20000846 Ver 1_Complete File_20030103

L.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
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
Proposed Runway 5U23R, Proposed New Overnight Express
i
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 sortfdistribution facility,
tunneling and bridging of Bryan Boulevard, and closing a portion of North Regional Road, west of Bryan Boulevard. Ito
i 411
VOLUME 1: DOCUMENTATION
APRIL 2000
T 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
?i
400?"

III. y`
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SUMMARY
ABOUT THE PIEDMONT TRIAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DENS
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) prepared this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to
identify the potential environmental effects associated with the construction and operation of proposed
improvements to the Piedmont Triad International Airport (PTIA). The Piedmont Triad Airport Authority
(PTAA), the owner and operator of PTIA, completed the 1994 Master Plan Update (MPU) that identified a
comprehensive development program for the expansion of PTIA. (PTAA is in the process of completing a
new MPU update that does not affect the current proposal for improvements to PTIA). In April 1998, the
PTAA submitted the new runway portion of its Airport Layout Plan (ALP) to the FAA for environmental
approval in connection with its intent to seek Federal funds for Master Plan project implementation. The
FAA must prepare an EIS and issue a Record of Decision (ROD) that reflect its approval or disapproval of
the proposal under environmental criteria. The proposed improvements cannot be considered eligible for
Federal funding until the FAA issues a ROD.
THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO PTIA
The PTAA is requesting airside and landside improvements to PTIA on the ALP that are intended to
enable the airport to effectively meet estimated levels of activity associated with the operational
requirements of a proposed air cargo hub. The PTAA's proposed project features a new parallel
Transport Category runway, 9,000 feet long by 150 feet wide, which would be located on the western side
of the airport. This runway is intended to improve airfield capacity during both visual meteorological
conditions (VMC) and instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). The proposed project also includes
the development of an overnight, express air cargo sorting and distribution facility, roadway
improvements, NAVAIDS for new Runway 5U23R, property acquisition and relocation of several airport
tenant operations (see Figure S-1).
FAA's ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES
In recognizing the importance of protecting the environment, the U.S. Congress passed the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) to encourage Federal agencies to enhance the environment.
NEPA requires Federal agencies to treat environmental impact as a primary criterion in evaluating a
proposed project. It also requires Federal agencies to analyze and consider alternatives to, and the
environmental impacts of, their proposed actions, to disclose and consider mitigation for those impacts,
and to provide interested parties with an opportunity to participate in the environmental review process. In
addition, Federal agencies must consider the "No-Action" Alternative. Furthermore, NEPA requires
Federal agencies to consider a proposed action's environmental consequences along with the agency's
statutory mission and technical factors related to their areas of expertise.
The FAA is responsible for complying with NEPA whenever an airport sponsor seeks to implement
projects depicted on an ALP and associated Federal actions. The FAA has reviewed PTIA's 1994 ALP
W:\PIEDMON7\DEIS\Exsum\fnl_exs.doc\03/23/00 S-1 Summary
and determined that an EIS would be the most appropriate document for the agency to fulfill its
obligations under NEPA and FAA Orders 1050.1D (FAA, 1986) and 5050.4A (FAA, 1985). In July 1998,
the FAA published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare the DEIS for the PTIA proposed expansion. Public
and agency Scoping meetings were held in August 1998 to receive comments regarding the scope of the
analysis and identify any potential environmental impacts. In addition, a Public Information Workshop was
held in April 1999 to receive any additional comments from interested parties on the scope of the analysis
to be conducted during the environmental process.
In Chapter 2.0, Purpose and Need, the purpose and need for the proposed project is explained and
defined. In Chapter 3.0, Alternatives, the FAA presents and analyzes a range of alternatives, including
the No-Action Alternative and the PTAA's proposed project, and focuses on reasonable alternatives to the
proposed project, as prescribed by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations. Chapter 3.0,
Alternatives also includes a comparison of these alternatives and a summary of their environmental and
socioeconomic effects, so that the differences between them are clear.
COOPERATING AGENCY
A cooperating agency is an agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise regarding any
environmental impact resulting from a proposed project or reasonable alternative. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) has been invited and has agreed to participate as a cooperating agency for this
DEIS, because PTAA is proposing several roadway projects in its development program that would be
needed if the PTAA proposed runway and associated projects were implemented.
These projects would include construction of a tunnel for Bryan Boulevard under the proposed new
parallel Runway 5U23R and construction of two bridges over Bryan Boulevard for the cross-field
taxiways. For NEPA analysis in this DEIS, PTAA's proposed improvement plan as well as its alternatives
include these surface transportation projects. These surface transportation improvement projects are
under the jurisdiction of the FHWA and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). This
DEIS contains a special technical appendix (Appendix 1) that presents separate FHWA Purpose and
Need statements, Alternatives evaluation, and Environmental Consequences (impact analysis) for the
surface transportation improvements. The FHWA has proposed to adopt the FAA's Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS) and ROD, in compliance with NEPA requirements.
Specific elements of the FHWA approval actions include:
• FHWA approval of the Surface Transportation developments which would include
interchange and arterial roadway improvements to provide increased capacity, Level of
Service and safety as well as improve system linkage within the area surrounding PTIA,
and
• FHWA Federal environmental approval necessary to proceed with the processing of an
application for Federal funding for those development proposals qualifying under 42 USC
433(2)(c) and 23 CFR 771.
W:\PIEDMONl1DEIS\Exsum\fnl exs.doc\03/23/00 S-2 Summary
In addition to the above described proposed surface transportation improvement projects, the PTAA is
undertaking several additional roadway improvement projects which would be implemented by the PTAA
whether or not proposed Runway 5L/23R and the air cargo sorting and distribution facility were
developed. These independent projects include the closure and relocation of a portion of Regional Road,
a new interchange at Bryan Boulevard and Old Oak Ridge Road, the relocation of a portion of Old Oak
Ridge Road, reconstruction of South Triad Boulevard and construction of a new North Triad Boulevard
interchange. These independent roadway improvement projects are also under the jurisdiction of the
FHWA and NCDOT. This DEIS discloses the potential environmental impacts associated with these
projects and the potential cumulative environmental impacts that may occur. However, these projects,
unlike the roadway projects described in the previous paragraph, are independent of the new runway
proposal and are therefore also included in the analysis of the No-Action Alternative. The FHWA
proposes to adopt the FAA's FEIS and ROD for these projects as well.
DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
The format and content of the DEIS conform to the Federal requirements for an EIS in the regulations and
guidelines that implement the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA). The DEIS is composed of two volumes:
• Volume 1 - DEIS Documentation - contains the text of analysis and associated tables and
exhibits of the DEIS.
• Volumes 2 and 3 - Technical Appendices - contains various appendices to the DEIS
related to technical information, coordination, and other reference materials.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
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
sere its 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 support
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.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Exsum\fnl exs.doc\03/23/00 S-3 Summary
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.
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.
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's purpose for the proposed project is to allow and support improvements at PTIA to develop 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
W.\PIEDMONl1DEIS\Exsum\fnl_exs.doc\03/23/00 S-4 Summary
Carolina or South Carolina was based on a business decision made by FedEx. 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;
• 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
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Exsum\fnl_exs.doc\03/23/00 S-5 Summary
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.
MEET OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF AN OVERNIGHT, EXPRESS AIR CARGO HUB
Establishment of an overnight, express air cargo hub at PTIA requires that certain airside, landside, and
surface transportation improvements be implemented. The improvements are initially needed to meet the
near- and long-term operational requirements of the overnight, express air cargo hub, within the near-
term timeframe established by the carrier for PTIA. The improvements proposed by the PTAA are needed
to facilitate development and efficient operation of an overnight, express air cargo hub consistent with
FedEx business requirements. PTAA therefore seeks to support 48 daily FedEx operations (24 daily
departures) by the year 2005 and 126 daily FedEx operations (63 daily departures) by the year 2009.
Associated landside development is also needed that can support package processing activities at the
rate of approximately 86,000 per night by the year 2005 and approximately 104,000 per night by the year
2009. All package processing must occur between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m. the following
morning. The specific improvements that are needed include:
• An airfield system capable of providing a redundant Transport-Category runway system
having a minimum length of 9,000 feet;
• An airfield system capable of allowing for the ability to conduct dual simultaneous
independent operations to meet operational requirements in Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
or Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC), from 10:00 p.m. to 4:00 am, Monday
through Friday, and
• An air cargo hub development site of sufficient size, geometry and location to allow
establishment and operation of the hub facility in a flexible and efficient manner.
The above referenced operational levels were established by FedEx. PTAA states that for the desired full
air cargo hub operational levels to be reached in 2005, Phase 1 of the hub facility must be constructed
and operational by mid-year 2004. This would allow for a several month time period to test the sorting
equipment and train employees. The proposed parallel runway is projected to be constructed and
operational at the time that full aircraft and sorting operations would begin in early 2005.
SUMMARY
The purpose for the proposed project 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. 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. PTAA's need for the project is to develop facilities at PTIA that would
fulfill the airside, landside and surface transportation operational requirements to support the
development and efficient operation of an overnight, express air cargo hub facility (FedEx Mid-Atlantic
Hub) at PTIA.
W:\PIEDMONl1DEIS\Exsum\fni_exs.doc\03/23/00 S-6 Summary
ALTERNATIVES
Chapter 3.0, Alternatives, of the DEIS describes the alternatives screening process that was used by the
FAA, presents a rigorous exploration of possible alternatives, provides reasoning as to why some
alternatives were eliminated from detailed study, describes those reasonable alternatives that were
retained for detailed evaluation, and presents a comparative analysis of the reasonable alternatives
retained for detailed environmental impact evaluation.
The range of alternatives examined in this DEIS has been generated to satisfy the purpose and need
described in Chapter 2. PTAA submitted a proposal to the FAA for airside and landside developments
that would meet the operational requirements for a Mid-Atlantic Cargo Hub submitted to it by FedEx. It is
important to note that if airport improvements are to be built, the PTAA has the role of planning,
constructing, and operating the runways at the airport. The FAA has generated alternatives, on its own
and through the Scoping process (which yielded additional options submitted by an interested citizens
group and the sponsor itself), that go somewhat beyond the limited consideration that might be afforded a
proposal such as this. That is, in some circumstances such as these, where the sponsor's proposal is
tied to sought-after business development with a particular commercial operator, it appears that the only
alternative to the sponsor's proposed project is "No-Action". In this particular case, however, by
concentrating on the near-term operational requirements of an overnight express air cargo hub, the FAA
found that a larger range of alternatives should be identified and evaluated. As a result, off-site as well as
a significant number of on-site alternatives were developed and explored which might meet the purpose
and need for this project (provide redundant 9,000-foot Transport Category runways, provide for the
ability to conduct dual simultaneous independent IFR operations, and provide a sort/distribution facility
site of sufficient size, location and configuration to meet hub operational requirements).
As described in Section 2.2, the role of the FAA in this case is to disclose and evaluate potential
environmental impacts that may result from the sponsor's proposed project being considered, including
impacts on the safe and efficient use of airspace.
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION PROCESS
The FAA completed a thorough and objective review of reasonable alternatives to PTAA's proposed
project at PTIA. CEQ regulations require that an agency look at "reasonable" alternatives, while 49
U.S.C. 47106(c)(C) requires as a condition to granting Federal funds, an analysis of "possible and
prudent" alternatives for a new runway when significant impacts would occur." With those standards in
mind, the FAA did not evaluate alternatives in detail if they showed no possibility of meeting the project
purpose, as described previously, or no prospect of being built.
The alternatives evaluation utilized a two-level evaluation process formulated to concentrate on the
purpose and need for the proposed project and the reasonableness of the alternatives. Those alternatives
that did not meet the purpose and need would be eliminated from further consideration. As the
alternatives evaluation proceeded through each level of analysis, certain alternatives that did not meet the
W:\PIEDMONMEIS\Exsum\fnl_exs.doc\03/23/00 S-7 Summary
criteria were eliminated from further evaluation. Those that met the criteria continued on to the next level
of analysis. At the conclusion of the second level of evaluation, those alternatives that remained were
subject to detailed analysis in subsequent chapters of this DEIS.
The first level of analysis evaluated whether the various alternatives met the purpose and need criteria
specific to the airfield (development of the air cargo hub at PTIA, provide redundant 9,000-foot Transport
Category runways, provide for the ability to conduct dual simultaneous independent IFR operations,
provide a sort/distribution facility site of sufficient size, location and configuration to meet the proposed air
cargo hub's operational requirements). Those alternatives that satisfied the first-level criteria were
retained for evaluation under the second level of analysis.
Level 2 of the alternatives analysis was designed to determine which alternatives were considered
feasible, possible and prudent alternatives to the proposed project. These criteria were specific to the
financial and physical environments affected by such a project. This level of the alternatives analysis
considered "constructability" parameters including effects on infrastructure, amount of property
acquisition, number of residences relocated and businesses impacted by each alternative, the cost of the
alternatives and preliminary environmental impacts of the alternatives. Alternatives that were retained
after the Level 2 evaluation are the subject of detailed analysis in Chapter 5.0, Environmental
Consequences.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The following describes the numerous on-site alternatives that FAA evaluated within this DEIS. Off-site
alternative concepts that were initially considered by the FAA but which were not retained further
consideration after the Level 1 screening process included other modes of transportation, development of
a new airport, and use of other existing airports.
When identifying on-site alternative locations for the development of a hub facility, technical
considerations were grouped into two major categories: 1) the identification of available (or potentially
available) on-airport land areas on which a sorting/distribution facility could be developed, and 2) the
proximity of existing and future airfield improvements (runways, taxiways, and taxiway connectors) that
are essential and required for the efficient operation of the hub. Identification of viable alternative
locations on which to develop the sorting/distribution facility included review and assessment of the
airport's existing runway/taxiway system, land areas, land uses, and land uses immediately adjacent to
the airport. A systematic process to identify and assess the relative merits and opportunities for locations
of the sorting/distribution facility and proposed parallel runway necessary for the development and
operation of the overnight, express air cargo hub examined a total of five potential hub development sites
and eight potential runway locations. This process yielded 40 possible alternative runway-sort/distribution
facility scenarios which are depicted in Figure S-2 and fully described in Chapter 3.0, Alternatives, of the
DEIS. Two additional alternative scenarios submitted by an interested group of citizens during Scoping for
this DEIS and the airport sponsor were also evaluated and are described in detail in Chapter 3.0,
Alternatives, of the DEIS.
W.\PIEDMONTDEIS\Exsum\fnl exs.doc\03/23/00 S-8 Summary
Runway Development Alternative Scenarios - Eight individual runway alternatives were developed and
evaluated for their ability to meet the minimum facility and operational requirements addressed in the
sponsor's proposal, which stressed the need for redundant 9,000-foot Transport-Category runways, and
widely spaced parallel runways that allowed for the ability to conduct dual simultaneous independent IFR
aircraft operations. For the parallel runway alternative scenarios, the minimum runway centerline
separation for dual simultaneous independent all-weather operations (3,400 feet) as prescribed by FAA
Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Change 5, Standards and Recommendations for Airport Design was
used. In addition to these eight runway configurations, the FAA considered the runway development
alternative submitted by interested citizens during Scoping and a runway alternative submitted by the
PTAA for their ability to meet all of the Level 1 alternatives screening criteria. Those runway alternative
scenarios that did not meet the operational/capacity needs of the air cargo hub operator through the year
2019 were not retained for further consideration after the Level 1 screening analysis because these
alternatives did not fulfill the purpose and need for the proposed project. Those runway alternative
scenarios that did meet the Level 1 purpose and need criteria were retained for additional analysis in
Level 2 of the alternatives screening process.
Air Cargo Sorting/Distribution Facility (FedEx Mid-Atlantic Hub) Site Alternative Scenarios- Five
potential air cargo sorting/distribution facility site alternatives that would meet the size and geometric
requirements (a site having a rectangular shape with approximately 300 contiguous acres) were identified
and evaluated by the FAA. Each alternative site location was based solely on the required size, geometry,
and relative proximity to existing or planned airport and surface transportation facilities. Each site
possessed unique attributes and opportunities with respect to meeting the proposed air cargo sorting and
distribution facility requirements as presented by the sponsor. The FAA also considered the air cargo
sorting/distribution facility site development alternative submitted by interested citizens during Scoping for
the DEIS.
EVALUATION OF PTIA RUNWAY AND SORT/NG/DISTRIBUTION FACILITY SITE ALTERNATIVES
The evaluation of on-site alternatives was based on an examination of each of the previously described
eight potential runway configurations integrated with each of the previously described five potential
sorting/distribution facility development sites. In addition, the evaluation included an alternative concept
submitted by a group of citizens during Scoping and an alternative submitted by the airport sponsor after
the DEIS was started. This yielded a total of 42 distinct alternative scenarios. Each of the 42 alternative
development scenarios was subject to the two-level alternatives screening process to determine which
alternatives were the most reasonable, feasible and prudent for detailed evaluation in this DEIS. The
following is a summary of the results of the screening process for these alternatives. The discussion is
presented based on each of the runway alternatives, and expanded to discuss the implications of each of
the site alternatives. Table S-1 depicts how each alternative passed through the two-level alternatives
screening process.
No Action Alternative - The No-Action Alternative would not meet any of the purpose and need criteria
for the proposed project at PTIA. This alternative would not locate an air cargo sorting/distribution facility
at PTIA, provide redundant 9,000-foot Transport-Category runways, provide the ability to conduct dual
W.\PIEDMONl1DEIS\Exsum\fnl_exs.doc\03123100 S-9 Summary
simultaneous independent IFR operations, or provide a sorting/distribution facility site that meets the
operational requirements of the air cargo hub. As described in Section 2.0, Purpose and Need, the
proposed improvements are needed for the air cargo operator to maximize the efficiency of its operations,
particularly during the push-back-to-wheels-up and departure window timeframe. Although the No-Action
Alternative did not meet the purpose and need criteria, it was retained for further consideration in Level 2
of the alternatives screening to ensure a complete environmental impact evaluation and to provide a
baseline comparison.
Alternatives X-A through X-E - Runway-sort/distribution facility site Alternatives X-A through X-E would
only partially meet the purpose and need criteria for the proposed project at PTIA. All of these
alternatives would locate the air cargo sorting/distribution facility at PTIA, provide redundant 9,000-foot
Transport-Category runways, and provide approximately 300 contiguous acres in a rectangular shape for
the development of the hub facility. However, none of these alternatives would provide the ability to
conduct . dual simultaneous independent IFR operations, the capability to conduct head-to-head
operations during times of peak air cargo operations, or develop a sorting/distribution facility site located
between parallel runways. As described in Chapter 2.0, Purpose and Need, and quantified in the TAAM
analysis, all three of these criteria are needed to facilitate overnight cargo hub operations, particularly
during the push-back-to-wheels-up departure timeframe. The use of perpendicular runways under the
Alternative X-A through X-E scenarios would result in operational conditions that would lessen the overall
efficiency of aircraft operations such as dependent operations (operations on one runway affect/limit
operations on the other runway) and increased runway crossings, change local and potentially regional
flight patterns (more daytime and nighttime 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 (increased use of a designated crosswind runway and increased runway
crossings) at PTIA. The development of a hub facility that is not located between parallel runways would
result in the air cargo operator not being able to meet most of its designated push-back-to-wheels-up
departure timeframe. Since none of these five alternatives met all of the Level 1 purpose and need
criteria, none were retained for further consideration in this DEIS.
Alternatives W1-A through W1-E - Runway-sort/distribution facility site Alternatives W1 -A through
W1-E would only partially meet the purpose and need criteria for the proposed project at PTIA. 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, Alternative W1-A did not meet all of the Level 1 screening criteria because the
4,300 foot centerline-to-centerline separation distance between existing Runway 5R/23L and proposed
Runway 5U23R would not provide a sorting/distribution facility site of sufficient size to meet operational
needs. Alternatives W1 -B, W1 -C, W1 -D, and W1 -E did not meet the Level 1 screening criteria because
they would not provide a sorting/distribution facility site located between parallel runways, which, based
on the TAAM analysis, is critical to meeting the operational needs of the air cargo carrier. The location of
the sort/distribution facility site associated with Alternative W1-C does not meet FAA Standards and
Recommendations for Airport Design (Advisory Circular 150/5300-13) because a portion of the proposed
site (approximately 10 percent) would fall within the future RPZ of proposed parallel Runway 5U23R.
W:\PIEDMONl1DEIS\Exsum\fnl_exs.doc\03/23/00 S-10 Summary
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
alternative scenario met all of the Level 1 purpose and need criteria, it was retained for further evaluation
in the Level 2 analysis. Alternatives W3-13, W3-C, W3-D, and W3-E did not meet all of the Level 1 criteria
because they would not provide a sorting/distribution facility site between the parallel runways, which is
critical to meeting operational needs. The location of the sort/distribution facility site associated with
Alternative W3-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 50 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.
W.\PIEDMOMIDEIS\Exsum\inl_exs.doc\03/23/00 S-11 Summary
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
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 (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 feet. 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
W:\PIEDMONTDEIS\Exsum\fnl_exs.doc\03/23/00 S-13 Summary
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.
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 U.S.
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 an historic resource. Roadway infrastructure impacts would
include the closure of a portion of Regional Road, from the intersection Bryan Boulevard to the
intersection of U.S. 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-All, is similar to Alternative W1-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 consideration.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Exsum\fnl exs.doc\03/23/00 S-14 Summary
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
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,
W:\PIEDMONl1DE1S\Exsum\fnl_exs.doc\03/27/00 S-15 Summary
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 88.37acres of
property, primarily to enable the PTAA to own the RPZs for proposed parallel Runway 5U23R. 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), one
commercial facility, 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 - (See Figure S-3) 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 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
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Exsum\inl_exs.doc\03/27/00 S-16 Summary
TABLE S-2
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
million) Total Cost . . .
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/lndirect 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\03/27/00
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 MA 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), 13 industrial
properties, and one commercial property, 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 - (See Figure S-3) 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 14L/32R 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 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
\\clnt0l\wp_wpro\PIEDMONnDEIS\Exsum\fnl_exs.doc\03/27/00 S-17 Summary
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 2 commercial properties along Bentley Road, 2 industrial properties along Caindale Drive, and 8
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, Roy Edgerton House and New Garden
Friends Cemetery).
Alternative W1-A1 - (See Figure S-3) 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-Ai, 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-Ai would include six residential properties
along Brush Road north of Canoe Road, two residential properties along Drum Road south of Lebanon
\\clM01\wp_wpro\PIEDMONTDEIS\Exsum\inl_exs.doc\03/27/00 S-18 Summary
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.
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 5U23R. The total
cost for Alternative W1-Al, 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-Ai 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 levels from aircraft operations would be above FAA's threshold of
compatibility (which is DNL 65 dBA) at this site with Alternative W 1-A1.
Alternative N-E - (See Figure S-3) 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 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, and
the closure of an existing railroad spur. 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.
\\clnt07\wp_wpro\PIEDMOMIDEIS\Exsum\fnl_exs.doc\03/27/00 S-19 Summary
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 WE 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/distribution buildings) 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 WE 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 ten Section 303(c) resources and indirect impacts from aircraft generated operational
noise to two Section 106 historic architectural properties (Shaw-Cude House and New Garden Friends
Cemetery).
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE(S)
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
\\clnt01\wp_wpro\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Exsum\tnl exs.doc\03/27/00 S-20 Summary
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 (FEIS)
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.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
A comprehensive inventory of the existing natural, physical and social environmental conditions within the
DEIS study areas was performed and is contained in Chapter 4.0 of the DEIS. The inventory and
evaluation of the existing environment provided the groundwork necessary to determine the potential
impacts of the airport development which were accomplished as part of the environmental consequences
analysis.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
A detailed environmental analysis of the potential environmental impacts resulting from the construction:
and operation of the No-Action Alternative and the five Build Alternatives (W2-A, W3-A, N-D, W1-A1 and
N-E) was accomplished by the FAA as part of the DEIS. Two study periods were examined, 2005 (Phase
1) and 2019 (Phase 2). The year 2005 is projected to be the first year that the proposed new runway, air
cargo facility and associated developments would be fully operational. The year 2019 is the outside
planning period for which PTIA has FAA approved forecasts of aircraft operational activity. The potential
impacts of the alternatives associated with each environmental impact category are summarized in the
following overview of impacts. Detailed discussions regarding the specific analyses and findings are
contained in Chapter 5.0, Environmental Consequences, of the DEIS. Mitigation measures for all
applicable impact categories are consolidated in Chapter 6.0, Mitigation, of the DEIS.
NOISE
Development of a new runway or extension of an existing runway at an airport generally increases the
area around the airport exposed to aircraft noise. Nonetheless, depending on the locations of people in
the airport vicinity, new development can decrease the noise impacts from the airport. Because of the
population distribution around PTIA the existing primary use of Runway 5/23 produces a lower noise
impact than similar use of Runway 14/32 would. Further, the alternatives that include addition of a new
runway parallel to the existing primary runway produce similar noise impacts overall. The noise impacts
of Alternative N-D or WE are significantly greater than those of the other three Build Alternatives. Among
the three other Build Alternatives with a new Runway 5U23R (W2-A, W3-A, and W1-A1), the least noise
impact to households and population would come from Alternative W2-A. However, all of the alternatives
would result in exceedances of the FAA's "Threshold of Significance", and mitigation would be
considered.
W.\PIEDMON'nDEIS\Exsum\fnl_exs.doc\03/23/00 S-21 Summary
All development alternatives have similar nighttime operating procedures: arrivals are generally toward
the proposed air cargo sorting and distribution (Fed Ex) facility and departures are generally away from
that facility. Based on historic weather patterns, this operating regime would be available 95 percent of
the time. The remaining time would require use of a single direction for operation- with landings and
departures in the same direction as occurs now on a 24-hour basis. The noise impacts with the
anticipated nighttime operating scenario are less than would occur if the nighttime operating scenario
were like the current operating scenario.
The potential impact of all build alternatives can be reduced (mitigated) modestly in areas near the new
runway during the initial years of operation by reducing the percentage of air cargo (FedEx) operations on
the new runway by 25 percent. The benefit of this change is modest, not more than 1 dB reduction in
exposure level in some areas. The benefit for the areas near the new runway comes at the expense of
similar increases in exposure in areas near the existing runway. Because of the distribution of population
around the airport there is a net benefit in reduced exposed population with this measure. For this
reason, the measure was incorporated in the mitigation plan for Phase 1. As air cargo operations
increase, there would be a need to use the runways equally and the mitigation benefits would cease. The
measure was not used in Phase 2. Means to mitigate adverse noise and the resultant land use impacts
are presented in Chapter 6.0, Mitigation, of this DEIS.
LAND USE
Although most development would occur on existing airport property, all of the alternatives would result in
off-airport land use impacts. Approximately 13.66 acres of property acquisition would be required for the
No-Action Alternative. The land use impacts associated with the No-Action Alternative would include
141.2 acres of residential land use, and 75 homes and one noise-sensitive site. In addition, the No-
Action Alternative would result in adverse impacts to 9.8 acres of wetlands and 23.1 acres of 100-year
floodplains.
Approximately 88.37 acres of property acquisition would be required for Alternative W2-A. The total land
use impacts would include 472.1 acres of single-family residential land use, 251 homes, and one noise-
sensitive site. In addition, Alternative W2-A would result in adverse impacts to 32.3 acres of wetlands
and 36.6 acres of 100-year floodplains.
Approximately 89.89 acres of property acquisition would be required for Alternative W3-A. The total land
use impacts would include 496.0 acres of single-family residential land use, 272 homes, and one noise-
sensitive site. In addition, Alternative W3-A would result in adverse impacts to 29.8 acres of wetlands
and 34.6 acres of 100-year floodplains.
Approximately 315.01 acres of property acquisition would be required for the construction of the
Alternative N-D. The total land use impacts would include 1,143.3 acres of single-family residential land
use, 1.9 acres of mobile homes, 265.2 acres of multi-family residential land use, 3,313 households, and
W.\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Exsum\fnl_exs.doc\03/27/00 S-22 Summary
10 noise-sensitive sites. In addition, Alternative N-D would result in adverse impacts to 36.7 acres of
wetlands and 49.6 acres of 100-year floodplains.
Approximately 154.74 acres would need to be acquired for Alternative W1-A1. The total land use impacts
would include 486.2 acres of single-family residential land use, 263 homes, and one noise-sensitive site.
In addition, Alternative W1-A1 would result in adverse impacts to 27.3 acres of wetlands and 25.4 acres
of 100-year floodplains.
Approximately 266.14 acres would need to be acquired for Alternative N-E. The total land use impacts
would include 1,423.6 acres of single-family residential land use, 3.9 acres of mobile homes, 135.5 acres
of multi-family residential land use, 1,933 homes, and seven noise-sensitive sites. In addition, Alternative
WE would result in adverse impacts to 31.3 acres of wetlands and 46.4 acres of 100-year floodplains.
None of the Build Alternatives would result in direct impacts to Section 303(c) sites, 6(f) sites, or Section
106 resources (historic and archaeological resources). Alternative N-D would result in indirect impacts to
10 Section 303(c) sites and three historic architectural resources. Alternatives W-2A, W3-A, and W1-Ai
would indirectly impact one historic architectural resource. Alternative WE would result in indirect impacts
to 10 Section 303(c) sites and one historic architectural resource.
PTAA has provided assurance, as required under 49 U.S.C. 47107(a)(10) (Airports and Airway Safety,
Capacity, Noise Improvement, and Intermodal Transportation Act of 1992) that they have taken
reasonable measures to maintain land use compatibility in the airport environs. A copy of PTAA's
Assurance Letter is included in Appendix J of this DEIS.
SOCIAL IMPACTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
All of the alternatives would result in social impacts, primarily in the form of relocation of homes and
businesses and the disruption of surface transportation patterns. The No-Action Alternative would result
in the fewest number of relocations. Of the Build Alternatives, Alternatives N-D and WE would result in
the most relocations of homes and businesses. Relocation impacts associated with Alternatives W2-A,
W3-A, and W1-A1 would be similar in magnitude and significantly less than either Alternatives N-D or N-
E. All relocations would comply with the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. All of the alternatives would result in permanent and temporary
alteration of surface transportation patterns due to the relocation of existing roads, the development of
new roadways and the improvement of existing roads. The No-Action Alternative, Alternative W2-A, and
Alternative W3-A would result in the least alteration of surface transportation patterns. Of the build
alternatives, Alternative W1-A1 would result in the greatest alteration in surface transportation patterns
due to the relocation of Bryan Boulevard. However, Alternative W1-A1 would also result in the greatest
improvement to traffic flow in the area around PTIA. None of the alternatives would result in significant
division or disruption of established communities, disruption of orderly planned development, or cause
environmental justice impacts. Changes in employment as a result of the alternatives are discussed in
detail in Section 5.4, Socioeconomic Impacts. Potential mitigation measures for social impacts have been
developed and are contained in Chapter 6.0, Mitigation, of this DEIS.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Exsum\fnl_exs.doc\03/27/00 S-23 Summary
INDUCED SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS
This analysis evaluated two distinct and notable areas of potential economic impact as a result of the
Build Alternatives. The first is related directly to the improvements associated with the air cargo sorting
and distribution facility and the Mid-Atlantic Hub and its new employment. The second addresses the
long-term impacts of expanding airfreight capacity at the airport and FedEx operations and, therefore, for
the region. By 2019, the total number of employed persons working directly or indirectly as the result of
the Mid-Atlantic Hub operations in the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area is projected to be 16,308
persons. This full-time equivalent employment for 2019 is expected to reach 15,479. These totals
include those jobs related directly to the proposed air cargo sorting and distribution facility as well as
those associated with the cargo component and possible new industries attracted to the region. This total
would represent a 1.9 percent increase over the No-Action Alternative projection of 872,000 jobs in the
Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area. This increase in regional employment would generate over $4.4
billion in additional wages and salaries over the 16-year period and a total value added increment of $7.5
billion. Annual wages would average $275 million with average annual value added on the order of $467
million. By 2019, the total tax contribution to the state of North Carolina would be $633 million
accumulated over the 16-year study period. During the same period, the local tax revenues realized
within the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area could approach $212.5 million. By 2019, annual state
tax revenues generated by new businesses and new households with the Six-County Socioeconomic
Study Area could approach $67 million with local tax revenues nearing $22.5 million. As a result, the total
contributions to the regional economy resulting from the Build Alternatives are expected to be
consequential, both in terms of the overall employment gains as well as revenues generated as a result of
that increased employment.
Employment growth generated by the air cargo sorting and distribution facility and PTIA improvements
would further augment population growth forecasted for the No-Action Alternative. For this DEIS, it was
assumed that 90 percent of the total employment generated by the Build Alternatives and predicted for
the Piedmont Triad Region would occur within the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area. The
employment generated by the Build Alternatives would create 16,308 new jobs in the Six-County
Socioeconomic Study Area by 2019. This induced employment would result in 10,872 new households
within the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area by 2019. The induced population for the Build
Alternatives would range from 7,037 persons in 2006 to 16,109 persons in 2010 to 25,006 persons in
2019. The Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area population for the Build Alternatives would range from
1,231,179 persons in 2006 to 1,276,004 persons in 2010 to 1,357,025 persons in 2019.
AIR QUALITY
PTIA is located in Guilford County, North Carolina, which is designated as an "attainment" area for all
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) criteria air pollutants, with the exception of ozone, for which
it is currently designated as a "maintenance" area. This designation is expected to be upgraded to
attainment in the year 2003. When compared to existing conditions, air emissions associated with PTIA
from aircraft, ground support equipment, and motor vehicles are expected to increase somewhat in the
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Exsum\fnLexs.doc\03/27/00 S-24 Summary
future, with or without the proposed project. This is largely attributable to projected population and
economic growth in the Greensboro area and is reflected in increased aircraft operations at PTIA.
Moreover, Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, N-D, W1-A1, and WE would all result in slightly greater increases in
these future emissions when compared to the future No-Action Alternative. This is attributable to the
additional aircraft operations associated with the planned air cargo sorting/distribution facility at PTIA and
the small differences in aircraft taxi distances associated with the planned runway/taxiway improvements.
From this analysis of future-year air quality conditions for PTIA, total emissions of nitrogen oxides (one of
the precursors to ozone) associated with the alternatives are above the Clean Air Act (CAA) General
Conformity "de minimis" level. Therefore, the Final EIS will include a determination of conformity with the
State Implementation Plan for the Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point ozone maintenance area. The
Final EIS will also include appropriate documentation from the State of North Carolina in support of the
reasonable assurance certification required by the 1982 Airport and Airway Improvement Act.
Requirements for obtaining a North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR) Transportation Facility Permit for the preferred alternative will also be addressed.
WATER QUALITY
Surface waters within the Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek, and East Fork Deep River sub-basins;
groundwater; water supply; and wastewater treatment for the City of Greensboro would be affected with
the implementation of the No-Action Alternative and Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, N
D, W1-Al, and N-E.
Impacts to surface water quality would primarily occur from stormwater runoff during construction and
operation of the new transportation facilities. Surface water impacts would be greater in the Brush Creek
Sub-basin with impacts of a lesser degree occurring in the Horsepen Creek Sub-basin and the East Fork
Deep River Sub-basin for Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, N-D, W1-A1, and the No-Action Alternative. The
Horsepen Creek Sub-basin would be impacted the most with Alternative WE with impacts to a lesser
degree occurring in the Brush Creek Sub-basin and the East Fork Deep River Sub-basin. The majority of
the disturbed area during construction and the greatest amount of impervious area would be added to the
Brush Creek Sub-basin with moderate amounts added to the Horsepen Creek Sub-basin for Alternatives
W2-A, W3-A, N-D, W1-A1, and the No-Action Alternative. The majority of the disturbed area during
construction and the greatest amount of impervious area, would be added to the Horsepen Creek Sub-
basin with moderate amounts added to the Brush Creek Sub-basin for Alternative N-E. The least impact
would occur within the East Fork Deep River Sub-basin for all five build alternatives and the No-Action
Alternative. Short-term impacts from stormwater runoff from cleared areas void of vegetation during
construction could result in temporary increases in turbidity within surface waters of all three sub-basins.
However, Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be implemented during construction to minimize
erosion and sediment transport into surface waters. Some of the permanent BMPs implemented to
minimize long-term impacts would include stormwater detention ponds, oil water separators, deicing
storage tanks, and spill prevention.
Groundwater discharge areas within the Brush Creek floodplain would be covered with additional
impervious surfaces as a result of implementation of Alternatives W1-A1, W2-A, W3-A, and the No-Action
\\clnt0l\wp_wpro\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Exsum\tnl exs.doc\03/27/00 5-25 Summary
Alternative. Alternative W1-Ai Phase 1 would have the greatest amount (approximately 17 acres) of new
impervious surface encroaching on groundwater discharge sites. Of the Build Alternatives, Alternatives
W2-A Phase 1 and W3-A Phase 1 would have the least (approximately nine acres) new impervious
surface encroaching on groundwater discharge sites. The No-Action Alternative would have
approximately two acres of impervious surface encroaching on groundwater discharge sites. This should
not result in a significant decrease in base flow within Brush Creek. Groundwater impacts within the East
Fork Sub-basin are not expected. No groundwater discharge sites would be encroached upon in Phase 1
of Alternatives N-D and WE or Phase 2 of all five Build Alternatives.
Potable water and wastewater treatment demands are expected to be the same for all of the Build
Alternatives in each phase of development. The proposed air cargo sorting and distribution facility and
expected increases in air traffic from commercial carriers would result in an increase in potable water
demand to approximately 0.093 and 0.145 million gallons per day (MGD) for Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, N-
D, W 1-A1, and WE after Phase 1 and Phase 2, respectively. This would be an increase of approximately
69 and 77 percent when compared to the No-Action Alternative and approximately 0.23 and 0.33 percent
of the City of Greensboro's expected total water demand in Phase 1 and Phase 2, respectively.
Increases in water supply demand for the No-Action Alternative are a result of expected increases in
commercial air traffic only. Wastewater treatment demands are expected to be equivalent to the Phase 1
and Phase 2 potable water demands. Mitigation measures for water quality impacts have been
developed and are discussed in Chapter 6.0, Mitigation.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECTION 303(0) AND DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR SECTION 6(F)
An inventory of the DEIS Generalized and Detailed Study Areas was conducted to determine if any
Department of Transportation Section 303(c) or Department of Interior Section 6(f) sites would be directly
or indirectly impacted by the alternatives. A total of 63 public park and recreation sites that are designated
Section 303(c) sites were identified. No Section 6(f) sites were identified within the study areas.
The results of the analysis indicate that none of the alternatives in Phase 1 or Phase 2 would result in
direct impacts to non-historic Section 303(c) resources. However, Alternatives N-D and WE would
indirectly affect 10 non-historic Section 303(c) resources through a combination of noise, access, visual,
and user population/demographics impacts. All five Build Alternatives have the potential to indirectly
affect National-Register-listed historic sites, which could require additional analysis, documentation, and
mitigation to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
WAPIEDM0NT\DEIS\Exsum\fn1 _exs.doc\03/27/00 S-26 Summary
HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for historic architectural resources for the DEIS falls between the
current 65 DNL noise contour and the combined 65 DNL contours for each of the five Build Alternatives.
It also includes property that would be physically taken by the alternatives. One resource listed in the
National Register of Historic Places-the Guilford College Historic District (survey number 17 [#17])-and
two resources previously determined eligible for National Register listing-New Garden Friends Cemetery
(#16) and the Roy Edgerton House (#42)-fall within the APE associated with Phases 1 and 2 of
Alternative N-D. Both of the resources are Noise Sensitive Areas (FAA Airport Environmental Handbook
5050.4A, 1985): the historic district has residential and educational functions and is an outdoor historic
site; the house has residential functions; and the cemetery is an outdoor historic site. Both phases of
Alternative N-D would greatly increase noise levels at these sites and introduce significant audible
elements that would be out of character with the historic district, house, and cemetery and accordingly
would have an adverse effect upon them as defined at 36 CFR 800.5 (Protection of Historic Properties).
One resource listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the Shaw-Cude House (#45), and one
resource previously determined eligible for National Register listing, New Garden Friends Cemetery, fall
within the APE associated with Phases 1 and 2 of Alternative N-E. The Shaw-Cude House has
residential functions, the cemetery is an outdoor historic site, and both are Noise Sensitive Areas (FAA
Airport Environmental Handbook 5050.4A, 1985). Both phases of Alternative N-E would greatly increase
noise levels at these sites and introduce significant audible elements that would be out of character with
the house and cemetery and accordingly would have an adverse effect upon the house as defined at 36
CFR 800.5 (Protection of Historic Properties).
Phases 1 and 2 of Alternatives W2-A, MA and W1-A1 would result in an increase within the current 65
DNL noise contour of greater than DNL 1.5 dB at the Campbell-Gray Farm (#6), which is eligible for
National Register listing. The resource is no longer a farm but has a residential function and is, therefore,
a Noise Sensitive Area (FAA Airport Environmental Handbook 5050.4A, 1985). The site is presently
incompatible with the operation of the airport and the project-related noise levels would not increase
significantly when compared to the existing conditions. Further consultation through the Section 106
process would determine if these increases are judged to be out of character with the resource and
represent an effect upon the resource as defined in 36 CFR 800.5 (Protection of Historic Properties).
The FAA has determined, through a study of the files of the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) and new fieldwork, that no other historic architectural resources within the APE are eligible
for listing in the National Register. Therefore, the Build Alternatives would have no effect upon any other
standing resources. The FAA will consult with the SHPO concerning its determinations of adverse effect
on the five National Register-listed (Guilford College Historic District and Shaw-Cude House) or -eligible
(New Garden Friends Cemetery, Campbell-Gray Farm, and Roy Edgerton House) resources within the
APE.
The FAA has proposed to conduct 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) (Protection of Historic Properties). This
W:\PIEDMOMIDEIS\Exsum\fnl_exs.doc\03/27/00 S-27 Summary
proposal was advanced based on the extant archaeological database that can be used to adequately
evaluate any potential impacts of the alternatives on National-Register-eligible archaeological sites. This
proposal would also avoid unnecessary archaeological fieldwork and evaluation. The SHPO agreed with
the proposal in addressing potential effects to archaeological resources resulting from the airport
improvements by a letter to FAA of September 15, 1999.
BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
All of the alternatives (No-Action Alternative and Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, N-D, W1-Ai, and N-E) would
result in impacts to biotic communities (i.e., natural vegetative communities and wildlife). Primary impacts
to biotic communities would be direct impacts from man-induced activities such as clearing vegetation,
altering hydrology, filling wetlands, and grading for construction activities. Secondary impacts would be
man-induced impacts that occur post-development (i.e., changes in plant community dominants due to
alteration of hydrology).
All five Build Alternatives would have similar magnitude of development; however, their impacts to specific
cover types would vary. The No-Action Alternative would have the least impact overall to total land cover
types (i.e., the acreage sum of all cover types: Urban and Developed Land, Recreational, Transportation,
Agriculture, Cleared or Maintained Land, and Natural Vegetative Communities), Natural Vegetative
Community cover types (i.e., the acreage sum of natural uplands and wetlands), natural uplands, and
wetlands. Of the five Build Alternatives, Alternative W2-A would have the least impact (810.3 acres) and
Alternative N-D would have the highest impact (1,244.3 acres) to total land cover types. For Natural
Vegetative Community cover types, Alternative WE has the least impact (304.8 acres) and Alternative N-
D has the highest impact (517.8 acres). For total uplands, Alternative WE has the least impact (273.46
acres) and Alternative N-D has the highest impact (481.0 acres). For total wetlands, Alternative W1-A1
has the least impact (27.26 acres) and Alternative N-D has the highest impact (36.7 acres).
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
The No-Action Alternative and the five Build Alternatives (W2-A, W3-A, N-D, W1-A1, and N-E) would all
affect listed species habitats. The No-Action Alternative would impact the least amount of habitat (247.5
acres) when compared to the other alternatives. Of the Build Alternatives, Alternative WE would have the
least impact (1,257.4 acres) and Alternative W1-A1 would have the greatest impact (2,716.2 acres) to
natural vegetative communities that have the potential to support listed species.
The bald eagle has a "moderate potential of occurrence" in the area affected by all of the alternatives
since it has been documented within five miles of the Detailed Study Area. Michaux's sumac has not
been, documented in Guilford County, but it was ranked as having a "moderate potential of occurrence",
due to occurrence in nearby counties and existence of preferred habitat in the Detailed Study Area. Field
reconnaissance of the areas affected by each of the alternatives was conducted as part of this DEIS.
Neither the bald eagle nor Michaux's sumac was observed within the Detailed Study Area. Based on this
analysis, implementation of any of the alternatives is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to
protected species, and mitigation is not warranted.
W:\PIEDMONMEIS\Exsum\fnl_exs.doc\03/27/00 S-28 Summary
WETLANDS
All of the alternatives (No-Action, W2-A, W3-A, N-D, W1-A1, and N-E) would result in primary and
secondary impacts to wetlands that are located within and adjacent to the limits of construction. Primary
impacts to wetlands would include filling, erosion, sedimentation, alterations in hydrology, and clearing of
vegetation. Secondary impacts would potentially result from alterations in hydrology. Alterations in
hydrology can change the dominant plant species composition and enable invasive species to become
established. The No-Action, W2-A, W3-A, N-D, W1-A1, and N-E Alternatives would impact 9.8, 32.3,
29.8, 36.7, 27.3, and 31.3 acres of wetlands, respectively. The PTAA has initiated Section 404/401
coordination with the USACE and the State of North Carolina to obtain the required permits and
implement a mitigation program for impacts to wetlands associated with the preferred alternative.
Measures to mitigate unavoidable wetland impacts are discussed in Chapter 6.0, Mitigation, of this DEIS.
FLOODPLAINS
A floodplain evaluation was conducted to determine the effect of the proposed alternatives on floodplains.
The results indicate that the five Build Alternatives (W2-A, W3-A, N-D, W1-A1, and N-E) would result in
additional development within the 100-year floodplain. Surface transportation improvements in the No-
Action Alternative would impact the 100-year floodplain as well. The total areas of the 100-year floodplain
encroached upon by the alternatives would be approximately 23.1 acres with the No-Action Alternative,
36.6 acres with Alternative W2-A, 34.6 acres with Alternative W3-A, 49.6 acres with Alternative N-D, 25.4
acres with Alternative W II-All, and 46.4 acres with Alternative N-E. The majority of the encroachment
would occur within the Brush Creek 100-year floodplain for the No-Action Alternative and Phase 1 of
Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, N-D, W1-A1, and N-E. Approximately 3.8 acres of the Brush Creek floodplain
would be encroached upon by Alternatives W2-A and W3-A, and 4 acres for Alternative W1-A1 from
Phase 2 development. No encroachment onto the 100-year floodplain would occur in Phase 2 for
Alternatives N-D and N-E. The only alternatives that encroach on the Horsepen Creek 100-year
floodplain (approximately 4 acres) are Alternatives N-D and N-E, Phase 1.
Mitigation measures would be required for all of the alternatives, because each would result in floodplain
encroachment and increased runoff volumes. Mitigation measures to minimize the floodplain impacts can
be accomplished for each alternative so that floodplain impacts would not be considered significant.
Measures to mitigate impacts have been identified and are contained in Chapter 6.0, Mitigation, of this
DEIS.
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND COASTAL BARRIERS
None of the alternatives at PTIA would affect or involve coastal zones or coastal barrier resources. PTIA
is not located in a coastal zone county. Therefore, it is not included in the Coastal Zone Management
Program, and development of the No-Action Alternative or any of the Build Alternatives would not impact
coastal resources. In addition, PTIA is located inland, and development of any of the Build Alternatives
\\clnt01\wp_wpro\PIEDMONTDEIS\Exsum\fnl_exs.doc\03/27/00 S-29 Summary
would not impact any areas designated as coastal barriers as identified in the Coastal Barrier Resource
Act. Because none of the alternatives would result in impacts, mitigation measures are not warranted.
WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 provides for the protection and preservation of certain rivers and
their immediate environments which possess outstandingly remarkable recreational, geological, fish and
wildlife, historical, cultural, and other similar values. The Act restricts development within 1,000 feet of
rivers designated with the "Wild and Scenic" classification. No rivers within the Generalized and Detailed
Study Areas are designated as "Wild and Scenic"; therefore, implementation of the No-Action Alternative
or any of the Build Alternatives would not result in impacts to Wild and Scenic Rivers, and mitigation
measures are not warranted.
FARMLANDS
Implementation of Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, N-D, W1-A1, and WE would all result in impacts to prime or
state significant soil types as designated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS). Alternatives W2-A and W3-A would impact 2.1 acres each, Alternative N-
D would impact 5.9 acres, Alternative W1-A1 would impact 9.8 acres, and Alternative WE would impact
6.1 acres. However, none of the alternatives would result in impacts to active prime or unique farmlands.
Although some soils of prime and state significant designation would be displaced, the NRCS concluded
that these areas are not actively farmed and are afforded a low protection priority; therefore, the impacts
are not considered significant. Since none of the alternatives would result in significant impacts, mitigation
measures are not warranted.
ENERGY SUPPLY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Fuel consumption during a landing-and-takeoff cycle (LTO) is based on the power settings of the engine
and time spent in each mode (i.e., approach, taxi/idle, takeoff, and climbout), as well as the number of
engines for each aircraft. The two types of fuel that are dispensed at PTIA are Avgas and Jet A, with
current (1998) dispensations amounting to 1,003 and 144,381 kiloliters per year, respectively. In general,
fuel consumption would increase in the future with or without the proposed project because of forecasted
growth in operations at PTIA. Although fuel use would increase with all of the Build Alternatives when
compared to the No-Action Alternative, this increase would not result in significant impacts. Demand for
electrical energy would increase with the implementation of any of the Build Alternatives. Local suppliers
have indicated that this demand can be met without resulting in significant impacts to electrical generating
capabilities.
There are no known sources of mineral or energy resources in the Detailed Study Area that would be
impacted by either the No-Action Alternative or Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, N-D, W1-A1, and N-E.
Development of any of these alternatives would not require the use of unusual materials or those that are
in short supply in the Greensboro area. Since none of the alternatives would result in significant energy
supply or natural resource impacts, mitigation is not required.
\\clnt0l\wp_wpro\PIEDMOMIDEIS\Exsum\fnl_exs.doc\03/27/00 S-30 Summary
LIGHT EMISSIONS
An evaluation of aviation-related, surface transportation and air cargo facility lighting systems associated
with the alternatives was conducted to determine potential adverse light emission impacts to sensitive
areas. Future light emission levels from airborne aircraft or aircraft operating on the ground are not
anticipated to adversely impact surrounding residential areas. Light emissions from the surface
transportation projects associated with the No-Action Alternative and the airfield, landside and surface
transportation improvements associated with Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, N-D, W1-A1, and WE would all
result in minor light emission impacts. However, through shielding and screening techniques, light
emission impacts would be minimized on surrounding residential areas. These measures are discussed
in Chapter 6.0, Mitigation, of this DEIS.
SOLID WASTE
The No-Action Alternative and Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, N-D, W1-A1, and N-E were evaluated for their
potential to result in solid waste impacts associated with the potential for long-term generation of
municipal solid waste (MSW) as a result of the operation of the air cargo sorting and distribution facility;
the temporary generation of solid wastes due to demolition and construction activities; the potential for
runway facilities to be operated adjacent to active landfills that accept putrifiable waste where a bird strike
hazard may be present; and the airport's ability to comply with the guidelines contained in FAA Order
5200.5A, 'Waste Disposal Sites On or Near Airports." The results of the analysis indicate that all
alternatives would result in an increase in MSW and construction and demolition waste generation at
PTIA. However, these increases are not considered to be significant and would not impact the ability of
the City of Greensboro to accommodate this increased demand. Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, N-D, W1-A1,
and N-E would not result in an increased bird strike potential at PTIA, and the location of the proposed
runway ends would be in compliance with the guidelines provided in FAA Order 5200.5A. Since
Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, N-D, W1-A1, and N-E would not result in significant solid waste impacts,
mitigation measures are not warranted.
CONSTRUCTION
Implementation of any of the alternatives, including the No-Action Alternative, would result in temporary
construction impacts on air quality, noise, water quality, traffic flow, and visual impacts. The No-Action
Alternative includes a new interchange, relocation and realignment of roadways, and a reconstructed
airport entrance road and would cause less disruption and impacts than the five Build Alternatives.
Four of the five Build Alternatives (W2-A, W3-A, N-D, and N-E) include similar surface transportation
improvement projects as the No-Action Alternative. Alternative W1-Ai includes surface transportation
projects that are different from the other four Build Alternatives. In addition, all five of the Build
Alternatives include the construction of a parallel runway and an air cargo sorting and distribution facility.
W:\PIEDMOMIDEIS\Exsum\fnl_exs.doc\03/27/00 S-31 Summary
All five Build Alternatives would have greater Phase 1 and Phase 2 construction impacts than the No-
Action Alternative.
Development of all of the alternatives would result in wetland and floodplain impacts. Soil erosion and
sedimentation control would be required for Phase 1 of the No-Action Alternative, as well as Phases 1
and 2 of Alternatives W2-A W3-A, N-D, W1-A1, and N-E.
Traffic delays, fugitive dust and increased emissions from construction vehicles, visual or aesthetic
impacts, and additional noise are expected as a result of all the alternatives. These impacts would be
temporary and would be minimized through the establishment and use of environmental controls, such as
Best Management Practices (BMPs), and Federal, state, and local construction mitigation guidelines.
All on-airport construction activities should adhere to FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-10A, Standards for
Specifying Construction of Airports and North Carolina Department of Transportation Standard
Specifications for Roads and Structures. Mitigation measures for construction impacts are presented in
Chapter 6.0, Mitigation, of this DEIS.
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION
The planned locations of new Runway 5U23R and Phase 1 of the air cargo sorting and distribution facility
under Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, and W1-A1 are within areas that have remained largely undeveloped
and contain no reported sites of hazardous substance use or environmental contamination. The Phase 2
continuation of the parallel connector taxiway and expansion of the air cargo facility apron area under
these alternatives would involve closing Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) associated with the existing
PTIA rental car and air cargo facilities. However, no significant impacts are anticipated. The area
designated for new Runway 14U32R under Phase 2 of Alternative N-D contains these same PTIA rental
car and air cargo facilities.
The planned roadway and airport access improvements scheduled for Bryan Boulevard, N. Triad
Boulevard, S. Triad Boulevard, Regional Road, and Old Oak Ridge Road under the No-Action and
Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, N-D, W1-Ai, and WE are not anticipated to have any significant involvement
with hazardous substances or sites containing environmental contamination. However, Best
Management Practices (BMPs) should be developed as a means to minimized potential impacts should
they occur. BMPs that could be employed are discussed in Chapter 6.0, Mitigation.
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
All of the alternatives would affect surface transportation facilities in the Detailed Study Area and result in
impacts to environmental resources. The surface transportation improvements associated with the No-
Action Alternative would generally improve the overall transportation system in the vicinity of PTIA and
would result in impacts to 40.5 acres of upland biotic communities, 9.8 acres of wetlands, and 23.1 acres
of 100-year floodplains. Alternatives W2-A and W3-A would consist of the same surface transportation
improvements as the No-Action Alternative, with the addition of a tunnel to carry Bryan Boulevard under
\\clnt01\wp_wpro\PIEDMONl1DEIS\Exsum\fnl exs.doc\03/27/00 S-32 Summary
the proposed parallel runway and two bridges over Bryan Boulevard for the parallel runway taxiway
connectors. Surface transportation improvements associated with Alternatives W2-A and W3-A would
improve the overall transportation system in the vicinity of PTIA and would result in impacts to 40.5 acres
of upland biotic communities, 9.8 acres of wetlands, and 23.1 acres of 100-year floodplains. Alternative
N-D would result in impacts to 45.1 acres of upland biotic communities, 9.8 acres of wetlands, and 23.1
acres of 100-year floodplains. Alternative W1-A1 would have the greatest effect on the local PTIA
roadway system because it involves the relocation of a portion of Bryan Boulevard and the development
of a new interchange at Bryan Boulevard and proposed Airport Road. This alternative would result in the
greatest improvement to the overall transportation system in the vicinity of PTIA and would result in
impacts to 105.4 acres of upland biotic communities, 7.1 acres of wetlands, 9.1 acres of 100-year
floodplains, and require the relocation of 36 households (84 people). Alternative WE would result in
impacts to 45.1 acres of upland biotic communities, 9.8 acres of wetlands, and 23.1 acres of 100-year
floodplains. Impacts associated with the surface transportation improvements have been cumulatively
assessed with the proposed airport improvement projects, and mitigation measures for individual impact
categories are presented in Chapter 6.0, Mitigation, of this DEIS.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
CONSISTENCY WITH PLANS, GOALS AND POLICIES
Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, N-D, W1-A1, and WE do not conflict with the objectives of Federal, regional,
state, or local land use plans, policies, or controls for the Greensboro area. Piedmont Triad International
Airport is an unincorporated entity of Guilford County, and most of the airside, landside, and surface
transportation improvements would be constructed on land owned by the PTAA. Chapter 818 of the 1985
Session Laws of the North Carolina General Assembly exempts the airport property within its state-
defined perimeter from annexation. Based on past practice, Guilford County would rescind its zoning
authority over county properties acquired by the PTAA as a result of implementation of any of the
alternatives. In that instance, the City of Greensboro and the PTAA would petition the North Carolina
General Assembly to revise the airport annexation exemption boundary established in 1985 to include the
acquired parcels. Local governments are supportive of the proposed project and are striving to ensure
that the potential acquisition of properties and conversion to the airport use would be consistent with local
land use planning and zoning.
INCONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL PLANS AND LAWS
All of the build alternatives are consistent with the existing Airport Layout Plan and the intent of local
municipal planners. Guilford County, the PTAA, and the cities of High Point and Greensboro adopted the
Airport Area Land Use Plan in 1986. This 14-year-old plan is now being updated and is scheduled for
completion by January 2001. The revised plan would recommend a development pattern for the airport
area that would be compatible with proposed airport improvements and would mitigate the impact of
these improvements to the surrounding area. The preferred alternative resulting from the environmental
review process would need to be incorporated into the revised Airport Area Land Use Plan before its
adoption.
\\clnt0l\wp_wpro\PIEDMONIIDEIS\Exsum\fnl_exs.doc\03/27/00 S-33 Summary
DEGREE OF CONTROVERSY
To date, there has been local controversy concerning the implementation of the proposed project. This
controversy has been centered on the potential environmental impacts associated with the development
of a parallel runway and the establishment of an air cargo sorting and distribution facility (Mid-Atlantic
Hub) at PTIA, particularly with regard to noise, air quality, water quality, and quality of life issues. Many of
these concerns have been voiced by the communities closest to PTIA. However, much of the larger Triad
area appears supportive of the proposed development due to its potential positive economic impacts.
DESIGN, ART, ARCHITECTURE
FAA guidelines (5050.4A) state that design factors should be employed that would complement and
support establishment of functional, efficient, and safe airport facilities while reflecting local, cultural, and
architectural heritage considerations. The proposed air cargo sorting and distribution facility and runway
and associated taxiways would be designed in accordance with state building codes and FAA
requirements, respectively. Although no specific design plans are currently available, the PTAA would
encourage the proposed air cargo sorting and distribution facility to be designed in a manner that is
compatible with the existing airport environs. Landscaping would be accomplished with native vegetation
and the inclusion of architectural treatments such as coloring of structural elements, buffer areas, and
screening landscaping into the development's design would minimize the visual impacts of the proposed
sorting and distribution facility associated with each of the alternatives.
All of the proposed alternatives would create a temporary visual disturbance during construction and long-
term impacts to the visual aesthetic integrity of the area. Airside improvements associated with
Alternatives W2-A and W3-A would visually impact persons traveling along Old Oak Ridge Road and
Lebanon Road. Residential areas located adjacent to the south end of proposed Runway 5L would
experience visual impacts due to clearing of existing vegetation to established runway safety areas.
Alternatives N-D and WE would visually impact persons traveling along Ballinger Road. Alternative
W1-A1 would result in visual impacts to residential areas south and west of PTIA. FAA requirements
dictate specific operational areas that must be cleared and maintained for aviation safety purposes. Few
measures to mitigate an airfield's visual impact can be accomplished. However, PTAA would work with
the local communities to minimize visual impacts to the extent possible while not compromising aviation
safety. Landside improvements associated with all of the Build Alternatives would impact the aesthetic
integrity of the area; however, vegetation and design factors would be employed to complement the
proposed air cargo facility.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines, the DEIS was prepared to
consider the overall cumulative impact of the proposed project and the consequences of subsequent
related actions. According to CEQ, cumulative impacts represent the "impact on the environment which
results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably
\\clnt0l\wp_wpro\PIEDMONTDEIS\Exsum\fnl_exs.doc\03/27/00 S-34 Summary
foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes
such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individual minor but collectively significant actions
taking place over a period of time."
The DEIS has and does take into consideration cumulative impacts that could result. The study
considered, to the extent reasonable and practical, the possible impacts of the proposed project and other
developments, both on and off the airport which are related in terms of time or proximity. The FAA's DEIS
considers those improvements proposed in the 1994 Master Plan and depicted on the PTIA ALP that are
considered "ripe" for evaluation. Although there are many individual improvements proposed, only a few
represent most of the work, cost, and potential for impact. The proposed airport development actions
were consolidated into the following five major development categories:
• New runway and associated taxiway system,
• Overnight express air cargo sorting and distribution facility,
• Surface transportation improvements,
• Property acquisition, and
• Relocation of on-airport facilities.
The DEIS highlights these major projects and their alternatives and evaluates them both individually and
cumulatively. Many of the other proposed improvement recommendations were evaluated cumulatively
as "connected actions" to the major development actions. Many of these actions would not normally
require environmental analysis on an individual basis. The DEIS also considers the cumulative impacts
of other (FAA and non-FAA) actions together with the proposed improvements at PTIA to the extent
reasonable. Developments not connected to the DEIS include the Categorical Exclusion for the Runway
14 Safety Area for PTIA (dated: May 7, 1998) and the FEIS for the Greensboro Western Urban Loop
(dated: February 28, 1995). Coordination with the cities of Greensboro, High Point, and Winston-Salem
as well as Guilford County indicate that there are no other known major planned developments in the
PTIA area that need to be considered on a cumulative basis.
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS AND IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

The construction and operation of the proposed improvements would result in the use of resources and
environmental impacts that are unavoidable. The impacts associated with the proposed improvements
are disclosed for specific impact categories in Sections 5.1 through 5.22 of the DEIS. Proposed
mitigation concepts for impacts associated with those categories significantly affected by the alternatives
are summarized in Chapter 6.0, Mitigation.
\\clnt01\wp_wpro\PIEDMOMIDEIS\ExsumVnl_exs.doc\03/27/00 S-35 Summary
MAN'S RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF HIS ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND
ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
All of the reasonable alternatives would require use of man's environment during construction to achieve
the long-term goals of improved aviation capacity, economic vitality, and traffic flows. Traffic delays,
fugitive dust, and increased emissions from construction vehicles; visual and aesthetic impacts; and
additional construction noise are expected as a result of all the alternatives. These impacts would be
short-term in nature, and temporary, and would be minimized through the establishment and use of
environmental controls, such as Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Federal, state, and local
construction mitigation guidelines. Refer to DEIS Section 5.19, Construction Impacts, for additional
information associated with short-term use of man's environment and DEIS Section 6.2.8, Possible
Construction Impacts Mitigation Measures, for information concerning mitigation measures during
construction.
As discussed in Chapter 2.0, Purpose and Need, it was determined that to efficiently operate an air cargo
facility at PTIA, both a widely spaced Transport-Category parallel runway and a facility located between
the parallel runways are needed. These improvements would meet the short-term needs of the air cargo
operator and achieve the long-term operational goals and needs of the PTIA. Long-term benefits of all of
the Build Alternatives would ultimately increase air capacity for PTIA, the region, and the national
airspace system.
The majority of the roadways in the vicinity of PTIA are currently operating at acceptable Levels of i
Service (LOS). These Levels of Service would decrease in the future as traffic volumes increase and
high levels of congestion would occur in the peak travel hours. All of the alternatives would implement
infrastructure projects, which would improve long-term traffic flows in the PTIA area. Refer to DEIS
Appendix I for additional information concerning surface transportation improvements.
MITIGATION
The construction and operation of the proposed improvements would result in the use of resources and in
unavoidable environmental impacts. The FAA has identified mitigation measures to minimize the adverse
effects of the construction and operation of the proposed improvements. These mitigation measures,
which are detailed in Chapter 6.0, Mitigation, of the DEIS, will be expanded and refined into a
recommended mitigation program, to the extent applicable, in the Final EIS (FEIS) as a result of public
and agency comments on the DEIS.
COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The EIS process for the proposed project at PTIA has included an extensive public involvement and
coordination program. Activities accomplished as part of the DEIS include Scoping meetings (agency
and public), a public workshop, media coordination, agency coordination, and the public distribution of
project related information through the use of newsletters and the internet. A Public Hearing/Information
Workshop to receive comments on the DEIS is planned at least 30 days after the DEIS is published for
\\clnt01\wp_wpro\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Exsum\fnl_exs.doc\03/27/00 S-36 Summary
review. Comments on the DEIS will be accepted by the FAA for a period of up to 45 days from the
publication of the Federal Register Notice of Availability of the DEIS.
FINAL EIS AND RECORD OF DECISION
Comments received from the public and agencies on the DEIS will be reviewed and considered by the
FAA in the preparation of the FEIS. All comments received will be summarized and responded to in the
FEIS. The FAA will release the FEIS for public review and subsequently issue a formal Record of
Decision (ROD) which states the agency's decision regarding the project and the agency's evaluation and
analysis of the environmentally preferred alternative. It will also include any mitigation measures that
were made a condition of the approval of the EIS.
\\clnt01\wp_wpro\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Exsum\fnl exs.doc\03/27/00 S"37 Summary
6
�
}
��. L �
.� k,
f v''
� v Sf ky
� C''
���
Yr +`v: #� 4, i ! � � �
S � '�'`�
+,. n, `-''*`-�- ,---...� fes: �.. +� �t .
,�
v � ;.� ��—-rte
r
� �..�
,.
„ ,,,
� ..
� `�
yr>
.'
i.
:`1 �
f t F '
.. ��
;.
.�..: ..
� ;..
���
..
_
�.
.. ... � ..
h
.. ...
T
u �.
•,..
„ �
ti
.. - ,. � �.
-
�'
., a,
�
.. y
.� ' ..
..
,. .1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................1-1
1.1 ABOUT THE PIEDMONT TRIAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT EIS .................1-1
1.1.1 The Proposed Improvements to PTIA ...................................................1-1
1.1.2 FAA's Environmental Responsibilities ...................................................1-1
1.1.3 Cooperating Agency ..............................................................................1-2
1.1.4 Document Organization .........................................................................1-3
1.2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ......... ................. .......................... ....... ........ .....1-5
1.2.1 Proposed Project Description ................................................................1-5
1.2.2 Airport History ........................................................................................1-7
1.2.3 Airport Description .................................................................................1-8
1.2.4 PTIA's Role ............................................................................................1-8
1.2.5 Recent Related Studies at PTIA ............................................................1-8
1.3 Forecasts of Aviation Activity ..............................................................................1-9
2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED ....................................................................................................2-1
2.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 2-1
2.2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ..........................2-2
2.2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 2-2
2.2.2 Purpose for the Proposed Improvements ..............................................2-2
2.2.2.1 Consistency with Federal Transportation Policies .................. 2-2
2.2.2.2 Develop an Air Cargo Sorting and Distribution Facility........... 2-3
2.2.2.3 Summary of Purpose for the Proposed Improvements......... .. 2-5
2.2.3 Need: Meet Operational Requirements of an Overnight
Express Air Cargo Hub ........................................................................ .. 2-5
2.2.3.1 Provide Redundant 9,000-Foot Transport-Category
Runway System .................................................................... .. 2-6
2.2.3.2 Provide the Ability to Conduct Dual Simultaneous
Independent Operations ........................................................ .. 2-7
2.2.3.3 Provide a Hub Facility Development Site Meeting the
Operational Needs of an Overnight Express Air Cargo Hub 2-12
2.2.3.4 Purpose and Need Summary ................................................ 2-13
2.3 REQUESTED FEDERAL ACTIONS ................................................................. 2-14
3.0 ALTERNATIVES ..............................................................................................................3-1
3.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. ... 3-1
3.2 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION PROCESS ................................................... ... 3-2
3.2.1 Level 1 Analysis: Purpose and Need Criteria .................................... ...3-3
3.2.1.1 Develop an Air Cargo Sorting and Distribution Facility........ ... 3-3
3.2.1.2 Provide Redundant 9,000-Foot Transport-Category
Runway System ................................................................... ... 3-4
3.2.1.3 Provide the Ability to Conduct Dual Simultaneous
Independent Operations ....................................................... ... 3-4
3.2.1.4 Provide a Facility Development Site Meeting the
Operational Needs of an Air Cargo Sorting and
Distribution Facility ............................................................... ...3-7
3.2.2 Level 2 Analysis: Constructability, Cost Considerations, and
Environmental Impacts ....................................................................... ... 3-8
3.2.2.1 Infrastructure ........................................................................ ... 3-8
3.2.2.2 Property Acquisition ............................................................. ... 3-8
3.2.2.3 Relocations .......................................................................... ...3-9
3.2.2.4 Comparative Cost Considerations ....................................... ... 3-9
3.2.2.5 Environmental Impacts ......................................................... ...3-9
3.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ..................................................................... .3-11
3.3.1 Off-Site Alternatives ............................................................................ .3-11
3.3.1.1 Development of a New Airport Within the Triad ................... .3-11
3.3.1.2 Use of Other Existing Airports .............................................. . 3-12
WAPIEDMONTTEISVoc.doc i
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Chapter
3.4
3.5
3.6
Page
3.3.2 PTIA Runway and Air Cargo Facility Alternatives ............................... 3-22
3.3.2.1 Introduction ............................................................................ 3-22
3.3.2.2 Description of Runway Development Alternatives ................ 3-23
3.3.2.3 Description of Air Cargo Sorting/Distribution Facility Site
Alternatives ........................................................................... 3-26
3.3.3 Evaluation of PTIA Runway and Sorting/Distribution Facility
Site Alternatives ................................................................................... 3-28
3.3.3.1 Introduction ............................................................................ 3-28
3.3.3.2 Level 1 Screening ................................................................. 3-34
3.3.3.3 Level 2 Screening ................................................................. 3-40
3.3.4 Alternatives Considered and Not Retained for Detailed Analysis ....... 3-40
3.3.5 Alternatives Considered and Retained for Detailed Analysis .............. 3-41
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES RETAINED FOR
DETAI LED ANALYSIS ...................................................................................... 3-41
3.4.1 No-Action Alternative ........................................................................... 3-41
3.4.2 Alternative W2-A .................................................................................. 3-41
3.4.3 Alternative W3-A .................................................................................. 3-42
3.4.4 Alternative N-D ..................................................................................... 3-44
3.4.5 Alternative W1-A1 ................................................................................ 3-45
3.4.6 Alternative N-E ..................................................................................... 3-46
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................ 3-47
LISTING OF FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS CONSIDERED ............ 3-47
4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................... 4-1 4
4.1
4.2
4.3
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 4-1
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................... .. 4-1
4.2.1 Land Use and Local Governments ...................................................... .. 4-1
4.2.1.1 Geographic Area of Analysis ............................................... ..4-1
4.2.1.2 Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area ............................... .. 4-2
4.2.1.3 Generalized Study Area ...................................................... .. 4-3
4.2.1.4 Detailed Study Area ............................................................. .. 4-6
4.2.2 Socioeconomics / Demographics ........................................................ .. 4-7
4.2.2.1 Socioeconomics .................................................................. .. 4-7
4.2.2.2 Demographics ..................................................................... .. 4-9
4.2.3 Section 303(c) Title 49 U.S. Code and U.S. DOI Section 6(f)
Resources ............................................................................................ 4-13
4.2.3.1 Section 303(c) Properties .................................................... 4-13
4.2.3.2 Section 6(f) Properties ......................................................... 4-22
4.2.4 Historic and Archaeological Resources ............................................... 4-22
4.2.4.1 Compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act ..................................................... 4-22
4.2.4.2 Historic Architectural Resources Area of Potential Effect ... 4-23
4.2.4.3 Archaeological Resources Area of Potential Effect ............. 4-23
4.2.4.4 Historic Architectural Investigations .................................... 4-23
4.2.4.5 Archaeological Investigations .............................................. 4-29
4.2.4.6 Program for Compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act ....................................... 4-30
4.2.5 Airport Noise ........................................................................................ 4-31
4.2.5.1 Project Description .............................................................. 4-31
4.2.5.2 Noise Measurement Program ............................................. 4-31
4.2.5.3 Development of Operations Input ........................................ 4-31
4.2.5.4 Existing (1998) Aircraft Noise .............................................. 4-34
4.2.5.5 Noise Exposure ................................................................... 4-34
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................... 4-35
4.3.1 Geographic Overview .......................................................................... 4-35
W:\PI EDMONT\DEIS\toc.doc\3/28/00

Chapter
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page
4.3.2 Climate .............................................................................................4-35
4.3.3 Water Resources ................................................................................. 4-36
4.3.3.1 Surface Water ...................................................................... 4-36
4.3.3.2 Groundwater ........................................................................4-50
4.3.3.3 Water Supply ....................................................................... 4-52
4.3.3.4 Sanitary Wastewater Treatment .......................................... 4-55
4.3.4 Floodplains ...........................................................................................4-55
4.3.4.1 Floodplain Regulations ........................................................4-57
4.3.4.2 Flooding Problems ...............................................................4-58
4.3.5 Soils .............................................................................................4-58
4.3.6 Air Quality ............................................................................................ 4-60
4.3.6.1 Background Information ...................................................... 4-60
4.3.6.2 Sources of Air Emissions ..................................................... 4-61
4.3.6.3 Air Emissions in the Greensboro/Winston-Salem/
High Point Area ................................................................... 4-62
4.3.6.4 Existing Conditions Emission Inventory .............................. 4-62
4.3.7 Hazardous Materials ............................................................................4-63
4.3.7.1 Introduction .......................................................................... 4-63
4.3.7.2 Existing Conditions ..............................................................4-63
4.3.8 Wild and Scenic Rivers ........................................................................4-65
4.4 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................4-66
4.4.1 Biotic Communities ............................................................................. 4-66
4.4.1.1 Land Coverages .................................................................. 4-66
II 4.4.1.2 Wildlife .................................................................................4-69
4.4.2 Wetlands .............................................................................................4-70
4.4.2.1 Overview and Definitions ..................................................... 4-70
4.4.2.2 Study Methology .................................................................. 4-70
4.4.2.3 Wetland Communities ......................................................... 4-70
4.4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species .................................................4-72
4.4.3.1 Objectives and Study Methology ......................................... 4-72
4.4.3.2 Summary of Findings ........................................................... 4-72
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .......................................................................... 5-1
5.1 NOISE .................................................................................................................5-2
5.1.1 Overview of Impacts .............................................................................. 5-3
5.1.2 Methodology .......................................................................................... 5-3
5.1.2.1 Airport Layout ..........................................................................5-6
5.1.2.2 Operations Numbers ............................................................... 5-6
5.1.2.3 Runway Use ............................................................................ 5-7
5.1.2.4 Flight Tracks ............................................................................ 5-8
5.1.2.5 Flight Track Usage ..................................................................5-8
5.1.3 Phase 1 Impact Potential ....................................................................... 5-8
5.1.3.1 No-Action Alternative ............................................................ 5-10
5.1.3.2 Alternative W2-A ................................................................... 5-10
5.1.3.3 Alternative W3-A ...................................................................5-11
5.1.3.4 Alternative N-D ......................................................................5-12
5.1.3.5 Alternative W 1-Ai ................................................................. 5-13
5.1.3.6 Alternative WE ...................................................................... 5-14
5.1.4 Phase 2 Impact Potential .....................................................................5-15
5.1.4.1 No-Action Alternative ............................................................ 5-15
5.1.4.2 Alternative W2-A ................................................................... 5-16
5.1.4.3 Alternative W3-A ...................................................................5-17
5.1.4.4 Alternative N-D ......................................................................5-17
5.1.4.5 Alternative W1-Ai .................................................................5-18
5.1.4.6 Alternative WE ...................................................................... 5-19
5.1.5 Non-Aircraft Noise Impacts ..................................................................5-20
W.\PIEDMONT\DEIS\toc.doc\3/28/00 I I I
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Chapter
Page
5.1.5.1 No-Action Alternative ............................................................ 5-20
5.1.5.2 Alternative W2-A ................................................................... 5-21
5.1.5.3 Alternative W3-A ................................................................... 5-22
5.1.5.4 Alternative N-D ...................................................................... 5-22
5.1.5.5 Alternative W1-A1 ................................................................. 5-22
5.1.5.6 Alternative WE ...................................................................... 5-23
5.1.6 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................. 5-24
5.2 LAND USE ........................................................................................................ 5-24
5.2.1 Overview of Impacts ............................................................................ 5-24
5.2.2 Methodology ........................................................................................ 5-25
5.2.3 Phase 1 Impact Potential ..................................................................... 5-25
5.2.3.1 No-Action Alternative ............................................................ 5-25
5.2.3.2 Alternative W2-A ................................................................... 5-27
5.2.3.3 Alternative W3-A ................................................................... 5-29
5.2.3.4 Alternative N-D ...................................................................... 5-29
5.2.3.5 Alternative W 1-A1 ................................................................. 5-30
5.2.3.6 Alternative WE ...................................................................... 5-31
5.2.4 Phase 2 Impact Potential ..................................................................... 5-32
5.2.4.1 No-Action Alternative ............................................................ 5-32
5.2.4.2 Alternative W2-A ................................................................... 5-33
5.2.4.3 Alternative W3-A ................................................................... 5-34
5.2.4.4 Alternative N-D ...................................................................... 5-34
5.2.4.5 Alternative W 1-A1 ................................................................. 5-35
5.2.4.6 Alternative WE ...................................................................... 5-36
5.2.5 Land Use Assurance ........................................................................... 5-37
5.2.6 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................. 5-37
5.3 SOCIAL IMPACTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ................................... 5-38
5.3.1 Overview of Impacts ............................................................................ 5-38
5.3.2 Methodology ........................................................................................ 5-38
5.3.3 Phase 1 Impacts .................................................................................. 5-39
5.3.3.1 No-Action Alternative ............................................................ 5-39
5.3.3.2 Alternative W2-A ................................................................... 5-41
5.3.3.3 Alternative W3-A ................................................................... 5-42
5.3.3.4 Alternative N-D ...................................................................... 5-44
5.3.3.5 Alternative W1-A1 ................................................................. 5-46
5.3.3.6 Alternative WE ...................................................................... 5-47
5.3.4 Phase 2 Impacts .................................................................................. 5-49
5.3.4.1 No-Action Alternative ............................................................ 5-49
5.3.4.2 Alternative W2-A ................................................................... 5-50
5.3.4.3 Alternative W3-A ................................................................... 5-51
5.3.4.4 Alternative N-D ...................................................................... 5-52
5.3.4.5 Alternative W1 -Al ................................................................. 5-53
5.3.4.6 Alternative WE ...................................................................... 5-54
5.3.5 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................. 5-55
5.3.5.1 Social Impacts ....................................................................... 5-55
5.3.5.2 Environmental Justice ........................................................... 5-55
5.4 INDUCED SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS ........................................................ 5-55
5.4.1 Overvi ew of Impacts ......................................................................................... 5-55
5.4.2 Methodology ........................................................................................ 5-56
5.4.3 Phase 1 Impact Potential ..................................................................... 5-59
5.4.3.1 No-Action Alternative ............................................................ 5-59
5.4.3.2 Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, N-D, W1-Al, and WE
(Build Alternatives) ................................................................ 5-60
5.4.3.3 Comparison of No-Action and Build Alternatives
for Phase 1 ............................................................................ 5-64
5.4.4 Phase 2 Impact Potential ..................................................................... 5-64
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\toc.doc\3/28100 iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Chapter
Page
5.4.4.1 No-Action Alternative ............................................................ 5-64
5.4.4.2 Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, N-D, W1-A1, and WE
(Build Alternatives) ................................................................5-66
5.4.4.3 Comparison of No-Action and Build Alternatives ..................5-71
5.4.5 Mitigation Measures .............................................................................5-71
5.5 AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................... 5-71
5.5.1 Overview of Impacts ......................................................................... ... 5-71
5.5.2 Methodo logy ........................................................................................ 5-72
5.5.2.1 Emissions Inventory Model ................................................... 5-73
5.5.2.2 Aircraft ...................................................................................5-73
5.5.2.3 Ground Service Equipment ................................................ ...5-74
5.5.2.4 Motor Vehicles ................................................................... ... 5-74
5.5.2.5 Other Sources of Air Emissions ......................................... ... 5-75
5.5.3 Phase 1 Impact Potential .................................................................. ...5-75
5.5.3.1 No-Action Alternative ......................................................... ... 5-76
5.5.3.2 Alternative W2-A ................................................................ ...5-76
5.5.3.3 Alternative W3-A ................................................................ ...5-76
5.5.3.4 Alternative N-D ................................................................... ...5-76
5.5.3.5 Alternative W 1-A1 .............................................................. ... 5-77
5.5.3.6 Alternative WE ................................................................... ... 5-77
5.5.4 Phase 2 Impact Potential .................................................................. ...5-77
5.5.4.1 No-Action Alternative ......................................................... ... 5-78
5.5.4.2 Alternative W2-A ................................................................ ...5-78
5.5.4.3 Alternative WE ................................................................... ... 5-78
5.5.4.4 Alternative N-D ................................................................... ...5-78
5.5.4.5 Alternative W 1-Ai .............................................................. ... 5-79
5.5.4.6 Alternative WE ................................................................... ... 5-79
5.5.5 State Im plementation Plan Conformity and Other Requirements .... ... 5-79
5.5.6 Mitigatio n Measures .......................................................................... ...5-82
5.6 WATE R QUALITY .......................................................................................... ...5-82
5.6.1 Overview of Impacts ......................................................................... ... 5-82
5.6.2 Methodology ..................................................................................... ... 5-83
5.6.3 Phase 1 Impact Potential .................................................................. ...5-83
5.6.3.1 No-Action Alternative ......................................................... ... 5-83
5.6.3.2 Alternative W2-A ................................................................ ...5-86
5.6.3.3 Alternative W3-A ................................................................ ...5-89
5.6.3.4 Alternative N-D ................................................................... ...5-90
5.6.3.5 Alternative W 1-A1 .............................................................. ... 5-91
5.6.3.6 Alternative WE ................................................................... ... 5-92
5.6.4 Phase 2 Impact Potential .................................................................. ...5-93
5.6.4.1 No-Action Alternative ......................................................... ... 5-93
5.6.4.2 Alternative W2-A ................................................................ ... 5-93
5.6.4.3 Alternative W3-A ................................................................ ...5-95
5.6.4.4 Alternative N-D ................................................................... ...5-95
5.6.4.5 Alternative W1 -Al .............................................................. ... 5-96
5.6.4.6 Alternative WE ................................................................... ... 5-97
5.6.5 Mitigatio n Measures .......................................................................... ...5-98
5.7 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECTION 303(c) AND
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR SECTION 6(f) .............................................. ... 5-98
5.7.1 Overview of Impacts ............................................................................ 5-98
5.7.2 Methodology ........................................................................................ 5-98
5.7.2.1 Direct Effects .........................................................................5-99
5.7.2.2 Indirect Effects ......................................................................5-99
5.7.2.3 Criteria/Methodology for Determination of Effects .............. 5-103
5.7.3 Phase 1 Impact Potential ...................................................................5-104
5.7.3.1 No-Action Alternative .......................................................... 5-104
W:\PIEDMOMIDEIS\toc.doc\3128/00 v
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Chapter
Page
5.7.3.2 Alternative W2-A ................................................................. 5-104
5.7.3.3 Alternative W3-A ................................................................. 5-104
5.7.3.4 Alternative N-D .................................................................... 5-105
5.7.3.5 Alternative W1-A1 ............................................................... 5-110
5.7.3.6 Alternative N-E .................................................................... 5-110
5.7.4 Phase 2 Impact Potential ................................................................... 5-115
5.7.4.1 No-Action Alternative .......................................................... 5-115
5.7.4.2 Alternative W2-A ................................................................. 5-115
5.7.4.3 Alternative W3-A ................................................................. 5-116
5.7.4.4 Alternative N-D .................................................................... 5-116
5.7.4.5 Alternative W 1-A1 ............................................................... 5-118
5.7.4.6 Alternative WE .................................................................... 5-119
5.7.5 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................... 5-121
5.8 HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES .................................... 5-121
5.8.1 Overview of Impacts .......................................................................... 5-121
5.8.2 Methodology ...................................................................................... 5-122
5.8.3 Phase 1 Impact Potential ................................................................... 5-123
5.8.3.1 No-Action Alternative .......................................................... 5-123
5.8.3.2 Alternative W2-A ................................................................. 5-123
5.8.3.3 Alternative W3-A ................................................................. 5-124
5.8.3.4 Alternative N-D .................................................................... 5-124
5.8.3.5 Alternative W 1-Ai ............................................................... 5-125
5.8.3.6 Alternative WE .................................................................... 5-125
5.8.4 Phase 2 Impact Potential ................................................................... 5-126
5.8.4.1 No-Action Alternative .......................................................... 5-126
5.8.4.2 Alternative W2-A ................................................................. 5-126
5.8.4.3 Alternative W3-A ................................................................. 5-126
5.8.4.4 Alternative N-D .................................................................... 5-127
5.8.4.5 Alternative W1-A1 ............................................................... 5-127
5.8.4.6 Alternative WE .................................................................... 5-127
5.8.5 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................... 5-128
5.9 BIOTIC COMMUNITIES ................................................................................. 5-128
5.9.1 Overview of Impacts .......................................................................... 5-128
5.9.2 Methodology ...................................................................................... 5-129
5.9.3 Phase 1 Impact Potential ................................................................... 5-129
5.9.3.1 No-Action Alternative .......................................................... 5-129
5.9.3.2 Alternative W2-A ................................................................. 5-130
5.9.3.3 Alternative W3-A ................................................................. 5-130
5.9.3.4 Alternative N-D .................................................................... 5-131
5.9.3.5 Alternative W 1-A1 ............................................................... 5-131
5.9.3.6 Alternative WE .................................................................... 5-131
5.9.4 Phase 2 Impact Potential ................................................................... 5-132
5.9.4.1 No-Action Alternative .......................................................... 5-132
5.9.4.2 Alternative W2-A ................................................................. 5-132
5.9.4.3 Alternative W3-A ................................................................. 5-132
5.9.4.4 Alternative N-D .................................................................... 5-132
5.9.4.5 Alternative W1-A1 ............................................................... 5-133
5.9.4.6 Alternative WE .................................................................... 5-133
5.9.5 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................... 5-133
5.10 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ............................................ 5-134
5.10.1 Overview of Impacts .......................................................................... 5-134
5.10.2 Methodology ...................................................................................... 5-134
5.10.3 Phase 1 Impact Potential ................................................................... 5-135
5.10.3.1 No-Action Alternative .......................................................... 5-135
5.10.3.2 Alternative W2-A ................................................................. 5-136
5.10.3.3 Alternative W3-A ................................................................. 5-137
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\toc.doc\3/28/00 vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Chapter
Page
5.10.3.4 Alternative N-D .................................................................... 5-137
5.10.3.5 Alternative W 1-A1 ............................................................... 5-138
5.10.3.6 Alternative WE .................................................................... 5-138
5.10.4 Phase 2 Impact Potential ................................................................... 5-139
5.10.4.1 No-Action Alternative .......................................................... 5-139
5.10.4.2 Alternative W2-A ................................................................. 5-139
5.10.4.3 Alternative W3-A ................................................................. 5-139
5.10.4.4 Alternative N-D .................................................................... 5-139
5.10.4.5 Alternative W 1-A1 ............................................................... 5-140
5.10.4.6 Alternative WE .................................................................... 5-140
5.10.5 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................... 5-140
5.11 WETLANDS .................................................................................................... 5-141
5.11.1 Overview of Impacts .......................................................................... 5-141
5.11.2 Methodology ...................................................................................... 5-141
5.11.3 Phase 1 Impact Potential ................................................................... 5-142
5.11.3.1 No-Action Alternative .......................................................... 5-142
5.11.3.2 Alternative W2-A ................................................................. 5-142
5.11.3.3 Alternative W3-A ................................................................. 5-142
5.11.3.4 Alternative N-D .................................................................... 5-142
5.11.3.5 Alternative W1-A1 ............................................................... 5-143
5.11.3.6 Alternative WE .................................................................... 5-143
5.11.4 Phase 2 Impact Potential ................................................................... 5-143
5.11.4.1 No-Action Alternative .......................................................... 5-143
5.11.4.2 Alternative W2-A ................................................................. 5-143
5.11.4.3 Alternative W3-A ................................................................. 5-144
5.11.4.4 Alternative N-D .................................................................... 5-144
5.11.4.5 Alternative W 1-A1 ............................................................... 5-144
5.11.4.6 Alternative WE .................................................................... 5-144
5.11.4.7 Comparison of Wetland Resource Value Impacts .............. 5-144
5.11.5 Comparison of Wetland Resource Value Impacts ............................. 5-144
5.11.6 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................... 5-145
5.12 FLOODPLAINS ............................................................................................... 5-145
5.12.2 Methodology ...................................................................................... 5-146
5.12.3 Phase 1 Impact Potential ................................................................... 5-146
5.12.3.1 No-Action Alternative .......................................................... 5-146
5.12.3.2 Alternative W2-A ................................................................. 5-147
5.12.3.3 Alternative W3-A ................................................................. 5-148
5.12.3.4 Alternative N-D .................................................................... 5-149
5.12.3.5 Alternative W 1-A1 ............................................................... 5-150
5.12.3.6 Alternative WE .................................................................... 5-151
5.12.4 Phase 2 Impact Potential ................................................................... 5-152
5.12.4.1 No-Action Alternative .......................................................... 5-152
5.12.4.2 Alternative W2-A .................................................................5-152
5.12.4.3 Alternative W3-A ................................................................ .5-152
5.12.4.4 Alternative N-D ................................................................... .5-153
5.12.4.5 Ate rnative W 1-A1 ............................................................... . 5-153
5.12.4.6 Alternative WE ................................................................... . 5-154
5.12.5 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................... .5-154
5.13 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND
COASTAL BARRIERS ................................................................................... .5-154
5.13.1 Overview of Impacts ......................................................................... . 5-154
5.13.2 Methodology ..................................................................................... . 5-155
5.13.3 Phase 1 Impact Potential - All Alternatives ...................................... . 5-155
5.13.4 Phase 2 Impact Potential - All Alternatives ...................................... . 5-155
5.13.5 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................... .5-156
W:\PIEDMONTDEIS\toc.doc\3/28/00 vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Chapter
Page
5.14 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ......................................................................... 5-156
5.14.1 Overview of Impacts .......................................................................... 5-156
5.14.2 Methodology ...................................................................................... 5-156
5.14.3 Phase 1 Impact Potential - All Alternatives ....................................... 5-156
5.14.4 Phase 2 Impact Potential - All Alternatives ....................................... 5-156
5.14.5 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................... 5-157
5.15 FARMLANDS .................................................................................................. 5-157
5.15.1 Overview of Impacts .......................................................................... 5-157
5.15.2 Methodology ...................................................................................... 5-157
5.15.3 Phase 1 Impact Potential ................................................................... 5-158
5.15.3.1 No-Action Alternative .......................................................... 5-158
5.15.3.2 Alternative W2-A ................................................................. 5-158
5.15.3.3 Alternative W3-A ................................................................. 5-158
5.15.3.4 Alternative N-D .................................................................... 5-159
5.15.3.5 Alternative W1-A1 ............................................................... 5-159
5.15.3.6 Alternative N-E .................................................................... 5-159
5.15.4 Phase 2 Impact Potential ................................................................... 5-160
5.15.4.1 No-Action Alternative .......................................................... 5-160
5.15.4.2 Alternative W2-A ................................................................. 5-160
5.15.4.3 Alternative W3-A ................................................................. 5-160
5.15.4.4 Alternative N-D .................................................................... 5-160
5.15.4.5 Alternative W 1-Ai ............................................................... 5-160
5.15.4.6 Alternative WE .................................................................... 5-161
5.15.5 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................... 5-161
5.16 ENERGY SUPPLY AND NATURAL RESOURCES ....................................... 5-161
5.16.1 Overview of Impacts .......................................................................... 5-161
5.16.2 Methodology ...................................................................................... 5-161
5.16.3 Phase 1 Impact Potential ................................................................... 5-162
5.16.3.1 No-Action Alternative .......................................................... 5-162
5.16.3.2 Alternative W2-A ................................................................. 5-162
5.16.3.3 Alternative W3-A ................................................................. 5-163
5.16.3.4 Alternative N-D .................................................................... 5-163
5.16.3.5 Alternative W 1-A1 ............................................................... 5-163
6.16.3.6 Alternative WE .................................................................... 5-164
5.16.4 Phase 2 Impact Potential ................................................................... 5-164
5.16.4.1 No-Action Alternative .......................................................... 5-164
5.16.4.2 Alternative W2-A ................................................................. 5-164
5.16.4.3 Alternative W& A ................................................................. 5-165
5.16.4.4 Alternative N-D .................................................................... 5-165
5.16.4.5 Alternative W1-A1 ............................................................... 5-165
5.16.4.6 Alternative WE .................................................................... 5-166
5.16.5 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................... 5-166
5.17 LIGHT EMISSIONS ........................................................................................ 5-166
5.17.1 Overview of Impacts .......................................................................... 5-166
5.17.2 Methodology ...................................................................................... 5-167
5.17.3 Existing Conditions ............................................................................ 5-167
5.17.4 Phase 1 Impact Potential ....................... ............................ ................ 5-168
5.17.4.1 No-Action Alternative .......................................................... 5-168
5.17.4.2 Alternative W2-A ................................................................. 5-169
5.17.4.3 Alternative W3-A ................................................................. 5-169
5.17.4.4 Alternative N-D .................................................................... 5-170
5.17.4.5 Alternative W 1-A1 ............................................................... 5-170
5.17.4.6 Alternative WE .................................................................... 5-171
5.17.5 Phase 2 Impact Potential ................................................................... 5-172
5.17.5.1 No-Action Alternative .......................................................... 5-172
5.17.5.2 Alternative W2-A ................................................................. 5-172
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\toc.doc\3/28/00 viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Chapter
Page
5.17.5.3 Alternative W3-A ................................................................. 5-172
5.17.5.4 Alternative N-D .................................................................... 5-172
5.17.5.5 Alternative W1 -Al ............................................................... 5-172
5.17.5.6 Alternative WE .................................................................... 5-172
5.17.6 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................... 5-173
5.18 SOLID WASTE IMPACTS .............................................................................. 5-173
5.18.1 Overview of Impacts .......................................................................... 5-173
5.18.2 Existing Conditions ............................................................................ 5-173
5.18.3 Methodology ...................................................................................... 5-174
5.18.4 Phase 1 Impact Potential ................................................................... 5-175
5.18.4.1 No-Action Alternative .......................................................... 5-175
5.18.4.2 Alternative W2-A ................................................................. 5-176
5.18.4.3 Alternative W3-A ................................................................. 5-177
5.18.4.4 Alternative N-D .................................................................... 5-177
5.18.4.5 Alternative W 1-Ai ............................................................... 5-178
5.18.4.6 Alternative WE .................................................................... 5-179
5.18.5 Phase 2 Impact Potential ................................................................... 5-180
5.18.5.1 No-Action Alternative .......................................................... 5-180
5.18.5.2 Alternative W2-A ................................................................. 5-180
5.18.5.3 Alternative W3-A ................................................................. 5-181
5.18.5.4 Alternative N-D .................................................................... 5-182
5.18.5.5 Alternative W 1-A1 ............................................................... 5-182
5.18.5.6 Alternative WE .................................................................... 5-183
5.18.6 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................... 5-184
5.19 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS .......................................................................... 5-184
5.19.1 Overview of Impacts .......................................................................... 5-184
5.19.2 Methodology ...................................................................................... 5-185
5.19.3 Phase 1 Impact Potential ................................................................... 5-185
5.19.3.1 No-Action Alternative .......................................................... 5-185
5.19.3.2 Alternative W2-A ................................................................. 5-186
5.19.3.3 Alternative W3-A .................................................................5-188
5.19.3.4 Alternative N-D ....................................................................5-189
5.19.3.5 Alternative W 1-A1 .............................................................. . 5-189
5.19.3.6 Alternative WE ................................................................... . 5-190
5.19.4 Phase 2 Impact Potential .................................................................. .5-191
5.19.4.1 No-Action Alternative ......................................................... . 5-191
5.19.4.2 Alternative W2-A ................................................................ .5-191
5.19.4.3 Alternative W3-A ................................................................ .5-192
5.19.4.4 Alternative N-D ................................................................... .5-192
5.19.4.5 Alternative W1-A1 .............................................................. .5-192
5.19.4.6 Alternative WE ................................................................... . 5-193
5.19.5 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................... .5-193
5.20 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION 5-193
5.20.1 Overview of Impacts ......................................................................... . 5-193
5.20.2 Methodology ..................................................................................... . 5-194
5.20.3 Phase 1 Impact Potential .................................................................. .5-194
5.20.3.1 No-Action Alternative ......................................................... . 5-194
5.20.3.2 Alternative W2-A ................................................................ .5-195
5.20.3.3 Alternative W3-A ................................................................ .5-195
5.20.3.4 Alternative N-D ................................................................... .5-195
5.20.3.5 Alternative W1-A1 .............................................................. .5-196
5.20.3.6 Alternative WE ................................................................... . 5-196
5.20.3.6 Overnight Express Air Cargo Operator .............................. . 5-197
5.20.4 Phase 2 Impact Potential .................................................................. .5-197
5.20.4.1 No-Action Alternative .......................................................... 5-197
5.20.4.2 Alternative W2-A .................................................................5-198
W:\PIEDMONTDEIS\toc.doc\3/28/00 ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Chapter
Page
5.20.4.3 Alternative W3-A ................................................................. 5-198
5.20.4.4 Alternative N-D .................................................................... 5-198
5.20.4.5 Alternative W1 -Al ............................................................... 5-198
5.20.4.6 Alternative N-E .................................................................... 5-198
5.20.5 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................... 5-198
5.20.6 Consistency with FAA Requirements ................................................ 5-198
5.21 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION .................................................................... 5-199
5.21.1 Overview of Impacts .......................................................................... 5-199
5.21.2 Methodology ...................................................................................... 5-199
5.21.3 Phase 1 Impact Potential ................................................................... 5-201
5.21.3.1 No-Action Alternative .......................................................... 5-201
5.21.3.2 Alternative W2-A ................................................................. 5-202
5.21.3.3 Alternative W3-A ................................................................. 5-202
5.21.3.4 Alternative N-D .................................................................... 5-202
5.21.3.5 Alternative W 1-A1 ............................................................... 5-203
5.21.3.6 Alternative WE .................................................................... 5-203
5.21.4 Phase 2 Impact Potential ................................................................... 5-204
5.21.4.1 No-Action Alternative .......................................................... 5-204
5.21.4.2 Alternative W2-A ................................................................. 5-204
5.21.4.3 Alternative W3-A ................................................................. 5-204
5.21.4.4 Alternative N-D .................................................................... 5-204
5.21.4.5 Alternative W1 -Al ............................................................... 5-204
5.21.4.6 Alternative WE .................................................................... 5-205
5.21.5 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................... 5-205
5.22 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ................................ .......................................... 5-205
5.22.1 Consistency with Plans, Goals, and Policies ..................................... 5-205
5.22.2 Inconsistency with Local Plans and Laws ......................................... 5-206
5.22.3 Mitigation/Controversy ....................................................................... 5-206
5.22.3.1 Mitigation ............................................................................. 5-206
5.22.3.2 Degree of Controversy ........................................................ 5-206
5.22.4 Design, Art, Architecture .................................................................... 5-206
5.22.4.1 Airside and Landside ........................................................... 5-206
5.22.4.2 Surface Transportation ........................................................ 5-207
5.22.4.3 Mitigation Measures ............................................................ 5-209
5.23 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ................................................................................ 5-209
5.23.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts and Irreversible and Irretrievable
Commitment of Resources ................................................................ 5-211
5.23.2 Man's Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of His
Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term
Productivity ........................................................................................ 5-211
6.0 MITIGATION ....................................................................................................................6-1
6.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 MITIGATION M EASURES FOR BUILD ALTERNATIVES ................................ 6-1
6.2.1 Possible Noise Mitigation Measures ...................................................... 6-1
6.2.1.1 No-Action Alternative ............................................................. 6-3
6.2.1.2 Alternative W2-A .................................................................... 6-3
6.2.1.3 Alternative W3-A .................................................................... 6-4
6.2.1.4 Alternative N-D ...................................................................... 6-4
6.2.1.5 Alternative W 1-A1 .................................................................. 6-5
6.2.1.6 Alternative WE ...................................................................... 6-6
6.2.1.7 Other Noise Mitigation Measures .......................................... 6-7
6.2.2 Possible Land Use and Social Impacts Mitigation Measures ................ 6-8
6.2.2.1 Remedial Land Use Mitigation .............................................. 6-9
6.2.2.2 Compatible Land Use Planning ............................................. 6-9
6.2.2.3 Program Management Measures .......................................... 6-9
W:\PIEDMONl1DEIS\toc.doc\3/28/00 X
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Chapter Page
6.2.3 Possible Air Quality Mitigation Measures ............................................ 6-10
6.2.4 Possible Water Quality Mitigation Measures ....................................... 6-11
6.2.4.1 Wet Detention Ponds ........................................................... 6-13
6.2.4.2 Dry Detention Ponds ........................................................... 6-15
6.2.4.3 Deicing ................................................................................. 6-15
6.2.4.4 Collection, Separation, and Disposal of Spills ..................... 6-16
6.2.4.5 Oil/Water Separators ........................................................... 6-16
6.2.4.6 Erosion and Sedimentation Control ..................................... 6-16
6.2.5 Possible Section 106 Historic/Archaeological Sites
Mitigation Measures ............................................................................. 6-17
6.2.6 Possible Wetlands Mitigation Measures .............................................. 6-18
6.2.7 Possible Floodplains Mitigation Measures .......................................... 6-19
6.2.7.1 Culverts ................................................................................ 6-19
6.2.7.2 Stormwater Detention .......................................................... 6-20
6.2.7.3 Limit Fill Within the Floodplain Areas .................................. 6-21
6.2.8 Possible Construction Impacts Mitigation Measures ........................... 6-21
6.2.9 Possible Hazardous Substances Mitigation Measures ........................ 6-22
6.2.10 Possible Light Emissions Mitigation Measures .................................... 6-23
6.2.11 Possible Solid Waste Mitigation Measures .......................................... 6-23
7.0 COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................................... 7-1
7.1 SCOPING MEETINGS ........................................................................................7-1
7.1.1 Agency Scoping Meeting ....................................................................... 7-1
7.1.2 Public Scoping Meeting ......................................................................... 7-1
7.2 PUBLIC INFORMATION WORKSHOP .............................................................. 7-2
7.3 NEWSLETTER ...................................................................................................7-2
7.4 INTERNET WEB SITE ........................................................................................7-2
7.5 PUBLIC HEARING ..............................................................................................7-3
8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS, LIST OF PARTIES TO WHOM SENT .................................... .. 8-1
8.1 LIST OF PREPARERS ..................................................................................... .. 8-1
8.2 PARTIES TO WHOM THE DRAFT EIS WAS DISTRIBUTED ......................... ..8-5
9.0 REFER ENCES .............................................................................................................. .. 9-1
10.0 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY ....................................... 10-1
10.1 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ................................................ 10-1
10.2 GLOSSARY OF TERMS ................................................................................... 10-6
11.0 INDEX .......................................................................................................................... 11-1
W.\PIEDMONIIDEIS\toc.doc\3/28/00 A
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1.3-1 Air Cargo Activity Forecast with Proposed Air Cargo Hub
1.3-2 PTIA Forecast Summary
2.2-1 Runway Closures Due to Maintenance
2.2-2 Runway Closures Due to Incidents
2.2-3 Annual Service Volume - Two Runway Configuration
3.2.1-1 Comparison of FedEx Operations Cost
3.2.1-2 Comparison of FedEx Departure Operations Costs
3.2.1-3 Comparison of FedEx Departure Taxi Times
3.3.3-1 Two-Level Alternatives Screening Analysis
3.4-1 Comparison Summary of Environmental Consequences for
Alternatives Retained for Detailed Evaluation - Total Phase 1 and Phase 2
4.2.1-1 Land Use Characteristics of the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area
4.2.1-2 City and Town Population for Alamance, Davidson, and Forsyth Counties, NC -1990 to
1997
4.2.1-3 City and Town Population for Guilford, Randolph, and Rockingham Counties, NC -1990
to 1997
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
4.2.1-5 1999 Housing and Land Use Characteristics of the Generalized and Detailed Study
Areas
4.2.2-1 Wage and Salary Employment for the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area,
1980 to 1996
4.2.2-2 Employment Distribution by Economic Sector for the Six-County Socioeconomic Study
Area, 1970 to 1996
4.2.2-3 Economic Strengths and Weaknesses of the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area
Based on Location Quotient Analysis, 1996
4.2.2-4 Top 10 Employers in the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area, 1998
4.2.2-5 1998 Annual Average Civilian Labor Force Estimates and Unemployment Rates
for the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area
4.2.2-6 1997 Average Weekly Wages for Dominant Industries and 1996 Average Annual Wage
of the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area
4.2.2-7 Population Growth of Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area, 1970 to 1997
4.2.2-8 Characteristics of Population Growth for the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area, 1990
to 1997
4.2.2-9 Racial Composition of the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area, 1990
4.2.2-10 Age Composition of the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area, 1990
4.2.2-11 Income Distribution of the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area, 1990
4.2.2-12 Educational Attainment of Persons Ages 25+ in the Six-County Socioeconomic Study
Area, 1990
4.2.2-13 1999 Housing and Population Characteristics of the Generalized and Detailed Study
Areas
4.2.2-14 Racial Composition of the EIS Study Areas, 1999
4.2.2-15 Age Composition in the EIS Study Areas, 1999
4.2.2-16 Household Income Distribution in the EIS Study Areas, 1990
4.2.2-17 Educational Attainment of Persons Ages 25+ in the EIS Study Areas, 1990
4.2.3-1 Section 303(c) Sites
4.2.5-1 Aircraft Operation - Annual 1998
4.2.5-2 Average Daily Operations - 1998
4.2.5-3 Runway Use Percentages - 1998
4.2.5-4 Noise Levels at Specific Points
\\ct nt01\wp_wpro\PI EDMON7\DEIS\lot-lof.doc\03/28/00
XII
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
Table
4.2.5-5 Estimated Land Area within 1998 Noise Contours (Acres)
4.2.5-6 Estimated Off-Airport Area by Use within 1998 Noise Contours
4.2.5-7 Estimated Existing Residential Units and Population within 1998 Noise Contours
4.3.3-1 Sub-Basin Drainage Areas, Land Uses, and Road Crossings for the Primary Streams
within the Generalized Study Area
4.3.3-2 USGS Streamflow Data for Reedy Fork, and East Fork Deep River
4.3.3-3 Primary Freshwater Classifications in the State of North Carolina
4.3.3-4 Supplemental Water Classifications in the State of North Carolina
4.3.3-5 Primary and Supplemental Water Classifications for Fresh Surface Waters in the
Generalized Study Area
4.3.3-6 Tiers within Watershed Critical Areas
4.3.3-7 North Carolina Water Supply Watershed Protection Rules Summary
4.3.3-8 Benthic Macro-Invertebrate Data, 1983 through 1993
4.3.3-9 Results of Benthic Macro-Invertebrate Analysis by the NCDENR DWQ in
Horsepen and Brush Creeks
4.3.3-10 Summary of Habitat Assessment for Benthic Macro-Invertebrates in Horsepen
and Brush Creeks by the City of Greensboro Stormwater Services Department
4.3.3-11 Summary of Lake Assessment
4.3.3-12 Use-Support Information for Freshwater Stream Segments Monitored by the NCDENR
DWQ in the Generalized Study Area
4.3.3-13 1998 303(d) List for Water Bodies within the Generalized Study Area
4.3.3-14 NPDES Discharges within the Generalized Study Area
4.3.3-15 North Carolina Groundwater Classifications
4.3.4-1 Summary of Discharges Calculated in the FEMA Flood Insurance Studies for
Guilford County, City of Greensboro, and the City of High Point
4.3.4-2 Description of 100- and 500-Year Flood Zones within Generalized Study Area
4.3.4-3 100- and 500-Year Flood Zones within the Generalized Study Area
4.3.5-1 Acreage of Soils Designated Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance
4.3.6-1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
4.3.6-2 1998 Air Monitoring Data - Guilford County, North Carolina
4.3.6-3 Typical Airport-Related Sources of Air Emissions
4.3.6-4 1998 Airport-Related Sources of Air Emissions in Tons Per Year
4.3.7-1 Sites and Facilities Reported, Suspected, or with the Potential to Contain Hazardous
Substances, Environmental Contamination, and/or Other Regulated Substances in the
Vicinity of PTIA
4.4.1-1 Acreage and Percent Cover of Land Coverages in the Detailed Study Area
4.4.3-1 Potential for Occurrence of Threatened and Endangered Flora and Fauna in Detailed
Study Area
5.1.2-1 Annual Aircraft Operations - 2005 and 2019
5.1.2-2 Average Daily Operations - 2005 No-Action
5.1.2-3 Average Daily Operations - 2019 No-Action
5.1.2-4 Average Daily Operations - Phase 1 - All Build Alternatives
5.1.2-5 Average Daily Operations - Phase 2 - All Build Alternatives
5.1.2-6 Runway Use Percentages Phase 1 and Phase 2 No-Action Alternative
5.1.2-7 Phase 1 and Phase 2 Runway Use Percentages For Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, and
W1-A1
5.1.2-8 Mitigated Phase 1 Runway Use Percentages for Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, and W1-A1
5.1.2-9 Phase 1 and Phase 2 Runway Use Percentages for Alternative N-D
5.1.2-10 Mitigated Phase 1 Runway Use Percentages for Alternative N-D
5.1.2-11 Runway Use Percentages - Phase 1 and Phase 2 Alternative WE
5.1.2-12 Runway Use Percentages - Phase 1 Build Alternative WE (with Mitigation)
5.1.3-1 Phase 1 and Phase 2 No-Action Specific Point Analysis Locations
\\c1 nt01 \wp_wpro\PIEDMONTDEIS\lot-lof.doc\03/28/00 xl I I
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
Contamination, and/or Other Regulated Substances - Alternative W1-A1
W.\PIEDMONT\DEIS\lot-lof.doc\03/28/00 xvl i i
LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)
Figures
5.20.3-6 Sites/Facilities with the Potential to Contain Hazardous Substances, Environmental
Contamination, and/or Other Regulated Substances - Alternative WE
6.2.1-1 Mitigated Alternative W2-A Noise Contours
6.2.1-2 Mitigated Alternative W3-A Noise Contours
6.2.1-3 Mitigated Alternative N-D Noise Contours
6.2.1-4 Mitigated Alternative W1-Ai Noise Contours
6.2.1-5 Mitigated Alternative WE Noise Contours
W:\PIEDMON7\DEISVot-lof.doc\03/28/00 XIX
.. ,mom
V? R
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PIEDMONT TRIAD `INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1 ABOUT THE PIEDMONT TRIAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DENS
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) prepared this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to
identify the potential environmental effects associated with the construction and operation of proposed
improvements to the Piedmont Triad International Airport (PTIA). The Piedmont Triad Airport Authority
(PTAA), the owner and operator of PTIA, completed the 1994 Master Plan Update (MPU) that identified a
comprehensive development program for the expansion of PTIA. (PTAA is in the process of completing a
new MPU update that does not affect the current proposal for improvements to PTIA). The PTAA has
submitted the new runway portion of its Airport Layout Plan (ALP) to the FAA for environmental approval
in connection with its intent to seek Federal funds to implement Master Plan project implementation. The
FAA must prepare an EIS and issue a Record of Decision (ROD) that reflect its approval or disapproval of
the proposal under environmental criteria. The proposed improvements cannot be considered eligible for
Federal funding until the FAA issues a ROD.
1.1.1 THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO PTIA
The PTAA is requesting Federal actions to implement airside and landside improvements to PTIA on the
ALP that are intended to enable the airport to effectively meet estimated levels of activity associated with
the operational requirements of a proposed air cargo hub. The PTAA's proposed project features a new
parallel Transport Category runway, 9,000 feet long by 150 feet wide, which would be located on the
western side of the airport. This runway is intended to improve airfield capacity during both visual
meteorological conditions (VMC) and instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). The proposed project
also includes the development of an overnight, express air cargo sorting and distribution facility, roadway
improvements, NAVAIDS for new Runway 5U23R, property acquisition, and relocation of several airport
tenant operations.
1.1.2 FAA's ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES
In recognizing the importance of protecting the environment, the U.S. Congress passed the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) to encourage Federal agencies to enhance the environment.
NEPA requires Federal agencies to treat environmental impact as a primary criterion in evaluating a
proposed project. It also requires Federal agencies to analyze and consider alternatives to, and the
environmental impacts of, their proposed actions, to disclose and consider mitigation for those impacts,
and to provide interested parties with an opportunity to participate in the environmental review process.
In addition, Federal agencies must consider the "No-Action" Alternative. Furthermore, NEPA requires
Federal agencies to consider a proposed action's environmental consequences along with the agency's
statutory mission and technical factors related to their areas of expertise.
The FAA is responsible for complying with NEPA whenever an airport sponsor seeks to implement
projects depicted on an ALP and associated Federal actions. The FAA has reviewed PTIA's 1994 ALP
W.\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_t\Ch_l.doc\03/23/00 1 -1 Chapter 1.0 Introduction
and determined that an EIS would be the most appropriate document for the agency to fulfill its
obligations under NEPA and FAA Orders 1050.1 D (FAA, 1986) and 5050.4A (FAA, 1985). In July 1998,
the FAA published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare the DEIS for the PTIA proposed expansion. Public
and agency scoping meetings were held in August 1998 to receive comments regarding the scope of the
analysis and identify any potential environmental impacts. In addition, a Public Information Workshop was
held in April 1999 to receive any additional comments from interested parties on the scope of the analysis
to be conducted during the environmental process.
In Chapter 2.0, Purpose and Need, the purpose and need for the proposed project is defined. In Chapter
3.0, Alternatives, the FAA examines a range of alternatives, including the No-Action Alternative and the
PTAA's proposed project, and focuses on reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, as prescribed
by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEO) regulations.
1.1.3 COOPERATING AGENCY
A cooperating agency is an agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise regarding any
environmental impact resulting from a proposed project or reasonable alternative. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) has been invited and has agreed to participate as a cooperating agency for this
DEIS, because PTAA is proposing several roadway projects in its development program that would be
needed if the PTAA proposed runway and associated projects were implemented.
These projects would include construction of a tunnel for Bryan Boulevard under the proposed new
parallel Runway 5U23R and construction of two bridges over Bryan Boulevard for the cross-field
taxiways. For NEPA analysis in this DEIS, PTAA's proposed improvement plan as well as its alternatives
include these projects. These surface transportation improvement projects are under the jurisdiction of
the FHWA and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). This DEIS contains a special
technical appendix (Appendix 1) that presents separate FHWA Purpose and Need statements,
Alternatives evaluation, and Environmental Consequences (impact analysis) for the surface transportation
improvements. The FHWA has proposed to adopt the FAA's Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) and ROD, in compliance with NEPA requirements.
Specific elements of the FHWA approval actions include:
FHWA approval of the Surface Transportation developments which would include
interchange and arterial roadway improvements to provide increased capacity, Level of
Service and safety as well as improve system linkage within the area surrounding PTIA,
and
FHWA Federal environmental approval necessary to proceed with the processing of an
application for Federal funding for those development proposals qualifying under 42 USC
433(2)(c) and 23 CFR 771.
In addition to the above described proposed surface transportation improvement projects, the PTAA is
undertaking several additional roadway improvement projects which would be implemented by the PTAA
\\clnt01\wp_wpro\PIEDM0MIDEIS\Ch_1\Ch_1.doc\03/23/00 1-2 Chapter 1.0 Introduction
whether or not proposed Runway 5U23R and the air cargo sorting and distribution facility were
developed. These independent projects include the closure and relocation of a portion of Regional Road,
a new interchange at Bryan Boulevard and Old Oak Ridge Road, the relocation of a portion of Old Oak
Ridge Road, reconstruction of South Triad Boulevard and construction of a new North Triad Boulevard
interchange. These independent roadway improvement projects are also under the jurisdiction of the
FHWA and NCDOT. This DEIS discloses the potential environmental impacts associated with these
projects. However, these projects, unlike the roadway projects described in the previous paragraph, are
independent of the new runway proposal and are therefore also included in the analysis of the No-Action
Alternative. The FHWA proposes to adopt the FAA's FEIS and ROD for these projects as well.
1.1.4 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
The organization of the DEIS is described below:
Volume 1 - DEIS Documentation - contains the text of analysis and associated tables and exhibits of
the DEIS. The format of the document is as follows:
Summary - provides a brief summary of the DEIS.
Chapter 1.0, Introduction - provides a description of the DEIS process, the proposed improvements, and
relevant background information on the airport and its existing facilities.
Chapter 2.0, Purpose and Need - provides a discussion of the purpose of the proposed improvements
and why they are needed.
Chapter 3.0, Alternatives - provides a discussion of the alternatives analyzed as part of the
environmental process, a discussion of the criteria for evaluation, and a matrix for determining which
alternatives meet the project purpose and need and will be evaluated in detail in Chapter 5.0,
Environmental Consequences.
Chapter 4.0, Affected Environment - provides a discussion of the existing conditions in the project study
area.
Chapter 5.0, Environmental Consequences - provides a comparative discussion of the environmental
impacts associated with each of the reasonable alternatives identified in Chapter 3.0, Alternatives, and
the No-Action Alternative.
Chapter 6.0, Mitigation - provides a summary of mitigation measures for the proposed project.
Chapter 7.0, Coordination and Public Involvement - provides a discussion of the coordination and
public involvement associated with the DEIS process.
W.\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_l\Ch_t.doc\03/23/00 1-3 Chapter 1.0 Introduction
Chapter 8.0, List of Preparers and List of Parties to Whom Sent - provides information regarding the
preparers of the DEIS and a list of Federal, state, and local agencies and other interested parties that
received a copy of this DEIS document.
Chapter 9.0, References - provides a list of the references used in the preparation of this document.
Chapter 10.0, List of Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Glossary - provides a list of the abbreviations,
acronyms, and glossary of terms used in this document.
Chapter 11.0, Index - provides a cross-referencing system of terms, topics, and common phrases used
in this document.
Volumes 2 and 3 Technical Appendices - contains various appendices to the DEIS related to technical
information, coordination, and other reference materials. Volume 2 contains Technical Appendices "A"
through "J". Volume 3 contains Technical Appendices "K" through "O".
Appendix A - Agency Correspondence
Appendix B - Noise Measurement Program
Appendix C - Flight Tracks
Appendix D - Aircraft Noise Overview
Appendix E - Socioeconomic Data
Appendix F - Air Quality Assessment Supporting Material
Appendix G - Historic and Archaeological Resources Supporting Material
Appendix H - Hazardous Substances Data
Appendix I - Surface Transportation Impact Analysis
Appendix J - Land Use Assurance
Appendix K - Water Quality
Appendix L - Scoping Meeting Information
Appendix M - Public Workshop Information
Appendix N - Public Hearing Information
Appendix O - Consolidated Comment Database
Other supplemental PTIA reference materials that pertain to the DEIS but that are not included in
Volumes 1, 2, and 3 include:
• Master Plan Update (MPU) prepared by The LPA Group of North Carolina, p.a. (The LPA
Group), 1994, and
• Portions of the ongoing PTAA Master Plan Update (MPU) prepared by The LPA Group of
North Carolina, p.a., 1999-2000 (The LPA Group).
WAPIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_l\Ch_t.doc\03/23/00 1-4 Chapter 1.0 Introduction
1.2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Over the years, the PTAA has developed numerous plans regarding the expansion of PTIA and how to
best meet the aviation needs of the Triad. Although the development plan shown on the 1994 PTIA ALP
(and examined in this DEIS) is the culmination of the most recent planning effort accomplished by PTAA,
the proposed parallel runway and land area for cargo facility development have been depicted on the
PTIA ALP in the currently proposed locations since the publication of the 1968 Master Plan. PTAA states
that it will continue to depict a 10,000 foot Transport Category parallel runway on the ALP even if the FAA
determines that the purpose and need for the proposed project can be met with a perpendicular runway
configuration to allow them the option to construct it at some later time, if needed.
1.2.1 PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In 1994, the PTAA approved the airport's Master Plan Update, which set forth a long-term development
program to help the airport meet the air transportation needs of the Triad. Subsequent to the PTAA's
approval, the FAA accepted the PTIA Master Plan and granted conditional approval of the PTIA ALP,
subject to environmental review. This meant that NEPA review was not required until PTAA proposed to
implement a depicted project and actually submitted a proposal to the FAA, which PTAA has now done
for the parallel runway project. The ALP, which reflects the existing and future facilities on the airport, is
depicted on Figure 1.2-1, and includes elements for the development of a new parallel Runway 5L/23R
and the expansion of air cargo facilities in the northeast quadrant of the airport that are the subject of this
EIS.
The overall goals of the PTAA are to develop an airport facility that provides two widely spaced parallel
runways; supporting air cargo sorting and distribution facility capable of handling 48 daily FedEx air cargo
aircraft operations (24 departures) by the year 2005 and 126 daily FedEx air cargo aircraft operations (63
departures) by the year 2009; an extensive taxiway network, and well-developed surface transportation
infrastructure. In order to achieve this goal, a two-phase development program has been proposed by
the PTAA. Phase 1 developments, illustrated in Figure 1.2-2, consist of the following direct and
connected projects that the PTAA envisions would be constructed between 2000 and 2004 and be fully
operational in the year 2005:
• Construction of a new parallel 9,000' by 150' Transport Category runway capable of
accommodating Airplane Design Group (ADG) D-V air carrier aircraft (DC-10). The
proposed airfield system complex consists of the runway and taxiway as described;
parallel and connecting taxiways; lighting; navigational aids (for Category fl/III
capabilities); runway safety areas and protection zones, and associated grading,
drainage, and utility relocations;
• Cross field extension of Taxiway D;
• High Speed Exit Taxiway for existing Runway 5/23;
• Construction and operation of Phase 1 (approximately 736,000 square feet) of an air
cargo sorting and distribution facility (FedEx Mid-Atlantic Hub);
W:\PIEDMONTDEIS\Ch_l\Ch_t.doc\03123/00 1 -5 Chapter 1.0 Introduction
• 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.
2.2.3 NEED: MEET OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF AN OVERNIGHT, EXPRESS AIR CARGO HUB
Establishment of an overnight, express air cargo hub at PTIA requires that certain airside, landside and
surface transportation improvements be implemented. The improvements are initially needed to meet the
near- and long-term operational requirements of the overnight, express air cargo hub, within the near-
term timeframe established by the carrier for PTIA. The improvements proposed by the PTAA are
needed to facilitate development and efficient operation of an overnight, express air cargo hub consistent
with Fed Ex business requirements.
PTAA therefore seeks to support 48 daily operations (24 daily departures) by the year 2005 and 126 daily
operations (63 daily departures) by the year 2009. Associated landside development is also needed that
can support package processing activities at the rate of approximately 86,000 per night by the year 2005
and approximately 104,000 per night by the year 2009. All package processing must occur between the
hours of 10:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m. the following morning. The specific improvements that are needed are
described more fully in the following sections and include:
• An airfield system capable of providing a redundant Transport-Category runway system
having a minimum length of 9,000 feet;
\\clnt0l\wp_wpro\PIEDMONl1DEIS\Ch_2\Ch_2.doc\03/23/00 2-5 Chapter 2.0 Purpose and Need
• An airfield system capable of allowing for the ability to conduct dual simultaneous
independent operations to meet operational requirements in Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
or Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC), from 10:00 p.m. to 4:00 am, Monday
through Friday, and
• An air cargo hub development site of sufficient size, geometry and location to allow
establishment and operation of the hub facility in a flexible and efficient manner.
The above referenced operational levels were established by FedEx. PTAA states that for the desired full
air cargo hub operational levels to be reached in 2005, Phase 1 of the hub facility must be constructed
and operational by mid-year 2004. This would allow for a several month time period to test the sorting
equipment and train employees. The proposed parallel runway is projected to be constructed and
operational at the time that full aircraft and sorting operations would begin in early 2005.
2.2.3.1 Provide Redundant 9,000-Foot Transport-Category Runway System
PTIA currently has two runways. Runway 5/23 is 150 feet wide and 10,001 feet long, is used mostly by air
carrier aircraft and is considered to be the airport's primary runway. Runway 14/32 is 150 feet wide and
6,380 feet long, and is used primarily by regional air carrier and general aviation aircraft, including small
business jets. The majority of current air carrier operations at PTIA are to destinations that are between
500 and 1,000 nautical miles (nm) from PTIA. The majority of air cargo operations from the proposed air
cargo hub are also expected to occur to destinations between 500 and 1,000 nm. However, one daily
DC-10 operation is planned for non-stop trips between PTIA and San Juan, Puerto Rico, a distance of
approximately 1,760 nautical miles. One weeknight departure from PTIA to San Juan equates to 260
annual DC-10 departures or 520 annual operations. FAA's guidelines for runway length requirements
(FAA AC 5090.313, Paragraph 306) are based on the designated critical aircraft and load factors operating
at or forecast to operate at an airport facility. The number of aircraft operations designated by FAA for
runway length requirements is 250 annual departures and/or 500 total annual operations by the critical
aircraft. With the introduction of the overnight express air cargo hub at PTIA, the critical aircraft for any
future runway design would be the DC-10, or similar type aircraft.
In mid-1999, a detailed runway length analysis was prepared by PTAA as part of the ongoing PTIA
Master Plan Update (MPU). This analysis is available at the FAA Airports District Office in Atlanta,
Georgia and at the PTAA Administrative Office in Greensboro, North Carolina. The analysis was based
on aircraft types currently operating at and proposed to operate at PTIA. The analysis indicated that the
most critical aircraft forecast to operate at PTIA, based on weight, performance characteristics, and
frequency of operations was the DC-10. The MPU analysis calculated that a fully loaded DC-10 aircraft
departing PTIA for San Juan required a runway length of 10,120 feet. However, it was also determined
that DC-10 aircraft could operate to the same destination, with a slightly reduced payload, with a runway
length of 9,000 feet.
Subsequent coordination with the air cargo operator indicated that based on their anticipated load factor,
a runway length of 9,000 feet would accommodate the runway length requirements of their DC-10 on the
PTIA to San Juan delivery route. It was therefore concluded that based on FAA runway length
requirement guidelines, the justifiable runway length for any new or extended runway at PTIA should be
WAPIEDMONMEIS\Ch_2\Ch_2.doc\03/23/00 2-6 Chapter2.0 Purpose and Need
9,000 feet in order to accommodate the runway length requirements of the forecast PTIA critical aircraft.
At such time that PTAA justifies the need for a longer runway based on FAA guidelines, the extension of
existing Runway 14/32 or the proposed parallel runway would undergo separate environmental review by
the FAA.
A second 9,000-foot Transport-Category runway at PTIA would provide a back-up runway for all aircraft
during times of scheduled runway maintenance operations (overlays, repairs, aircraft rescue and fire
fighting exercises, snow removal, etc.) and unforeseen emergencies (incidents), without hindering or
closing down overall airport operations. Tables 2.2-1 and 2.2-2 present data collected from PTIA which
details the number of times and total duration of runway closings at PTIA over the last 10 years as a
result of either maintenance or incidents. As indicated, a total of 790 maintenance closures for a duration
of 1,305 hours, and 293 incidents for a duration of 129 hours occurred at PTIA. Based on this past
history, the FAA believes it is reasonable that approximately the same frequency of maintenance/incident
runway closures could occur during the study period covered in this DEIS.
Both of these statistics are significant in terms of the introduction of the proposed overnight, express air
cargo hub at PTIA. At most airports, maintenance activities are routinely scheduled to occur in "off-hours",
or times when it would have the least disruptive impact on aircraft operations. Although this can occur
during the daytime, it is more likely to occur at night. With the introduction of air cargo hub operations to
PTIA, normal maintenance activities would have to be scheduled during off-peak weekday hours or
during weekends so as not to interfere with the cargo hub's nighttime operations. Having a second 9,000-
foot Transport-Category runway would optimize the achievement of routine or emergency maintenance
for safety considerations. Although runway incidents are not predictable, most of their impact on airport
operations at PTIA would be minimized by providing a redundant 9,000-foot Transport-Category runway,
which would help ensure that at least one runway was always open and operational during daytime air
carrier and air cargo operations as well as during nighttime air cargo operations.
Because of the nature of the air transportation industry, it is critical to the air carrier that aircraft be able to
arrive and depart an airport facility without unnecessary interruption of service. To accommodate this
requirement for an overnight, express air cargo hub, PTIA has proposed two Transport-Category runways
of at least 9,000 feet in length, either of which would be fully capable of accommodating the required
runway length and instrumentation requirements (CAT II / CAT III) for the existing and future air carrier/air
cargo aircraft fleet at PTIA. This capability would be particularly important during periods of adverse
weather conditions (IMC conditions which occur approximately 15 percent of the year) and to provide
redundant back-up capabilities when one of the runways is closed due to maintenance and /or incidents.
2.2.3.2 Provide the Ability to Conduct Dual Simultaneous Independent Operations to Meet
Operational Requirements in Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) or Instrument
Meteorological Conditions (IMC)
To identify the particular airfield configuration the PTAA needed to meet its air cargo hub operational
objective, additional analysis was necessary. Specifically, two technical analyses, Annual Service
Volume (ASV) and Total Airport and Airspace Modeling (TAAM), were undertaken to evaluate the
\\clnt0l\wp_wpro\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_2\Ch_2.doc\03/23/00 2-7 Chapter 2.0 Purpose and Need
existing, short-term and long-term capacity of the PTIA airfield system with and without the introduction of
an air cargo hub. These analyses consisted of a traditional long-range estimate of ASV and a detailed
analysis of peak-period air cargo operational activity using computer-based simulation of aircraft arrival,
taxi-in, taxi-out and departure movements using the TAAM. The ASV and TAAM analyses were prepared
for the PTAA in mid-1999 as part of the ongoing PTIA MPU, and are available at the FAA ADO office in
Atlanta, Georgia and at the PTAA Administrative Office in Greensboro, North Carolina. The following is a
summary of these analyses and their findings.
Annual Service Volume (ASV) Calculation -The measure of long-term airfield capacity or the capability of
an airport to accommodate aircraft operations in a safe and timely manner without incurring excessive
delays is typically expressed numerically as ASV, as prescribed by FAA Advisory Circular 15015060-5,
Airport Capacity and Delay. ASV is the FAA's standard method of estimating an airport's "theoretical"
annual operational capacity for the 20-year planning horizon, and takes into account such considerations
as runway configuration, runway use, aircraft operating fleet mix, prevailing local weather conditions,
taxiway configuration, arrival/departure percentage split, touch-and-go operations, and air traffic control
(ATC) procedures.
The most recent ASV calculation for PTIA was conducted as part of the ongoing MPU, and independently
verified by the FAA as part of this DEIS. Several assumptions were used in the calculation of the ASV for
PTIA. First, the analysis considered that Runway 5/23 operates as the primary runway and Runway
14/32 operates as the secondary, or cross-wind runway. Because these runways are perpendicular and
physically connected, they are considered to be intersecting runways for ATC purposes. Based on a
review of wind persistency data and coordination with the ATC, it was determined that aircraft takeoff and
landing operations occur to the southwest approximately 54 percent of the time, and to the northeast
approximately 46 percent of the time. It was also determined that Instrument Meteorological Conditions
(IMC) occur approximately 15 percent of the time at PTIA. (LPA, 1998)
The results of the ASV capacity analysis are typically presented in terms of Annual Service Volume. In
calculating the ASV, the Hourly IFR and Visual Flight Rules (VFR) capacities were weighted according to
criteria specified in FAA Advisory Circular 15015060-5, Airport Capacity and Delay. Based on these
criteria, a weighted hourly capacity of 51 operations was utilized in the calculation of ASV for 1998
through 2019. The results of the ASV calculation, based on the existing two runway perpendicular
configuration at PTIA are shown in Table 2.2-3, with and without the introduction of proposed air cargo
hub aircraft operations.
FAA planning guidelines for airports specify that when annual airport operations reach 60 percent of ASV
capacity, the sponsor should initiate planning studies to evaluate means of increasing capacity (FAA AC
5090.313, Table 3-2). When operational levels approach 80 percent ASV capacity, construction of the
recommended capacity based improvements should be initiated. These guidelines have been developed
and are used by the FAA and airport sponsors to ensure that capacity based improvements are initiated
and completed in a timely manner, before significant operational delay levels develop that would affect
local airspace and the national airspace system. PTAA states that it has proposed a parallel runway
\\clnt01\wp_wpro\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_2\Ch_2.doc\03/23/00 2-8 Chapter 2.0 Purpose and Need
TABLE 2.2-1
RUNWAY CLOSURES DUE TO MAINTENANCE
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
Number of Duration of Closure
Date Maintenance Closures (hours)
1988 62 86
1989 69 87
1990 62 95
1991 63 99
1992 63 99
1993 63 99
1994 72 125
1995 73 131
1996 93 136
1997 82 119
1998 85 212
1999" 3 17
Total 790 1,305
Source: Piedmont Triad Airport Authority, 1999.
*Includes only first 2 months of 1999 data.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Chp_2\Tbl_2.2-1.doc\02/21 /00
TABLE 2.2-2
RUNWAY CLOSURES DUE TO INCIDENTS
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
Date Number of Incidents Duration of Closure hours
J
1989 24 17.45
1990 26 8.30
1991 25 17.28
1992 28 12.04
1993 16 4.37
1994 30 7.43
1995 49 20.59
1996 38 18.51
1997 22 8.36
1998
F 35 15.14
Total
'
EE 293 129.47
Source: Piedmont Triad Airport Authority, 1999.

W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch 2\SEC 2\Tbl 2.2-2.doc\02/21/00
TABLE 2.2-3
ANNUAL SERVICE VOLUME - TWO RUNWAY CONFIGURATION
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
Without FedEx Mid-Atlantic Hub

Year
ASV Annual -
Operations Annual OPS as
% of ASV
1998 232,056 127,376 54%
2005 220,878 138,900 63%
2009 214,528 149,034 69%
2014 206,561 158,714 77%
2019 198,594 169,674 86%
Source: LPA Group, Inc., Airport Master Plan Update, November 1998.
FedEx Forecast of Annual Operations, 2005 and 2009.
FedEx Annual Operations remain constant beyond 2009.
Year 2005, 2009, and 2019 ASV values interpolated.
Year 2005 Annual Operations developed by LPA for EIS, August 1999.
With FedEx Mid-Atlantic Hub

r
ASV Annual
Operations Annual OPS as
% of ASV
8
F 232,056 127,376 55%
2005 220,878 151,380 69%
9 214,528 181,794 85%
2014 206,561 191,474 93%
2019 198,594 202,434 102%
Source: LPA Group, Inc., Airport Master Plan Update, November 1998.
Year 2005, 2009, and 2019 ASV values interpolated.
Year 2005 Annual Operations developed by LPA Group for EIS, August 1999.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\\Ch_2\TBL_2.2-3.doc\02/21 /00
system on all of their ALP's since 1968 based on the ASV calculations performed for each of their Master
Plan Updates.
Based on FAA planning guidelines contained in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5060-5, Change 2, Airport
Capacity and Delay (FAA, 1995), the greatest degree of operational capacity improvement is achieved
through the development and use of widely spaced parallel runways that allow for the ability to conduct
dual simultaneous independent operations. No other runway configuration provides for a comparable
level of hourly and total daily operations.
PTAA states that as shown in Table 2.2-3, the 60 and 80 percent FAA planning guidelines would be
reached by 2001 and require construction of a new runway to start by approximately 2015, even without
the introduction of the air cargo hub at PTIA. This EIS does not analyze this possibility, nor does it
investigate the potential environmental impact connected to a new runway without the air cargo hub,
because that contingency is not part of PTAA's current proposal.
Total Airport and Airspace Modeling (TAAM) - As described above, the ASV analysis serves as the
FAA's standard methodology of calculating airfield capacity for a 20-year planning horizon. However,
with the proposed near-term development of the air cargo hub at PTIA, unique operational scenarios
would exist. These scenarios include critical departure time requirements (push-back-to-wheels-up
between 5 and 15 minutes depending on aircraft type) and the air cargo carrier's planned unique use of
head-to-head operations (landings from, and departures to, the same direction), which are explained in
the following paragraphs. TAAM analysis was therefore deemed a more accurate guide to planning for a
proposed air cargo hub. The parameters and requirements used in the TAAM analysis (Critical Departure
Time and Head-to-Head operations) were supplied to the FAA by FedEx.
Critical Departure Time Requirements - To achieve the goal of handling and delivering all overnight
express parcels by mid morning, FedEx considers the scheduling and movements of all flights as critical.
The air transport of parcels destined for any one of the receiving stations requires that all parcels for that
one location be unloaded, sorted, and reloaded aboard the aircraft prior to leaving the hub. This time-
critical operation, by necessity, requires aircraft to depart the hub within clearly defined departure
schedules that have very little variance or tolerance for delay. To that end, FedEx uses its own hub facility
design, operational scheduling, and multi-model infrastructures to meet their operational and delivery
goals.
As stated by FedEx, since its inception in 1973, the company has developed a specific system of
"launching" aircraft at specific departure times to meet arrival times at each of its numerous city
destinations. Because the air cargo operator must meet each and every package delivery schedule at
each destination city, the departure phase of the daily operations is critical. Any delays that are
experienced at the hub are also experienced at each destination city and at the time of final delivery of
the parcel.
To meet its schedules, FedEx has established minimum departure times for its fleet of aircraft. The
minimum departure time serves as an operational goal of expediting the launch of each aircraft within a
W:\PIEDMON1'\DEIS\Ch_2\Ch 2.doc\03/23/00 2-9 Chapter 2.0 Purpose and Need
specified period of time, which is estimated by FedEx to be approximately 70 minutes for the proposed
hub at PTIA. This means that all aircraft would have to depart the proposed PTIA air cargo hub within a
70 minute timeframe in order to meet the air cargo operator's on-time delivery commitments. In the
proposed 2005 opening year, 24 departures would have to occur within this 70 minute timeframe, and in
the year 2009, 63 aircraft would have to be able to depart within this 70 minute timeframe.
In order to be able to meet the 70 minute departure window and because the cargo aircraft fleet mix
varies by aircraft size, weight, and number of engines, FedEx states that the critical departure time
requirements, also known as "push back-to-wheels up" departure goals within the 70 minute departure
window have been established on an aircraft-specific basis. The push back-to-wheels up time is the time
between when an aircraft is pushed back from its parking position to the time the wheels are retracted
into the aircraft wheel-well after departure. The carrier specific departure goals minimize the overall time
it takes to accomplish this phase of departure. For the proposed overnight, express air cargo hub at
PTIA, the push back-to-wheels up times have been established by FedEx as 15 minutes for large jet
aircraft (DC-10, A310, A300), 7 minutes for mid-sized jet aircraft (13737, B727), 6 minutes for small jet
aircraft (F27, ALM) and 5 minutes for small prop aircraft (C208).
The TAAM analysis indicates that by situating the sorting and distribution hub facility between two parallel
runways, the overall time to launch time-critical movements of air cargo aircraft would be reduced. The
TAAM analysis also indicates that without the combined use of widely spaced parallel runways, a
centrally-located hub facility, and the use of minimum departure times, the overnight, express air cargo
hub aircraft could not effectively and efficiently operate at PTIA. FAA recognizes that while the application
of minimum departure push back-to-wheels up times established by this air cargo operator for its hub
operations are unique, industry standard shows that other overnight express parcel carriers also depend
on similar time minimization techniques at their respective hub/sort facilities to meet their operational
goals.
Head-to-Head Operations - Head-to-head operations involve the use of a runway system in pre-defined
operational flows (e.g., arrivals from one direction, subsequent departures to the same direction). This
operational use of runways is highly restrictive and is rarely used at most airports because it would not
typically support efficient flow control procedures into and out of the PTIA Terminal Airspace and
Regional FAA Centers when employed by multiple users. Furthermore, the interaction of multiple
Terminal Airspace users using traditional and head-to-head flows would pose considerable air traffic
controller work loads while also degrading overall capacity and safety to all users. To achieve the greatest
airfield capacity benefit from this type of operational procedure, several criteria must be meet. First, this
type of procedure should occur on widely spaced parallel runways that allow for the ability to conduct dual
simultaneous independent IFR operations. Second, the procedure should be used outside of the
scheduled times of all other air carrier operations (i.e. there should be sole occupation of the Terminal
Airspace by a single user, and its use should occur during times of lowest potential for interference with
other Terminal Airspace operations). Finally, there needs to be established a Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) between the airport, Air Traffic Control Tower, and the user that clearly defines the operational
rules that would apply during times that head-to-head operations are employed.
\\clnt01\wp_wpro\PIEDMONTDEIS\Ch_2\Ch_2.doc\03/23/00 2-10 Chapter 2.0 Purpose and Need
Review of the proposed project indicates that head-to-head operations at PTIA could be utilized by the
overnight, express air cargo operator because the proposed project would develop a widely spaced
parallel runway, because the majority of aircraft operations from the proposed air cargo hub would occur
during late night and early morning hours when no other air carrier service is scheduled (between 10:00
p.m. and 4:00 a.m. the following morning), and because preliminary discussions between the airport, Air
Traffic Control (ATC) and the air cargo operator indicates that an MOA could be established and
implemented by all concerned parties.
Air Traffic Control procedures as well as weather and wind permitting, head-to-head operations are
possible at PTIA with parallel runways. With parallel arrival and departure streams on Runways 51J23R
and 5R/23L, PTAA, ATC and the air cargo operator estimate that arrivals from the southwest and
departures to the southwest could occur approximately 95 percent of the time. PTAA states that this
arrival and departure system would provide the most efficient ingress and egress of the PTIA by the air
cargo hub aircraft during peak air cargo operational periods, would sere to expedite the handling of air
cargo hub aircraft movements within the airport's terminal airspace and would sere to provide the airfield
capacity required by the air cargo operator to meet their peak hour operational requirements.
It is important to note that the airfield capacity benefits of using head-to-head operations can only be
achieved through the use of parallel runway configurations. Head-to-head operations using non-parallel
runway configurations (e.g., use of perpendicular runways) would yield reduced airfield capacities that are
severely limited by safety and wake turbulence considerations (Order 7110.98A, Simultaneous
Converging Instrument Approach, FAA, 1993 and Order N7110.157, Wake Turbulence, FAA, 1996).
TAAM Analysis - Because of the above described unique operational considerations, the standard ASV
calculation discussed previously in this section did not provide enough information, according to PTAA, to
allow them to develop an airfield configuration proposal that addressed the issues raised by introduction
of an air cargo hub. The PTAA and the FAA determined that ASV did not sere as an appropriate
measure of required airfield capacity, or as a realistic measure of peak operational delay. An alternative
method of assessing airfield capacity was required. It was decided to use the TAAM, which is a
commercially available, non-propriety, simulation software package to analyze the existing
(perpendicular) and proposed (parallel) runway configurations at PTIA.
The TAAM analysis was used to identify any potential operational capacity shortfalls for a cargo hub
operation associated with the existing runway configuration, and whether these potential shortfalls would
be relieved under a parallel runway orientation. Using computer-based simulations of aircraft arrivals,
taxi-in, taxi-out, and departure movements, the TAAM provided a measure of numerous components of
aircraft operations associated with the proposed air cargo hub, including delineation of air cargo hub
operations from non-cargo hub operations; assessment of air cargo hub-formulated "push-back-to-
wheels-up" minimum departure time criteria; arrival/departure delay time and average block hour cost for
the air cargo hub operator, and total delay time and average block hour cost for the air cargo hub
operator.
W:\PIEDMONl1DEIS\Ch_2\Ch_2.doc\03/23/00 2-11 Chapter 2.0 Purpose and Need
The results of the TAAM analysis using the parameters provided by FedEx indicated that the air cargo
carrier would not be able to meet its operational requirements using the existing perpendicular runway
configuration at PTIA for several reasons. First, the location of the proposed air cargo hub sorting and
distribution facility (see Section 2.2.3.3 below) and the relative distance to the farthest runway ends
(Runway 14 and Runway 32) made for taxi-times in excess of the air cargo carrier's maximum taxi-time
per aircraft type. In addition, the perpendicular runway configuration was not conducive to the use of
head-to head operations. Finally, the perpendicular runway configuration did not allow for the ability to
conduct dual simultaneous independent all-weather arrivals and dual simultaneous independent
departures during peak departure periods.
The results of the TAAM analysis for the parallel runway configuration indicated that for several reasons,
the air cargo carrier would be able to meet more of its minimum push-back-to-wheels-up departure times
than with the existing perpendicular runway orientation. This was because the proximity of the proposed
hub facility to the runway ends (Runway 23L and 23R) greatly improved taxi-time efficiency, the parallel
runway system allowed for head-to-head operations, and the availability of widely-spaced parallel
runways allowed for the ability to conduct dual, simultaneous independent all-weather arrivals and dual
simultaneous departures of aircraft during peak departure periods.
A more detailed description of the TAAM analysis is contained in Chapter 3.0, Alternatives. The overall
results of the TAAM analysis indicated that without the use of a mid-field hub and the availability of a
widely-space parallel runway system that allowed for the ability to conduct dual simultaneous
independent IFR operations, the air cargo operator would not meet most of its time-critical minimum
operational requirements at PTIA.
2.2.3.3 Provide a Development Site Meeting the Operational Needs of an Air Cargo Sorting
and Distribution Facility (FedEx Mid-Atlantic Hub)
In addition to meeting the airside needs of the air cargo carrier discussed above, an air cargo hub facility
site itself must be able to accommodate the air cargo carrier's operational needs. The PTAA has
determined that meeting this operational site need requires the careful integration of airside, landside,
and sorting facilities that, by the unique nature of hub requirements, has limited flexibility in the variation
of layout, orientation, and proximity to airside and surface transportation facilities. In order to meet its
operational requirements, FedEx proposed to PTAA at a minimum, an on-airport development site having
the following characteristics:
• Approximately 300 contiguous acres;
• Rectangular shape to accommodate airside, landside, sort facility and surface
transportation integration requirements;
• Close to existing and future planned airside, landside and surface transportation systems;
• Located between parallel runways to provide optimal operational efficiency for aircraft
arrival and departure operations; and
\\clnt01\wp_wpro\PIEDMONl1DEIS\Ch_2\Ch_2.doc\03/23/00 2-12 Chapter2.0 Purpose and Need
• Constructable such that the first phase of the facility would be operational by the year
2004.
As described by FedEx, on-airport operations involve a complex interaction of multi-modal transportation
systems. The development of an air cargo hub facility at PTIA would require ample on-airport land areas
that can be co-located with existing and future air and surface transportation infrastructure. According to
FedEx, simultaneous operations by numerous cargo aircraft, ground support, loading, and surface
vehicles must occur in a highly orchestrated manner within pre-defined time periods that are predicated
on national and international next-day delivery schedules at the various distribution centers. Because of
this logistical dependency, the first outbound departure to a destination city cannot occur until the last
parcels aboard the last inbound aircraft have been unloaded, sorted, and reloaded aboard other outbound
aircraft destined for various distribution stations. The PTAA states that there is a critical need therefore,
for the location, size and orientation of the hub sorting and distribution site to meet the air cargo carrier's
operational requirements.
Based on its business plan for the development of the proposed air cargo hub at PTIA, FedEx has
determined that the first phase of the sorting and distribution facility must be constructed and fully
operational by early 2005. In order to accomplish this, the sorting and distribution facility must be fully
constructed by mid-2004 to allow for a six month personnel training and equipment "break-in" period. The
sponsor states that it must meet this schedule to accomplish its objective of siting an air cargo hub at
PTIA.
2.2.3.4 Purpose and Need Summary
The purpose and need for the proposed project is to develop facilities at PTIA that would provide airside,
landside and surface transportation improvements to support the development and efficient operation of
an overnight, express air cargo hub facility (FedEx Mid-Atlantic Hub) at PTIA. Through detailed TAAM
simulation analysis, PTAA determined that these needs could best be met by the development of a
widely-spaced Transport-Category parallel runway, with the air cargo hub facility located between the
parallel runways. The demand for the air cargo hub at PTIA is driven by the air cargo hub operator which
wishes to place an express, overnight air cargo movement hub within the southeastern United States.
The development of the air cargo hub at PTIA is in keeping with the PTAA's interest in ongoing airport
development and expansion to meet the air service and economic development needs of the Triad. The
purpose of the proposed project is consistent with FAA's objective to support locally-sponsored projects
that fulfill national transportation public policy objectives if these projects are otherwise acceptable and
consistent with other FAA mandates, including those established by NEPA.
\\c1nt01\wp_wpro\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_2\Ch_2.doc\03/23/00 2-13 Chapter 2.0 Purpose and Need
2.3 REQUESTED FEDERAL ACTIONS
The Federal actions being considered for approval are:
The approval of revisions to the PTIA ALP for proposed development which includes a
widely spaced 9,000-foot Transport Category parallel runway, air cargo hub facility and
associated developments; and
The Federal environmental approval necessary to proceed with processing of an
application for Federal funding for those development proposals qualifying under the
former Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended, and recodified at 49
USC 47101 et seq., or approval to use Passenger Facility Charges (PFC's).
Although future projects other than the proposed parallel runway and the cargo hub facility are depicted
on the ALP, the PTAA is requesting FAA environmental approval only for the proposed parallel runway,
the cargo hub facility, and associated projects assessed in this DEIS as part of Phase 1 (1999-2005) and
Phase 2 (2006-2009). If the PTAA proposes to the FAA to construct other projects that currently appear
on the ALP, the FAA will review use proposals under NEPA at the time they are requested. To the extent
that PTAA informs the FAA that additional project proposals in the near future are forthcoming, they will
be evaluated, disclosed, and considered in the Cumulative Impacts section of this EIS. The ALP,
showing the sponsor's proposed development, will be processed by the FAA to:
• Determine its ability to provide a safe, efficient utilization of the PTIA airfield;
• Determine the ability to increase the air cargo hub peak-hour departure capacity and
efficiency of the PTIA airfield;
• Assess factors affecting the control of air traffic;
• Establish conformance with FAA design criteria and Federal grant agreements (Federal
Aviation Regulations [FAR] Parts 77, 139, 150, 152, 157, and 169), and;
• Determine that all proposed airport development shall be in accordance with standards
established or approved by the Secretary of Transportation per Section 509(d) of the
Airport and Airways Improvement Act of 1982 including but not limited to, standards for
site layout, site preparation, paving, lighting, and safety approaches.
Specific elements of the FAA approval actions include:
• FAA determination of the effects upon safe and efficient utilization of airspace;
• FAA determination that the proposed project is in conformance with FAA design criteria
and approval of construction plans and specifications;
• FAA determination that the proposed project is in conformance with Federal grant
agreements per FAR Parts 77, 150, 152, 157, and 169;
• FAA review and approval of amended Airport Certification Manual (Part 139);
• FAA establishment of new instrument landing systems and associated approach lighting
systems, and navigational aids as appropriate, for the new runway;
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_2\Ch_2.doc\03/23/00 2-14 Chapter 2.0 Purpose and Need
• FAA establishment of new flight procedures, including visual and instrument procedures
for the new runway (Part 95);
• FAA provision of controller training for new simultaneous approach/departure procedures
and facilities;
• FAA development of facility procedures for departure headings, simultaneous
approaches, airspace procedures, and position responsibilities;
• FAA development of a new video map for the new runway and associated airspace;
• FAA designation of controlled airspace and revised routing (FAR Part 71 and 75);
• FAA determination that there would be no undue burden (unusual circumstances) barring
the sponsor from obtaining a Section 404 permit for the filling of wetlands;
• FAA determination that there would be no undue burden (unusual circumstances) barring
the sponsor from obtaining a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit for stormwater and wastewater discharges, and
• FAA determination that the proposed project would comply with Federal Clean Air Act
and Air Quality Conformity requirements.

Specific elements of the FHWA approval actions include:
• FHWA approval of the Surface Transportation developments which would include
interchange and arterial roadway improvements to provide increased capacity, Level of
Service and safety as well as improve system linkage within the area surrounding PTIA,
and
• FHWA Federal environmental approval necessary to proceed with the processing of an
application for Federal funding for those development proposals qualifying under 42 USC
433(2)(c) and 23 CFR 771.
Appropriate Federal findings will be documented in a Record of Decision prior to FAA approval or
disapproval of the ALP, consideration of funding for the proposed project, and associated air traffic and
airspace management actions.
\\clnt01\wp_wpro\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_2\Ch_2.doc\03/23/00 2-15 Chapter 2.0 Purpose and Need
o
a
t
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PIEDMONT TRIAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
CHAPTER 3
ALTERNATIVES
III
CHAPTER 3.0
ALTERNATIVES
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter of the DEIS describes the alternatives screening process that was used by the FAA, presents
a rigorous exploration of possible alternatives, provides reasoning as to why some alternatives were
eliminated from detailed study, describes those reasonable alternatives that were retained for detailed
evaluation, and presents a comparative analysis of the reasonable alternatives retained for detailed
environmental impact evaluation.
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) stipulate that alternatives are the heart of the environmental impact statement. Those
regulations require that the Federal decision-maker perform the following tasks:
• "Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and, for
alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for
their having been eliminated."
• "Devote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail, including the
proposed action, so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits."
• "Include reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency."
• "Include the alternative of no action."
The range of alternatives examined in this DEIS has been generated to satisfy the purpose and need
described in Chapter 2. PTAA submitted a proposal to the FAA for airside and landside developments that
would meet the operational requirements for a Mid-Atlantic Cargo Hub submitted to it by FedEx. It is
important to note that if airport improvements are to be built, the PTAA has the role of planning,
constructing, and operating the runways at the airport. The FAA has generated alternatives, on its own
and through the Scoping process (which yielded additional options submitted by an interested citizen
group and the sponsor itself) that go somewhat beyond the limited consideration that might be afforded a
proposal such as this. That is, in some circumstances such as these, where the sponsor's proposal is tied
to sought-after business development with a particular commercial operator, it appears that the only
alternative to the sponsor's proposed project is "No-Action". In this particular case, however, by
concentrating on the near-term operational requirements of an overnight express air cargo hub, the FAA
found that a larger range of alternatives should be identified and evaluated. As a result, off-site as well as
a significant number of on-site alternatives were developed and explored which might meet the purpose
and need for this project (provide redundant 9,000-foot Transport Category runways, provide for the ability
to conduct dual simultaneous independent IFR operations, and provide a sort/distribution facility site of
sufficient size, location and configuration to meet hub operational requirements.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/24/00 3-1 Section 3.0 Alternatives
As described in Chapter 2.2, the role of the FAA in this case is to disclose and evaluate potential
environmental impacts that may result from the sponsor's proposed project being considered, including
impacts on the safe and efficient use of airspace.
3.2 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION PROCESS
The FAA completed a thorough and objective review of reasonable alternatives to PTAA's proposed
project at PTIA. CEQ regulations require that an agency look at "reasonable" alternatives, while 49 U.S.C.
47106(c)(C) requires as a condition to granting Federal funds, an analysis of "possible and prudent"
alternatives for a new runway when significant impacts would occur." With those standards in mind, the
FAA did not evaluate alternatives in detail if they showed no possibility of meeting the project purpose, as
described previously, or no prospect of being built.
One category of alternatives that was considered early in the DEIS process but was not retained for
further consideration was the use of other modes of transportation. Other modes of transportation include
the use of roadway, conventional rail, and high-speed rail as an alternative to the proposed project. FAA
determined that alternative modes of transportation do not provide a reasonable fit with the project
objectives. From the sponsor's perspective, alternative modes of transportation do not meet the purpose
of the project. As presented to the FAA, the proposed air cargo hub requires the fast, efficient movement
of goods over a broad geographic region. While another mode might provide desirable surface
transportation services, the only mode of transportation that can best meet the combined need for range
and speed is air transportation. Therefore, other modes were eliminated because they could not provide
the facilities required for overnight air cargo/package operations.
As indicated in Chapter 2.0, Purpose and Need, of this DEIS, the FAA has carefully examined the
purposes and needs for PTAA's proposed project at PTIA in consideration of the range of reasonable
alternatives identified by the FAA. This analysis identifies which alternatives might reasonably meet the
purpose and need statements described in Chapter 2.0, Purpose and Need, of this DEIS. Those
alternatives that did not reasonably meet the project purpose and need, or were determined not feasible,
were not considered further within this DEIS. However, the No-Action Alternative was carried through
detailed environmental analysis for baseline comparative purposes to fulfill CEQ requirements, to disclose
potential impacts if the project is not built, and to disclose potential environmental impacts associated with
the cumulative actions.
In the development of this DEIS, the FAA re-examined the recommendations of previous and ongoing
PTIA Master Plan studies and independently evaluated numerous alternatives for further consideration.
• Off-site alternatives that were examined included:
• Development of a new airport,
• Use of other existing airports within the Air Cargo Service Region.
• On-site alternatives that were examined included:
\\cln101\wp_wpro\PIEDMONTDEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/23/00 3-2 Section 3.0 Alternatives
• No-Action,
• PTAA's Proposed Project,
• An alternative plan submitted by interested citizens during Public Scoping, and
• Various widely spaced parallel runway configurations and sort/distribution facility
locations.
The alternatives evaluation utilized a two-level evaluation process formulated to concentrate on the
purpose and need for the proposed project and the reasonableness of the alternatives. Those alternatives
that did not meet the purpose and need would be eliminated from further consideration. As the alternatives
evaluation proceeded through each level of analysis, certain alternatives that did not meet the criteria were
eliminated from further evaluation. Those that met the criteria continued on to the next level of analysis.
At the conclusion of the second level of evaluation, those alternatives that remained were subject to
detailed analysis in subsequent chapters of this DEIS. The following briefly describes the evaluation
criteria used in the analysis of alternatives.
3.2.1 LEVEL 1 ANALYSIS: PURPOSE AND NEED CRITERIA
The first level of analysis evaluated whether the various alternatives met the purpose and need criteria
specific to the airfield (development of the air cargo hub at PTIA, provide redundant 9,000 foot Transport
Category runways, provide for the ability to conduct dual simultaneous independent IFR operations,
provide a sort/distribution facility site of sufficient size, location and configuration to meet the proposed air
cargo hub's operational requirements) established in Chapter 2.0, Purpose and Need, of this DEIS.
Those alternatives that satisfied the first-level criteria were retained for evaluation under the second level
of analysis. The following presents a summary of the Level 1 criteria used in the alternatives screening
process.
3.2.1.1 Develop an Air Cargo Sorting and Distribution Hub Facility (FedEx Mid-Atlantic Hub)
at PTIA
After a detailed evaluation of potential locations, the PTIA was selected by FedEx in April 1998 as the
preferred site for the establishment of their Mid-Atlantic Hub to serve FedEx's eastern United States
market. The initial selection of the placement of the air cargo hub in either North Carolina or South
Carolina was based on a business decision made by FedEx. As FedEx has stated, the location of the hub
within these two states was based on several considerations unique to its business, including
requirements that the hub be located on the East Coast of the United States, the hub be sited so that its
market service area was located within a single time-zone, the hub be centrally located within the
projected East Coast market area, and the hub be located in an area of moderate weather patterns to
reduce the likelihood of interruption of service due to inclement weather conditions. FedEx states that it
selected PTIA for the site of its Mid-Atlantic Hub because PTIA was the top-rated airport in all criteria
including detailed analysis of Airport Operations, Site Selection, and Financial Analysis (see Section
2.2.2). According to FedEx, none of the other airports considered were competitive with PTIA in all of
these criteria.
\\c1nt01\wp_wpro\PIEDMONTDEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3123/00 3-3 Section 3.0 Alternatives
The ultimate decision to locate the air cargo hub at PTIA is a decision that rested with FedEx and the
PTAA. The sponsor's purpose for the proposed project is the development of improvements to support
the air cargo hub facility at PTIA. The Level 1 criteria could not be developed without reference to the
specific airfield requirements that are part of the proposed project. However, the Level 1 criteria were
also applied to off-site locations, because the FAA recognized that PTIA is not the only location that could
support an air cargo hub, and because the FAA sought to address questions about siting raised by local
communities in the proposed project area.
3.2.1.2 Provide Redundant 9,000-Foot Transport-Category Runway System
The air transportation industry relies on aircraft ability to arrive and depart an airport facility without
unnecessary service interruptions. As detailed in Chapter 2.0, Purpose and Need, disruptions to aircraft
operations, either on the ground or in the air, could lead to significant operational and economic
consequences. At PTIA, a second 9,000-foot runway would increase the safety of all operations at PTIA
by providing a back-up runway capable of accommodating the runway length requirements of all aircraft
currently operating at and forecast to operate at PTIA during periods of adverse weather conditions and
during times of unforeseen runway emergencies (incidents) and scheduled and unscheduled runway
maintenance operations (overlays, repairs, Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting exercises, snow removal,
etc.) without adversely affecting overall airport operations, degrading service to air travelers at PTIA, or
disrupting peak air carrier and air cargo operational periods. In the Level 1 analysis, therefore, only those
alternatives that would provide redundant 9,000-foot Transport-Category runways were considered for
further analysis.
3.2.1.3 Provide the Ability to Conduct Dual Simultaneous Independent Operations in /FR
Conditions
As discussed in Chapter 2.0, Purpose and Need, to achieve the short-term operational requirements of
the proposed air cargo hub facility at PTIA, capacity related airfield improvements to the existing
perpendicular two-runway system at PTIA are needed. Based on FAA planning guidelines, the greatest
degree of operational capacity improvement is achieved through the development and use of widely
spaced parallel runways that allow for the ability to conduct dual simultaneous independent operations in
all weather conditions. No other runway configuration provides for a comparable level of hourly and total
daily operations. (FAA AC 150/5060-5, Change 2, Airport Capacity and Delay, 1995).
The capacity related benefits to both air carrier and air cargo aircraft operations at PTIA both with and
without the ability to conduct dual simultaneous independent operations in all weather conditions was
evaluated by the PTAA as part of the ongoing Master Plan Update project using a TAAM analysis. To
assess the operational efficiency of the existing perpendicular and proposed parallel runway systems, a
comparison of the proposed schedules of the air cargo hub daily operations at PTIA for the years 2004,
2006, 2009, and 2019 were modeled using the TAAM. For each study year, the TAAM was used to assess
operational movements, times, and associated cost impacts to the push-back-to-wheels-up times for the
existing airfield configuration and the proposed parallel runway system scenarios.
W:\PIEDMONIIDEIS\Ch 3\Ch 3.doc\3/24/00 3-4 Section 3.0 Alternatives
To assess the relative affect on operational delay for air cargo hub operations at PTIA under both runway
configurations, all airport arrival and departures operations throughout a typical, single 24-hour day within
each study year was simulated. Specific information regarding air cargo hub operations during the critical
nighttime departure period were programmed within the TAAM simulation to form key simulation rule
bases. Rule bases are preformulated, logical rules of operation (i.e. if, then, else statements). These rule
bases were developed using data and information obtained from air carrier flight schedules, the air cargo
carrier flight schedules, and examination of all other typical aircraft movements throughout the airport (i.e.,
general aviation, and other dedicated cargo carriers). The TAAM rule base provided a realistic appraisal of
arrival/departure routes to and from city pairs, aircraft fleet mix, time of operation, and air traffic control
procedures. Special consideration was given to the planned air cargo hub operations at PTIA such as the
nighttime departure "push", head-to-head operations on parallel runways, the relative degree of
operational freedom provided by Air Traffic Control (ATC) during nighttime departures to destination cities
(using a more direct route) and the less restricted use of airspace within the PTIA terminal area.
In the analysis, the TAAM compared the average daily and annual aircraft operational delay to the air
cargo carrier operations in terms of time (hours, minutes, and seconds) and cost (using average aircraft
variable block hour operating costs per FAA document FAA APO-98-8). Aircraft operational delays to the
air cargo carrier included delays incurred while conducting arrivals or departures that were caused by air
traffic control requirements (sequencing and wake turbulence considerations), and those operational
delays incurred while taxiing to and from the runway environment. Air cargo aircraft operational delays that
were in excess of pre-determined maximum ground operation times for its launch period operations were
also measured and assessed in terms of time and costs. The monetary comparisons of the relative
change in operational delay for the air cargo carrier during the departure period was developed by utilizing
the FAA-approved, aircraft-specific, average aircraft variable block hour costs.
Under the existing perpendicular runway configuration, the TAAM analysis modeled air cargo operations
from the proposed hub location in the northwest quadrant of the airport, use of existing Runway 5/23 as
the primary runway for all large (DC-10) and medium (13737) aircraft and, to the greatest extent possible,
the use of Runway 14/32 as a secondary runway for a limited number of small (ALM, F28, C208) aircraft.
The results of the TAAM analysis indicated that the air cargo carrier would not be able to meet its
operational requirements using the existing perpendicular runway configuration at PTIA for several
reasons. First, the location of the proposed air cargo hub sorting/distribution facility and the relative
distance to the farthest runway ends (Runway 14 and Runway 32) made for taxi-times in excess of the air
cargo carrier's maximum taxi-time per aircraft type. In addition, the perpendicular runway configuration
was not conducive to the use of head-to head operations. Finally, the perpendicular runway configuration
did not allow for the ability to conduct dual simultaneous independent all-weather operations.
Under the proposed parallel runway configuration, the TAAM analysis modeled the air cargo operations
from the proposed hub location in the northwest quadrant of the airport, between the two widely-spaced
parallel runways. Large aircraft operations were split between the parallel runways based on origin-
destination city pairs. Runway 14/32 was used for a limited number of medium aircraft and all small
aircraft. The results of the TAAM analysis for the parallel runway configuration indicated that for several
reasons, the air cargo carrier would be able to meet more of its minimum push-back-to-wheels-up
\\clnt01\wp_wpro\PIEDMONTDEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/23/00 3-5 Section 3.0 Alternatives
departure times than with the existing perpendicular runway orientation. This was because the parallel
configuration can accommodate a larger number of operations in a shorter time block than a
perpendicular configuration, the proximity of the proposed hub facility to the runway ends (Runway 23L
and 23R) greatly improved taxi-time efficiency, the parallel runway system allowed for head-to-head
operations, and the availability of widely-spaced parallel runways allowed for the ability to conduct dual,
simultaneous independent all-weather operations.
Using the TAAM, a comparison of the annual air cargo operations cost for each study year for both the
existing perpendicular and proposed parallel runway configurations was prepared. As shown in Table
3.2.1-1, the daily and annual air cargo carrier's operations costs would be reduced by as much as 37
percent under the proposed parallel runway scenario when compared to the existing perpendicular runway
configuration. The cost savings are a direct reflection of the inherent efficiencies associated with the use
of a widely-space parallel runway system, the use of head-to-head arrival/departure operations, and the
relative proximity of the air cargo hub facility between the two parallel runways.
The primary need for the proposed parallel runway and its associated operational benefits are evident in
Tables 3.2.1-2 and 3.2.1-3. In these tables, the data illustrates that within each planning year, the total air
cargo carrier departure time and costs would be significantly reduced for the parallel runway configuration
when compared to the existing perpendicular runway configuration. The TAAM analysis revealed the
following data regarding the resultant changes in aircraft operational delay as a direct result of developing
a parallel Runway 5L/23R at PTIA:
• The air cargo carrier would be able to significantly reduce the number of flights that would
exceed the minimum push-back-to-wheels-up departure times primarily because the
proposed hub facility and aircraft parking/loading positions would be located between the
parallel runways, because head-to-head operations would be utilized, and because the
parallel runway configuration would allow for the ability to conduct dual, simultaneous
independent all-weather arrivals and dual simultaneous departures during peak departure
periods.
• The air cargo carrier would not achieve and maintain its desired on-time overnight
delivery service or meet its pre-established maximum ground time operational goals at
PTIA without the construction and use of a parallel runway system.
• As a direct result of the inherent efficiencies of a widely-spaced parallel runway system
offering dual, simultaneous independent operational capabilities, all users of PTIA would
experience reductions in overall operational delay in the future.
• Because of the proximity of the existing passenger terminal and all other general aviation
facilities, certain non-air cargo users would experience longer ground taxi distances, taxi
times, and associated block hour operating costs when operating on the proposed parallel
Runway 51J23R. However, because of the resultant increase of airfield capacity derived
from the use of the parallel runway, reductions of ground-based delay and associated
block hour costs for taxi and in-flight arrival/departures operations are anticipated to be
significantly reduced. These reductions in time and cost would be most apparent during
the two daily peak air carrier operational periods (10 a.m. to 2 p.m. and 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.)
especially as overall operational demand increases throughout the 20-year planning
period. Therefore, through the use of parallel runways, the cost of operational delay and
\\clnt01\wp_wpro\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/23/00 3-6 Section 3.0 Alternatives
TABLE 3.2.1-1
COMPARISON OF FedEx OPERATIONS COST
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
DAILY
Year 2004 2006 2009 2019`
Existing Configuration $16,994 $31,709 $49,625 $48,338
Proposed Project $11,924 $19,839 $33,045 $31,621
Reduction $5,070 $11,870 $16,580 $16,717
Percent 28.83% 37.43% 33.41 % 34.58%
ANNUAL
Year 2004 2006 2009 2019
Existing Configuration $5,913,912 $11,034,732 $17,269,500 $16,821,624
Proposed Project $4,149,552 $6,903,972 $11,499,660 $11,004,108
Reduction $1,764,360 $4,130,760 $5,769,840 $5,817,516
Percent 29.83% 37.43% 33.41% 34.58%
Source: TAAM, JDA; Table No. 9. A Report for Four Runway Alternatives to PTIA; April 22, 1999.
Note: Annual total reflects 260 days of FedEx operation.
* Block hour costs only. Does not include cost of late deliveries.
Existing configuration = use of exisiting perpendicular Runways 14/32 and 5/23.
W:\PI ED MONT 0EI S\\Ch_2\TB L_321-1.doc\02/23/00
TABLE 3.2.1-2
COMPARISON OF FedEx DEPARTURE GROUND TIME/GROUND COSTS
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
GROUND TIME OVER FedEx DEPARTURE LIMITS our:Minutes:Seconds)
DAILY
Year 2004 2006 2009 2019
Existing
Configuration 00:49:52 01:52:08 04:25:03 04:12:41
Proposed Project 00:24:52 00:34:55 01:52:13 01:45:23
Reduction 00:25:00 01:17:13 02:32:50 02:27:18
Percent 50.13% 68.86% 57.66% 58.29%
u ANNUAL
Year 2004 2006 2009 2019
Existing
Configuration 289:13:36 650:22:24 1,537:17:24 1,465:33:48
Proposed Project 139:12:00 202:31:00 650:51:24 611:13:24
Reduction 150:01:36 447:51:24 886:26:00 854:20:24
Percent 51.87% 68.86% 57.66% 58.29%
GROUND COSTS OVER FedEx DEPARTURE LIMITS
DAILY
Year 2004 2006 2009 2019
Existing
Configuration $1,660 $5,166 $13,040 $13,646
Proposed Project $744 $1,328 $4,943 $3,320
Reduction $916 $3,838 $8,097 $10,326
Percent 55.20% 74.30% 62.10% 75.70%
ANNUAL
Year 2004 2006 2009 2019
_
Existing
Configuration $577,680 $1,797,768 $4,537,920 $4,748,808
Proposed Project $258,912 $462,144 $1,720,164 $1,155,360
Reduction $318,768 $1,335,624 $2,817,756 $3,593,448
Percent 55.20% 74.30% 62.10% 75.70%
Source: TAAM, JDA; Table No.10 A Report for Four Runway Alternatives to PTIA; April 22,
1999.
Note: Annual total reflects 260 days of FedEx operation.
Existing configuration = use of existing perpendicular Runways 14/32 and 5/23.
W:\PI EDMONnDEI S\\Ch_2\TBL_3.2.1-2. doc\02/23/00
TABLE 3.2.1-3
COMPARISON OF FedEx DEPARTURE TAXI TIMES
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement

DAILY FLIGHTS EXCEEDING PUSH-BACK-TO-WHEELS-UP DEPARTURE TARGET
Year
Aircraft Type/Target Time 2004 2006 ` 2009 2019
DC-10, A310, A300 Over 15 Minutes
Existing Configuration 0 0 2 1
Proposed Project 0 0 0 0
Reduction 0 0 2 1
Percent N/A N/A 100.00% 100.00%
6737, 8727 Over 7 Minutes
Existing Configuration 7 14 20 20
Proposed Project 5 9 13 14
Reduction 2 5 7 6
Percent 28.57% 35.71% 35.00% 30.00%
ALM, F27 Over 6 Minutes
Existing Configuration 2 9 14 14
Proposed Project 0 6 10 10
Reduction 2 3 4 4
Percent 100.00% 33.33% 28.57% 28.57%
C208 Over 5 Minutes
Existing Configuration 2 2 3 3
Proposed Project 2 2 3 3
Reduction 0 0 0 0
Percent 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
FLIGHTS EXPERIENCING REDUCED PUS H-BACK-TO-WHEELS-UP DEPARTURE TIMES
DC-10, A310, A300 Between 10 and 15 Minutes
Existing Configuration 5 11 18 18
Proposed Project 0 0 4 1
Reduction 5 11 14 17
Percent 100.00% 100.00% 77.78% 94.44%
DC-10, A310, A300 Under 10 Minutes
Existing Configuration 5 5 5 6
Pro osed Project 10 16 21 24
Increase 5 11 16 18
Percent 100.00% 220.00% 320.00% 300.00%
Source: TAAM, JDA; Table No. 9. A Report for Four Runway Alternatives to PTIA; April 22, 1999.
Note: Annual totals reflects 260 days of FedEx operation.
Existing Configuration = use of exisitng perpendicular Runways 14/32 and 5/23.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\\Ch_2\TBL_321.3.doc\02/23/00
associated average aircraft variable block hour operating costs would offset the additional
taxi distance experienced by non-air cargo users.
• Through the use of the parallel Runway 5U23R, reduced taxi times, and improved overall
ground handling of aircraft by ATCT, the push-back-to-wheels-up departure times for
most of the DC-10, A310, and A300 aircraft would be significantly reduced to less than 10
minutes. These reduced departure times are considered critical to meeting the on-time
operational goals of overnight air cargo hub.
In summary, based on the TAAM analysis, both a mid-field hub facility location and the ability to conduct
dual simultaneous independent IFR operations on a widely-spaced parallel runway system are needed at
PTIA to meet the air cargo operator's push-back-to-wheels-up minimum departure times established for
the air cargo hub and to ensure the ability to conduct cost- and operationally-efficient hub operations.
Without the use of a mid-field hub and the availability of a widely-space parallel runway system, the air
cargo carrier would not be able to meet most of its time-critical minimum operational requirements at
PTIA.
In the Level 1 analysis therefore, only those alternatives that would provide the ability to conduct dual
simultaneous independent IFR operations on parallel runways, with a hub site located between the parallel
runways, were considered for further analysis by the FAA in this DEIS.
3.2.1.4 Provide a Facility Development Site Meeting the Operational Needs of an Air Cargo
Sorting and Distribution Hub (FedEx Mid-Atlantic Hub)
In addition to meeting the airside needs of an air cargo hub discussed above, the proposed air cargo hub
facility development site itself must be able to accommodate the operational needs of the hub operator.
Meeting this operational site need requires the careful integration of airside, landside, and sorting facilities
that, by the unique nature of hub requirements, has limited flexibility in the variation of layout, orientation,
and proximity to airside and surface transportation facilities. As proposed by PTAA and the air cargo hub
operator, and used by the FAA in its analysis of potential impacts in the alternatives evaluation, the hub
facility at PTIA would require at a minimum, an on-airport development site having the following
characteristics:
• Approximately 300 contiguous acres;
• Rectangular shape to accommodate airside, landside, sort facility, and surface
transportation integration requirements;
• Close to existing and future planned airside, landside, and surface transportation
systems; and
• Located between widely spaced parallel runways to provide optimal operational efficiency
for aircraft arrival and departure operations (ability to conduct dual simultaneous
independent all weather operations and head-to-head operations).
Therefore, in the Level 1 analysis, only those alternatives that would fulfill the air cargo hub site
requirements listed above were considered for further analysis by the FAA in this DEIS. Alternatives were
\\clnt0l\wp_wpro\PIEDMONTDEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/23/00 3-7 Section 3.0 Alternatives
eliminated from further consideration if they would result in: (a) insufficient contiguous development area,
or (b) site geometry precluding efficient utilization of airside and landside resources.
3.2.2 LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS: CONSTRUCTABILITY, COST CONSIDERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Level 2 of the alternatives analysis was designed to determine which alternatives were considered
feasible, possible and prudent alternatives to the proposed project. These criteria were specific to the
financial and physical environments affected by such a project. This level of the alternatives analysis
considered "aonstructability" parameters including effects on infrastructure, amount of property acquisition,
number of residences relocated and businesses impacted by each alternative, the cost of the alternatives
and preliminary environmental impacts of the alternatives. Alternatives that were retained after the Level 2
evaluation are the subject of detailed analysis in Chapter 5.0, Environmental Consequences. The following
presents a summary of the Level 2 criteria used in the alternatives screening process.
3.2.2.1 Infrastructure
The effects of each of the alternatives on existing infrastructure were evaluated in the Level 2 screening
process. This consisted of quantification of impacts to existing infrastructure, including roadways and rail-
lines. This evaluation criterion was used because impacts to existing infrastructure can affect airside and
landside operations; the complexity of staging, phasing, and construction activities; the coordination and
integration of the proposed project with other ongoing development projects; the safety of the general
public; the ability to obtain all the required Federal, state, and local permits; and the total cost of a project.
In this context, proximity to an existing interstate system, for site access, would be a factor to consider in
siting an air cargo hub facility. Therefore, in the Level 2 analysis, those alternatives that resulted in
greater impacts to existing and planned infrastructure were considered to be less feasible and prudent
than those that resulted in fewer infrastructure impacts.
3.2.2.2 Property Acquisition
The effects of each of the alternatives in terms of the number and type of properties that would have to be
acquired were evaluated in the Level 2 screening process. This consisted of quantification of the number
and type (residential, commercial, manufacturing, etc.) and cost of properties that would have to be
acquired to construct the proposed airside and landside facilities associated with the alternative. Similar to
the infrastructure discussion above, the amount and type of property acquisition required for an alternative
can have multiple effects on the implementation of a proposed project. Residential property acquisition
results in social impacts and increases the cost of a project, but can generally be accomplished within a
relatively short timeframe. Acquisition of commercial and manufacturing properties generally results in
less social impact, but is more expensive than residential acquisition and can take extended periods of
time for completion of the acquisition process. Therefore, in the Level 2 analysis, a comparison was made
of the acquisitions associated with each alternative. Those alternatives that resulted in no acquisition or
lower amounts of residential and commercial/manufacturing property acquisition were considered to be
more feasible and prudent than those that required extensive property acquisition.
\\clnt0l\wp_wpro\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/23/00 3-8 Section 3.0 Alternatives
3.2.2.3 Relocations
The effects of each of the alternatives in terms of the number and type of relocations that would have to
occur was evaluated in the Level 2 screening process. This consisted of quantification of the number and
type (residential, commercial, manufacturing, etc.) of properties that would have to be relocated to
construct the proposed airside and landside facilities associated with the alternative. Similar to the
infrastructure and acquisition discussions above, the amount and type of facility relocations required for an
alternative can have multiple effects (social impacts, increased cost, extended timeframes) on the
implementation of a proposed project. Therefore, in the Level 2 analysis, a comparison was made of the
number and type of relocations associated with each alternative. Those alternatives that resulted in no
relocations or lower amounts of relocation were considered to be more feasible and prudent than those
that required extensive relocations.
3.2.2.4 Comparative Cost Considerations
The evaluation of comparative costs for each of the alternatives involved an analysis of the total costs of
those portions of the alternatives that would be eligible for Federal funding. This did not include other
costs that are not eligible for Federal funding and would be borne directly by the air cargo hub operator for
the development of its sorting/distribution facility. The cost of the various alternatives considered the
following items:
• Costs associated with infrastructure impacts,
• Costs associated with property acquisition,
• Costs associated with construction induced relocations of residences and businesses,
and
• Costs associated with construction of a runway and associated improvements (including
mitigation for impacts to the environmental categories discussed in Section 3.2.2.5).
In the Level 2 analysis, alternatives with lower total project costs were considered more feasible and
prudent than those with higher total costs.
3.2.2.5 Environmental Impacts
Level 2 of the alternatives screening analysis also evaluated the potential for the alternatives to cause or
result in environmental impacts. The initial screening process focused on several environmental
categories that are protected under special purpose environmental laws and that contain specific
provisions for the avoidance and minimization of impacts. These categories include wetlands, floodplains,
Department of Transportation Section 303(c) sites and historic and archaeological resources. The
following provides a brief overview of these categories. Detailed analysis of other environmental
categories covered by specific protective or restorative Federal legislation including noise, air quality,
endangered species, and hazardous materials was also conducted for those alternatives that were
\\c1nt01\wp_wpro\PIEDMONTDEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/23/00 3"9 Section 3.0 Alternatives
retained for detailed evaluation by meeting all of the purpose and need criteria. A summary of impacts for
each of the 21 environmental impact categories contained in Order FAA 5050.4A is contained in Table
3.4-1. Detailed discussions of all of the environmental categories are contained in Chapter 5.0,
Environmental Consequences.
Wetlands - Executive Order 11990 states that Federal agencies should avoid to the extent possible the
long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands and to
avoid direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative.
Impacts should only be allowed if there is no practicable alternative to a proposed project, and the
proposed project includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands. In keeping with the
direction provided in Executive Order 11990, as well as that provided in DOT Order 5660.1 A, Section 10
of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and the Clean Water Act, the FAA evaluated each of the remaining
alternatives in the Level 2 screening process based on the approximate acreage, type, and value of
wetlands that would be impacted. Those alternatives that would result in no impacts or minimal impacts to
wetlands were considered to be more prudent than those alternatives that would result in a greater
amount of impacts.
Floodplains - Executive Order 11988 directs Federal agencies to "take action to reduce the risk of flood
loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and to restore and presence
the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains...". The Executive Order and DOT Order 5650.2
establish a policy for Federal agencies to avoid taking an action within a 100-year floodplain where
practicable. Every effort must be made to minimize the potential risks to human safety and property
damage and the adverse impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values. In keeping with the policy
provided in Executive Order 11988 and DOT Order 5650.2, the FAA evaluated each of the remaining
alternatives in the Level 2 screening process based on the approximate acreage of 100-year floodplains
that would be impacted. Those alternatives that would result in no impacts or minimal impacts to
floodplains were considered to be more prudent than those alternatives that would result in a greater
amount of impacts.
Section 303(c) Properties (formerly DOT Section 4(f)) - Section 303(c) of the Department of
Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966 provides that "the Secretary shall not approve any program or project
which requires the use of any publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and
waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance or land of an historic site of national, state or local
significance as determined by the official having jurisdiction thereof unless there is no feasible and prudent
alternative to the use of such land and such program or project includes all possible planning to minimize
harm resulting from the use." In keeping with the direction provided in Section 303(c), the FAA evaluated
each of the remaining alternatives in the Level 2 screening process based on the potential to result in
direct or indirect impacts to properties protected under Section 303(c). Those alternatives that would
result in no impacts or minimal impacts to Section 303(c) sites were considered to be more prudent than
those alternatives that would result in a greater amount of impacts.
Historic and Archaeological Resources - Historic and archaeological resources are protected under
several Federal laws. The most applicable to the proposed project are the National Historic Preservation
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/24/00 3-10 Section 3.0 Alternatives
Act of 1966 and the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974. Both of these laws provide
guidance to Federal agencies concerning Federal actions affecting historic and archaeological resources
included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. In keeping with the direction
provided in these laws, the FAA evaluated each of the remaining alternatives in the Level 2 screening
process based on the potential to result in direct or indirect impacts to historic and archaeological
resources. Those alternatives that would result in no impacts or minimal impacts to these resources were
considered to be more prudent than those alternatives that would result in a greater amount of impacts.
Alternatives that were retained through the Level 2 screening process were considered to be the most
feasible, possible, prudent, and reasonable alternatives to the proposed project and were retained by the
FAA for further detailed environmental evaluation in Chapter 5.0, Environmental Consequences, of this
DEIS.
3.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The following sections describe the numerous alternatives that FAA evaluated within this DEIS. The
discussion of alternatives briefly describes those alternatives that were considered by the FAA but were
eliminated through the Level 1 and 2 screening process, as well as those alternatives that do fulfill the
purpose and need and which were examined in more detail.
3.3.1 OFF-SITE ALTERNATIVES
As part of the alternatives evaluation process, FAA examined several off-site alternatives for their potential
to meet the purpose and need criteria for the proposed project. These alternative concepts included
development of a new airport, and the use of other existing airports. The following presents the results of
FAA's evaluation of these alternative concepts.
3.3.1.1 Development of a New Airport
This alternative concept consists of developing a new airport or "greenfield" site as an alternative to the
proposed project at PTIA. A detailed evaluation of "greenfield" sites was not conducted in any of the recent
PTIA Master Plan studies. The results of FAA's analysis indicate that development of a new airport would not
satisfy project requirements. While a new airport could be designed expressly for the Level 1 airfield
configuration, the Level 2 criteria - including infrastructure and cost -would be prohibitive.
A "greenfield" site would require substantial investment and time to provide the infrastructure required to support
a major airport such as that needed for the air cargo hub. The drawbacks and areas of concern associated with
a "greenfield" site include, but are not limited to: operational authority to move aircraft operations, the
development cost of the new facility, development cost of new infrastructure, access to highways and mass
transit facilities, availability of a sponsoring organization (such as a local government or airport authority),
community acceptance, financial feasibility, environmental impacts, potential airspace conflicts, and the
willingness of the hub operator to locate there. Some of these items may be of concern at PTIA and other
existing airports, but all of them would have to be resolved at a "greenfield" site.
\\c1nt01\wp_wpro\PIEDMONT1DEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/23/00 3-11 Section 3.0 Alternatives
In addition, the air cargo hub operator has not expressed an interest in developing the overnight, express air
cargo hub at a "greenfield" site, or at any facility other than PTIA, and no sponsoring authority has indicated an
interest in developing a new airport site. Therefore, FAA has determined that construction/development of a
new airport as an alternative to the proposed project at PTIA is not a reasonable alternative and this alternative
concept was not retained for further consideration in this DEIS.
3.3.1.2 Use of Other Existing Airports
No competing proposals to establish an overnight air cargo hub in the Southeast have been presented to
the FAA. While this limits the scope of the alternatives that might practically be expected to be
accomplished, the FAA recognizes that there are other airports in the region that might accommodate an
overnight, express air cargo hub. Therefore, the FAA evaluated this potential alternative within this DEIS.
This alternative concept envisions the use and/or expansion of an existing airport as an alternative to the
proposed project at PTIA.
The development of other existing airport sites was not considered in any of the recent PTIA Master Plan
studies, but it was considered by the air cargo operator when it was considering potential locations for its
air cargo hub. (The operator has not made available to the FAA its detailed analyses of the other airport
sites it considered before selecting PTIA for its proposed hub, and its data are not part of this EIS). FAA
has independently evaluated this alternative concept in this DEIS by reviewing seven existing general
aviation airports in the Triad area and five existing air carrier airports within North and South Carolina.
The results of FAA's evaluation of this alternative concept indicate that the use of another existing airport
(whether general aviation or air carrier) is not a reasonable alternative to the proposed project at PTIA.
None of the airports met both the Level 1 and Level 2 alternatives screening process. The following
provides a discussion of the FAA's evaluation of each airport, using the Level 1 and 2 criteria.
General Aviation Airports - This alternative concept consists of the use/expansion of an existing general
aviation airport within the twelve county Triad area. If all projected air cargo hub traffic were transferred to
another airport, the airport would require airside and landside infrastructure capable of handling 48 nightly
air cargo aircraft operations by the year 2005 (24 arrivals and 24 departures) and 126 nightly air cargo
aircraft operations by the year 2009 (63 arrivals and 63 departures). These operational levels would have
to be accommodated within the push-back-to-wheels-up and departure window time limits established by
the air cargo hub operator. In other words, the air cargo aviation activity forecasts, airfield configuration,
facility requirements and critical operational timing for an alternative airport would presumably be identical
to what PTIA has identified. The following is a brief description of each of the alternative general aviation
airports considered in the alternatives analysis. The location of each of these airports is depicted on
Figure 3.3.1-1.
Smith Reynolds Airport - Smith Reynolds Airport (INT) is located in Forsyth County, North Carolina
approximately 3 miles northeast of the City of Winston-Salem and approximately 30 miles from PTIA. The
airport encompasses approximately 702 acres of land, and is owned and operated by the Airport
Commission of Forsyth County. INT has been designated by the FAA as a "primary commercial service"
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/24/00 3-12 Section 3.0 Alternatives
airport and it has two runways in a perpendicular, intersecting configuration. The primary runway, Runway
15/33 is a grooved asphalt, air transport category runway in good condition. Runway 15/33 is 6,655 feet
long and 150 feet wide with High Intensity Runway Edge Lights (HIRLs) and a Short Simplified Approach
Lighting System with Runway Alignment Indicator Lights (SSLAR) on the Runway 33 end. The secondary
runway, Runway 4/22, is a grooved asphalt, utility category runway in good condition. Runway 4/22 is
3,938 feet long and 150 feet wide with Medium Intensity Runway Edge Lights (MIRLs). INT does not have
passenger terminal facilities or cargo facilities. The closet highway to INT is 1-40, which is approximately 5
miles away. The 1998 TAF lists INT as having 92 total based aircraft, 67,544 annual operations and
11,753 total enplanements. As described above in the introduction to Section 3.3.1.2, development of this
alternative airport site would not meet the Level 1 Purpose and Need screening criteria without at least
one new runway and a major runway extension and new cargo handling facilities. In addition, significant
infrastructure improvements far beyond those that would be required if the proposed project were
implemented at PTIA would be needed. The magnitude of improvements and their associated affects
would approach those needed at a "greenfield" site, as discussed in Section 3.3.1.1. For these reasons,
this alternative site was not retained for further consideration in the DEIS.
Asheboro Municipal Airport - Asheboro Municipal Airport (W44) is located in Randolph County, North
Carolina approximately 6 miles southwest of the City of Asheboro and approximately 29 miles from PTIA.
The airport encompasses approximately 155 acres of land, is owned and operated by the City of
Asheboro, and is designated by the FAA as a "general aviation" airport. W44 has one runway, Runway
3/21, which is a grooved asphalt, utility category runway in good condition. Runway 3/21 is 5,001 feet long
and 75 feet wide with Medium Intensity Runway Lights (MIRLs). W44 does not have passenger terminal
or cargo facilities, and the closest major highway is 1-40, which is located approximately 20 miles away.
The 1998 TAF lists W44 as having 29 total based aircraft, 15,300 annual operations and 0 enplanements.
This alternative airport site would not meet the Level 1 Purpose and Need screening criteria without at
least one new runway and a major runway extension and new cargo handling facilities. In addition,
significant infrastructure improvements far beyond those that would be required if the proposed project
were implemented at PTIA would be needed. The magnitude of improvements and their associated
affects would approach those needed at a "greenfield" site, as discussed in Section 3.3.1.1. For these
reasons, Asheboro Municipal Airport was not retained for further consideration in the DEIS.
Burlington-Alamance Regional Airport - Burlington-Alamance Regional Airport (BUY) is located in
Alamance County, North Carolina, approximately 3 miles southwest of the City of Burlington and
approximately 21 miles from PTIA. The airport encompasses approximately 300 acres of land, is owned
and operated by the City of Burlington, and is designated as a "general aviation" airport by the FAA. BUY
has two perpendicular, intersecting runways. The primary runway, Runway 6/24, is a grooved asphalt,
utility category runway in good condition. Runway 6/24 is 5,000 feet long and 100 feet wide with MIRLs.
The secondary runway, Runway 10/28, is a grooved asphalt, utility runway in good condition that is 2,997
feet long and 100 feet wide. BUY does not have passenger terminal facilities or cargo facilities, and the
closest major roadway is 1-40, which is located approximately 3 miles away. The 1998 TAF lists BUY as
having 75 total based aircraft, 40,340 total annual operations and 0 enplanements. Development of this
alternative airport site would not meet project criteria as to runway length or location, or as to cargo
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/24/00 3-13 Section 3.0 Alternatives
handling facilities. Since the use of Burlington-Alamance Regional Airport did not meet the screening
criteria, this alternative site was not retained for further consideration in the DEIS.
Elkin Municipal Airport - Elkin Municipal Airport (ZEF) is located in Yadkin County, North Carolina,
approximately 3 miles northeast of the City of Elkin and approximately 76 miles from PTIA. The airport
encompasses approximately 91 acres of land, is owned and operated by the Town of Elkin and is
designated as a "general aviation" airport by the FAA. ZEF has one runway, Runway 7/25, which is a
grooved asphalt, utility category runway in good condition. Runway 7/25 is 4,003 feet long and 75 feet
wide with MIRLs. ZEF does not have passenger terminal facilities or cargo facilities, and the closest major
highway is 1-77, which is located approximately 3 miles away. The 1998 TAF lists ZEF as having 21 total
based aircraft, 15,350 annual operations and 0 enplanements. As above, this alternative airport site would
not meet all of the screening criteria. Since the use of Elkin Municipal Airport did not meet the screening
criteria, this alternative site was not retained for further consideration in the DEIS.
Mount Airy/Surry County Airport - Mount Airy/Surry County Airport (MWK) is located in Surry County,
North Carolina, approximately 3 miles southeast of the City of Mount Airy and approximately 68 miles from
PTIA. The airport encompasses approximately 144 acres of land, is owned and operated by the City of
Mount Airy and the County of Surry, and is designated as a "general aviation" airport by the FAA. MWK
has one runway, Runway 18/36, which is a grooved asphalt, utility category runway in good condition.
Runway 18/36 is 4,300 feet long and 75 feet wide with MIRLs. MWK does not have passenger terminal
facilities or cargo facilities, and the closet major highway is 1-40, which is approximately 65 miles away.
The 1998 TAF lists MWK as having 34 total based aircraft, 17,100 annual operations and 0
enplanements. Development of this alternative airport site would not meet the screening criteria, including
lack of required runway length and lack of ground-side facilities. Since the use of Mount Airy/Surry County
Airport did not meet the screening criteria, this alternative site was not retained for further consideration in
the DEIS.
Rockingham County-Shiloh Airport - Rockingham County-Shiloh Airport (NC14) is located in
Rockingham County, North Carolina, approximately 8 miles northwest of the City of Reidsville and
approximately 86 miles from PTIA. The airport encompasses approximately 220 acres of land, is owned
and operated by Rockingham County, and is designated as a "general aviation" airport by the FAA. NC14
has one runway, Runway 13/31, which is a grooved asphalt, utility category runway in fair condition.
Runway 13/31 is 5,199 feet long and 100 feet wide with MIRLs. NC14 does not have passenger terminal
facilities or cargo facilities, and the closest major highway is 1-40, which is approximately 85 miles away.
The 1998 TAF lists NC14 as having 43 total based aircraft, 20,500 annual operations and 0
enplanements. Development of this alternative airport site would not meet the screening criteria. Since
the use of Rockingham County-Shiloh Airport did not meet the screening criteria, this alternative site was
not retained for further consideration in the DEIS.
Montgomery County Airport - Montgomery County Airport (43A) is located in Montgomery County, North
Carolina, approximately 3 miles northeast of the City of Winston-Salem downtown area and approximately
50 miles from PTIA. The airport encompasses approximately 65 acres of land, is owned and operated by
Montgomery County, and is designated as a "general aviation" airport by the FAA. 43A has one runway,
\\clnt0l\wp_wpro\PIEDMONTDEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/23/00 3-14 Section 3.0 Alternatives
Runway 3/21, which is a grooved asphalt, utility category runway in good condition. Runway 3/21 is 3,500
feet long and 60 feet wide with MIRLs. 43A does not have passenger terminal facilities or cargo facilities,
and the closest major highway is 1-40, which is located approximately 47 miles away. The 1998 TAF lists
43A as having 9 total based aircraft, 2,700 annual operations and 0 enplanements. Development of this
alternative airport site would require at least one new runway and a major runway extension, as well as
new ground-side buildings, therefore, it does not meet the screening criteria. Since the use of Montgomery
County Airport did not meet the screening criteria, this alternative site was not retained for further
consideration in the DEIS.
Summary of Use of Existing General Aviation Airports Within the Triad - The above discussed
general aviation airport alternative concept only partially meets the Level 1 screening criteria, and
generally fails to meet any of the Level 2 criteria. None of these airports have air transport category
runways of sufficient length, and none have a parallel runway system. None of these airports currently
owns or has easy access to enough acreage to accommodate the 300-acre cargo handling facility
requirement. Most of these airports do not have easy access to existing infrastructure or close proximity
to the interstate highway system.
Although development of an existing general aviation airport would help implement Federal transportation
policies, none of the alternative airports could be developed to provide the required airside and landside
infrastructure within a reasonable timeframe to accommodate the needs of the air cargo operator. In
addition, development of these facilities would have implications similar to those previously described in
the evaluation of the development of a new "greenfield" site (see Section 3.3.1.1). These considerations
include factors such as increased costs, environmental impacts, airspace constraints, and the overall
inability to fulfill the Purpose and Need criteria.
In addition, the separation of commercial aviation services between two closely co-located airport facilities
(PTIA and any of the general aviation airports) would create an "economies of scale" problem for the
smaller facility because basic services for maintenance, airport rescue and fire-fighting, postal services,
administration, etc., would need to be duplicated. The economic feasibility of providing these services
would be harder to achieve than at a larger, more fully developed facility since the basis over which the
costs would be distributed (passengers, aircraft operations, lease space, etc.) would be smaller.
Although several existing general aviation airport sites were identified in the region, none, individually or
collectively, is capable of adequately accommodating the operational requirements of the air cargo hub
and the PTIA. Each existing general aviation airport fulfills its own unique role and is an important part of
the region's aviation system. These airports in the Triad serve general aviation aircraft traffic. Shifting air
cargo operations to these airports would significantly change the basic role of the individual airports,
potentially decrease available general aviation capacity at each facility, and introduce additional or higher
levels of noise and other social/environmental impacts to areas not currently experiencing these types of
impacts. On the basis of these considerations, the development of an existing general aviation airport
facility was not considered a reasonable alternative to the proposed project at PTIA, and this concept was
not retained for further consideration by the FAA in this DEIS.
\\clnt0l\wp_wpro\PIEDMONTDEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/23/00 3-15 Section 3.0 Alternatives
Air Carrier Airports Within North and South Carolina - This alternative concept consists of the
use/expansion of an existing air carrier airport within North or South Carolina as an alternative to the
proposed project at PTIA. Based on information provided by the PTAA, FedEx evaluated the location of
the proposed air cargo hub within these two states 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 located so that its market service area was located within a single time-
zone;
• The hub had to be in a central north-south location within the projected East Coast market
area;
• The hub had to be located in an area of moderate weather patterns to reduce the likelihood of
interruption of service due to adverse weather.
After selecting the general geographic location for the hub, the air cargo operator issued a request for
Proposals (RFP) in November 1997 to air carrier certificated airports within the states of North and South
Carolina. Those airports that had an interest in the development of the air cargo hub responded to the
RFP with proposals describing how the individual airport could accommodate the hub's facility
requirements. Between February, 1998 and April, 1998, the air cargo hub operator 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,
noise and operational concerns, weather history, and aircraft rescue and fire fighting
availability.
• Site Selection - Site layout, topography, environmental considerations, 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, and taxes and incentives.
The air cargo operator selected PTIA in April, 1998, for the site of its proposed overnight, express air
cargo hub because PTIA was the top-rated airport in the following selection criteria, which were
considered to be important by the air cargo operator. According to the air cargo operator, none of the
other airports were competitive with PTIA in all of these criteria.
• Space required for the development of the size of the facility and aircraft apron proposed
by the air cargo hub operator,
• Attractive low land lease rate,
• Ability and agreement to develop parallel runways,
\\ctnt0l\wp_wpro\PIEDMONTIDEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/23/00 3-16 Section 3.0 Alternatives
• Ideal hub site location between existing and future parallel runways,
• Ability to operate head-to-head aircraft operations (to and from the same direction),
thereby reducing taxi times,
• No competition for runway use during hub arrival and departure times,
• Good interstate access,
• No unexpected unresolvable environmental problems,
• Outstanding incentive package, and
• Operationally centered for proposed hub operations.
As part of the alternatives analysis process for the DEIS, the FAA requested copies of both the air cargo
operator's RFP and the individual responding airport sponsors' proposals. Detailed information on the
selection process was considered confidential by the air cargo operator, and was not made available to
the FAA. However, the FAA was provided with the names of the other airports that responded to the RFP.
For the DEIS, the FAA made a decision to limit the alternative air carrier airports examined to the five
interested airports in North and South Carolina, because their interest suggested that such a project was
actually possible at those sites (note that as of this date, none of these airports has applied to the FAA for
either ALP or funding approval for improvements similar to those proposed by PTAA). The FAA did not
believe it would be prudent or reasonable to examine alternative airports that themselves had not
expressed interest in locating a cargo hub at their airports. Therefore, the following discussion of
alternative air carrier airports is limited to those five air carrier airports that expressed an interest in
developing the hub.
As previously discussed in the evaluation of a new airport alternative and the development of an existing
general aviation airport, if all projected air cargo hub traffic were transferred to another airport, the airport
would require airside and landside infrastructure capable of handling 48 nightly air cargo aircraft
operations by the year 2005 (24 arrivals and 24 departures) and 126 nightly air cargo aircraft operations
by the year 2009 (63 arrivals and 63 departures). Furthermore, these operational levels would have to be
accommodated within the push-back-to-wheels-up and departure window time limits established by the air
cargo hub operator. In other words, the air cargo aviation activity forecasts, airfield configuration, facility
requirements, and critical operational timing for an alternative airport would presumably be identical to
those identified by PTIA.
The following provides a brief description of the existing air carrier airports in North and South Carolina
that were evaluated by the FAA in this DEIS as potential alternatives to the proposed project at PTIA, and
the FAA's findings associated with each of these alternative airports. The FAA used Level 1 screening
criteria described earlier to assess these airports. The location of these airports is depicted in Figure
3.3.1-2.
North Carolina Global Transpark - North Carolina Global Transpark (ISO) is located in Lenoir County,
North Carolina approximately 3 miles northwest of the City of Kinston and approximately 153 miles from
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/24/00 3-17 Section 3.0 Alternatives
PTIA. The airport encompasses approximately 1,255 acres of land, is owned and operated by the North
Carolina Global Transpark Authority, and is designated as a "primary commercial service" airport by the
FAA. ISO has one runway, Runway 5/23, which is a grooved asphalt, air transport category runway in
good condition. Runway 5/23 is 8,600 feet long and 150 feet wide with HIRLs and a MALSR. This runway
is currently being extended to 10,600 feet. ISO has both passenger terminal facilities and cargo facilities.
The closest major highway is 1-95, which is located approximately 30 miles away. The 1998 TAF lists ISO
as having 43 total based aircraft, 36,475 annual operations and 10,434 total annual enplanements.
Review of this alternative airport indicates that ISO partially meets the Level 1 screening criteria. This
alternative would require the construction of a new widely spaced parallel 9,000 foot Transport Category
runway that would allow for the ability to conduct dual simultaneous independent IFR operations. ISO is
located approximately 30 miles from the nearest major highway, therefore it would not provide sufficient
surface transportation infrastructure to meet the air cargo operator's requirements to have proximate
access to an established, diverse roadway network.
The purpose of the proposed project is to develop an overnight, express air cargo hub at PTIA. ISO as an
alternative to the proposed project at PTIA does not meet the Level 1 screening criteria for runway
redundancy or runway configuration, and it does not meet the Level 1 hub operational requirement. In
addition, the recent EIS completed by the FAA for the Transpark found potential environmental impact
issues that would require additional analysis before further improvements could be considered The FAA
does not consider ISO a reasonable alternative to the proposed project at PTIA, and it was not retained for
further consideration in the DEIS.
Raleigh-Durham International Airport - Raleigh-Durham International Airport (RDU) is located in Wake
County, North Carolina approximately 9 miles northwest of the City of Raleigh and approximately 52 miles
from PTIA. The airport encompasses approximately 4,770 acres of land, is owned and operated by the
Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority, and is designated as a "primary commercial service" airport by the FAA.
RDU has two parallel runways and one perpendicular runway. The primary runway, Runway 5L/23R is a
grooved concrete, air transport category runway that is 10,000 feet long and 150 feet wide with HIRLs and
a MALSR. Runway 5R/23L is a grooved asphalt, air transport category runway that is 7,500 feet long and
150 feet wide with HIRLs and a MALSR. Runways 5L and 5R have a 3,500 foot centerline-to-centerline
separation, which provides the ability to conduct dual simultaneous independent IFR operations. Runway
14/32 is an asphalt, utility category runway that is 3,700 feet long and 100 feet wide with MIRLs. RDU has
passenger terminal facilities and cargo facilities. The closest major roadway is 1-40 that is approximately 3
miles from RDU. The 1998 TAF lists RDU as having 246 total based aircraft, 245,236 annual operations
and 3,341,832 annual enplanements.
Review of this alternative airport indicates that Raleigh-Durham International Airport partially meets the
Level 1 screening criteria. Although RDU provides widely spaced parallel runways with sufficient
separation to allow dual simultaneous independent IFR operations, it does not provide redundant 9,000
foot air Transport Category runways. Existing Runway 5R/23L would have to be extended 1,500 feet to a
total length of 9,000 feet in order for RDU to accommodate the airside operational requirements of the air
cargo hub. In addition, RDU could not provide sufficient land area located between the parallel runways to
\\clnt0l\wp_wpro\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/23/00 3-16 Section 3.0 Alternatives
develop the sort/distribution facilities needed for the air cargo hub without extensive relocation of existing
facilities. These relocated facilities would include the existing cargo terminals, Park & Ride Lots 2 and 4,
general aviation facilities, Observation Park, and relocation of International Drive and part of Commerce
Boulevard. RDU would have to implement an extensive land acquisition and relocation program and have
all of this existing infrastructure relocated prior to initiation of construction of the sorting/distribution facility.
The purpose of the proposed project is to develop an overnight, express air cargo hub at PTIA. The FAA
has not received a proposal from RDU to develop facilities that would meet the operational requirements
of a proposed air cargo hub facility. Since the use of RDU as an alternative to the proposed project at
PTIA does not meet all of the Level 1 screening criteria, the FAA does not consider RDU a reasonable
alternative to the proposed project at PTIA, and it was not retained for further consideration in the DEIS.
Greenville-Spartanburg International Airport - Greenville-Spartanburg International Airport (GSP) is
located in Greenville County, South Carolina, approximately 3 miles south of the City of Greer and
approximately 178 miles from PTIA. The airport encompasses approximately 2,700 acres of land, is
owned and operated by the Greenville-Spartanburg Airport Commission, and is designated as a "primary
commercial service" airport by the FAA. Greenville-Spartanburg International Airport has one runway,
Runway 4/22 which is a grooved concrete/asphalt, air transport category runway that is 11,000 feet long
and 150 feet wide with HIRLs, an Approach Lighting System with Sequenced Flashers - Category II
(ALSF-2) on the Runway 3 end and a MALSR on the Runway 21 end. GSP has passenger terminal
facilities and cargo facilities. The closest major roadway is 1-85, located within 1 mile of the south
boundary of the airport property. The 1998 TAF lists GSP as having 24 total based aircraft, 64,180 annual
operations and 781,706 annual enplanements.
Review of this alternative airport indicates that GSP partially meets the Level 1 screening criteria. GSP
does not have widely spaced parallel runways with sufficient separation to allow dual simultaneous
independent IFR operations, and it does not provide redundant 9,000 foot air transport category runways.
A new 9,000 foot Transport Category runway parallel to existing Runway 4/22 would have to be
constructed in order for GSP to accommodate the airside operational requirements of the air cargo hub. In
order to provide sufficient land area located between the parallel runways to develop the sort/distribution
facilities needed for the air cargo hub, relocation of existing facilities and roadway infrastructure would
have to occur. The extent of relocations required would vary depending on the location of the
sorting/distribution facility. Since GSP is located near a major highway and has well developed surface
transportation infrastructure, it does meet the air cargo operator's surface transportation infrastructure
requirements to have proximate access to an established, diverse roadway network.
The purpose of the proposed project is to develop an overnight, express air cargo hub at PTIA. Since the
use of GSP as an alternative to the proposed project at PTIA does not meet all of the Level 1 screening
criteria, the FAA does not consider GSP a reasonable alternative to the proposed project at PTIA, and it
was not retained for further consideration in the DEIS.
Columbia Metropolitan Airport - Columbia Metropolitan Airport (CAE) is located in Lexington County,
South Carolina, approximately 5 miles southwest of the City of Columbia and approximately 178 miles
\\clnt01\wp_wpr0\PIEDMONl1DEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/23/00 3-19 Section 3.0 Alternatives
from PTIA. The airport encompasses approximately 2,558 acres of land, is owned and operated by
Richland/Lexington County, and is designated as a "primary commercial service" airport by the FAA. CAE
has two intersecting runways. The primary runway, Runway 11/29 is a grooved asphalt, air transport
category runway that is 8,602 feet long and 150 feet wide with HIRLs, an ALSF-2 on the Runway 11 end
and a MALSR on the Runway 29 end. The secondary runway, Runway 5/23 is a grooved asphalt-
concrete, air transport category runway that is 8,000 feet long and 150 feet wide with HIRLs and a MALSR
on the Runway 5 end. CAE has passenger terminal facilities and cargo facilities. The closest major
highway is 1-26, located approximately 1 mile away. Access to the City of Columbia central business
district (CBD), which is approximately 6 miles from CAE is provided via S.C. Highways 302 and 602. The
1998 TAF lists CAE as having 103 total based aircraft, 115,716 annual operations and 619,707 annual
enplanements.
Review of this alternative indicated that CAE partially meets the Level 1 screening criteria. This alternative
airport does not provide widely spaced parallel runways with sufficient separation to allow dual
simultaneous independent IFR operations and it does not have redundant 9,000 foot air Transport
Category runways, both of which are needed to meet the operational requirements of the air cargo hub.
Existing Runway 11/29 would have to be extended 398 feet to a total of 9,000 feet, and a new 9,000 foot
widely spaced Transport Category parallel runway would have to be constructed. The level of
development that would have to occur at CAE is comparable to that which is proposed at PTIA. Based on
the layout of the existing airport facility and surrounding lands, it appears reasonable that the
improvements needed at CAE to accommodate the airside and landside requirements of the overnight
express air cargo hub could be developed. Development of CAE would help implement Federal
transportation policies, and it could provide sufficient land area to develop the sort/distribution facilities
needed to support the express overnight air cargo hub. CAE is located approximately 1 mile from the
nearest major highway, and it has good surrounding surface transportation infrastructure, therefore it does
meet air cargo hub's surface transportation requirements to have proximate access to an established,
diverse roadway network.
The purpose of the proposed project is to develop an overnight, express air cargo hub at PTIA. Although
CAE as an alternative to the proposed project at PTIA meets several of the Level 1 screening criteria, its
lack of Level 1 parallel runway configuration and redundant runways caused the FAA to eliminate CAE a
reasonable alternative to the proposed project at PTIA, and it was not retained for further consideration in
the DEIS.
Charlotte/Douglas International Airport - Charlotte/Douglas International Airport (CLT) is located in
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina approximately 4 miles west of the City of Charlotte and
approximately 94 miles from PTIA. The airport encompasses approximately 5,000 acres of land, is owned
and operated by the City of Charlotte, and is designated as a "primary commercial service" airport by the
FAA. Charlotte/Douglas International Airport has two parallel runways and one crosswind runway. The
primary runway, Runwayl8R/36L is a concrete, air Transport Category runway that is 10,000 feet long and
150 feet wide with HIRLs, a MALSR on the Runway 18R end and an ALSF-2 on the Runway 36L end.
The secondary runway, Runway 18U36R is a grooved asphalt-concrete, air Transport Category runway
that is 8,845 feet long and 150 feet wide with HIRLs and an ALSF-2 on the Runway 36R end. Runways
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/24/00 3-20 Section 3.0 Alternatives
18R and 18L have a 5,000 foot centerline-to-centerline separation, which provides the ability to conduct
dual simultaneous independent IFR operations. Crosswind Runway 5/23 is a grooved asphalt-concrete, air
Transport Category runway that is 7,500 feet long and 150 feet wide with HIRLs and a MALSR on the
Runway 5 end. Charlotte/Douglas International Airport has passenger terminal facilities and cargo
facilities. The closest major highways are 1-85, which is approximately 1.5 miles to the north, and 1-77,
which is approximately 5 miles to the east. The 1998 TAF lists CLT as having 174 total based aircraft,
451,190 annual operations and 1,327,556 annual enplanements.
Review of this alternative indicates that CLT partially meets the Level 1 screening criteria. CLT provides
widely spaced parallel runways, but it does not provide redundant 9,000 foot air Transport Category
runways. Existing Runway 18L/36RL would have to be extended 155 feet to a total length of 9,000 feet in
order for CLT to provide redundant 9,000 foot air transport category runways. CLT would be able to
provide the required airside and landside infrastructure with only minor improvements to existing Runway
18L/36R.
CLT is currently experiencing significant aircraft operational delays associated with both air carrier and air
cargo operations. This delay was quantified in the recently completed Charlotte/Douglas International
Airport Master Plan Update, Final, January 1998. The FAA has a recently completed an EIS which
assessed the potential environmental impacts associated with construction of third parallel runway to
accommodate existing and forecast traffic and reduce operational delay. The addition of 48 daily
operations in 2005 and 128 daily operations in 2009 as a result of development of the Mid-Atlantic Hub
would have a significant impact on air carrier aircraft operations associated with the U.S. Airways Hub, as
well as the air cargo operations associated with the UPS air cargo operation at CLT. The existing and
forecast operations at CLT would have a significant affect on the proposed overnight, express air cargo
hub's ability to operate in an efficient manner. The proposed overnight, express air cargo hub's aircraft
would be competing with other air carrier and air cargo aircraft for approach and departure slots, as well
as for taxiway and runway queuing while on the ground. The approach and departure slot conflict would
prevent the proposed air cargo aircraft from operating in a "head-to-head" mode. The taxiway and runway
queuing conflict on the ground would prevent the proposed air cargo operator from meeting its aircraft
specific push-back-to-wheels-up operational requirements. As describe in Chapter 2.0, Purpose and
Need, the ability to conduct head-to-head operations and to have unimpeded taxi/runway flow is critical to
the air cargo carrier, for meeting the proposed cargo hub's departure window and push-back-to-wheels-up
operational requirements.
The purpose of the proposed project is to develop an overnight, express air cargo hub, and CLT meets
several of the Level 1 alternatives screening criteria. If CLT submitted a competing application for the
proposed project to the FAA for consideration, it would be afforded complete consideration under all
NEPA categories. However, without such a proposal, and because CLT has completed the EIS process
for its own new runway improvement project, the FAA does not consider CLT a reasonable alternative to
the proposed project at PTIA, and it was not retained for further consideration in the DEIS.
Summary of Use of Other Existing General Aviation and Air Carrier Airports - The FAA looked at
existing airports to see if there were any that could accommodate air cargo hub development. As
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/24/00 3-21 Section 3.0 Alternatives
disclosed above, the preliminary assessment showed that some of these airports could accommodate
some of the physical requirements associated with the proposed project. The assessment also suggested
that some airports, like PTIA, would have complicated construction, relocation, cost, and environmental
factors to address. In that context, and without any local sponsor presenting a proposal to the FAA at this
time, the FAA could not justify retaining any of the off-site alternatives for detailed environmental analysis
in this document.
3.3.2 PTIA RUNWAYAND AlR CARGO FAciLITYALTERNAT/VES
3.3.2.1 Introduction
Once FedEx selected PTIA for its Mid-Atlantic Hub, PTIA examined on-site potential development sites for
a Mid-Atlantic Hub facility at PTIA, identifying and evaluating key elements of airfield and facility planning
needed to meet the operational requirements of the air cargo hub. As represented to the FAA by the
sponsor, these key elements included a need for redundant 9,000 foot Transport Category runways,
widely spaced parallel runways that support dual simultaneous independent precision-instrument
operations, functional and operational requirements for the proposed air cargo sorting and distribution
facility, hub facility layout, space requirements, proximity and inter-connectivity to existing and future
airfield facilities and surface transportation infrastructure, and overall time required to develop the facilities
and initiate operations. To develop and operate a Mid-Atlantic Hub at PTIA, the following conditions and/or
facilities (existing and/or planned on an FAA-approved Airport Layout Plan) were deemed necessary by
FedEx:
• Airport facilities that accommodate operational requirements including a redundant
Transport-Category runway system having a minimum 9,000-foot length, and widely
spaced parallel runways that support dual simultaneous independent precision-instrument
operations;
• A hub facility development site located between parallel runways having an approximate
size of 300 contiguous acres;
• Hub/runway/taxiway proximity that allows the air cargo operator to maximize meeting its
critical push-back-to-wheels-up and departure window requirements; and
• Ability to construct and operate Phase 1 of the development by the year 2004, and Phase
2 by the year 2009.
When identifying on-site alternative locations for the development of a hub facility, technical
considerations were grouped into two major categories: 1) the identification of available (or potentially
available) on-airport land areas on which a sorting/distribution facility could be developed, and 2) the
proximity of existing and future airfield improvements (runways, taxiways, and taxiway connectors) that are
essential and required for the efficient operation of the hub. Identification of viable alternative locations on
which to develop the sorting/distribution facility included review and assessment of the airport's existing
runway/taxiway system, land areas, land uses, and land uses immediately adjacent to the airport. A
systematic process to identify and assess the relative merits and opportunities for locations of the
sorting/distribution facility and proposed parallel runway necessary for the development and operation of
\\clnt0l\wp_wpro\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/23/00 3-22 Section 3.0 Alternatives
the overnight, express air cargo hub examined a total of five potential hub development sites and eight
potential runway locations. This process yielded 40 possible alternative runway-sort/distribution facility
scenarios which are described in this section of the DEIS and depicted in Figure 3.3.2-1. Two additional
alternative scenarios submitted by an interested group of citizens during Scoping for this DEIS and the
airport sponsor were also evaluated and are described in this section of the DEIS.
3.3.2.2 Description of Runway Development Alternative Scenarios
The individual runway alternatives were developed and evaluated for their ability to meet the minimum
facility and operational requirements addressed in the sponsor's proposal, which stressed the need for
redundant 9,000-foot Transport-Category runways, and widely spaced parallel runways that allowed for
the ability to conduct dual simultaneous independent IFR aircraft operations. For the parallel runway
alternative scenarios, the minimum runway centerline separation for dual simultaneous independent all-
weather operations (3,400 feet) as prescribed by FAA Advisory Circular 15015300-13, Change 5,
Standards and Recommendations for Airport Design was used. Those runway alternative scenarios that
did not meet the operational/capacity needs of the air cargo hub operator through the year 2019 were not
retained for further consideration after the Level 1 screening analysis because these alternatives did not
fulfill the purpose and need for the proposed project. Those runway alternative scenarios that did meet the
Level 1 purpose and need criteria were retained for additional analysis in Level 2 of the alternatives
screening process.
X Runway Alternative (X) - This runway alternative would consist of the lengthening of each of PTIA's
two existing runways. Runway 14/32 would be extended 2,620 feet to the northwest to a total length of
9,000 feet. Runway 5/23 would be extended to a length of 10,650 feet, and the Runway 5 threshold would
be relocated 1,650 feet to the northeast. The relocation of the end of Runway 5 by 1,650 feet is needed in
order to physically separate the two runways while also providing positive separation from existing Runway
14/32, with provision of a standard 1,000-foot Runway Safety Area (RSA) and jet-blast protection and to
remain clear of Runway 14/32 Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) surfaces. This runway
development alternative would provide the two required redundant Transport-Category runways having a
minimum length of 9,000 feet, while also preserving the 10,000-foot length for Runway 5/23. However, this
alternative would not provide the ability to conduct dual simultaneous independent IFR operations, and it
would not allow for the ability to conduct head-to-head operations during times of peak air cargo
operations.
West 1 Runway Alternative (W1) - This runway alternative would be based on the construction of a new
9,000-foot Transport-Category runway located 4,300 feet west of, and parallel to, existing Runway 5/23.
The location of the new parallel runway and in-board parallel taxiway would overlie the existing Bryan
Boulevard right-of-way west of the terminal parking complex. As such, westward relocation of Bryan
Boulevard would be required with slight modifications to the connecting interchanges of Regional Road
and Inman Road. New dual cross-field taxiways connecting the two parallel runways would support critical
aircraft movements to and from both runways and all other areas of the airport. Existing Taxiway D, which
runs parallel to Runway 14/32, would be extended to serve as a south cross-field taxiway. This alternative
would provide PTIA with redundant 9,000-foot Transport-Category runways, provide the ability to conduct
\\c1MOI\wp_wpio\PIEDMONTDEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/23/00 3-23 Section 3.0 Alternatives
dual simultaneous independent IFR operations, and it would allow for head-to-head operations during
times of peak air cargo operations.
West 2 Runway Alternative (W2) - This runway alternative is currently depicted on PTIA's ALP and
consists of the construction of a new 9,000-foot Transport-Category runway located 5,488 feet west of,
and parallel to, existing Runway 5/23. The location of the new parallel runway would require the
construction of a tunnel for Bryan Boulevard that would traverse under the runway and the construction of
two cross field taxiway bridges that would cross over Bryan Boulevard. New dual cross-field taxiways
connecting the two parallel runways would support critical aircraft movements to and from both runways
and all other areas of the airport. Existing Taxiway D, which runs parallel to Runway 14/32, would be
extended to sere as a south cross-field taxiway. This alternative would provide PTIA with redundant
9,000-foot Transport-Category runways, provide the ability to conduct dual simultaneous independent IFR
operations, and it would allow for head-to-head operations during times of peak air cargo operations.
West 3 Runway Alternative (W3) - This runway alternative is similar to the West 2 Alternative in that a
new 9,000-foot Transport-Category runway would be located 5,488 feet west of, and parallel to, existing
Runway 5/23. The location of the new dual cross-field taxiway system would remain the same as in
Alternative W2. Taxiway D would be extended to sere as a south cross-field taxiway between the two
parallel runways. Under this alternative however, the runway/taxiway system of the proposed parallel
runway would be shifted 1,032 feet to the southwest along the runway centerline. This shift would align the
new dual north cross-field taxiway connectors with the end of the proposed parallel runway. Similar to the
West 2 Alternative, the location of the new parallel runway would require the construction of a tunnel for
Bryan Boulevard that would traverse under the runway and the construction of two cross-field taxiway
bridges that would cross over Bryan Boulevard. This alternative would provide PTIA with redundant 9,000-
foot Transport-Category runways, provide the ability to conduct dual simultaneous independent IFR
operations, and it would allow for head-to-head operations during times of peak air cargo operations.
East 1 Runway Alternative (E1) - This alternative would consist of the construction of a new 9,000-foot
Transport-Category runway located 3,400 feet east of, and parallel to, existing Runway 5/23. The new
parallel runway would be situated such that the approach surfaces of each end of the runway would have
the necessary vertical clearances over Interstate 40 and the future Greensboro Western Loop Road. The
runway would directly overlie U.S. 421 (West Market Street) and the adjacent Norfolk Southern Railway
that runs parallel along the west side of the U.S. 421 right-of-way. Existing Taxiways A and C, which run
parallel to Runway 14/32, would be extended to the southeast to interconnect the two runway systems.
The existing general aviation complex east of Runway 5/23 would have direct and unimpeded access to
the new runway's inboard parallel taxiway. This alternative would provide PTIA with redundant 9,000-foot
Transport-Category runways, provide the ability to conduct dual simultaneous independent IFR operations,
and it would allow for head-to-head operations during times of peak air cargo operations. Because of the
3,400-foot separation between the parallel runways, an advanced radar system such as a Precision
Runway Monitor (PRM) would have to be installed at PTIA to allow for the ability to conduct dual
simultaneous independent IFR operations.
\\clnt01\wp_wpro\PIEDMOMIDEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/23/00 3-24 Section 3.0 Alternatives
East 2 Runway Alternative (E2) - This alternative is similar to the East 1 Alternative in that the new
9,000-foot Transport-Category runway would be constructed east of, and parallel to, existing Runway 5/23.
However, this alternative would have a centerline separation of 4,300 feet between the runways. The new
runway would be situated such that the approach surfaces of Runway 5R would provide the necessary
vertical clearances over U.S. 421 (West Market Street) and the adjacent Norfolk Southern Railway that
runs parallel along the west side of PTIA as well as Interstate 40. However, the new runway would overlie
the future Greensboro Western Loop Road right-of-way. The new runway would interconnect with Runway
14/32 via an offset extension to existing Taxiway C. The existing general aviation complex east of
Runway 5/23 would have direct and unimpeded access to the new runway's inboard parallel taxiway. This
alternative would provide PTIA with redundant 9,000-foot Transport-Category runways, provide the ability
to conduct dual simultaneous independent IFR operations, and it would allow for head-to-head operations
during times of peak air cargo operations.
North Runway Alternative (N) - This alternative would consist of the construction of a new 9,000-foot
Transport-Category runway located 7,630 feet north of, and parallel to, existing Runway 14/32. The
runway would be situated such that the approach surface of future Runway 32R would have the necessary
vertical clearances over the future Greensboro Western Loop Road right-of-way. The location of the new
parallel runway would require the construction of a tunnel for Bryan Boulevard that would traverse under
the runway and the construction of two cross field taxiway bridges that would cross over Bryan Boulevard.
The new parallel runway would have a full-length parallel taxiway on the south side to allow unrestricted
access to and from the existing terminal and general aviation complex. Under this alternative, existing
Runway 14/32 would be extended 2,620 feet to the northwest to a total length of 9,000 feet, and existing
parallel Taxiway C would be extended to a length of 9,000 feet. Taxiway A would also be widened and
extended. This alternative would provide PTIA with redundant 9,000-foot Transport-Category runways,
provide the ability to conduct dual simultaneous independent IFR operations, and it would allow for head-
to-head operations during times of peak air cargo operations.
South Runway Alternative (S) - This alternative would consist of the construction of a new Transport-
Category runway located 3,400 feet south of, and parallel to, existing Runway 14/32. The location of the
new parallel runway and in-board parallel taxiway would overlie Regional Road, 1-40, U.S. 421, and the
Norfolk Southern Railway right-of-ways. The construction of three cross field taxiways to interconnect the
two parallel runways would be required to provide unrestricted access to the two parallel runways from the
terminal and east general aviation complex. This alternative would provide PTIA with redundant 9,000-
foot Transport-Category runways, provide the ability to conduct dual simultaneous independent IFR
operations, and it would allow for head-to-head operations during times of peak air cargo operations.
Because of the 3,400-foot separation between the parallel runways, an advanced radar system such as a
Precision Runway Monitor (PRM) would have to be installed at PTIA to allow for the ability to conduct dual
simultaneous independent IFR operations.
Citizens Scoping Runway Alternative - A runway-sorting/distribution facility alternative concept was
submitted by a group of interested citizens during Scoping for the DEIS. The citizens runway alternative
concept would extend Runway 14/32 by 2,620 feet to the west for a total length of 9,000 feet; relocate the
threshold of Runway 5 by 700 to 1,000 feet; extend the end of Runway 23 by 700 to 1,000 feet, and
\\clnt0l\wp_wpro\PIEDMONTDEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/23/00 3-25 Section 3.0 Alternatives
provide a high speed exit taxiway from Runway 5/23 to the south side of Runway 14/32. This runway
alternative concept would provide two redundant Transport-Category runways having a minimum length of
9,000 feet, while also preserving the 10,000-foot length for Runway 5/23. However, this alternative would
not provide the ability to conduct dual simultaneous independent IFR operations, or the ability to conduct
head-to-head operations during times of peak air cargo operations.
W1-1 Runway Alternative - In August 1999, the PTAA requested that the FAA consider in the DEIS an
additional "west" parallel runway alternative that was developed by the PTAA as a result of detailed
planning efforts associated with the ongoing PTIA Master Plan Update. Under this alternative, the
centerline separation distance between the proposed new parallel runway and existing Runway 5/23 would
be 5,088 feet, and 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 5,088 foot separation distance between the
parallel runways associated with this runway alternative 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.
3.3.2.3 Description of Air Cargo Sorting/Distribution Facility (FedEx Mid-Atlantic Hub) Site
Alternative Scenarios
Five potential site alternatives that would meet the size and geometric requirements (a site having a
rectangular shape with approximately 300 contiguous acres) were identified and evaluated. Each
alternative site location was based solely on the required size, geometry, and relative proximity to existing
or planned airport and surface transportation facilities. Each site possessed unique attributes and
opportunities with respect to meeting the proposed air cargo sorting and distribution facility requirements
as presented by the sponsor. The following provides a description of the five alternative development
sites, which are also depicted in Figure 3.3.2-1.
Site A Alternative (A) - Site A is located northwest of and adjacent to existing Runway 5/23, in the
northwest quadrant of the airport. The site is wholly owned by the PTAA, is currently undeveloped and is
designated on PTIA's conditionally approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP) as being reserved for future
commercial/cargo development. The site is bounded by existing cargo facilities to the south, existing
Runway 5/23 to the east, Bryan Boulevard to the west, and Old Oak Ridge Road/Bryan Boulevard to the
north.
Site B Alternative (B) - Site B is located northeast of and adjacent to existing Runway 5/23 in the
northeast quadrant of the airport. The site partially encompasses airport owned leased areas for existing
commercial and general aviation-related facilities which are located east of existing Runway 5/23 and
north of existing Runway 14/32. The remaining portions of this site would have to be acquired by or
leased to PTIA in order to develop the sorting/distribution facility. The site is bounded by the planned
Greensboro Western Loop Road right-of-way to the east, existing Runway 5/23 to the west, the existing
commercial aviation developments to the south, and Old Oak Ridge Road to the north. PTIA's
conditionally approved ALP does not designate this area for future airport related development.
\\clnt0l\wp_wpro\PIEDMOMIDEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/23/00 3-26 Section 3.0 Alternatives
Site C Alternative (C) - Site C is located southwest of and adjacent to existing Runway 14/32 and west of
the approach end of existing Runway 5. The site is partially within the current airport property boundaries.
The remaining portions of this site would have to be acquired by or leased to PTIA in order to develop the
sorting/distribution facility. The site encompasses a variety of commercial/industrial-developed parcels,
U.S. 421, portions of the Norfolk Southern Railway, Regional Road, and the main BellSouth switching
station. PTIA's conditionally approved ALP designates the portion of this site within the existing airport
property boundaries as a "Future Aviation Development Area" and Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) for
future Runway 51/23R.
Site D Alternative (D) - Site D is located due west of the airport and is generally bounded by Regional
Road to the south, Caindale Drive to the north, commercially developed and vacant lands to the west, and
undeveloped PTIA property/Bryan Boulevard to the east. The site completely encompasses a platted
corporate-style office park development and facilities along Bentley Road, Business Park Drive and
Skyway Drive. PTIA's conditionally approved ALP designates portions of this site within the existing airport
property boundaries for both future parallel runway development and "Future Aviation Development Area".
The remaining portions of this site would have to be acquired by or leased to PTIA in order to develop the
sorting/distribution facility.
Site E Alternative (E) - Site E is located southeast of existing Runway 5/23 and northeast of existing
Runway 14/32 in the southeast quadrant of the airport. This alternative is a variant of Site B and is located
northeast of and adjacent to existing Runway 5/23 in the east quadrant of the airport, on mostly airport
owned property. The portions of this site located outside the existing boundaries of PTIA would have to be
acquired by or leased to PTIA in order to develop the sorting/distribution facility. The site completely
encompasses the extent of the commercial and general aviation-related leased areas of the airport on the
southeast side of existing Runway 5/23. The site is bounded by the planned Greensboro Western Loop
Road right-of way to the east, existing Runway 5/23 to the west, and the developed commercial aviation
areas to the south. The southernmost extent of the site is adjacent to existing Runway 14/32 and parallel
to Taxiway C. PTIA's conditionally approved ALP does not designate this area for any future airport related
development.
Citizens Scoping Sorting/Distribution Facility Alternative - A sorting/distribution facility site alternative
was submitted to the FAA by a group of interested citizens during Scoping for this DEIS. This alternative
site would place the sorting/distribution facility on approximately 300 acres of land located south of
Runway 14/32, between Runway 14/32 and US Highway 421 (West Market Street) and NC Highway 68
(Regional Road). The site encompasses a variety of commercial/industrial-developed and residential
parcels, as well as portions of existing airport property. PTIA's conditionally approved ALP designates the
portion of this site within the existing airport property boundaries as a "Future Aviation Development Area"
and "Runway Protection Zone" (RPZ) for the proposed future parallel Runway 5L/23R. The portions of
this site located outside the existing boundaries of PTIA would have to be acquired by or leased to PTIA in
order to develop the sorting/distribution facility.
\\clnt0l\wp_wpro\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/23/00 3-27 Section 3.0 Alternatives
3.3.3 EVALUATION OF PTIA RUNWAY AND SORTING/DISTRIBUTION FACILITY SITE ALTERNATIVES
3.3.3.1 Introduction
The evaluation of on-site alternatives was based on an examination of each of the previously described
eight potential runway configurations integrated with each of the previously described five potential
sorting/distribution facility development sites. In addition, the evaluation included an alternative concept
submitted by a group of citizens during Scoping and an alternative submitted by the airport sponsor after
the DEIS was started. This yielded a total of 42 distinct alternative scenarios. Each of the 42 alternative
development scenarios were subject to the two-level alternatives screening process to determine which
alternatives were the most reasonable, feasible and prudent for detailed evaluation in this DEIS. The
following is a summary of the results of the screening process for these alternatives. The discussion is
presented based on each of the runway alternatives, and expanded to discuss the implications of each of
the site alternatives. Table 3.3.3-1 depicts how each alternative passed through the two-level alternatives
screening process.
3.3.3.2 Level 1 Screening
Level 1 of the FAA's alternatives screening process evaluated each of the 42 alternative scenarios for
their ability to fully satisfy all of the purpose and need criteria previously established in Chapter 2.0,
Purpose and Need, of this DEIS.
• Develop an air cargo sorting/distribution hub facility at PTIA;
• Provide redundant 9,000-foot Transport-Category runways;
• Provide the ability to conduct dual simultaneous independent IFR operations, and
• Provide approximately 300 contiguous acres in a rectangular shape located between
parallel runways for the development of the sorting/distribution facility.
For an alternative to continue to the Level 2 analysis, it had to meet all of the Level 1 screening criteria.
Those alternatives that did not meet all of the Level 1 screening criteria were not retained for further
evaluation in this DEIS.
No-Action Alternative - The No-Action Alternative would not meet any of the purpose and need criteria
for the proposed project at PTIA. This alternative would not locate an air cargo sorting/distribution facility
at PTIA, provide redundant 9,000-foot Transport-Category runways, provide the ability to conduct dual
simultaneous independent IFR operations, or provide a sorting/distribution facility site that meets the
operational requirements of the air cargo hub. As described in Section 2.0, Purpose and Need, the
proposed improvements are needed for the air cargo operator to maximize the efficiency of its operations,
particularly during the push-back-to-wheels-up and departure window timeframe. Although the No-Action
Alternative did not meet the purpose and need criteria, it was retained for further consideration in Level 2
\\clnt01\wp_wpro\PIEDMOMIDEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/23/00 3-28 Section 3.0 Alternatives
of the Alternatives screening to ensure a complete environmental impact evaluation and to provide a
baseline comparison.
Alternatives X-A through X-E - Runway-sort/distribution facility site Alternatives X-A through X-E would
only partially meet the purpose and need criteria for the proposed project at PTIA. All of these alternatives
would locate the air cargo sorting/distribution facility at PTIA, provide redundant 9,000-foot Transport-
Category runways, and provide approximately 300 contiguous acres in a rectangular shape for the
development of the hub facility. However, none of these alternatives would provide the ability to conduct
dual simultaneous independent IFR operations, the capability to conduct head-to-head operations during
times of peak air cargo operations, or develop a sorting/distribution facility site located between parallel
runways. As described in Chapter 2.0, Purpose and Need, and quantified in the TAAM analysis, all three
of these criteria are needed to facilitate overnight cargo hub operations, particularly during the push-back-
to-wheels-up departure timeframe. The use of perpendicular runways under the Alternative X-A through
X-E scenarios would result in operational conditions that would lessen the overall efficiency of aircraft
operations such as dependent operations (operations on one runway affect/limit operations on the other
runway) and increased runway crossings, change local and potentially regional flight patterns (more
daytime and nighttime 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
(increased use of a designated crosswind runway and increased runway crossings) at PTIA. The
development of a hub facility that is not located between parallel runways would result in the air cargo
operator not being able to meet most of its designated push-back-to-wheels-up departure timeframe.
Since none of these five alternatives met all of the Level 1 purpose and need criteria, none were retained
for further consideration in this DEIS.
Alternatives W1-A through W1-E - Runway-sort/distribution facility site Alternatives W1 -A through W1 -E
would only partially meet the purpose and need criteria for the proposed project at PTIA. 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, Alternative W1-A did not meet all of the Level 1 screening criteria because the 4,300 foot
centerline-to-centerline separation distance between existing Runway 5R/23L and proposed Runway
5U23R would not provide a sorting/distribution facility site of sufficient size to meet operational needs.
Alternatives W1-B, W1-C, W1-D, and W 1-E did not meet the Level 1 screening criteria because they
would not provide a sorting/distribution facility site located between parallel runways, which, based on the
TAAM analysis, is critical to meeting the operational needs of the air cargo carrier. The location of the
sort/distribution facility site associated with Alternative W 1-C does not meet FAA Standards and
Recommendations for Airport Design (Advisory Circular 150/5300-13) because a portion of the proposed
site (approximately 10 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
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/24/00 3-29 Section 3.0 Alternatives
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 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
alternative scenario met all of the Level 1 purpose and need criteria, it was retained for further evaluation
in the Level 2 analysis. Alternatives W3-13, W3-C, W3-D, and W3-E did not meet all of the Level 1 criteria
because they would not provide a sorting/distribution facility site between the parallel runways, which is
critical to meeting operational needs. The location of the sort/distribution facility site associated with
Alternative W3-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 50 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 E1-A through E1-E - Runway-sorting/distribution facility site Alternatives Ell -A through El -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-
W:\PIEDMONl1DEIS\Ch_3\Ch_3.doc\3/24/00 3-30 Section 3.0 Alternatives
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
Aircraft
Category
Arrivals Departures
INM Aircraft
Aircraft Type Equivalent Day Night Day Night Total
Air Carrier/Air B727-200 72707 0.05 0.31 0.03 0.33 0.72
Cargo Jet -
Stage 2
8727-200
727Q9
0.13
0.03
0.13
0.04
0.33
B727-200 727Q15 3.59 1.00 3.53 0.93 9.05
B737-200 737D17 3.80 0.90 3.96 0.85 9.51
8737-200 737QN 5.61 0.88 5.39 1.21 13.09
DC8-60 DC8QN 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.07 0.15
DC9-10 DC9Q7 1.15 0.01 1.07 0.21 2.44
DC9-30 DC9Q9 4.38 1.65 4.05 1.89 11.97
DC9-50 DC950 0.38 0.00 0.23 0.12 0.73
Air Carrier/Air B727-100 727EM1 0.14 0.44 0.09 0.49 1.16
Cargo Jet -
Stage 3
B727-200
727EM2
0.84
0.73
0.77
0.79
3.13
B727-100 727QF 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04
8737-200 7371\19 4.63 0.69 4.34 1.11 10.77
B737-200 737N17 1.24 0.35 1.32 0.32 3.23
B737-300 737300 2.14 0.39 2.28 0.28 5.09
8737-300 7373132 1.68 0.31 1.81 0.22 4.02
B737-400 737400 1.19 0.18 0.98 0.26 2.61
8737-500 737500 2.12 0.40 2.55 0.02 5.09
B757-200 757PW 0.19 0.30 0.18 0.30 0.97
B757-200 757RR 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.30 0.60
8767-200 767CF6 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.08
A300 A300 0.00 0.32 0.06 0.26 0.64
A310 A310 0.00 0.26 0.04 0.20 0.50
DC8-60 DC86HK 0.31 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.62
DC8-70 DC870 0.16 0.04 0.15 0.04 0.39
W:\PIEDMONT\DEI S\Ch_4\T_4-2\T_425-2.doc
TABLE 4.2.5-2 (Continued)
AVERAGE DAILY OPERATIONS - 1998
Piedmont International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
Arrivals Departures
Aircraft INM € Aircraft
Category Aircraft Type Equivalent Dav Night Dav i Night Total
Air Carrier/Air
Cargo Jet -
Stage 3

DC9-10,-30
DC93LW
3.77
0.16
3.27
0.54
7.74
DC9-40 DC95HW 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.41 0.82
DC10-30 DC1030 '0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04
F100 F10065 5.89 2.81 6.30 2.20 17.20
L1011 L1011 0.81 0.46 0.81 0.47 2.55
MD81 MD81 0.28 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.54
MD82 MD82 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.40
MD82 MD83 1.97 0.53 2.07 0.53 5.10
Air Carrier/Air Cargo Jet Sub-Total 46.71 13.95 46.24 14.42 121.32
Air Taxi
Commuter Jet
CL601
3.61
0.00
3.69
0.00
7.30
Single Turbine GASEPF 0.50 1.16 0.51 1.18 3.35
Twin Turbine DHC6 8.18 0.93 8.04 1.25 18.40
Twin Turbine DHC8 11.61 2.16 11.27 2.12 27.16
Twin Turbine HS748A 0.68 2.91 0.32 3.36 7.27
Twin Turbine SF340 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.10
Air Taxi Sub-Total 24.63 7.16 23.88 7.91 63.58
General
Aviation
Single Piston
GASEPV
26.17
1.38
26.17
1.38
55.10
Single Piston-Pattern GASEPV 11.85 0.62 11.85 0.62 24.94
Twin Piston BEC58P 9.81 0.52 9.81 0.52 20.66
Twin Turbine DHC6 13.09 0.69 13.09 0.69 27.56
Business Jet CNA500 11.78 0.62 11.78 0.61 24.79
Business Jet DA90 3.27 0.17 3.27 0.17 6.88
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch 4\T 4-2\T 425-2.doc
TABLE 4.2.5-2 (Continued)
AVERAGE DAILY OPERATIONS -1998
Piedmont International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
i
Aircraft
Category
INM ! Aircraft
Aircraft Type Equivalent Day Night Day Night Total
rtures
General
Aviation
Business Jet
CL600
1.31
0.07
1.31
0.07
2.76
General Aviation Sub-Total 77.28 4.07 77.28 4.06 162.69
Military -
Fixed Wing

C130
C130
0.05
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.10
C130-Pattern C130 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.10
KC135 KC135 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.24
Military -
Rotary Wing
KC135-Pattern
KC135
0.11
0.00
0.11
0.00
0.22
C-21 A LEAR25 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.16
C-21 A-Pattern LEAR25 0.07 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.15
C-12 DHC6 0.35 0.01 0.35 0.01 0.72
C-12-Pattern DHC6 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.66
Blackhawk HH60 0.41 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.82
Military Sub-Total 1.57 0.01 1.58 0.01 3.17
Total 150.19 25.19 148.98 26.40 350.76
Source: HMMH, 1999.
NOTE: Discrepancies may occur due to rounding.
Day = 0700 - 2200.
Night = 2200 - 0700.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch 4\T 4-2\T 425-2.doc
TABLE 4.2.5-3
RUNWAY USE PERCENTAGES -1998
Piedmont International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
R e aure s A
All Aircraft
(except KC 135 and 727Q9)
05 15% 15%
23 75% 75%
14 9% 9%
32 1% 1%
TOTAL 100% 100%
KC 135 and 727Q9 Aircraft Only
05 17% 15%
23 83% 75%
14 0% 9%
32 0% 1 %
TOTAL 100% 100%
Source: FAA, 1999; HMMH, 1999.
W:\PIEDMONTIDEIS\Ch_4\T_4-2\T 425-3.doc
TABLE 4.2.5-4
NOISE LEVELS AT SPECIFIC POINTS
Piedmont International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement

Noise Levels dBA,'DNL i
Specific Point
(Measurement
Site
Modeled
a
Measured
b Difference
(d B)
a-b
1 61 63 -2
2 63 63 0
3 65 64 +1
4 56 63 -7
5 51 58 -7
6 63 62 +1
Source: HMMH, 1999.
W \PIEDMONTDEIS\Ch 4\T_4.2\T_425.4.doc
48
i
tM N
A
47
1
C
46 M
i
45
- a
V r ?? ?c L x \ d
0
0
4.3 W
7 4)
44 39
?• 40 j" .seph. _ r d V
- -- • a. . 41 6Ne . '?
4- -• • - ?? 4)w+
..1r T
V )_
5 e?w o +c
50
R
op
l
0
(a Lij
s 10
17
'N 16
D
3 1112 _ 33
32 r ..,
- • • 30?31 C
13? ?• 28--- •-L-29 d
1 • ••
6 14 27-% 34 r.
26? 1?-
- i-r 24 • • 36
18
LL M
1-7
2 - vest Ma \ r 21--- 25 35 ( a-
y
--- --
Legend sr ?!' 37
t 38
-- 19, \ 8 / 0a
Historic Resources Eligibility ` 23 a
?Q E
22 a,for National Register Listing ?? W z
Listed Historic Property t 42 1U r e: <°I G jp
Eligible Historic Prope
Q "
d1
N
• Eligible Historic Property i d
• Not Eligible Historic Pro e ( LL
Noise Contours L-
2019 Build Alternatives Composite J, .
65 DNL Noise Contour
-
?.`°' _ W
1998 65 DNL Noise Contour V` ???f
General Features w
Streams
/:rr
Lakes
Roads y A40
ryw ar
Buildings
0 4000 Feel
Scale:1 "=4000'
N C.

:1
y

a
LLI
LL,
IL
LI)
OQ y wp
Q i-
z
LLI
- w
? M ? z I
C
- ?
N
oLU
z (0
Z?
m
1
1

m?

N a
m
LL
y
Y A
y a Co g
?
J N 0 y ?
ON

0
o
m
a
N
o
0

0 a

a

L
a 0

L
N

0 w
u
m
F-
C

c m
a m
t a
v m
?
w
f o
= a y
N O
°
o
N

m
CL Y

„ B Q

U W
F

a Q E n

@ co o a
a W
E
E
.-
F m m m p 0
'? t
z z o m ('r U
IIL1 111_I
0
0

?M O
Q1 N
_
LL ? y
l0

m
ad+ ?''
NN
N
Q m
M L
d
0 d)
;5 c)
CD 4)
N
rr
z
3
d
Z
j^
,
V C
L'
?

}r
V
0<
Wiz a

LL
Z
O

tot-
W

0
- i!
J
?DIII O
,? ?J/"rte
>? a ?1 wm
? 0 -
O __.UQ ° j 3 ; `? Y. wm z Qw a p? ?..^?Qw J wo _
J W Y
g
p waa?? ?a w 5? r o LL o w
J ?G
® ?? w LL?z Q QY' M m. w ! tt ?rv
c no
z xg a o o a Z m Q
U) 0
L) F- m W W g Lij v m a_ y°Q p' "r. a?
mW m W f
U m M
W W? UI N ff
W p z8 '
?wryy))) U' m
0 ? (.) i z
U) N z O wl p? p
p. J
a3 (7 f w ®s Y
Z n ? L Q W )... N Q4a ul -
N d N pM N ZLLJ
Z Up W _
w Fa
w w m ao
>
w w z 0
p w y Jp p O u> >
0 j 0 vi 0 m N._ y -"..
-- _ Q 3l 3 w w
z 3 - ott0 ?. ?Lj? m
N.. i
00 Q *460, 00 jjt_ LL
m -
wN w M a
3 m0

Leqend
Generalized Zoning
W Agriculture
Commercial
PUD
Multi-Family Residential
Single family Residential
® Heavy Industrial
Light Industrial
P.T.I.A.
Public & Institutional
® COUNTY
To Be Assigned
General Features
Streams
Lakes
Roads
Buildings
3 Detailed Study
Boundary
3 Generalized Study
Boundary
Jurisdictional
Boundary
5000 Feet
Scaled"=5000'
Note_ Landuse classifications displayed reflect
anaye s of aerial photography end field vadficatim
end were developed epedfically for Ihls EIS.
11
'n---•

A.- L
r y
;6 0
>?
O_2k? T ,
ensboro
'I
` C 4 ? p 7
J.?;
\?'?' ` s p Market St
-? - ?`? L,7
-
:7"
f ? r
I
f r

a
1140
m
I
e
O
O
a
`N M
7?
0) Cq O
IL st Syr'
M

a
M
t
C
N
= t0
C
00
N
? G
N td
"0
L 0
4- "N
C -M
d) L.
d
C
d
0
c
as
Z r
C) ?t Cn
/
??Ll
a
l? \; C
LjE_ G
E
C
71 0
C
W
]'

- - - N Point
t7
1t "?? ?? I ??;? '? ? 1.
N
a? J C`'
r
\??vf ,7 Z ? 1 - V ? : ?L ' Ir 4' r ?•??.7 ?' ? rp;o?'i?..Sy.
,.? ?,•? {S„Nr? 1 ?lr I I 7?y
u
140 f 1 o
e a di iu
o bA e r ?? F
°o a
n J?
Legend
'
Landuse
?' s U
Commercial
Fire Station d ° ?h? Salo p a
Industrial P o Gg•'
Multi-Family Residential
Park/Open 'I " o
® !' o
a ®PTIA 1 o a p ro
s _I Single Family Residential z E L
TBD
L Tank Farm t "
P
B Transportation
g U Utilities I • % ' e - ?
General Features
Streams
Lakes
0
s Roads
T L
s Buildings
Q
Detailed Study Z.
Boundary t Generalized Study /. _
Boundary
n\; ?, I d
1r „
® Jurisdictional
T
Boundary
S C /:
0 5000 Feet i , , ? ••' F:
9
Scaled "=5000' ! - _-
l Note'. Landuse ciassificabms displayed reflect
' analysis of eedal photography end field vadfiration
end ware developed specifically for this E15.
0
0
M
?!V
LL et
D
G
M
N
R ?
? d
4)
G
d
4)
.a
G 'a
's d
3m
y?
.G
G
J
G
d

0
? ...
a
L1j
M
?I d
I I_ G
0

G
W
aQ
:d
s.
10

a jg7
¦ e/ h
1. ,? ` i •- ' \ ??',}??
?
PF/
•.
I
;T
/
I
i
I
4
r ? I

r " '? ,? F r `:''
:
::i

Iz r .?y1?cEt1 ??' rr LY-1f

E?
9 6 T SN! °? a•rr?no t e l
?
111
?y21 `?
m _ e Q
:hqa Pr t?„
fir,
64 n

,? v V
I R? ?'y,? water ?.
p
E, L g 4?0?
/
., V? _
IIU
f e 75 Z?,
? OIN IJij

1 77
Wrl i
F? ? 1\ {17' ?A1?

m
m`
m
Y
m
J
N
_C
Y ?
J=

D

m C
P
c ?

m
C Pa asa!/o?A o
J
3

A?
a6
Jpagaald

9
a
s,
v
v
m
Y
N

Z-mQ9cf
N
aNi m
Y m m
p] J fA ?
N
m
o
ym m
N a) N
<k ?Q
co
C p N 0
7 7

m D D ??
Y o?
mom
02J
vs
O

r ?

0
N
m
it
Cl)
N
4)
C
d
0
m
d
m
4w
IV
0
C

01

G - r+
0
JCL-
a

«
aJ-r' C

W
d
6
m
?o
a?
3
89'N's
a
0
0
G?s11?
(D
0
00
N
0
C)
J
w
z
CD I
T
r
Y , _f
y
Y
I
h y ,
r.:
„v
,
'in
C-D
r.
Vi ' / v4
_. i ?.
?j L
0000
i
,.f
,
5
? ?ooo
,
r?
i
PHA
r
J
i
P -A
3•
FEDEX Sit
1 LEGEND
M
1 PHASE 1 IMPROVEMENTS
PHASE 2 IMPROVFMEN
r
CUMULATIVE IONS
z
p
. ??
PROPERTY LINE
s `
;.. " ? HISTORICAL SITES
WETLANDS
:
FLOOD PLAINS
n !
i?
r?
,
n

- FIGURE:
SCALE: 1" - 2,000' 3.4-6
-#" ALTERNATIVE N-E
/yl DATE: 2-00
SOURCE: URS Greiner Woodward Clyde, Inc., 1999
0
0
0
DO
N
0
QD
m

W
z
y' a / n
r
• 1
r, r
/ r n
i y
9 oao
r
u
e
4q N u , ? ' r -_
6v % w e/ _ ` i d r r r Y
?w ,^ .r,? .? n '
r r?
d
9
03
i € f9
„dr u i 00 H „ vu , v
9
r , o
, S t
PAS
PHA 1 H
U?
y ?-
:y r Y
Sr /
i
y _
C7
f 00 AI / C?
: ?C)
#? v
't fl?r
z ,.
p
1 LEGEND
PHASE 1 IMPROVEMENTS
3f ?,r
TS
PHASE 2 IMPROV M
t Y , , fr; r4
A.- IONS
N
,. r. 1.
PROPERTY LINE
f.r 4 t
, t
,
d ,.
HISTORICAL SITES
-
d ? WETLANDS
FLOOD PLAINS
i
„
i
?n
S'
n
n
ALTERNATIVE W1-A1
SOURCE: URS Greiner Woodward Clyde, Inc., 1999
FIGURE:
SCALE: 1 = 2,000' 3.4-5
/yf DATE: 9-99
<, t
zv.
g g s
r ? ? k
PHASE 1 ti p b
%
P r f
1 Yw `/ G / FEDEX VM
r
s:
y?
i f
Ln
N
m
O
0
O
N
O
0
3
W
z
W
„ - I PHASE 2 1
;, %wt{'. r O
` M ' ? r ???I l d ,r 7
t) q¢/,
7 xF.
i
n ,, LL /`? Y fi f
4 l 9
FI' -Ifft
i.
4
v ?.
7v/
P
s
?CD k,l G u ? ?, 11 F ,
r.
a a
CD
w
wV ?
9 ., r.
l
4
V V??
I
i
i
V.1
T
,
E v
b .r
p
LEGEND
h
PHASE 1 IMPROVEMENTS
PHASE 2 IMPROVEMENTS
??Oy
OF CUMULATIVE ACTIONS
;. PROPERTY LINE
n ,
HISTORICAL :
/, SITES
?D Z1.
WETLANDS
'
FLOOD PLAINS
,i
ALTERNATIVE N-D
SOURCE: URS Greiner Woodward Clyde, Inc., 1999
FIGURE:
SCALE; 1" = 2,000' 3.4-4
/? DATE: 9-99
i
j
/N
N
Sri
0
0
00
N
O
C9
5
i
W
z
9 ?0 „ll. al ;m ^ y
y
? ,? ?' to l
^
K?` F M v +
/_, r+'w. ? " , ",???? ??? I `fir ?"'? ? ? ", :?
"
, r
/
/
n
Ay
s
.w
S ASH
2
u PH
Ln
u. _ .
p, SrrE
h
DO? ==
,
,
O
"
p ' O O? / y
4
J
i
I'
O
? t
t
v
, O
"
Y \ ,
n
111
LEGEND
1 ,
PHASE 1 IMPROVEMENTS
PHASE 2 IMPROVEMENTS
N /
CUMULATIVE IONS
,
Z?x
----
/ PROPERTY LINE
H STORICAL SITES
WETLANDS
FLOOD PLAINS
?, w. IIJJ „ " ? ? ? J
u
ALTERNATIVE W3-A
FIGURE:
SCALE: 1" = 2,000' 3.4-3
DATE: 9-99
SOURCE: URS Greiner Woodward Clyde, Inc., 1999

O
O
1-1
N
O
r?
W
z
? y ? fr J
?r
vn
N ti
r,
r,
r
b'
r
1s41 ., r ? 4 ? ` ? N
rr d
r
: r r
Mr
0'0 0' ?n ? yy
i
SM1 Y
r n '
r
`
,bey' r... F r L $n
r
..w
dr A
m _.
AOL
^r nd' lr _ _ ? Wq. ? ?' 1 / 7 r
z
i
M1
/
k
Co
jE LF) PHASE 1
k
SrTE L
r./ 4
/,n e
-
000
t Q
0 OIL--- /, .
I /? /
O ? C/
?n
r
,
\?
1 ,
J,
LEGEND
PHASE 1 IMPROVEMENTS
S
it u ? f
.'
/
ASE 2 IMPROVEMENTS
r,
CUMULATIVE ACTIONS
/r
F
PROPERTY LINE
HISTORICAL SITES
,
/
4 „? k
WETLANDS
,
FLOOD PLAINS
,r
.r
VPIEDMONT FIGURE:
TRIAD M &vkw N i?dl?j+de? ALTERNATIVE W2-A SCALE. 1" = 2,000' 3.4-2
IN 1ERNATIONAL AIRPORT@ yr
DATE: 9-99
SOURCE: URS Greiner Woodward Clyde, Inc., 1999

00
O
O
0
z
0
Q
O
z
U)
m
x
w

Q
w
a
d ?
Y I
i
RELOCATE
r
l
REGIONAL
.i
' aIRPORT
NSWROAD _
ACCESS..ROADS a,tN,
NEW INTERCHANGE
y rr
AL
CLOSE
REGIONAL
?? 1 r )g ROAD z'
?? > d
w...
RELOCATE L QA
RIDGE ROAD
r,
f?
k
i
N
,d
d' h
u w
"
v
O
Y d
4 i
0000 7.
17
a?: o o
00? JL--J=l J=
?E..
;
O OCR
,
W
u
2.
r
,
_ . ?? ?..
Lil
w ? ..r
\ t
ff
t
,
LEGEND
1 ,5 "3 N,
?? ' CUMULATIVE ACTIONS
0
f
? ----
PROPERTY LINE
4?• ?a? HISTORICAL SITES
r
WETLANDS
ii FLOOD PLAINS
t '
4 ' ,^m
"
,
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
SOURCE: URS Greiner Woodward Clyde, Inc., 1999
FIGURE:
SCALE: 1" = 2,000' 3.4-1
ti? DATE: 9-99
1
m
O
O
O
r
r?
O
c?

U
0
a
M
? ?'4 1 t
r, x
'
h
r,
y
d 4.
,. w
,
,
z,
F
a .a
5,.. r
p M
F
V ,ra \
, C
AP
9
47
p
w
( w4
nA
HI GHSE ''TAaAY y,
„
j C-
U Lt-L----i
-0 0L--j I J=1
, J
f=C)O
f 7- e7777777777%
L 7-1 0or
O
x
r.
0
.
v
„ EXTENTIO
?? vp
1000
LEGEND
RELOCATED
"HRESHO,LD AIRFIELD/SORTING-/ DISTRIBUTION FACILITY
IMPROVEMENTS
...
/ r
r
n
/
PROPERTY LINE
' a
t ?,? 0r ?? t?/ ?
S
HISTORICAL SITE
? WETLANDS
„
?. FL
,
00D PLAINS
CITIZENS SCOPING
ALTERNATIVE
SOURCE: URS Greiner Woodward Clyde, Inc., 1999
FIGURE:
SCALE: 1" = 2,000' 3.3.2-2
/yr DATE: 01 00
TABLE 3.3.3-1
TWO-LEVEL ALTERNATIVES SCREENING ANALYSIS
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
Offsite Alternatives Onsite Alternatives
Citizens'
Scoping Alter- Runway
Runwa X Runway W1 Runway W2 Runway W3 Runwa E1 Runwa E2 Runway N Runway S native Wl-A1

Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site

Level Factors
Considered No-
Action' New
Airport Other
Airport s
A
B
C
D
E
A
B
C
D
E
A
B
C
D
E
A
8
C
D
E
A
B
C
D
E
A
B
C
D
E
A
B
C
D
E
A
B
O
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 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 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 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N 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 N N N N N N N N N N N N Y Y N N N N N N Y
Cargo
Sort/Distribution
Facility Site that
Meets
Operational
Requirements
Continue to next Yes No No N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y Y N N N N N N Y
level?
2 Infrastructure Y Y Y Y Y Y
Impacts
Constructability, B. Property 13.66 88.37 89.89 315.01 266.14 154.74
Environmental" Acquisition
I
Impacts, and (acres)
Cost C. Relocation 1 9 5 77 65 47
homes
D. businesses 0 10 14 12 13 21
E. Wetlands 9.8 32.3 29.8 36.8 31.3 27.3
Impacts acres
F. Floodplain 23.1 36.6 34.6 49.6 46.4 25.4
Impacts acres
Section 303(c) 010 010 010 0/10 0110 0/0
sites direct I
indirect
Historic 011 011 011 0l3 012 011
Resources direct
1 indirect
1. Archaeological TBD TED TBD TBD TBD TBD
Resources
sites
total Cost 25.7 221.3 228.6 328.5 414.6 227.3
$ million)
Retain for further Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
evaluation
Source: UPS 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.IPIEDMONTVDEISICh 31TBL 333-1&S- i.doc13124100

E, URS Greiner Woodward Clyde, Inc., 1999

4.

GSP

W,??
rolina
RDU
CLT
South
arolina
i

O
O
i N N
nM O
IL M
i

?
? f
O
t

L

L

.?d
a
Atlantic
Ocean
LEGEND
Alternative Airport Location

Alternative Airports :
ISO - North Carolina Global Transpark
RDU - Raleigh-Durham International
GSP - Greenville-Spartanburg International
CAE - Columbia Metropolitan
CLT - Charlotte/Douglas International
N
Two State Study Area
Interstate Highways S
10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Miles
d
E
z o ?
0 Q.
?OQ
I?
?dQ ?
WEo
0_ f- Q c
z E,
I

w
A 40k
?.I
V
ram ??
?I
ZEF
L.:±
cit. I` Irv k5'

nVIV.
M WK _] ? NC14
W44
?fl
r9 14,
LEGEND

Alternative Airport Location

Alternative Airports :
INT - Smith Reynolds
W44 - Asheboro Municipal
BUY - Burlington Municipal
ZEF - Elkin Municipal
MWK - Mount Airy-Surry County
NC14 - Rockingham County NC Shiloh
43A - Montgomery County
Interstate Highways
0
0
L ? N
IL M
0
N
It
0
a
L
a
M
a
L
Id
V
M
0
a
7 ?
0
>OiQ
?< Q
o
LI-Q?
z
z
E
co
a
E
E
0
W
E I •
?40*
4 0 4 8 12 Miles ®??

.,......"
/ f ::

f , ...
....
....µ
n
l
HKK)FII SPEED
? . EXIT TAXIWAY
µ
i
it

o r

w
r?

dn

"...
P
4 F ?4n../M1 I

P
,

/
SCALE: 1" = 1,500'
/r
e
MPIEDMONT LEGEND FIGURE:
TRIAD PTAA PROPOSED PROJECT PHASE 1 IMPROVEMENTS °- 12.2
°?- PHASE 2 IMPROVEMENTS
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT@ CUMULATIVE ACTIONS DATE: 9-99
SOURCE: URS Greiner Woodward Clyde, Inc., 1999
II
N
,
? aaauY , ? ? ?
1\ YlpplE \
?II Y494A
YAI91
/ ucwux I
aaL
a vu pEP Aarua:
cna X E
I]IIVYIaU.dae' /
? aal aac ?
r`
/ wawn? // a

0
m
m
N
(u
E7
A
a
J
a
i
y
H
Fi
2
X
W
L7
Q
F-
F
Z
E)
A
a
Ml SIPPE ?}.
_ ern
SR as
Ild II
II? ?
• B
0
DRIW
I i
i
1 '
h
IN A
ARICER
im
v`
J
a ,
YJ
I
r
aM s OFPAaNPE
nW -E
l7w..CWe
M.1 S?E

FIGURE:
PIEDMONT
"?'` 11111 11J1 TRIAD 1994 AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN SCALE. ,'I = ,SOOT 1.2-1
Illllrl? rfl?lll llll?I ?,?ll(If
r ,,.. ,,rlrr INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT@ DATE: 8-99
<
nnue
Nl- alr uLr , r ? ?
,: ? J / Atonal Qromaen ? N
; F? \ ? AalA \ Xprp o
V ,
Imo- P rt 1 r i \ (- 7 i r - -J , - ?r -,i E r\ Ntt \awXU? a ttx?I
??\ _/ /---)\?-/ ?- ) \_ / ! _:? ?`•? oil '?07WODW
T,1 _ _ -_ - _- -` -MY•C?NP!_ - M lAll rYC. spOC- - - - -_/ _ _
r _ i-0 N3-]
II l• NAPOIR PN WAY \ \\
LAIIX rxwA
YMAIart
V0
0
Qom/
FARM
III PXNLYNNG PN J L ? La?,xE? ? I pm
? I niaow
I aaN 1 }ff
Aes aup nnYac II f nnue ? II N
I I M Am I e wmx a. ertul II f y II
I I I w wn V1 TAI PNeOXa awry uN ' cw ?` ua wao p
?? I EL ?. I anaa?rr ual. reeaxX Icvrz xAno°"a?o?o O°l II ( a? h 1 1
s LL a Na C a EA r m xc k? WT nPLm E PPAawc III II ?\
P ?
IXe a X
NAM- . eaL? .
'ER
swXla PwYE1FA apw
ep
YNX7
3 \ ?I ua t \? / C \\\wosr. of suPE
int. p / \ ? \ p J/ / p M IRa ur lq ?.
:PIA \ \ / / . \ . /( \) \ • / Taiursuf eels Ease a... ?
- - = - - - aae•teaNrl M NYYII to wwr ULr .. aoe4 mOPI - - - - - - - - - = - - - - -? -I -I «« «?
E
al p WIN
-?-
I X nom iY.rAt<xAwa aL _ V . /
I qa w uE
?{ I S x , LYw114 a11BAaBl1 ?/
/ HMWS on
1 ? EPNleNp ?? ? as aEUp - ` f ,
SOURCE: LPA GROUP, 1999
RELOCATE
REGIONAL
ROAD

- CLOSE ' ,
?
JpEGONAI. "o
=
11

?G Y
- 1

OC= ?;'v U '
\?
jr x q ?
?
1
'

f
r '1 1 L 0?(?y* n
1 fi
S

JS
? e:
Fd
??
b, T
.
t<_
NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
PHASE1 r w 4
FiVEI SITE '-.
K**ea1
W
r
0
0
0
0
0
c
I
n
I
r
m
V
7 F,
h? %
,
V Q
t /R, X11 Y ,
al
a r ?'. r 1?r mow., `?'-
4 ,
L
y Q ? /
ALTERNATIVE N-D
ALTERNATIVE W2-A
- r
co
.? . ? PRAOE 2 PHASE 1
' (Q', J may,.::. 111sxx SITE
? s
ALTERNATIVE W1 -A
LEGEND
PHASE 1 IMPROVEMENTS ---- PROPERTY LINE WETLANDS
PHASE 2 IMPROVEMENTS HISTORICAL SITES goi9ft FLOOD PLAINS
CUMULATIVE ACTIONS
ALTERNATIVES RETAINED
FOR DETAILED EVALUATION
ALTERNATIVE N-E
ALTERNATIVE W3-A
r ,
r {?
PI /i' _ M \ ? I? ? _ t 1
V?
ih y , ,' 1 n
?r
y3
L CVM1M1 ep 1 ? IN4 /' '. ??Y
SOURCE; URS Greiner Woodward Clyde, Inc., 1999
TABLE S-1
TWO-LEVEL ALTERNATIVES SCREENING ANALYSIS
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
Offsite Alternatives Onsite Alternatives
Runway X Runway W1 Runway W2 Runway W3 Runway E1 Runes E2
Site Site Site Site Site Site
Factors No- New Other
I
Level Considered Action' Airport Airports 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
Cargo Sorling
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
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
Conduct Dual
Simultaneous
Independent IFR
Operations
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
Cargo
Sort/Distribution
Facility Site that
Meets
Operational
Requirement s
Continue to next
level? Yes No No N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N N Y N N N N
2 Infrastructure Y Y Y
Impacts
Constructability, B. Property 13.66 88.37 89.89
Environmental" Acquisition
Impacts, and acres
Cost C. Relocation 1 9 5
homes
D. businesses 0 10 14
E. Wetlands 9.8 32.3 29.8
Impacts acres
F. Floodplain 23.1 36.6 34.6
Impacts acres
Section 303(c) 0/0 010 010
sites direct/
indirect

RunwayN

Runway S Citizens'
Scoping Alter-
native
Runway
WI-Al
Site Site
A B C D E A B C D E
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 I Y II Y I Y I Y I Y I YI Y I Y I Y I Y I Y I Y
N
N I N I N I N I N I N I N I N I N I N I N I N I Y I Y I N I N I N I N I N I N
Y Y
315.01 266.14
77 65
12 13
36.8 31.3
49.6 46.4
Historic 0/1 011 0/1 0/3 012
Resources direct
I indirect
1. Archaeological TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
Resources
sites
Total Cost 25.7 221.3 226.6 328.5 414.6
$ million
Retain for further Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
evaluation
Y
Y
Y
154.74
47
21
27.3
25.4
0/0
011
TBD
227.3
Yes
Source; URS Greiner Woodward Clyde, 2000.
No-Action Alternative retained for detailed analysis for baseline comparative purposes and to fulfill CEQ 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 4'1EDM0NTIDFIS1Ch 31T6L 333-1&S-1.tloc13124100
SOURCE: URS Greiner Woodward Clyde, Inc., 1999
IV
r o.,
t.
I r
" TAXIWA

J

t ,
--------------- ---------------
TAXIWAY BFK)GEB
'l

AIR
RELOCATE OLD
OAK PoDGE ROAD ,
I'
.l

I I

r
r
r

If k

r
l
,
M1
h„4
w",,f ? 4?6•a
..?

i

1.
r
h
..
SCALE: 1" = 1,500'
LEGEND FIGURE:
MPIEDMONT PTAA PROPOSED PROJECT PHASE 1 IMPROVEMENTS
TRIAD PHASE 2 IMPROVEMENTS S-1
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTS CUMULATIVE ACTIONS DATE: 9-99
SOURCE: URS Greiner Woodward Clyde, Inc., 1999
` t L? I J 1 1 ?. lei/
11
JT-
A
I
r V"V\ ';' -, :. ? ? i . ? n 1\ .6?-TUB' 11 ( ? \''... ,,--•`u
A7 7
?l
1, 40 E-j
ii
I I ? i I
i
ci
Legend
I _
Flight Tracks -??\
71 zl?
Arrival Tracks
Departure Tracks ,- ??- ?? l 1-71,
Runways
Landuse Commercial
e
a Fire Station
a (- Industrial U??j:
t
Family Residential
4 Multi
Open
Single Family Residential
n
TBD
Tank Farm
9 [Transportation
p L- Utilities
General Features -- -' I
Streams i i ??-J
Lakes I j
Roads N C i ---r? ?-
Buildings ? / '
a 4000 Feet ?- L T II
r?
Scale:1" 4000'
O
O
N

?L0 M
0) C4 O
E4

rn
Y
V
t0
H
s
a?
LL
C
0
c
0
U
m
c
N
W
00
as
c
d
_
z d
M
C MU
Od E
W? -

0
C
W

• L. \? 11 ,
---------------
.
eY? I rrj
1 '?..e r? r ? •' ?I f !'?•' IlV ,• r, 'y] ?II ' ?1 I??? G i ? °a? ?,
Jl?
-00
/?{J?L/,,1?"? J? •b, _? e ? ? ;1y??? / -'` ?. (?C i ??°/rte 11?f??r / ?? ?t '? ? ??
1`j
/ ' ?J ?. i ? I ? o ? ???' ?• 0 Fes'-' ?? _/ ?? ., ? ,d ,fl
IPA rlJ? I f`.. i`?y/y Q° _ `r ¢ ? ?arya ?. •••, ? \?-- '! Cyr``%,
•
L J!
. 1
10
!? ? ?? rl,.lr ?l ??lv?" '??/ifi ?, ? ? ? L?'?•h!?/ (/:???w?11•.?'.?Le .b ??,•: ????1'''? f_?jr??: t f p1 r'-r?.. ..
Cc- L
lq?
Roads a t}}f"JJJ q \
11
Buildings
,I
- ------------
Generalized Study ?? `''•. •??;j ti' --,. is p :./ ?,. i? ?? t i??: , !
? Boundary
D Feet
Scale4000
-------------
O
O
M
7N M
to nl O
,a
!d
O
L
0
C
0
Z
0
V
m
N
W
O
r
r+
C
0

7 E
CJ
C) <: N
10

Wry -

ct ?
0

C
W
is located where aircraft noise exposure is a DNL of 65 dBA or greater. The land use areas are
presented in Tables 4.2.5-5 and 4.2.5-6.
Population and housing exposure estimates are presented in Table 4.2.5-7. The table provides the
number of residential units and the population estimates for the areas where aircraft noise exposure is
estimated to be DNL 65 dBA or greater. For the 1998 Existing Condition, there are approximately 124
residential dwellings with a population of 290 persons within the 1998 DNL 65 dBA Noise Contour for
PTIA.
4.3 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
4.3.1 GEOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW
PTIA is located in Guilford County, an agricultural, industrial, and urbanized county in north central North
Carolina. Adjacent counties include Alamance County to the east, Rockingham County to the north,
Forsyth County to the west, and Randolph County to the south. Guilford County is in the Piedmont
physiographic area and is located on a plateau that ranges in elevation from 600 feet to 1,000 feet. PTIA
is. at elevation 926 feet mean sea level (MSL). The landform is generally undulating with somewhat hilly
slopes along the drainageways with the Appalachian Mountains just to the west. The City of Greensboro,
approximately 65 miles east of Raleigh, is the county seat and is at the geographic center of the county.
PTIA is surrounded by various land uses. Commercial and industrial land uses abut three sides of the
airport's property (east, south, and west of the airport). Single-family and multi-family residential
communities are located north of the airport property. Major roadway corridors provide access to the
airport. These include Interstate 40 (to the south), State Road 68 (to the west), and Bryan Boulevard
(aligned from the southwest portion of the airport's property through the northeast portion of the airport's
property). See Section 4.2.1 for details.
4.3.2 CLIMATE
Guilford County has a warm, humid climate. The mountains to the west of the county modify both
temperature and precipitation. The average annual temperature in Guilford County is 57.8 degrees
Fahrenheit (°F). The mean daily maximum temperature occurs in July at 87.4°F and the mean daily
minimum temperature occurs in January at 27.8°F. The average winter (December, January, and
February) temperature is 39.5°F, and the average summer (June, July, and August) temperature is
75.6°F. Of the total annual precipitation of 42.62 inches, 22 inches typically falls during the period
between April and September. Approximately 47 thunderstorms occur during the year, 29 of which occur
in summer. Every few years in late summer or autumn, a tropical storm moving inland from the Atlantic
Ocean causes extremely heavy rain. The average relative humidity in midafternoon is about 55 percent.
Throughout the year, winds are usually in a southwesterly direction. The median monthly wind speed is
highest (9 miles per hour) in March. Average seasonal snowfall is 11 inches, and every few years heavy
snow covers the ground for a few days to a week. The percentage of possible sunshine is about 64
WAPIEDM0NTDEIS\Ch_4\S_4.doc 4-35 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
percent in the summer and approximately 54 percent in the winter (Soil Survey of Guilford County, U.S.
Soil Conservation Service, 1978).
4.3.3 WATER RESOURCES
4.3.3.1 Surface Water
Watershed Hydrology - The Generalized Study Area for the EIS is located within the Cape Fear
Watershed, which is the largest of the 17 watersheds in North Carolina, covering approximately 9,149
square miles. The Cape Fear Watershed is one of just four watersheds located entirely within North
Carolina. Flow in the Cape Fear Watershed originates in tributaries draining to the Haw and Deep rivers
in the North Central Piedmont Region of North Carolina, near Greensboro. The Cape Fear River is
formed by the confluence of the Deep and Haw rivers just downstream of the B. Everett Jordan Reservoir
Dam. The Cape Fear River flows in a generally southeastern direction until it empties into the Atlantic
Ocean at Cape Fear, south of Wilmington.
The Cape Fear Watershed is divided into six major hydrologic areas (8-digit hydrologic units) by the U.S.
Water Resources Council and the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). These include the Haw River/Jordan
Reservoir (03030002), Deep River (03030003), Upper Cape Fear (03030004), Lower Cape Fear
(03030005), Back River (03030006), and Northeast Cape Fear (03030007) hydrologic areas. The North
Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality (NCDENR DWQ)
further subdivides these six major hydrologic areas into 24 sub-basins denoted by 6-digit numbers (03-
06-01 to 03-06-24).
The Generalized Study Area is located in the Piedmont region of the Cape Fear Watershed in the Haw
River/Jordan Reservoir (03030002) and Deep River (03030003) hydrologic areas (see Figure 4.3.3-1).
Approximately 50.07 square miles of the Generalized Study Area is located in the Haw River/Jordan
Reservoir (03030002) hydrologic area within the Reedy Fork Sub-basin (03-06-02). Approximately 27.6
square miles of the Generalized Study Area is located in the Deep River (03030003) hydrologic area
within the East and West Fork Deep River Sub-basin (03-06-08). The Reedy Fork Sub-basin (03-06-02)
drains the north and southeast sections of the Generalized Study Area, and the Deep River Sub-basin
(03-06-08) drains the southwest section of the Generalized Study Area.
The topography within the Reedy Fork (03-06-02) and East and West Fork Deep River (03-06-08) sub-
basins within the Generalized Study Area is rolling hills with elevations averaging approximately 900 to
940 feet, NGVD. These hills have slopes averaging approximately 2 to 5 percent. The tributaries of the
primary streams have longitudinal slopes averaging approximately 2 to 5 percent. The main stem of the
primary streams within the Generalized Study Area have flatter longitudinal slopes averaging
approximately 0.5 percent. The majority of the primary streams within the Generalized Study Area are in
the 100-year floodplain (see Section 4.3.4, Floodplains).
WAPIEDM0NT\DEIS\Ch_4\S_4.doc 4-36 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
TABLE 4.2.5-5
ESTIMATED LAND AREA WITHIN 1998 NOISE CONTOURS (ACRES)
Piedmont International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
I
Area within Noise Contour Acres
DNL
Contour Interval
dBA
On Airport
Land
Off Airport
Land

Total
65-70 510.1 1465.2 1975.3
70-75 537.8 418.4 956.2
>75 734.3 42.7 777.0
TOTAL 1,782.1 1,926.4 3,708.5
Source: HMMH, 1999.
W:\PIEDMONrDEIS\Ch _4\T_4-2\T_425-5.doc
w
CO)
m
m cCO)
r
O
W O Q. d
co QO CO)
taLb ?Vc*-,
e0
CV 0 L u.=
n, co ea c-
w M E
QZOeC
Q LL CO C C
F- LL 0) E d
O ? C E
C z E _
w=-
Q ~ ) >
2 w
P
cn
w
v, (n m n
_ Ln
V 00 N CO
m

H
c
Lq
0o

O
c?
lL .5 O N
N
_T
C r
7 _
E v
N
O
O
N
E o
O LL
U
_v
=
o
?
?
o

c
0

? o n
(o cr)
o rn r c n
y
c

N F-
a,
Y E
c CO

(

O

O OR

(
.
N F- LL (
O (
0

a
c

J
m
N N O fl
ai
:3 co
U) co

^ Qj O
LO
a
a CD
c

d T ?' r
E n o
0
U
N N LQ
m (D N
Q L n

m T. L
N
c r
o0 co
ca rn
W ?

? ?
J o> m
a m
a
m
0 0 ° n 75
U cNO o
F-
2
TABLE 4.2.5-7
ESTIMATED EXISTING RESIDENTIAL UNITS
AND POPULATION WITHIN 1998 NOISE CONTOURS
Piedmont International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement

[C:qnour
1nterva1 Number of
Residential
Units
Estimated
Po ulation
,,
65-7dB 108 253
70-75 dB 16 37
>75 dB 0 0
Total 124 290
Source: HMMH, 1999.
\\clnt01\wp_wpro\PIEDMONTIDEIS\Ch_4\T 4-2\T_425-7.doc

?+`` I ?
o and pY?'' r p 'E a E N m
- N
0
o
U"10
0 SO
'.
Y' i Y :•4 9 o d
• fA ••.... p,
® . •• ?. 0 G
M C7
CO U)
Y tn? C ......, ' r umi y C, s ,? ,
• 1.. L f/?
% -0c m
• _ 9
0
Ep Ca
75
.. o • ` as mom'
9 ?? . .A R Stage coach -fr. -5 .6 CO
....... p N ?+ LL ; >
C'O
UZ) LL -0 0
OR >
t - " qy, 0 «•. ? / ?? / m ? ` ,• .. •l- V, m ?'S 3 U' o ? x w 0 3 LL
%
o t v? w?
g ..r
M ET '. ',," ? .01 C? a, e 4 ptf due el ' p
, IF
319 r N/ cQ
IA %
stfo
•«•, 4, r
,,•?,••. o p2! I ol@ y??oN peep
?? . Odd ?? ? •? ? ?.-
sRAOB
°*-
0
?mm•'••° E1 m ES
1,
? ??0m': 4: ?ev
9 a?a• a
U ? c ? ? ?/gym
0 0
U) W51>,
3 °o 0 fA ni. ',
e
9 ?
a
E
' G

r

O
O
N
O
Im ri O
LL ? ?
b
O
N
V
0
N
L
W
ar
3
C
d
m

Z c?
o
++
?
I
OQ R

i CL
E
L
j
0-
Z C
m
?
Z c
p

W
The following two sections contain brief descriptions of the hydrologic characteristics of the entire Reedy
Fork (03-06-02) and East and West Fork Deep River (03-06-08) sub-basins, respectively. A discussion of
the primary streams within the Generalized Study Area and general drainage patterns follows. Table
4.3.3-1 shows the drainage areas within the Generalized Study Area for the primary streams, general
land uses, and road crossings for the primary streams. Drainage characteristics within PTIA are
discussed in the section, "Drainage Characteristics for PTIA."
Reedy Fork Sub-basin (03-06-02) - The Reedy Fork Sub-basin (03-06-02) encompasses approximately
562 square miles and is located within the Haw River/Jordan Reservoir hydrologic unit (03030002). The
total area occupied by water in this sub-basin is approximately 7 square miles. Principal waterways
include Reedy Fork, North and South Buffalo creeks, Buffalo Creek, Quaker Creek, Stony Creek, and a
middle segment of the Haw River. The three drinking water reservoirs for the City of Greensboro are
Lake Higgins, Lake Brandt, and Lake Townsend, which are located in the Reedy Fork Sub-basin (03-06-
02). Reedy Fork originates northwest of the City of Greensboro and flows east into the Lake Brandt
reservoir. A segment of Reedy Fork, approximately 7,000 feet long, flows from Lake Brandt into the Lake
Townsend reservoir. Reedy Fork flows east for approximately 3 miles from Lake Townsend and joins
Buffalo Creek and then flows approximately 6 miles from Buffalo Creek to the Haw River near Burlington,
North Carolina. South Buffalo Creek originates at the west end of the Reedy Fork Sub-basin (03-06-02)
near Greensboro, North Carolina, and flows in an easterly direction through the City of Greensboro.
South Buffalo Creek joins North Buffalo Creek, which originates in urban areas in the City of Greensboro,
to form Buffalo Creek east of the city limits. Buffalo Creek flows north and joins Reedy Fork at the
northeast section of Guilford County. Stony Creek and Quaker Creek originate at the northeast end of
the Reedy Fork Sub-basin (03-06-02) in Caswell and Alamance counties, respectively, and flow south to
the Haw River in Burlington, North Carolina. The Haw River flows south and joins the Deep River to form
the Cape Fear River downstream of the B. Everett Jordan Reservoir Dam in Lee County.
Reedy Fork is the principal water body within the EIS Generalized Study Area of the Reedy Fork Sub-
basin. Approximately 3 miles of the main stem of the upper reach of Reedy Fork flow through the
northwest section of the Generalized Study Area. Reedy Fork flows northeast and discharges into Lake
Brandt north of the Generalized Study Area. The other major tributaries within the Generalized Study
Area that directly or indirectly join Reedy Creek outside of the Generalized Study Area include: Beaver
Creek, Moores Creek, Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek, and head water tributaries of North Buffalo Creek
and South Buffalo Creek. The drainage boundaries within the study limits of these major tributaries are
shown on Figure 4.3.3-1.
Approximately 2.5 miles of the main stem of Beaver Creek flow through the northwest corner of the
Generalized Study Area parallel and north of Reedy Fork. Beaver Creek flows northeast and joins Reedy
Fork north of the Generalized Study Area near S.R. 68. Moores Creek flows northeast and discharges
into Reedy Fork north of the Generalized Study Area just upstream of Pleasant Ridge Road,
approximately 1 mile west of Lake Brandt.
WAPIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_4\S_4.doc 4-37 Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment
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
i
1 7T ' .E
=1 CL
Y I W
v
!0 `
CL ,? m o
°P N S C W ? (1
m O ? ` m v
a o P and Pve. -?-? :E N C
d U. co E
r E ? H a
a o ° G ?? my m A
cn 0 -j Of
a
M.0 PN Nee-'O ued AsJoH ?l N
a 0 W
a cn
toE
LL .5 m U 1 ?AAJ d A / Z O N
44 v ' Oleo/ c \ o?o?
° ? A \ ?v++au ? ? ? r o
0 4 ° N N s M l? o> a c
D a 4? / p a Doaohjr' ; N N y - c
?o
x gta9 N ° o m ;3
c -Z5 3
o G e ??
CIA q N • N r y N c0 ?: 0
yA ° m • /N I ptl esello? Pio N v c N
4s •• N '?` jyn °'cn r m w
'70 cn E 0-
Q•?''04 9o`? 4?m C?mQZ
° / - --- W
+ aO o m a
r
N
?,, ?? W I a n ??a. ° 4 'Pa Sue el` N
-4 N C14
S c • se,00? AAA Q ?(/1? ?r
d?`P
stfo
Py 0-Uo°6a \ N Ea Q
?SAa ?l 4oN
r pip o
? a
01 1,
68 C
dA .
d?
AO
Lj
? ? a a
D
a
o ? ?N
a? 0 0
141
JA?40 • o A ° ?' a
ti ? a A AdA m
i
( West Fork ?
_ ` - Deep River
O
O
7M O
as ri O

m

Q? U)
C
W N
o4
0Z m
N
CY 4)
?m
3?a
r
C
d

O

?Q E
LLJ
c
z 4)
E
Z, 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