection for private aviation entities). PTAA states that its
proposal is based on its plan to efficiently accommodate existing and projected aviation demand at PTIA.
The development of an overnight, express air cargo hub at PTIA responds to industry and PTAA
expectation that traditional air cargo traffic is increasing and, most importantly, that overnight express air
cargo demand will continue to increase.
PTAA states that in the overnight express air cargo business, time is the commodity being sold when
transporting parcels from the point of pickup to the final point of delivery within pre-defined time periods.
The industry standard and competitive express delivery market demands have reduced the timeframe for
transportation, processing, and delivery of overnight packages to a period from 7:00 p.m. to 10:30 a.m.
the following day. FedEx states that alterations, delays, or unexpected changes in any single system
element (arrival, sorting, or departure) within the allotted time can create a detrimental ripple effect that
can cause down-line distribution centers in many destination cities to miss guaranteed delivery times.
Within the FedEx national system, as described by FedEx, each existing air hub (e.g., Memphis,
Indianapolis, Fort Worth) receives, sorts, and consolidates parcels for redistribution to other airport
destinations within an established timeframe called the "sort". To provide guaranteed on time package
service, FedEx has established designated minimum departure times for aircraft operating at its various
hubs referred to as the "push-back-to-wheels-up" times. During this period, each cargo aircraft departure
sequence (i.e., push back from gate, ground taxi, and runway departure) must be conducted within a pre-
defined window of time to assure aircraft arrival at their assigned destinations at pre-established times
while also meeting guaranteed overnight delivery schedules. The push-back-to-wheels-up time ranges
from five to fifteen minutes, and varies by aircraft type.
The importance of successfully meeting the push-back-to-wheels-up time is critical to FedEx. A single
aircraft delayed at the gate, while in ground taxi to or from the gate or delayed because of runway
capacity and/or sequencing delay can cause as many as 10,000 packages or letters to be delayed. As
represented by FedEx, when the push-back-to-wheels-up times are exceeded, on-time delivery
schedules cannot be met and the overall costs of providing the overnight express delivery service are
increased.
\\c1nt01\wp_wpro\PIEDMONnDEIS\Ch_2\Ch_2.doc\03/23/00 2-3 Chapter 2.0 Purpose and Need
PTAA's proposed improvements were designed to support the development of an overnight, express air
cargo hub at PTIA and to provide airside, landside and surface transportation facilities that allow both the
airport and the hub to be operated in an efficient manner. The PTAA has indicated to the FAA that the
selection of the placement of the overnight cargo hub in either North Carolina or South Carolina was
based on a business decision made by FedEx. As represented to the FAA by PTAA and FedEx, the
location of the hub within these two states was based on several considerations including the following:
• The hub had to be located on the East Coast of the United States to serve the projected
market area;
• The hub had to be sited so that its market service area was located within a single time-
zone;
• The hub had to be centrally located within the projected East Coast market area, and
• The hub had to be located in an area of moderate weather patterns to reduce the
likelihood of interruption of service due to inclement weather conditions.
After selecting the general geographic location for the hub, FedEx issued a Request for Proposals (RFP)
in November, 1997 to air carrier certificated airports within the two-state area. Those airports that had an
interest in the development of the overnight air cargo hub responded to the RFP with detailed proposals
describing how the individual airport could accommodate the hub facility requirements. Between
February, 1998 and April, 1998, FedEx undertook a detailed evaluation of each of the proposals as part
of its site selection study. According to FedEx, the site selection study evaluated numerous criteria at
each airport including the following:
• Airport Operations - Runway Configuration, Runway Lengths, Instrument Approaches,
Airfield Capacity, Runway Accessibility, Airspace and Air Traffic Control (ATC)
Constraints, FAA and Radar Availability, Noise and Operational Concerns, Weather
History, and Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting Availability.
• Site Selection - Site Layout, Topography, Environmental Constraints, Site Access,
Utilities, Airport Services Provided, Construction Restrictions, and Responses to the
Request for Proposals.
• Financial Analysis - System Form Expenses, Properties and Facilities Expenses,
Salaries and Benefits, Taxes and Incentives.
FedEx selected PTIA in April, 1998 for the site of its hub because PTIA was the top-rated airport in the
following selection criteria. According to FedEx, none of the other airports was as competitive with PTIA in
all of these criteria
• Space required for the development of the size of the facility and aircraft apron proposed
by FedEx;
• Attractive low land lease rate;
• Ability to develop parallel runways;
• Ideal proposed hub site location between existing and future parallel runways;
\\clnt01\wp_wpro\PIEDMONrDEIS\Ch_2\Ch_2.doc\03/23/00 2-4 Chapter 2.0 Purpose and Need
• Ability to operate head-to-head aircraft operations (from and to the same direction),
thereby reducing taxi times;
No competition for runway use during hub arrival and departure times;
• Good interstate access;
• No unexpected or unresolvable environmental problems;
• Outstanding incentive package, and
• Operationally centered for proposed hub operations.
Other than what is presented above, the information used by the air cargo hub operator to evaluate the
proposals submitted by interested airport sponsors was not made available to FAA for review and
evaluation. This information was considered confidential by the air cargo operator, therefore FAA had no
means to independently evaluate either the selection criteria or the results of the selection process.
2.2.2.3 Summary of Purpose for the Proposed Improvements
PTAA's purpose is to support the growth and development of PTIA such that the airport can support a
major air cargo hub, is capable of accommodating the air transportation needs of the Triad, and it remains
a major employment center and economic generator in the Triad. FAA's purpose is to support locally-
sponsored projects that fulfill national public policy objectives, if such projects satisfy all FAA decision
criteria and if the FAA determines that projects or their reasonable alternatives are environmentally
sound.
it n??
Category runways, provide the ability to conduct dual simultaneous independent IFR operations and
provide the capability to conduct head-to-head operations during times of peak air cargo operations.
However, Alternatives E1-A, E1-C, and El -D did not meet the Level 1 criteria because they did not provide
a sorting/distribution facility site between the parallel runways. Alternative El -13 and El -E did not meet the
Level 1 purpose and need criteria because with the 3,400 foot runway centerline separation, they did not
provide a sorting/distribution facility site of sufficient size to meet the air cargo carrier's operational
requirements. In addition, the location of the proposed parallel runway in all of the E1 alternatives would
require the relocation of existing railroad infrastructure, which would take a minimum of 5 to 7 years to
accomplish because of the required coordination with other agencies (Surface Transportation Board), and
because new construction could not occur until the railroad was relocated. Since none of these five
alternatives met all of the Level 1 purpose and need criteria, they were not retained for further evaluation
in this DEIS.
Alternatives E2-A through E2-E - Runway-sorting/distribution facility site Alternatives E2-A through E2-
E would only partially meet the purpose and need criteria for the proposed project. All of these alternatives
would locate the overnight, express air cargo hub at PTIA, provide redundant 9,000-foot Transport-
Category runways, provide the ability to conduct dual simultaneous independent FIR operations and
provide the capability to conduct head-to-head operations during times of peak air cargo operations.
However, Alternatives E2-A, E2-C, and E2-D did not meet the Level 1 criteria because they did not provide
a sorting/distribution facility site between the parallel runways. Alternatives E2-13 and E2-E did not meet
the Level 1 purpose and need criteria because with the 4,300 foot runway separation, these alternatives
would not provide a sorting/distribution site of sufficient size to meet the air cargo carrier's operational
requirements. All of the "E2" parallel runway alternatives would require the relocation of existing railroad
infrastructure, which, as discussed for the E1 Alternatives, would take a minimum of 5 to 7 years to
accomplish. Since none of these five alternatives met all of the Level 1 purpose and need criteria, they
were not retained for further evaluation in this DEIS.
Alternatives N-A through WE - Alternatives N-D and WE met all of the Level 1 purpose and need
criteria; therefore, these alternatives were retained for further evaluation in the Level 2 analysis.
Alternatives N-A and N-C did not meet the Level 1 criteria because they did not provide a
sorting/distribution facility site between the parallel runways, which is critical to meeting the cargo hub's
operational needs. Alternative N-B did not meet the Level 1 purpose and need criteria because it did not
provide a sorting/distribution facility site of sufficient size to meet the air cargo hub's operational
requirements. Since none of these three alternatives met all of the Level 1 purpose and need criteria, they
were not retained for further evaluation in this DEIS.
Alternatives S-A through S-E - Alternatives S-A, S-B, S-D, and S-E did not meet the Level 1 criteria
because they did not provide a sorting/distribution facility site between the parallel runways. Alternative S-
C did not meet the Level 1 purpose and need criteria because it did not provide a sorting/distribution
facility site of sufficient size to meet the air cargo hub's operational requirements. All of the "S" parallel
runway alternatives would require the relocation of existing railroad infrastructure, which, as discussed for
the E1 and E2 Alternatives, would take a minimum of 5 to 7 years to accomplish. Since none of these five
\\cInt01\wp_wpro\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/23/00 3-31 Section 3.0 Alternatives
alternatives met all of the Level 1 purpose and need criteria, they were not retained for further evaluation
in this DEIS.
Citizens Scoping Alternative - Review of the citizens Scoping alternative (Figure 3.3.2-2) indicates that
it would only partially meet the Level 1 purpose and need criteria for the proposed project at PTIA. This
alternative would locate the air cargo facility at PTIA, provide redundant 9,000-foot Transport-Category
runways, and provide a site of approximately 300 acres for the development of the air cargo
sorting/distribution facility. However, this alternative would not provide the ability to conduct dual
simultaneous independent IFR operations, it would not provide the ability to conduct head-to-head
operations during times of peak air cargo operations and it would not provide a sorting/distribution facility
site located between parallel runways.
In terms of the proposed runway improvements associated with this alternative, the proposed 700 to 1,000
foot relocation of the existing Runway 5 threshold does not meet FAA Standards and Recommendations
for Airport Design (Advisory Circular 150/5300-13) because it would not provide sufficient distance
between the relocated end of Runway 5 and existing Runway 14/32 to provide a standard RSA, jet-blast
protection, or sufficient TERPS clearance for Runway 14/32. The use of perpendicular runways under the
citizens alternative would result in operational conditions that would lessen the overall efficiency of aircraft
operations such as dependent operations (operations on one runway would affect/limit operations on the
other runway) and increased runway crossings, change local and potentially regional flight patterns (more
daytime and nighttime air carrier and air cargo operations on Runway 14/32 in an east-west orientation as
opposed to north-south orientation under existing operational conditions on Runway 5/23) and result in
potential safety concerns such as increased use of a designated crosswind runway and increased runway
crossings at PTIA.
The location of the proposed sorting/distribution facility site associated with this alternative also does not
meet FAA Standards and Recommendations for Airport Design (Advisory Circular 150/5300-13) because
a large portion of the proposed site (approximately 90 percent) would fall within the future RPZ of
proposed 10,000 foot parallel Runway 5U23R, as depicted on PTIA's current ALP. The FAA's
aforementioned design guidelines, which were developed to enhance the protection of people and
property on the ground, prohibit the development of places of public assembly within a RPZ, and further
recommend that it is desirable that the RPZ remain clear of all objects. The development of the
sorting/distribution facility within the RPZ would therefore not be consistent with the above referenced FAA
safety and design standards. The development of the sorting/distribution facility in the location and
configuration proposed in the citizens alternative scenario, based on PTIA's current ALP, would also result
in constraints that would preclude the full development of the proposed air cargo sorting/distribution facility
because it would not provide an adequate balance of airfield, surface transportation access, and
operational staging space. To address these issues, the citizens alternative further proposes that the
future 10,000 foot parallel runway depicted on the PTIA ALP be shortened to a length of 7,000. This would
relocate the future Runway 5L RPZ to the north, such that it would not conflict with the citizen's proposed
location of the air cargo sort/distribution facility. However, the 7,000 foot parallel runway proposed by the
citizens is not consistent with PTIA's ALP, and it would preclude development of a parallel runway of
sufficient length and utility to meet the operational requirements of the air cargo hub.
\\cln10l\wp_wpro\PIEDMOMIDEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/23/00 3-32 Section 3.0 Alternatives
As calculated by the citizens submitting this alternative for FAA consideration, impacts associated with the
sorting/distribution facility portion of this alternative would include the acquisition and relocation of
approximately 26 commercial and 63 residential properties, the relocation of the airport fire station, the
closure of a portion of Regional Road, from the intersection Bryan Boulevard to the intersection of US
Highway 421, and the isolation (taking) of an existing 1.4-acre cemetery. FAA's analysis of this alternative
indicates that because the sorting/distribution facility site geometry must be contiguous (as stated by the
sponsor), this alternative would require the relocation of the airport fire station, a City of Greensboro fire
station, the primary BellSouth (fiber optic) switching station and the taking of an existing 1.4-acre
cemetery, which would result in an impact to a historic resource. Roadway infrastructure impacts would
include the closure of a portion of Regional Road, from the intersection Bryan Boulevard to the
intersection of US Highway 421.
FAA gave full consideration to the citizen's alternative using the same Level 1 criteria as was used to
evaluate all of the other on and off-site alternatives. FAA's evaluation concluded that this alternative did
not meet all of the Level 1 purpose and need criteria, therefore it was not retained for further consideration
in this DEIS.
Alternative W1-A1 - In August 1999, the PTAA requested that the FAA consider in the DEIS an additional
"west" runway alternative that was developed by the PTAA as a result of detailed planning efforts
associated with the ongoing PTIA Master Plan Update. This alternative, designated as Alternative W1-A1,
is similar to Alternative W II-A. However, under this alternative, the centerline separation distance between
the proposed new parallel runway and existing Runway 5/23 would be 5,088 feet, as compared to
Alternative W1-A, in which it would be 4,300 feet. This increased runway centerline separation distance
provides a sorting/distribution facility site of sufficient size, located between the parallel runways, to meet
the operational needs of the air cargo carrier. Under this alternative, the threshold of the end of new
Runway 23R would be shifted approximately 1,032 feet to the southwest, the same as in Runway
Alternative W3. The increased separation distance between the parallel runways associated with
Alternative W1-A1 would result in a need to relocate a 2-mile segment of Bryan Boulevard to the west of
its current location. A new interchange for Bryan Boulevard and Old Oak Ridge Road would also need to
be developed.
Review of Alternative W1-A1 indicates that it would meet all of the Level 1 purpose and need criteria in
that it would locate the overnight, express air cargo facility at PTIA, provide redundant 9,000-foot
Transport-Category runways; provide the ability to conduct dual simultaneous independent IFR operations
and the capability to conduct head-to-head operations during times of peak air cargo operations, and it
would provide for a sorting/distribution facility site of sufficient size, located between the parallel runways,
to meet the air cargo hub's operational needs. Since Alternative W1-A1 met all of the Level 1 purpose and
need criteria, it was retained for further evaluation in the Level 2 analysis.
Level 1 Screening Summary - As a result of the methodical assessment and analysis of each of the 42
runway-sort/distribution facility alternatives in the Level 1 screening process, five build alternatives (W2-A,
W3-A, N-D, WE and W1-A1) met all of the Level 1 purpose and need criteria (see Table 3.3.3-1). These
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/24/00 3-33 Section 3.0 Alternatives
five alternatives were retained for further evaluation in the Level 2 screening process. All other PTIA
runway-sort/distribution facility alternatives did not meet one or more of the Level 1 purpose and need
screening criteria and were, therefore, not retained for further evaluation.
3.3.3.3 Level 2 Screening
The five runway-sort/distribution facility alternatives retained through the Level 1 analysis (W2-A, W3-A, N-
D, N-E and W1-Al) as well as the No-Action Alternative were carried forward to the Level 2 screening
process, which evaluated the alternatives in terms of constructability issues, cost considerations and
environmental impacts. Constructability issues included impacts to existing or planned infrastructure, the
number of residences and businesses that would have to be relocated to construct each alternative, and
the amount of property acquisition required. Cost considerations included the estimated total cost for
those development items eligible for FAA reimbursement (including mitigation costs). Environmental
impacts included direct and indirect impacts to specific environmental categories listed in FAA Order
5050.4A (the complete investigation and discussion of the affected environment and impact analysis
appears in Chapters 4 and 5). The following presents the results of the Level 2 analysis.
No-Action Alternative - The No-Action Alternative infers the overnight, express air cargo sorting and
distribution facility (FedEx Mid-Atlantic Hub) would not be developed at PTIA. This alternative would
involve no new construction of airside facilities or landside facilities associated with the air cargo facility,
and no other PTIA airside and landside developments beyond those that are already programmed or
undertaken by the PTAA for safety and maintenance reasons. The PTAA plans several surface
transportation improvement projects that would be initiated whether or not the air cargo facility were to
locate at PTIA. These projects would be funded by the FHWA and NCDOT. Infrastructure impacts from
development of the surface transportation projects associated with the No-Action Alternative include
closure and relocation of a portion of Regional Road, realignment of a portion of Old Oak Ridge Road,
construction of a new interchange for Bryan Boulevard and Old Oak Ridge Road, construction of a new
airport entrance interchange for existing North Triad Boulevard and development of a new interchange for
South Triad Boulevard.
Implementation of the No-Action Alternative would require the relocation of one home and the acquisition
of approximately 13.66 acres of property for right-of-way acquisition for the roadway projects. The right-of-
way acquisition would include any realigned roadway as well as the cleared/maintained safety areas off
the sides of the roadways. The surface transportation improvements would result in adverse impacts to
approximately 9.8 acres of wetlands and 23.1 acres located within the 100-year floodplain (see Chapter
5.0, Environmental Consequences). This alternative would not result in direct or indirect impacts to DOT
Section 303(c) resources or direct impacts to Section 106 Historic Resources. Existing indirect impacts to
one Section 106 historic architectural site (Campbell-Gray Farm) from aircraft generated noise would be
lessened, with DNL levels decreasing from DNL 70.5 dBA in 1998 to DNL 68.6 dBA in Phase 1 and DNL
69.2 dBA in Phase 2. Based on FAA noise compatibility guidelines, noise levels from aircraft operations
would be above FAA's threshold of compatibility (which is DNL 65 dBA) at this site with the No-Action
Alternative. The total cost for the No-Action Alternative is estimated to be approximately $25.7million,
including construction, acquisition and relocation and wetlands mitigation.
\\clnt01\wp_wpro\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/23/00 3-34 Section 3.0 Alternatives
Alternative W2-A - Surface transportation impacts from development of the parallel runway associated
with Alternative W2-A include partial closure of Lebanon Road west of Drum Road, Brush Road north of
Canoe Road, and a small portion of North Regional Road west of Bryan Boulevard. Partial closure of
Caindale Drive east of the Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR) would also be required. Infrastructure impacts
from the development of the air cargo sorting/distribution facility site associated with Alternative W2-A,
north of the existing airport terminal, include closure of Air Cargo Road and partial closures of North
Service Road and Inman Road south, of the Bryan Boulevard/Inman Road intersection.
PTAA has the option of either purchasing lands within the RPZ's or obtaining avigation easements over
the individual properties. If PTAA purchases all property within the proposed parallel runway RPZ's,
relocation impacts north of the airport would include six residential properties on Phillipsburg Court, and
one residential property on Old Oak Ridge Road. RPZ acquisition-related off-airport relocation impacts
southwest of the airport include two residential properties on Canoe Road east of Burgess Road, and nine
industrial properties along Burgess Road north of Market Street. Relocation impacts from development of
the air cargo sorting/distribution facility site associated with Alternative W2-A, north of the airport would
include one commercial property along Inman Road. On-airport relocation impacts include all rental car
turnaround, servicing, and parking facilities (six buildings), a parking lot, Dobbs kitchen, and air cargo
facilities (two multi-tenant sort/distribution buildings).
Implementation of Alternative W2-A would require the acquisition of approximately 88.37 acres of
property, primarily to enable the PTAA to own the RPZs for proposed parallel Runway 5L/23R. The total
cost for Alternative W2-A, including property acquisition and relocation, construction of the parallel runway,
taxiways and associated NAVAIDS, air cargo sorting/distribution facility site preparation, and mitigation for
wetland impacts would be approximately $221.3 million.
A complete discussion of environmental impacts associated with this alternative is contained in Chapter
5.0, Environmental Consequences. In summary, direct environmental impacts associated with
construction of Alternative W2-A include the relocation of nine homes (approximately 21 people) and nine
industrial facilities, and adverse impacts to approximately 32.3 acres of wetlands and 36.6 acres located
within the 100-year floodplain (see Chapter 5.0, Environmental Consequences). This alternative would
not result in direct or indirect impacts to DOT Section 303(c) resources or direct impacts to Section 106
Historic Resources. Aircraft generated indirect noise impacts to one Section 106 historic architectural site
(Campbell-Gray Farm) would decrease when compared to the 1998 existing condition, with DNL levels
decreasing from DNL 70.5 dBA in 1998 to DNL 70.2 dBA in Phase 1. Compared to the No-Action
Alternative, DNL levels would increase slightly from DNL 68.6 dBA to DNL 70.2 dBA in Phase 1 and from
DNL 69.2 dBA to DNL 71.0 dBA in Phase 2. Based on FAA noise compatibility guidelines, noise levels
from aircraft operations would be above FAA's threshold of compatibility (which is DNL 65 dBA) at this site
with Alternative W2-A.
Alternative W3-A - Surface transportation impacts from the development of the parallel runway
associated with Alternative W3-A include partial closure of Lebanon Road west of Drum Road, Brush
Road north of Canoe Road, and a small portion of North Regional Road west of Bryan Boulevard. The
\\c1nt01\wp_wpro\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/23/00 3-35 Section 3.0 Alternatives
partial closure of Caindale Drive east of the ASR would also be required. Surface transportation impacts
from the development of the sorting/distribution facility site associated with Alternative W3-A, north of the
existing airport terminal include closure of Air Cargo Road and partial closures of North Service Road and
Inman Road, south of the Bryan Boulevard/Inman Road intersection.
PTAA has the option of either purchasing lands within the RPZ's or obtaining avigation easements over
the individual properties. If PTAA purchases all properties within the RPZs, relocation impacts from the
development of the parallel runway portion of Alternative W3-A would include two residential properties at
the corner of Brush Road and Lebanon Road, two residential properties on Canoe Road east of Burgess
Road, one residential property along Old Oak Ridge Road, and 13 industrial properties along Burgess
Road north of Market Street. Off-airport relocation impacts from development of the sorting/distribution
facility site associated with Alternative W3-A, north of the airport, include one commercial property along
Inman Road. On-airport relocation impacts would include all rental car turnaround, servicing, and parking
facilities (six buildings), a parking lot, Dobbs kitchen, and air cargo facilities (two multi-tenant
sort/distribution buildings).
Construction of Alternative W3-A would require the acquisition of approximately 89.89 acres of property,
primarily to enable the PTAA to own the RPZs for proposed parallel Runway 5U23R. The total cost for
Alternative W3-A, including the parallel runway, taxiway and associated NAVAIDS, hub site preparation,
acquisitions and relocations, and wetland mitigation would be approximately $226.6 million.
A complete discussion of environmental impacts associated with this alternative is contained in Chapter
5.0, Environmental Consequences. In summary, direct environmental impacts associated with
construction of Alternative W3-A include relocation of five homes (approximately 12 people), 14 industrial
and commercial properties, and adverse impacts to approximately 29.8 acres of wetlands and 34.6 acres
located within the 100-year floodplain (see Chapter 5.0, Environmental Consequences). This alternative
would not result in direct or indirect impacts to Section 303(c) resources or direct impacts to Section 106
Historic Resources. Aircraft generated indirect noise impacts to one Section 106 historic architectural site
(Campbell-Gray Farm) would decrease when compared to the 1998 existing condition, with DNL levels
decreasing from DNL 70.5 dBA in 1998 to DNL 70.2 dBA in Phase 1. Compared to the No-Action
Alternative, DNL levels would increase slightly from DNL 68.6 dBA to DNL 70.2 dBA in Phase 1 and from
DNL 69.2 dBA to DNL 71.0 dBA in Phase 2. Based on FAA noise compatibility guidelines, noise levels
from aircraft operations would be above FAA's threshold of compatibility (which is DNL 65 dBA) at this site
with Alternative W3-A.
Alternative N-D - Surface transportation impacts to the west of the airport from the development of the
extension of existing Runway 14/32 would consist of the partial closure of Lebanon Road, west of Brush
Road. Surface transportation impacts to the west of the airport from the development of new Runway
14U32R would consist of the closure of Hollandsworth Drive, Hollandsworth Court and Calico Drive.
Impacts to on-airport roads would include closure of Air Cargo Road north of Bryan Boulevard and North
Service Road, and the realignment of North Triad Boulevard. Impacts to local roadways at the east end of
the new Runway 14U32R and parallel taxiway include partial closure of Stage Coach Trail north of Holly
Crest Court, partial closure of Ballinger Road west of Breezewood Road, and the full closure of Wagon
\\clnt01\wp_wpro\PIEDMONTDEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/23/00 3-36 Section 3.0 Alternatives
Wheel Drive, Carriage Lane, and Coach Hill Road. Infrastructure impacts from development of the air
cargo sorting/distribution facility site associated with Alternative N-D, west of the airport, include closure of
Bentley Road, Business Park Drive, and Skyway Drive, and the partial closure of the easternmost portion
of Caindale Drive.
PTAA has the option of either purchasing lands within the RPZ's or obtaining avigation easements over
the individual properties. If PTAA purchases all lands required for the sorting/distribution facility site and
the RPZ's, off-airport relocation impacts west of the airport associated with the runway portion of
Alternative N-D would include two residential properties along Caindale Drive, four residential properties
along Hollandsworth Drive, two residential properties along Hollandsworth Court, and four residential
properties along Calico Drive. The Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR) located on Caindale Drive would also
require relocation. Off-airport relocation impacts east of the airport from the parallel runway include four
residential properties along Stage Coach Trail, 10 residential properties along Breezewood Road, 10
residential properties along Wagon Wheel Drive, 15 residential properties along Carriage Lane, 12
residential properties along Coach Hill Road, and one residential property along Ballinger Road. Off-airport
relocation impacts associated with the development the sorting/distribution facility site associated with
Alternative N-D, west of the airport, include Friendship Baptist Church and cemetery, 12 residential, and
two commercial properties along Bentley Road, two industrial properties along Caindale Drive, and eight
industrial properties along Business Park Drive. Relocation impacts to on-airport commercially leased
parcels from the parallel runway include the relocation of all rental car turnaround, servicing and parking
facilities (six buildings), a parking lot, Dobbs kitchen, fuel farm, and air cargo (two multi-tenant
sort/distributions building). In addition, the implementation of the cumulative surface transportation
projects would require the relocation of one residential property on Old Oak Ridge Road.
Construction of Alternative N-D would require the acquisition of approximately 315.01 acres of property,
primarily for sufficient land area to develop the sorting/distribution facility site and to enable the PTAA to
own the RPZs for proposed parallel Runway 14U32R. The total cost for Alternative N-D, including the
parallel runway, extension of Runway 14/32, taxiways, NAVAIDS, air cargo site preparation, property
acquisition and relocation, and wetland mitigation would be approximately $328.5 million.
A complete discussion of environmental impacts associated with this alternative is contained in Chapter
5.0, Environmental Consequences. In summary, direct environmental impacts associated with
construction of Alternative N-D include relocation of 77 homes (approximately 182 people), two
commercial facilities, and 10 industrial properties and adverse impacts to approximately 36.8 acres of
wetlands and 49.6 acres located within the 100-year floodplain (see Chapter 5.0, Environmental
Consequences). This alternative would result in indirect impacts from aircraft generated operational noise
to 10 Section 303(c) resources and indirect impacts from aircraft generated operational noise to three
Section 106 historic architectural properties (Guilford College Historic District, Roy Edgerton House and
New Garden Friends Cemetery).
Alternative WE - Surface transportation impacts to the west of the airport from the development of the
extension of existing Runway 14/32 would consist of the partial closure of Lebanon Road, west of Brush
Road. Surface transportation impacts to the west of the airport from the development of new Runway
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/24/00 3-37 Section 3.0 Alternatives
14U32R would consist of the closure of Hollandsworth Drive, Hollandsworth Court and Calico Drive.
Impacts to local roadways at the east end of the new Runway 14U32R and parallel taxiway include the
closure of Stage Coach Trail north of Holly Crest Court, partial closure of Ballinger Road, west of
Breezewood Road, and the closure of Wagon Wheel Drive, Carriage Lane, and Coach Hill Road. Surface
transportation impacts from development of the air cargo sorting/distribution facility site associated with
Alternative N-E, east of the airport, would consist of partial closure of Radar Road. On-airport roadway
impacts would include closure of Air Cargo Road north of Bryan Boulevard and North Service Road, and
the realignment of North Triad Boulevard.
PTAA has the option of either purchasing lands within the RPZ's or obtaining avigation easements over
the individual properties. If PTAA purchases all lands required for the RPZ's, off-airport relocation impacts
west of the airport associated with the new runway portion of Alternative N-E would include two residential
properties along Caindale Drive, four residential properties along Hollandsworth Drive, two residential
properties along Hollandsworth Court, and four residential properties along Calico Drive. Off-airport
relocation impacts east of the airport from the new parallel runway would include four residential
properties along Stage Coach Trail, 10 residential properties along Breezewood Road, 10 residential
properties along Wagon Wheel Drive, 15 residential properties along Carriage Lane, 12 residential
properties along Coach Hill Road, and one residential property along Ballinger Road. Off-airport relocation
impacts from development the sorting/distribution facility site associated with Alternative N-E, east of the
airport, include seven industrial buildings (plus approximately five support buildings) along Radar Road.
On-airport relocations would consist of commercially leased parcels including the rental car turnaround,
servicing and parking facilities (six buildings), a parking lot, Dobbs kitchen, fuel farm, air cargo (two multi-
tenant sort/distributions building) and six commercially leased large maintenance hangars (with six
support buildings) along Radar Road. In addition, the implementation of the cumulative surface
transportation projects would require the relocation of one residential property on Old Oak Ridge Road.
Construction of Alternative N-E would require the acquisition of approximately 266.14 acres of property,
primarily for sufficient land area to develop the sorting/distribution facility site and to enable the PTAA to
own the RPZs for proposed parallel Runway 14U32R. The total cost for Alternative N-E, including the
parallel runway, extension of Runway 14/32, taxiways, NAVAIDS, air cargo site preparation, property
acquisition and relocation, and wetland mitigation would be approximately $414.6 million.
A complete discussion of environmental impacts associated with this alternative is contained in Chapter
5.0, Environmental Consequences. In summary, direct environmental impacts associated with
construction of Alternative N-E include relocation of 65 homes (approximately 154 people), 13
commercial / industrial facilities (plus associated support buildings) and adverse impacts to approximately
31.3 acres of wetlands and 46.4 acres located within the 100-year floodplain (see Chapter 5.0,
Environmental Consequences). This alternative would result in indirect impacts from aircraft generated
operational noise to 10 Section 303(c) resources and indirect impacts from aircraft generated operational
noise to two Section 106 historic architectural properties (New Garden Friends Cemetery and Shaw-Cude
House).
\\clM01\wp_wpro\PIEDMONrDEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/23/00 3-38 Section 3.0 Alternatives
Alternative W1-Ai - Surface transportation impacts from development of the parallel runway associated
with Alternative W1-A1 would include the relocation of a 2 mile segment of Bryan Boulevard (and
demolition of the existing alignment), and partial closure of Lebanon Road west of Drum Road, Brush
Road north of Canoe Road, and a small portion of North Regional Road west of Bryan Boulevard. Partial
closure of Caindale Drive east of the Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR) would also be required. Surface
transportation impacts from the development of the sorting/distribution facility site associated with
Alternative W1-A1, north of the existing airport terminal, would include closure of Air Cargo Road and
partial closures of North Service Road and Inman Road south of the Bryan Boulevard/Inman Road
intersection.
PTAA has the option of either purchasing lands within the RPZ's or obtaining avigation easements over
the individual properties. If PTAA purchases all properties within the RPZs, relocation impacts from the
development of the parallel runway portion of Alternative W1-Al would include six residential properties
along Brush Road north of Canoe Road, two residential properties along Drum Road south of Lebanon
Road, three residential properties on Canoe Road east of Burgess Road, 17 industrial properties and one
commercial property along Burgess Road north of Market Street, and two commercial properties along
Canoe Road west of Brush Drive. Off-airport relocation impacts from development of the
sorting/distribution facility site associated with Alternative W1-Al, north of the airport would include one
commercial property along Inman Road. On-airport relocation impacts include all rental car turnaround,
servicing, and parking facilities (six buildings), a parking lot, Dobbs kitchen, and air cargo facilities (two
multi-tenant sort/distribution buildings). Relocation impacts from the realignment of Bryan Boulevard and
the new Bryan Boulevard/Old Oak Ridge Road interchange include 35 residential properties in the College
Lakes development, located south of Old Oak Ridge Road and east of Pepperdine Road and one
residential property along Old Oak Ridge Road.
Implementation of Alternative W1-A1 would require the acquisition of approximately 154.74 acres of
property, primarily to enable the PTAA to own the RPZs for proposed parallel Runway 5L/23R. The total
cost for Alternative W1-A1, including property acquisition, and relocation construction of the parallel
runway, taxiways and associated NAVAIDS, sorting/distribution facility site preparation, and mitigation for
wetland impacts would be approximately $227.3 million.
A complete discussion of environmental impacts associated with this alternative is contained in Chapter
5.0, Environmental Consequences. In summary, direct environmental impacts associated with
construction of Alternative W1-A1 include the relocation of 47 homes (approximately 111 people), 17
industrial, and four commercial facilities and adverse impacts to approximately 27.3 acres of wetlands and
25.4 acres located within the 100-year floodplain (see Chapter 5.0, Environmental Consequences). This
alternative would not result in direct or indirect impacts to DOT Section 303(c) resources or direct impacts
to Section 106 Historic Resources. Aircraft generated indirect noise impacts to one Section 106 historic
architectural site (Campbell-Gray Farm) would decrease when compared to the 1998 existing condition,
with DNL levels decreasing from DNL 70.5 dBA in 1998 to DNL 70.2 dBA in Phase 1. Compared to the
No-Action Alternative, DNL levels would increase slightly from DNL 68.6 dBA to DNL 70.2 dBA in Phase 1
and from DNL 69.2 dBA to DNL 71.0 dBA in Phase 2. Based on FAA noise compatibility guidelines, noise
\\clnt01\wp_wpro\PIEDMONnDEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/23/00 3-39 Section 3.0 Alternatives
levels from aircraft operations would be above FAA's threshold of compatibility (which is DNL 65 dBA) at
this site with Alternative W 1-Ai .
Level: 2 Screening Summary - As a result of the systematic assessment and analysis of each of the
remaining six alternatives in the Level 2 screening process, all of the six alternatives (No-Action, W2-A,
MA N-D, WE and W1-A1) were retained for detailed evaluation in Chapter 5.0, Environmental
Consequences, of this DEIS.
3.3.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND NOT RETAINED FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS
In this chapter of this DEIS, numerous alternatives that had some reasonable potential to meet the
purpose and need for the proposed project were examined. However, most of these alternatives were not
considered to adequately fulfill the criteria of the two-level alternatives analysis process and were
therefore not considered to be reasonable alternatives. Alternatives that were not retained for further
detailed study in this DEIS include the following:
• The development of a new airport ("Greenfield Site");
• The use/expansion of other existing airports, and
• A total of 37 runway/sorting/distribution facility site alternatives including X-A through X-E,
W1-A through W1-E, W2-13 through W2-E, W3-13 through W3-E, E1-A through E1-E,
E2-A through E2-E, N-A through N-C, S-A through S-E, and the alternative submitted by
citizens during the DEIS Scoping process.
3.3.5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND RETAINED FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS
Alternatives that were retained for detailed study in this DEIS include the following:
• No-Action Alternative,
• Alternative W2-A (PTAA's proposed project),
• Alternative MA
• Alternative N-D,
• Alternative N-E, and
• Alternative W1-A1.
The alternatives that were retained for detailed study at this point in the DEIS, prior to rigorous scrutiny,
appear to be reasonable alternatives towards meeting the purpose and need for the proposed project. The
No-Action Alternative has also been retained for detailed analysis in subsequent chapters of this DEIS for
baseline comparative purposes and to disclose impacts without the proposed project.
\\clnt01\wp_wpro\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/23/00 3-40 Section 3.0 Alternatives
3.4 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES RETAINED FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS
This section of the DEIS provides a detailed description of the runway/sorting/distribution facility site
alternatives that remained after passing through the two-level alternatives screening process. On the basis
of being able to meet all of the Level 1 purpose and need criteria, and the Level 2 constructability, cost
and environmental impact considerations, five build alternative concepts: Alternative W2-A, Alternative
W3-A, Alternative N-D, Alternative WE and Alternative W1-A1 were retained as reasonable alternatives.
All five build alternative scenarios provide for a similar magnitude of development and provide the
capability to conduct dual simultaneous independent IFR operations. The No-Action Alternative and the
five build alternatives are depicted on Figures 3.4-1 through 3.4-6.
3.4.1 No-ACTION ALTERNAT/vE
The No-Action Alternative (Figure 3.4-1), assumes that the overnight, express air cargo hub would not be
developed at PTIA. This alternative would involve no new construction of airside facilities or landside
facilities associated with the air cargo hub, and no other PTIA airside and landside developments beyond
those that are already programmed or undertaken by the PTAA for safety and maintenance reasons. The
PTAA plans to initiate several roadway improvement projects that would be developed whether or not the
air cargo hub were to locate at PTIA. Implementation of these projects would require PTAA to purchase
approximately 13.66 acres of property. These projects include the following:
• Construction of a new interchange for Bryan Boulevard and Old Oak Ridge Road,
• Realignment of a portion of Old Oak Ridge Road,
• Closure and relocation of a portion of Regional Road, and
• Construction of new airport entrance interchange for North Triad Boulevard and
reconstruction of the South Triad Boulevard interchange.
The above listed projects are independent actions which may produce cumulative impacts when
considered with the build alternatives. These actions would be initiated by the PTAA within the timeframe
of the proposed project evaluated within this DEIS. The potential cumulative environmental impacts
associated with them are disclosed in Chapter 5.0, Environmental Consequences, of this DEIS. The total
cost of the proposed improvement identified as part of the No-Action Alternative would be approximately
$25.7 million.
3.4.2 ALTERNATIVE W2-A
Alternative W2-A (Figure 3.4-2), is the development alternative depicted on PTAA's current ALP and is the
PTAA's proposed project. Phase 1 projects evaluated within this DEIS consist of the following
developments, which the sponsor anticipates would need to be constructed and operational by the year
2004.
\\clnt0l\wp_wpro\PIEDMONnDEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/23/00 3-41 Section 3.0 Alternatives
• Construction of a new parallel 9,000-foot by 150-foot Transport-Category runway capable of
accommodating Airplane Design Group D-V air carrier 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 of a high speed exit taxiway for Runway 5/23;
• Construction and operation of Phase 1 of the air cargo sorting/distribution hub facility
(approximately 736,000 square feet including sort/distribution building and parking);
• Construction and operation of Phase 1 of the air cargo aircraft parking and cargo ramp
(approximately 174,000 square yards);
• Construction of a tunnel for Bryan Boulevard under the proposed parallel runway;
• Construction of one connector taxiway bridge over Bryan Boulevard;
• Relocation of on-airport rental car service lots;
• Relocation of two existing air cargo buildings;
• Implementation of air traffic procedures below 3,000 feet above ground level (AGL);
• Acquisition of approximately 88.37 acres of land; and
• Obtain State Water Quality Certification Section 401 and USACE Section 404 Wetland fill
permits prior to start of construction and implementation of mitigation measures.
Phase 2 projects are also illustrated in Figure 3.4-2. It is anticipated by the sponsor that this phase of the
project would need to 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 and operation of Phase 2 of the air cargo sorting/distribution facility (expand
the Phase 1 facility by approximately 509,000 square feet),
• Construction and operation of Phase 2 of the air cargo aircraft parking and cargo ramp
(expand the Phase 1 parking/ramp area by approximately 281,000 square yards),
• Extension of the north cross-field connector taxiways to the Phase 2 apron area, and
• Construction of a second connector taxiway bridge and cross-field taxiway over Bryan
Boulevard.
3.4.3 ALTERNATIVE W3-A
Alternative W3-A (Figure 3.4-3), is similar to Alternative W2-A. The difference between the two is the
location of the ends of the proposed parallel runway. The centerline-to-centerline separation between
existing Runway 5R/23L and proposed parallel Runway 5U23R remains the same as in Alternative W2-A
(5,488 feet). In Alternative W3-A, the end of proposed parallel Runway 5R/23L would be shifted 1,032 feet
W:\PIEDMONTDEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/24/00 3-42 Section 3.0 Alternatives
to the southwest. This would reduce impacts to Brush Creek wetlands and floodplains and also move the
proposed parallel Runway 23L RPZ so that it would not encompass a portion of a residential community
(Phillipsburg Court) located north of the proposed parallel runway. Alternative W3-A Phase 1 projects
evaluated within this DEIS consist of the following developments, which would be anticipated for
construction and operation by the year 2004.
• Construction of a new parallel 9,000-foot by 150-foot Transport-Category runway capable of
accommodating Airplane Design Group D-V air carrier 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 of a high speed exit taxiway for Runway 5/23;
• Construction and operation of Phase 1 of the sorting/distribution facility (including
approximately 736,000 square feet of sort/distribution building and parking);
• Construction and operation of Phase 1 of the air cargo aircraft parking and cargo ramp
(approximately 174,000 square yards);
• Construction of a tunnel for Bryan Boulevard under the proposed parallel runway;
• Construction of one connector taxiway bridge over Bryan Boulevard;
• Relocation of on-airport rental car service lots;
• Relocation of two existing air cargo buildings;
• Implementation of air traffic procedures below 3,000 feet above ground level (AGL);
• Acquisition of approximately 89.89 acres of land; and
• Obtain State Water Quality Certification Section 401 and USACE Section 404 Wetland fill
permits prior to start of construction and implementation of mitigation measures.
Phase 2 projects are also illustrated in Figure 3.4-3. It is anticipated by the sponsor that this phase of the
project would 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 and operation of Phase 2 of the air cargo sorting/distribution facility (expand
the Phase 1 facility by approximately 509,000 square feet),
• Construction and operation of Phase 2 of the air cargo aircraft parking and cargo ramp
(expand the Phase 1 parking/ramp area by approximately 281,000 square yards),
• Extension of the north cross-field connector taxiways to the Phase 2 apron area, and
• Construction of a second taxiway bridge and cross-field taxiway over Bryan Boulevard.
\\c1nt01\wp_wpro\PIEDMONIIDEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/23/00 3-43 Section 3.0 Alternatives
3.4.4 ALTERNATIVE N-D
Alternative N-D (Figure 3.4-4), consists of the extension of existing Runway 14/32 by 2,620 feet to the
west and the development of a new parallel 9,000-foot Transport-Category runway located approximately
7,630 feet north of existing Runway 14/32. Phase 1 projects evaluated within this DEIS consist of the
following developments, which would be anticipated for construction and operation by the year 2004.
• Construction of a new parallel 9,000-foot by 150-foot Transport-Category runway in the
14/32 orientation capable of accommodating Airplane Design Group D-V air carrier 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;
• Extension of existing Runway 14/32 by 2,620 feet to the west, with the associated
reconstruction and extension of Taxiway A; extension of Taxiway C; runway and taxiway
lighting; relocation of Runway 14 NAVAIDS, runway safety areas and protection zones, and
associated grading, drainage, and utility relocations;
• Construction and operation of Phase 1 of the sorting/distribution facility (including
approximately 736,000 square feet of sort/distribution building and parking);
• Construction and operation of Phase 1 of the air cargo aircraft parking and cargo ramp
(approximately 174,000 square yards);
• Construction of a tunnel for Bryan Boulevard under the proposed parallel runway;
• Construction of two connector taxiway bridges over Bryan Boulevard;
• Relocation of on-airport rental car service lots;
• Relocation of two existing on-airport air cargo buildings;
• Implementation of air traffic procedures below 3,000 feet above ground level (AGL);
• Acquisition of approximately 315.01 acres of land;
• Relocation of the Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR), and
• Obtain State Water Quality Certification Section 401 and USACE Section 404 Wetland fill
permits prior to start of construction and implementation of mitigation measures.
Phase 2 projects are also illustrated in Figure 3.4-4. It is anticipated by the sponsor that this phase of the
project would need to 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 and operation of Phase 2 of the air cargo sorting/distribution facility (expand
the Phase 1 facility by approximately 509,000 square feet), and
• Construction and operation of Phase 2 of the air cargo aircraft parking and cargo ramp
(expand the Phase 1 parking/ramp area by approximately 281,000 square yards).
W:\PIEDMONTDEIS\Ch 3\Ch 3.doc\3/24/00 3-44 Section 3.0 Alternatives
3.4.5 ALTERNATIVE W1-A1
Alternative W1-A1, depicted in Figure 3.4-5 is similar to Alternative W3-A. The difference between the two
is the separation distance between the existing and proposed runways. The centerline-to-centerline
separation between existing Runway 5R/23L and proposed parallel Runway 5L/23R would be 5,088 feet,
as compared to 5,488 feet with Alternatives W2-A and W3-A. The Runway 23R threshold would be the
same as in Alternative W3-A. That is, shifted 1,032 feet to the southwest when compared to
Alternative W2-A. This would reduce impacts to Brush Creek wetlands and floodplains and also move
the proposed parallel Runway 23L RPZ so that it would not encompass a portion of a residential
community (Phillipsburg Court) located north of the proposed parallel runway. Alternative W1-A1 Phase 1
projects evaluated within this DEIS consist of the following developments, which would be anticipated for
construction and operation by the year 2004.
• Construction of a new parallel 9,000-foot by 150-foot Transport-Category runway capable
of accommodating Airplane Design Group D-V air carrier 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 of a high speed exit taxiway for Runway 5/23;
• Construction of one cross-field taxiway connector and taxiway bridge over Bryan
Boulevard;
• Construction and operation of Phase 1 of the sorting/distribution facility (including
approximately 736,000 square feet of sort/distribution building and parking);
• Construction and operation of Phase 1 of the air cargo aircraft parking and cargo ramp
(approximately 174,000 square yards);
• Closure and relocation of a 2-mile section of Bryan Boulevard, between Airport Center
Road and Old Oak Ridge Road;
• Construction of a new interchange for relocated Bryan Boulevard and Old Oak Ridge
Road;
• Relocation of on-airport rental car service lots;
• Relocation of two existing on-airport air cargo buildings;
• Implementation of air traffic procedures below 3,000 feet above ground level (AGL);
• Acquisition of approximately 154.74 acres of land; and
• Obtain State Water Quality Certification Section 401 and USACE Section 404 Wetland fill
permits prior to start of construction and implementation of mitigation measures.
W:\PIEDMONl1DEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/24/00 3-45 Section 3.0 Alternatives
Phase 2 projects are also illustrated in Figure 3.4-5. It is anticipated by the sponsor that this phase of the
project would need to be constructed between the years 2005 and 2009 and be fully operational in the
year 2009. These projects include:
• Construction and operation of Phase 2 of the air cargo sorting/distribution facility (expand
the Phase 1 facility by approximately 509,000 square feet),
• Construction and operation of Phase 2 of the air cargo aircraft parking and cargo ramp
(expand the Phase 1 parking/ramp area by approximately 281,000 square yards),
• Extension of the north cross-field connector taxiway to the Phase 2 apron area, and
• Construction of a second connector taxiway bridge and cross-field taxiway over Bryan
Boulevard.
Table 3.4.1 contains a comparative summary of the Operational, Constructability, Financial, and
Environmental Consequences of the alternatives retained for detailed evaluation.
3.4.6 ALTERNATIVE N-E
Alternative WE (Figure 3.4-6), consists of the extension of existing Runway 14/32 by 2,620 feet to the
west and the development of a new parallel 9,000-foot Transport-Category runway located approximately
7,630 feet north of existing Runway 14/32. The proposed cargo sorting/distribution facility would be
located on the east side of the airport. Phase 1 projects evaluated within this DEIS consist of the following
developments, which would be anticipated for construction and operation by the year 2004.
• Construction of a new parallel 9,000-foot by 150-foot Transport-Category runway in the
14/32 orientation capable of accommodating Airplane Design Group D-V air carrier 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;
• Extension of existing Runway 14/32 by 2,620 feet to the west, with the associated
reconstruction and extension of Taxiway A; extension of Taxiway C; runway and taxiway
lighting; relocation of Runway 14 NAVAIDS, runway safety areas and protection zones, and
associated grading, drainage, and utility relocations;
• Construction and operation of Phase 1 of the sorting/distribution facility (including
approximately 736,000 square feet of sort/distribution building and parking);
• Construction and operation of Phase 1 of the air cargo aircraft parking and cargo ramp
(approximately 174,000 square yards);
• Construction of a tunnel for Bryan Boulevard under the proposed parallel runway;
• Relocation of on-airport rental car service lots;
• Relocation of two existing on-airport air cargo buildings;
• Relocation of on-airport maintenance hangars;
WAPIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/24/00 3-46 Section 3.0 Alternatives
TABLE 3.4-1
COMPARISON SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
FOR ALTERNATIVES RETAINED FOR DETAILED EVALUATION - TOTAL PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
No-
Evaluation Criteria Action W2-A W3-A N-D N-E W1-A1
Operational
• Develop Air Cargo Sort And Distribution Facility (FedEx)
Facility at PTIA No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
• Provide Redundant 9,000-Foot Transport-Category
Runways No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
• Ability to Conduct Dual Simultaneous Independent IFR
Operations No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
• Provide a Site that Meets Air Cargo Sorting and
Distribution Facility FedEx Operational Requirements No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Constructability -Off Airport Construction Impacts
• Infrastructure Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
• Acquisition (acres) 13.66 88.37 89.89 315.01 266.14 154.74
• Total Relocations (homes/businesses from construction) 1/0 9/10 5/14 77 / 12 65 / 13 47 / 21
Financial Feasibility 25.7 221.3 226.6 328.5 414.6 227.3
• Total Costa $ million
Environmental Factors
• Noise
- Population in 65 DNL contour experiencing a DNL
1.5 dBA increase in Noise (unmitigated) 0 531 574 7,713 4,467 549
- Noise sensitive sites (unmitigated) within DNL 65
dBA experiencing 1.5 dBA increase in noise. 1 1 1 10 7 1
• Social Impacts
- Construction relocations - population/household 1/1 21/9 12/5 182/77 154/65 111/47
- Environmental Justice Impacts No No No No No No
• Induced Socioeconomic Impacts
- Direct and indirect jobs 0 16,308 16,308 16,308 16,308 16,308
- Economic contribution ($Billions) 0 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5
• Air Quality Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
• Water Quality Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
• Section 303(c) # sites Direct/Indirect impacts) 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/10 0/10 0/0
• Section 106 Historical and Archaeological Sites
- Historic Architectural sites Direct/Indirect Impacts 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/3 0/2 0/1
- Archaeological (potential impacts) TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
• Biotic Communities acres 40.5 410.1 384.5 481.1 273.4 448.1
• Endangered/Threatened Species No No No No No No
• Wetlands acres 9.8 32.3 29.8 36.8 31.3 27.3
• Flood plains acres 23.1 36.6 34.6 49.6 46.4 25.4
• Coastal Zone Management No No No No No No
• Coastal Barriers No No No No No No
• Wild/Scenic Rivers No No No No No No
• Prime Farmland acres 0 2.1 2.1 5.9 6.2 9.8
• Energy Supply/Natural Resources No No No No No No
• Light Emissions No No No No No No
• Solid Waste
- Amount generated cubic yards per ear 550 22,150 22,150 22,150 22,150 22,150
- Landfill proximity conflicts No No No No No No
• Construction Impacts Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
¦ Potential Hazardous Materials (# sites) - 2 6 6 6 6 6
a Does not include noise mitigation costs.
TBD To be determine between Draft and Final EIS.
Yes Will result in impacts - See applicable section in Chapter 5.0, Environmental Consequences.
No Will not result in significant impacts - see applicable section in Chapter 5.0, Environmental Consequences.
WAPIEDM0NT\DEIS\Ch_3\TBL 34-1&S•2.doc\03/23/00
• Implementation of air traffic procedures below 3,000 feet above ground level (AGL);
• Acquisition of approximately 266.14 acres of land;
• Relocation of the Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR), and
• Obtain State Water Quality Certification Section 401 and USACE Section 404 Wetland fill
permits prior to start of construction and implementation of mitigation measures.
Phase 2 projects are also illustrated in Figure 3.4-6. It is anticipated by the sponsor that this phase of the
project would need to 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 and operation of Phase 2 of the air cargo sorting/distribution facility (expand
the Phase 1 facility by approximately 509,000 square feet), and
• Construction and operation of Phase 2 of the air cargo aircraft parking and cargo ramp
(expand the Phase 1 parking/ramp area by approximately 281,000 square yards).
3.5 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES
The sponsor of the proposed project, the PTAA, has approached FAA with a proposed airport
development program (proposed project) for PTIA, which would provide airside and landside
improvements needed to accommodate the successful establishment of an overnight, express air cargo
facility (FedEx Mid-Atlantic Hub). Alternative W2-A, evaluated within this DEIS, is the proposed project that
the PTAA submitted to the FAA for review. However, the PTAA acknowledges that other reasonable
alternatives that fulfill the purpose and need for the proposed project may result in less environmental
impact. Therefore, the PTAA has determined that it will wait until it has had an opportunity to review the
findings of the DEIS before it identifies its preferred alternative.
At the Draft stage in the EIS process, the FAA has not identified its preferred alternative(s) for the
proposed project. The FAA's selection of a preferred alternative will be included in the Final EIS
document, after the agency has had an opportunity to complete full disclosure and analysis of impacts,
and interested agency representatives and the public have been afforded an opportunity to review and
comment on the DEIS findings.
3.6 LISTING OF FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS CONSIDERED
The following is a list of Federal laws and regulations considered by the agency in the preparation of this
DEIS:
FEDERAL LAWS AND STATUTES:
Subtitle VII Title 49 U.S. Code - "Aviation Programs," (Section 40101, et seq.) recodified from, and
formerly known as the "Federal Aviation Act of 1958"' as amended, (P.L. 85-726).
W.\PIEDMONTIDEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/24/00 3-47 Section 3.0 Alternatives
Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, (P.L. 97-248).
Airports and Airway Safety, Capacity, Noise Improvement, and Intermodal Transportation Act of
1992, (P.L. 102-581 and P.L. 103-13; 49 U.S.C. Section 47101, et seq.) (recodified from and formerly
known as "Airport and Airway Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1987," (P.L. 100-223).
Airport and Airway Revenue Act of 1987, (P.L. 100-223, Title IV).
Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990, (P.L. 101-508; 49 U.S.C. App. 2151, et seq.), now recodified as
49 U.S.C, App. 4752, et. seq.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, ("NEPA," P.L. 91-190; 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.) as
amended by P.L. 94-52, P.L. 94-83, and P.L. 97-258, 4(b).
Clean Air Act, (As amended by P.L. 91-604 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.).
Noise Control Act of 1972, (P.L. 92-574; 42 U.S.C. 4901).
Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979, (P.L. 96-193; 49 U.S.C. App 2101) 49 U.S.C. 7501,
et seq.
Section 303, Title 49 U.S. Code, recodified from, and formerly known as "Section 303(c) of the
Department of Transportation Act of 1966".
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Section 106, (P.L. 89-665; 16 U.S.C. 470(f)).
Archaeological and Historic Data Preservation Act of 1974, (P.L. 86-253, as amended by P.L. 93291,
16 U.S.C. 469).
Endangered Species Act of 1973, (P.L. 85-624; 16 U.S.C. 661, 664, 1008 note).
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. Section 404, (P.L. 92-500; 33 U.S.C.
1344), as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-217; 33 U.S.C. 1251).
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, (P.L. 92-583; 16 U.S.C. 1451-1464).
Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982, (P.L. 97-384; 16 U.S.C. 3501-3510).
Section 2 of the Water Bank Act, (P.L. 91-559; 16 U.S.C. 1301 note) .
Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, (P.L. 91-528; 42 U.S.C. 4601).
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, (16 U.S.C. 1274, et seq.).
\\c1MO1\wp_wpro\PIEDMONTWEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/23/00 3-48 Section 3.0 Alternatives
Farmland Protection Policy Act, (P.L. 97-98 and 7 CFR Part 658).
Section 201(a), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, (P.L. 94-579; 43 U.S.C. 1701 et
seq.) .
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, P.L. 94-580; 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. as amended
by the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1980, (P.L. 96-482); and the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments, (P.L. 98-616).
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), as
amended by Community Environmental Resource Facilitation Act ("CERFA"), October 1992. 42 U.S.C.
9601, et seq.
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, (P.L. 88-578); 16 U.S.C. 4601-8(f)3)
EXECUTIVE ORDERS:
Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, Executive Order 11593,(dated May 13,
1971).
Floodplain Management, Executive Order 11988, (43 FR 6030) and Order DOT 5650.2-Floodplain
Management and Protection, (dated April 23, 1979).
Protection of Wetlands. Executive Order 11990, and Order DOT 5660.IA, Preservation of the
Nation's Wetlands, (dated August 24, 1978).
Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, Executive Order 12372, (dated July 14, 1982) and
49 CFR Part 17, Intergovernmental Review of DOT Programs and Activities.
President's 1979 Environmental Message Directive on Wild and Scenic Rivers, (dated August 2,
1979).
Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality, Executive Order 11514, (dated March 4,
1970).
Flood Hazard Evaluation Guidelines, Executive Order 1.1296.
Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations, Executive Order 12898.
\\c1nt01\wp_wpro\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/23/00 3-49 Section 3.0 Alternatives
Federalism, Executive Order 13132, August 4 ,1999.
Invasive Species, Executive Order 13112, February 3 ,1999.
FEDERAL REGULATIONS:
40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, CEQ implementation of NEPA procedural provisions establishes uniform
procedures, terminology, and standards for implementing the procedural requirements of NEPA's section
102(2).
40 CFR Part 51, Subpart W, (58 FR 63247, November 39, 1993), Determining Conformity of General
Federal Action to State or Federal Implementation Plans.
36 CFR Part 800, (39 FR 3365, January 25, 1974, and 51 FR 31115, September 2, 1986), Protection of
Historic Properties.
36 CFR Part 59, (July 1, 1996), Land and Water Conservation Fund Program of Assistance to States;
Post-completion Compliance Responsibilities.
7 CFR Part 657, (43 FR 4030, January 31, 1978), Prime and Unique Farmlands.
49 CFR Part 18, (March 11, 1988), Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative
Agreements to State and Local Government.
49 CFR Part 24, (March 2, 1989), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition for
Federal and Federally Assisted Programs.
50 CFR Part 17.11. .12 (Subpart B), (May 31, 1997), Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Endangered and Threatened Plants.
15 CFR Part 930 Federal Consistency with Approved Coastal Management Programs.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/24/00 3-50 Section 3.0 Alternatives
??
f
a
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PIEDMONT TRIAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
CHAPTER 4
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
11
CHAPTER 4.0
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This section provides a description of the current physical, natural, and human environment within the
Piedmont Triad International Airport (PTIA) study areas established for this DEIS. The environmental
impacts of the alternatives retained for detailed analyses are presented in Chapter 5.0, Environmental
Consequences.
For the purposes of describing the existing conditions in the PTIA area and comparing the relative impact
of the alternatives (Chapter 5.0), three study areas were developed for this DEIS. For economic impact
analysis, a broad Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area was established. For environmental
considerations in this DEIS that deal with broad, indirect impact issues, a "Generalized Study Area" was
used to describe features and quantify impact potential. The Generalized Study Area includes a large
geographic area and was established to quantify impacts that may occur in the surrounding communities,
such as impacts to noise-sensitive land use; social and socioeconomic impact; and impacts to Section
303(c), 6(f), and 106 resources. The Generalized Study Area encompasses approximately 80 square
miles and includes portions of Guilford County, the City of Greensboro, and the City of High Point. The
Generalized Study Area boundaries were established based on the estimated extent of the future Day-
Night Average Sound Level (DNL) 65 dB noise contours. A "Detailed Study Area" was similarly
established for environmental considerations that deal with more specific, direct impact issues such as
wetlands, floodplains, biotic communities, and farmlands. The Detailed Study Area includes the airport
property and surrounding property approximately 1 mile off the end of each of the runway alternatives and
represents the areas where direct disturbance of area features could potentially occur. The Generalized
and Detailed Study Areas are depicted in Figure 4.1-1.
4.2 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
4.2.1 LAND USE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
4.2.1.1 Geographic Area of Analysis
In the beginning of the EIS process, there was concern that the economic and social impacts of the
proposed improvements may extend beyond the boundaries of North Carolina and spill over into
neighboring Virginia. For this reason, the FAA began its analysis with a broad geographic region and
narrowed its focus as the study results indicated. The Technical Memorandum entitled Potential
Socioeconomic Impacts of Proposed Improvements to the Piedmont Triad International Airport, included
as Appendix E of this EIS, provides a detailed explanation of this process. Based upon this analysis, the
geographic region most likely to be impacted by secondary and cumulative impacts includes Alamance,
Davidson, Forsyth, Guilford, Randolph, and Rockingham counties and is referred to as the Six-County
WAPIEDM0NT\DEIS\Ch_4\S 4.doc 4-1 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
Socioeconomic Study Area for this EIS. The Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area is shown on Figure
1.2 in Appendix E. The following chapter provides a description of the existing land use, zoning, and local
governments in each of the DEIS study areas (Six-County, Generalized, and Detailed).
4.2.1.2 Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area
Existing Land Use - PTIA is located in the western portion of Guilford County. Growth in this area is
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, 1996).
PTIA is located in the center of this evolving "Triad." Consequently, since the 1980's, the airport area has
been the focus of rapid growth.
The Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area includes Alamance, Davidson, Forsyth, Guilford, Randolph,
and Rockingham counties. Table 4.2.1-1 describes some land use characteristics of the Six-County
Socioeconomic Study Area. The total land area of this six-county area region is 3,397 square miles.
Forsyth and Guilford counties with the major cities of Greensboro, Winston-Salem, and High Point form
the urbanized core for the six-county region. In 1997, 449,427 residents or 43 percent of the region's
population lived in these three major cities. The 1995 population density for the urbanized counties
ranged from 572 persons per square mile for Guilford County to 683 persons per square mile for Forsyth
County. The population density for the outlying counties has a broader range, from 247 persons per
square mile for Davidson County to 268 persons for Alamance County. The more rural counties of
Randolph and Rockingham have the lowest population densities of 147 and 156 persons per square mile,
respectively.
The percent of the 1990 population living in urbanized areas follows a similar pattern as the population
density characteristics. Forsyth and Guilford counties have nearly 75 percent and 79 percent,
respectively, of their population living within urban areas as compared to only 32 percent for the more
rural counties of Davidson, Randolph, and Rockingham counties. Tables 4.2.1-2 and 4.2.1-3 list the 1990
and 1997 city, town, and county population for the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area.
The urbanization of the region is also reflected by the decline in farming, as stated in the agricultural
indicators on Table 4.2.1-2. Across the six-county region, the number of farms declined from 7,246 in
1982 to 5,401 in 1992, representing a 25 percent decrease. The total number of farmland acres also
dropped from 736,918 acres in 1982 to 630,493 acres in 1992, representing a 17 percent decrease.
Zoninq - Table 4.2.1-4 shows the status of land use planning, zoning, and subdivision ordinances for the
Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area. Information is cited for all cities and towns with at least 10,000
residents as of July 1997 as well as for all six counties. All the jurisdictions with the exception of
WAPIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_4\S_4.doc 4-2 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
T
N
w
J
m
Q
H
Q
w
Q
H
N
U
2
O
z
O
U
w
O p +.
c°n a
Z O cn
0
<
C -
N
20 N
U. O
C 0 0
Q -5 a
c~i)aw
FE
w
H
U
MQ
cc
Q
U
w
cn
n
0
z
Q
J
N
O CC)
m o o CO
t} r
O o co
r m
m 0
m' (O (n Cn T N cr N d T
`
Q CA
Cr) co
CO T
CO Ln
C7 r- L I 1 co
M O
(+) 1
U C r- (O
t0
E
N co "'o CO N o O rn o
E u? O O T CC)
N O
0) O
C3)
O
I-
CO
N
m (0 (0
Ce)
LO
co
(o co C)
m
T T
0
/
I L
o o N o o
p CV O LO N T LO
CA LO
co
T
_ co C co CC) T T 1 1
T. (0 d
O r r
'a
`C
_cs
CO M ° ° LO 1 ° 0 m
T r C
M CA N O (D
a O N T 1
0
O
e CD LO N co
T
r
T
/rt
V
O
0-0
-0-0 co
f-
o
co
r-
o
r- tll? O '- C7,
co 'ct
O co (r-
C cr)
O
N
.C O
O N
Co V" Cn 1 O r 1
? O r- N In 't
N
0
LL
f? N o a "t -,t c r N
N
N O
r
co r
N CD
O (p
N CY)
r
0)
C
O N
LO CO
N _
CO (D 00
T N
1
r C\j
1
T
0
N
fl- -
CO o o N
I- m
N a Co
1- co
i?
o
O T Cn f? N
m
O T
co c? L6
(0 v
co r
N T O
m
a
N
N
N
C
O
C cz
LL
Q
*s .0
cu 0
- d
"
N< (n
C
Q 5
3 N
-0 C)
i a)
i Ca
a) 0 U) co E
E 0 m o ` Z c c LL
0) c
o
LL ?
LL C 5 c
U = Q .- r 0 0 - - c)
v E
0
n
fl
D ?
co
cu
LL
co
LL
c S
co ' 0
cn co ?
E
E ?rn
U
ca
cz ?rn
U
a)
Q 0) :3
CA
C=
c =3
Z =3
Z 0,
C= , -
0
H 0
F-
0 r
c T N
?` i G)
U" N
i
CO
0) N N
i 00
CD
m 0) CV
i co
cu =3 C W CD (n cy) C) CD a)
_l L
-3 1.a. LL T T a- T T T CL r
rn
rn
r
M
C3
M
ZT
C
•C
c
ca
0-
a)
v
Cf)
0
O U
0) 0
C C
(60
0 as
U
aa) 0
C7 z
a?
i
0
TABLE 4.2.1-2
CITY AND TOWN POPULATION FOR ALAMANCE, DAVIDSON,
AND FORSYTH COUNTIES, NC - 1990 TO 1997
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
April 1990 July 1997
j
Census Estimated Percent Change
County City/Town Population Population 1990-1997
Alamance 108,213 119,820 10.7%
Alamance 258 293 13.6%
Burlington 39,498 42,911 8.6%
Elon College 4,448 5,560 25.0%
Gibsonville art 1,484 2,131 43.6%
Graham 10,368 11,490 10.8%
Green Level 1,548 1,793 15.8%
Haw river 1,914 2,234 16.7%
Mebane (part) 4,269 5,685 33.2%
Swe sonsville 456 505 10.7%
Subtotal - city/town 64,243 72,602 13.0%
Percent of count 59.4% 60.6%
Davidson 126,677 140,442 10.9%
Denton 1,292 1,541 19.3%
High Point (part) 471 571 21.2%
Lexington 16,581 17,414 5.0%
Thomasville 15,915 17,538 10.2%
Subtotal - city/town 34,259 37,064 8.2%
Percent of count 27.0% 26.4%
Forsyth 265,878 287,160 8.0%
Bethania 347 294 -15.3%
Clemmons 6,020 13,164 118.7%
High point art 6 5 -16.7%
Kernersville (part) 10,899 13,709 25.8%
Kin art 0 117 0.0
Lewisville 6,433 7,447 15.8%
Rural Hall 1,652 2,684 62.5%
Tobaccoville 914 2,262 147.5%
Walkertown 1,200 3,788 215.7%
Winston-Salem 143,485 172,763 20.4%
Subtotal - city/town 170,956 216,233 26.5%
Percent of count 64.3% 75.3%
Source: North Carolina Office of State Planning, May 3, 1999.
W.\PI EDMONT\DEIS\CH_4\S_4-2\Tbls\T_421-2\03/09/00
TABLE 4.2.1-3
CITY AND TOWN POPULATION FOR GUILFORD,
RANDOLPH, AND ROCKINGHAM COUNTIES, NC - 1990 TO 1997
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
Count
City April 1990
Census
Population July 1997
Estimated
Population Percent
Change
1990-1997
Guilford 347,420 383,186 10.3%
Archdale art 296 354 19.6%
Gibsonville (part) 1,961 2,212 12.8%
Greensboro 183,894 203,342 10.6%
High Point (part) 68,910 72,690 5.5%
Jamestown 2,662 3,042 14.3%
Kernersville (part) 0 0 0.0%
Pleasant Garden 3,921 4,374 11.6%
Sedalia 540 596 10.4%
Stokesdale 2,134 2,385 11.8%
Summerfield 1,687 5,875 248.3%
Whitsett 268 729 172.0%
Subtotal - city/town 266,273 295,599 11.0%
Percent of count 76.6% 77.1% ---
Randolph 106,546 121,550 14.1%
Archdale (part) 6,679 8,538 27.8%
Asheboro 16,362 18,899 15.5%
Franklinville 666 831 24.8%
High Point (part) 41 56 36.6%
Liberty 2,047 2,264 10.6%
Ramseur 1,186 1,574 32.7%
Randleman 2,612 3,187 22.0%
Seagrove 244 260 6.6%
Stale 204 328 60.8%
Trinity 6,470 7,157 10.6%
Subtotal - city/town 36,511 43,094 18.0%
Percent of count 34.3% 35.5% ---
Rockingham 86,064 89,156 3.6%
Eden 15,238 15,493 1.7%
Madison 2,371 2,490 5.0%
Ma odan 2,471 2,537 2.7%
Reidsville 12,183 14,320 17.5%
Stoneville 1,109 1,116 0.6%
Wentworth 1,989 2,048 3.0%
Subtotal - city/town 35,361 38,004 7.5%
Percent of county 41.1% 43% ---
Six-county
Socioeconomic
Stud Area Subtotal - city/town 607,603 702,596 94,993
Percent living in cities and towns 64.1% 67.5% 3.4%
Source: North Carolina Office of State Planning, May 3, 1999.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\CH 4\S 4-2\Tbls\T 421-3.doc\03/13/00
TABLE 4.2.1-4
1999 STATUS OF LAND USE PLANNING REGULATIONS
FOR THE SIX-COUNTY SOCIOECONOMIC STUDY AREA AND CITIES AND TOWNS WITH
AT LEAST 10,000 RESIDENTS AS OF JULY 1997
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
Jurisdiction F Comprehensive/
Land Use Plan
Zonin Subdivision
Ordinance
Alamance Count No No No
Burlington No Yes Yes
Graham In Process of
Being Developed Yes Yes
Davidson County In Process of
Being Developed Yes Yes
Lexington Yes Yes Yes
Thomasville No Yes Yes
Forsyth Count Yes Yes Yes
Clemmons Yes Yes Yes
Kernersville Yes Yes Yes
Winston-Salem Yes Yes Yes
Guilford Count Yes Yes Yes
Greensboro No Yes Yes
High Point Yes Yes Yes
Randolph Count No Yes Yes
Asheboro N/A Yes Yes
Rockingham Count To Begin in 2000 Yes Yes
Eden No Yes Yes
Reidsville Yes Yes Yes
Source: Piedmont Triad Council of Government and Local Jurisdictions, August 1999.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\CH 4\S 4-2\Tbls\T 421-4\03/09/00
Alamance County have enacted zoning and subdivision ordinances as of August 1999. Many of the
jurisdictions have adopted land use or comprehensive plans or now are in the process of developing
either a land use or comprehensive plan.
4.2.1.3 Generalized Study Area
Existing Land Use - The Generalized Study Area is the area surrounding PTIA that is within 5 miles from
the end of any the proposed runways for all of the project alternatives. Figure 4.2.1-1 shows land use in
the Generalized Study Area. The first step in creating the Generalized Study Area was to map all the
runway alternatives and then extend the study area for 5 miles from the end of each runway. The runway
study areas were then enclosed within a square to form the Generalized Study Area. Approximately 67
percent of the land not owned by PTIA lies within the City of Greensboro, 22 percent lies within the
unincorporated area of Guilford County, and 11 percent lies within the City of High Point. Table 4.2.1-5
states the general building types within the Generalized Study Area. There are 52 airport-related
buildings; 2,650 commercial, industrial, warehouse, and office buildings; 17,215 single-family homes;
2,684 multi-family, condominium, or townhouse buildings with 11,400 units; 13 churches; 7 fire stations;
51 nursing home buildings; 5 post office buildings; 35 prison buildings; 177 school buildings; 8 community
facility buildings; and 182 industrial petroleum storage tanks within the Generalized Study Area.
Zoning -The cities of Greensboro and High Point and Guilford County have zoning and planning authority
over land use within their jurisdictions in the DEIS Generalized Study Area. Zoning regulation has a long-
standing tradition in the region. Greensboro adopted its first official zoning map and ordinance in the
1920's and adopted its first subdivision ordinance in the 1940's. The City of Greensboro does not have a
comprehensive land use plan.
The City of High Point also adopted its first zoning map and ordinance in the 1920's and followed with a
subdivision ordinance. The City of High Point is currently updating its 1992 Land Use Plan and in June
1995 adopted the West Wendover Avenue/Guilford College Road Corridor Plan. This corridor plan
covers some of the road corridors located in the Generalized Study Area. High Point is now preparing a
similar corridor plan for the Johnson Street/Sandy Ridge Road area located in the Generalized Study
Area, although the High Point City Council has not adopted this plan as of January 10, 2000.
Guilford County first adopted an official zoning map and ordinance in March 1964, and in 1966 the county
adopted its first subdivision ordinance. The first and only county Comprehensive Plan was adopted in
1986. The Northwest Area Plan was adopted by the Guilford County Board of Commissioners in April
1998, and is an amendment to the county's Comprehensive Plan. The Northwest Area Plan proposes to
change the current urban sprawl pattern and to create a new development pattern that includes town
service cores, the town development area, and preservation of the outer rural areas (Guilford County
Planning Department, May 1998). The northwest portion of the Generalized Study Area is included as
part of this plan.
WAPIEDMONnDEIS\Ch 4\S_4.doc 4-3 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
In 1990, Guilford County, the cities of High Point and Greensboro, and the nearby towns of Gibsonville
and Jamestown began to create a Multi-jurisdictional Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). The
objective of the UDO is to modernize the land use regulations and to standardize the development
regulations among the jurisdictions to reduce confusion, avoid significant changes when property is
annexed, and avoid development conflicts as the cities grow together. By 1992, Guilford County, High
Point, and Greensboro had adopted versions of the UDO (Guilford County, August 16, 1999).
The zoning and overlay districts that fall within the Generalized Study Area are summarized below. The
majority of the zoning regulations are the same, yet there are significant local variations.
AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT: The Agricultural District is primarily intended to
accommodate uses of an agricultural nature, including farm residences and farm
tenant housing. It also accommodates scattered non-farm residences on large tracts
of land. It is not intended for major residential subdivisions. The district is established
to preserve and encourage the continued use of land for agricultural, forest, and
open space purposes; to discourage scattered commercial and industrial land uses;
to concentrate urban development in and around area growth centers, thereby
avoiding premature conversion of farmland to urban uses; and to discourage any use
that, because of its character, would create premature or extraordinary public
infrastructure and service demands.
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL: The various single-family residential districts are
characterized by the minimum lot size and whether access to public water and
wastewater services is required. The minimum lot sizes range from 1.0 unit per acre
or less in the RS-40 district to 7.0 units per acre in the RS-5 district. Basically, the
higher density residential districts with more than 1.9 units per acre require that public
water and wastewater services be provided, while the lower residential density
districts do not. The overall gross density ranges from 1.0 unit per acre or less in the
RS-40 single-family district to 7.0 units per acre in the RS-5 residential district.
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL: The various multi-family districts are characterized
by the number of dwelling units per gross acre and the type of housing unit permitted.
Duplexes, twin-homes, townhouses, cluster housing, and apartments are classified
as multi-family structures. The maximum overall density ranges from 5.0 units per
acre to 26.0 units per acre. Public water and sewer service is required in all multi-
family districts.
OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL: There are several office and commercial districts that
vary according to the intensity and density of development. Types of commercial
zoning districts include the Neighborhood Business District, Limited Business District,
General Business District, Highway Business District, Central Business District, and a
Shopping Center District.
CORPORATE PARK DISTRICT: The Corporate Park District is intended to
accommodate office, warehouse, research and development, and assembly uses on
large sites in a planned, campus-like setting compatible with adjacent residential
uses. The Piedmont Center in High Point is an example of a Corporate Park District.
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT: The Light Industrial District is primarily intended to
accommodate limited manufacturing, wholesaling, warehousing, research and
WAPIEDM0NTDEIS\Ch_4\S_4.doc 4-4 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
TABLE 4.2.1-5
1999 HOUSING AND LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS
OF THE GENERALIZED AND DETAILED STUDY AREAS
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
Number of Buildings
Building Type Detailed Study
Area `Generalized
Stud Area
Airport, Terminal, and Parkin 52 52
Commercial/Industrial/Warehouse/Office 495 2,650
Single-Family Residential 922 17,215
Single-Family Auxiliary 227 6,217
Multi-Family Residential 67 2,684
Church 2 13
Fire Station 2 7
Nursing Home 0 51
Post Office 0 5
Prison 0 35
School 21 177
Community Facilities 0 8
Tanks 30 182
Utilities 2 2
Unknown/ Additions 0 22
TOTAL 1,820 29,320
Sources: Housing and building count compiled by Hayes & Associates and
URS Greiner Woodward Clyde, Inc.
\\c1 MO1 \wp_wpro\PI EDMONT\DEIS\Ch_4\T_4-2\T_421-5.dod03/09/00
development, and related commercial/service activities that, in their normal
operations, have little or no adverse effect upon adjoining properties.
HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT: The Heavy Industrial District is primarily intended
to accommodate a wide range of assembling, fabricating, and manufacturing
activities. The district is established for the purpose of providing appropriate locations
and development regulations for uses that may have significant environmental
impacts or require special measures to ensure compatibility with adjoining properties.
PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL: The Public and Institutional District is intended to
accommodate mid- and large-sized public, semi-public, and institutional uses that
have a substantial land use impact or traffic generation potential. It is not intended for
smaller public and institutional uses customarily found within residential areas.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - RESIDENTIAL: This district is intended to
accommodate a variety of housing types developed on large tracts in accordance
with a Unified Development Plan. The PD-R District also accommodates
neighborhood business and office uses that primarily serve nearby residents. The
Cardinal Country Club is an example of a Planned Unit Development (PUD).
Overlay districts establish certain area regulations that are in addition to the underlying general use,
planned unit development, or conditional use district(s). The following are overlay districts that are
located within the Generalized Study Area.
• AIRPORT DISTRICT: The Airport Overlay District, previously discussed in the
Detailed Study Area section, is intended to prohibit the construction of structures that
would, by virtue of their height, interfere with operations at PTIA. The district is also
intended to keep residential densities near the airport very low to minimize the
negative effects of aircraft noise on homes.
• WATERSHED CRITICAL AREA DISTRICT: The Watershed Critical Area Overlay
District is intended to set forth regulations for the protection of public drinking water
supplies and is applicable to all lands adjacent to, and that drain toward, existing or
proposed water supply intakes or reservoirs.
• GENERAL WATERSHED AREA DISTRICT: The General Watershed Overlay
District is intended to set forth regulations for the protection of public drinking water
supplies and are applicable to all lands that drain toward such supplies and are
outside of the WCA Overlay District.
• FLOOD HAZARD DISTRICT: The Flood Hazard Overlay District is intended to set
forth regulations that will minimize the damage done by floods.
• SCENIC CORRIDOR DISTRICT: The Scenic Corridor Overlay District is intended to
set forth regulations that will enhance the attractiveness of major thoroughfares that
enter and/or pass through Guilford County. These regulations are specified in
Section 4-11 (Overlay District Requirements). Portions of both SR 68 and Interstate
40 are designated as scenic corridors within the Generalized Study Area.
• MANUFACTURED HOUSING DISTRICT: The Manufactured Housing Overlay
District is intended to set forth regulations governing the development of subdivisions
for manufactured housing in certain areas of Guilford County.
WAPIEDM0NnDEIS\Ch_4\S_4.doc 4-5 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
4.2.1.4 Detailed Study Area
Existing Land Use - The Detailed Study Area is the proximate area surrounding PTIA that could be built
upon by one or more of the project alternatives. Figure 4.2.1-1 shows land use in the Detailed Study
Area. Mapping all construction areas for each project alternative and then enclosing all of the construction
sites within a square creates the Detailed Study Area. Not all of the land within the Detailed Study Area
would be affected by airport construction. Approximately 70 percent of the land not owned by PTIA lies
within the City of Greensboro and 30 percent lies within the unincorporated area of Guilford County.
Table 4.2.1-5 states the general building types within the Detailed Study Area. There are 52 airport-
related buildings on airport property; 495 commercial, industrial, warehouse, and office buildings; 922
single-family homes; 67 multi-family, condominium, or townhouse buildings with 1,190 units; 2 churches;
2 fire stations; 21 school buildings; and 30 industrial petroleum storage tanks within the Detailed Study
Area.
Zoning - PTIA is a quasi-municipal entity, based upon state law, located within a state-defined boundary
that may not be annexed by neighboring cities. Consequently, PTIA operates as an unincorporated entity
of Guilford County. Guilford County has elected not to exert zoning or subdivision authority over the
airport property.
The properties bordering the airport to the east, south, and southwest are within the City of Greensboro.
Guilford County governs properties adjacent to the airport on the north and northwest. The zoning
districts for these jurisdictions are described in the following section about the Generalized Study Area.
Greensboro, High Point, and Guilford County have enacted an Airport Overlay District that prohibits the
construction of structures that would, by virtue of their height, interfere with operations at PTIA. The
overlay district is also intended to keep residential densities low near the airport to minimize the negative
effects of airport noise on homes. The local governments periodically revise the boundaries of the
overlay district as new airport noise contours are established with updates of the Airport Master Plan.
The zoning for the Detailed Study Area is shown on Figure 4.2.1-2.
There are slight variations in the Airport Overlay District regulations among the jurisdictions. The cities of
High Point and Greensboro established both a DNL 65 dBA Noise Contour Area and an Approach Zone
Area. The DNL 65 dBA Noise Contour Area is delineated on the Off-Airport Land Use Plan in the PTIA
Master Plan. No residential uses are permitted, except single-family detached dwellings on lots that are
40,000 square feet or larger in size. The Approach Zone Area lies within the DNL 65 dBA Noise Contour
Area and consists of the approach zones delineated on the Approach and Clear Zone Plan in the PTIA
Master Plan. Places of public assembly such as schools, churches, theaters, auditoriums, and coliseums
shall not be constructed or otherwise located in the Approach Zone Area (City of Greensboro, August 17,
1999). The Guilford County Airport Overlay District regulates the height limits of structures within the
Approach and Clear Zone and states that no residential uses shall be permitted within the DNL 65 dBA
Noise Contour, except for single-family homes on lots that meet or exceed the requirements of the RS-40
zone (Guilford County, August 16, 1999).
WAPIEDM0NT\DEIS\Ch_4\S_4.d0c 4-6 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
1986 Airport Land Use Plan and Forthcoming Update - The Guilford County Board of Commissioners
adopted its first Airport Area Plan in 1986. The purpose of the plan was to recommend a general pattern
of land use, utility provision, and environmental protection in the area surrounding the airport that would
permit continued development without adversely affecting airport operations.
In July 1999, Guilford County, in cooperation with Forsyth County, Greensboro, High Point, and
Kernersville, initiated a citizen-based planning process to examine land use, transportation,
facilities/utilities, and environmental factors in the PTIA area. The plan will recommend a development
pattern that will be compatible with proposed airport improvements and will mitigate the impact of these
improvements on the surrounding area. The intended product of the study is a plan that can be adopted
by Guilford County, Forsyth County, Greensboro, High Point, and Kernersville as a guide to development
as the Mid-Atlantic Hub is built and businesses move to the area. The update is projected to be a 15- to
18-month planning project, and the target completion date is January 1, 2001 (Guilford County Planning
Department, August 16, 1999).
4.2.2 SOCIOECONOMICS /DEMOGRAPHICS
4.2.2.1 Socioeconomics
Employment Distribution - Guilford and Forsyth counties dominate the regional economy as shown in
Table 4.2.2-1. In 1996, 42 percent of all wage and salary employees in the Six-County Socioeconomic
Study Area worked in Guilford County and 27.3 percent worked in Forsyth County. Each of the remaining
four counties had less than 10 percent of the regional employment. Employment growth has been steady
in the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area increasing from a total of 483,356 wage and salary
employees in 1980, to 661,411 workers in 1996, which is an increase of 178,055 workers over the 16-
year period and represents a 36.8 percent increase.
From 1970 through 1996 and continuing years, employment distribution throughout the Six-County
Socioeconomic Study Area has shown a marked trend from an industrial to a service economy as shown
on Table 4.2.2-2. In 1970, 41.6 percent of employment in the region was in the manufacturing sector,
while 14.5 percent was in the services sector. By 1996, manufacturing had decreased to 23.4 percent of
the wage and salary employment, while services had increased to 27 percent. Retail trade accounted for
17.1 percent of the 1996 total wage and salary employment. The 1996 employment by the government
sector was 9.2 percent of the total employment. Each of the remaining economic sectors had 6 percent
or less of the 1996 employment.
Economic Base of the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area - Comparing the individual counties of
the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area to the state as a whole indicated where relative economic
strengths are concentrated. Using data for 1986 and 1996, location quotients for major economic sectors
revealed which of these sectors act as "basic" or export sectors within the regional economy. The
location quotients use Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) numbers for individual counties, for the
Piedmont Triad Region, and for the state. Generally, a sector of the economy is classified as an
WAPIEDM0N1IDEIS\Ch_4\S_4.doc 4-7 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
exporting component if the location quotient is greater than one, indicating that these sectors are
considered a strength and specialty for the local economy. Location quotients with a value equal to one
indicate that the local employment sector is similar to that of the state and southeast regional employment
values and that the sector is considered to be at "equilibrium." Import sectors with location quotients less
than one indicates that the local employment in that sector is less than the state and national values and
that this sector is relatively weak in the local economy.
As an example, data for Guilford County indicate relative strength in the transportation; wholesale trade;
finance and, to some degree, in the services sectors. Economic strength has been increasing in
transportation. Retail trade is slightly under-served; manufacturing is comparable to the state as a whole.
In comparison, Forsyth County data indicate 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 relatively weak.
The Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area 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 4.2.2-3
summarizes relatively strong, growing, and weak sectors for the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area
and individual counties.
Table 4.2.2-4 is a listing of the top 10 major employers for the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area,
which are also the top 10 employers for the Piedmont Region as a whole. These top 10 industries
together employ approximately 62,300 or 8 percent of the total wage and salary employment in the
Piedmont Triad Region, indicating again how centralized the regional economy has been in the past. In
general, the list of the 10 employers in particular and the list of major employers in general reinforce the
conclusions of the economic base analysis for the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area 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.
Unemployment Rate - The annual average unemployment rate for the Six-County Socioeconomic Study
Area was lower than both the state and national rates in 1998 as shown in Table 4.2.2-5. The area's
1998 unemployment rate was 2.9 percent as compared to the state rate of 3.5 percent and the national
rate of 4.5 percent. Both Guilford and Forsyth counties had the lowest unemployment rates at 2.6
percent. Rockingham County had the highest rate at 5.2 percent (North Carolina's Employment Security
Commission, May 13, 1999).
Average Wages - Table 4.2.2-6 states the 1997 average weekly wages for the dominant industries for
each of the six counties as well as the 1996 average annual wages. The urbanized counties of Forsyth
and Guilford have higher weekly and annual wages than the state average with the exception of business
WAPIEDMONl1DEIS\Ch_4\S_4.doc 4-8 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
TABLE 4.2.2-1
WAGE AND SALARY EMPLOYMENT
FOR THE SIX-COUNTY SOCIOECONOMIC STUDY AREA, 1980 TO 1996
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
Year Alamance
County Davidson
Count Forsyth
Count Guilford
Count:' Randolph
Count: Rockingham
Courlt
Total
1980 45,274 40,917 134,506 193,816 35,175 33,668 483,356
1981 45,870 42,038 136,304 196,178 35,555 33,175 489,120
1982 45,202 40,488 134,417 193,637 35,156 31,840 480,740
1983 46,025 41,722 135,175 199,566 35,437 32,273 490,198
1984 48,653 44,431 143,240 212,074 38,318 33,206 519,922
1985 49,769 44,955 149,402 217,360 38,812 32,544 532,842
1986 51,735 45,025 153,003 225,366 39,938 32,260 547,327
1987 55,036 47,498 158,142 237,252 41,183 33,124 572,235
1988 57,873 49,121 164,877 244,279 43,303 34,231 593,684
1989 58,903 49,622 165,513 247,327 44,081 34,353 599,799
1990 58,754 49,803 166,124 248,591 44,419 34,655 602,346
1991 57,242 49,094 163,107 242,264 43,783 34,699 590,189
1992 58,166 50,039 164,341 244,808 45,388 34,684 597,426
1993 59,199 50,466 168,061 253,136 47,032 35,551 613,445
1994 60,530 51,726 173,608 262,297 48,654 36,653 633,468
1995 61,574 51,838 177,652 271,137 49,783 37,226 649,210
1996 63,251 52,051 180,728 277,938 49,867 37,576 661,411
Percent
of 1996
Total
9.6%
7.9%
27.3%
42.0%
7.5%
5.7%
100.0%
Wage and salary employment refers to all employment covered by state unemployment insurance (UI) and
unemployment compensation for Federal employees (UCFE). It does not include self-employed and, in
some cases, those covered by independent unemployment insurance programs such as certain railroads.
Wage and salary employment is available by SIC classification from the Bureau of Economic Analysis
(BEA).
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 1980 to 1996.
W:\PIEDMONnDEIS\Sec 4\S 4-2\Tbls\T 422-1.doc\01/28/00
TABLE 4.2.2-2
EMPLOYMENT DISTRIBUTION BY ECONOMIC SECTOR
FOR THE SIX-COUNTY SOCIOECONOMIC STUDY AREA, 1970 TO 1996
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
Economic Sector
1970
1980
1990
1996 Percent
of 1996
total Percent
Change=-
1970-1996
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Other 1,009 1,897 4,252 5,460 0.7% 441.1%
Mining 549 671 884 822 0.1% 49.7%
Construction 26,664 28,475 43,516 44,020 5.9% 65.1%
Manufacturing 183,047 189,103 181,693 176,659 23.4% -3.5%
Transportation and Public Utilities 21,263 25,802 32,345 37,902 5.0% 78.3%
Wholesale Trade 19,316 27,428 37,344 38,696 5.1% 100.3%
Retail Trade 60,060 78,418 115,048 129,266 17.1%. 115.2%
Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 24,243 32,363 43,196 48,168 6.5% 98.7%
Services 63,675 94,747 163,458 203,897 27.0% 220.2%
Government and Government Enterprises 40,737 56,307 65,684 69,300 9.2% 70.1%
Total Employment 440,563 535,211 , 687,420 , 754,190 100.0% 71.2%
Source: U. S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 1970 to 1996.
WAPIEDMONT\DEIS\CH_4\S_4-2\Tbls\T 422-2.doc\01/28/00
TABLE 4.2.2-3
ECONOMIC STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE SIX-COUNTY SOCIOECONOMIC STUDY
AREA BASED ON LOCATION QUOTIENT ANALYSIS, 1996
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
Sectors Growing In Sectors Indicating `
Jurisdiction Sectors Indicating Strength Strength Weakness
Piedmont Triad Region Manufacturing, Transportation, finance, Government
transportation, wholesale services, retail trade
trade, services
Alamance Manufacturing, retail trade Manufacturing, services Government
Davidson Construction, manufacturing Construction, Government
manufacturing, retail
trade
Forsyth Transportation, finance, Finance, services, retail Government
services trade
Guilford Transportation, finance, Transportation, retail Government
wholesale trade, services trade
Randolph Construction, manufacturing Construction, Finance,
manufacturing government
Rockin ham Manufacturing Manufacturing Wholesale trade
Source: The SGM Group, Inc., January 1999.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Sec 4\S 4-2\Tbls\T 422-3.doc\01/28/00
TABLE 4.2.2-4
TOP 10 EMPLOYERS IN THE SIX-COUNTY SOCIOECONOMIC STUDY AREA, 1998
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
Company' Count Employees Rank Description
Sara Lee & Subsidiaries Forsyth and Others 10,850 1 Hosiery, socks, active wear
Guilford County Public
Schools Guilford 7,500 2 (tie) Public education
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
Lifestyles Furnishings Intl.
& Subsidiaries Various 5,130 7 Furniture
Wake Forest
University/School of
Medicine Forsyth 5,055 8 Higher education
Moses Cone Health
Systems Guilford 5,000 9 Medical services, hospital
Burlington Industries Alamance 4,658 10 Textiles, drapery
Source: Piedmont Triad Council of Governments Regional Data Center, January 4, 1999.
W APIEDMONT\DEI S\Sec_4\S_4-2\Tbls\T_422-4.doc\01 /28/00
TABLE 4.2.2-5
1998 ANNUAL AVERAGE CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE ESTIMATES
AND UNEMPLOYMENT RATES
FOR THE SIX-COUNTY SOCIOECONOMIC STUDY AREA
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
Unemployment
Rate
Count Labor Force Em to ment Unemployment 1998 1997
Alamance 64,670 62,840 1,830 2.8% 3.3%
Davidson 77,420 75,270 2,150 2.8% 2.8%
Forsyth 150,870 146,900 3,970 2.6% 2.7%
Guilford 213,260 207,680 5,580 2.6% 3.0%
Randolph 68,780 66,890 1,890 2.7% 2.6%
Rockingham 45,080 42,720 2,360 5.2% 5.1%
Total 620,080 602,300 17,780 2.9% N/A
North Carolina 3,794,200 3,663,300 130,900 3.5% 3.6%
United States 137,660,000 131,460,000 6,200,000 4.5% 4.9%
Source: North Carolina Employment Security Commission, May 13, 1999.
1997 Unemployment Rates obtained from North Carolina Department of Commerce, May
13, 1999. National unemployment rates obtained by The SGM Group, Inc., from the BLS
series data.
N/A = Not available.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Sec_4\S_4-2\Tbis\ T_422.5.doc\07/28/00
(0
N
N
w
MJ
W
a
H
w
J
a
Z
Z
a
,w
V
MaM
ILL
>a
aw
rna
M
T
Z O =
Q.
co Y G)
cnUQ E
ui Gr
La
N Z O U)
Z W L Q.
G1
t0
Z N ? ?
O Z
CZoo
o u "aa .a
u. X a Lu
WV5 a
LUw
a=
LL
JO
Y
w
w
w
a
a
w
>
a
as
o?
T
LO CO f- O r M
Q1 M N O CO m N M
? CO LO ? In O In N
to m N N 00 I? T Oo Ln
?- N N N N N r N
O1 ff} (f? 69k 69 Ef} 64 6F3
CO
O
T a
d co N co rn N rn
O LO M d LO i- O f-
I- Oi 4 CO (6 ai N
M M LO d r- d N It r
Y 'T ? LO LO NJ" It LO
to to H} 64 K} 6a 64
Q?
,
?
may
T 7
CM LO
O
CO r r
I-: M Cfl
Z
0 O a)
V
m Cl)
m
AD Ln cD M
y
LO
Cf)
_ LO Q) Ln
m N ? ce) It
ns It
E LL.
O
0
(D co O CO f, 00 N f?
V' N O f? ?t O M
? M
Ln O
In O
r M
O Ln
? (fl
Ln O
00
LL to E « « ? 64:.)- 6a « 6-,
O V c
H o (,
J
0 0
LL U
a)
m
N O r
a C
O
V O r co d r O
j? > CO O N LO O O
a) ? ? 6 ? ?
d
N
m
a
d
? S
a' t- ce)
_
N
LO
IQ:
00
qt
Cl?
? v r rn
y 7 ct ?
r ta 6C
649,
d O
a.
?
?. E 'C:
o
7 U c g co
o c N L a o c U
U ca a S, O a c
?
i
c,5 0 M O O
Q ? LL 0 CC CC Z
O)
_M
as
m
a>
i
a)
E
O
U
O
C
a)
rn co
rn ?
T
CO 03
T
co O
2U
CF
O .c
<n O
AZ
E E
U
a)
.c
aUi ?
07 O
C rn
E m
E
o ca
O" c
E
W Q
OS (D
c zn
o ca
Co a)
UQ
?co
0?
Z
N
i
7
O
U)
services. The 1997 weekly wage for Forsyth County was $574.42 and for Guilford County was $546.58,
which are higher than the state average weekly wage of $512.79. The 1996 annual average wage
followed a similar pattern. Both urban counties have average annual wages ranging from $28,497 for
Forsyth County, to $27,569 for Guilford County, which are higher than the state average of $25,283. Only
the 1997 business sector wages in the urban counties were lower than the state average. The 1997
weekly wages for the business sector were $327.62 for Forsyth County and $353.15 for Guilford County
in comparison to $416.10 for the State of North Carolina. In marked contrast, the outlying counties of
Alamance, Davidson, Randolph, and Rockingham counties had lower weekly and annual wages than the
state average salaries.
4.2.2.2 Demographics
Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area
Recent Population Trends - Population trends from 1970 through 1997 for the Six-County
Socioeconomic Study Area are shown in Table 4.2.2-7. The Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area as a
whole has experienced a modest rate of growth since 1970. According to the 1990 Census, the Six-
County Socioeconomic Study Area experienced a 23.4 percent population growth rate between 1970 and
1990, with a net population increase of 197,111 residents. Modest population growth continued between
1990 and 1997 with the addition of 100,516 more residents. As shown on Table 4.2.2-8, approximately
38.6 percent of this growth is a result of natural increase (births exceeding death), and the remaining 61.4
percent is attributed to net migration.
The urbanized counties of Guilford and Forsyth experienced the largest net increase in population as
shown on Table 4.2.2-7. Between 1970 and 1997, Guilford County gained 94,596 residents, and Forsyth
County grew by 72,812 residents. Davidson and Randolph counties experienced similar net population
increases of 44,815 and 45,192 residents, respectively, during this 27-year period. Alamance County
gained 23,458 residents and Rockingham County gained 16,754 residents.
Of the six counties, Randolph County with a 32.5 percent increase in population between 1970 through
1997 experienced the greatest change in population growth; however, this rate of growth was lower than
the statewide growth of 46.2 percent. Rockingham County had the lowest percent change in population
with only a 6.9 percent increase. The remaining four counties experienced modest population growth
ranging from 17.8 percent for Forsyth County to 24.1 percent for Davidson County.
Racial Composition - As shown on Table 4.2.2-9, four out of the six counties, the Six-County
Socioeconomic Study Area as a whole, and the state of North Carolina have higher percentages of black
population than the United States according to the 1990 Census. Nearly 21 percent of the region's 1990
population was black as compared to 22 percent for the state of North Carolina and 12 percent for the
United States. In 1990, the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area as a whole had a racial composition
similar to that of the state with nearly 78 percent of the population white, 20.6 percent black, and only 1.1
percent American Indian, Asian, or other races. The urbanized counties of Forsyth and Guilford have
W.\PIEDM0NTDEIS\Ch_4\S_4.d0c 4-9 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
higher percentages of black population than either the state or the nation. In contrast, the rural counties
of Davidson and Randolph have lower percentages of black population than either the state or nation with
only 9.6 percent and 5.8 percent, respectively. The 1990 American Indian population was only 0.3
percent for the Six-County region as compared to 1.2 percent for North Carolina. As of 1990, the Six-
County Socioeconomic Study Area had only 0.7 percent Hispanic population as compared to 1 percent of
the state and 8.8 percent for the nation. According to the 1990 Census, only 1.3 percent of the Six-
County region's population could not speak English well.
Age Distribution - Age characteristics for the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area are shown on Table
4.2.2-10. According to the U.S. Census, all six counties individually as well as the Six-County
Socioeconomic Study Area as a whole have a slightly higher average age than the state of North Carolina
and the nation. The average age in 1990 was 37.7 years for Alamance County, 36.2 years for Davidson
County, 36.1 years for Forsyth County, 35.8 years for Guilford County, 36.0 years for Randolph County,
and 37.3 years for Rockingham County. The average age for the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area
is 36.3 years, as compared to 35.5 years for the state of North Carolina and 35.3 years for the nation.
The slightly higher average age for the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area is attributed to the fact that
the region has slightly fewer children under 17, and slightly higher percentage of adults aged 45 to 64
than either the state or the nation.
Income Distribution - As shown in Table 4.2.2-11, income levels for most Six-County Socioeconomic
Study Area households are lower than the median and average household incomes for the nation but
higher than the median and average household incomes for the state of North Carolina. The United
States 1990 median household income was $30,056, in contrast to $26,647 for the state, and $28,045 for
the six-county region. The percent of population in poverty is another indicator of income distribution.
The Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area has 9.8 percent of its population living in poverty-a rate that
is lower than that for either the state of North Carolina (12.5 percent) or the United States (12.8 percent).
Educational Attainment - As shown in Table 4.2.2-12, the education attainment levels for the Six-County
Socioeconomic Study Area are comparable to those for both the state and the nation. Based on 1990
U.S. Census data, nearly 30 percent of the adults age 25 and over in the Six-County Socioeconomic
Study Area, the state of North Carolina, and the nation were high school graduates. Both the Six-County
Socioeconomic Study Area and the state have approximately 29 to 30 percent of the adult population
lacking a high school degree, which is higher than the national rate of 24.8 percent. Likewise, the Six-
County Socioeconomic Study Area and the state have nearly 17 percent of persons age 25 or over with
some type of college education. This is a lower percentage than the national rate of 18.7 percent.
Approximately 24 to 27 percent of adults age 25 and over in the region, the state, and the nation were
college graduates.
Generalized Study Area
Population - Table 4.2.2-13 states the 1999 housing and population estimates for the Generalized Study
Area. As of 1999, there are 28,615 single-family homes and multi-family units, condominiums, and
WAPIEDMONT0EIS\Ch_4\S_4.doc 4-10 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
N
N
W
MJ
W
Q
H
n
rn
o?
T
0
r
n
O)
T
a
w
a
0
C 1)
o
N
0
z cc
0 cn
U +. 4+
0 l4
V E
0 C-_
N
Z F
a+
C
0 00 O
X E ?
vn LD W
a
LL
0
0
GC
0
z
0
Q
J
a
0
CL
0
U O
c O w m N (0 N ~ LO
O LO r r M p LO ? r
++ I
to O ?'
C'O Co
d' OD
C \F LO r
Ln
CO
r c
d•
7? N 4 r m .4 r N m
L1 r N
O
a
m
z
Q)
C ?O
O
O
\
O
O
\
\
O
U= r
'' n m o C') r CO I?, O
' O O O6 O d' vi 6 N
^ Urn
Ii C)
T r r r r r
CD
sa> a o -0, '
-O o ? ? o
V T
O Cfl r 0
co o
00 m m Ch N
?
d N N r N V) O N VO
Q1
a
O N O co O
O r
r N
R It
? CO
r 00
r LO
Ln
T j
O m O n m r r
r
r
r r
r d
r 00
N 00
CO N
r
r
co r- 00 0 (0 co
p
m r
C \L 1? f?
00 N
d ?
Ln O
O ?
O ?
N
Cn w CO m r co d' C•r)
r 0 N Co It O O (D
r r N CO r r CO
a ' (0 co LO C\j r- CA
O
pQ Cl)
r
CO
r
?
O
O) p
O r co
r co
co
N r
r,
Ch r
z
O C•6
CO 00
0) 00
CO
O N
CD tl-
C\j co
It 0
LOA 00
M N
0 r
co r
N d
'
f ?t
co LO It co (6 cq C
)
1 00
m 0) N co
N F_ P, q:3
co O
E
_ «)
_ = 9 O C
4 ca co
-0
, >_
A
0
c
-
U E > ? r
1
Q O Li 0 2 OC H Z U
O
r
cvi
a
cu
c
c
ciS
IL
vJ
O
O
ca
c
O
co
U
r
O
z
a)
E
O
N
c
cz
C7)
O O
m
r cn
N
E
Q CO
Q a)
c
.O
- as
U O-
O
CL
J r
00)
O CA
CD r
O
O
U
co
N
N
W
J
m
a
a)
r
o
H
O
Q)
2 ?
T
ya
CC
c?a Q?
O 0 a E
d
V/
J 0 U)
O0Lc.
0- E
LL Z C
o---
U-0 NWm=
UO?£
a p c 0
N C i
W >. E'5
H ? 'O C
Q m a W
?O
aU
2
U A
U)
W
L_
r
O
LL
O o 0 0 0 e o 0
c m N M N M r- M
0
3 ay ?.:, Do ? M 6 6 r Lo
L
Z cn
•
O
Y
.f+
a
CD O O co O M O
(D O N N ? LO LO
a,
+;' M
00 r
O) c l!
O
r
O
r 1?
r
U ca r N r (D
Z "
r LA O Cl) LO 0 O
,It (D UL) Na" N M (O
CD CD O M LP) CD r,?
N
O
r
'Itt
r ,
M
r- C7
a
z C7
r Ch O (D M d' ?
O d' M N' O ? 00
y N N r N i? CD M
t 00 ao 00 M CD CO r
T N r`
N O Co M Nt O O
)
O O It 00 M r l()
M M r ll) N M ,-
O N M 1- T 00 O
r r N M T C
r 00
r
ry/?
W
0 0 ? ? 0 0 0
m t" M O Cl? r CD r,?
y W
mM ?
0 0 CO O T CO M
c
O
av?
T
r` Ln N CD N 0
O CD M W O M r
CD r- N ? 0 0 LO
' r M r- Ln Lfy M O
y r r N M r O
r
O N O O O "0 "t
N It (D co LO LO r
00 ? T r LO r M
ti M O r, M r M r
M r M M N M S}
M
T r r N CO
r
r
T
M f? 00 O (D d' co
r ? r- N It (D M
C \L M "Zt Ln O rl
O CO (D m r- (D (D O
M O N (D Nt O 00 !}
M
r r r N CM r O_
r
c
U c
i2
CA
L) CU w
co i .
co
o ? ca o O
M
M
M
O
N
'i
L2
Q
c
.E
c
LL
C6
VJ
tl?
O
U
O
(u
c
O
Y
«s
U
s
Z
N
O
CD
Ci)
N
N
W
J
m
a
H
0
O>
C)
a
W
m
a
0
V
O
Z
O
V
W
O
U
O
N
H
Z
D
O
V
X
N
W
F
LL
O
Z
O
'H
V/
O
IL
2
O
U
J
a
V
a
O
Q.
a
R
C
O
CO
C
d
C
lC3
H
C
O
.a
d
a
C
tV
d
R
N
V
R
C.
R
C
d
c
O
C
W
0- o o -
-0 0 0 0 0 0
;Y ? 0
r1l: UC) r- ti O 00
o O O O O O O O r CO
N cT' r LA (D CD It O CD
' CL L N P- (D N Tr CO CO N CO
CA Q) P- O Un LO Un r- O O
=
_ Cp
E
r
C \T
C
(D
o
cl?
Z r
N
o
N T N N N N N ?t M
O O O O O O O O M
d
S
rt+
O L I?
N M
?' Ln
O (D
Un M
N W
O qt
N w
E CD
to
, d
N r r- N r O O r
E N CD O
N _
Z of
0 0 0 ? ? ? o
N d' (D O LO N (D M M
0 0 0 0 r O 0 0 6 N
0
? U
N cu y r- .;I- r? M .;I- O O m (D
Q D (V M r M M M M (n M 00
_ M N M CO M Utz r Uf) M M
E r Cl) CO d
:3
LO
N
N
Z r-
o ? ? 0 0 0
(? V N Un d: M M N 00
o
. O O O O O O O r 0
C o
r
V
d?
' T M M 00 r LO Q O M
O
^ ' d to N d Up CO O d
Q m M (D 't N C[) (D T
T M C \i
CO
O
Z N
OR -0 o o 0 o -
-0 o
N 0
cD OO OR ll:? (D 0
O O
r) M
N N N N N
s M 00 CO CO r Cl) N 0 "t
N r- N CD co qt N It N
M r M r r Lo t M Utz
07 O C \F r (D r, " In O
N r CD M r r U) M
N cl M
E
Z r M
N
0 0 0 0 'o o 0 0
0 0 CP) N M O M N (D
O M d' r M 0o a0 Un O
00 oO ? ? M f? f? I? M
M r- 0 0) 0) LO 00 't
r- co 't r- "ti- 0 ce) It Lo
C i Un Cl M CO r M N N O
(D M P? M M f. 't T I-
E co r M ? M (D r r N
T T N W O 00
Z (n M
M
T
ca
C
U 0 -C Q O cz
v ca U)
E L ? "
O C O U U)
0 ca co LL C
co 0)
c o
Z
co
M
M
T
U
C
cli
U_
J
O
O
0
(D
U
0
U)
O
T
N
N
4
W
JM
W
a
H
O
CA
CA
T
Q
w
Q
t-
CO)
CU
C
O
Z
O
U
W
O
U
O
N
H
Z
m
O
U
x
Mn
W
F
LL
O
Z
O
H
Ian
O
a
O
U
'W
V
Q
O
O.
Q
C
O
C13
C
2
C
a
ILI
L
H
c
O
E
a
d
a
4.1
d
d
l4
cf)
Ca
R
Q.
E
d
E
c
O
C
W
o c \ M
M M N (0 Ln r N Ln Ln O LO
LO I" ? ? LO O O N O M
N T T T T T T O
T
0 \ \ 0 \ Lq
q O M S d• N O c T O Ln
.C O d co m Ln 1-- LO O co N O co
?' • N T T T T T T O
O
O L
Z
U
0 0 0 o a o -
-0 o -
-0 o
O (0 LO T q;': (0 0
r Cl) 0
LO O
M CO N LO 1- LO r M N 0
N T T T T T T O
a
T ;
?
Q
a T T N 1l- (O r O M M M M
(O r N OD N O r r M
C \L lc? CO I- ? O M I.
(n ? ? 00 M CO O N M ? M O
c M (O N 0 m M r M N ?
C N T T - T - T
T T O
Z T
N M C70 O M i? M N M
I- co O I- (0 co M LO co (O
(D LO N 1- co O n co O M
O LO r r Cl) Cl) M 00 N CO
C N T T T T T CO
Y
U
O
00 M 1- ? N Ln (O O M (O O
CO O M r r M ? I? O ? ?
I? M M O M 00 00 Lt7 M
O Ln r- M Ln 00 (0 N M N CO
N T T T T T T O
CO O N T M M N N r 0 00
N LO rl- U') O (O M N N N ?j
L N M M W. "t LO r N M d•
M
?O 06 N C \F 1 .1i rl T T 1l:
1? N LO (O LO M M qt It
M
0
?t T N M T N co N M 00 T
L N O O 1- 'ct M M M M 1-, (D
LO O (C rl LO M I- ql* M 00 M
y 0 co N 00 00 N co It N Ln
i (0 T Cl) CO "t "t N N CO CO
O N
U-
co N O ? Lo Ln 1- to 1-- N
c
= 1? ? N O r- (0 co O r,
N r N LO T M 1? C' O C \L m
O 00 (0 00 T M LO N LO Co
•' M T T N T T T T T
00 1- r CO M T N CO N Cl) 1?
U
U M
OC r
00 N
M CO
O Ln
N LO
O O
M d•
M LO
M T
N r
?
M
(0
N
(0
?
(D
N
O
LO
00 M
. N T T T T r T T O
T
Q
? (U
T
O O Q
Q
L
qt N co ? LO W + co N
r LO LO LO LO LO LO
U O Ln r N ice) "t LO CO Q
M
M
M
T
U
C
U_
J
O
V
(U
i
O
U)
r
N
N
w
J
m
Q
H
O
O>
M
I-
4
w
Q
U_
Z O +•
C
0 CL
OW Q E
O
O
Z
O
a0i
N ? c
w O O
1 E 5
LL a) w
za
O
^H^
EMI
W
tY
H
cn
0
w
2
O
U
Z
o e e e e e e 0 0 e 10 M
M L1•) M M O 7 d O (() 0 0 d'
't I-- LO I" LO LO v O N O
CT
(I/ CM T T T T C)
T T T CO
HT EA
0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0
(p O 00 N (D "d: (q q LO O CO N
t p- 0 r- ? N M N o N M t c
' N T T T r O r N M
O
O L Ef3 d?
z m
0 0 0 0 0 LO N
0 N d ? OD OD d O 00 Ch O O
M M t` 00 M M M O M
p
N
T
r
r
T
O N Cd
O T
a` 69- Ef}
.O CO CO r N CO N d' ?t 00 00 LO M
N CO N 00 O N CO O M N
M 00 V M co 00 N r,? M O O
V J - " I? 00 r CD (0 LL) M T ,
T T CO (0
M r,- r- r- LO T T T O N N Cl)
3 T K> Efl
Z
d LO (O Q O M (o r-, M o N M
N O 00 T 00 M 00 ?t r O r-
(a
C (O P. O M M w m 0') M M d' 0
' CA (O LO LO M C O C \i
CV) N
V
613 69.
O
CO CO O Cl) CO O r? r? M O
Vt N r '-Cl' N r? CO O r CO M
O LO 'wt T LO CO (O r r, O r
M Coo 00 C>o 'cf T Coo N r-
It N [
(v ?
CO
N
O
M
1"
LO
?t
?
LO
r
CD en
O r T LO rl- CO (O N LO O Nt r
? C d r C \L (() CO 00 r M
co ) O O 0
CO N N N N C M (
7 (
o
T GG Ef}
V
O It T r r? 0 (O M N T M CO
s Ln r- r? CO d (O r- LO CD M NT M
r I- T d• M O 00 d' T Cfl qlz d'
qqt M I, M (0 LO qt r? r LO O M
L N r T T T O N M M
O r (f} 613,
IL
LO CO I- r- rl ct O CO O CO CO
T
C O M LO N (O N I- CO M O T LO
p N N I` O N O 00 N r, M qt
w N M m m co r CD C \i N
T It r N M
t4
d CO N T "t CD (D 00 CO (0 M r Ln
O (0 (C) M r" LO M M M M r-
= CO (O (O M Cl) C'7 O E M 00 N M
O CO r r- LO r ? M r CO
m N
t4 b9 Efl
a
A
O M M M M M >
V M M M M M O O
= O M M M M M CL >
p N M dM' r- M C
C
ffl
ffl
E{}
6c*
6%
+
C L
C
= O O -
d 0 0 0 0 0 0
C
(n i O O O O O O M .!R
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(Z
E a..
N
LO LO Lo O LO O
=) to t2 EF? E{} Efl _
Efl H a- U.. Q
M
M
M
T
v
c
cn
U
J
O
a)
0
a)
i
O
co
a) >,
U .V
C L
- Q
cz
O O
Na)0
CDL
E i U
cz > 73
7
cu O Q
C O
O Ca
O 'a -r
0 cn 0
Co () (n
Cn
E a
C
()
Q U
r-
0 a) 0
•- s c
O
:!" i CCCS
Q n.5
(z
O N 0)
a) ca
-0-0
c n (i
Ca OS
U
N C)
cn U) E C X
(a - () co
? a to
-0,
> ° X Q
Lz 0)
> 0 c
m
cl) CU
a) E
0 CU
L) Q)
a) E Z
E >' m
O cz c: co
-C 0 :z
c E G
a) (D ?(n„ V
C
O :3 cq
E o 0
O s c
++ 0 O vi
Q) a) CZ
! L C
CE5
fn a) -
(V y ?a)_0 U)
= -r o
? ca a) > o
C (LC
a) (C
U c•?-o
U) co
'O C-)
cn a) -0
L (n
t a)
H A H2
N
N
N
et
W
J
m
Q
H
O
CA
N
cl) Q
W W
'
V
a a t
z CL
cnC?n- Q E
r.+
R
Lu L)
CL M O N
U. O V
O Q L Q.
zc)E
W W =-
*O
Z_ U R =
Q o F d
F- (n E
Q p
Q :D -a
0L)CLW
U cn
G2
W I-
Z
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 ": O Cp Ln C+7 r N Ln
rt+ O
o T CO T O -t 'It LA '14- CO
N T CO C) T r N N N
tLS t ;,
L
CO
Ch
co
.t
O
O
T
CO
OD
d
L ti CEO N O r
C In CO 144, O O CO N Cn N
- C
E T r LO CO r I- N O
° G *- O r
U Z r N
?t
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r CA CO Cn ? It r*? OR rl?
CU o O ?t r, O N 14t 0 CO 00
T T T r T T r T T
-
0
U m T
'I F, O Ch LO tl0 c) f?
l
L N t CO N CO O r T r
-
CU CO Vt O CO r- M 00 ? r-
E m T N r C \T Oo v M m
° E T T CO "T T T
cn T r-
z
N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T O O c! T Ln q O
o O CO rn CO LO O rn O O
C OO CV) N N M Ch N N CO
o O
.t_
O 0 O
cn L
CD O O O C O 0 0 CO Cm
0
_ P, CO C \L CO t N OO r?
'd T r T CA lqd? N N N
C
C 9: N N LO LO N T
L N N CO
z T
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T OO : (3n g cg rn O Oq
0 o N LO N C7 O O 00 O 4
CO Co cm N Co dt cm co cm
t d
/A ; (0
V / I* It T T CO ? O f- CO
CO M LO CO LO CO T ' T
'D L N M 0 M W d M f- I?
R
L
C'3 5
.0 CD
N O
N CA
co M
LO CO
N 6
N CO
m r-
r? C7
tt
T C \L
r M
Z Z M
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
"f 0) r "t Cn CA CO O N M
N 0 CO CO CO 4 Ln O LL) 4 M
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO O CO
CU
N I- N N CO It co It CO
Q
' T C) O Ict N M r M Ce)
L d f- LO CO N d O It 'It
y N CO CO LO O I? to Cf) co
°
E W
r
N
n
LO
co
U-)
0
w N co
a z `r LO
E N
C
0
U Lo O M
0 CL rn V CTJ !n
v a?
>
ca 0 ¢ °
Q
ii
C9
?
F
-
Z
?
0
0
N
N
T VI
V
C ti
Cl.
U U)
_
J
?(V ?I
=
U
W
V
ai
i
?
0
?
M
N
(V
w
_.1
m
Q
U.
O
m
UN
1- Q
N
W
W Q ,r
1-- 0 a)
OQG?Q E
Q N (0 (?0
UO =0N
ZJ
OQ
uj
H E
Qw*'-
Lv
a ZSC
aQF E
0 M
Z N O O
Q?E>
dz (r .d)
Fn W
= Z
OW
=0
CD
C)
C)
T
'd m
N a) O
00 r?
fl_ 00
I- N
?t o (fl
CO co
LO co
N o LO
LO O
O 00
P, M
M o co
CA
N-
a "t
T O
T r
T n
(+') O
(D 00 d:
C M
ch O
?
N O
N M O
d M
f? N
r M
Ln
L T
V N ? T T (p
C
O C ?
(a
7
O
13 ?t O O O
r- o O O O
r- a O O O O O
LO
co
0)
m N r r T r N C}'
0
Q) O
L 00
M r 0)
N
i
i
co
d?
i
i
co
T
L(j
i
i
( 7
C. O N N N N N N N
(n c
c a)
N
C
C _
00
N N
N 00
It co
LO
° "t
(0 0
T m
N ?
° N
? O
O o
r O
(p ?
° N
0)
'a
y O O
T N
d CO
Cn N
OD
M
LO
L6
00
Ln
.
N
N
r
M
(C)
T
r
C
r
r
C7
N
N
Q T
C
c m
?
? O fn
C7
O
O
O T
T O O
N T
M S
°
r* O 0
O LO
O -0
° 0 0 0 0 0 (O
M
d>
(9 T
co
It
-:
Lo
Lo
M
07
(6. T T f` cm r
' (n Q
0,
0 0 0 o 0 0 -00- 1 o
00 (o ' co b CO
M- rn 00
T rn rn rn rn 00 rn CD
T
U
U
O
f0
d d O
r-
N CO
O co
LO
0
N
O
r
Lf)
M
;zf
o
co
M
O
O
co
LO
CO
O
o
N
CA
N L
Q (O O 0) (fl O M (O O T CS co (O N C)
0 r C 0 OD Lo (0 N T r (M CA
N N
O fn
O
"a O
cn O co m 0 0
r- 0 0 0 0 0 0 N
R M LL (D LO Lf r
N
N `+ Q
N
E J
¢ J
Q
? J
Q J
Q a)
E
;= J
Q J
Q
c 0 c ?- C C E- F- C O c
_ CD 0 0 0 0 2 0 0
Ul 72 -0 F-
U
a)
U F- F-
_!
N
OC .? N
oC Z
0 LL
O >-
F- N
oC 0
i
oC Z
0 u-
0 a
i
oC •c
aC Z
0 LL
0
?..
Z = Z = = Z C) z
N GC E ? O w O ? E LU E w Q
Q (
u
LL LL (q ? 0 LL LL (q C) co
LL co
LL (q L)
w
4- m 75 ?CD CC ? w z
0 Es a Q
o Z
W ? c ?
5 0
LL a
. (L c -,
>
C
W fn .
I (n =
, (n
V
F- C3 C'3 = N
N
C
O
U
Q)
(2 c3i
"C
C? r
U U
C 7
(Z
7
C1 Q
U
U O
O
LT a)
c E
7
ft)
O
2 Cl.
E
a) c
in c
>, C
U) cz
U) CL
V
C
7
C-) O
U
-a LO
U •?
C
c
a cti5
O C
o
L a_
a) ?
c cm
a) _
O
C _a
?U
-O m
C
0$
O
C O
U C
O N
U a)
Q
0 O
a)
=U
a)
N O
CL
O C
U •-
C
O
O
U
O) o
C s
•? m
O 0
2 ..c
U
Cl)
7
O
U)
townhomes and 1,377 nursing home beds or retirement facilities within the Generalized Study Area. It is
estimated that there are 65,398 persons residing in the 28,392 occupied dwelling units and nursing home/
retirement facilities. Of these, 66.9 percent live within the City of Greensboro, 21.9 percent live within
Guilford County, and 11.2 percent live within the City of High Point.
Racial Composition - The racial composition of the Generalized Study Area is shown on Table 4.2.2-14.
Approximately 57,535 out of the area's 65,398 residents are white, 6,768 are black, 225 are American
Indian, 747 are Asian Pacific, and 123 are other races. The percentage breakdown for the Generalized
Study Area reveals that this area is predominately white. The white population comprises 88.1 percent of
the area's total population, the black population is 10.3 percent, and the combined percentage of
American Indians, Asians, and other races is 1.6 percent. There are 555 Hispanics living in the
Generalized Study Area comprising less than one percent of the area's total population. As shown on
Table 4.2.2-14, the Generalized Study Area has a larger percentage white population and a smaller
minority and Hispanic population than the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area, the State of North
Carolina, or the United States.
Age Distribution - Age characteristics of the Generalized Study Area are shown on Table 4.2.2-15. The
Generalized Study Area has 13,533 children under 18 years old comprising 20.7 percent of the total
population. This is a lower percentage of children under 18 as compared to the Six-County
Socioeconomic Study Area, North Carolina, or the United States. The Generalized Study Area also has
lower percentages of people aged 65 and over than does the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area,
North Carolina, or the United States. On the other hand, the Generalized Study Area has higher
percentages of residents ages 25 to 34 and 35 to 44 than does the Six-County Socioeconomic Study
Area, North Carolina, or the United States.
Income Distribution - The household income distribution characteristics for the Generalized Study Area
are shown in Table 4.2.2-16. Most households in the Generalized Study Area earn more income than
their counterparts in the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area, the state, or the nation. The Generalized
Study Area has lower percentages of households earning less than $35,000 and higher percentages of
households earning greater than $35,00 than does the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area, the state,
or the nation. Another income indicator is the percentage of population and families living in poverty. The
US Census uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to define
whom is poor. If a family's total income is less than that family's threshold, then that family, and every
individual in it, is considered poor. The poverty thresholds do not vary geographically. The official poverty
definition counts money income before taxes and excludes capital gains and noncash benefits (such as
public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps). (U.S. Census Bureau, August 31, 1999). Only 7.0 percent
of the Generalized Study Area's population is classified as being below the poverty level as compared to
9.8 percent of the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area's population, 12.5 percent of the state
population, and 12.8 percent of the United States population.
Educational Attainment - As shown in Table 4.2.2-17, the educational attainment of adults ages 25 and
over is far higher in the Generalized Study Area than their counterparts in the Six-County Socioeconomic
W:\PIEDM0NT\DEIS\Ch_4\S_4.doc 4-11 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
Study Area, the state, or the nation. Forty-three percent of the adults age 25 and over have a college
degree or higher who reside in the Generalized Study Area as compared to only 25.1 percent for the Six-
County Socioeconomic Study Area, 24.2 percent for the state, and 26.5 percent in the nation. Not
surprisingly, the percentage of adults not completing high school or only being high school graduates is
far lower in the Generalized Study Area than for the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area, the state, or
the nation. Only 13.8 percent of the adults age 25 or over in the Generalized Study Area did not
complete high school as compared to 28.7 percent in the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area, 30.0
percent in the state, and 24.8 percent in the nation.
Detailed Study Area
Population - Table 4.2.2-13 states the 1999 housing and population estimates for the Detailed Study
Area. As of 1999, there are 2,112 single-family homes and multi-family units, condominiums, and
townhomes within the Detailed Study Area. It is estimated that there are 4,756 persons residing in the
1,996 occupied dwelling units. Of these, 71 percent live within the City of Greensboro and 29.0 percent
live within Guilford County.
Racial Composition - The racial composition of the Detailed Study Area is shown on Table 4.2.2-14.
Approximately 4,096 out of the area's 4,756 residents are white, 570 are black, 20 are American Indian,
59 are Asian Pacific, and 11 are other races. The percentage breakdown for the Detailed Study Area
reveals that this area is predominately white. The white population comprises 86.2 percent of the area's
total population, the black population is 12 percent, and the combined percentage of American Indians,
Asians, and other races is 1.8 percent. There are 40 Hispanics living in the Detailed Study Area
comprising less than 1 percent of the area's total population. As shown on Table 4.2.2-14, the Detailed
Study Area has a larger percentage white population and a smaller minority and Hispanic population than
the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area, the State of North Carolina, or the United States.
Age Distribution - Age characteristics of the Detailed Study Area are shown on Table 4.2.2-15. The
Detailed Study Area has 978 children under 18 years old comprising 20.6 percent of the total population.
This is a lower percentage of children under 18 as compared to the Six-County Socioeconomic Study
Area, North Carolina, or the United States. The Detailed Study Area also has a lower percentage of
people aged 65 and over than does the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area, North Carolina, or the
United States. On the other hand, the Detailed Study Area has higher percentages of residents ages 25
to 34 and 35 to 44 than does the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area, North Carolina, or the United
States.
Income Distribution - The household income distribution characteristics for the Detailed Study Area are
shown in Table 4.2.2-16. Most households in the Detailed Study Area earn more income than their
counterparts in the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area, the state, or the nation. The Detailed Study
Area has lower percentages of households earning less than $35,000 and higher percentages of
households earning greater than $35,000 than does the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area, the state,
or the nation. Another income indicator is the percentage of population and families living in poverty. The
WAPIEDMCNTDEIS\Ch 4\S_4.doc 4-12 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
V
N
N
4
W
J
m
Q
F-
Cn
C)
L)
I
Cn
a
w
a O =
CL
?a E
fn C cc
N O U)
W o v
w i Lo
= G1 E
? C -
- -
U.
O M B
Z 'i d
O F' E
p c O
O
o E'5
a -0 c
0 CL
U
J
a
v
a
0 0 0 0 0
0 00 00 O OD
O O O r 00
Cf)
Nt
w
N
O cc:
(a i LO O
D
O. LO r- O O
N O O 0
C
_ 0
Z CD 0
c
N U
O
U
N
0 0 0 Q
c N N N "t m 06
0 0 0 6 C'O N
0)
0) T CO It 00 O co
L
+-' T N N 0
r
O r O O -
r
Ci CV N o
Z
L3
CA CD
CL
0 0 0 0 0
\ o
N T
CO
O O 0
o T T O O N
C
U m r- O LO CO 0
c .- LO 't LO m CC) U
ca ?- r- LO CO Cn
N O CO N
Q d 6 LO N
ti
0
m
m
0 0 0 0 0
o fh Ch N O
O O O r 0 m
V N N ID O '
-
w
L ._ N Ln CO T LL
o 07 CV
OD Ln
Q Z
O CL
N F-
0 0 0 0 0 E
q cl CO O O
o N O O N N (n
r r N N T N Cn
Y Cn
VI
U
r-
O
C\j
't
N r
c
4 C
O N a
m LO r 't co LO 0-0
O (O
Z
N LO
Itt M
CD
? Q
T N
O
0 0 0 0 ? ?'?
N r N Co c! Q)
0 M co OD N M
O
?
-
CO to LO co 11;41 D
L CA CO CO 'It O
C?
O
? LO
I- C \L
v O
-
O LO r T
r r
N L
?
Z
co
o
co O
+
L1) 6 Cn U
-2
T
Mn co
co
U
W ca
00
N > Q L
+
=3 -0
C
C -
U) .-..
3 LO C?
.
0
U) 0
U
i
CZ
U U) N A o cc C)
7 U)
0 : U
o
L
C U =3
m
m
x o c 0
Cl)
? (? (/J Z 5
TABLE 4.2.2-15
AGE COMPOSITION IN THE EIS STUDY AREAS, 1999
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
Detailed Study
Area
Generalized Study
Area Six-County
Socioeconomic
Stud Area
North
United
Age No. % No. % No. % Carolina States
Children 0-17 978 20.6% 13,533 20.7% 239,261 23.0% 24.3% 25.6%
0-4 284 6.0% 3,886 5.9% 68,511 6.6% 6.9% 7.3%
5-14 539 11.3% 7,484 11.4% 129,622 12.5% 13.3% 14.2%
15-24 735 15.5% 9,279 14.2% 156,647 15.1% 15.7% 14.6%
25-34 1,023 21.5% 12,726 19.5% 180,786 17.4% 17.4% 17.5%
35-44 779 16.4% 10,940 16.7% 162,521 15.6% 15.2% 15.1%
45-54 539 11.3% 7,655 11.7% 115,780 11.1% 10.6% 10.2%
55-64 392 8.2% 5,791 8.9% 97,018 9.3% 8.8% 8.5%
65+ 46511 9.8% 7,637 11.7% 129,913 12.5% 12.1% 12.5%
Total 4,756 100.0% 65,398 100.0% 1,040,798 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: Age composition characteristics obtained from the 1990 U.S. Census Summary Tape File 3A. 1999
housing count compiled by Hayes & Associates as input for the URS Greiner Woodward Clyde GIS
System, September 1999.
W :\PIEDMONT\DEI S\Ch_4\T_4-2\T_422.15. dod03/13/00.
(o
N
N
W
J
m
a
F-
O
M
M
m
a
W
m
a
''^^ L
C/) Q
W a d
r+
W (0 O
0 fA
Z m v
Z E C.
0
o =
E
H
ICE 'C O
E
Cn a O
p O L
E >
LD W
v 'a
Z
J
O
W
Cl)
O
o e o 0 0 e e e 0 0
cn M Ln M M O r v O M O
.O. ,O 4 ti Ln I? U-) LO v O N O
C N T T T T p
T T T
Cl)
o 0 0 0 o o 0 0
m
O O 00 N M rt H M O Ln M
O r M N M
O N T T r O r
Z T
v
V o 0 0 0 0 0 ? 0 0 0
00 N ll? Il 00 00 c} O 00 M
E M M I? ao M M M O M f?
0.
C
o N T T T T O
r
O
U co
m
a)
O
a
0` CO CO r N M N 't It 00 co
N a N M N 00 O I,- N (O O M
+ co
r- CO
CI cl
T I?
({) M
({) CO
Ln M
M N
T I-
': co
T
7
= cn M I, 1- r` Ln r r O N
0 Z
in
-0-0 o 0 o a o 0, o 0 0
C M (o f1 l? Il? 00 m 0 0 (o
3. O CO LO M r I- (O O I- q*
Mr
; T T T T N O
`
'
A
VI W T
t9I t1
?
N N CO O r 00 Ln 00 N
Q L:
i a) LO
? d'
M d
N T
In I?
M O
r c r
O N
LO co
CO
M CM 'IT Ln LO N qt
E T N
a) 3
C? Z
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CL) I ? M M In f? Ll') 1? LO O r M
L, W Ln CO (o M M CO Ln O OD Ln
Q V
L T T T T T p
T
?(
v
a
?
111
'G ' ? ?! CO M '• M It O O rl_ d'
. T
CO N
Cl) N
Cl) M
Cl) OD
CO M
T T
r M
M 00
M CO
_
E
cu T
Q'I O
Z'
a
T
O m m rn m m >
(
j a)
C O M M M M M a >
p 't 't m qt m O
O p N co 'I I- M c /
LL?
12-
o U-) 61) f& f ? ? + c c
U` ff? 0 0 0 0 0 0 +? C)
N L O O O O O O c0 O
:3
O 0
0 0
Lo 0
Lo 0
Lo 0
O 0
Lri 0
O j
a -
E
C\l
? _ 0
L
M EJ3
6s
?
,.s
d
9
Efl
11
E-
11
CL
L
O
a)
0-
0 _ ns 0
U U
03 C
cl _0
O CZ a) Q
O L 06
CD C)
E co
cz 2
cu >
_ .Q
0-0 Q Q
CDa ca
U
E L U C
0 (n =3 =3
(n O
L U
CU (n
0)
C
C
O CL C
C O CIO M
O C U M
y r C: T
fn O
0 r_
0-0
E Q °c
O "a cz
arc a)
c 'cis a of
(1) A a' rn
IN C CZ
O - >s ?-
?Ua ccza)
-'' U E -0
CZ 'C 0) ? a)
?+ - -0 U
:3 a)
-0 fu Z fn (n
7
L-m c
> E
va 0 ?
co c cz j,
U Cn07
N X (n
oa>o O(3
M
-0 M U
C O T C
i) CO - a)
?, n rn a)
E E E
O C O OL U
C (^r) t3
C cd
C
CO
?i
(D 0)
C a) C 6) O
E EQ c>0
O a N '>-
O C (iS a)
Q) =3 M ? O ? i •?
co i) U O a
c') c m 0 0 co ns
cOn U) Z cz
7 >+ C C L
? W-00 a) O
c) 16 V O
U > d
CnC0
CL co a)
a) .t- (a a U
?cnc)E `
(n Ca ca
O
~?Ow (n
Cl)
CD
a
R1
2
a
a?
T
N
N
W
J
m
Q
U)
N
N
W
Q
0 0++
C
Z C)
°Ima£
Zvi
to
aw 0U)
LL M
o<
V
iC
- ?
I .
z cl E
W Z) C -
Z_ CO) two 06
Q N F ?
F- W Z E
a=00
a~Vc
Z9.0 w
O a
Q
^V
0
W
o 0 0 0 0
N o CC) O T N (f)
fII o O M to ? CO
.a
-
N
N
N
L t,
O -,t
co r
fI- O
(C) O
I-
2 Cl) N O T T
"D
0 c m T
T N
r, O
N N
O
?' T O r
p
V
z T N
v
o 0 0 0 0
O 00 Cn r-
T T CO O CO
N N N r T r
0 co LO M CO r-
L (A r- T T r-
(D r- CO r- r-
U Q (A Nt m O
E T T ti
r I? r-
Z N
O O 0 O O
M "t LO O O
= ° N
N r
N CA
N CA
N O
CM
O
T O CA M M
U O ? p ?
N N O
r 3 Q (A N N N
E N N to
0 0 0 0 0
C) O O ?
0 T T M N
(n N O r-
0 CO
CO (D H ?
..c ?
M (o
y
V
r ,
L
!E im ?
r-
ce)
N M
0 Z '- 0
co
0 0 0 0 0
+ N 't m N m
N ° ( M c (
(
0 (
O C
o (
O O
N
N
a I- CA co -t (O
M 4- r O M
N " r r O d ll:P
0 .a M ? CD co co
i co N Oo
n. Z Ln
T
(V CO
(V Q I
Q
;.. >,
-0
O
(U
U (n N G cz
a? ' U ()
L o
(1) (1) 25 0 c
o (9 U) Z :)
0.
E
O
U
C
7
O
U
c
.N
7
0
.c
rn
rn
rn
T
Q
co
(U
L.1..
0
C1
(0
CA
E?
E
(D
-0
U) E
O
CO
?
UU)
U) D
E
cn
C) >1
0) 'C'/^)
T V/
O (?
(D
E -j,
oV
(V
_c
CO -0
O j
co
U L
(V
•? c
? N
co
L //)
Lim
U ?
c
N O
E
. (Z
(u c
Q
(u
crj co
c a)
O cz
7 W
-0 0
W Q
ai
0
CA
U.S. Census uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to define
who is poor. If a family's total income is less than that family's threshold, then that family, and every
individual in it, is considered poor. The poverty thresholds do not vary geographically. The official poverty
definition counts money income before taxes and excludes capital gains and noncash benefits (such as
public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps). (U.S. Census Bureau, August 31, 1999). Only 8.1 percent
of the Detailed Study Area's population is classified as being below the poverty level as compared to 9.8
percent of the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area's population, 12.5 percent of the state population,
and 12.8 percent of the United States population.
Educational Attainment - As shown on Table 4.2.2-17, the educational attainment of adults ages 25 and
over is far higher than their counterparts in the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area, the state, or the
nation. Over 40 percent of the Detailed Study Area adults age 25 and over have a college degree or
higher as compared to only 25.1 percent for the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area, 24.2 percent for
the state, and 26.5 percent in the nation. Not surprisingly, the percentage of adults not completing high
school or only being high school graduates is far lower in the Detailed Study Area than for the Six-County
Socioeconomic Study Area, the state, or the nation. Only 15.1 percent of the adults age 25 or over in the
Detailed Study Area did not complete high school as compared to 28.7 percent in the Six-County
Socioeconomic Study Area, 30.0 percent in the state, and 24.8 percent in the nation.
4.2.3 SECTION 303(0) TITLE 49 U.S. CODE AND U.S. DO/ SECTION 6(F) RESOURCES
4.2.3.1 Section 303(c) Properties
Section 303(c), Title 49 U.S. Code, commonly referred to as Section 4(f), provides protection for special
properties, including significant publicly owned parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or
any significant historic and archeological sites. Protection also applies to all cultural resource sites on, or
eligible for, inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
Section 60.4). Section 303(c) prevents the approval of a proposed Federal action that requires the use of
these special properties unless no feasible and prudent alternative exists and the project includes all
possible planning to minimize harm to the resource resulting from such use.
For the purposes of Section 303(c) properties, a "use" refers to a permanent acquisition or direct taking of
the property or a temporary occupancy of the property that is adverse to the statute's preservationist
purposes. Section 303(c) also applies when a "constructive use," or certain indirect uses, of the resource
occurs. Table 4.2.3-1 identifies 63 Section 303(c) sites within the Generalized and Detailed Study Areas.
Historic and cultural resource properties eligible for protection under Section 303(c) are addressed in
Section 4.2.4 of this EIS. These properties include both designated and potentially eligible sites for listing
on the National Register of Historic Places.
WAPIEDM0Nl1DE1S\Ch_4\S_4.doc 4-13 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
The following presents a brief overview of each Section 303(c) site within the Generalized and Detailed
Study Areas. Included is a description of the size, location, and major features of each site. These sites
are depicted on Figure 4.2.3-1.
Site No. 1: Amber Natural Area - Amber Natural Area is located between Amber Lane and Random
Drive 4.9 miles southeast of PTIA in the City of Greensboro. Zoning surrounding Amber Natural Area is
single-family residential. Functionally, the property is classified as a natural area by the City of
Greensboro Park and Recreation Department. There are no facilities at this site. Amber Natural Area
encompasses 6.28 acres and is wooded on the north side and open on the south side.
Site No. 2: Big Tree Park - Big Tree Park is a 4.02-acre natural area located between Big Tree Lane and
Shelby Drive, 3.2 miles southeast of PTIA in the City of Greensboro. Zoning surrounding Big Tree Park is
multi-family residential to the south, east, and west, and single-family residential to the north.
Functionally classified as a natural area, Big Tree Park provides both passive and active recreational
opportunities, which include a playground and open space areas.
Site No. 3: Brown Bark Park - Brown Bark Park is a 13.64-acre park located between Brown Bark Drive
and Watauga Drive 3.9 miles east of PTIA in the City of Greensboro. The zoning surrounding Brown
Bark Park consists of single-family residential. Functionally classified as a neighborhood park, Brown
Bark Park provides passive and active recreational opportunities, including a very limited playground and
picnic tables with trees and a creek.
Site No. 4: Carriage Hills Park - Carriage Hills Park is a 5.7-acre park located at the intersection of
Bearhollow Road and Westminster Road 3.2 miles northeast of PTIA in the City of Greensboro. Zoning
surrounding Carriage Hills Park is single-family residential. Functionally classified as a neighborhood
park/playground, Carriage -Hills Park provides passive and active recreational opportunities. These
resources include an open area with limited woods and a playground.
Site No. 5: Coronado Park - Coronado Park is an 8.49-acre park located along Coronado Drive 3 miles
east of PTIA in the City of Greensboro. The surrounding zoning consists of single-family residential.
Functionally classified as a mini-park/playground, Coronado Park provides passive and active
recreational opportunities for the residents, including an open area with hardwoods, a creek, and a
playground.
Site No. 6: Country Woods Park - Country Woods Park is a 1.52-acre park bisected by Bryan
Boulevard, just west of the Fleming Road interchange 1.5 miles northeast of PTIA in the City of
Greensboro. Zoning surrounding Country Woods Park is single-family residential. Functionally classified
as an open space, Country Woods Park does not contain active recreational opportunities.
Site No.7: Deep River Park - Deep River Park approximately 24 acres in size and located along Skeet
Club Road, west of State Road 68, 3.9 miles southwest of PTIA. Zoning surrounding Deep River Park is
single-family residential. Functionally classified as a neighborhood/community park by the City of High
WAPIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_4\S_4.doc 4-14 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
TABLE 4.2.3-1
SECTION 303(c) SITES
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
Number Name Owner Designation Acreage
1 Amber Greensboro Natural Area 6.28
2 Big Tree Greensboro Natural Area 4.02
3 Brown Bark Greensboro Neighborhood Park 13.64
4 Carria a Hills Greensboro Neighborhood Park 5.70
5 Coronado Greensboro Mini-park 8.49
6 Count Woods Greensboro Open Space 1.52
7 Dee River High Point Community Park 24.00
8 Deer Wood Meadow Greensboro Open Space 28.52
9 Erskine Greensboro Natural Area 5.58
10 Fairview Homes Greensboro Neighborhood Park 1.79
11 Pomona with Folk Center Greensboro Community Park 4.48
12 Friendly Acres South Greensboro Neighborhood Park 7.35
13 Friendly Acres North Greensboro Natural Area 4.66
14 Gibson High Point Community Park 197.00
15 Hamilton Lakes Greensboro Neighborhood Park 48.49
16 Hi hland Greensboro Mini-park 0.74
17 Hunter Hills Greensboro Neighborhood Park 12.12
18 Lu er Greensboro Neighborhood Park 6.98
19 Mitchell Greensboro Neighborhood Park 11.34
20 North Johnson Street Greensboro Community Park 26.00
21 Oaks West Greensboro Neighborhood Park 3.93
22 Price Greensboro Neighborhood Park 90.00
23 Penn dale Greensboro Natural Area 14.27
24 Manning Greensboro Natural Area 1.80
25 Random Woods Greensboro Neighborhood Park 7.15
26 Robin Ride Greensboro Natural Area 6.54
27 Waycross Greensboro Natural Area 7.84
28 Saddlecreek Greensboro Open Space 8.93
29 Garden Creek Greensboro Open Space 2.54
30 Woods of Guilford Greensboro Natural Area 6.71
31 Bur-Mil Guilford Count Re ional Park 247.00
32 Guilford College Greensboro School Recreation Area n/a
33 West Guilford High School Greensboro School Recreation Area n/a
34 Guilford Middle School Greensboro School Recreation Area n/a
35 Claxton Elementary School Greensboro School Recreation Area n/a
36 Guilford Prima School Greensboro School Recreation Area n/a
37 Northwest High School Greensboro School Recreation Area n/a
38 Northwest Middle School Greensboro School Recreation Area n/a
39 Colfax Elementary School Greensboro School Recreation Area n/a
40 Southwest High School Greensboro School Recreation Area n/a
41 Southwest Middle School Greensboro School Recreation Area n/a
42 Southwest Elementary School Greensboro School Recreation Area n/a
43 Alderman Elementary School Greensboro School Recreation Area n/a
44 Morehead Elementary School Greensboro School Recreation Area n/a
45 Brass Field Greensboro Open Space 11.29
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_4\Sec 4.2\Tbls\T_423-1\3/9/00
TABLE 4.2.3-1
SECTION 303(c) SITES
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
Number Name Owner Designation Acreage
46
Quaker Run
Greensboro
Open Space
14.84
-
47 Bear Hollow Greensboro Open Space 14.37
48 Lipscomb Greensboro Natural Area 4.89
49 Brass Eagle Loo Greensboro Open Space 31.25
50 Cotswald Terrace Greensboro Open Space 1.86
51 Leonard Recreation Center Greensboro Community Park 29.25
52 Kin George Greensboro Open Space 15.22
53 Friendswood Greensboro Mini-park 1.93
54 Big Tree Way Greensboro Open Space 9.70
55 Shelby Drive Greensboro Open Space 7.17
56 Creekwood Drive Greensboro Open Space 9.67
57 Pennoak Drive Greensboro Open Space 3.39
58 Winter garden Greensboro Open Space 7.16
59 Nut Bush Greensboro Natural Area 1.44
60 Brevard Greensboro Mini-park 0.72
61 Bicentennial High Point Greenwa 314.16
62 NW Community Park Greensboro Community Park 65.00
63 NW K-Middle School Greensboro School Recreation Area n/a
Source: City of Greensboro Parks and Recreation, City of High Point Parks and Recreation, Guilford County
Parks and Recreation, 1999.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch 4\Sec 4-2\Tbls\T 423-1\3/9/00
Point, Deep River Park provides passive and active recreational opportunities to the surrounding
communities including a playground, tennis courts, baseball, football, and soccer fields, and open space.
Site No. 8: Deer Wood Meadow Park - Deer Wood Meadow Park is an 28.52-acre park located along
Horsepen Creek and bisected by Old Oak Ridge Road 0.87 mile northeast of PTIA in the City of
Greensboro. Zoning surrounding Deer Wood Meadow Park is multi-family residential. City of Greensboro
Parks and Recreation Department has classified this area as an open space.
Site No. 9: Erskine Natural Area - Erskine Natural Area is located between E. Erskine Drive and W.
Erskine Drive 3.8 miles east of PTIA in the City of Greensboro. Zoning surrounding Erskine Natural Area
is single-family residential. Erskine Natural Area classified as a natural area is 5.58 acres in size and is
heavily wooded with a small creek.
Site No. 10: Fairview Homes Park - Fairview Homes Park is a 1.79-acre park located at the intersection
of Mosby Drive and Belhaven Drive 5.6 miles southeast of PTIA in the City of Greensboro. Zoning
surrounding Fairview Homes Park is single-family residential to the north and west and multi-family
residential to the south and east. Functionally classified as a neighborhood park/playground, Fairview
Homes Park contains a wooded area with creek.
Site No. 11: Pomona Park (with Folk Center) - Pomona Park is a 4.48-acre park located on Cliffton
Road 4.6 miles southeast of PTIA in the City of Greensboro. Adjacent zoning surrounding Pomona Park
is light industrial to the west, multi-family residential to the north and single-family residential to the east
and south. Functionally classified as a community park, Pomona Park provides passive and active
recreational opportunities, including a softball field, playground area, and Folk Center.
Site No. 12: Friendly Acres South - Friendly Acres South is a 7.35-acre park 3.5 miles northeast of
PTIA bordered by Grammercy Road, Red Sail Lane, and Chadford Place in the City of Greensboro.
Zoning surrounding Friendly Acres Natural Area is single-family residential. Functionally classified as a
neighborhood park, it has a wooded area with a creek, but no playground equipment.
Site No. 13: Friendly Acres North - Friendly Acres North is a 4.66-acre park 3.4 miles northeast of PTIA
along Chadford Place in the City of Greensboro. Zoning surrounding Friendly Acres North is single-family
residential. Functionally classified as a natural area, it has a wooded area, but no playground equipment.
Site No. 14: Gibson Park - Gibson Park is a 197-acre Guilford County park located south of West
Wendover Avenue and east of Penny Road along the East Fork of Deep River 3.5 miles south of PTIA.
Zoning surrounding Gibson Park is single-family residential to the east, light industrial, multi-family
residential and agricultural to the north and agricultural and multi-family residential to the south and west.
Functionally classified as a neighborhood/community park, Gibson Park provides passive and active
recreational opportunities to the residents including picnic shelters, baseball and soccer fields, and pond.
WAPIEDM0NT\DEIS\Ch_4\S_4.doc 4-15 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
Site No. 15: Hamilton Lakes Park - Hamilton Lakes Park is a 48.49-acre park located between
Starmount Drive and Henderson Road 3.9 miles east of PTIA in the City of Greensboro. Zoning adjacent
to Hamilton Lakes Park is single-family residential. Functionally classified by the City of Greensboro
Parks and Recreation Department as a neighborhood park/playground, Hamilton Lakes Park is heavily
wooded with open space and a creek.
Site No. 16: Highland Park - Highland Park is a 0.74-acre park 4.7 miles southeast of PTIA located
between Princeton Avenue and Harvard Avenue in the City of Greensboro. Zoning surrounding Highland
Park is single-family residential. Functionally classified as a mini park/playground, Highland Park is a
small grassy open area.
Site No. 17: Hunter Hills Park - Hunter Hills Park is a 12.12-acre park located along Gentry Street and
bisected. by South Buffalo Creek 5.2 miles southeast of PTIA. Zoning surrounding Hunter Hills Park is
single-family residential. Functionally classified as a neighborhood park/playground, Hunter Hills Park is
wooded with some open grassy areas.
Site No. 18: Luper Park - Luper Park is a 6.98-acre park 3.7 miles northeast of PTIA located at the
corner of Westminster Drive and Pebble Drive in the City of Greensboro. Zoning surrounding Luper Park
is single-family residential. Functionally classified as a neighborhood park, Luper Park provides active
and passive recreational opportunities to the residents including a softball field and an open area, and
woods.
Site No. 19: Mitchell Park - Mitchell Park is an 11.34-acre park located along Mitchell Avenue, 3.6 miles
southeast of PTIA in the City of Greensboro. Zoning adjacent to Mitchell Street Park is single-family
residential to the north, south, and east and multi-family residential to the west. Functionally classified as
a neighborhood park/playground, Mitchell Park offers passive recreational opportunities including shelters
and picnic tables wooded areas and open space.
Site No. 20: North Johnson Street Sports Complex - North Johnson Street Sports Complex is
approximately 26 acres in size 4.5 miles southwest of PTIA located along Johnson Street, south of Cedar
Spring Drive. Adjacent zoning to North Johnson Street Sports Complex includes single-family. This City
of High Point Park provides passive and active recreational opportunities to the surrounding residents.
These opportunities include baseball fields, a playground, picnic shelters, a concession building, and
restrooms.
Site No. 21: Oaks West Park - Oaks West Park is a 3.93-acre park 4.4 miles southeast of PTIA located
between Creekwood Drive and Pennoak Road in the City of Greensboro. Zoning adjacent to Oaks West
Park is single-family residential to the north, south, and west and heavy industrial to the east.
Functionally classified as a neighborhood park/playground, Oaks West Park provides recreational
opportunities with a wooded area and creek.
WAPIEDM0NT\DEIS\Ch_4\S_4.doc 4-16 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
Site No. 22: Price Park - Price Park is a 90-acre park 2.7 miles east of PTIA located on Hobbs Road
between Jefferson Road and New Garden Road in the City of Greensboro. The surrounding zoning is
single-family residential. Functionally classified as a neighborhood park, Price Park is a heavily wooded
area with open spaces and trails.
Site No. 23: Pennydale Park - Pennydale Park is a 14.27-acre park 5.2 miles southeast of PTIA located
along Pennydale Drive in the City of Greensboro. Zoning adjacent to Pennydale Park is single-family to
the north, south, and east and multi-family residential to the west. Functionally classified as a natural
area, Pennydale Park has open space, but no playground equipment.
Site No. 24: Manning Park - Manning Park is a 1.80-acre park 3.3 miles east of PTIA located along
Montpelier Drive in the City of Greensboro. Zoning adjacent to Manning Park is single-family residential.
Functionally classified as a natural area, Manning Park has no recreational equipment and provides
passive recreation opportunities.
Site No. 25: Random Woods Park - Random Woods Park is a 7.15-acre park 4.9 miles southeast of
PTIA located along Beckford Drive and Starlight Drive in the City of Greensboro. Zoning adjacent to
Random Woods Park is single-family to the north, south, and east and multi-family residential to the west.
Functionally classified as a neighborhood park/playground, Random Woods Park provides a wooded
area.
Site No. 26: Robin Ridge Park - Robin Ridge Park is a 6.54-acre park located along Condor Drive 2.3
miles east of PTIA in the City of Greensboro. Surrounding zoning to Robin Ridge Park is single-family
residential. Functionally classified as a natural area, Robin Ridge Park is a heavily wooded area with a
creek.
Site No. 27: Waycross Park - Waycross Park is a 7.84-acre park 4.2 miles east of PTIA located at the
corner of Kettering Place and Slaunton Drive in the City of Greensboro. Adjacent zoning to Waycross
Park is single-family residential to the north, south, and east and multi-family residential to the west.
Functionally classified as a natural area, Waycross Park provides passive recreational resources
including open space with some wooded areas.
Site No. 28: Saddlecreek Park - Saddlecreek Park is an 8.93-acre open space park 2.7 miles northeast
of PTIA located along Horsepen Creek Road and bisected by Horsepen Creek in the City of Greensboro.
Zoning surrounding Saddlecreek Park is classified as single-family residential. Functionally classified
open space, Saddlecreek Park is maintained by the City of Greensboro Parks and Recreation
Department.
Site No. 29: Garden Creek - Garden Creek is a 2.54-acre open space park 2.6 miles northeast of PTIA
located along Sullivan Lake Drive in the City of Greensboro. Zoning surrounding Garden Creek is multi-
family residential. Functionally classified as open space, Garden Creek is maintained by the City of
Greensboro Parks and Recreation Department.
WAPIEDMONTIDEIS\Ch_4\S_4.doc 4-17 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
Site No. 30: Woods of Guilford - Woods of Guilford is a 6.71-acre a wooded area with a creek located
along Crossing Lane, 1.4 miles east of PTIA in the City of Greensboro. Zoning adjacent to the Woods of
Guilford is classified as residential. This site is functionally classified as a natural area.
Site No. 31: Bur-Mil Park - Bur-Mil Park is a 247-acre park located 4.2 miles northeast of PTIA along
U.S. 220 and adjacent to Lake Brandt. This park is owned by Guilford County and operated by the City of
Greensboro. The surrounding zoning is categorized as single-family residential. Functionally classified
as a regional park, Bur-Mil Park provides passive and active recreational opportunities including a pool,
par-3 golf course, ballfield, driving range, clubhouse and lake.
Site No. 32: Guilford College - Guilford College is located 2.2 miles east of PTIA at 5800 West Friendly
Avenue within the City of Greensboro. Adjacent zoning includes single-family residential to the north,
east, and west and multi-family residential and commercial to the south. Recreational facilities include a
pool, basketball courts, racquetball, and tennis courts. The YMCA is associated with Guilford College and
usage of the facilities includes either a single-day guest fee or membership in the YMCA. Because school
recreational facilities are available to the public, this site is protected under Section 303(c).
Site No. 33: West Guilford High School - West Guilford High School is located 1.6 miles east of PTIA at
409 Friendly Road in Guilford County. The surrounding zoning includes single-family residential to the
east and west, multi-family residential to the south, and multi-family and commercial to the north.
Recreational facilities include baseball, soccer, football, and open fields. Because school recreational
facilities are available to the public, this site is protected under Section 303(c).
Site No. 34: Guilford Middle School - Guilford Middle School is located 2.1 miles east of PTIA at 401
College Road in the Guilford County School System. Zoning surrounding the school includes single-
family residential. Recreational facilities include baseball and open fields. Because school recreational
facilities are available to the public, this site is protected under Section 303(c).
Site No. 35: Claxton Elementary School - Claxton Elementary School is located 3.3 miles northeast of
PTIA at 3720 Pinetop Road in the Guilford County School System. The surrounding zoning includes
single-family residential. Recreational facilities at Claxton include a soccer field and playground. The
basketball courts are for students only and will be fenced off in the near future. Because school
recreational facilities are available to the public, this site is protected under Section 303(c).
Site No. 36: Guilford Primary - Guilford Primary School is located 1.6 miles east of PTIA at 411 Friendly
Road in the Guilford County School System. Surrounding zoning includes single-family residential to the
east and west, multi-family to the south, and multi-family and commercial to the north. This school, which
only houses kindergarten through second grade does not have recreational facilities open to the public.
As a result, this site is not protected under Section 303(c).
WAPIEDMONTDEIS\Ch_4\S_4.doc 4-18 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
Site No. 37: Northwest High School - Northwest High School is located 3.7 miles northwest of PTIA at
5240 Northwest School Road in the Guilford County School System. Adjacent zoning includes single-
family residential to the south, east, and west and agriculture and single-family residential to the north.
Recreational facilities include a baseball field, soccer and football field, track, and a gym. Because school
recreational facilities are available to the public, this site is protected under Section 303(c).
Site No. 38: Northwest Middle School - Northwest Middle School is located 3.8 miles northwest of PTIA
at 5300 Northwest Middle School Road in the Guilford County School System. Surrounding zoning
includes single-family residential to the south, east, and west and agriculture and single-family residential
to the north. Northwest Middle School shares the facilities of Northwest High School. Because school
recreational facilities are available to the public, this site is protected under Section 303(c).
Site No. 39: Colfax Elementary School - Colfax Elementary School is located 3.8 miles west of PTIA at
9112 U.S. 421 in the Guilford County School System. Surrounding zoning includes agriculture to the
north and south and single-family residential east and west. Colfax Elementary has recreational facilities
that include a baseball field, basketball courts, open field, and a gym. Various organizations, such as the
YMCA, Colfax Recreation Association, and PTA, use these facilities throughout the year. Because school.
recreational facilities are available to the public, this site is protected under Section 303(c).
Site No. 40: Southwest High School - Southwest High School is located 3.6 miles southwest of PTIA at
4364 Barrow Road in the Guilford County School System. Adjacent zoning includes agriculture to the
east and west, single-family to the south, and single-family and multi-family residential to the north.
Recreational facilities include a gym, track, baseball, football, and soccer fields. Because school
recreational facilities are available to the public, this site is protected under Section 303(c).
Site No. 41: Southwest Middle School - Southwest Middle School is located 3.6 miles southwest of
PTIA at 4368 Barrow Road in the Guilford County School System. The surrounding zoning includes
agriculture to the east and west, single-family to the south, and single-family and multi-family residential
to the north. Recreational facilities include a gym, baseball field, and an open field. Because school
recreational facilities are available to the public, this site is protected under Section 303(c).
Site No. 42: Southwest Elementary School - Southwest Elementary School is located 3.6 miles
southwest of PTIA at 4372 Barrow Road in the Guilford County School System. Adjacent zoning includes
agriculture to the east and west, single-family to the south, and single-family and multi-family residential
to the north. Southwest Elementary School shares the recreational facilities of Southwest Middle School.
Because school recreational facilities are available to the public, this site is protected under Section
303(c).
Site No. 43: Alderman Elementary School - Alderman Elementary School is located 5.1 miles
southeast of PTIA at 4211 Chateau Drive in the Guilford County School System. Surrounding zoning
includes single-family residential to the north, south, east, and west. Alderman Elementary School has
WAPIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_4\S_4.dOC 4-19 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
one recreational facility, an open field with a backstop. Because school recreational facilities are available
to the public, this site is protected under Section 303(c).
Site No. 44: Morehead Elementary School - Morehead Elementary School is located 3.8 miles east of
PTIA at 4630 Tower Road in the Guilford County School System. Adjacent zoning includes single-family
residential to the north, east, and west and multi-family residential to the south. Recreational facilities
include an open field and a playground. Because school recreational facilities are available to the public,
this site is protected under Section 303(c).
Site No. 45: Brass Field - Brass Field is 11.29 acres of open space located adjacent to Bradwell Road
3.3 miles northeast of PTIA in the City of Greensboro. Zoning adjacent to Brass Field is single-family
residential. Functionally classified as dedicated open space, Brass Field is maintained by the City of
Greensboro Parks and Recreation Department.
Site No. 46: Quaker Run - Quaker Run is 14.84 acres of open space located along Sullivan Lake Drive
2.3 miles northeast of PTIA in the City of Greensboro. Zoning adjacent to Quaker Run is multi-family
residential. Functionally classified as dedicated open space, Quaker Run is maintained by the City of
Greensboro Parks and Recreation Department.
Site No. 47: Bear Hollow - Bear Hollow is located 3.0 miles northeast of PTIA between Foxhollow Road
and Bearhollow Road in the City of Greensboro. Zoning surrounding Bear Hollow is single-family
residential. Functionally classified as dedicated open space, Bear Hollow provides 14.37 acres of
recreational opportunities and playground equipment.
Site No. 48: Lipscomb - Lipscomb is located 3.6 miles east of PTIA between West Keeling Drive and
Keeling Drive in the City of Greensboro. Zoning adjacent to Lipscomb is single-family residential.
Functionally classified as a natural area, Lipscomb is a 4.89-acre wooded area maintained by the City of
Greensboro Parks and Recreation Department.
Site No. 49: Brass Eagle Loop - Brass Eagle Loop is located 2.1 miles north of PTIA along Parkhill Drive
and River Hills Drive in Guilford County. Zoning adjacent to Brass Eagle Loop is single-family residential.
Functionally classified as open space, Brass Eagle Loop is a 31.25-acre area maintained by the City of
Greensboro Parks and Recreation Department.
Site No. 50: Cotswald Terrace - Cotswald Terrace is located 3.9 miles northeast of PTIA along Tree-
Tops Lane in the City of Greensboro. Zoning adjacent to Cotswald Terrace is single-family residential.
Functionally classified as open space, Cotswald Terrace is a 1.86-acre area maintained by the City of
Greensboro Parks and Recreation Department.
Site No. 51: Leonard Recreation Center - Leonard Recreation Center is located 0.8 mile east of PTIA
along Ballinger Road in the City of Greensboro. Zoning adjacent to Leonard Recreation Center is single-
family residential. Functionally classified as a community park, Leonard Recreation Center is a
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch 4\S_4.doc 4-20 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
29.25-acre area providing active and passive recreational opportunities including baseball and soccer
fields, a gymnasium, and playground equipment.
Site No. 52: King George - King George is located 1.1 miles east of PTIA along King George Drive in the
City of Greensboro. Zoning adjacent to King George is single-family residential. Functionally classified
as open space, King George is a 15.22-acre area maintained by the City of Greensboro Parks and
Recreation Department.
Site No. 53: Friendswood - Friendswood is located 2.6 miles southeast of PTIA along Friendswood
Drive in the City of Greensboro. Zoning adjacent to Friendswood is single-family residential. Functionally
classified as a mini-park, Friendswood is a 1.93-acre area maintained by the City of Greensboro Parks
and Recreation Department.
Site No. 54: Big Tree Way - Big Tree Way is located 2.6 miles southeast of PTIA along Big Tree Way
Drive in the City of Greensboro. Zoning adjacent to Big Tree Way is single-family residential.
Functionally classified as dedicated open space, Big Tree Way is a 9.7-acre area maintained by the City
of Greensboro Parks and Recreation Department.
Site No. 55: Shelby Drive - Shelby Drive is located 3.0 miles southeast of PTIA along Shelby Drive in the
City of Greensboro. Zoning adjacent to Shelby Drive is single-family residential. Functionally classified
as open space, Shelby Drive is a 7.17-acre area maintained by the City of Greensboro Parks and
Recreation Department.
Site No. 56: Creekwood Drive - Creekwood Drive is located 4.6 miles southeast of PTIA along
Creekwood Drive in the City of Greensboro. Zoning adjacent to Creekwood Drive is single-family
residential. Functionally classified as open space, Creekwood Drive is a 9.67-acre area maintained by
the City of Greensboro Parks and Recreation Department.
Site No. 57: Pennoak Drive - Pennoak Drive is located 4.6 miles east of PTIA along Pennoak Drive in
the City of Greensboro. Zoning adjacent to Pennoak Drive is single-family residential. Functionally
classified as open space, Pennoak Drive is a 3.39-acre area maintained by the City of Greensboro Parks
and Recreation Department.
Site No. 58: Wintergarden - Wintergarden is located 5.4 miles east of PTIA along Wintergarden Lane in
the City of Greensboro. Zoning adjacent to Wintergarden is single-family residential. Functionally
classified as open space, Wintergarden is a 7.16-acre area maintained by the City of Greensboro Parks
and Recreation Department.
Site No. 59: Nut Bush - Nut Bush is located 4.1 miles east of PTIA between East and West Nut Bush
Road in the City of Greensboro. Zoning adjacent to Nut Bush is single-family residential. Functionally
classified as a natural area, Nut Bush is a 1.44-acre area maintained by the City of Greensboro Parks
and Recreation Department.
WAPIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_4\S_4.dOC 4-21 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
Site No. 60: Brevard - Brevard is located 5.0 miles southeast of PTIA in the City of Greensboro. Zoning
adjacent to Brevard is single-family residential. Functionally classified as a mini-park, Brevard is a
0.72-acre area maintained by the City of Greensboro Parks and Recreation Department.
Site No. 61: Bicentennial Greenway - Bicentennial Greenway is located 2.5 miles south of PTIA in the
City of High Point. Zoning adjacent to Greenway is single-family residential. Functionally classified as a
greenway, Bicentennial Greenway is a 314.16-acre area maintained by the City of High Point and
includes picnic tables and areas for running, walking, bicycling, and horseback riding.
Site No. 62: NW Community Park - NW Community Park, expected to open in the fall of 2000, will be
located 2.6 miles northeast of PTIA in the City of Greensboro. Zoning adjacent to NW Community Park is
single-family residential. Functionally classified as a community park, NW Community Park is a 65-acre
area maintained by the City of Greensboro and will include athletic fields.
Site No. 63: NW K-Middle School - NW K-Middle School, expected to open in the Fall of 2000, will be
located 2.7 miles northeast of PTIA, adjacent to NW Community Park, and in the City of Greensboro.
Zoning adjacent to NW K-Middle School is single-family residential. Recreational facilities will include
athletic fields. Because school recreational facilities will be available to the public in the fall of 2000, this
site will be protected under Section 303(c).
4.2.3.2 Section 6(f) Properties
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act of 1965, as amended, and 16 U.S. Code, Section
4602-8(f)3, more commonly referred to as Section 6(f), requires that all properties receiving LWCF
assistance for planning, acquisition, or development be perpetually maintained for public outdoor
recreation use. The act requires, in part, that: "No property acquired or developed with assistance under
this section shall, without approval of the Secretary of the Interior, be converted to other than public
outdoor recreation uses." There are no properties within the Generalized or Detailed Study Areas
identified as Section 6(f) resources.
4.2.4 HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.2.4.1 Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
Historic and archaeological resources that are listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places, that may be affected by an undertaking by a Federal agency, are given a measure of
protection by Federal law, primarily the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended,
and its implementing regulations, 36 CFR 800 (June 1999). These laws and regulations are invoked by
the involvement of Federal funding, licensing, or permitting. Under the authority of Section 106 of the
NHPA, the FAA, prior to the approval of an ALP and issuance of a grant for and funding of an
WAPIEDM0NT\DEIS\Ch_4\S_4.doc 4-22 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
undertaking--specifically, a proposed airport improvement--must take into account the effect the
undertaking may have on properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register.
4.2.4.2 Historic Architectural Resources Area of Potential Effect
To determine the effect an undertaking may have on properties listed or eligible for listing on the National
Register, an Area of Potential Effect (APE) must be identified. The APE is the geographic area or areas
within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic
properties, if any such properties exist (36 CFR 800.16(d)). Such changes may include physical
destruction, damage, or alteration of a property; change of the character of the property's use or of
physical features within its setting that contribute to its historic significance; and introduction of visual,
atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property's significant historic features
(36 CFR 800.5(a)(2). Based on these factors, the APE associated with historic architectural resources for
the proposed PTIA improvements includes the limits of disturbance associated with these improvements
and those locations that would newly fall within the 65 DNL noise contour as a result of the proposed
project.
The DNL is a scientifically modeled level of sound that has been shown to be directly linked to human
beings and "annoyance level." Location outside the 65 DNL is considered compatible with land uses that
include residential, educational, religious, medical, and outdoor recreational. The use of the 65 DNL
contour to define an APE for historic architectural resources is based on accepted FAA land-use
compatibility guidelines (Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise, 1980) and recent court
decisions.
The historic architectural APE for the project, which falls between the current 65 DNL noise contour and
the combined 65 DNL noise contours for each of the project alternatives, is pictured in Figure 4.2.4-1.
The APE also includes property that would be physically taken or impacted by the project (See Figures
3.4-1 through 3.4-6)
4.2.4.3 Archaeological Resources Area of Potential Effect
The APE for archaeological resources is defined as all locations associated with the proposed
undertaking that will result in the alteration and disturbance of surface and subsurface soils that contain or
have the potential to contain archaeological sites. Therefore, the APE for the proposed improvements
was established as the limits of disturbance associated with the proposed project.
4.2.4.4 Historic Architectural Investigations
Research conducted at the North Carolina State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) in Raleigh
identified 11 previously inventoried standing resources more than 50 years old that are located within the
APE for historic architectural resources. Two of these resources are listed in the National Register of
WAPIEDM0Nl1DEIS\Ch_4\S_4.d0c 4-28 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
Historic Places and three have been determined eligible for National Register listing. Five-including two
of the eligible resources-were inventoried by Langdon Edmunds Oppermann in 1991 as part of the
historic architectural survey of the proposed Greensboro Western Urban Loop (Oppermann 1991). Three
were inventoried by R.S. Webb & Associates in 1998 as part of a cultural resources survey of
undeveloped portions (390 acres) of the Piedmont Triad Airport Site (G.S. Keith and R.S. Webb to Mark
Morgan of Law Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc., May 27, 1998). Fieldwork in October,
1999, and March, 2000, for this project identified an additional 37 historic architectural resources more
than 50 years old within the APE, bringing the total number of standing resources within the APE to 48.
In sum, two resources-the Guilford College Historic District and the Shaw-Cude House-are listed in the
National Register and three resources-the New Garden Friends Cemetery, the Campbell-Gray Farm, and
the Roy Edgerton House-have been determined eligible for National Register listing.
Following the fieldwork and its assessment, the FAA determined that there are no additional historic
architectural resources within the APE that are eligible for listing in the National Register. The FAA will
consult with the North Carolina SHPO concerning its determinations of eligibility following SHPO review of
the historic architectural surrey report prepared in association with the inventory of the APE.
Following are brief assessments of the 48 resources. These resources and the project's APE are
identified in Figure 4.2.4-1. The numbers on the map are those of the numbers assigned to the resources
following their inventory for the project.
Resources Listed in the National Register
Guilford College Historic District (URS Greiner Woodward Clyde survey number 17 [#17]/GF-1003), NE
corner of West Friendly Avenue and New Garden Road, Greensboro - This historic district, which contains
35 individual resources, was listed in the National Register for its history and architecture in 1990. It
retains its integrity and merits continued listing in the National Register.
Shaw-Cude House (#451GF-37), down 0.5 mile private road, W side of SR 2010, 0.6 miles N of SR 2133,
Greensboro vicinity - This historic residence was individually listed in the National Register for its history
and architecture in 1982. It retains its integrity and merits continued listing in the National Register.
Resources Previously Determined Eligible for National Register Listing
New Garden Friends Cemetery (#161GF-1224), NW corner of West Friendly Avenue and New Garden
Road, Greensboro-This resource was determined eligible for National Register listing under Criteria A, B,
C, and D for its history, gravestone designs, and archaeological potential in 1991. It retains its integrity
and remains eligible for National Register listing.
Campbell-Gray Farm (#61GF-425), SW corner of West Market Street and Regional Road, Greensboro -
This resource was determined eligible for National Register listing under Criterion C for the architecture of
its house and barn in 1995. It retains its integrity and remains eligible for National Register listing.
WAPIEDM0NMEIS\Ch_4\S_4.doc 4-24 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
Roy Edgerton House (#42), 107 Lindley Road, Greensboro - This resource was determined eligible for
National Register listing for its architecture in 1995 (David Brook to N.L. Graf, September 20, 1995). It
retains its integrity and remains eligible for National Register listing.
Resources Previously Determined Not Eligible for National Register Listing
Hollowell House (#141GF-1199), 6105 West Friendly Avenue, Greensboro - This house is not
representative of any significant events, persons, or architectural styles or construction types (Oppermann
1991; David Brook to N.L. Graf, April 22, 1991, attached hereto in Appendix G). It is also not part of any
potential historic district and remains ineligible for National Register listing.
Coble Farm (#151GF-1159), 6010 West Friendly Avenue, Greensboro - This farmhouse has undergone
numerous character-altering changes (Oppermann 1991; David Brook to N.L. Graf, April 22, 1991,
attached hereto in Appendix G). It is also not part of any potential historic district and remains ineligible for
National Register listing.
Dr. McCracken House (#301GF-1219), 523 College Road, Greensboro - This house is not representative of
any significant events, persons, or architectural styles or construction types (Oppermann 1991; David
Brook to N.L. Graf, April 22, 1991, attached hereto in Appendix G). It is also not part of any potential
historic district and remains ineligible for National Register listing.
Farm Complex (#391R.S. Webb survey number TA- 11389** (#TA-1/389"), W side of Airport Parkway, 1.0
mile N of Bryan Boulevard, Greensboro vicinity - The standing components of this complex were recently
recommended and determined not eligible for National Register listing because of a lack of integrity and
historic significance (David Brook to G.F. Keith, May 19, 1998, attached hereto in Appendix G; G.F. Keith
and R.S. Webb to Mark Morgan of Law Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc., May 27, 1998). It is
also not part of any potential historic district and remains ineligible for National Register listing.
Tobacco Barn (#401#TA-91397**), N side of Old Oak Ridge Road, 0.1 mile W of Inman Road, Greensboro
vicinity - This barn was recently recommended and determined not eligible for National Register listing
because of a lack of historic significance (David Brook to G.F. Keith, May 19, 1998, attached hereto in
Appendix G; G.F. Keith and R.S. Webb to Mark Morgan of Law Engineering and Environmental Services,
Inc., May 27, 1998). It is also not part of any potential historic district and remains ineligible for National
Register listing.
Abandoned House and Tobacco Barn (#414TA-71395**), S side of Old Oak Ridge Road, 0.1 mile W of
Inman Road, Greensboro vicinity - The standing components of this site were recently recommended and
determined not eligible for National Register listing because of a lack of integrity and historic significance
(David Brook to G.F. Keith, May 19, 1998, attached hereto in Appendix G; G.F. Keith and R.S. Webb to
Mark Morgan of Law Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc., May 27, 1998). It is also not part of
any potential historic district and remains ineligible for National Register listing.
WAPIEDM0NT\DEIS\Ch_4\S_4.d0c 4-25 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
Resources Determined Not Eligible for National Register Listing as a Result of Inventory of APE for
the EIS
House and Outbuildings (#1), N side of National Service Road, 0.3 miles E of Tyner Road, Greensboro
vicinity - This resource is not representative of any significant events, persons, or architectural styles or
construction types, and is not part of any potential historic district.
Bungalow (#2), S side of National Service Road, 0.4 miles E of Tyner Road, Greensboro vicinity - This
bungalow is not representative of any significant events, persons, or architectural styles or construction
types, and is not part of any potential historic district.
William Hiatt House (#3), N side of National Service Road, 0.45 miles E of Tyner Road, Greensboro
vicinity- This resource is not representative of any significant events, persons, or architectural styles or
construction types; has lost its integrity through substantial alterations; and is not part of any potential
historic district.
House (#4), S side of Atchison Road, 0.2 miles W of Brigham Road, Greensboro vicinity - This house is
not representative of any significant events, persons, or architectural styles or construction types; has lost
its integrity through substantial alterations; and is not part of any potential historic district.
House (#5), S side of Atchison Road, 0.1 miles W of Brigham Road, Greensboro vicinity - This house is
not representative of any significant events, persons, or architectural styles or construction types, and is
not part of any potential historic district.
Bungalow (#8), W side of Caindale Drive, 0.5 miles S of Hollandsworth Drive, Greensboro vicinity - This
bungalow is not representative of any significant events, persons, or architectural styles or construction
types; has lost its integrity through substantial alterations; and is not part of any potential historic district.
House and Outbuildings (#7), down 0.3 mile dirt track, E side of Caindale Drive, 0.2 miles S of
Hollandsworth Drive, Greensboro vicinity - This resource is not representative of any significant events,
persons, or architectural styles or construction types; has lost its integrity through substantial deterioration;
and is not part of any potential historic district.
Bungalow (#9), W side of Stage Coach Trail, 0.1 mile N of Wagon Wheel Drive, Greensboro - This
bungalow is not representative of any significant events, persons, or architectural styles or construction
types, and is not part of any potential historic district.
House (#10), SE corner of Wagon Wheel Drive and Stagecoach Trail, Greensboro - This bungalow is not
representative of any significant events, persons, or architectural styles or construction types; has lost its
integrity through alteration and abortive renovations; and is not part of any potential historic district.
WAPIEDMONTOEMCh_4\S_4.doc 4-26 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
Bungalow (#11), W side of Stagecoach Trail opposite Buckboard Lane, Greensboro - This bungalow is
not representative of any significant events, persons, or architectural styles or construction types, and is
not part of any potential historic district.
House (#12), 6412 West Friendly Avenue, Greensboro - This house is not representative of any
significant events, persons, or architectural styles or construction types, and is not part of any potential
historic district.
House (#13), 6410 West Friendly Avenue, Greensboro - This house is not representative of any
significant events, persons, or architectural styles or construction types, and is not part of any potential
historic district.
Bungalow (#18), 305 Lindley Road, Greensboro - This bungalow is not representative of any significant
events, persons, or architectural styles or construction types, and is not part of any potential historic
district.
Foursquare (#19), 221 College Road, Greensboro - This foursquare is not representative of any
significant events, persons, or architectural styles or construction types, and is not part of any potential
historic district.
House (#20), 223 College Road, Greensboro - This house is not representative of any significant events,
persons, or architectural styles or construction types; has lost its integrity through substantial alteration;
and is not part of any potential historic district.
Bungalow (#21), SW corner of College and Lucy Roads, Greensboro - This bungalow is not
representative of any significant events, persons, or architectural styles or construction types; has lost its
integrity through substantial alteration; and is not part of any potential historic district.
Bungalow (#22), 5818 Savoy Lane, Greensboro - This bungalow is not representative of any significant
events, persons, or architectural styles or construction types, and is not part of any potential historic
district.
Foursquare (#23), 5814 Savoy Lane, Greensboro - This foursquare is not representative of any significant
events, persons, or architectural styles or construction types, and is not part of any potential historic
district.
Bungalow (#24), 303 College Road, Greensboro - This bungalow is not representative of any significant
events, persons, or architectural styles or construction types, and is not part of any potential historic
district.
House (#25), 304 College Road, Greensboro - This house is not representative of any significant events,
persons, or architectural styles or construction types, and is not part of any potential historic district.
W:\PIEDMOMIDEIS\Ch_4\S_4.doc 4-27 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
House (#26), 319 College Road, Greensboro - This house is not representative of any significant events,
persons, or architectural styles or construction types, and is not part of any potential historic district.
House (#27), 410 College Road, Greensboro - This house is not representative of any significant events,
persons, or architectural styles or construction types, and is not part of any potential historic district.
Bungalow (#28), 411 College Road, Greensboro - This bungalow is not representative of any significant
events, persons, or architectural styles or construction types, and is not part of any potential historic
district.
House (#29), 518 College Road, Greensboro - This house is not representative of any significant events,
persons, or architectural styles or construction types, and is not part of any potential historic district.
Bungalow (#31), 529 College Road, Greensboro - This bungalow is not representative of any significant
events, persons, or architectural styles or construction types, and is not part of any potential historic
district.
Bungalow (#32), 528 College Road, Greensboro - This bungalow is not representative of any significant
events, persons, or architectural styles or construction types, and is not part of any potential historic
district.
Talbert Building (#33), 5721 West Friendly Avenue, Greensboro - This resource is not representative of
any significant events, persons, or architectural styles or construction types; has lost its integrity through
alterations to its principal elevation; and is not part of any potential historic district.
Bungalow (#34), 5604 Tomahawk Drive, Greensboro - This bungalow is not representative of any
significant events, persons, or architectural styles or construction types, and is not part of any potential
historic district.
Bungalow (#35), 5605 Tomahawk Drive, Greensboro - This bungalow is not representative of any
significant events, persons, or architectural styles or construction types, and is not part of any potential
historic district.
Bungalow (#36), 407 Dolley Madison Road, Greensboro - This bungalow is not representative of any
significant events, persons, or architectural styles or construction types, and is not part of any potential
historic district.
House (#37), 321 Dolley Madison Road, Greensboro - This house is not representative of any significant
events, persons, or architectural styles or construction types, and is not part of any potential historic
district.
WAPIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_4\S_4.doc 4-28 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
Bungalow (#38), 310 Dolley Madison Road, Greensboro - This bungalow is not representative of any
significant events, persons, or architectural styles or construction types; has lost its integrity through an
incongruous later addition; and is not part of any potential historic district.
House (#43), W side of Brigham Road, 0.05 miles N of junction with Atchison Road, Greensboro vicinity -
This house is not representative of any significant events, persons, or architectural styles or construction
types; has lost much of its integrity through alterations; and is not part of any potential historic district.
House (#44), E side of SR 2133, 0.05 miles S of junction with SR 2016, Greensboro vicinity - This house
is not representative of any significant events, persons, or architectural styles or construction types; has
lost much of its integrity through alterations; and is not part of any potential historic district.
House (#46), E side of SR 2016, 0.7 miles N of junction with SR 2133, Greensboro vicinity - This house is
not representative of any significant events, persons, or architectural styles or construction types; has lost
much of its integrity through alterations; and is not part of any potential historic district.
House (#47), W side of Edgefield Road, opposite junction with Fence Drive, Greensboro vicinity - This
house is not representative of any significant events, persons, or architectural styles or construction
types; has lost much of its integrity through alterations; and is not part of any potential historic district.
House (#48), W side of SR 2130, 0.5 miles N of junction with Route 68, Greensboro vicinity - This house
is not representative of any significant events, persons, or architectural styles or construction types; has
lost much of its integrity through alterations; and is not part of any potential historic district.
4.2.4.5 Archaeological Investigations
An archaeological overview of the Detailed Study Area was prepared in January 1999 (Holm and
Lautzenheiser, 1999). The overview summarized the considerable archaeological research that has been
conducted in the general vicinity of the Detailed Study Area within the past 3 decades. It also noted
archaeological sites on PTIA property previously identified in three archaeological investigations (Dorwin,
1977; Woodall, 1978; G.F. Keith and R.S. Webb to Mark Morgan of Law Engineering and Environmental
Services, Inc., May 27, 1998).
According to this overview, the most common prehistoric sites identified within the vicinity of PTIA consist
of sparse scatters of prehistoric lithic artifacts. In most cases these assemblages lack diagnostic artifacts
and cannot be assigned to a specific period. No Paleoindian sites have been previously recorded in the
general vicinity of PTIA. Archaic sites (8000 - 1000 BC) are more commonly identified in the region,
particularly in upland settings, frequently at the tops of knolls overlooking stream confluences. Woodland
sites (1000 BC - 1700 AD) are also likely to be located in upland settings and on the floodplains of
streams and rivers. Although the airport property lacks broad floodplains, and many of the narrower
floodplains along creeks and streams in the area are poorly drained and swampy, previous
archaeological work has identified several woodland sites on airport property, most notably along a low
W:\PIEDMONTDEIS\Ch_4\S_4.doc 4-29 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
rise in the floodplain north of Brush Creek. Similar landforms on airport property are anticipated to
contain these types of sites.
The overview noted that historic settlement of the study area commenced in the mid eighteenth century.
While historic sites in the area dating earlier than the 19th century are quite rare, 19th and early 20th
century historic sites are apt to be more common. The area was of strategic importance during both the
Revolutionary and the Civil Wars and although considerable research has been conducted at known
historic sites, other evidence of military activity would not be unexpected in the region.
4.2.4.6 Program for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
The FAA has sent a letter to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to initiate
formal consultation regarding the identification, evaluation, and treatment of historic architectural and
archaeological resources (Donna M. Meyer to David Brook, August 2, 1999) (copy of letter in Appendix
G). The FAA proposed completing the historic architectural survey once the contours have been defined
and submitting a report for SHPO review and concurrence prior to the issuance of the DEIS. In regards
to archaeological resources, the FAA proposed phasing the project and conducting a full archaeological
survey after the completion of the DEIS, but prior to the release of the FEIS, as provided by 36 CFR
800.4(b)(2). This proposal was advanced based on the extant archaeological data base that can be used
to adequately evaluate the impacts of the proposed build alternatives on National-Register-eligible
archaeological sites. This proposal would also avoid unnecessary archaeological fieldwork and
evaluation. The SHPO agreed with the proposal for a phased approach to addressing potential effects to
archaeological resources resulting from the airport improvements by a letter to FAA of September 15,
1999 (David Brook to Donna M. Meyer), contained in Appendix G.
W.\PIEDM0Nl1DEIS\Ch 4\S_4.doc 4-30 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
4.2.5 AIRPORT NOISE
4.2.5.1 Project Description
The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the existing noise exposure at PTIA. The project analysis
comprised five parts: 1) measurement of the existing noise environment at PTIA (Section 4.2.5.2), 2)
collection of existing operational data (Section 4.2.5.3), 3) development of noise exposure contours for
the existing base case, 4) analysis of the existing noise impacts (Section 4.2.5.4), and 5) documentation
of the noise environment in accordance with FAA requirements (Section 4.2.5.5).
4.2.5.2 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, the FAA measured existing noise
conditions with portable noise monitors from January 11 through January 20, 1999. These
measurements provided the study 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 the
results, including a summary of the cumulative noise measurements at all measurement sites is provided
in Appendix B of this EIS. A comparison between the noise measurement and monitoring programs is
discussed in Section 4.2.5.4. In general, the noise measurement results correlated well with the
monitoring program results.
4.2.5.3 Development of Operations Input
This section contains a description of the process used to prepare the operations data that constitute the
input for the 1998 Existing Condition (base case) noise exposure contours and is a basis for all future
contours.
Contour Preparation Process - The standard approach for preparation of airport noise exposure
contours requires compilation of several categories of information about the operation of an airport:
• Airport Layout: location, length and orientation of all runways;
• Operations Numbers: Numbers of departures, arrivals and pattern operations by
each type of aircraft during an "annual average day". The number of operations on
this day is the number of operations during the year divided by the number of days in
the year. The average daily operations are based on the total operations for the 12-
month period between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 1998. The 24-hour day
has two parts, the daytime (0700-2200) and the nighttime (2200-0700). The
daytime/nighttime distribution is an important data element because nighttime
operations are penalized by adding 10 dBA to each aircraft event to account for
increased annoyance at night. A detailed description of daytime/nighttime
distribution and the DNL metric used in this analysis is contained in Appendix J of this
EIS;
WAPIEDM0NMEIS\Ch_4\S_4.doc 4-31 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
• Runway Use: Percentage of operations by each type of aircraft that occur on each
runway;
• Flight Tracks: Paths followed by aircraft departing from, or arriving to, each runway;
and
• Flight Track Usage: Percentage of operations by each aircraft type that use each
flight track.
All of the required operations information were obtained and prepared for input into the FAA-approved
airport noise model, the FAA's Integrated Noise Model, Version 5.2a (INM 5.2a). The INM computes the
noise exposure around an airport as a grid of values of the Day-Night Sound Level (DNL). The grid
information is the input for a contouring program.
Description of the Data Input - This section contains the information used to prepare the noise contours.
It also cites the sources for the information.
Airport Layout - PTIA currently has two paved operational runways: Runways 05/23 and 14/32. Runway
05/23 is 10,001 feet long and Runway 14/32 is 6,380 feet long. Both runways are 150 feet wide. The
airport elevation is 927 feet above mean sea level (MSL). These data came from the current Airport
Layout Plan (ALP).
Operations Numbers - The metric used to account for the total noise at an airport is referred to as the
Day-Night Average Sound Level, abbreviated as DNL or Ldn. The annual average DNL noise exposure
contours for the 1998 Existing Condition are based on the average daily operations during the most
recent 12-month period. Although the noise environment around the airport comes almost entirely from
operations of air carrier jet aircraft, the 1998 contours reflect the noise from all types of aircraft operations.
Several sources were used for the operations information for 1998.
The FAA maintains records of the total numbers of operations during a year and assigns the operations to
four categories: air carrier, air taxi, civil or general aviation, and military. Table 4.2.5-1 presents the total
12-month operations data from the FAA Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT). There are no FAA records of
the numbers of operations by type of aircraft or'by time of day. Therefore, the annual operations in the
four categories were further disaggregated into the various aircraft types, the number of average daily
operations for arrivals and departures, and the number of daytime and nighttime operations as discussed
below. The percentages were applied to the total operations in each of the four aircraft categories.
The "air carrier" category generally pertains to scheduled air carrier or air cargo turbojet aircraft operating
at PTIA. The Official Airline Guide (OAG) airline schedules for 1998 were analyzed. This analysis
provided the number of average daily operations, by aircraft type, by time of day, and by stage length.
Additional analysis provided a further breakdown into INM aircraft categories for aircraft types such as the
B727 which has multiple engine types.
WAPIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch 4\S_4.doc 4-32 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
The "air taxi" category generally refers to scheduled commuter turbine-powered propeller (turboprop) and
regional jet aircraft operating at PTIA. The OAG also provided the number of average daily operations,
by aircraft type, by time of day, and by stage length for the commuter type aircraft.
The "civil" aircraft category refers to unscheduled general aviation type aircraft such as single-engine and
twin-engine piston propeller aircraft, other turboprop aircraft, and business turbojet aircraft. The fleet mix
and percentage of nighttime operations for the civil operations were developed from discussions with
PTIA ATCT personnel.
Information on the "military" fleet mix operating at PTIA was provided from FAA ATCT estimates. Table
4.2.5-2 contains the operations data for 1998 for an annual average day.
Review of 1999 operations data for PTIA indicates operational numbers are consistent with the levels and
trends for 1998 as listed in Table 4.2.5-1. No significant events at PTIA occurred during 1999 that would
have resulted in a substantial change in aircraft operations at PTIA.
Runway Use - During the modeling process, it is necessary to assign all operations to a specific runway.
Although the FAA controls runway use, it does not keep records of which runway is in use. However, the
FAA ATCT provided estimates of the runway use by various aircraft category for PTIA. Table 4.2.5-3
contains the estimated runway use percentages for 1998 for an annual average day.
Flight Tracks - INM simulates the operation of an airport by "flying" the aircraft along relatively small
numbers of flight tracks that represent the large number of flight paths actually used by aircraft. During
preparation of noise contours for PTIA, information from the FAA's Automated Radar Terminal System
(ARTS) was relied upon to identify the flight paths. Tapes were analyzed from the ARTS system
representing several days of flight tracks at PTIA. To help understand the flight tracks used for different
groups of operations, tracks are divided into groups according to: 1) type of aircraft -- jet or propeller; 2)
type of operation -- departure, arrival, or pattern; and, 3) direction of flow -- east or west.
The area covered by a group of flight tracks for aircraft using a single runway and going to a single fix is
called a flight "corridor". A flight corridor may be very wide. This characteristic of flight tracks to form a
wide corridor is called "dispersion" and is most pronounced for corridors with turns. To model the noise
exposure properly, the dispersion must be properly modeled. At PTIA the flight corridors are of different
widths and appropriate numbers of flight tracks were developed (based on corridor width) to model each
flight corridor.
Figure 4.2.5-1 presents representative departure and arrival flight tracks that were used to model the
1998 Existing Condition noise contours.
Flight Track Usage - The radar tracks analyzed provided the basis for flight track usage. The
percentages of aircraft using each fix established the percentage of operations in each flight corridor and
the width of the corridor determined the number of tracks required for modeling. The flight tracks for each
WAPIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_4\S 4.doc 4-33 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
corridor were loaded in the proportion observed in the ARTS information. If the dispersion was uniform
across a corridor, the flight tracks were loaded uniformly. If the dispersion was non-uniform, the tracks
were loaded non-uniformly in the proportions observed in the ARTS information. Flight tracks for the
existing 1998 condition are presented in Figure 4.2.5-1.
4.2.5.4 Existing (1998) Aircraft Noise
Existinq (1998) Aircraft Noise Contours - Figure 4.2.5-2 presents the 1998 Existing Condition, base
case noise contours as developed from the information contained in Section 4.2.5.3. Noise contours
were developed in DNL intervals of 65, 70, and 75 dBA. The noise exposure estimates identified for the
Existing Condition 1998 noise contours by analysis of land areas and activities within the contours are
discussed in Section 4.2.5.5.
Comparison of Modeled and Measured DNL - The exposure from aircraft noise can be calculated at
specific points when it is desired to better understand the noise environment around PTIA and to evaluate
noise levels at specific noise sensitive locations. The measurement locations were selected to represent
major noise-sensitive residential areas in close proximity to the airport and that could be potentially
located within the 65 DNL noise contour area. For the purposes of the 1998 Existing Condition base case
noise contours noise levels were calculated at the six measurement locations. The measurement
locations are identified in Appendix B. Additional noise-sensitive specific points were selected for
modeling for the future alternative noise contours based on the extent of the DNL 65 dB contours for each
alternative.
The modeled noise levels and the measured noise levels at the measurement locations are presented in
Table 4.2.5-4. Table 4.2.5-4 also presents a comparison of the measured and modeled levels at the six
measurement locations.
The table shows that modeled noise levels are within 2 dB of measured noise levels except at Sites 4 and
5. Agreement within 2 dB is good correlation. Sites 4 and 5, while in a major residential area that may be
impacted by the proposed parallel runway, are not currently located under or near major flight corridors.
Therefore, existing levels of aircraft activity would be expected to be low. Measured noise levels would
be generated primarily by community activities. Aircraft overflights at Sites 4 and 5 were observed during
the monitoring process, nonetheless, the frequency of flights was significantly lower than at other sites.
4.2.5.5 Noise Exposure
Noise Exposure Summary - The noise exposures are presented as land areas, activities and
populations exposed to various levels of aircraft noise. The land use estimates are initially summarized in
terms of the acres by land use such as agricultural, commercial, industrial (light and heavy), airport
property, and residential land uses exposed to various noise levels. For the 1998 Existing Condition
(base case) noise contour, approximately 170.2 acres of noise-sensitive single-family residential land use
WAPIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch 4\S_4.doc 4-34 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
TABLE 4.2.5-1
AIRCRAFT OPERATION - ANNUAL 1998
Piedmont International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
Aircraft Operations ,at PTIA
(January 1 to December 31 1998)
Air
Total Operations Carrier Air Taxi Civil Military' Total
Annual 44,280 23,208 59,382 1,158 128,028
Average Dail 121.32 63.58 162.69 3.17 350.76
Source: FAA ATC, 1999; HMMH, 1999.
W:\PI EDMONT\DEI S\Ch_4\T_4-2\7_425-1. doc
TABLE 4.2.5-2
AVERAGE DAILY OPERATIONS -1998
Piedmont International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
TABLE 3.3.3-1
TWO-LEVEL ALTERNATIVES SCREENING ANALYSIS
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
Oftsite Alternatives Onsite Alternatives
Runway X Runway W1 Runwa W2 Runway W3 Runway E1 Runwa E2 Runway N Runwe S
Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site
Factors No- New Other
Level Considered Action' Airport Airports A B C O E A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E
1 Develop an Air No No No y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Cargo Sorting
Purpose & Need and Distribution
Facility at PTIA
Provide No No Some Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Redundant
9,000-Foot
Transport-
Category
Runways
Provide Ability to No No Some N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Conduct Dual
Simultaneous
Independent IFR
Operations
D. Provide an Air No No Some N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N N Y N N N N N
Cargo
Sort/Distribution
Facility Site that
Meets
Operational
Requirements
Continue to next Yes No No N N I N N N N N N N N Y N N N N Y N N N N N
level?
2 Infrastructure Y Y Y
Impacts
Constructability, B. Property 13.66 88.37 89.89
Environmental" Acquisition
Impacts, and acres
Cost Relocation 1 9 5
homes
Dusinesses 0
Wetlands 9.8
Impacts acres
Floodplain 23.1
Impacts acres
Section 303(c) 010
sites direct I
indirect
Historic 0/1
Resources direct
indirect
Archaeological TBD
Resources
f talCost 25.7
million
etainforfurther Yes
valuation
10
32.3
36.6
010
011
TBD
221.3
14
29.8
34.6
010
0/1
TBD
Y I Y I YI YI YI YI Y I Y I Y I YI YI YI Y
NI N I N I N I N I NI NI NI NI Y I Y I N I NI NI NI N
Y Y
Y Y
315.01 266.14
77 65
12 13
36.8 31.3
49.6 46.4
013 012
TBD TBD
328.5 414.6
Yes Yes
Y
Y
Y
154.74
47
21
27.3
25.4
010
011
TBD
Source: URS Greiner Woodward Clyde, 2000.
No-Action Alternative retained for detailed analysis for baseline comparative purposes and to fulfill CEO regulations implementing NEPA.
Preliminary environmental impacts pending further detailed evaluation.
N = No.
Some = Some individual alternative airports meet criteria, some do not. Please refer to detailed discussions in Section 3.3.1.2.
Y = Yes.
TBD = To be determined between Draft and Final EIS.
W.IPIEDMONTIDEISICII31TBL 333-1&S-1.doc13124100
Citizens'
Scoping Alter- Runway
native Wl-A1
Y
Y
N
N
The entire main stem and all tributaries of Brush Creek and Horsepen Creek are within the Generalized
Study Area. Brush Creek and Horsepen Creek flow northeast and discharge into Lake Higgins and Lake
Brandt at the northeast section of the Generalized Study Area, respectively. Brush Creek is the only
stream with its entire drainage area within the Generalized Study Area. Horsepen Creek and Brush Creek
receive a large percentage of stormwater runoff from such varied urbanized land uses as PTIA, single-
family and multi-family residential, public/institutional, light and heavy industrial, and commercial land
uses. Brush Creek and Horsepen Creek are the only primary tributaries in the Reedy Fork Sub-basin (03-
06-02) that drain areas occupied by PTIA.
Three tributaries of North Buffalo Creek identified as Tributaries A, B, and C drain the east central
boundary of the Generalized Study Area. Tributaries C. and B drain Lake Euphemia and Lake Hamilton,
respectively. All three tributaries exit the Generalized Study Area in the vicinity of Hamilton Lakes Park
and Starmount Forest Country Club and flow east and join North Buffalo Creek at W. Wendover Avenue
(U.S. 421). North Buffalo Creek traverses the City of Greensboro and joins South Buffalo Creek outside
of the City of Greensboro city limits to form Buffalo Creek, which flows north to Reedy Fork. Two
headwater tributaries of South Buffalo Creek, South Buffalo Creek Tributaries A and C, flow southeast
and join south Buffalo Creek at the southeast corner of the Generalized Study Area along Interstate-40.
South Buffalo Creek exits the southeast corner of the Generalized Study Area parallel to the westbound
lanes of Interstate-40. South Buffalo Creek traverses the southern portion of the City of Greensboro
along Interstate-40 in an easterly direction and gradually bends to the north, east of the City of
Greensboro city limits, where it joins North Buffalo Creek to form Buffalo Creek.
East and West Fork Deep River Sub-basin (03-06-08) - The East and West Fork Deep River Sub-basin
(03-06-08) occupies approximately 179 square miles and is located within the Deep River hydrologic area
(03030003). The total area occupied by water in the East and West Fork Deep River Sub-basin (03-06-
08) is approximately 2 square miles. Principal waterways include the East and West Fork Deep Rivers
and the Deep River. Two drinking water reservoirs for the City of High Point, High Point Lake and Oak
Hollow, are located in the East and West Fork Deep River Sub-basin (03-06-08). The East and West
Fork Deep rivers originate at the north end of the sub-basin near Greensboro and High Point, North
Carolina, respectively. The West Fork Deep River flows south and discharges into Oak Hollow Lake in
High Point, North Carolina. The East Fork Deep River flows south and discharges into High Point Lake
near Jamestown, North Carolina. The dam at Oak Hollow Lake discharges into the upper reach of the
Deep River, which flows through High Point Lake and continues to flow south where it joins the Haw River
in Lee County to form the Cape River.
The East and West Fork Deep rivers and Bull Run are the three primary tributaries of the Deep River in
the East and West Fork Deep River Sub-basin (03-06-08) within the Generalized Study Area. The area
draining to the Long Branch Tributary was included in the drainage area for the East Fork Deep River
because Long Branch joins the East Fork Deep River immediately south of the Generalized Study Area.
The East Fork Deep River is the only primary tributary in the East and West Fork Deep River Sub-basin
(03-06-08) that drain areas occupied by PTIA. The East Fork Deep River and Long Branch flow south
and join immediately south of the Generalized Study Area, prior to discharging into High Point Lake. The
WAPIEDM0NTDEIS\Ch_4\S_4.doc 4-38 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
drainage basin for the East Fork Deep River has the highest concentration of industrial, commercial, and
developed land uses within the Generalized Study Area. Several unnamed tributaries of the West Fork
Deep River drain the southeast section of the Generalized Study Area. These tributaries flow west and
join the West Fork Deep River immediately west of the Generalized Study Area. The main stem of the
West Fork Deep River flows south just west of the Generalized Study Area boundary. The main stem of
the West Fork Deep River enters the southeast corner of the Generalized Study Area where it discharges
into Oak Hollow Lake. Three tributaries of Bull Run flow south and exit the Generalized Study Area south
of Hilltop Road and enter Bull Run just south of the Generalized Study Area. Bull Run flows south and
joins the Deep River in Jamestown, North Carolina.
Stream Flow Records - The USGS has two stream gauging stations in the vicinity of Generalized Study
Area for which discharge records are published. The first station (02093800) is located north of the
Generalized Study Area 2 miles east of Oak Ridge Road in Reedy Creek. The second station
(02099000) is located in the East Fork Deep River at West Wendover Avenue in the south section of the
Generalized Study Area. Table 4.3.3-2 shows a summary of the historical flows for these two stream
gauging stations as published in the Water Resources Data North Carolina Water Year 1998.
Estimates of stream flow during 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-year storms for many of the streams within the
Generalized Study Area were calculated in the Flood Insurance Studies for the City of Greensboro,
Guilford County and the City of High Point (see Table 4.3.4-1 in Section 4.3.4, Floodplains).
Drainage Characteristics of PTIA - A Stormwater Master Plan (SWMP) for PTIA is currently being
developed. The SWMP will provide guidelines and design criteria for stormwater management
associated with current and future land development that may occur within land owned by the PTAA.
Approximately 2,838 and 227 acres of PTIA are located within the Reedy Fork (03-06-02) and East and
West Fork Deep River (03-06-08) sub-basins, respectively. Approximately 1,507 and 1,331 acres of the
airport within the Reedy Fork Sub-basin (03-06-02) drain to Brush Creek and Horsepen Creek,
respectively. The northwest section of the airport drains to Brush Creek and is subdivided into 27
drainage sub-basins. The southeast section of the airport drains to Horsepen Creek and is subdivided
into 30 drainage sub-basins. All of the 227 acres located in the southwest section of the airport property
are within the East and West Fork Deep River sub-basin (03-06-08) and is subdivided into six drainage
sub-basins (Baker and Associates, 1999). The drainage basins within the airport are shown in
Appendix K.
Brush Creek and Horsepen Creek are part of the City of Greensboro water supply watershed and flow
into the Lake Higgins and Lake Brandt water supply reservoirs, respectively. The East Fork Deep River is
part of the City of High Point water supply watershed and flows into the High Point Lake water supply
reservoir.
Approximately 404 acres of PTIA are covered by impervious cover, such as runways, roofs, roads, and
parking areas. These 404 acres account for approximately 13 percent of the total land area within the
W:\PIEDM0NTDEIS\Ch_4\S_4.doc 4-39 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
PTIA property. Of the total 404 acres, approximately 186, 167, and 51 acres of impervious area drain to
Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek, and the East Fork Deep River, respectively (Baker and Associates, 1999).
The existing stormwater management system at the airport consists of a combination of open channel
and closed storm sewers discharging to Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek, and the East Fork Deep River
through approximately 50 outfalls (Baker Associates, 1999). Most of the stormwater runoff from airport
discharges directly from these outfalls to receiving water bodies. The PTIA SWMP shows four existing
ponds collecting stormwater from developed areas and discharging to Brush Creek and Horsepen Creek.
One pond collects stormwater from the Marriott Hotel site and roadways at the airport entrance and
discharges into Brush Creek. Three ponds collect stormwater from maintenance hangars at the
southeast section of the airport and discharge into Horsepen Creek.
Surface Water Quality Classifications and Water Quality Standards - North Carolina has established
a water quality classification and standards program pursuant to General Statute (G.S.) 143-214.1.
Classifications and standards are developed pursuant to 15A North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC)
28.0100 - "Procedures for Assignment of Water Quality Standards." Waters were classified for their
"best usage" in North Carolina beginning in the early 1950s with classification and water quality standards
for all of the state's river basins adopted by 1963. North Carolina water classifications and standards are
consistent with the Federal Clean Water Act and its amendments, promote the protection of surface water
supply watersheds and high quality waters (HQW), and protect unique and special pristine waters with
outstanding resource values. Classifications are assigned to protect uses of the waters such as
swimming, aquatic life propagation, or water supplies (Cape Fear River Basin Wide Water Quality
Management Plan, October 1996).
All fresh surface waters in North Carolina are assigned one of the primary water classifications shown in
Table 4.3.3-3 and may also be assigned one or more of the supplemental classifications shown in Table
4.3.3-4. The primary classification for fresh surface waters within the Generalized Study Area draining to
the Lake Higgins or Lake Brandt drinking water reservoirs is the water supply classification, WS-III, in the
Reedy Fork Sub-basin (03-06-02). The primary classification for fresh surface waters within the
Generalized Study Area draining to the Oak Hollow Lake or High Point Lake drinking water reservoirs is
the water supply classification, WS-IV, in the East and West Fork Deep River Sub-basin (03-06-08).
Freshwaters in the Reedy Fork (03-06-02) and East and West Fork Deep River (03-06-08) sub-basins
within the Generalized Study Area draining to water bodies not used for water supply are classified as "C"
freshwaters. Fresh surface waters in the Generalized Study Area were assigned the Nutrient Sensitive
Water (NSW) supplemental classification or none at all. Freshwaters in the water supply watershed
(WS-III) of the Reedy Fork Sub-basin (03-06-02) were the only waters within the Generalized Study Area
with the secondary NSW classification. A listing of the fresh surface waters within the Generalized Study
Area and their respective primary and supplemental classifications is shown in Table 4.3.3-5. Any
unnamed stream within the Generalized Study Area that is not classified carries the same classification
as that assigned to the stream segment to which it is a tributary.
WAPIEDM0NT\DEIS\Ch_4\S_4.doc 4-40 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
M
M
W
J
m
a
Q
W
cn
Q
IL
w
O Q
Co LU
Z a C
Cl)
C
UN ='c
p _o cn
QLLJ r
<0 -1 0.
Q E
Q z 0
N LU = C
=o°
H
Z Z 'C c
J CL W
N 3::
a
W
a
W
cs
a
z
a
cc
a
z
a
m
m
D
Cl)
Y
C
C co
O a Q
a
Ir a
ca
za c
a L ^O
?-° Na
o
° -6 - cc d _
o? o¢m aOC
U OC= ?? v Z. t H-0 cc
a
C
CO
Ca
cc
r UCLc _
(
C6
C O'
E
O 0 Y co N co i D
V7 p o N fn
T
N C N U . "d U N
0 :3
mCOfn a)
C?> Q a)
co M Lu LU M co < LL
a
c0
t6
C
ccz (D •- CO c0 3 c0
C N
•N , L
Q
N
cn D.
O
U Nina
?cc76 z 3a
ac ?-
aE
N (D co 'c c cC c
Co
In i U in
ca fl0 >,
t? - t=
) U J d -co J E
D
C
j N N
cz
CL co a
c .. C
'
co
co
fn a)
E d N
Ca N O N
U
• 7 .0 i
a) N
7
U O N
U-p O N
U'p 2 E O
Q. E U
0) E
Q Q Q IL -.5 U co
a LO
c
E O O O CV
r
a
c9
N
Q
N
I
C a?
(n ? °O LO 0000
4 aD N N O
O
a
c
C3 to
N"
CD Y Y
N Y
N Y
N
E ca
y 3 o
LL
U
U a)
?j
*
c/1 U, A N L
N a
E i O `
N
O
CO
C O
G N v
O
?
L Y
.0 O
=3 LL
? A
a
N
au
c
O
V
M
M
Ri
w
J
m
Q
H
Cl)
Q
w
cc
I --
U)
}
Q
cQ
G
a
w
x
F-
m
LL Q
Cl) w
0 cr.
Z Q
N }
U G
O?
OC ~
UU)
C?
ON
0 J
Q
Z w
Q z
..w
w?
Nw
?x
Z Z
Qx
J F-
W
Q
w
Q
_Z
Q
0
Z
N
Q
m
m
r-
0 Q.
C
Q O
c :a
O cn
cc 0
a cc
L Q
C
t0 ?
F- E
c ?
0.0-
E
>
d w
a
a
2 ?
CC "a
o
(D 11 - r_
o' -aOaC ma `n"
Uc? aip
> ?tnQ
o
'-
U -"crcDi',
a a) L 0) m 0) c 00m
-
c O c
Q Oa L
U a) N
Y
a 0
-'D
m~ a) >,i S .0
>
0
m mUG a)a
a (o - Y E L
(a CO 0)
o
:9 caN
0 ??c
7 O N a)
?I c
O co
O
a a
000M0?FL Sm co cc a)
LL 21-
Cc3??i O
Z O
Z
I,
a
L c ca
C c
•0 p
n
a
°) to
cz .
c a) a o
L) y ??oiE
a)
v E
co ? E
a)
cn 7
o ;
_
c
?'co E.s 7
o.? S
U) c co O E .
0 :3 c
0):3
D
a
C
ca 6
J ?
ca 0 >, L
0) O cC
C
(D co
C
a)
co a) ? C _ C _0 "a
E co CO
E 5
E -a .5
a)
a N C C N C C a) co
a)
a)
L .) E "57y c .N E a co co
CL n°).S v to !4 2 coy cco cn cn
N Q ?
O
0
0
0
0 M
T
_ N
as
a)
L
Q
a)
rn
c
tL0 m
cm
N
LO
Ln
T
N
T
r.
co
co
N h N r?
O
a
c
M <
Y o
cn Y
d N 0
O ?
`
H a) N
U
c
a
w.
cc
U
O
7
O
rn
L,.4) 5
=
co
M m a) pp a) m Y Y
1= co co t
U 7 co
J co
E cn 2 'aa O O
•L
CL N Z 4 Cl)
2 2
i N
C) Y
O
co
O LL
C
N O >.
_0
[9
? Y Q)
S
fn >, O
a)
S
V
d
O
C
C
O
U_
r
A
c+;
W
J
co
a
CO)
a
w
N
}
a
IL
W
U. Q
W
0 CC -t
Z a O =
Fn >-
OdaE
F- *U C +?.
U in o Cl)
Q W
J E Q.
?a E
Q Z
c O
w W = c
= O OL
Z Z-0 O
J I- CL
N
Q
w
a
W
0
a
Z
a
O
Z
N
Q
M
Ch
D
U
U
'ac o m?
0
cYiY o _o
co c
(A om a?p
m
?Q AS
- as
o ??
0 d a`sp` p
to 0
7 S C
o
c co Y O C O Y O
-C oCM
oU o c E? S >> S
ca
o c
a: > co ao a5)i °C o a)
?
m
U' NQ _ 0 _
Q ?
2?
_Q
Q co
H
l-
O
co
T m
o
U
CMD
N
CL
Q
M
a
c
ca
J
_
ca
C A ? C
2) cz 7
E
E
• (0
d E co Lo
C - U E
.? C •U
C L c cz Lo»°_ c Co a`s
3 a) > y E m T
v?•N cz=3Em
a) -0 .NEE
U
I U co Cn
Q N N M
N
a
cm
Q
m
c a?
VS
CR
M
I? r N N
C > > U
to L
m C,2
E
c? ?
a) o- m c
y 3 Q a)
C
0
00
W c0i Y Y -?
LL O
a)
v co
ro, = :3 a
a` co L)
Lu
i
Y
O
a) O
U-
m
Y aD
C O C) a)0
> W
Q
LL -0 .>_
cu
c?
a) c
m
as a
0 o
M Q
CA (1)
> in
o
to -0 0
> co (1)
W Q
Ry
0
mcr
L LI ::3
U)
6
0)
ai
U
v
co
a
O
O
N
c
C/)
m
D
ai
i
O
U)
c
a)
E
CL
O
as
a>
v
.E
a)
C
c
co
n
I I
CL
r
O
°-
:rt
c
0
co
C
a>
C
ftS
ca
0 I-
E o
E
CO
?a
u u
ai Q
z E iL
N
Ch
Ch
w
J
m
Q
H
w
w
CL
w
w
Y
O
LL
I
U) t
w a =y
Z Q E
Y 0 Cl)
o
LL i
} r?+
? C -
w - -
w -a
MA r-
C ~ E
r
`O O o
r E •?
G a w
O
J
LL
Q
w
co
m
a
m
D
L
CO
C
L ? V
0) O
MM
C0
IQ
(D 0)
O
Ll
p
r
?
O O
C7 ?M
co C
N
C7C\l
ce) 00 O
M
O - 0
N
N (O
N r
M N
O> CO
d
C) z M LO LO 0)
a)
Q C
04
O
O
O
C' a
C p
0
yCO
ca
X102
i.CY)
,
T
7r
-CJ
TC
NC
O--
OnoC
)
T
0
Y
0
(q00
(0
?. OO T TCA CA
l? (DN r?R ] C\j O? T
O T LO CV ? C'7
la N
cn r r r
O
OC)
C0
T LO
T
T
W ?
i
>- co
Co
T
co
co
co
co
co
CO
O
T
L
O O
OOD 1 1 M
co!?? ? M
C6i? O Q?
4 T M
r`oo
O
D T (?
cr) (D T
LO
?
T T
O
z M )
CO N LO O O tO \
lO O T r
m
O .a
O Q
co
Y
L
M
O (Q
'
O
i
T
ce)
CID
(0
O
C
4 CY)
C p
UO rj
C i ?
?N OT OT Ch
LO ce) r P.:
C 0
O C CU '-
ca O N d\ r T
" O
0
([ Uj co j
-`0)
`T
M
d
X00
r-
?CO
Oco
O\
r-
r?
CD
Ce) \
OLLO
LOO
N
t\
r
NC
0
'-
O
C)
LO
0(p 4
N NCA
T rO
r T NN re CVN M?
C) CVN r!\
T c.6 M
Tj::z O 83 O T a3 O T
T
N
U
N
i+
fC
co
U)
.`?...
v co
n
E 3 O v U
E $2 zO 3: E O v
C C 0 0 =3
C"
0 C (?
\
\
\
3 O E (D
E CZ
N 0 E 0- CZ
co ?
o I.L.
U U
C w
Fz . 0 0 0 0
O a)
E C
(u c
c0 co
"D @
-D 7
? CU
C O
C O
C C
E C
i N
U 0
U 0
U
?•
(n
co -
CO
cz co
c c15
C co
C x N x
C C O
LM O 0
z
0 L N
?
u O
p
u C 0
6 CU
U)
o c?0 N
Cl) CZ (O
CD t
j C C o \ o
C
Q C
Q co
=? c
J0 .
c
20 c
J? C C
Q<] C
CD
C? t
G? C
Q C
Q O
T O
O O
Cn
0
V- 7
O Q
N ?
cc a
0 A
O
L C
0
CO 0
cl
72 C
U
0 C_
a
0
(C L00
0 ?
U 0
C
t 0
O -0
as
r 2
C0 as
C ()
_3
O a)_
> E
CC) a)
ca co
rn __
a co
co >
aa) L cz
U L
L co O
0 a) -0
j E
> O D
L
ca O
C U
U C)
Q L
co (D O
L
L
O CA CLS
Z C
? ? II
co . L
0 r
M cu
L O 3
O 0 Cl) O
Q) -0
? 0.00 N
U E .°'
>0 O 0 U N
> O a) 0
O ? U >,
O
(C r L
U) O w
c0.? - ?O C
U co
5) E p 0 -0
O O CA C C
p ..- E E5 m O
0 .00006Z
0
U) as 0) L >m E >
0 0 0 (D -
co
} ca
76
T f3 } y 0 D
o 2 E a? U)
a) 0) C Lib C
O
0 U U CO
5 z o :03 E
II II II
U
7 0 O Cl)
U) z° U = E
0
0
U
N
M
v?
J
[D
i
M
R1
V
w
W
F
iz
1
3
TABLE 4.3.3-3
PRIMARY FRESHWATER CLASSIFICATIONS IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
Classification Description
Freshwaters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life including
Class C propagation and survival, and wildlife. All freshwaters shall be classified to protect these
uses at a minimum.
Class B Freshwaters protected for primary recreation that includes swimming on a frequent or
organized basis and all Class C uses.
Waters protected as water supplies that are essentially in natural and undeveloped
watersheds. Point source discharges of treated wastewater are permitted pursuant to
Class WS-1 Rules .0104 and .0211 of Sub-chapter 213-Surface Water and Wetland Standards.
Local programs to control non-point sources and stormwater discharges of pollution are
required. Suitable for all Class C rules.
Waters protected as water supplies that are generally in predominantly undeveloped
watersheds. Point source discharges of treated wastewater are permitted pursuant to
Class WS-11 Rules .0104 and .0211 of Sub-chapter 26-Surface Water and Wetland Standards.
Local programs to control non-point sources and stormwater discharges of pollution
shall be required. Suitable for all Class C rules.
Waters protected as water supplies that are generally in moderately developed
watersheds. Point source discharges of treated wastewater are permitted pursuant to
Class WS-III Rules .0104 and .0211 of Sub-chapter 26-Surface Water and Wetland Standards.
Local programs to control non-point sources and stormwater discharges of pollution
shall be required. Suitable for all Class C rules.
Waters protected as water supplies that are generally in moderately to highly developed
watersheds. Point source discharges of treated wastewater are permitted pursuant to
Class WS-IV Rules .0104 and .0211 of Sub-chapter 213-Surface Water and Wetland Standards.
Local programs to control non-point sources and stormwater discharges of pollution
shall be required. Suitable for all Class C rules.
Waters protected as water supplies that are generally upstream of and draining to Class
WS-IV waters. No categorical restrictions on watershed development or treated
Class WS-V wastewater discharges shall be required. However, the Commission or its designee
may apply appropriate management requirements as deemed necessary for the
protection of downstream receiving waters (15A NCAC 2B .0203). Suitable for all Class
C uses.
Class WL Waters that meet the definition of wetlands found in 15A NCAC 213 .0202 except those
designated as Class SW L waters.
Source: North Carolina Administrative Code, Subchapter 26-Surface Water and Wetland Standards for
North Carolina.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\SEC-4\S_4-3\TBLS\T_433-3.doc\01 /26/00
TABLE 4.3.3-4
SUPPLEMENTAL WATER CLASSIFICATIONS IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
Classification Description
Trout Waters Freshwaters protected for natural trout propagation and survival of stocked trout.
Jr)
Swamp Waters Waters that have low velocities and other natural characteristics that are different from
(Sw) adjacent streams.
Nutrient Waters subject to growths of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation requiring limitations
Sensitive on nutrient inputs.
Waters (NSW)
Outstanding Unique and special waters of exceptional state or national recreational or ecological
Resource significance which require special protection to maintain existing uses.
Waters (ORW)
High Quality Waters that are rated as excellent based on biological and physical/chemical
Waters (HQW) characteristics through Division monitoring or special studies, native trout waters (and
their tributaries) designated by the Wildlife Resources Commission, primary nursery
areas (PNA) designated by the Marine Fisheries Commission and other functional
nursery areas designated by the Marine Fisheries Commission, all water supply
watersheds which are either classified as WS-1 or WS-II or those for which a formal
petition for reclassification as WS-1 or WS-II has been received from the appropriate
local government and accepted by the Division of Water Quality and all Class SA salt
waters.
Future Water Waters that have been requested by a local government and adopted by the
Supply (FWS) Commission as a future source for drinking, culinary, or food-processing purposes.
Local governments requesting this reclassification shall provide to the Division evidence
of intent, which may include one or a combination of the following: capitol improvement
plans, a Water Supply Plan as described in G.S. 143-355(1), bond issuance for the
water treatment plant or land acquisition records. Local governments shall provide a
1:24,000 scale USGS topographical map delineating the location of the intended water
supply intake. Requirements for activities administered by the State of North Carolina,
such as the issuance of permits for landfills, NPDES wastewater discharges, land
application of residuals, and road construction activities shall be effective upon
reclassification for future water supply use. The requirements shall apply to the critical
area and balance of the watershed or protected area as appropriate.
Unique Wetlands of exceptional state or national ecological significance which require special
Wetland protection to maintain existing uses. These wetlands may include wetlands that have
(UWL) been documented to the satisfaction of the Commission as habitat essential for the
conservation of state or federally listed threatened or endangered species.
Source: North Carolina Administrative Code, Subchapter 213-Surface Water and Wetland Standards for
North Carolina.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch 4\T_4-3\T_433-4.doc\01/28/00
TABLE 4.3.3-5
PRIMARY AND SUPPLEMENTAL WATER CLASSIFICATIONS FOR FRESH SURFACE
WATERS IN THE GENERALIZED STUDY AREA
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact statement
Classi fication
Waterbod ` Name Sub-.basin Primary Secondary
Beaver Creek Reed Fork 03-06-02 WS-III NSW
Brush Creek Reed Fork 03-06-02 WS-III NSW
Brush Creek Reed Fork 03-06-02 WS-III NSW CA
Buffalo Creek Reedy Fork (03-06-02) C NSW
Bull Run East and West Fork Dee River 03-06-08 C
Dee River, East Fork East and West Fork Dee River 03-06-08 WS-Iv
Dee River, East Fork East and West Fork Dee River 03-06-08 WS-Iv CA
Dee River, West Fork East and West Fork Dee River 03-06-08 WS-Iv
Dee River, West Fork East and West Fork Dee River 03-06-08 WS-Iv CA
Dee River, West Fork East and West Fork Dee River 03-06-08 WS-Iv
Dee River, West Fork East and West Fork Dee River 03-06-08 WS-iv CA
Hi h oint Lake East and West Fork Dee River 03-06-08 WS-Iv CA
Horse en Creek Reed Fork 03-06-02 WS-III NSW
Horse en Creek Reed Fork 03-06-02 WS-III NSW CA
Lake Brandt Reed Fork 03-06-02 WS-III NSW CA
Lake Eu hernia Reed Fork 03-06-02 C NSW
Lake Hamilton Reed Fork 03-06-02 C NSW
Lake Higgins Reed Fork 03-06-02 WS-III NSW CA
Lon Branch East and West Fork Dee River 03-06-08 WS-Iv
Lon Branch East and West Fork Dee River 03-06-08 WS-iv CA
Moores Creek Reed Fork 03-06-02 WS-III NSW
North Buffalo Creek Reed Fork 03-06-02 C NSW
Oak Hollow Reservoir East and West Fork Dee River 03-06-08 WS-Iv CA
Reed Fork Reed Fork 03-06-02 WS-III NSW
Reed Fork Reed Fork 03-06-02 WS-III NSW CA
Reed Fork Reed Fork 03-06-02 C NSW
Reed Fork Reed Fork 03-06-02 C
South Buffalo Creek Reed Fork 03-06-02 C NSW
Source: Surface Water Classification List, http:\\h20.ehnr.state.nc.us/strmclass/alpha/cpf.html.
W:\PIEDMONTIDEIS\SEC.4\S 4.3\TBLS\T 433-5.doo\03/13/00
Water bodies with the symbol "CA" after their supplemental classifications in Table 4.3.3-5 are in Critical
Areas. Critical Areas are adjacent to a water supply intake or reservoir where the risk associated with
pollution is greater than from the remaining portions of the watershed. The Critical Area is defined as
extending either 0.5 mile from the normal pool elevation of the reservoir where the intake is located or to
the ridge line of the watershed (whichever comes first); or 0.5 mile upstream from and draining to the
intake (or other appropriate downstream location associated with the water supply) located directly in the
stream or river (run-of-the-river), or to the ridge line of the watershed (whichever comes first) (Subchapter
2B - Surface Water and Wetland Standards, Section 0.0202 definitions (20)). Critical Area locations
within the Generalized Study Area are shown on Figure 4.3.3-1. The three Critical Areas within the
Generalized Study Area are adjacent to Lake Higgins and Lake Brandt, Oak Hollow Lake, and High Point
Lake. The Critical Areas adjacent to Lake Higgins and Lake Brandt, Oak Hollow Lake, and High Point
Lake occupy approximately 4.30, 3.0, and 0.40 square miles, respectively, within the Generalized Study
Area. The Critical Areas consist of four divisions or tiers to manage development within the Critical Area.
Explanations of these four tiers and limitations on land use are shown in Table 4.3.3-6.
The discharge requirements for water supply (WS) classified waters vary significantly from WS-1 to WS-V,
and these are often a reflection of the level of the development within the watershed of a water intake.
The WS-1 classification carries the most stringent requirements for discharges and the surrounding land
use activities while WS-V carries the least. A WS-1 classification requires a completely undeveloped
watershed, and WS-V classified waters are in highly developed watersheds. A summary of the
watershed protection rules for water supply watersheds are summarized in Table 4.3.3-7.
Specific water quality standards to protect aquatic life and human health for fresh surface waters in North
Carolina are shown in Tables K-1 and K-2 in Appendix K. The water quality standards for all
classifications of fresh surface waters in North Carolina are the basic standards applicable to Class C
waters. Additional and more stringent standards for some of the parameters are applicable to water
supply classifications (WS-1, WS-II, WS-III, WS-IV, and WS-V).
Water Quality Data - The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of
Water Quality (NCDENR DWQ) has initiated a whole basin approach to water quality management. Each
of the 17 major river basins within the state will be assessed every 5 years and incorporated in the basin-
wide management plan. The DWQ uses these plans as a guide to manage and administer its water
quality program duties and responsibilities. These plans also provide a framework for cooperative efforts
between property owners, local governments, and the general population toward a common goal of
protecting the basin's water resources while accommodating reasonable economic growth. During these
assessments, a variety of biological, chemical, and physical data are collected and evaluated in one or
more of the following seven monitoring programs:
• Benthic macro-invertebrate monitoring,
• Fish population and tissue monitoring,
• Lakes assessment,
WAPIEDM0MIDEIS\Ch_4\S_4.d0c 4-41 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
• Aquatic toxicity monitoring,
• Special chemical/physical water quality investigations,
• Sediment oxygen demand monitoring, and
• Ambient water quality monitoring.
The latest Cape Fear River Basin Wide Water Quality Management Plan was approved by the North
Carolina Environmental Management Commission in October 1995 and will be updated in 2000. This
document provides a summary of existing water quality and causes and sources of water pollution in the
portions of the Reedy Fork (03-06-02) and the East and West Fork Deep River (03-06-08) sub-basins
within and in close proximity to the Generalized Study Area as reported in the 1995 Cape Fear River
Basin Wide Water Quality Management Plan for benthic macro-invertebrate monitoring, lake
assessments, aquatic toxicity monitoring, and ambient water quality monitoring. Fish population and
tissue monitoring, special chemical/physical water quality investigations, and sediment oxygen demand
monitoring were conducted in the Reedy Fork (03-06-02) and the East and West Fork Deep River (03-06-
08) sub-basins but not within the Generalized Study Area or waters outside of the Generalized Study
Area that may be impacted. Below are descriptions of the benthic macro-invertebrate monitoring, lake
assessments, aquatic toxicity monitoring, and ambient water quality monitoring conducted within the
Generalized Study Area and their respective water quality summaries as published in the 1995 Cape
Fear River Basin Wide Water Quality Management Plan. Additional benthic macro-invertebrate and
ambient water quality data for Horsepen and Brush Creeks collected by then NCDENR DWQ in 1997, but
not included in the 1998 Cape Fear River Basin Wide Water Quality Management Plan, are also included.
Benthic Macro-invertebrates - Benthic macro-invertebrates, or benthos, are organisms that live in and
on the bottom of rivers and streams. Benthos are a reliable water quality indicator because they are
relatively immobile and sensitive to subtle changes in water quality. Five bio-classifications; Poor, Fair,
Good-Fair, Good, and Excellent are assigned to each benthic sample based on the number of taxa
present- E pheme ropte ra, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT) in pollution-intolerant groups: mayflies,
stoneflies and caddisflies (aquatic insect larvae). These three groups are used to develop EPT ratings.
Likewise ratings can be assigned a Biotic Index that summarizes tolerance data for all taxa in each
collection. The two rankings are given equal weight in final site classification. Higher taxa richness
values are associated with better water quality. These bio-classifications primarily reflect the influence
of chemical pollutants. Sediment is poorly assessed by taxa richness analysis (NCDENR, April 1995).
Table 4.3.3-8 lists all the benthic macro-invertebrate collections by NCDENR within and in close proximity
to the Generalized Study Area between 1983 and 1993, giving site location, DEM classification schedule
index number, collection date, taxa richness and biotic index values, and bio-classifications (see Figure
4.3.3-2 for sample locations). The Good-Fair bio-classification in Reedy Fork is attributable to its proximity
to undeveloped agricultural land. Urban land use was associated with Fair bio-classifications for
Horsepen Creek. The East and West Forks of the Deep River are both affected by nonpoint source
WAPIEDM0NTDEIS\Ch_4\S_4.doc 4-42 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
TABLE 4.3.3-6
TIERS WITHIN WATERSHED CRITICAL AREAS
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
Tier Definition
Tier 1 a. Lands within two hundred (200) feet of the existing or proposed normal pool elevation and
those lands within one-half (1/2) mile (High Point Lake, Oak Hollow Lake, Lake Brandt) or one
mile (Lake Townsend) upstream of water intake structure(s).
b. Intended for public purpose and should remain undisturbed.
Tier 2 a. Lands lying within and area bounded by Tier 1 and a line parallel to and seven hundred and
fifty (750) feet in distance from the normal pool elevation.
b. Intended primarily for public purposes with the following exception. Tier 2 areas surrounding
the proposed reservoir at Randleman Lake and the existing Lake Mackintosh are not intended
for public purpose unless and until more than twenty-five (25%) percent of the Critical Area for
the reservoir becomes urban in character, by meeting any of the tests defined in NCGS Section
160-48(c).
Tier 3 a. Lands lying within an area bounded by Tier 2 and a line parallel to and three thousand (3,000)
feet from the normal pool elevation.
b. Tier 3 areas shall not exceed the Critical Area boundary
Tier 4 a. Lands lying in the area between the outer boundary of Tier 3 and the Critical Area boundary.
Source: Article VII Guilford County Development Ordinance, Environmental Regulations, Article VII
Section 7-3.2 Watershed Critical Areas.
W:\PI EDMONT\DEIS\SEC-4\S_4.3\TBLS\7_433-6.doc\07/28/00
M
w
J
m
H
}
Q
D
w
J
cc
z
O
F-
U
w
O
cc
a
w
,2
V/
rr
w
a
}
J
IL
IL
M
cn
m
w
H
Q
Q
Z
J
O
cc
Q
U
2
F
O
z
V-
0
Q.
'a
R
'O
cs
0
d
a
c
m
m
N
V
O.
E
i0
C
()
c
0
c
w
m
7 N IA
_ N
_ In N H U) Lo
0 0 -0 70 _0
CL N (D a) a) N >.
L m .? .:3 .=
, O
' •=
, .=3 •? Cl
cr cr _
0 a - 0 07 _
Q a) a)
Cc O a)
Zcc: ()
cc O 0
ZI= a)
T- O O
Z c
i
a)
co
N
- ? C
a)
a
y 0)
N
M
y
" 0
O
31 D
'D
0 0
a3
=
CD
0)
a)
a) C
?
c0 C C_ C U 'O C p C U
O C p
J O O C O N C O C O co C O c
Z Z Z =p 59 Z as z 'a 5 Zsg Q 0
a)
C
N 0
T
ca
7 V
N
N
N U
a
'a U C 3: C 3: C
CIS
cn C: co
O O N
O O N
O O N
cc a` z z :Fn ¢ z A a z a °
ca
0 a
C
0
O N _0
N -0
N
?
?
N
N
N
?
o . 0 0 0 0 0 o
o 0 «- co
a z zQ Q zQ Q zQ Q Q
N
. T T T T T T
N
O... d r a) a) a) CD (D
E
E C0 0`. O O O O O
O N
Q 0 0 O
O
C:
O 0
C:
0 0 0
2 2 C
U) H . 0.
Z U(n UCn UU) L) UC/5 UC/) c
cz
?.. C C C C C ? L.
'N C (1) a) () a) co (1) co a)
as
U U co U cu U N U N U as _r_
? a) N a) N a) U a) N a) (D o
m
a a co a co CL
co Q
co CL
co
0
d'.. c 0
c 0
co- C 0
in_ C 0
L0- O 0
r_ O
c
o
p _ o Cy - CO O 1 O 1 CO 0 1
O ..
=
Z 1 7 C1
COQ 7 N? C2
T
0 7 N 7 Cl
0 7 C1
N
0 7 0_
? 7
N
0 O ?
7
C1
N
0 3 U
> - T- - - - L
m
o
m
a) N N 6
.C] N O
cm r..
- r+ N+.
- N+. N y?
- U
i
CO C O
O
- Q U
C U .O N
C U .0 Cl) c,.) -0 N U -0 C.) .0 0)
Q
N a) co
N (D C co
N N N C co
a) N Cm
a) N C C..,
a) co
O O
\ U .
U C
U C C
U C C
7 U c ?
U C U D
J C
0 7 L
-
a a) ? >_ o
'O N Cl =3 L o
"O a) CX 7
L o
'0 () 0 - o
-° a) 0 O
L O
-0 a) C
O co
T C1 r C1 7 .
T CL 7 -
N 0- 7 -
N 0- 7 -
N Cl =3 z
N
d CD N
od co
0
06
ad
. ?
?? c6 cz yN- co U) cd •cn U •i
Cl) N 'L N 'i
'L
CO
O
-_ U a) a) U a) U a) a) Q U) a) w a) v () y
Q N O a) N a) a) a) a) 0 O -a O-0 0-0 0-0
o Z Ua (Da_ Ua 0Z oS C) ? S
a)
-C (n
(n
U
V
U
T - 1 1 1 1
Cb U)
2
J ? 2
J 2
! 2
J ? 2
J 2
J
L
cn
c0
U
co
3
co
U
C
aN..
c
..C
0
N
Q
s
ca
E
7
U)
N
T
cr
c
O
N o
O 0
N
(3) o
L -O
C/) m
a) v?
ca
J
m
? m
Q ?
(n °
L U
LLJ
cri N
` W
5 0
zz
ai 0-
L ?
U) 3
m
7
C
U
I-
M
Cl)
w
J
m
Q
H
cq
i
c rL-' >, ca O O .N
N
7 .? c co d L E)
E a)
C) 3 ca
co c c O C O U 0 7 0 •C ? c
a) 0) ° O? E a)=0 2 cn cE a)
- Co CD
'Fa -a C= ca 0 CD --
N
CL > cn a) O o o- . co is w 'D .O E cn
O O'O ate) cts"0 3: Co U ••9a)
CD C O N O M ca =a) j E
> O co
O
r a) a) ? +>-' U O C O C d g o
as co co cts C,3 -- U) 0 0
c i >
aci E - % > a`ai ? a C13 U) 0 -0 ) L)
?aciLCCOCC-cua)??cn
cn `voi9° U)
>, ca 0 ED co 0 >
a) co - 0- -2 0 E
Q co E co a) L (n ? c n '- 0) =3 -o
c a) -Cz
0 0) cam CO a) 0
o?C) c:3 Eac)EEca
c _-0 a) E o ccz a)
z
vi as ca?? OLO.oca1?pUL°pEcd
CD a) -0 Cl) o o ?a? 0T a) c? a) cca?
a?i Asa o ao0oCL 0o°E?
ca cn co C 3 c a E m o Orr- ° 3 >.w NFU)
o - O E
ZO E5' 76 co ca >?-o°c?76 -0 ID?>cq- c
a) 0 _ ca
CO c CD =3 W
U p c 5 co c co a) 0
° u)> E - c a)C•o
LLJ fl 0 CD °'c76 . gy p 0)p ate) a) 0 a) c ?a) W M Co '? :0 co to c? Q° c
OQ E o:3 "M aid Caca?0) CT CD C-C:(Da) S;°
pcc is *' U to o v m o _0 o ai
Q= *' CO a) C: -0 W :3 cz
7 a) o- U O V •c » x N O O- "00 a) co c c .O
w 0 Q) L L L O U a) : M O a) .` 0 0 0 cn ca c vi ? O O cn
0 ca 0 al CL CL
cncca E3 E CD --o0r (D ?L%Vo
°' (n a`) cn ca 'c . a c .E O a U c .c D a) Cl) -° -° C
Mu *a-) E =3 - 3: co Co
-? ?ac v??- iaUO Q) ca
a? era o o'o . wv 3 0F;- o `n arm.- 0 0 0 Co `a??
R_ _ c ocn SN o E CrS r- o a) c ° a) W 3 0
J~ n c Vo-0 a)o C:
CL -0 COL- >.cn O a?ic>>n U) c c C) C: - co c -0
a a CL a) 0) 3 0. .2 a) ca -0 N o? a) co co 3 o ca >° O a0i
s U U i
o
NV c °a °-°= E o ?3: -C
. m• cc$ aa) E c c cca c°
oCmw a) W?t4?°o 3:0UOna°ic°aa?iaccu°'-ccza)0o-(n - ca Q N= cn o o 0- (b a) is Cf) U) Q co
a)0) c cu U) CO :3 a W ? °- a 0-E o c ciaL v 0? E a°) E
S; a)
E o- 5= E a) c0 ` U o a) m a) o cn U a`) U)) z a) ca
Z °c
J ?3 ?aoa)N0c a)a)o?.=?«svic?ia?oo
ca > - CO U) CZ (D cn Q)
pC ° >,cd?= ?- E a) a).oa Qrn-0 !E a) CZ m E E
Q w a
CL CO 0) ? ?? ? W 0) 6 a) cu a) c E CZ-C 0) ? co E o)= ° ca o c E o
-r a) = 0 >.(D C: C-° Qa)-° 0 E E c w n cn o'a c%) o° 7 .2
H ?caca?E co C'3a)?>> C7:3 3Q- .0 ()a)C:0
OC E c co o co U) v ° c)
p : QU ° m c c w•X ao? c-° c ° a) o-o 0 ° a) ca
a°iEOm°va?)°c'°'??Eoa c3cop'V?°)°'??
o ° 30 oa c ?'?? oQ 3Q a) 0)? n ° aci a)" 3 0
a)oa)a).. °Ec >a)?E. >Eg-°U"=E<n
-o CD -
cr 3: (n - D M > «, C: 0 as . O -E ov 3 a) w? o o co o Ea -° a) N-r o f as -0
tD N Q N c U O U m 'O L w> O 0 c' ca N
a) a) Ir ?QCL (n -C - O C:_02 (5 -0-1 V-)acA 0)) 0)ca 3 3 °L crw
z
U
c
°
O
c
(n
a) ?
U
'o co
a c°a
0
r N M a 1n t0 n co O1 ? 7
co
M
M
qCT
W
J
m
C9
01
2
O
2
O
C
CV) CL
00
T a E
c
f' O N
LW
r W E
ma„a
UJ d
++
C =
Z O O
?
0 aw
a
V
2
I--
Z
W
m
N
a
CO
ca
?
-a
g
c?
o
O
o
O
o
a
cz
LL
-p
o
0
o
O
a
iS
U-
?
a
cz
LL
-a
o
0
cis
U-
-p
S
CD
o
a
L
ctf
a
o
O
a
H o It o r` LO r
a
W
m rn
z M
::?
N
Ln M
am ?
d'
r M
O o
Ln
co
":r rn
O co
CR
lf)
T 0
In
tom[)
co o
c0
d
? r
(q
d
? M
In
O
r
co
m Li o co r- co L6
cn
F-
W O N C\j
Co N
r- O N
N
co ?
n N
co LO L`
N N-
r
r- 0
'
Cl) O
E
co
m
C)
D M 00
CO
ti O
C70 M CO
d0 N
O M
N N
O
C7? M
O M
N M
co
00 00
O
T co
O
T
? ?- O ? M M o7 I? M M
X ?i ?/i r O O O O O O
B `? T N N C`7 N M C7
r
CD
(D r r r r r r
r r
4t
2 Cn T r N M Cn Cfl
W co m m m m m m m m
D
co
d
m
N
(V 0
>+
a)
i
r
d
r
C;
?
O
w
T
m
ao
T
m
(L
J
C13
i CL
J
i
)
n Y
co
O
?
CIS
c
Y
LL (6
Y
m
U
N
Q
a)
m
U
c
0.
vOi
i
0 2 (n
a)
C
O
a)
D
Y
LO
>
m
D
Y
i
O
W (A
>
C
a)
a)
N
D
Y
Li (A
?
?
OC
N
Y
Li >
m
a
N
CU
D
i
O
LL
?i >
m
O.
CU
a)
D
i
O
LL
m m D W D 3 S
co
a)
Q
O
t
U
cz -0
O co
Q
o C
i 0-
O
cz 0-
c0 C
N N
O O
U N
E
O
C'i Q
a) W
O Q) N
C C
Q Q O O
(nWCDFn
U (n
~ _ W_
0 a- (n cnWca co
0
m
N
0
0
v
co
v?
J
fG
i
m
ai
co
'a
w
0
F
3
r _ 1 ?E
q r -/
a \? s
\ m LL
,o 0
a me s L _ ` ?? o
C. 9oUnd E / o\ o
6 LL m W
a 0 ? "?? ? ° m y m c?
U ?` = b m o
0
1 H o a 00«
m ?
01 Pa NGGJO ued asJoH y c?
o p ,? ?b a V
rm c c a;
C m & t U)
U-
?
`e Q •" N N N? c U)
day - C 0 ? 0
°r g °' ? eun au M .2 U)
o
0 4 ° N N S '" U ? 0>
y a C
D e / p
oachtr ' 1 N M c
stage r- 0 tP
0 ?( G z N N O f0 U (O (?
J
a? a
' m G,691100 Pao N
U) v cn
U) F- 2D LLJ
CO 0
70 E
If co < z
• G m
7p. LL
L2O4 4 / O? N a
U. r 0 -
• / o "m CL
m a N/ Qua 4 pa 3u¢ p" N
ISf y I N... /C 4' C 1
m®
e? b ?? ?? N N a
MOO 01
% N
Afd•l C l/ 1 IJ ` N ?astf Q
GASH o Pa Ituoi60V4oN \ peep
0
CD1 -d
sR.6e ? c ,
D
Ad o
/ 9 /
1
Li I ?o
0 75
_ O
a ,
m
A?
m
p
West Fork
Deep Rlver
O
`N O
7M
IM O
LL
?Wy
0 Z m
?V?
Imo
(y 0 4)
0 M
0" E
0" U)
3 /a
d
I? r
Z
0
C
G?
R
E
LLJ
<
?z
E
Z, C
p
C
W
runoff, small discharges, and by low summer flows. Both streams are within largely agricultural
catchments, but have urbanized segments near their headwaters. Comparisons of the East and West
Forks of the Deep River indicate greater stress (Fair bio-classification) in the East Fork. The East Fork
has about 10 small dischargers near 1-40, mostly associated with oil storage facilities.
The NCDNER DWQ sampled three sites in Horsepen Creek and one site in Brush Creek in 1997 for
benthic macro-invertebrates that was not reported in the Cape Fear River Basin Wide Water Quality
Management Plan (see Figure 4.3.3-2 for sample locations). Benthic sampling followed a modified
version of the EPA Rapid Bio-assessment Protocol ll. Table 4.3.3-9 shows the taxa abundance, taxa
richness, biotic index values, and bio-classifications for the sites in Horsepen and Brush creeks.
Additionally, 10 habitat parameters were evaluated and rated from a scale of 1 to 20. A habitat score is
determined by the summation of these 10 parameters. The habitat score indicates if the physical make-
up of the channel provides optimal, sub-optimal, marginal, or poor habitat conditions for benthic
macroinvertebrates. Table 4.3.3-10 shows the score for the 10 parameters and the overall habitat score
for the three sites in Horsepen Creek and one site in Brush Creek.
Lakes Assessment - The North Carolina Lakes Assessment Program seeks to protect lakes through
monitoring, pollution prevention and control, and restoration activities. Assessments have been made at
all publicly accessible lakes, which supply domestic drinking water, and lakes (public and private) where
water quality problems have been observed. Data are used to determine the trophic state of each lake.
The trophic state is a relative measure of nutrient enrichment and productivity, and whether the
designated uses of the lake have been threatened or impaired by pollution (Basin Wide Assessment
Report Support Document Cape Fear River Basin, April 1995). The North Carolina Trophic State Index
(NCTSI) includes the five following trophic states: (O = oligotrophic, M = mesotrophic, E = eutrophic, H =
hypereutrophic, D = dystrophic). A numerical index developed specifically for North Carolina lakes was
developed to determine the trophic state of lakes. The NCTSI is based on total phosphorous JP in mg/1)
total organic nitrogen (TON in mg/1), Secchi depth (SD in inches), and chlorophyll-a (CHL in ug/1). Lake
wide averages of these parameters are mathematically manipulated to produce a NCTSI score for each
lake, using equations shown on Table 4.3.3-11.
Phytoplankton is a useful indicator of eutrophication because they respond to nutrient availability, light,
temperature, pH, salinity, water velocity, and grazing by organisms in higher trophic levels. Prolific
growths of phytoplantkton, often due to high concentrations of nutrients, sometimes result in "blooms" in
which one or more species of algae may discolor the water or form visible mats on top of the water.
Blooms may be unsightly and deleterious to water quality, causing fish kills, anoxia, or taste and odor
problems. The Algal Bloom Program was initiated in 1984 to document suspected algal blooms with
species identification, quantitative bio-volume, and density estimates. Usually, an algae sample with a
bio-volume larger than 5,000 mm3/m3, density greater than 10,000 units/ml, or chlorophyll-a concentration
approaching or exceeding 40 ug/I (North Carolina State Standard) constitutes a bloom (Basin Wide
Assessment Report Support Document Cape Fear River Basin, April 1995).
WAPIEDM0NI\DEIS\Ch_4\S_4.doc 4-43 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
The five drinking water reservoirs within or in proximity of the Generalized Study Area evaluated in the
Lakes Assessment Program were Lake Higgins, Lake Brandt, Lake Townsend, Oak Hollow Lake, and
High Point Lake. The trophic state, concentration of parameters to determine trophic state, and algae
species and densities for these reservoirs during two or more sample dates are shown in Table 4.3.3-11.
All five reservoirs were rated as fully supporting designated uses. However, Oak Hollow Lake was
determined to be threatened from excessive algal blooms. Algal blooms and elevated pH values have
been documented in Oak Hollow Lake yearly from 1990 through 1993. Small cyanophytes,
Anabaenopsis raciborskii, and diatoms, Achnthes minutissima, and other species usually dominated the
blooms, which occurred during the summer. The bloom during the summer of 1992 persisted for 7 weeks
before subsiding. Several of the sampling events, particularly April of 1991, contained a bloom of
Chrysochromulina brevituritta, which has been implicated in taste and odor complaints in the past. During
an algal bloom in July 1990, density and bio-volume estimates ranged from 36,684 to 55,200 units/ml and
2,955 to 7,718 mm3/m3. Oak Hollow Lake also has large aquatic macrophyte populations of Ludwigia spp.
and Egeria densa (Basin Wide Assessment Report Support Document Cape Fear River Basin, April
1995).
Small blue-green algae, often associated with eutrophic waters formed a bloom in High Point Lake in July
1990 and another bloom was reported during the Summer of 1991. Eutrophication concerns, which have
been observed in High Point Lake since 1982, suggest a need for continued monitoring as well as a need
to protect the contributing watershed from both point and non-point discharges (Basin Wide Assessment
Report Support Document Cape Fear River Basin, April 1995).
The improved trophic state score measure in 1993 as compared with previous scores for Lake Higgins,
Lake Brandt, and High Point Lake may reflect low rainfall recorded in the Cape Fear River Watershed
during the growing season of 1993. Low rainfall may have resulted in reduced non-point runoff and
associated nutrient contributions to Lake Higgins, Lake Brandt, and High Point Lake. Therefore, an
improvement in the trophic status resulted.
Aquatic Toxicity Monitoring - Acute and or chronic toxicity tests are used to determine toxicity of
discharges to sensitive aquatic species (usually fathered minnows of the water flea, Ceriodaphnia dubia).
Results of these tests have been shown by several researchers to be predictive of discharge effects on
receiving stream populations. Many facilities are required to monitor whole effluent toxicity by their
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits or by administrative letter. Division of
Environmental Management's (DEM) Aquatic Toxicology Laboratory may test other facilities. The
Aquatic Toxicology Unit maintains a compliance summary for all facilities required to perform tests and
provides a monthly update of this information to regional offices and DEM administration. Ambient
toxicity tests can be used to evaluate stream water quality relative to other stream sites and or a point
source discharge (Basin Wide Assessment Report Support Document Cape Fear River Basin, April
1995).
Twenty-three facilities within or near the Generalized Study Area currently monitor effluent toxicity per
NPDES permit requirements. Facilities monitoring and whole effluent toxicity monitoring results for all
WAPIEDM0NT\DEIS\Ch_4\S_4.d0c 4-44 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
TABLE 4.3.3-9
RESULTS OF BENTHIC MACRO-INVERTEBRATE ANALYSIS BY THE NCDENR DWQ
IN HORSEPEN AND BRUSH CREEKS
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
Taxa EPT NCBI NCBI %
Location Identification Abundance Richness No. Classification Chironomid
Horsepen
Creek at
Chimney Rock
Road 01 LB 114 6 6.29 Good-Fair 17.54
Horsepen
Creek at
Battleground
Avenue 02LB 121 5 5.73 Good 7.44
Horsepen
Creek at
Quaker Run 03LB 110 7 5.5 Good 4.55
Brush Creek at
Cardinal CC 01 LH 58 4 6.3 Fair 25.58
Source: NCDENR, 1997.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\SEC-4\S_4-3\TBLS\T_433-9.doc\01 /28/00
O
T
M
M
W
MJ
W
H
N
W
W
U
N
m
Z
Q
Z Z
W W
a?
W
U
I.L
Oa
= UJ
ZG
UN
W W
U
?G>C O
m W CL
N
W fn '- E
F- ? Q d
W W C
> Q O N
Z- t;
6 coo
UO c-
m 'a rte.
L) 0.2
a=i
= O d. E
z m p O
Lu U) Z..
a .
m W 'Dc
m W d W
Oma
LL 0
F- LL
Z0
W >-
fn U
W W
N =
Q ~
1- ?
Qm
H
00
Q
LL
O
>
m
Q
N
? m
0
I,-
O
O
O_
(4 ?
V! T T T T
2
>
O J
Y C V m ^ 00
m J m J m J m J cc
N
'?
c
CU a) TT
T T OM MM
NCO
11
J
00 > J CC J Jcc
O
O M
T LO
T N
T
LL
m
C O
m O
T (D M O
L C
U
_ .0
0 O
T O
T co
T LO
CL
a)
M
0
O
d
*
c c
a
(a 00
T dt
T co co
?
U Q
a
O
O R LO
T N
T It
T CO
T
a •?
- I Q)
O *'
O 3 m co
T
co
T co co
^ (n
`? I m
co co
_
W
m 03 in M:
O
- O O O O
E ac) a a
a1'
CL
Y
a)
CL
a) Y
CL
a) Y
L Y
cn a)
a) <n 0
>r a)
o rn N
a) m 0)
a)
2U =
U 2U m U
O
_)
z
W
0
U
Z
a)
O
U)
cu
E
0-
0
II
O
N
L
rn
0
L
T
co
a
O
.Q
7
co
it
M_
L
7
O
L
T
ca
as
I I
_O
L
0
L_
(0
O
O
CL
II
LO
L
rn
0
T
U)
N
O
U
U)
O
c
0
D c
m ?
J
II II X
CC J W
3
F r-
Z O
W Q- r-
N Q '_ 4)
2
O
(n
R
cn O co
r Cl) co Q w (4
CV) W &- O_
W Q =
J J to
m LL w +'
Q '= 0
>- I-- E
C Q 0
O d W
cn a
`
-0
W cz
a (D
C N
0
N
m
7
v)
a
d)
co 7 0
N co ?
7 -0
ca
In
N
L
E +? 0 a) "0 N 0
03 O C:
ca O)
0
U -C (D
u a)
:
'D
-0
ca
co
O
n co 0
CD
cuNwa) °
:3
N(D ?
CL
o,- 0 0
0-
o-
(z >, E E O > 0 >
0 0 7 0 3 0 t 0) _
s T
Z.>LL Z LL.Z 0W 0w
?C Y Y Y
Cl) Y
i
N .0 co .C (A -0 -0
4) ? O ca O ca (n co (n O (cu U
.
O
C _ C U)
N o (D CC C
U O C \ T 'O
fA to y a ? U -0
In (n y 0-F
O
cc
Co _0 cn C' CC
N N (n "0 a) U) O
U O U '(n O 0)
U y (o '(n 0 0)
C
a
u) O
(E > d
O O O (? C
0 0 CLC-C
0 0 0 0 OS
C- C- C
0 0 0 0
-0 .
C U (0^
0 0 0 0 N
-0
Q (z N >
3
A C C Cc U
0
a
a C C C O
_
z C O)
a)
Z C C C O
M (z a "O' 0 CD o
w
C Q)
-0 0) (0 ca O (E C O Q
-0 0) c0 cZ (o c
co
.0 M .- -
U
0 W (
(
-0-0.e- ? > E
0
0
W W C C fl > O
>
U
0 W
(0 C L 0-
C >, C. 0- - (o C L 0
C >, a 0- - =
C C s cz 0
=
c C U co 5 O 0
=
C C U (13-5 ,O
QJ¢ cz QJQ cam QQ ad QQ CCI - > Q Q CO-:a
U U
U U U U
y
c O O
O O
O a
O d
O
O O
L U N
W Cl)
(3) 7
W :3
W
F - T Cl)
Q)
C-) r O N N
Z
2
U cc) OD rn 00 rn
W v O 0 O O
Q=
E 00 00 CD ? C\j
_
? N - N (n
U
m co - co
0 m m
"H E 0 6 6 6 0
co 0 0 0
E
... ° 0 0 0 0
C)
gy co
T co
q, w
Op N
OP
(
p N
r (O N
r co
N
T
N
Oo 00 Oo co rl_
O)
Y
(C (n
C
?
J 0)
0) C
?
2 m
H r-
Z O
W a' r-
a) fn Q E
7 cn *..
= W c .
*' fn O N
:..r
_ Cl)
O
Q CO V
V W i Q.
T Y rt?+
r Q =
Ch J - -
M L
i 0 42- 5)
r
Q O
~ E =
M d W
Cl) a
m
c0 c
C13 > o
>
Cl) co in d _ o ca
a)
c
y
a)
(D
C m' (D E
cm
(O N L. a) a)
O a) a
i
b
c c
? :3 C ?3 -0 Q=_ a) c
)
a
E N co 0 - °
0 as E -a _ E cm N
w, -a
E
O a
a)
-
>1
-0-
-
O N a)
.
cz
CDNCO???
D L a)
rn?
ee
Ma)
U (z
cr o C
= O 0 O O
C13 L L W
a) CO .-
CZ (
as
.r
c co
a)
CL
L Q
O
a a)
L Qa)"0
"
-
N 7t O-0 ° - O
, 0 7
.
a) co O 7 -0 L
co (D O ?C Q
as E 0) O E d Q" CO
O 0 E
O
3 c0 >. _
3 Cc>% q
C
: o `o o-° ? Ca a c O
0 -0 ° 2
O O 7
Z>I.L Z
0-6 : Z C
Z>LLM co O O: C CU ; a
0m cnU -;E (n as s O
U c0 E C N
U
c
L E
m co
o
o
c0
E
C
o Co =0 a).S?
1 -
-5
l.
.2
(n
°
O co
S2
*co CD
C
c
c
cu
O O E 0
_
,
°
Z
Z
Z
cz
v C E
0 a) Y •= 0)
L cu
c
co cts
E (D C N cO as c
0= 0
r
°
Q c0
cn CO ° 'C a)
0 CU c0 -0 O c 0
c
° s a > ()
_
0)
c? n?? ) =
c
?
0
Z ,
Q?QcOJ ,
o
a
o
ds0)--0w
U
U U U U U U
rn a a O
d
a
Q
0 2
o O O L O O O
V =3
W
W
W
W
W
(n r r N I? O
U T T O r T N
Z
2
U } rn .- o r? co
U
v p p r r O O
W
cn
J p) O I? N O M O
_ N r r M N LO
V-v
0 C° cli
M 't
co
N
Cf))
NT
H- E O O O O O O
a
O
O C\j
O
O
O
O
f
"
E O O O O O O
a) ce)
p O
O c7
CA aD
00 r?
a0 N
00
"
t0
Q
N
r '
? r
r
f-
T
0)
T
N
N
Cb C6 Cb ob cb r?
O
O
Y U d
J ?
O
°o
N
O
O
N
O
r
J
m
M
O
U
w
m
w
0
G
Z
3
H r-
z O
.. W Q. d
d co Q E
Cl)
E W
= +?+
U) O cn
O N r 'r
Q?av
U W L a
T ?[ d E
T Q
A J - io
C? ti ••
4 O
w >- E
CC c
m
=
Q Q °
~ E •_
D d W
CA a
1* CIS
co
O
C N C
C 6
O (D 0
L CO -
t
C
C
f0 O
.
z
a
=3 M: C co
C
L
E a) co fl.
OU
O O N Cu a) c •X E
U = ° U 0 co ? C ?
.«- CL
c? O O a
N O O
_0
s O
U L z-_ 7
U vi mCO
? E a) a) O
o'- ca
0 O > Q
fn 1
?li U 3winv
CA
m
a?
d
.U O cri
fl E L
(n 2 lA U
•y Q
03
Z
m> 0 CL.-
52E
cn - C i to
a ? O Mn
c Co
cc E
U U
t
O O O
F V a "'
ai
N C'7 Cl?
U
0
0
z
U^ rn N
w v ° T
N
a --
Z ? T T
z N m
O O
X
CL o 0
F- O O
O co
CA co
a0
(J T T
co Cb
O
Y O
J Y
CES
0
IO
CA
CD
T
Q.
Q
C
U
C»
co
cc
L
CC
N
LL
N
tZ
CU
U
c
a?
E
U
O
O
n.
rn
O
CL
a) ai
o
U
++
C
a) fn
J
E _
U
Cn +
a>
c a)
Q o
U
co
d
O p
Cn
C? N OR +
C O N
0) O
O O
U) X
ca O
X X O
U
G3
co
1q.
X
-
a
U)
-
O LO
Lq
co
0
r
?-
CL
C7
0
a)
,_
+ N r M r ? 'i +
02 0 + O O J O O a)
fr O f1 p
Cl) =
U C
Cl)
Z f- H N
J
0
J
-I Z
O C
C
Z 11 II II II II II
? N
N U
°
o O _
v 0
=3 Z U)
Z
WF- H 0 0 z
dischargers within and near the Generalized Study Area are presented in Table K-3 in Appendix K. None
of the facilities listed in Table K-3 have obtained regulatory relief for toxicity limits through a special or
judicial order.
Ambient Water Quality Monitoring - The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources Division of Water Quality maintains a network of ambient water quality monitoring stations in
streams, lakes, and estuarine waters throughout North Carolina. There is one active ambient water
quality station within the Generalized Study Area in the East Fork Deep River. Several water quality
stations are located in each of the drinking water reservoirs: Lake Higgins, Lake Brandt, Lake Townsend,
High Point Lake, and Oak Hollow Lake (see Figure 4.3.3-2 for location of sampling sites). The
parameters measured at these stations include the following:
• Field Parameters - Dissolved oxygen, pH, conductivity, temperature, chlorine.
• Nutrients - Total phosphorous, ammonia, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, nitrate+nitrite.
• Physical Measurements - Total suspended solids, turbidity, hardness.
• Bacterial - Fecal coliforms (Millipore Filter Method).
• Metals - Aluminum (no present water quality standard), arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
copper, iron, lead, mercury, nickel, silver, zinc.
• Water Supply Waters (WS-I, WS-II, WS-III, WS-IV, and WS-V) - Chlorides, total
coliforms, manganese, total dissolved solids.
• Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) - Chlorophyll-a.
Tables K-4 through K-7, in Appendix K, summarize the results of sampling efforts of the ambient water
quality monitoring stations in Lake Higgins, Lake Brandt, Lake Townsend, High Point Lake, and the East
Fork Deep River by the NCDENR for the months of May through December 1998. The majority of the
values for the water quality parameters tested were within state water quality standards as shown in
Table K-1. Parameters exceeding water quality standards were noted in bold on Tables K-4 through K-7.
The NCDENR DWQ sampled three sites in Horsepen Creek and one site in Brush Creek in 1997 for
ambient water quality data not reported in the Cape Fear River Basin Wide Water Quality Management
Plan (see Figure 4.3.3-1 for sample locations). Table K-8 in Appendix K shows the values of measured
parameters for sites in Horsepen and Brush creeks. All values were within state water quality standards.
Use Support Ratings - The use support of a water body is how well a water body supports its designated
uses. Determining the use support is another important method of interpreting water quality data and
assessing water quality.
Surface waters are rated as either fully supporting (S), support-threatened (ST), partially supporting (PS),
or non-supporting (NS). The terms refer to whether the classified uses of the water (such as water
WAPIEDMONIIDEIS\Ch 4\S_4.doc 4-45 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
supply, aquatic life protection, and swimming) are being fully supported, partially supported, or not
supported. The support-threatened category refers to waters classified as good-fair based on water
quality data, in contrast to excellent or good, which are considered fully supporting. The non-supporting
category refers to waters where no uses are supported. The partially supporting category refers to waters
with a mixture of supported and non-supported uses. Streams rated as either partially supporting or non-
supporting are considered impaired supplies (Cape Fear River Basin Wide Water Quality Management
Plan, October 1996).
The most recent use support ratings for waters within the Cape Fear Basin were determined from water
quality data from January 1988 through August 1993 and documented in the Cape Fear Basin Wide
Water Quality Management Plan. The water quality data included chemical and physical data, biological
ratings, toxicity data related to discharging facilities, fish tissue and fish community structure data, and
phytoplankton bloom information.
The chemical and physical water quality data included dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, turbidity, fecal
coliform bacteria, chlorophyll-a, ammonia, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, mercury,
zinc, chloride, fluoride, and selenium. These data were interpreted from information available through the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The program determines water quality standard violations and
computes percentages of the values in violation based on applicable North Carolina water quality
standards. According to EPA guidance, the use support determinations based on chemical and physical
data were made as follows:
• Fully Supporting - For any one pollutant, criteria exceeded in <= 10 percent of the
measurements.
• Partially Supporting - For any one pollutant, criteria exceeded in 11 to 25 percent of
the measurements.
• Not Supporting - For any one pollutant, criteria exceeded in 25 percent of the
measurements.
Biological rankings from benthic macro-invertebrate data from 1983 to 1992 were also used to determine
the use support. For rankings purposes, stations classified as Poor with regard to biological data are
rated not supporting (NS), and stations classified as Fair are rated partially supporting (PS). Stations
classified as Good-Fair are rated as support-threatened (ST), and those having a Good to Excellent bio-
classification are rated as supporting (S) their designated uses.
Stream segments that recovered a discharge from a facility significantly out of compliance with permit
limits or failing their whole effluent toxicity tests were rated as support-threatened, unless water quality
data indicated otherwise.
Table 4.3.3-12 summarizes the use support determinations for freshwater streams and lakes within the
Generalized Study Area. The table includes chemical ratings, biological ratings, overall use support
ratings, problem parameters, and major sources of pollution.
WAPIEDMONMEIS\Ch 4\S_4.doc 4-46 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
N
T
M
c-;
W
J
Q
d
Z
W
D
U
Z
W
tr
m
f?
W
IY
O
H
Z
O
2
co)
W O
W C
Q `£
Q
M ? d
C9 D ?a a
W 5 c ..
cn E- O cn
N R V
W W a.
N £
F-J-_
cn .4 a
cc cc m
LU z E
Q W •• c
= 0 0 0
._
W .a L.
d W
U-Z°-
Q
O
IL
Z
0
a
O
LL
Z
HM
IY
O
IL
a
N
w
N
a)
C
C
012u c 0 oo
c
_
L z z z
a o C z C I
-p
O O
0 N
O O
OD N
CA O
2 O
T
+. L
- r
a) 0
to CL
CL
U)
a
?? cn z U) C/)
O
E v c
O
o f z z Z Z
=3
(L U)
F
a
rn
LL Z z z z z z
LL
Z Z (j Z
n3
X O to
a; N
o w
Z Cl)
Z CL U -
z
z
iU fC (4
o m
U Z Z Z z z z
73 IE r-
m 1= >
cu c o cn cn cn cn cn cn
m'- rn z z Z z z Z
co z Z Z Z Z Z
V = M
U) Ir
z Cc
z U)
CL Ir
z Er
z
_ u
U
O rn rn In N r
I?
IC CV
T o N (6 c!') co
Y N Y
N
ca
i
as
i
O
r
N U
r- OY C C:
O a) ir Q v a? Oa CL
a) Q
a)
U
O Y?
0-6 U
c ??
- ?v
Do S co
-I
U- o
Q N 0
0
= C o
LL.
i ?
ao
"0 ?N o N w
?r
?r
0
)
a
"a
CD ` (n
0 LL
?
/
te
/
L1 LL T
I `V 2 T VJ /
2 '
J VJ
cu
(1)
LL_
a>
C1
O3
U
d
CC
w
z
0 c?
U ra
Z
+-? U
(0 O
7 O
C? o
co cz
o LL. c
c o
o)-o
O U
c
C
? U II
i _O Z
O
0 N
a) 0 a
O E
co Q co
II ?
=3 (6
1> O O
Z rn a c
.0 m n
C: i C
co ? 0 z
L= 0 O
d
ao
E0
c U ca
-
-
ca °c 0
c
IL
w c o u
CD- ct
o a>
E ?Z
?m in
E Ft CD
.E C -F a2 Q
co
0 - .V
c o
d o
O0 i 'ZC
co a) a) i
U is I- 'cu
Z v o- o
o ? CD 11
U II LL.
U) co U) (D
6 in
N
0 O
z
0
Impaired Surface Waters - Section 303 (d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to develop a
list of waters not meeting water quality standards or which have impaired uses. Listed water bodies must
be prioritized, and a management strategy or total maximum load (TMDL) must subsequently be
developed for all listed waters.
Water bodies whose use support ratings were not supporting (NS), partially supporting (PS), and support
threatened (ST) were considered initial candidates for the 303(d) list. Although support threatened waters
currently meet their intended uses, these waters were reviewed to determine if there were sufficient data
to determine if they would become impaired in the next 2 years. Fish consumption advisories on specific
water bodies are also cause to include the water body on the 303(d) list. Additionally, biologically
impaired water bodies without identifiable problem parameters are also on the 303(d) list (NCDENR,
North Carolina's 1998 303(d) List, May 15, 1998).
Each of the waters on the 303(d) list was ranked as high, medium, or low to prioritize the DWQ's
resources. The ranking is based on numerical rankings for each of the following items: classification, use
support rating, presence of endangered species, degree of public interest, and probability of success.
The numerical sum of these items is used to determine the priority of the impaired water body. A high
priority is assigned to waters with an overall rank between 6 and 8. A medium priority is assigned to
waters with an overall rank between 3 and 5, and a low priority is assigned to waters with overall ranks
below 3. Further explanations on each of these priorities is provided below:
• High - Waters rated high are important resources for the State of North Carolina in
terms of their human and ecological uses. Typically they are classified as water
supplies, harbor Federally endangered species, and are rated as not supporting.
These waters will be addressed first within their basin cycles.
• Medium - Waters rated medium may be classified for water supply or primary
recreational use, may have state endangered or other threatened species, and may
be rated as partially or not supporting.
• Low - Water rated low generally is classified for aquatic life support and secondary
recreation (i.e., Class C waters) and harbors no endangered or threatened species.
Other priorities have also been assigned to waters. A monitor priority indicates that the water body is
listed based on data older than 5 years, biological monitoring and no problem pollutant has been
identified, or biological monitoring that occurred in waters where we now have evidence that the biological
criteria should not have been applied. These waters will be resampled before a restorative approach may
be developed because more information is required about the cause of impairment. An N/A priority (not
applicable) was assigned to waters that will meet their uses based on the current management strategies.
For example, a water body impaired by a point source, and the pollutant causing the impairment has
been completely removed from the point source (NCDENR, North Carolina's 1998 303(d) List, May 15,
1998).
WAPIEDM0NT\DEIS\Ch_4\S_4.doc 4-47 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
The management strategy to restore water quality is conducted using the following approaches:
• TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) - A numeric TMDL as currently defined by the
EPA will be developed.
• MS (Management Strategy) - These water bodies are on the list based on data
collected within the 5 years prior to when the use support assessment was
completed. A problem pollutant has been identified, but North Carolina cannot
develop a numeric TMDL as EPA currently defines it. A management strategy may
contain the following elements: further characterization of the causes and sources of
impairment, numeric water quality goals other than TMDLs, and best management
practices to restore the water.
• RES (Resamples) - These water bodies were identified as being impaired based on
water quality data that were greater than 5 years old at the time the use support
assessment was performed. This water body will be resampled prior to TMDL or
management strategy development to ensure the impairment continues to exist. This
will enable the Division of Water Quality to focus its limited resources on water shed
that are in greatest need of management.
• PPI (Problem Parameters Identification) - Available chemical data do not show any
parameters in violation of state standards, but biological impairment have been noted
within the 5 years prior to use support assessment. These waters will be resampled
for chemical and biological data to attempt to determine the potential problem
pollutants. TMDLs or management strategies will be developed within two basin
cycles of problem parameter identification.
• SWMP (Swampy) - This water body is "swampy" and it was assessed using
biological monitoring methods that apply to freshwater areas. The water may not
actually be impaired. The water body will be re-evaluated when "swamp" criteria are
available.
Table 4.3.3-13 shows the impaired water bodies within the Generalized Study Area on North Carolina's
1998 303(d) list. The table includes the overall use support rating, pollution sources, management
strategy, and priority.
Pollution Causes and Sources - Water pollution is caused by a number of substances including
sediment, nutrients, bacteria, oxygen demanding wastes, metals, color, and toxic substances. Sources of
these pollution-causing substances are divided into point and non-point sources. Point sources are
typically piped discharges from wastewater from wastewater treatment plants, large urban stormwater
systems (from municipalities with a population greater than 100,000 such as Greensboro, North
Carolina), and industrial stormwater systems. Non-point sources can include stormwater runoff from
smaller urban areas (population less than 100,000), forestry, mining, agricultural lands, and construction
sites.
Point Sources - Point source refers to discharges that enter surface waters through a pipe, ditch, or
other well-defined points of discharge. These include municipal, industrial, small domestic, and
stormwater systems from industrial sites such as PTIA. The primary water quality pollutants associated
with point source pollution are oxygen demanding wastes; nutrients; color; and toxic substances including
WAPIEDMONrDEIS\Ch_4\S_4.doc 4-48 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
M
T
C)
C)
RT
w
J
m
H
Q
w
Q
O
F-
Cl)
0
w
N
J
Q
Ir
W
Z 0 C
W L d
C'f Q E
W 0
o in
= C l3
L CL
C
Cl) W ?p =
O? E
0
m o L
H 'a c
w
a
m
O
I-
I--N
J
'C
M
O
M
co
O
rn
T
T E
O
O
O
O
a O O O J
U ?
o U) FL
M cc cc o
CL
a) ns o Q
N W 0
0'
p :3
U
U U U U
:?
(n C
C O U
3 Q Q U E Q
O to ca
N
G
O
3 c
p
c
c
c
c
CL Z
o o
IZ 0
CL 0
tL
o O
c
0 !L c c c IL c
_ 1
o
a Z Z Z Z
m
r
1=
m
> C. CL a O
.. a.
a
E E
a) w a
U
o f - Z Z Z
M a
aod
a M U °d
a
M Cp M LO
T L6 O CO CO
C
O ()
O Y
a) a
p
N
a) 'O
.
L E O J j N "a E j j N "a
L
o
u) E
oo
w
U E p
U ?
•
N 2 y
LL v o m OC> U
LLB O O 0
U-- -'o O=N
LL 2 CJ pOC7
lL O
E
Y
a) y
Y c
o
0 a
N
cc p 0)
TC CD
U )
a) 0
U2 O
a
fn m
a 7 a)
-
(-Cp
y Y
Y
!i O) Y
O
CD
C
a) ?
O
`
i O
? (D
O
2U
LL >
w
oC? i m m
V-
O
CL
CL
7
C a)
a O
m a
(C a)
a c
3 .?
c_ a)
N 0
"6
O O
O
o D O_
m
E cO
u o
o )
CO () as
i?
za 0) °
E '3 cts
O i
m
U U
c
U ? a
w _ co
'D N
"p U_
ac) rn
0
-E -o >. o
N to a
N `
c o
U N Q
O E
o E co
Zco -0
0) c0 _
a ?
i
0 7) a)
O O 3
.?
c a
o m
io >
3o n
E
U_
J -00
p a) M ZT
a a) o
M O O
C> j C CJ1
M O O
M
M O C O
?D co
T
E U
L6 a)
T `
A T c
co O 0)"D CD
O d
N
0.0
m y N z O)
O)
ova EE a
aE C CO N E;
Z a O) O) p a. Q, cu C
w y Ca n E E .? a_
C..) co co E O O C CD
U) .0. G
Z OS E 0 0 o p 0
0- < im IL a -0 Z
II II II II II II
aU
w CL 2 cc C a Z
chlorine, ammonia, and metals. Point source discharges are not allowed in North Carolina without a
permit from the state. Discharge permits are issued under the NPDES program delegated to North
Carolina from the EPA. The NPDES permit contains effluent limits for specific pollutants, assigns major
or minor status based on the amount of effluent flow, and requires water quality data to be submitted to
the NCDENR DWQ monthly. Minimum NPDES monitoring requirements are provided in 15A NCAC
2B.0500 (NCDENR, Cape Fear River Basin Wide Water Quality Management Plan, October 1996). Table
4.3.3-14 lists the point sources within the Generalized Study Area and their respective discharge points,
NPDES permit number, and permitted flow. The majority of point sources within the Generalized Study
Area are located south of PTIA. Consequently, the East Fork Deep River and Horsepen Creek are
impacted the most by point sources (see Figure 4.3.3-2).
Major storm sewer discharges from the City of Greensboro are considered point sources because they
serve populations greater than 100,000. Therefore, the City of Greensboro is required to develop an
urban stormwater program to help control urban stormwater pollution.
Non-Point Sources - Non-point source refers to runoff that enters the surface waters through stormwater
or snowmelt. Sediment and nutrients are major pollution-causing substances associated with non-point
source pollution. Others include fecal coliform bacteria, heavy metals, pesticides, oil and grease, and any
other substance that may be washed off the ground or removed from the atmosphere and carried into
surface waters (NCDENR, Cape Fear Basin Wide Water Quality Management Plan, October 1996). The
land use activities serving as non-point sources in the Generalized Study Area are agriculture, urban land
uses, and construction. Runoff from agricultural lands primarily impact surface waters in the rural
northwest and southwest sections of the Generalized Study Area. These waters include Beaver Creek,
Reedy Fork, Moores Creek, and the West Fork Deep River. Runoff from industrial, commercial, and
residential developments and construction sites impact surface waters in the urban eastern and central
sections of the Generalized Study Area. These waters include Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek, East Fork
Deep River, and South Buffalo Creek.
Runoff from agriculture lands includes pesticides, fertilizers, manure, and sediment. Runoff from
urbanized areas, as a rule, is more localized but generally more severe than the agricultural runoff. The
rate and volume of runoff in urban areas are much greater due both to the high concentration of
impervious surfaces and to storm drainage systems that rapidly transport stormwater to nearby surface
waters. These drainage systems, including curb and guttered roadways, allow urban pollutants to reach
surface waters quickly and with little or no filtering by vegetated areas. These effects are further
exacerbated by replacement of small streams and riparian vegetation with pipes. Urban pollutants
include lawn care products such as pesticides and fertilizers; automobile-related pollutants such as fuel,
lubricants, abraded tire, and brake linings; lawn and household wastes; and fecal coliform bacteria.
Piedmont Triad International Airport - Existing stormwater discharges to surface waters from PTIA will
be required to comply with provisions of the General Permit No. NCG150000 issued by the NCDENR
Division of Environmental Management (Baker and Associates, 1999). The airport has not been issued
WAPIEDM0Nl1DEIS\Ch 4\S_4.doc 4-49 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
this permit because the permitting process is currently ongoing. The airport will discharge stormwater
under the NPDES permit upon its issuance by the NCDENR Division of Environmental Management.
The current draft permit specifies monitoring and reporting requirements for both quantitative and
qualitative assessment of the stormwater discharge and operational inspections of the entire airport
facility, including all stormwater systems. The draft permit proposes annual quantitative sampling for the
following parameters: total suspended solids, oil and grease, pH, total rainfall, event duration, and total
flow (Baker and Associates, 1999).
In addition to quantitative analytical monitoring, the draft permit specifies qualitative visual monitoring of
each stormwater outfall for the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness of the required Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and assessing new sources of stormwater pollution. Visual
monitoring parameters include color, odor, clarity, floating and suspended solids, foam, oil sheen, and
other obvious indicators of stormwater pollution (Baker and Associates, 1999).
Self inspections of the airport facilities and all stormwater systems are required to be conducted on a
semiannual schedule. The inspections and any subsequent maintenance activities performed must be
documented, including recording date and time of inspection, individuals making the inspections, and a
narrative description of the stormwater control system (Baker and Associates, 1999).
Currently, there are approximately 50 stormwater outfalls that exit the PTIA property. Outfalls that are
substantially identical may be grouped for sampling purposes to allow sampling of a reduced number of
outfalls. Specific outfalls are targeted for combination and collection in a basin to reduce the number of
sampling points identified in the pending NPDES permit. The proposed number of outfalls in anticipation
of the permit is reduced from 50 to approximately 31 (Baker and Associates, 1999). The locations of
these 31 outfalls from the airport are shown in Appendix K.
Modifications of the current stormwater management system of the existing airport development is not
mandated per the PTAA Stormwater Management Ordinance or the State of North Carolina
Administrative Code Section 15 A, Subchapter 2B. However, should the PTAA discover any existing
developed areas that pose a potential threat to existing water quality through uncontrolled stormwater
discharge, the PTAA will take appropriate action and install stormwater management controls. The PTAA
may direct current tenants to provide stormwater management systems for existing facilities as deemed
necessary (Baker and Associates, 1999).
4.3.3.2 Groundwater
The hydrogeological setting of the Generalized Study Area is defined by the intricate relation between the
streams that convey runoff and the regolith fractured crystalline rock aquifer system that stores
groundwater and functions as a conduit to route groundwater from recharge areas to discharge areas
(Daniel, 1998). The principal components of the groundwater system in the Generalized Study Area
WAPIEDM0NT\DEIS\Ch_4\S_4.doc 4-50 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
TABLE 4.3.3-14
NPDES DISCHARGERS WITHIN THE GENERALIZED STUDY AREA
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
Number
NPDES #
Facility Permitted
flow
MGD
Pipe
#
Stream
1220 N00000795 Exxon Co. 0.00 001 UT.E. Fork Dee River
1018 N00003352 FINA Oil & Chemical 0.00 001 UT Horse en Creek
1017 N00003671 Amoco Oil co. 0.00 001 UT Horse en Creek
1211 N00022209 Star Enterprise 0.00 001 UT Lon Branch
1219 N00026247 Louis Dreyfus Energy
Corp. 0.00 001 UT E. Fork Deep River
1196 N00027758 DOC-Sandy Ridge
Corr. CTR 4435 0.0175 001 UT W. Fork Deep River
1234 0.00 001
T
E
F
k D
Ri
1235 N00032883 Phillips Pipeline Co. 0.00 002 .
.
or
eep
ver
U
1001 N00038130 Guilford County SCH-
Northwest J&HS 0.031 001 UT Moores Creek
1224 N00042501 Triad Terminal Co. 0.00 001 UT.E. Fork Dee River
1213 Plantation Pipe Line 0.00 001
T
E
F
k D
Ri
1214 N00051161 Co. 0.00 002 .
.
or
eep
ver
U
1215 N00065803 Ashland Petroleum
Co. 0.00 001 UT.E. Fork Deep River
1016 N00071463 Petroleum Fuel and
Terminal Co. 0.00 001 UT Horsepen Creek
1237 N00074578 Conco Inc. 0.00 001 UT Lon Branch
999 N00077968 Colfax Elementary 001 UT Reed Fork
1021 N00078000 Worth Chemical Corp. 0.216 001 UT S. Buffalo Creek
1212 N00084492 Carolina Steel Corp. 0.00 001 UT.W. Fork Dee River
1019 N00046612 Hidden Valle MHP 001 UT S. Buffalo Creek
1020 NCG500066 Richardson-Vicks, Inc. 001 UT S. Buffalo Creek
1210 NCG020060 Martin Marietta 001 Lon Branch
1217 N00069256 Amerada Hess 0.00 001 UT.E. Fork Dee River
1218 N00074241 GNC Energy Corp. Varies 001 UT.E. Fork Dee River
1221 Varies 001
1222 N00073938 Shell Oil Co. Varies 002 UT.E. Fork Deep River
1223 Varies 003
1242 N00050229 Guilford County
Animal Shelter 001 Bull Run Creek
1225 0.00 001
1226 0.00 002
1227 0.00 003 D
Ri
T
E
F
1228 N00031046 Colonial Pipe Co.
0.00
004 ork
eep
ver
.
.
U
1229 0.00 005
1230 0.00 006
1216 N00068063 Louis Dreyfus Energy
Corp. 0.00 001 UT.E. Fork Deep River
Source: NCDENR DWG, Cade Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan, October,
1996.
MGD = million gallons per day.
W APIEDMONT\DEIS\SEC-4\S. 4-3\TBLS\T_433.14.doc\01/28/00
consist of the upper regolith and lower regolith (transition zone) zones underlain by a fractured crystalline
bedrock.
• Upper regolith - Consists of an unsaturated zone underlain by a saturated zone.
Collectively, both zones are composed of saprolite, alluvium, and soil. The saturated
zone generally contains the organic layers of the surface soil. The upper regolith
consists of an unconsolidated or semi-consolidated mixture of clay and fragmental
material dominated by saporlite ranging in size from silt to boulders. The regolith
provides the bulk of the water storage because of its porosity. Thickness ranges
from zero to more than 150 feet (Daniel, 1998).
• Lower regolith (Transition zone) - Consists of partially weathered bedrock and lesser
amounts of saporolite. Particles range in size from silts and clays to large boulders of
unweathered bedrock. The thickness and texture of this zone depend a great deal
on the texture and composition of the parent rock. Augers of three wells in Guilford
County northwest of Greensboro indicate the transition zone was approximately 15
feet thick. This zone is more permeable than the upper regolith zone because of less
advanced weathering (Daniel, 1998).
The groundwater system stores water to the extent of its porosity and transmits water from recharge
areas to discharge areas. Water enters the groundwater system in recharge areas, which generally
include all of the inter-stream land surfaces at elevations above streams and their adjoining floodplains.
Streams and floodplains are, under most conditions, discharge areas. After infiltration, water slowly
moves downward through the unsaturated zone to the water table (saturated zone). Water moves
laterally through the saturated zone, discharging as seepage into streams, lakes, or swamps.
Recharge varies from month to month and year to year, depending on amounts of precipitation, seasonal
distribution, evaporation, transpiration, land use, and other factors. Recharge/discharge locations are
shown on Figure 4.3.3-1. Annually, estimated mean recharge in the Horsepen Creek drainage basin is
6.39 inches or 478 (gal/day)/acre. The median recharge in the Horsepen Creek drainage basin is 394
(gal/day)/acre. Annually, estimated mean recharge in the Reedy Fork drainage basin is 9.33 inches or
696 (gal/day)/acre. The median recharge in the Reedy Fork drainage basin is 612 (gal/day)/acre (Daniel,
1998).
Groundwater Quality Classifications and Groundwater Quality Standards - The groundwater
classifications assigned to the groundwaters located within the boundaries or under extraterritorial
jurisdiction of the State of North Carolina are GA, GSA, and GC groundwaters (see Table 4.3.3-15 for
descriptions of these classifications). Groundwater classifications are based on the quality, occurrence,
and existing or contemplated best usage of the groundwaters and are assigned statewide except where
supplemented or supplanted by specific classifications assignments by major river basins (Section 0.0300
- Assignment of Underground Water classifications, Subchapter 2L - Groundwater Classifications and
Standards).
WAPIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_4\S_4.doc 4_51 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
The best usage, conditions related to best usage and occurrence for GA, GSA, and GC groundwater
classifications are shown in Table 4.3.3-15. All groundwaters within the Generalized Study Area are
classified as GA.
The groundwater quality standards for North Carolina are the maximum allowable concentrations
resulting from any discharge of contaminants to the land or waters of the state, which may be tolerated
without creating a threat to human health or which would otherwise render the groundwater unsuitable for
its intended best usage. The most stringent groundwater quality standards are for GA groundwaters,
followed by GSA and GC groundwaters in their respective order. Standards for specific contaminants are
specified in Paragraphs (g) and (h) of Subchapter 2L - Groundwater Classification and Standards Section
0.0200 - Groundwater Quality Standards.
Groundwater Quality - Groundwater quality throughout the Generalized Study Area is rated "good."
Groundwater quality impairment or limitation on the use of groundwater for potable use is caused
primarily by natural geo-chemical processes rather than by widespread degradation of water quality by
human activities. Groundwater contamination induced by human activities generally is localized and
associated with chemical spills, waste disposal, septic tanks, landfills, oil and gas brine pits, underground
storage tanks, aboveground storage tanks, land application or treatment, agricultural activities, and
injection wells. Sites of known or suspected contaminant releases within the Generalized Study Area are
placed on the Pollution Incidents List by the Guilford County Department of Environmental Health and
reported to NCDENR. The purpose of the Pollution Incidents List is to provide a mechanism for
reporting, remediation, and documentation. Specific sites within the Generalized Study Area on the
Pollution Incidents List are discussed in Section 4.3.7, Hazardous Materials.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and NCDENR monitor groundwater quality in 100 observation wells
throughout the State of North of Carolina. However, there are no observation wells within the
Generalized Study Area or Guilford County. The nearest USGS/NCDENR observation wells are located
west of Guilford County in Davie and Rowan counties. The Guilford County Department of Environmental
Health does not maintain a database on groundwater quality parameters other than what is documented
on well permits and the Pollution Incidents List.
4.3.3.3 Water Supply
Water supply within the Generalized Study Area including PTIA is provided by surface water sources
managed and operated by the City of Greensboro and the City of High Point. The City of Greensboro
supplies water from Lake Higgins, Lake Brandt, and Lake Townsend to portions of the Generalized Study
Area in the City of Greensboro and unincorporated areas of Guilford County. The City of High Point
supplies water from Oak Hollow Lake and High Point Lake to portions of the Generalized Study Area in
the City of High Point.
Lake Higgins is fed by Brush Creek and encompasses approximately 280 acres. The lake was built in
1957 and holds approximately 0.8 billion gallons of water and is utilized as an emergency supply for
WAPIEDM0MIDEIS\Ch_4\S_4.doc 4-52 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
Ln
T
Cl)
m
le
w
J
m
H
CO)
Z
O
Q
V
zo-
Cl)
Q
J
U
cc
w
Q
D
Z
n
O
V
Q
Z
J
O
Q
H
cc
O
Z
r-
0
C.
a
C
r+
c
ar
C
R
L
C
O
a)
IL
C
d
d
r?+
Cl)
V
R
a
c
c
O
C
W
OJ"O
c
fV
Co
C
co N N
=3 d c
co o
0 c0
a) W z n
CO co
i i o
d U
C)
U a
c a
c C) C)
Z O L
O 0
N
- O
N
-
>, O CO a)
C6 N
0
(1) D
O
-0O ?-2
76
E2 'D c -a
(1)
0
> = 5'
r C.) 0 c
ca
U) -
D
U) ?C7
O U
c -0
-C (n
7
D
W
Crj O L 7
a)
L a
co
cc$
_
Q c CU
•- co N ` N c O N
L
cV .
CD N c 0
c 0- 'p j
.
O cz +_ O c co -0 o N CO
.c .C c0 a n N U
E j C i U
N Nip
N 0>,
c
U Co (C o??
rn= N O N
J
w Y a)
L i O CLf E -0 Q? .0
U)
a) ° a n _N U :3 a a) =3 Q)
co 0 E
0' 76 tea,
0)
o LLoa)
O
L
O co a) 0 c
c
c
L 'L
O
O O
a)
Q ca c-
3
O• -0 C
5
O =3
O c 45
?
O
? .
N N L 3: U L a) c 0
O >
-
??
Co arA>,
-0 OLaco
8-0 E c:
N
c C
a) c 3
0?0? (D E N N
•c Mc5
O O;0 N Y a U O O N
ca N '
=1 N c • co U N
p c O cr c c? O
E N N 0-0
0
U
a) U 0
a)
a) N
C.) C) 0
:3 0 >, 7 7
O CIS O C O N L-
U
° a) O U c co
° _
a)L)
c p N°
c EUOUcu
a
c
o a N
o a Ni 0 L O E
=
c? a ?
c °
a)
Uc
c$ ic Ua
)c4
U 000--o
V O 0:5 a 0 Ca a) CO
=3 >, 7 (0 ?
,
-
>, - CO
oa
CO p., 0
6 co
N a a
E
a O
U N
'Z- N (? L L
.,... O L N
.
N 7 L 0).r-
N a) C >+
(Q c L
W CD ?
c
a)
a) _>. cU i L
? N
O co
a O fl 3
a s a)
C N
N
m L
O c L :3 c
O N 7
O N U
Y co
c r () c? i
'
O a) 0 C) y
U
c
co
?-aE
-
79
c?3
cc
O a)
.
0°cE
W of =3 _
x
W O E v :3 Z:
!n aa-0
c
0
N U' C7 C7
R
U
0
co
c
cd
C
cz
c
O
cz
U
y
N
ca
U
iu
3
.a
c
0
C'3
J
N
m
Q
cz
.r -
L)
.Q
7
U)
W
Z
0
U
Z
a)
i
7
0
U)
m
CL
co
E
ca
L
a)
E
E