EPA 904/9-77-020
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Greensboro-Guilford County, North Carolina
201 Wastewater Treatment System
Technical Reference
Document
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
In Cooperation With The
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural and Economic Resources
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
-------
CONTENTS
Natural Environment
Climate
Air Quality
Noise
Geology
Surface-Water Hydrology
Biology
Man-Made Environment
Engineering Evaluation
Alternatives Environmental Evaluation
-------
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
-------
CLIMATE:
Meteorological Data for Greensboro, North Carolina -
Normals, Means, and Extremes
Freeze Data for the Greensboro Area
Relative Frequency Distribution of Winds During
Winter (December, January, February)
• Relative Frequency Distribution of Winds During
Spring (March, April, May)
Relative Frequency Distribution of Winds During
Summer (June, July, August)
• Relative Frequency Distribution of Winds During
Fall (September, October, November)
• "Extreme Mile" Winds for Various Recurrence
Intervals
Maximum Expected Rainfall Amounts (Inches)
Per Durations for Selected Recurrence Intervals
Inversion Frequencies
Stagnating Anticyclones
Mixing Heights and Transport Winds
-------
METEOROLOGICAL DATA FOR GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA
NORMALS, MEANS, AND EXTREMES
iiTON
- f4lTfftN
_ . ..
TrafriJtMtr
671
47
0
0
0
1*1
51)
not
._. . ... -
Plc< IpUliM
I
I
101
J.JO
4.7*
1.71
1.11
41.16
If
41
.14
.04
.11
.1*
.04
«.61
ll.il
* 60
7.11
6.14
IJ.16
S
1*10
1941
1*41
l«6»
1*47
If
41
I.O4
O.I.
.11
.17
.12
ilv
9.16
1.17
1.1}
1. 11
8
19J6
!*6l'
1*61
1*11
1*1*
1
M
1 =
41
.06
.00
.07
.04
.10
.4}
.47
.4*
.14
.11
.60
7.4*
j
1914
1*11
1*44
|9>6
1*6*
1*44
1*14
1*11
!»«»
!tto». Ur (irltru
1
41
l'.(
I.I
r
O.I
0.0
0.0
O.I
O.I
l.«
• •^
"~
II
4|
11. (
n!i
7
0.0
o.c
U.I
O.I
O.I
O.I
J.I
14. i
11.1
Ii
1*66
1*60
1*66
l»10
1*66
S!
41
14. C
i.e
ll. i
i
0.0
O.I
0.0
0.0
O.I
o.:
l.i
14.;
!«•*
j.
1*40
It60<
1460
1961.
1*66
1*10
OCC.
1*10
01
II
t
It
11
14
• 1
11
:
•3
•
«
»•
til
;• ll
|
1*41.
1*56
1940
1'JI
1*91
1*14
1*60
1*15
1*94
JUL.
>
i
\
^
i
i
41
91
60
61
66
6<
61
64
61
61
14
r *
\ i
« MtlMIt —
> M« IUJA
1
0
r
7
1
1
9
4
1
1
1
1*11 ,«2 9.T
-
WM «a«brf «l Mvt
!MMM.»T
to
A
if
*>
.!i
*• 11
6
1
10
14
11
10
lit
<
•
i
i
110
i
41
II
111
10
11
11
II
*
11
1*
1*1
^
S t
1 1
41
tj.
1
4^41
l» 1
111 •
la) 3
10 o
II 0
U
ii
6
7
1
«
111
g
0
0
t
«
«
i
1
4,
J >
tl 1
1
1
*
•
41
*l|
r*|ir«
j 3
°i *
•] i
n «
1 8
1 0
< (
C 0
« •
K( 1
*.
1|
Jl
6l 6
ll! J
llj 0
III 0
Ii 0
0| 0
•i '
0
0
0
I
1C
II
(*J
s *
i .
M
16
110
27)
111
111
146
« 116
3 476
01 40*
Oj 111
J 141
al i»>
J
4 in
H**n* and eMtrenet Above are froa eMiscing «nd comparable exposure*. Annual •mr««r« have been exceeded.*! other Bites In the locality *• follow*:
Highest temperature 102 la July 19*fc*; lowest temperature -7 in January 1940. .
he* motttM *»sy »• tor Mara M '*»** years U pscClpHiO.*. I»clw4lit« MM.***!!, to liwiMbi wlwt a>u »««. M N.rik. «,lua MM ll OH MCMf kM W
«*d> «i«ur« t» UM «M«»«r «f o6M«««ibMw. U flfuM* «w»»r to IM */WIM«
t Ate* MI vsrlwr 4*1**, mvMfei. *r.y«»r». "kr |4lk-i»" i*4.li*4c* •»!!* «r*l*« ul dt («i*ni» «pdji»rticba cw«»l»ita^ ut MIWW prlbi* «-iw*b*d
T Trsc*, *• *«MMM KM. Mi*ll w •M.M.r*. |« » IMA Ur«i «rf u«. rte»«v tec r«;*«.«• vtvlMllcy to 1/4 mil* or !*••»
ftrtov i*r0icnp*rM»r*»s«* u*c*a>4 by •«!•«• •!««.
TIM pr«»*Uli« Mrrcito* for «ln* la it- Nomsl*. Sky «o»«r U «»(*«••*« M • r»«t« of Otor «a ck*wiu wr obMui^la« fMMMrM,t» lOfurjcumptot* Uy
I Sit-
I To 0. Cu
only.
Source: NA-166
-------
FREEZE THRESHOLD
TEMPERATURE
32°F
28°F
24°F
20°F
16°F
FREEZE DATA FOR THE
MEAtf DATE OF
LAST SPRING
OCCURRENCE
04/09
03/26
03/09
02/26
02/09
*This set of data, taken from nearby Winston
the Greensboro-High Point -Wins ton Salem Area
Source: NA-166
GREENSBORO AREA*
MEAN DATE OF
FIRST FALL
OCCURRENCE
10/29
11/09
11/21
12/06
12/15
MEAN NUMBER OF
DAYS BETWEEN
DATES
203
229
257
283
310
Salem, is representative of
-------
RELATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WINDS DURING WINTER (DECEMBER. JANUARY. FEBRUARY)
OJF RELATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION *
DIRECTION 4 - 3 4-6
V .a«BH«9 .025094
•WE .017/.45 .«3513^
NE .a09v>5d ,02Jrt5{>
ENE .0«67t>3 ,010972
£ .34741!) ,0a3
SSc ,!M7i/!93 .01375U
S ,011179 .03652H
SS8
,004503
,001250
,002500
,009533
.021B06
,051389
,025278
,016944
.030278
,018750
,019028
,019167
.317083
,005139
,0240?U
,007500
.«M»|IH
.0^>.00
.000270
.000556
,002501*
.007917
.022083
.012083
.008194
.020556
.020833
,011528
,007778
.152083
STATION "GREENSBORO, N.C. 6
17 - 21 GREATER THAN 21
,000900
,001806
.000333
.3*0*00
.000000
.000000
.000000
,000139
.008139
.901528
.001111
.000139
.003333
.002639
. 001111
.000276
.013056
.000000
.000139
,000000
,000008
.000(400
,000000.
.000000
,000004
,000008
,000556
,800139
,000008
,00^417
,000556
,080008
,000008
,081806
TOTAL
.A61528
.125795
.061(902
.825394
.821721
,008938
.011084
.033269
.077368
,161396
,079001
• ,053868
,097812
,064701
.861318
.036536
TOTAL RELATIVE FREQUENCY OF OBSERVATIONS • 1.
TOTAL RELATIVE FREQUENCY OF CAL1S DISTRIBUTED ABOVE • .051806
*To calculate the relative frequency distribution in percent, multiply the numbers in
the table by 100%.
Source: NA-274
-------
RELATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WINDS DURING SPRING (MARCH. APRIL. MAY)
H A'-l
DIRECTION o - 3
N . a in g v. « y
S N E . 0 M 9 7 S 6
NE • .a*? 434
E".E .086131
E ,008169
• ESE. .a*»sa77
SE .0*3698
C C ff 1 l ^ 1 1 ft
dOC t<>6/3/&
S .013989
SSri .7llS7fl:>
Sri .011417
MS* .0/8674
4 . 0 1 1 2 a 4
rfNrf .005473
Nrf .00743M
NNrf .006271
TOTAL ,137r.92
RELATIVE FWEOUEMCY DISTRIBUTION*
4-b 7-1 w 11 - .16 17-21
,/26.tf>ii ,0l»!)6b ,OHB2Bd .Ok40272
,P27!Jiig ,035734 .016168 ,OtJ0272
,015697 .018478 .0^386 .0^0136
.OI-S74 ,012&0H ,^2/17 .000300
.017391 .O08B32 ,00»ft79 .0110400
,010326 .004340 ,01)0272 ,000il00
,01257)0 ,0vt6ll4 .001495 , OMPJ00
,021623 ,016948 ,0^366B ,000408
.0557*17 ,043614 .01644W .000315
,051i»B7 ,030995 ,026495 ,001223
,028261 ,025000 ,013839 ,000543
,01644k) .019158 .010734 .000543
,022(126 ,030042 ,023490 ,002717
.013395 ,013723 ,014538 ,001223
.014266 ,014810 .009103 ,00ttl36
.02P924 .014402 ,006250 .000408
.370244 .322962 ,160190 ,008696
STATION
GREATER THAN
.000000
,000136
,000000
,040000
,000000
,000900
,00000(4
,000000,
,020000
,000400
,000136
,000136
,000000
.0*0408
,030000
,000000
,000815
"GKEENSBORO, N,C, 6
21 TOTAL
.063493
.090055
.048331
,036022
.035071
,020223
.023807
.049902
,130565
.133584
.079215
.055685
.0906A8
.049359
.045745
.046254
TOTAL RELATIVE FREQUENCY OF OiSERVAIIONS • 1
TOTAL RELATIVE FREQUENCY OF CALMS DISTRIBUTED ABOVE • ,043478
*To calculate the relative frequency distribution in percent, multiply the numbers in
the table by 100%.
Source: NA-274
-------
RELATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WINDS DURING SUMMER ( JUNE, JULY, AUGUST)
JJA
DIRECT I :
'<£
E'lE
g
ESE
SSE
S
S.5-J
S«
TOTAL
,«I3754
.flJ 3-17/
. -M 21'
.2O342
4-6
.MJ875H
.P2^272
TOTAL ȣLATIWE FiltOOENCV (IF
F*EUUE*CV DISTRIBUTION*
STATION -GREENSBORO, N.C, 65-74
SPEEKKTS)
7 - |
. 910734
.HM76M9
.(^24449
.007337
.2S9914
H - 1*>
.^12?3
. C /) ft 7 9 3
. W |>) S l fi 3
.P4t359
.•MI.SS9
.MB1S6
.0«09M
.00.766
.004348
.003B04
.042989
,002853
,043125
.0019912
.000815
.001495
.040&B1
17 - 21 (if
.«»**».<
, 030136
.M00136
.000404
.000*™
.HH0300
.0M0/.00
.00W400
.000136
.000»*0
.0U0136
.0130136
.«0«0*I0
.00H272
,000090
,000272
,001223
JEATEK THAN 21
,0V)00«0
,000000
.000000
.000000
.000000
.0*0000
,090*00
.000004
.000000
,000000
,000000
.0U0000
.000136
.000000
.000000
.000000
,00(5136
TOTAL
.063911
,096506
,063023
.050167
.041384
.024532
.03*943
.063756
.125210
.121616
.087420
.057707
.057197
.031071
.033688
.046859
• 1.300000
TOTAL RELATIVE FRLQUENCV or C*LMS DISTRIBUTER ABOVE • .077453
*To calculate the relative frequency distribution in percent, multiply the numbers in
the table by 100%.
Source: NA-274
-------
RELATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WINDS DURING FALL (SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER. NOVEMBER)
DIRECTION
NE
ENE
E
.ESE
St
SSE
S
SSrf
AS*
H4
NNrt
TOTAL
SON HEUATIVE FHEUUENCY DISTRIBUTION*
0-3 4-6 7-10 11. - 16 17-21
utn^lKi 1 1 • i K c Y Y i * * ?> -* <* . *
, *7l»nr»^ . , ''..» >~// , ^1"368 , 0Y|4J!?1 . ft MO 00 M
« 81 2 !? 7 4 l .(*H-*>bll .M21841 .ftHS731 "1110137
,>!»a8773 .Ol5a34 .010(127 .(4.41236 . 0H0rttf0
,ai«)33M ,lrt^H/)49 .016484 ,0»J467H .000137
,«3245d .Ot)467k» ,02«434 ,«HH929 .0HMS49
.H1Q250 .024313 ,0173^0 .00S357 ,000549
,01?K'a9 ,017170 ,014286 , (1143994 ,00v1W9l0
.017947 ,1*21978 .018819 .010714 . 000275
.010170 ,012912 .012912 ,0rt«73l ,000U24
.BM8767 , 025*330 ,013736 ,00Skl82 ,000137
.013034 ,023214 .018132 ,004533 .000137
.257967 .394505 .263598 ,Md«632 .002883
STATION •GWEENSaoRO, M.C. 6
GREATER THAN 21 TOTAL
. naatfVtf ,078918
.IrMMUOfr .150313
,000^(^0 .077961
,^^1(1(100 ,046198
.,0»i.ci000 .037338
,0vt0000 .016275
.000000 .018313
T 9 * * -^ •» » •»
,0JI0000 ,035971
•
,000000 .078671
,000000 .125238
,0«)Q000 ,866777
,000000 .947528
w V'vv
,000137 ,069774
,000275 ,343824
.000(000 ,048852
,000000 .059351
,000412
TOTAL RELATIVE FREQUENCY OF OBSERVATIONS
• 1.M00000
TOTAL RELATIVE FREQUENCY OF CALMS DISTRIBUTED ABOVE • .101099
*To calculate the relative frequency distribution in percent, multiply the numbers in
the table by 100%.
Source: NA-274
-------
"EXTREME MILE" WINDS FOR VARIOUS RECURRENCE INTERVALS
MEAN RECURRENCE INTERVAL (YEARS) "EXTREME MILE" WIND (mph)
2
10
25
50
100
50
60
66
74
80
Source: TH-079
EXAMPLE: Sustained winds of 60 mph have a mean recurrence interval of
ten years in the Greensboro area.
MAXIHJM EXPECTED RAINFALL AMOUNTS (INCHES)
PER DURATIONS FOR SELECTED RECURRENCE INTERVALS
•N. RAINFALL
>v RECURRENCE
XV INTERVAL
\. (YEARS)
RAINFALL ^S.
DURATION X.
(HOURS) \v
1/2
1
.2
3
6
12
24
12 5 10 25 50 100
1.1 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.4 2.8
1.3 1.6 2.1 2.4 2.8 3.1 3.4
1.6 2.0 2.5 2.9 3.3 3.8 4.2
1.8 2.2 2.8 3.2 3.7 4.2 4.6
2.1 2.6 3.3 3.7 4.4 * 4.9 5.5
2.6 3.1 3.8 4.5 5.1 5.8 6.5
2.8 3.5 4.5 5.2 5.9 6.5 7.5
Source: HE-163
EXAMPLE: A 24-hour rainfall of 7.5 inches may be expected once every
100 years.
-------
Inversion Frequencies
On an annual basis, the low-level inversion frequency in
the Greensboro area is about 37 percent (percentage of total hours)
The highest inversion frequency during the year, 43 percent, occurs
during winter, primarily due to the higher incidence of radiation
inversions created during early morning periods of clear skies and
light transport winds. Low-level inversion frequencies during sum-
mer, spring, and fall are 33 percent, 32 percent, and 40 percent,
respectively (HO-123).
Stagnating Anticyclones
Atmospheric dispersion conditions are especially poor
when the area experiences stagnating anticyclones ("stagnating an-
ticyclones" create stagnation conditions for four or more days).
The Greensboro area experiences, on the average, two stagnating
anticyclones each year (CL-093).
Mixing Heights and Transport Winds
Dispersion conditions in the Greensboro area are presen-
ted below. On a seasonal basis, morning mixing heights are lowest
during the fall due to the greater incidence of clear morning skies
which enhance the formation of radiation inversions. Throughtout
the year, mixing heights are higher in the afternoon than in the
morning due to diurnal heating and higher wind speeds, both of
which result in mixing through a greater depth of the atmosphere.
On a seasonal basis, afternoon mixing heights are greatest in sum-
mer months, primarily because maximum diurnal heating occurs during
the summer months.
-------
AIR QUALITY:
• Air Quality Control Regions in North Carolina
• Dispersion Conditions in the Greensboro Area
• Annual Stability Class Distribution
• Ambient Concentration Limits for AQCR Priorities
• National Ambient Air Quality Standards
• 1975 Total Suspended Particulate Emissions
for Guilford County - Area Sources
-------
EASTERN
MOUNTAIN
INTRASTATE
NORTHERN
PIEDMONT
INTRASTATE
EASTERN
PIEDMONT
INTRASTATE
NORTHERN
COASTAL
PLAIN
INTRASTATE
WESTERN
MOUNTAIN
INTRASTATE
METROPOLITAN
CHARLOTTE
INTERSTATE
(NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLINA)
SANDHILLS
INTRASTATE
SOUTHERN
COASTAL
PLAIN
INTRASTATE
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGIONS IN NORTH CAROLINA
-------
DISPERSION CONDITIONS IN THE GREENSBORO AREA
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Annual
Mixing Height
(meters)
Morning
470
480
450
340
430
Afternoon
980
1700
1700
1300
1500
Wind Speed
(meters /second)
Morning
6.0
5.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Afternoon
7.0
7.5
5.5
6.0
6.5
Ventilation*
(meters 2/second)
Morning
2820
2640
1800
1530
2150
Afternoon
6860
12750
9350
7800
9750
*Ventilation equals mixing depth times wind speed.
Source: HO-049
Annual Stability Class Distribution
The Pasquill stability class distributions are shown
below. The stability classes are listed in order of increasing
stability. Classes "A," "B," and "C" are unstable, class "D^'
is neutral (daytime), class "D2" is neutral (nighttime), and
class "E+F" is stable. The stable class "E+F" has the greatest
frequency of occurrence and is most applicable to the nighttime
atmosphere. The neutral classes "Dj" and "D2" also have high
frequencies of occurrence. The unstable classes, particularly
classes "A" and "B," have relatively low frequencies of occurrence
A »
B =
C =•
DI.-
D2 =
E+F =»
0.81%
7 . 44%
12 . 857,
21.957.
18.547.
38.417.
-------
AMBIENT CONCENTRATION LIMITS* FOR AQCR PRIORITIES
POLLUTANT
Patticulace Kaccer
Annual geometric oean
24-hour maximum
Sulfur Dioxide
Annual arithmetic mean
24-hour maximum
3-hour maxinua
Carbon Monoxide
8-hour maximum
1-hour naxinun
Photochemical oxidancs
1-hour maximum
Nitrogen Dioxide
Annual arithmetic -ean
I
>95
:-325
>100(0.04)
>455(0.17)
>14 ,000(12)
>5S, 000(48)
• >195(0.10)
>110(0.06)
PRIORITY
•11
60-95
150-323
60 •- 100 -(0.02 - 0.0<
260 - 455 (0.10 - O.i;
>1, 300 (0.50)
III
<60
<150
0 <60(0.02)
r) <260(0.10)
<1, 300(0. SO)
<14, 000(12)
<55. 000(48)
<195(0.10)
<110(0.06)
•Expressed in aicrograos per cubic aecer (?pm)
Source: CO-182
NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Particulate Matter
Annual geometric mean
Maximum 24-hourtt
Sulfur Dioxide
Annual .arithmetic mean
Maximum 24-hourtt
Maximum 3-hourft
Carbon Monoxide :
Mft-if-tiiiiim 8-hourtt
Maximum 1-hourtt
Photochemical Oxidants
Maximum 1-hourtt
Hydrocarbons (non-methane)
Maximum 3-hour (6 to 9am)ft
Nitrogen Dioxide
Annual arithmetic mean
Primary
Ug/m3 (ppm)
75
260
80 (0.03)
365 (0.14)
10,000 (9)
40,000 (35)
160 (0.08)
160 (0.24)ttt
100 (0.05)
Secondary
Ug/m1 (ppn)
60t
150
1,300 (0.5)
10,000 (9)
40,000 (35)
160 (0.08)
160 (0.24)ttt
100 (0.05)
tA guide to be used in assessing implementation plans to achieve the
24-hour standard.
t+Not be exceeded more than once per year.
guide in devising implemention plans to achieve oxidant standards
Source: CO-182
-------
1975 TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
FOR GUILFORD COUNTY - AREA SOURCES
I. Fuel Combustion-Stationary
Residential
Commercial/Institutional
Industrial
Total
II. Process Losses
III. Solid Waste Disposal
Open Burning
Incineration
Total
Emissions (tons per year)
373
37
80
490
125
78
13
91
IV. Fuel Combustion-Mobile
Vehicles
Farm Tractors
Railroads
Small Gas Engines
Diesel Engines
Vessels
Aircraft
Total
V. Dust Sources
Paved Roads
Unpaved Roads
Agricultural Tilling
Construction Sites
Total
VI. Miscellaneous
Forest Fires
Structural Fires
Total
Grand Total
11,879
22,420
153
110
34,562
0
22
22
36,611
Source: EN-485
-------
NOISE:
Sound Levels
Measured Sound Pressure Levels at North Buffalo
Sewage Treatment Plant
Measured Sound Pressure Levels at South Buffalo
Sewage Treatment Plant
-------
Sound Levels
Sound levels are measured in units of dBA (decibels oh
Che A-scale). The A weighting network approximates the frequency
response of the human ear, so sound levels in dBA units are closely
related to annoyance and hearing damage. Approximate noise levels
for some common situations are listed below:
25-35 dBA Quiet rural
40 dBA Quiet urban, daytime
45 dBA Bird calls
55 dBA Air conditioning condenser
at 15 feet
65 dBA Electric typewriter at
10 feet
70 dBA 50 feet from freeway or TV
audio
80 dBA Garbage disposal unit . :
35 dBA Power motor at 25 feet.
The Environmental Protection Agency recommends the use
of L, ("the day-night average sound level") to measure noise levels
in residential communities. Nighttime sound levels are weighted
by a factor of 10 to account for the greater annoyance of noise
occurring between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. EPA recommends that L, .be
less than 55 dB in residential areas to control outdoor activity
and interference (EN-108) . The expected community response to the
day-night average noise level is known:
L, = 55-60 dB Little or no reaction
dn
60-65 dB Sporadic complaints
65-70 dB Widespread complaints and
threats of legal action
>70 dB Vigorous community reaction
-------
The sound level measurements for the Worth Buffalo
sewage treatment plant show that no community reaction to plant
noise is expected. Tall trees, dense vegetation, and land con-
tours are responsible for effective attenuation of the plant
noise.
The sound level measurements for the South Buffalo sew-
age treatment plant also indicate that no adverse community re-
sponse to plant noise should occur. Although houses are located
800 feet to the west and north of the plant, the quietness of the
plant and dense vegetation which attenuates acoustic waves causes
negligible plant noise levels in the residential areas. Just 250
feet outside the plant boundary fence, the noise levels are suf-
ficiently low that no complaints would be expected.
-------
0 500
SCALE (FEET)
MEASURED SOUND PRESSURE LEVELS AT NORTH
BUFFALO SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
-------
0 900
SCALE (FEET)
MEASURED SOUND LEVELS AT SOUTH BUFFALO
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
-------
GEOLOGY:
• Topography
• Simplified Geologic Map of Guilford County
• Geologic Map Unit Descriptions
• Physical Properties of Soil Series in Guilford County
-------
Topography
Inasmuch as it is a peneplain surface, the Piedmont ~
Plateau does not generally reflect the geologic structure of the
substrate. However, where dissection of the plateau has occurred,
stream orientations are controlled by varying resistance of the
bedrock. In Guilford County the tributaries of Haw River have
a strong northeast orientation that is apparently caused by the
northeast structural grain of the bedorck, although the locations
of the streams have not been related to specific geologic features
The drainage system of Deep River appears to cut southeastward
across the geologic grain without being affected by varying ero-
sional resistances in the bedrock.
-------
ROCKINQHAM CO.
-------
ROCK1NGHAM CO.
SIMPLIFIED
GEOLOGIC
MAP OF
GUILFORD
COUNTY
LEGEND:
FLOOOPLAIN
ALLUVIUM
ALLUVIAL TVNRACE
MIXED amuses
t SCHiaia
MUSCOVITE BIOTITE
scutaT
SIOTTO
ORANODIORrri
DIORITE
OAI8RO
MAFIC TUFF
FBLJIC CRY»TAL
• lOTITi
SHEAMMO
COMTACT.
AFFHOXHMTI
tOUUCI: NORTH
CAROLINA MPT. OF
KATUHAL » ICOWOMK
-------
CIOLOCIC mf OMIT otscurTTow
Pgd
S*dla*ntarr tocka
ribodplain Alluvlua - Unconaolldated sedlstonts of varying
thickness, consisting primarily of dark-brown co gray
•lit. Mad and clay with sou gravels and coarse boulders
occasionally intermixed. The floodplalna Include ehoM
sreee chat ara subject co frequent floodtog.
Terrace (Alluvial) - Ta; unconsolldated stress) deposit
conalating primarily of sand-else partlclaa In a matrix
of finer •and end allt. Tb; uncoftaolldated street de-
posit consisting of large angular fragM&ts of quarts
In a rad matrix of fin* •and. silt and clay.
Metaaorphic Rock*
Mixed gneisses *nd schists - Medlua-to coarse-grained
rock*, coesualy with distinct layering and baddlnt
foliation. Moat of tha ga*lsees ara blotlta gneisse*
composed of feldspsr. quartz, blotlta and vuacovlte.
Minor hornblende gneisses conalat prlaarily of hnrn-
blanda and faldapar. Tha schlata ara auaeovlta-
blotlta achlata coaulniag imucovlt* and blotlta with
quarti and faldapar. Garnat U praaaat In >o«a
•chlats. Tha«a gnalaaaa and schlata uaually waachar
to light co dark rad* landy. clayey soils.
Muscovlta and bioctca schtscs - Coaraa^gralnad,
schlatoaa rocka contalalni auiaeovlta and bloclta with
quarts and faldapar. Garnata are also present.
Intrusive tocka
Porphyrltlc blotlta granodlortte - White to gray,
oediua-co coarse-fralned rock co«pose4 of phenocryata
of ulcroclins In a groundsels of quarts, feldspar and
blotlte. The rock shows a distinct foliation In aany
places but nay also be •aealva. Soil* developed fro*
che rock ara white to gray co light red and are sandy.
In places, phenocrysts are absent.
Dtottet * Oerk colored, aedtusr-grained rock oovposed
ot pVegioolaae faldapar and hornblende with ntnor
quarts, tc U usually •easlve bur in places Is
shesred and schistose. The dlorite bodies range in
size frooi narrow dikes to Irregular-shaped bodies up
co several alias across. Soste sreaa stepped as dlo-
rite also contain biotlta graaodlorlta but were
mapped as such becauae of che predominance of diorlte.
Soils developed frtm the diorites are light to dark
red to brown and ara clayey.
Gabbro - Dark-colored, •edlua-grained rock, composed
of plagioclaae feldspar, hornblende and pyroxene.
The gabbro differs from cha dlorite by having a
higher percentage of hornblende and pyroxene. The
gabbro Is usually Incaruixed with the diorice and
does not fora Large bodies by itself.
bgd
Volcanic Rocka
Mafic Tuft - Medluer^raylah-green to darh-graea to
black rocka at andesitlc to baealtlc coeaiosltlon.
They ere usually dene* to fin* trained and have a
well developed cleaves*. Vary faint beddlog was
observed In SOSM of the cuffe but others are •«-
treeMly sheared. To* tuff* weather to e dark-red.
clayey soil.
felslc crystal tuff - Dene* to Mdluer-graioed
; crys
a* tic
pyrocla*tic rocka exhibiting subcoochoidal to con-
choldal fracture. The rock* consist of subhadral to
euhedral feldspar crystals ia a dark-to *sdiu«-gray
iphanitic grouadB***. The irnisiikeiis coa*lats
chisfly of quarts, fsldspar, eerielte and alnor
•Ineral*.
Beddlog was noted In aoa* of the rocka and SOSM
.portion* of th* felslc cryetal tu/f unit stay contain
rhyolita flow*. The tuffs weather to light-to dark*
red, clayey soils.
Blocice gr»m*UorUe - Light-colored, *edlu*-co coars*-
frained ruck cocposed of vsrylag saounts of quarts,
plagioclaa* feldspar, potaaaluai feldspar and bio tit*.
The rock* are cnesiiinly easslve but b*c*SM aore strongly
foliated to th* west, particularly along the contact with
porptiyrltlc granite. In aoay places the blotlte graao-
diorite la sheared and usually contains *eoy nerrow.
dark-green to black staflc dike*. Th* biotlts graaodlorlt*
la aloo*t always deeply weathered, leaving a Ughc-gray to
white, sandy well drained soil.
-------
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF SOIL SERIES IN GUILFORD COUNTY
s*rra TO
•AT UMPCK
SVMML (111
M4. 34£. 1-20
looci'
114. UC. >1
U4. M. funnily
2142. 11C2 >1)
4) i-11
Ml
1)0. IK. >1
2442. 24C2. !• »IA*M
44 . »2O
HMO. M4C *
5044. 14. <•
10*02. 90VC2. >10
its. )K 4-li
1MMJ 4-12
U44-*. >4
2344J-U fn»n.l,
>10
SOW. ttftC. H
144 ' no "'
114. SK. • 4-12
*». in
• >4
421 ' »
>W
•KM*. • couosivin am*
• • rtmmt HunuL STCCL cmctcn (u>
rack*. lAclwtUw*
•cfclMf (tul««, ._ u
•W AMU*
***** ) U)
io-n
— — ••- —• -
14-14
4-14
r^-sr "'* ••'""•
4M*«* 4.J,,
•!••« *r!4l« Oltft Low 4-1
""•"" ^
£.?£{;..' *•"*" »"•
4*-«0
s^^Jii'il! l" >-»
«»c»( twai*. _ f_^
JO-*4
h0***1*"* •**'•• ..j.
*"**
SSiStli*.. "* S^'i' **
"* •"*• »-<•
4»4O
•"— ' "* . i=.r..
4-44
40-14
ncW
10-44
Lll)ll» HASTlCin
CLASSiriCATiOH nm? IMMEX
uafiTt —
Ml
SM.M..
Ml
MI.CH.
0.,M, .
M..MI
14. .SM
M..M.-CL
SII.M..
Cl
M-.a-
CL.CL-ML.
S£, SH'SC
M..NI
sn.sc
01 .Ml
CL.ai. •
SN.SC
SM
a.
ai
SM
M..SH
CH.tOi
•c.a
»c
».a.
MI.OI
SM
K-CL*
MI.M.-OI.
a. '
ML at
SM
*,**.
SC
.-•-• ;
»r"
M.f»-SC*
ct.ai.Mi.
M.
. M..CL-W..
r.-l, • «f-.'» MT-l
•1. I.I
C. SC 4O-M 21-20
•ci. cl. 42-14 ar-u
• I
1
c 40-40 14-»
«l. 1 4>-M Mt-14
(•i. i. 14-4* ar-n
•11
• 11. 1. 1O-JO 4-11
• Ivl
l Mr MT
1 10-4) 2-14
•cl. 10-H 1-11
cl. 1
C 41-4O 12-21
l»i. •! - - m»
t ' 11-41 21-41
cl KP-44 K»-il
•1. 1*1 14-11 MT-1
•Cl. cl 11-41 2V-10
c. *c M-4* 21-40
• 1 11-U 10-20
• 1 0-20 0-10
C 10-41 li-ii
1 40-M tS-40
. «i io-n 1-10
«it«l 21-34 4-4
c (a ci 12-14 2?-U
•1 41-M 4-11
1. •»!. 2O-4O S-ll
•1 "
c 41-70 lV»
... I 41-14 *-»
cwl. «1. - - ~ mr
(•I
c. •« 44-40 l*-*4
1. *cl. ' 41-14 »-n
U
W, 1. 14-S4 14-U
4*1
1. Ml M-*» 11-14
•• - - »
•». 1 . » <44 M>-L4
S4B1M-
MU. . . PUMUBlim
MnantAL (t»./hr.)
L«w 1.0-4.)
•»«•(•<• 0. 41-2.0
•aricrM* 0.41-2.0
La* 1.0-4.)
Itodtr.t. 0.41-1.O
Ho«.(.t« 0.41-1.0
Uw 0.4>-2.0
L«. 0.4V2.0
Low 0.41-4.1
Low 0.41-1.0
Low 0.4-2.0
Ldw 0.4-2.0
Low 1.0-4. )
tltfi 0.04-4. U
M»4*iM* 0.04-4.20
1^. 1.4-4.1
)tod*«*fi-lllCk 4.20-0.4)
•t«b '0.1
Low 1.0-4.1
«*cy High 0.44-0.10
«*k 4.04-4.4)
LM 0.41-2.4
LM >4.1
•>««tM* 0.4K2.0
I— 0.41-1.0
Low 4. 41-1. 0
•»4*nt. 4.04-O.24
0.1-4.4)
Uw 2.4-4.1
MHimi * 4.04-4.24
>MMO«* 4.44-4.24
• tM l.*^.>
CM 0.4V2.0
L*w 1.4-4.)
U» 1.0-4.4
M«trM« 4.1-4.4
Uw 4.4-1.4
U4TU
CAMCITf
(U./U.)
4.11-4.11
4.11-4.14
4.11-0.14
O.I2-O.14
4.11-4.1)
0.11-4.11
0.11-0.11
0.11-4.1*
0.11-4.11
4.12-0.1)
0.12-4.14
0.11-4.14
0.11-4.1)
0.11-0.11
0.1 1-0. 11
0.10-4.11
0.11-4.1)
4.D-O.1S
0.10-0.1)
o.ir-o.i)
4.14-4.2O
4,14-0.11
0.12-4.14
O.U-4.12 .
4.14-0.1*
4.11-4.14
O.U-4.1*
4.10-4. U
0.12-4.14
4.U-0.14
,.M.»
4.14-4.14
4.14-4.14
4.1I-4.U
4.114.14
444-4. U
•Bucrtor
4.1-1.)
4.1-1.1
4.1-1.1
4.1-4.4
4.1-1.1
4.1-1.1
1.1-4.0
1.1-4.9
1.0-4.0
1.0-4.1
1.4-1.1
1.4-1.)
4.1-4.1
4.4-1.)
4.1-4.0
4.1-1.1
*•»-»•»
1.1-4.)
4.1-1.)
4.1-7.)
4.4-4.4
1.1-4.0
1.1-1.)
1.1-1.1
1.4*4.1
1.4-4.1
1.4-7.1
4.1-4.4
4.1-1.1
J.4-*,l
». 4-4.1
1.1-4.)
4.1-1.4
>1 !•.
I4O
44-100
•1-100
100
--
•4-14B
--
0-1 •0-100
0-1 *1-IQO
MO
MO
UO
toa
- - I)- 100
M-14P
140
•4-100
•1-10D
•1-404
•J-144
- 4?-M4
•B-LOO
•1-140
" - - V4-U4
•0-100
UO
n-44
.-
104
- - UO
n-UM
4-14 «4-140
.-« 4>-«0
ruovr
ranw
14
44-*'.
44-100
•4-140
40-100
•1-100
••-100
tl-lOO
•1-100
too
too
too
•0-100
•0-140
MO.
100
140
•4-100
•1-100
H-10O
40-M
•VU4
n-toa
M-W4
140
too
40-100
U-100
•4-100
•4-44
140
144
•4-100
H-iOff
M-14O
•0-iOO
4D-MO
44-IOB
O 1*.
lint MI.
40
JO-M
f>-44
4>-M
14-100
«-„
K««
M-IM
10-100
M-100
«...
•0-M
rt-41
•o-too
•0-100
11-44
1O-M
ii-n
10-tl
•vn
O-M
M-W
41 -»0
14-M
4&-100
•7-n
44- n
40-«)
.1-4.
M-W
40 -«
»-"
no
u-u-
u-n
u-»
M-4I
«4-tl
41-11
J.VM
«-»
10-M
je-w
,4-»
41-W
JO- 10
30-40
21-44
14-F4
4B-42
40-M
tft-»
44-14
U-4*
41-T1
40-M
21-U
4*-41
44-44
fO-41
14-44
M-A4
21-«
1O-40
IV44
-------
Soils
the general soil map reflects the northeast structural
grain of the geologic substrate in that the two principal associa-
tions of the county (Enon-Mecklenburg and Cecil-Madison) are sep-
arated by a northeast-oriented boundary. This boundary apparently
does not follow any clearly mappable geologic boundary in the
county, but the northwestern half of the county, which is under-
lain by one type of granodiorite, has chiefly ultisols (Cecil-
Madison and Madison-Cecil), whereas the southeastern half, which
has another type of granodiorite bedrock, has mostly alfisols (Enon-
Mecklenburg). The Wilkes-Enon and Appling-Vance-Helena associa-
tions are apparently randomly distributed throughout the county.
Two areas of the Coronaca-Mecklenburg association are in the north-
east and northwest part of the county and may be associated in
part with the bedrock of volcanic origin. As expected, the Chew-
acla-Wedhadkee-Congaree alluvial association is found along parts
of the major streams of the county, including Haw River, Mears
Fork, the two headwater streams of Reedy Fork Creek, and North
and South Buffalo Creeks.
-------
ROCKINGHAM co.
GENERAL SOIL MAP
OF QUILFORD COUNTY
LEGEND
{S;| CECIL- MADISON
MADI8ON-CICIL
MECKLENBURQ
WILKE8-ENON
CORONACA-
MECKLEN8UMQ
I APPLINO-VANC
I HELENA
I CMEWACLA-
IWEHADKEE-
CONOMREE
-------
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY:
Surface Water Hydrology
Physiographic Provinces
Mean Annual Precipitation (Inches)
Average Annual Runoff (Inches)
Physicochemical Characteristics of Lake Townsend
May, 1972 at the Raw Water Intake
Physicochemical Characteristics of Lake Townsend
February, 1974 at the Raw Water Intake
Physicochemical Characteristics of Lake Brandt
June, 1973 at the Raw Water Intake.
• Stratification Characteristics of Lake Brandt
Water Quality Modeling on Receiving Streams
for Allocating Waste Loads
-------
Surface-Water Hydrology
All of Guilford County, with the exception of the ex-
treme northwest and southwest corners, is located within the Cape
Fear River Basin. The name Cape Fear applies to the stream formed
at the confluence of the Haw and Deep River, both of which origin-
ate near the west boundary of Guilford County. The Cape Fear
River drains approximately 8,500 square miles of east-central
North Carolina. The Cape Fear basin has an average width of
about 50 miles and length close to 190 miles. Basin elevations
range from 1,000 feet above mean sea level (msl) at the river's
headwaters in the hilly Piedmont Province to sea level where the
river empties into the Atlantic Ocean after crossing the flatter
Coastal Plain. Rainfall in the basin generally increases from
west to east. The^average annual total near the headwaters is
44 inches, and at the coast it is 52 inches. The percentage of
this rainfall that goes to runoff also increases from west to
east with minor variations throughout the basin. If an average
annual value of 48 inches of rainfall is assumed for the entire
basin, then the percentage of rainfall that goes to runoff can
be determined. Records of the U.S. Geological Survey show that
near its mouth, the Cape Fear River discharges about 31 percent
or 15 inches of the 48-inch long-term yearly average rainfall.
-------
20 0 20 40 60
PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES
44
76.
68
20 0 20 40 60
MEAN ANNUAL PRECIPITATION (INCHES)
52
20 0 20 40 60
AVERAGE ANNUAL RUNOFF (INCHES)
-------
PHYSICOCHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS
OF LAKE TOWNS END
MAY, 1972 AT THE RAW. WATER INTAKE
(mg/1 unless otherwise noted)
Depth
Ft.
Sur.
4
3
12
16
20
Source:
Temp.
°F.
66
64
63
63
60
58
BR-358
-Ek
7.9
7.6
7.6
7.3
7.3
7.2
Tur-
bidity
9
12
11
9
11
7
Alka-
linity
24
28
24
26
30
34
C02
3
3
3
4
6
6
.Fe
0.08
0.08
0.1
0.2
0.16
0.14
D.O.
7.5
5.5
5.5
4.5
3.0
1.5
Ma
0.02
0.01
0.0
0.20
0.09
1.57
Hard-
ness
32
32
30
26
30
30
PHYSICOCHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS
OF LAKE TOWNSEND
FEBRUARY, 1974 AT THE RAW WATER INTAKE
(mg/1 unless
Depth
Ft.
Sur.
' 4
8
12
16
20
Source:
Temp.
°F
50 .
49
48
48
46
44
BR-358
J2
7.
7.
7.
6.
6.
6.
H
1
1
0
9
7
7
Tur-
bidity
35
38
38
39
45
88
otherwise noted)
Alka-
linity.
22
22
20
22
20
18
CO?
6
6
6
8
8
8
Fe
1.02
0.87
0.70
1.10
1.09
2.10
Cu.
0.05.
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.0
0.0
Mn
0
0
0
0
0
0
.12
.07
.06
.04
.04
.62
Hard- ;
ness
34
34
32
33
32
30
-------
PHYSICOCHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF LAKE BRANDT
JUNE, 1973 AT THE RAW WATER INTAKE
(mg/1 unless otherwise noted)
Depth
Ft.
Sur.
4
8
12
16
20
Source:
Temp.
°F
79
79
78
74
70
70
BR-358
21
8.2
8.3
6.8
6.8
6.9
7.0
Tur-
bidlty
30
38
58
100
140
120
Alka-
linlty
40
40
40
40
48
42
C02
0.0
4.0
6.0
6.0
8.0
8,0
Fe
0.06
0.08
1.22
3.09
4.0
4.8
D.O.
9.3
9.0
3.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ma
0.03
0.03
0.10
1.44
1.41
0.3
Hard-
ness
36
60
62
44
66
62
STRATIFICATION
Depth (Ft.)
Surface
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Bottom depth is 3.6
Source: VA-157
CHARACTERISTICS
17 JULY 1969
Temp. (°F)
88.1
86.9
84.7
84.1
83.7
80.0
77.2
72.3
67.8
66.5
65.8
feet
:
OF LAKE BRANDT
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/i)
8.0
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.0
6.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
0,0
-------
WATER QUALITY MODELING ON RECEIVING
STREAMS. FOR ALLOCATING WASTE LOADS
The State of North Carolina Department of Natural
and Economic Resources (NCDNER) conducted an intensive field
sampling program in 1973 to provide input parameters and cali-
bration data for an instream dissolved oxygen model. The mathe-
matical model was calibrated to the observed data and then used
to determine waste load allocations for selected point source
discharges. . The level of sophistication used on North Buffalo,
South Buffalo, and Buffalo Creek were different and will be ex-
plained below.
North Buffalo and Buffalo Creeks were modeled as a
single system, using an EPA version of Qual II, a state-of-the-
art advective-dispersive model for nonconservative parameters.
The NCDNER conducted a time of travel study in 1973 which was
used to estimate the average hydraulic properties for the stream
reaches modeled. To determine the deoxygenation rate coefficients,
samples from point source discharges and instream samples were
collected and analyzed.
With the assumption that the system was under steady-
state conditions at the time of sampling, the data from the time
of travel study and the sampling program were plotted on semi-
log paper. The slope of the line provided an estimate of the
reaction rate coefficients for carbonaceous and nitrogenous.
biochemical oxygen-demanding material. The reaeration coeffi-
cients used were taken from a reaeration study conducted by EPA
in 1979. The streamflow in the model was assumed to be the
standard worst case, the 7-day, 10-year low flow. The U.S.
Geological Survey estimates of these low flows provided the
model input. Results of the Qual II modeling are given in
Appendix A.
-------
Only the major point sources discharging to North
Buffalo and Buffalo Creek were modeled. These discharges were
Cone Mills, North Buffalo wastewater treatment plant, and South
Buffalo Creek (assumed to be a point source).
South Buffalo Creek did not receive the same level
of modeling effort as North Buffalo Creek. Sufficient input
data does not presently exist. The model used considered only
the carbonaceous and nitrogenous BOD from proposed South Buffalo
wastewater treatment plant (WTP). The creek above the WTP out-
fall was assumed to contain 7.56 mg/fc dissolved oxygen or 90%
of saturated concentration. The ultimate carbonaceous and
nitrogenous BOD above the outfall were set equal to 4 mg/Jl.
The reaeration coefficient was estimated using Tsivoglou's
method. The stream velocity was calculated from U.S. Geological
Survey gaging station data on South Buffalo Creek. The deoxy-
genation rate for CBOD and NBOD were estimated from an inten-
sive sampling program on South Buffalo Creek in 1972.
The modified Streeter-Phelps equation was exercised
with the above input data to determine wasteload allocation for
the South Buffalo WTP to assure an instream DO of 5 mg/Jl during
the 7-day, 10-year low flow. The results also provided the in-
put from South Buffalo Creek to the North Buffalo and Buffalo
Creek model. Appendix B contains the input and output data from
the programmable calculator used in the analysis.
-------
APPENDIX A
RESULTS OF QUAL II ANALYSIS
-------
TABLE II-2
INPUT PARAMETERS FOR QUAL-II
11IPVT fASAMSTSH
fMS SAHS
n sjv. n ZUAC,
«, ALPHA0
a, ALPHA1
o, ALPHA2
a, ALPHA3
a. ALPHA4
a, ALPHAS
a, ALPHA6
V^x . GR0MAX
p RESPRT
8j CKNHJ
. 8, CKN02
al ALGSET
at . SPH0S
o, SNH3
K, CK1
1C, CK2
1C, CK3
K% CK4
X, CK5
K, OC6
*N CKN
Kp CKP
KL CXL
PESOUPT/aY
Ratio of chlorophyll a
to algae bionass ~
Fraction of alnae
biomass which is.N
Fraction of algae
bionass which is P
0, production per unit
of alga* growth
Ot uptake per unit of .
algae respired
0, uptake per unit of
NH, oxidation
Oj uptake per unit of
NO, oxidation
Maximum specific growth
rate of algae
Algae respiration rate
Rate constant for biological
oxidation of HH,-flOs
Rate constant for biological
oxidation of NOj-flO,
Local settling rate for
algae
Benthos source rate for
phosphorus
Benthos source rate for NH,
Carbonaceous BOD decay rate
Re aeration rate
Carbonaceous BOO sink rata
Benthos source rate for BOO
Collforn die-off rate
• Radionuclide sink rate
Nitrogen half-saturation
constant for alga* growth ;
- Phosphorus half-saturation
. constant for alga* growth
Light half-saturation
constant for alga* growth
uairs
IK! CM-A.
no H
mgp
ngA
Sg-X
M
mq 0
SgH
K
1
dly
357
1
ft
3Sy
day-fl
JZLjl
day-/l
dly
dly
1
day-ft
1
dly
3S7
F
P
tang ley* -
day ,
AUTO OF
VALUES
50-100
0.08-0.09
0.012-0.015
1.4-1.8
1.6-2.3
3.0-4.0
1.0-1.14
1.0-3.0
0.05-0.5
0.1-0.5
0.5-2.0
0.5-6.0
*
*
0.1-2.0
0.0-100
•
•
0.5-4.0
*'
0.2-0.4
0.03-0.05
260
VAKIA8LS
BT KKACII
Yes
No
No
No
No
no
No
No
No
Yes; .
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
TDCWMTWW
No
No
NO
No
No
No
No
Yes
™
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Ho
No
Mo
KCtiABiurr
Fair
Good
Good
Good
Fair
Good
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Poor
Good
Poor
Poor
Fair
Poor
Fair to
Fair to
Good
Good
Good
•Highly v«rl*bl«
11-11
-------
(PRMR|. EM TITLFS) S$S
CARD
TITLfcOl
TITLtOJ
TITLtO?
TITI.C1I
TITlf I*
TITLili
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YfcS
TITLM5
TITL^t"
F. NOT I TIE
OUAI.-H PROGRAM TITLES
EPA-IIKORG-N) VERSION OF OUAI.-II
NAME OF R&StN = NORTH BUFFALO CRFEK** C'CTOBFR, 1976
CONSERVATIVE "IMERAL I(MG/L X 10)=
CONSERVATIVE "UERAL IHMG/L X 10) =
CONSERVATIVE ~I"FRAi IIHMG/L X lOJs
TEMPERATURE If; DEGREES FARENHFIT
BiocHfMicAi OXYC.EH DEMAMD IN MG/L (CARBONACEOUS ONLY)
AIGAE AS ALGAF TN MG/L
PHOSPHOROUS A3 P IN MG/L
ORGANIC N I* «G/L
A^MfJNlA p« "G/L
NITRITE i»> »G/L
NITRATE IK.' >-G/L
DISSOLVED OXYfiEu IN MG/L
COLIFORMS AS. '!PM
*t* DATA TYPE 1
DATA)
CARD TYPF
LIST DATA I»*PUT
KSITi ^I'lAL SUMMARY
nn FLO* Alir.MENTATinN
STEADY STATE
OF REACHES a
OF HFAOWATERS =
S1EP (HOUpS) s 0,0
M*xfuv ROUTE Tint (HRS)= jo.fioooo
ENOATAJ 0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
|2,AOOOft
CARD TYPE
NUMBER OF JUNCTIONS s
NUMBER OF WASTE LOADS =
LNTH. COHP.' ELEMENT (Mt)
TIME INC. FOR RPT2 (HRS)=
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
stooooo
0.10000
0.0
o.'o
TYPE IA (ALRAF PRODUCTION) AMD NITROGFN OXIDATION CONSTANTS)$$$
0.550C
i.'60oo
CARD T»PE
O IIPTA*E HY ORR M.'fMR 0/HG N)s =
0 UPTA'F BY NH? OXIOfMG 0/K-G N)=
o pR"D. RY AI.GAF ("G O/MG A) B
N CO-TENT OF AtGAE ("G N/MG A) s
ALG ''A* SPEC GROWTH RATE(1/OAY)=
N HALF SATURATION COvST. (MG/L)s
LIGHT r-ALF SAT CDNST(LwGLY/MlN)s
ENOAfAlA
«SS 04TA TYPE 2 (REACH lOENTlFKA T ION* SSS
CARD TYPE
2.0000
O.*?000
0 UPTAKE BY N02 OXID(MG 0/HG/N)
P UPTAKE BY ALGAE (MG n/Mft A) s
P CONTENT OF ALGAE (MG P/MG A) »
ALGAE RESPIRATION RATE (I/DAY) a
P HALF SATURATION CONST.' (MG/L)
AVE< LIGHT INTENSITY(LNGLY/OAY)s
0,0
O.JflOO
1,'9000
0,1000
0,0400
080.0000
P.O
CARD
STRF»M REACH
RfACH
HFACH
STSE*M REACH
RFACH
PFACH
STSE~M REACH
STREAM REACH
REACH ORDER *NO
I. PCH s
2.' RCH s CO*F
3. RCH a
«.' RCH s GRffSSBORO
5.' RCH s
6. PCH s
7.' RCH s
*.' RCH e
TROM
FROM
FROM
FROM
FROM
FROM
FROM
FROM
R. MILE
17.850
17.7SO
17, ISO
15.850
13.8SO
12.550
10.S50
9,'SSO
TO
TO
TO
TO
TO
TO
TO
TO
R. MILE
17. '750
17.350
15.8SO
I3.'»50
1?.5SO
10.S50
'
8.'OSO
-------
REACH
RfcACH
STSEAM
I A.' RCH a
H. RCM =
12.' RCH a
o.'
fHOM
FROM
FROM
FROM
a.0?>0
«.OSO
2.050
0.0
TO
TO
TO
TO
6.050
~
7.
fl.
Qp
10;
it.
12.
0."
6 (REACTION
RtACH
1. 0
?; i
3.' 0
tt. 0
•>.' t
6." 1
7. 1
a. i
9. 0
10.' 0
11. 0
12. 0
0. 0
I
n
15,
20.
• •* •
20.'
10.
1 5,
20.
20.
20.
°«
COEFf
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
l.o.
,000
a^SOOofl
6 100000
^ 'j 9 0 0 0 0
b 'i 9 A 0 0 0
h a 9 0 0 0 0
4T30000
5900000
5900000
5900000
5900000*
0
COEFFICIENTS FOR
Kl
.05
Jto
,dO
."75
K3
o.'o
n.'o
o.'o
o.'o
o.
*- .
^
2^
•> "
*- .
J *
2.
?
o.
O.o.n.o.O.
2*0*0*00*
2.2.2^2.2.
h.2. 2, 2,2.
2,X?^2.2^
2.2t2j2.'2:
2.2 2.2.2?
2.'?. 2. 2 2.
2 * ? * ? 2 2 *
2 2*2 22 *
2.2T2.2.2 '
o;o.o.o.*o:
0
o
2
.
2
2
2
2
?
?
2
0
DETERMINING
.0,0
'o "o
.2.2
.2,2
.'?,2
%2 2
.'2.'0
»2»2
.?. 2
2.2
'^ 2
^2^2
:o;o
.o.o^o.o'o.o
00 0 'fl 0 'O
^2. 2.2^2.0.0
.2.2 ^2 , 2^2 ,2
.2. 2*0. 0*0.0
2 2 2 2 22
^o*o]o*o;ojo
,2.2,2^2 JO. 0
^2^2.2^2.2,2
t2 2, 2^2. 2. 2
.2t2?2. 2. 2. 2
. o.o.o. o.'o. o
.oxo
\xo
.0.0
*2\2
l°t°
\?t2
%°t°
N * ^
.0.0
,2.2
2 *?
.2.2
.0,0
VELOCITY AND DEPTH)
EXPOQV cnFFQH
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0 0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0 . .
.0
.0 ...;..
%o
,0
.0
;o
.'0 0
^
.
^
.
.
.
^
.
,
.
.
.
•
DEOXYBENATION
.'10 0.0
.'10
.10
• to
• 8 0
.80
."80
.'60
.0
K20PT
S-
.
°.o .
n.'o
0^0
o.'o
o.'o
o.'o
o.'o
^
•
^
0
0
3
3
3
3
4
«
?l
.2,
«*5.
. o > . . .
!«$• " """ " "
CMANN
o,
o.
0,
o.
o.
0,
o.
o.
0,
0.
o.
0.
0.
sss
030
030
030
030
030
030
030 " •
030
030
030
030
030
0 . .
..." . ... ...._.._..
f XPQK2
o,
0,
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
0.
0,
o.
o.
0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
DATA TYi»r
r,»f, Ntn»p(U"M.
COHSTANTS) it*
CAPO T»P£ RFACH ALPHAO ALT-SET CKNHJ CKW02 SNH3 .SPOU ORR-N
ALGAf, N A*0 P COEF 1, 75.'0 O.'O O.OS 0.'05 0.0 0,'o" 0.05
ALGAt, N AMD P CPEP 2. 75.'0 O.'O 2.20 1.00 0.0 0.0 2.20
ALGAF., N A»vD P COM 3. 7S.'0 0,0 2.00 U.OO 0 .' 0 O.'o 1.70
AtGAt, N AND CPEF a. 75.'0 0.0 0,70 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.80 . .
ALGAt, N Awl) CHEF 5, 75.0 O.'O 0.50 2.00 0.0 0.0 0.76
41GAK, N AMD CHEF ' COEFFICIENTS
OTHE" COEFFICIENTS
OTHF* COEFFICIENTS
OTMFW COEFFICIENTS
OTnF-* COEFFICIENTS
OTH£» COEFFICIENTS
OTHE* COEFFICIENTS
OTME* COEFFICIfNTS
EMDArAe>B
$«» DATA TVPE 7 (
CARD T'PE
INITIAL CONDITIONS
INITIAL CONDITIONS
INITIAL CONDITIONS
INITIAL CONDITIONS
INITIAL CONDITIONS
INITIAL CONDITIONS
INITIAL CONDITIONS
INITIAL CONDITIONS
INITIAL CONDITIONS
INITIAL CONDITIONS
INITIAL CONDITIONS
INITIAL CONDITIONS
FNOATA/A
SSf DATA TVPE 7A
CAHO TVPf
INITIAL CONO-2
INITIAL CONO-2
INITIAL COwO-2
INITIAL COND.Z
INITIAL CONO-2
INITIAL CONO,2
0. 0.0 0.0 0.0
(OTHER COEFFICIENTS) $$S
REACH CK« CK5
1. O.'O 0.0
2. O'o .0.0
3. 0.0 0.0
U. O.'O 0.0
s. ..... .'o.'o ... o.o . . .
6. . O.'O 0.0
7. 0.0 0.0
«. o.'o o.o
«». 0.0 0^0
to. o.'o o.o
11. ojo o.o
12. 0,0 0.0
0, 0.0 0.0
INITIAL CONDITIONS) JS$
REACH TEMP O.'O.' BOD
I. 77 .'0 O.'O 0.0
2. 77.'0 O.'O 0.0
3. /7.'0 0.0 0.0
«. 77. *0 0.0 0.0
5. 77.0 0.0 0.0
6. 77*0* 0,0 O.'O
7, 77,0 0.0 0.0
8, 77 0 0.0 0.0
9. 77,0 0.0 0,0
10." 77.0 0.0 0.0
11. 77. '0 0.0 0.0
12. 77*0 0,0 0.0
0. 0.0 0.0 0.0
(INITIAL CONDITIONS FOR CHLOROPHYLL
COLIFORM AND "AOIONUCL IDE.) SSS
REACH CHLOOA K
-------
INITIAL crv.o-a
INtTlAl. CO*0-2
IMTlAL COMOi.2
INITIAL. COMB. 2
INITIAL cown-2
INITIAL cowo-2
ENOATA7A
$*t DATA TYPE 8 (RUNOFF CONDITIONS) $tS
CAHf) TVPt
RUK-nFF CONDITIONS
RUun*F CONDITIONS
RU'iOfF CONDITIONS
RU'inFF CONDITIONS
RUNOFF CONDITIONS
RUi;n>~F tONimiONS
RUNOFF CONDITIONS
RUVO^F CONDITIONS
Rt)»npF CONDITIONS
RUi.nl-F CHNOITION3
BIJNO/F CONOITlONS
RU'iO^F CHNOITIONS
ENOAU4
r;
"x
«>.
10.
u.'
12;
o;
i ••> ,' n
an
n.o
(i tn
n.o
n,o
o.n
o.'o
°;°
0*0
o;n
o;o
°;°
o;o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
o.'o
o.'o
°;°
o;o
0,0
0.0
o;0
0,0
. ,i
°«"
%*
a. 2
o.'o
0,0
0,0
o'o
0*0
n.o
TEMP D.'n.' BOD
o:
77 ;
77t
"I
7?;
77?
o:
o:
0.
o.;
t
0*
o:
0 O.'O O.'O
0 7.
0 7.'
0 7.'
0 7.'
0 7.
3.0
3.'0
3.0
3,0
3.0
0 0.0 0,0
0 0.0 0,0
o n.o o.o
0 O.'O 0.0
o o.'n 0,0
o o.'o o.o
0 O.'O 0.0
CM-I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
^
•
.
•
^
•
.
*
•
•
\
*
•
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CM- H
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.'0
.0
.0
.0
.0
CM. in
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
*°
,0
,0
1°
,0
.0
:o
^o
..o
.0
,o
.0
.0
(INCREMENTAL FI..O* CONDITIONS FOR NITROGEN,PHOSPHOROUS,
COLIFORM AND RAfilONHCLlOEJ $$$
$t$ DATA TYPE 8A
CARD TVPE
RU'^rjrF CONO-2
RU?:0*F CONO-?
RUNOFF CONH-2
RUMO'-'F coNn-2
RU^nt-'F CONO-2
POMO^F CONn-2
RUNOFF cnwn-2
Ri>;n>F cnsn-?
RU^O^F CONO-2
RIJ^n^F CONO-2
RU'ln^F cnNo-2
RU'.QPF CONO-2
ENI)ATAf»A
SSS 0*TA TYPE 9 (STREAM JUNCTIONS) *$$
EACH
1.
2.'
3.'
«:
5.
6.
7.'
a;
9;
10;
u.
12;
o.
CHLOPA
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
o.'o
o.o
o.'o
o.o
o.o
o.'o
0.0
o.o
NH3
0.0
0.'09
0.09
0.'09
0.'09
o.'n'J
0.0
\
otn
0,0
o.o
o.'o
o.'o
NO2
0.0
0.0
o.'o
o.'o
0,0
0.0
0.0
^
0,0
0.0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0.0
N03
n.'o
0.'21
0.'21
O.'2t
O.*21
0:21
n.'o
^
0.0
o.'o
o.'o
o.'o
o.'o
o.'o
PI
0^0
0^0
0,0
°J°
°J°
0\0
0,0
\
0.0
>o
°!°
°*o
°I°
o.'o
COL I
RADN OftG-N
O.'O
0,0
0.0
o.'o
0,0
0.0
0,0
0,0
0.0
o.'o
0,0
o.o
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
.0,0
0,0
o.o
0.0
0,0
o.o
o.o
o;n ... . .
0,11
0,11
0,11
0,11
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
oto
0*0
CARD TVPE
ENOATA9
JUNCTION HKOfS AND IDENT
0..
SfS DATA TYPE 10 (HFAOWATER SOURCES) SSf
CAPO T»P£
Hf40»ATtR
fcNDATAlO
HOHATER DHDfR AND lOENT
1." MHOsNOHTH BUFFALO
0.
FLOW
1 .'0
O.'O
UPSTRM
o.
TEMP
77 ."0
n.o
JUNCTION
o;
o.'n."
7.1
o.o
TRIB
o.
BOD CM.I CM»II CM.IM
3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
O.'O 0.0 O.'O 0.0
$J$ DATA TYPE 10A (HEADWATER CONDITIONS FOR CHLOROPHYLL,NITROGEN, PHOSPHOROUS,
CQLIFORM AND RADIONUCLIOE) SSS
CARD TVPE
HEAD*ATER-2
ENOATA10A
HOWATFR CHI.ORA NH3 NO2 NO3
1. 0.0 0.'09 O.'O 0.'21
0.' 0.0 O.'O 0.0 O.'O
P0«
O'O
o.o
COL I
0.0
o.o
RADN ORG.N
0.0 0 T11
0.0 0,0
-------
O»T»
it
CARD T>Pt WASTE LOAD OPOE» AKIO IDFNT FFF FLOW TEMP D.O.' BOO CM-I CM-II CH-III
wASTfci.1 An i* wsi.scnwt' o^o 6,2000 o.o 7,0 J6.8 n,'o o.o o.o
wASTtLi'AO 2. wSLsGRF.t'NSRORII 0.0 2<4,8000 0.0 6.0 10. « 0.0 0.0 0.0
•USTfcl.OAn J* WSLsMiiODY GR, 0.0 O.IhOO 0.0 7,1 3.'0 0.0 0.0 0.0
HASTtLi'AO «. w.SL = SnUTH BUFFALO 0.0 32.2500 0.0 5,5 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
WASTEU'AD 5.' w.SL=«€Gin'"AL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
FNOAU11 0* O.'O 0.0 0.0 O.'O 0.0 O.'O 0.0 0.0
?»* 0*TA TYPE HA (i-ASTE LOAD CHA WACTFRIST ICS •» ALGAE . NITROGEN, PHOSPHORnUS,
COLIFORMS ANO RAOInNUCLlOES) $IJ
CARD T»PE MASTE l.nAO CROP.* A Nil IDpNT CHL . A
wA3TfcLtJAD»2. .1. WSL=CONE
wA^Tfcl.l'AO"? . ?.' MSI =GREENSBORn
v«»STl'L^AO«2 3j WSL = *i.lDDY C1*,'
"ASTtLi'Ao.? o." WSL=SOUTH RUFFALO
»'AST^L^'AO«2 5. WSL =Rf GIO^AU
ENOATA1 1A
o;o
O.'O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
NH3
3.00
3.50
0.09
3.00
o.o
0.0
'•• N02
o.'o
o.'o
0.0
0.0
o.'o
N03
0.53
0.32
0,11
1.87
o,'o
0.0
P0N
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.00
5. '80
0.10
1.90
o.'o
-------
OISSOI.VFD
RCH/CL 1 2 3 u
••?./-
1 7.14
2 6.6H 6.22 5.'82 5.47
3 5^39 5.3« S,*30 5.2*.
4 5.75 5.71 5.67 5.6«
5 5.30 5.2a 5'22 5.19
6 S.'Ol 5.02 5.04 5. OS
7 5.39 5.4^ 5.4? 5.40
8 5.60 5.6^ 5.67 5.71
9 5.'7ft S.73 5.'69 S.~6S
10 5.17 5,1« 5.'14 5.13
11 50? 5.02 S.'O? 5.03
12 5.11 5.12 5.*13 S."14
OXYGEN IN HJ;/L
5
5^22
5*M
5,16
5*07
S.'46
5.'7«
5;6i
5*11
5*02
S.'15
h
5.19
5.5«
5.13
5.08
5.4«
5.77
5.57
5.10
5.02
5.16
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DE
RCH/CL \ . .7rt 6.71 6 .'by 6.5«
U 5.51 5.4n 5.'40 5.3u
12 4. '48 4,44 4. "39 4.3 0,11 ,
2 3.66 3.43 3.21 3.01
3 2,'89 2.81 2*73 2.65
4 4.8* 4,81 4.75 4.6«
5 3.89 3,8* 3,82 3.7H
6 3.42 J.39 3.36 3.3?
7 2.'85 2,81 ?'8l 2.*79
8 2.6? 2. So 2.51 2.45
9 1.8H 1.85 1*82 1.79
10 1.39 1.3«> 1.34 1^3?
11 1. 01 0,9-i 0.48 0.96
12 0.74 0.73 0.'72 0,71
AMMONIA I
RCH/CL 1 2 3 o
1 0.09
2 1.60 1,89. i'q7 2.03
1 2.'04 2.0* 2.05 2.0S
4 3.15 3.17 3,18 3.18
5 3.'35 3.3-> 3.37 3.3«
6 3. Ot, 3.47 3,07 3."4«
7 3.50 3.4S 3.2
8.01
6,51
5.29
4. "30
6
11.65
12.64
10.12
8.41)
6.54
5.50
7.93
6.4U
5.23
4.2b
7
5,16
5.55
5.11
s : i o
5.51
5.B1
5.53
5.09
5,03
5.17
"A 'JO
7
1 1 .'49
12.51
9. "9ft
8. "38
6.45
5.39
7.84
6.37
5.*J8
4. "21
8
5^13
5*53
5T09
5*12
5^53
5.60
5*50
5*03
5*18
IN MG/L
8
11^33
12.39
9'84
8 27
6^37
5*28
7,76
6.31
5^13
9
5.11
5.50
5.07
S.'lO
5,55
5.88
5.'47
5,07
5,03
5.19
10
5.09
5.48
5.05
5.15
5.57
5.91
5.43
5. '06
5.04
5 .'20
It
5.07
s.ut
5.03
5.17
5.94
5.40
5. 'OS
5.04
5.'21
12
S,06
'5.44
5 '02
5.19
5,97
5^37
5,05
5^05
5*23
13
5.05
5.42
5,01
5.21
6,01
5,35
5.04
5,05
5.24
(CARBONACEOUS ONLY)
9
11,17
12.26
9.71
8.16
6. '29
5.17
7.68
6,24
5 J07
4.12
10
11.01
12.14
9.57
8.06
6.21
5.'06
7.60
6.18
5.02
4.08
11
10.85
12.02
9. "44
7 .'95
4 .'96
7 .'53
6,12
4.97
4 .'04
12
10.70
1 1 ,90
9^31
7.85
«'86
7*05
6,05
-------
4
10
»i
1
12
J.I*
3.30
14 A.
« 1 o
2.95
3,3*
3.29
i | s
3.1'
2.91*
l.'S*
31 1\
.14
2^93
3.3?
3.2A
2.9?
NITRITE
PCH/CL 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
. 10
11
12
0.00
0,06
0.41
O.lft
0.4?
0 '55
0.72
0.7Q
0.4ft
0.69
0.8(V
0.85
2
0,17
0.0"
0.20
0.45
0.5«
0,73
0.80
0,49
0.69
0.80
0.85
3
0."26
0.47
0.'22
0.44
0*56
0.74
O.'ftl
0:5 o
0:70
0.81
O.'BS
4
0,3S
0.51
0.23
0,45
0,57
0.74
0,»2
0.52
0.71
0.81
0.85
NITRATE
RCH/CL t
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0.2|
0.49
0.61
0.51
O.'8l
0.94
N'Ja
l?89-
2.20
2.59
3.'02
2
0.51
0.6"
0.52
0.81
0.9»
1.2*
1.46
1,90
2.22
2.61
3.0"
3
0*54
0.67
0.53
0.82
0.97
1 .'2 A
1.'49
1.'91
2.24
2.63
3.'07
4
0.5A
0.7"
0.54
0.83
0.9A
1.29
1.52
1.93
2.25
2.65
1.09
3^33
2. '91
I'l "4G/L
S
0 .*S5
0.'2S
0.'46
0,58
0.75
0.83
0.53
0.'71
OJ81
0.85
IN MC/L
5
0.'73
0,55
0,84
1.00
1,31
''•95
2*27
2?6d
3,'l 1
3.33
3.27
2,89
b
0.56
0.26
0.46
0,59
0.7*
0.84
0.54
0.72
0.82
0.85
6
0,76
0,57
0.85
1.01
l.Vi
1,58
1.96
2,29
2.70
3.H
3.3.3
•» 4 A
S . 1 0
2.8A
7
0.59
0.'27
0 .47
0.60
0.76
O.A«
0.55
0^82
0.85
7
O.AO
0 ,5«
0.87
1.02
1 .35
1 .62
1 .'07
2.31
2.72
3.16
3 '33
3*26
2.'»7
8
0.'61
0,'?9
0 48
06J
0.77
o.'es
0.'56
0^73
0 82
0.85
8
0.'B4
0 '59
0.8H
l.'Ofl
J,"37
1 ,98
2,33
2.74
S.'IS
3.33
3.?S
3* Aa
i On
2.66
9
0.63
0.30
0.49
0.62
0.78
0.86
0.57
0.74
0.'82
0.65
9
0.87
0.61
0.89
1.05
t,"38
1.68
2.00
2.35
2.76
3.20
3.33
3.25
3 A Y
• v 7
2.85
10
0.65
0.31
0.50
0.63
0.7B
O.fi7
0.58
0.75
0.83
0.05
10
0.91
0.62
0.90
1.07
1.40
1.71
2.01
2.37
2.78
3.22
3.33
3.24
3 A J.
. 06
2. '83
11 ..
0.67
0.32
0.51
0.'64
0.8ft
0.59
0.'75
0.83
0."85
1 J
0.95
0.64
0.91
1.08
1.75
2.03
2,39
2.80
3.24
3.33 3.12 3.32 3.32
3,23 3.23 3.22 3,21
3 AC t A /I T AT 1 *A3
*(O j g u*4 S • 0 3 J*0c
2.82 2.81 2.80 2.78
ITERATION 1
12 13 14 15
•
0.'69 0.'71 0.72 0.'73
0.34 0.35 0.36 0,*37
0."5J O.S2
0.65 0.66 0.67 0.'67
o'BB 0.89 0.90 0.'90
0,61 0.62 0.62 0.'63
0,76 0.76 0.77 0.'77
0.83 0,83 0.84 0.*84
0.85 0.65 0.85 0.85
ITERATION 1
12 13 14 15
0.'99 1.04 1,08 1.12
0."65 0.67 0.69 0.70
0.92 0.93
1.10 1.11 1.13 l.*14
1J78 1.82 1.85 l.'Rft'
2.05 2.'06 2.08 2.'09
2.41 2.43 2.45 2.47
2.83 2.85 2.'87 2.89
3."27 3.'29 3.31 3.33
3.32
3.20
3 A |
.01
2.77
16
0.'38
0.68
0.64
0.78
0,84
0.85
16
0.'72
1.16
2,11
2,49
2.01
3.35
1 '31
JA A
. II 0
2 .'76
17
0.'39
0>9
0>5
0'78
0.84
OT85
17
0:74
I.'! 8
2:13
2^51
2*03
3*36
3.31
3.19
21 A a
.99
2.75
18
0.39
0.'70
0.66
0.79
O.B4
O.B5
18
0.'76
1.19
2.'15
2. '5 3
2.06
3.40
3.' 31
3,18
2OQ
.98
2.73
19
0,'40
0.'71
0,'67
0 79
0,84
0.65
10
0.'78
t.'21
2.16
2,55
2,06
3.42
3.30
3.17
20 ^
.96
2.72
20
0.41
0.71
0.68
0,80
O.B4
0.85
20
0.80
1.22
2.18
2.57
3.00
3.44
-------
FINAL RE P OUT * i
REACH NO. 1.0 RCH r
HUES 17.850 in I7.'?so
l.HVDRAULTC PARAMETER VALUES
2. '
F'.
00
BOO
ORGM
K-H3
NO2
PA*A"ETER "EAO OF REACH
FLO* fcf-S) s i.ooo
VELOCIT* (FPS) 3 0,260
DEPTH s 0,300
* A T E » Q U A L . I T V P * * * M F T
.c* 1 2 3 a 5 6
7. 14
3.00
0.11
0.0«»
o.'oo
0:21
END OF REACH MAXIMUM
1.000 1,000
0.'260 0,260
0.300 0.300
E R .V A L 0 E S - . . * *
7.89 10 11
r V
MINIMUM AVERAGE
i.'ooo i.'ooo
0.'260 O.*260
0.300 0.300
* * * *
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 . 20
. • - .
UNITS ARE Mf./L. EXCEPT FOR FECAL CriLtFnRM( 1000/lOOMl.) AND CONSERVATIVE MJNERALS(MG/L*10)
3. AVERAGE V A L U F S OF REACH COEFFICIENTS
AV RATtS
KtBnO -
KNM3 s
KN02 s
KCOLl 3
KRO^J s
KNH2 S
t 1 /OA V
0,05
0.05
0.05
0.0
0.0
O.OS
) SETTLING BATES M/OAV;
... ....
HOO 8 0^0
ALGAE » *.o
> RFNTHOS SOURCE
BOP
NHJ
pna
RATES (MG/FT/OAV)
s 0,0
s 0.0
s 0.0
REAERATION RATE
(l/OAY)
K2 s 0,'OSO
CHLOR
RATIO
RATIO
A/ALGAE
(UG/HG)
« 75.00
-------
FINAL REPORT * <
RFACH NO. 2,0 RCH s CONE
RIVER MILES 17.750 TO 17.'350
1. HYDRAULIC PARAMETER V
PAKA'-FTER *EAO OF REACH
FLOW (Cf-'S) • s 7.219
VELPClTV (FPS) s 0.260
DEPTH (ni ... = i.'iflo
2. W A T F. R 0 U A L I T V. P A R A M E_T
ELF.M t 2 3 4 . .5 6
DO 6.'6fi h,22 5. '82 5.47
6(10 l«.Sl 11.90 13.32 12,77
ORGN 3.66 3.43 3'?1 1.01
MMJ r^eo i,89 1.97 2.03
N02 0.06 0,1 7 o'26 0.3S
NOi 0.49 0.51 0.54 0.5A
ALUfc'S * *»* * * *
END OK REACH MAXIMUM MINIMUM AVERAGE
7.'276 7.276 7.'?1<» 7.'247
0.'260 0.260 . 0.260 0.'260
1.3BO 1.3BO 1.'380 1.'380 . . . _.
ERVALUES * ** * * *
7 8 .9 10 It 12 13 10 7l5 ;7l6 17 ". Id _ 19 20
« NOTF1 UNITS ARE MG/L.' EXfEoT FOR FECAL
000/J OOML) AND CONSERVATIVE MlNERAL3(MG/L*t 0)
3. AVERAGE VAIUFS OF REACH COEFFICIENTS
DECAY RATES (I/DAY)
1 .40
2.20
4.00
0.0
0.9
2.20
KNH3 s
KN02 «
KCOLl *
SETTLING RATES (I/DAY) BENTHOS SOURCE RATES (MG/FT/DAV)
AI.GAF a
o.o
. BOD s O.'O
NH3 s 0.0
POO s 0.0
REAERATION RATE
(I/DAY)
CHLOR A/ALGAF
RATIO (UG/MG)
K2 * 3,720 RATIO s 75.00
-------
F I N A I.
REPORT
RFACH NO. 3.0 RCH =
RIVFR MILES 17.350 TO 15."850
1. HYDRAULIC PARAMETER VALUES
PARAMETER
(FPSJ
DEPTH (FT)
HEAD OF REACH
7.295
0.495
1,750
END OF REACH
7.'561
0.'495
1 .'750
MAXIMUM
7,561
0.495
1.750
MINIMUM
7,295
0.495
1.750
AVERAGE
7.'«28
0.'49S
1.750
« A T E R 0 U A L t T. Y PAR
E. T E R VALUES
ELFM j
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
|9
20
on
BOD
ORGN
NH3
NO2
N03
5.39
12.52
2.89
2.04
0.41
0.61
5.3"
12. 3"
2.81
2.05
0.4«
0,6"
5. '30
12.16
2.;73
2.'05
0'47
0.67
5.26
1 1 .99
2.65
2.05
0.51
0.'70
5. "22
t 1 .82
2,58
2.05
0,53
0.73
5.19
1 t >6S
2.50
2.05
0.56
0,76
5.'16
11.49
2.43
2. '04
0.59
0.80
5*13
11.35
2^37
2*04
0.61
0.84
5.11
11.17
2.30
2,03
0.63
0.87
5.09
11.01
2 ."2 3
2.02
0.65
0.91
5. '07
10. P5
2.J7
2t01
0.67
0.'9S
5.06
10,70
2,11
2,00
0,69
0.99
5,05
10.55
2.05
1,99
0.71
1.04
5.04
10.40
1.99
»,97
0.72
1.08
5.03
10J26
1 .'94
1 ^96
0.73
1.12
• NOTF.1 UNITS ARE MG>L. EXCEPT FOR FECAt COL IFnRn( 1000/1OOML) AND CONSERVATIVE. MINERALS(MG/LMO)
3. AVERAGE V A L U F S OF R F. A c M COEFFICIENTS
DECAY RATtS (1/OAYJ
SETTLING HATES (I/DAY) BENTHOS SOURCE RATES (MG/FT/DAY)
REAERATION RATE
(I/DAY)
CHLOR A/ALGAf
RATIO
KlRnO =
KNH3 S
KND2 c
KCOll *
KRDN '
KNH2 s
(I .'80
2.00
4.00
0,0
0.0
1.70
s O.'O
e ojo
BOD
NH3
P04
s 0.0
s 0*0
s 0.0
K2 » 3,'720 RATIO s 75.00
-------
, FINAL HtPURT * '
.REACH NO. 4.0 RCH = GRFFMSBflRO
RIVER MILFS i5.'85o rn u.'aso
1. HYDRAULIC pARAMFTER VALUES
HfAO OF REACH
F.NO OF REACH
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
AVERAGE
VF.L"ClT» (FPS)
OFPTH tm
C t i**
El.
nn
Bno
ORGN
NH3
NO2
H03
A T E R G
S."7S
13l3a
4.8h
3.1S
o.ia
o.M
a
5,71
13.21
4,61
3.17
0,20
0,52
U A L
3
5>7
13.'07
OS
3.'18
0^22
0.53
'•' ^;
» 0.
= ».
I T V P A R
« 5
5.6« 5. '61
12.89 12^77
U.6H 4,63
3.1» 3 ." 1 9
0.23 0'2S
0.50 0.55
400
630
750
33.'301
0.630
1.750
AMflER VA
* 7
5.5« 5.55
12.64 12J51
3)21 3!22
0.26 0.'27
0.57 0.58
A
X
12.39
4.40
3 '23
0*29
0.59
L U E
9
5.50
12.26
4.43
3.?5
0.30
0.61
33.301
0.630
t.750
32.400
0.'630
t.'750
3 * * * t
10
5.48
t 2 .' 1 4
a. 39
3.26
0.31
0.62
It
5 .'46
12^02
4 .34
3.27
0.32
0.64
12
5. '44
1 1 >0
4.29
3 .'28
0.34
0.65
13
5.42
11.78
4.24
3.29
0.35
0.67
32.906
0.630
1:750 .. _.
i * *
14
5,41
1 1 .67
4.20
3j' 30
0.3h
0.69
15
5. '39
1 1 :55
4.15
3.30
0:37
0.70
16
S. '38
\ \ 44
ft 14
5I*»
0.38
0.72
17
5 .'37
11 '32
4^06
5 . j
-------
r I
A L
R f f 0 R T
RFACH MO. 5.0 RCH s
RIVEB MILES 13.850 TO 12.^550
1. HYDRAULIC PARAMETER
VALUES
FLO-I tcfs>
2. W A
FLEM
on 5
PPO | 0
ORGN 3
NH3 3
ND2 0
N03 0
VELOCITY
DfcPTH (M
T E R C
1 2
.'30 5,2*>
,6'4 J0.61*
J*9 3.8b
.35 3.3b
.42 0.43
.61 0.81
(FPS)
)
UAL
3
5 .'22
10^54
3 ."82
3T37
0.'U4
O.B2
s
8
«
T T Y
u
5.'l"
loi40
3.7R
3.3»«
0.45
0.83
HEAD OF REACH
33.340
0.
i.
PAR
S
5.'J6
10. 26
3 .'74
3T39
0.06
0.84
649
750
A M E
6
5.13
10,12
5.70
3.40
0,46
0.85
T E R
7
5.'11
9*9ft
3.67
3:aj
0."47
6 ."87
EMO
V A
8
5.' 09
9.84
3.>3
3.42
0^48
0.88
OF RF.ACH
S3. '806
0,649
l.*750
L U E
9
5.' 07
9.71
3.59
f)|«9
0.89
S . *
10
5.05
9.57
3,56
3. '44
0.50
0.90
MAXIMUM
33.808
0.649
1.'750
*
11
5.'03
9.44
i.'52
3.'4i|
O.'5l
0.91
*
12
5.02
9.;3i
3t48
3t45
0*51
0.92
MINIMUM
33.340
0^649
t.750
.*
13
5.01
9.19
3.45
3.46
0.52 .
0.93
14
AVERAGE
13,'5 7 4
0.'649
t.750
15
* NOTE* UNITS ARE MG/L. EXCEPT FOR FECAL COLIFORM(1000/1OOML) AND CONSERVATIVE MINERALS(MG/L*10)
3. AVERAGE VA|UF. S OF R f. » C H COEFFICIENTS
16
17
IB
DECAY R»TtS fl/OAY>
1.10
0.50
2.00
0.0
0,0
0.76
KNH3 c
KN02 s
KCOLl «
KRON «
KMH2 s
SETTLING RATES (I/DAY) BENTHOS SOURCE RATES (MG/FT/OAY)
s 0.0
s 0.0
BOD
NH3
P04
0.0
o»o
0.0
REAERATION RATE
Cl/OAYJ
K2 •* 3.'720 RATIO = 75.00
CHLOR A/ALGAF
RATIO
-------
FINAL REPORT
REACH NO. 6.0 RCH s
RIVER MILFS 12.550 TO
JO.550
1. HYDRA U IIC PARAMETER VALUES
"EAO OF REACH
END OF REACH
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
AVERAGE
FLOW (c*s
VELOCITY
DEPTH CFT
2. H
El.i
DO
BOD
O"GV
KH3
W02
N03
ATE
•^ 1
5. "01
9.07
3.42
3. "46
0.53
o.9a
R 0
2
5.02
8.9S
S.S**
3.47
0.5«
0.96
)
(FPS)
J
UAL
3
5>4
fl""8S
3. '36
3. "4 7
0.^56
0 J97
s
B
S
I TY_
U
5. OS
6.7?
3,32
3.4R
0.57
0.98
33.
o.
»i
P * P
5
5 JO 7
8. '60
3,29
3.48
0 '58
1.00
818
649
750
A M E
6
5. OH
8.49
3,2<>
3.43
0.59
1.01
34,'017
0.649
1,750
. T e R
7
5.10
6.38
3j23
3.' 4 9
0.60
1 .'02
V A
8
Sj.12
8^27
3.20
3.49
0 '61
1.04
L U E
9
5.14
8.16
3,17
3.«9
0,62
1.05
S *
10
5.15
H.06
3,14
3.49
0.63
1.07
34.017
0.649
1.'750
*
U
5.17
7,95
3.12
3.50
0.64
1.08
*
12
5J.19
7 85
3.09
3*50
0.65
1.10
33. '8 16
0,*649
1.750 .
*
13
5.21
7.74
3, '06
3.50
0.'66
1.11
*
14
5.23
7.64
3.03
3.50
0,67
1.13
33.'918
0.649
1.'750
*
15
5T25
7.54
3,00
3.50
0.67
I.'IA
16
5.27
7.44
2.97
3.50
0,68
1.16
17
5.'29
7 '35
2,95
3^50
0,69
1.18
18
5'3t
7i'2S
2.92
3.50
0.70
1.19
19
5.33
2*'89
3. '50
OJ71
1.21
.......
20
5.3h
l\0b
2.87
3.50
0.71
1.22
* NOTF' UNITS ARE MG/L." EXTEPT FOR FECAL CntlFnRHfl000/100ML) AND CONSERVATIVE MINfRAL3(MG/t*l0)
3. AVERAGE v A I. U F 3 OF REACH COEFFICIENTS
KNH3 s
KM02 C
KCOLl B
KRDN «
KNH2 =
(1/DAV)
1.10
0.60
2.00
0.0
0,0
0.76
SETTLING RATES (1/OAV) BENTHOS SOURCE RATES (MG/FT/OAV)
BOO s 0.0
ALGAE a o_.o
REAERATION RATE
(I/DAY)
BOD
NH3
R04
s O.'O
s 0.0
= 0.0
K2
0.520
CHLOR A/ALGAE
RATIO {UG/MGJ
RATIO s 75.00
-------
FINAL
' P (1 ft T
• «
RFACH NO. 7.'0 RCH s
RIVER MlLFS lO.'SSO TO 9.'550
1. HYDRAULIC PARAMETER VALUES
PAHA-ETER
FLO*
VFLOCIT* (FPS)
OfPTH (FT)
u£AD Of REACH
34.017
0.609
1.750
END OF REACH MAXIMUM MINIMUM AVERAGE
30.'017
0.649
1.750
34.017
0.649
1.750
0.649
1.750
34.'017
0.'649
l.'7SO
2, WATER
U A L T T
p A p A M f T E R VALUES
FLEM 1
S.
6.
* NOTE'
no
eno
ORGN 2.
NH3 3.'
NO? 0.
38
97
50
72
2
5.40
2.83
3.49
>4 1.26
UNITS AMF
5.42
6.79
3?49
0.74
1.28
6.7t
2.79
3.49
0.74
1.29
.62
.'77
.'48
.75
5.48
6.54
2.75
3.47
0.76
1.33
5.51
6.45
2.7J
0.76
1.35
OJ7
1.37
5.55
6.29
2.;69
3.46
0.78
1.38
10
5.57
6.21
2.67
3.45
0.78
1.40
It
IS
16
17
18
19
20
MG/L.' EXCEPT FOR FECAL C"L1FORM(1 000/1 OOML ) AND CONSERVATIVE M1NERALS(MG/L*10 j
3. AVERAGE VAjllfS OF HFACH COEFFICIENTS
* *
OECAV RATtS (l/OAV)
1.10
ft.60
2.00
0.0
0,0
0.60
KNH3 =
KNO? *
KCnLl 9
KROM °
KNH2 *
SETTLING RATES (1/DAV) BENTHOS SOURCE RATES (MG/FT/OAV)
BOO s
4.0
BOD e 0.0
NH3 a O.'O
P04 s 0,0
REAERATION RATE
(i/DAyi
K2 = 4.520
CHLOR A/ALGAF
RATIO
RATIO
75.'no
-------
F I N A
R £ P 0 R T
RFACH NO. 8.0 RCH s
RIVfR MILES 9."550 TO 8.'050
1. MVDRAUL'IC
VALUES
PA*A"fcTFR
FLO* n
«>,to
2.62
3 ."17
n 79
t.«3
«»
S.6-
5«9*
2. So
3 ,49
0.8"
1. Ob
3
5.'h7
5,85
2.5|
3.*>1
0^81
1 .49
0
5.71
5.73
2.4S
3.5?
0,82
1.52
S
5.'7«
5,62
2,39
3.5«
0,83
1.55
h
5.7'
5,50
2.34
3.55
0.84
1.58
7
s.'si
5.19
2. 2*
3.56
0.44
1.62
R
5. '84
5^28
2.?4
3.57
0'85
1.65
9
s.efl
5.17
2.19
3.58
0.86
1.68
10
5.91
5.06
2.14
3.59
0.87
1.71
11
5.94
4,96
2,09
3J59
0,88
1.75
12
5.;97
4 86
2,04
3.60
0.88
1.78
13
6.01
4.76
2.00
3.60
0,89
1.82
14
6.04
4.66
1^95
3.61
0.90
1,85
15
6.' 07
«:57
1.91
3.61
0^90
1.88
16
* Nnre* UNITS *RF HG/L." EXCEPT FOR FECAI
AND CONSERVATIVE MINERALS(MG/L*IOJ
17
18
19
3, AVERAGE V A I 0 F S OF REACH COEFFICIENTS
OFCAY RATtS (1/OAv)
1 .10
0.60
2.00
0.0
0.0
1.20
KN02 «
KCOLl «
KROM S
KNH2 S
HATES (I/DAY) BENTHOS SOURCE RATES (MG/FT/OAY)
BOO 3
ALGAE 3
0,0
o.o
BOO s O.'O
NH3 s 0.0
poa «? o.o
REAFRATIOM RATE
(1/OAV)
K2 s 4.'520 RATIO = 75.CO
CHLOR A/ALGAF
RATIO
-------
* * * * * * FINAIREPORT * «
RFACH MO. 9.0 HCH =
PTVEP MIL.FS 6.'050 TO 6.'050
1. HYDRAULIC PARAMETER'VALUES * * ** *
PAKA'FTER
FLOW (CFSJ *
VELOCITY (FPS) »
DEPTH CFT> *
2. MATER ttUALiTv PARAMETER VALUES * ** * * *
ELFM t 2 3 u 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IB 19 20
kD OF REACH
66.267
0.590
1.750
END OF REACH
66. '267
0.590
1.750
MAXIMUM
66^267
0.590
1.750
MINIMUM
66 .'267
0.590
1.750
AVERAGE
66.267
0.590
1 .'750
on
BOO
ORGN
NH3
N02
N03
S.'7rt
«.1.S
>.88
3.32
ft.4J»
1.89
5.7i
8.2^
1 .65
3.3*
0.49
1.90
5 '69
8.18
1.'82
O2
0.^50
1 «°9l
S.6S
8.09
1.79
3.32
0.5?
t .93
5.61
e.'oi
1.77
3 J33
0.*S3
1.94
5.57
7.9i
1.74
3.33
0.54
1.96
5.53
7.34
1.71
3.33
0.'55
1.97
5.50
7 .'7 6
1.69
3^3
0*56
1 .98
5.47
7.68
1.66
3J33
0.57
2.00
5.43
7. '60
1.63
3.'33
0.58
2.01
5, '40
7.53
1.61
3.33
0 "59
2.03
5^37
7.45
1,58
3%33
0.61
2.05
5.35
7.37
1.56
3. '32
0,62
2.06
5.32
7.30
l."54
3,32
0.62
2.08
5^30
7^22
1.51.
3.32
0.'63
2. '09
5.27
7.15
l."49
3,32
0.64
2.11
5*25
7.07
1>7
3^31
0.65
2*13
5.?3
7.'00
1.'44
3.31
0.66
2.15
5.21
6,93
1'42
3^31
0.67
2.16
5,19
6,85
1.40
3.30
0 68
2.18
* NOTE' UNITS ARE MG/L. EXCEPT FOR FECAL COLIFORM(IOOO/1OOML) AND CONSERVATIVE MINERALS(MG/L*10)
3. AVERAGE V A l U F S O F REACH COEFFICIENTS * * *i ' "• "
DFCAY RATtS (1/OAV) SETTLING RATES (1/DAV) BENTHOS SOURCE RATES (MG/FT/DAV) RFAERATION RATE CHLOR A/ALGAF
(t/OAY) RATIO
1 0.80 R0<> s 0.0 BOO s 0.0 K2 s 2,'lOO RATIO s 75."00
KNH3 » 0.60 *L«AF a 0.0 NH5 a OJO
KN02 s 2.00 •---• pOfl a 0.0 " " ~"
-- • -. o.o
8 o.o " " "'* '•
'1.20 ' ' ' ' -
-------
FINAL REPORT « <
PFACH NO. JO.O RCH =
RIVER MILES fr.'oso TO 4,'oso
I. HYDPAIJLTC PARAMETER V A L l> F S
HEAD OF REACH END OF REACH MAXIMUM MINIMUM AVERAGE
FLOW (C*S) = 66.'267 66.'267 66.'267 66,267 66,'267
VELOCITY fFPS) * 0.590 0.590 0.590 0.590 0.'590
DEPTH (FT) o 1.750 . l.'7SO 1.750 1.'750 l.'7SO
2. * A T E R 'v II A LIT Y P ARAM E _T E. R V A L U.E.3 ... «... *._ * t * * -
ELfM t 2 5 u 5 6 7 « 9 10 U 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .19 20
5.02
5.57
1.03
3.17
0.80
nn
BOO
|R (? N
NH3
NO2
N03
•i.17
6.78
1.38
3. '30
0.69
2.20
5.16 5.* 10
6.71 6,61
1.3" 1 34
3.2«» 3.29
O.fe«» O."70
2.22 2.24
5.13
6.58
1,32
3.28
0.71
2.2S
S.'ll
6,51
1.29
3.28
0.71
2. '2 7
5,10
6.4U
1,27
3.27
0.72
2.29
5. '09
i ,26
3 *27
0,73
2.3t
1*24
3j?6
0 73
2.33
5.07
l!'22
3.25
0.74
2.35
5j06 5.05
6.18 6.12 .
1.20 i.'ia
3.25 3.24
0.75 0,75
2.37 2.39
5.05
6,05
1,16
3,23
0,76
2. '41
5. '04
3«?3
0.76
2.43
5.03
5.93
1.13
3.22
0.77
2.45
5. '03
5,87
1.11
3 .'21
0.77
2,*47
5.03
li'09
3.20
0.78
2. '49
5*75
1,07
3^20
0.78
2,'Sl
5. '02
5.69
1.'06
3.'19
0.79
2.53
5 '63
1**04
3.18
0.'79
2.55
liNITS fiRE MG/L.' EXCEPT FOR FECAL CnLIFO"M( 1000/1 OOMl.) AND CONSERVATIVE MINERAL3
-------
F I N * I.
REPORT
REACH NO. 11.0 RCH »
RIVER MILES 4 .'050 TO 2."050
1.* HYDRAULIC PAPAMETER VALUES
PAMA'-ETER
HEAD
f-EACH
VFLOCIT* (FPS)
DEPTH
66.267
0.590
1.750
E»»0 OF RFACH
66.267
0.590
2. MATER
UAL.ITV PARAMETER VALUES
FLEM
on
flno
IRGN
NH3
NO2
NO3
5
5
1
3
0
2
1
;»?
,51
«°»
.16
;eo
.59
*
5,02
5. ««•
0.9"
3.15
O.flO
2.61
3
5.-02
5.'4fl
0.98
3.S4
o.'ai
2*63
a
5.0?
5.3/1
0.96
3,1V
0.81
2.65
5
5. '02
5.?9
0,95
3t*12
0.81
2.68
5.
5.
0.
3.
0.
2.
6
02
23
93
11
62
70
7
5.03
5.18
0.92
3.'10
O.'B?
2.72
8
5-03
5^13
Oj9t
3^09
0,82
2.74
9
5.03
5.07
0,69
3.08
0,'B2
2*76
H MAXIMUM
66,267
0.590
1.750.
_ *
10
5.00
5.02
O.bfl
3.07
0.83
2.78
*
11
S. 'OH
4.97
0.86
3.'0b
0.'83
2.60
*
12
5. '05
rt.92
0^85
3tOS
0.63
2.63
MINIMUK
66,267
0.590
l.'7SO
*
13
5, '05
4. '87
0.84
3.04
0.83
2.85
*
14
5.06
4.82
0,83
3.03
0.84
2.87
AVERAGE
66 ,'267
0.590
1.750 .
*
15
5. "06
4 .'77
0.81
3 .'02
0.84
2.89
16
5.07
4,72
0,80
3.01
0.84
2.91
IT
5:08
4*^,7
0*79
3*00
0>4
2*93
18
5. '09
4.62
0.78
2. '99
OJ84
2.96
19
5^09
4,57
0.76
2.98
0.84
2.98
20
5.10
4,53
0.75
2.96
0,84
3.00
NOTE' UNITS ARf MG/I.. EXCEPT FOR FECA|. CnLIFnRMt 1000/100*L) AND CONSERVATIVE MIMERALS(MG/L*10 j
3. AVERAGE VAIUFS OF RtACH C O EFFICIENTS
DECAY R*TtS fl/OAY)
0.80
0,60
2.00
.0.0
0,0
1.20
KNH3
KCOI.I <
KRO'J
KNM2 B
SETTLING RATES (I/DAY) BENTHOS SOURCF RATES (MG/FT/OAY)
BOD = 0.0
NH3 s 0.0
P04 s 0,0
REAERATION RATE
(I/DAY)
CHLOR A/ALGAE
RATIO
a 0,0
GAF s fl.,0
K2
2.'lOO RATIO a 75.00
-------
FINAL REPORT * t
REACH MO. t2.0 RCH s
RlVFR MtLES 2.050 TO O.'OSO
I. HYDRAULIC PARAMETER V A L U F 3
VFLPCIT* (FPS)
DEPTH (fT)
HEAD OF REACH
66.'267
O.S90
1.750
FND OF REACH
66 .'267
0.590
1.750
MAXIMUM
66.267
0.590
l.*7SO
MINIMUM
66.267
0.590
1.750
AVF.RAGE
66.'267
0.'590
1 .'750
2. «ATER OUALTTVPARAME. TER VALUFS
ELEM i
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
on s.'n
Brio u.4a
OUGN O.'7o
NH3 2. '95
N02 0.85
NO3 3.0a
s.ie
0)71
2.9«
0.8?
3.0«
03
4. '39
0,72
o|'85
3.'07
4.3« 4.'
O.'7l 0'
2.92 ?.
0.85 OJ
3.09 3J
1«5 5.F6
30 a. as
70 0.69
91 2.89
85 0.85
11 3.13
5.17
«.2l
0.67
?.8H
0.85
3.16
«^17
0,66
2.87
0'85
3.18
5.'19
1.12
0.65
2.86
0.85
3.20
5. '20
4.08
0.64
2 .'85
C.85
3.22
5 .'21
4.04
0.63
2.83
0.85
3.24
5.23
4,00
0,62
2.82
0^85
3.27
0*61
2.8|
0.85
3*29
5.25
o!6|
2.80
0.85
3.31
5.>
o]*60
2.78
O.'ftS
3.33
5.27
3,83
0.59
2.77
0.85
3.35
5;29
0*58
2.76
o:8s
3*38
5.30
3. '76
0.57
2.75
0.85
3.40
5.'31 5.32
3^72 3.68
0.56 0.55
2.73 2.72
O.I85 0,85
3.42 3.44
* NOTF* UNITS ARE MG/L. EXCEPT FOR FtCAi COLIFnRM(I000/lOOMtj AND CONSERVATIVE MINERAL3(MG/L*10)
3. AVERAGE VAIUFS OF REACH COEFFICIENTS
OECAY RATC3 Ct/OAv)
0.80
0,60
2.00
0.0
0.0
1.20
KNHf S
UNO? S
KNH2 a
SETTLING RATES (I/OAV) BENTHOS SOURCE RATES (MG/FT/OAVi
AIGAP
0.0
Q..O
ROD =0.0
NH3 = 0.0
PO4 8 0.0
REAERATION RATE
.... Ct/OAY)
K2 s 2.'IOO RATIO = 75.00
CHLOR A/ALGAE
RATIO
-------
APPENDIX B
OUTPUT TAPE DESCRIBING RESULTS
OF SOUTH BUFFALO CREEK
MODELING
-------
ABBREVIATIONS FOR PARAMETERS USED IN
SOUTH BUFFALO CREEK MODEL
QW = Waste Flow, MGD
CW - C-BODult -1.5 (BODS) in waste, mg/i
NW - N-BQD,t - 4.5 (NH3-N) in waste, mg/£
DOW = Dissolved Oxygen waste, mg/i
QS = Stream flow, cfs
CS = C-BOD , in stream, mg/Jl
NS » N-BOD , in stream, mg/fc
DOS = Dissolved Oxygen in stream, rag/£
QR = Runoff, cfs/stream mile
CR = C-BODult in runoff, mg/Jl
NR = N-BOD , in runoff, mg/2,
DOR = Dissolved oxygen in runoff, mg/H
Kl = C-BOD deoxygenation rate, base e, per day
KG = Total C-BOD removal rate, Kl + any settling rate,
base e, per day
KN . = N-BOD deoxygenation rate, base e, per day
KIIR- = Total N-BOD removal rate, base e, per day
V = Stream flow through rate, fps
DO . = Dissolved Oxygen Saturation value, mg/JZ,
Sou
N = Segments per mile for profile to be calculated
K2 = reaeration rate, base e, per day
SM = stream mile,
DO = DO at SM
CB - C-BOD at SM
NB - N-BOD at SM
-------
Reach 1
vT"~""~
'C: U
CM-
MW
I! 0 I J
Q>3
&S
H3
DQS
QF:
CR
. N R
B 0 R
'.-•' 7
i "'. j>
K 0
K r i
KMR
i ;
TinaftT
M
K2
''111) "
j 0
C G
1 ! :"*"
- - ,-
fc
• . }*~y»"i -^tm
^^
•- 18
13
' 5
1
4
----- 4
r
-
8
8
,-.
u
8
0
' ' 8
' . 8
8
8
' "
'-'
5
i
""i
.— r
" -*-.
f
r8J30*if..
, 0 0 0 8 *
.
, 7988*
•_^~' ~^-
• itfyy
, I 6 2 1-
..:;;-: y:- —
•
?ji.-j:::.fv—
- -L« _•"'-- 8 » 4«ii88._.
' - DO
r ' ' 5.2234
; "" CB
••':: .-'. 17, 3844''- '
I ".M3 -
L!':..;: 17.4198
IJrS.-Si;!"" — •—--.,
?"-:> . Ft , 6888 •-
I ' '20
? ..".'• 5 . 2816'
1 CB
[-•' • 17,2234
', '. KB
^ 17.3993 •
£?-"!;!:, f^
; 1 ~ "- 8 » 8 0 8 8 . •
is. j 1*7
K -' -\ 5 , 3374
? - ""CB .
' • ^ i T* •• cr --i "?
v ••-.;. •! r . !-'£.•
5"'" rJb
•X" "- 17. 330:" .-
<=";.f-1
:- 1 , 8 0 8 n
""'; T: •
•--.. 5, 3989
- CEi:>
.17. 077*1.
'• J ' "* •
(•;*• :. ir,.3.-;it;
1 1
'" '^l!f ••-••—•.
"V-:"
."
i
i
j
.
i
;
"^ "
_ j neacu f.
\ ill'J
! . M.fiyR-H*
1 CSJ
f'-J-*! n ;TrflR@*"
i t-i!..| ' •
i ' "
,r 0,0000*
'•• ^'"' M
,- *.' y W
i- : . . • 8.0088*
•!'•','•'•• '&S
*! •' ? . . 32, 2588*
* '•• •-• •:•
< "7 Q."? "^ J. i
i r a y*t i "4 •*•
14 S
17.3616*
DOS
5 , 3 9 8 9 *
OR
0'. 8808*
i ": !?•
0 . 8 8 8 8 *
MR
0 . Fl fl fl fi •» •:
• I! OR
8 , 8 8 8 8 *
KI
8.3388*
K C
0 , 3 3 fi fl *
KM
0 , i':-'1:-. fl*
T::NR
; 8,1263*
M --;fif!V!:-
DOSflT
8 . 4 8 Q 8 *
\'\
4 , 8888*
^ _K 2
"- '•- " '"-' h S fl ft -
osr-; • . •••'
8,2588
ri 0
5 4 :i; 6 8 3
CB
.16,7 5 8 8
-------
\ Reach 2 (cent.)
\
! N^
1
,.
. "X
t
i
t
r
1
I
r
1 v
%
i
^
j
.DO
CB
r\B
. j 0
CB
l-iB
*h-
30
i ' B
UB
':• !'!
DO
CB
MB
•'•: rl-
Ii 0
CB '
••IB
,M
D 0
,I:-B
';-.] R
-••»<» i-.
a
5
16
17
O
5
16
-K.. • «VJ
^.ili^.
. 5y"9Ty"~"~]
"i
. 341-0 ">' .:
.42
.. .' :
89- •:
,1402 -j
* i^-Lj
. ' CB
t
If* • •
'• *, i»~
^f: M^!
. 7500 , «:;.'
, 33
. 11
02 '^
40 .
£^£»;S
.'" • !"' C.
>*'
$---^B
1 >••
l
,03
0 5 • \ '•- 'J
. 0000 ' $ ••'•'•
1 ^ifU
5
15
O 'Zl
* — UK
. 80
70 .-
j
t'. ••-•
- •* • r-o
-.-T| -...,.,
51 .....f
"£•* '.HB
1 ""
1
5
1-5
; J
• i t'
1
... 5
15
16
i
5
. ...J-.4
-•
'..-. "'...J6
.92
16 'f^;
fc^^;f-i
,2500.. I -. ._
. -J -.J
. 50
R 1
».
04'^"
"*"" ;-
*f'i~!
»
^ CB
21 f
••"i ••"• 'v
O O
, 5 0 O O '***"
. •-' O
f
94-: ; •
.2049
. 70
.75
.35
. 91
7-59
57
00 •
3 3
34^=^
*.'.
''"' »' • » H
, MB
.• 7 ~
Vo[.1
DO
! •• -
'.' -'CB
" ^-''"a
*^®ff^
f
".
DO
. CB
• HB
*
2.0000
14,6275
= t.
^ DO
| CB
* UB
2.2500.;
5.3928
•14. 347-1
.30
MB
2.500y '
c; j, < -7 ••?
•J » 'T i i L_
14 g7'.'1"i
* r 4 -J i iv i
16,2323-
2.7500.
«
• 5.444."
1 3.302 3
•'•:. 20
3.000 0
5.4731
16.0747
3.2508
5.-503;:'
5..5353
13.0237
15.3696
.3.7500
5,5690 -
12.7740
1..1... r' >*' '*• ' i,
'4.UOOO
'•5.603l'l".
12-, 529 1 Z
-------
BIOLOGY:
Terrestrial Environment
Present Vegetation
• Vegetative Associations of Guilford County
- Quadrangle Reference Map
- Summerfield Quadrangle
- Lake Brandt Quadrangle
- Brown's Summit Quadrangle
- Ossipee Quadrangle
- Guilford Quadrangle
- Greensboro Quadrangle
- McLeansville Quadrangle
- Gibsonville Quadrangle
List of Scientific Names of Plants
Fauna:
- Relationship to Habitat
- Status of Game Animal Populations
- Mammals and Marsupials of Guilford County
- Birds of Guilford County
- Reptiles and Amphibians of Guilford County
Aquatic Environment
Fishes of the Haw River Basin
Benthic Organisms of the Haw River Basin
-------
Present Vegetation
the mixed pine-hardwood stands are the most common type
of forest cover in the study area; these are late-successional
stands resulting from regrowth following lo'gging or cultivation.
Species composition varies considerably, and a continuum of stands
occurs between the driest, best-drained sites and the moister,
richer sites in sheltered ravines and lower slopes. Though bas-
ically dominated throughout by white, red, and black oaks, the
drier end of the continuum is distinguished by scarlet, post, and
blackjack oaks, with chestnut oak on the most rugged sites. The
opposite end of the continuum is characterized by the presence of
American beech, sweetgum, green ash, shagbark hickory, and walnut.
Pines may be found on all sites , usually as scattered clusters or
individuals of shortleaf pine. The upland forests correspond
roughly to ASF Types 52, 78, and 87, but their successional na-
ture makes them very indistinct, and the degree of overlap is so
great as to justify no ecological distinction between them.
. Floodplain forests are very restricted in distribution
owing both to the fact that the study area lies at the headwaters
of a drainage basin and to the encroachment of agriculture and in-
dustry. Several successional phases of this forest type are evi-
dent, but the most common appears to be dominated by American elm
and/or green ash, and corresponds roughly to ASF Type 93. Ripar-
ian woodlands are a subtype of this flpodplain forest type, forming
a narrow strip on either side of stream courses. Sycamore is
clearly the most characteristic tree of streambank situations,
together with American elm and green ash. Black willow is found
on disturbed sites. Japanese honeysuckle frequently forms an al-
most continuous carpet over the forest floor, and other vines,
including poison ivy, Virginia creeper, and grape are common.
-------
The pine woodlands in the study area are almost always
nearly pure stands of Virginia pine grown very close together and
forming a dense canopy. Occasional plantations of shortleaf pine
are found. Virginia redcedar is frequently encountered as an un-
derstory species in successional stands of pine. Elsewhere, red-
cedar is a typical early-succession dominant on abandoned fields;.
in the study area, one heavily grazed field was observed in which
redcedar had established itself in the absence of pine.
Old field revegetation varies according to time elapsed
since abandonment, with broomsedge becoming dominant, together
with various tall, weedy forbs. Pine seedlings may invade as early
as the third year. Cultivated fields make up a sizeable percen-
tage of the study area, occupying a fourth to a third of the total
non-urban land. Corn, tabacco, cotton, and feed grains are the
most frequently grown crops.
Aside from the influence of clearing and succession, the
distribution of vegetation types appears to be most closely re-
lated to topography, as this factor affects soil characteristics.
Working in Moore County, Glazier (GL-068) found that clay content
and soil acidity increased from "better" to "poorer" sites, and
that the "poorer," more exposed sites were generally more highly
weathered and lower in nutrients. A smiliar pattern was observed
by Nemeth (NE-166) in Durham County. Poorer sites are generally
drier, owing to their clayey subsoil layers which enhance runoff
and retard percolation; soil moisture therefore becomes a key
factor differentiating sites. Seedlings of the many oak species
found in the area exhibit a range of physiological drought toler-
ance which has been found to correlate with their distribution
brtween good and poor sites. Although upland soils are structur-
ally quite similar over the study area, local differences of slope
and exposure affect weathering and soil formation rates to a degree
which results in vegetational differences.
-------
A distince soil type forms in the major valleys, includ-
ing North and South Buffalo Creeks and Horsepen Creek; this moder-
ately to poorly drained soil type, low in natural fertility and
organic content (US-562) and subject to intermittent flooding,
supports the typical floodplain and riparian forest cover. Water
tables may be seasonally high, ranging from two feet to the sur-
face of the soil; this factor more than any other probably deter-
mines the species composition of the forest stands found there.
-------
ROCKINGHAM CO.
VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS OF GUILFORD COUNTY
421
-------
EVERGREEN FOREST
SUMMERFIELD
-------
EVERGREEN FOREST
LAKE BRANDT
-------
DECIDUOUS FOREST
MIXED FOREST
EVERGREEN FOREST
BROWN'S SUMMIT-
-------
EVERGREEN FOREST
QlMM O""""
OSSIPEE
-------
GUILFORD
-------
EVERGREEN FOREST
GREENSBORO
-------
EVERGREEN FOREST
McLEANSVILLE
-------
AGRICULTURAL
EVERGREEN FOREST
GIIBSONVILLE
-------
LIST OF SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF PLANTS
Cattail
Chestnut Oak
White Oak
Red Oak
Black Oak
Post Oak
Blackjack Oak
Southern Red Oak
Scarlet Oak
Willow Oak
Swamp Red-Oak
Shagbark Hickory
American Beech
Crabgrass
Horseweed
Aster
Ragweed
Broomsedge
Virginia Pine
Shortleaf Pine
Sweetgum
Dogwood
Sourwood
Green Ash
Walnut
American Elm
Sycamore
Black Willow
Japanese Honeysuckle
Poison Ivy
Virginia Creeper
Grape
Virginia Red Cedar
Typha angustifolia
Quercus prinus
Quercus alba
Quercus rubra
Quercus velutina
Quercus stellata
Quercus marilandica
Quercus falcata
Quercus coccinea
Quercus phellos
Quercus falcata (var. pagodaefolia)
Carya ovata
Fagus grandifolia
Digitaria sanguinalis
Erigeron canadensis
Aster sp.
Ambrosia artemisiifolia
Schizachyrium virginicus
Pinus virgiana
Pinus echinata
Liquidambar styraciflua
Cornus florida
Oxydendrum arboreum
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Juglans nigra
Ulmus americana
Platanus occidentalis
Salix nigra
Lonicera japonica
Rhus toxicodendron
Parthenocissus quinquefolia
Vitus sp.
Juniperus virginiana (var. crebra)
-------
LIST OF SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF PLANTS (Cont.)
Manna grass Glyceria sp.
Bullrush Scirpus sp.
Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentdlis
Water Hyacinth Eichornia crassipes
Water Lily Nymphaea sp.
-------
Fatona
Relationship to Habitat
Generally speaking, the more open upland and floodplain
forests provide the best habitat for most wildlife species. Both
cover and food are abundant, and the large proportion of edge be-
tween woodlots and fields adds to their value. Mammals typical
of these forests include the chipmunk, gray squirrel, and fox
squirrel. Opossum, white-footed mouse, meadow jumping mouse, and
striped skunk are common ubiquitous species often found in open
woodlands. Deep-woods species which may have been more widely
distributed in the past include least shrew and southern flying
squirrel. Virginia white-tailed deer are infrequently found in
the area, often feeding in fields and clearings adjacent to wood-
lots. Red fox and gray fox are also resident in woodlands but
are likewise uncommon. A large number of small birds are char-
acteristically associated with woodlands; these include the wood-
.peckers, eastern phoebe, eastern wood pewee, blue jay, Carolina
chickadee, brown thrasher, cardinal, rufoud-sided towhee, and a
variety of.nesting and migrating warblers. The pileated wood-
pecker, rare now in the area, is a typical deep-woods species de-
clining under the pressure of habitat loss. Forest raptors include
Cooper's, broad-winged, and red-shouldered hawks, as well as the
great horned and barn owls. Several reptiles, including the eas-
tern fence lizard and eastern garter snake, found in woodlands
as well as other habitats; the five-lined skink and southeastern
copperhead tend to prefer wooded areas.
Riparian and bottomland habitats are characterized by
a group of species which tend to be most abundant in such situa-
tions. These include muskrat, belted kingfisher, tufted titmouse,
nuthatches, Carolina wren, blue-gray gnatcatcher, kinglets, and
several of the vireos and warblers. Most amphibians are restricted
-------
to moise areas near water, and several of the snakes, Including
the eastern ribbon snake and rough green snake, are also found
mainly near streams. Raccoons are almost always found near water.
The dense pine thickets afford habitat to many of the
small bird and mammal species including a few, such as red cross-
bill, pine siskin, pine warbler, and pine vole, that are more
characteristic of conifers than other vegetation types. However,
the uniformity of physical structure of pine stands and their
dense shade which reduces the growth of understory vegetation
tends to make them generally less valuable habitats than the
older hardwood stands. •
Old fields, including young pine stands before the
canopy closes, tend to have a distinct faunal assemblage which
includes many of the widespread species of broad tolerance men-
tioned above. The white-footed mouse is expecially common in
old fields. In addition, the eastern cottontail, hispid cotton
rat, and house mouse prefer the dense growth of tall weeds and
grasses (MC-255). Birds commonly associated with old fields and
clearings include sparrow hawk, marsh hawk, bobwhite, killdeer,
common nighthawk, mockingbird, robin, eastern meadowlark, Ameri-
can goldfinch and most species of sparrows.
Status of Game Animal Populations
During brief field investigations conducted in November,
1976 by Radian Corporation biologists, deer tracks were seen near
Lake Brandt. Hendrickson (HE-214) reported deer signs in the
South Buffalo Creek drainage. Deer probably utilize the relatively
continuous woods and thickets following the area's major stream-
courses as routes of movement to and from the larger areas of wood-
lands. The best woodland habitat is found in the northern part
of the county, in the Reedy Fork watershed. Although habitat
-------
for deer is greatly fragmented in Guilford Comity, the combina-
tion of woody and old-field herbaceous cover could probably sup-
port a much larger population than is now found there.
Gray and fox squirrels are generally hunted in wooded
riparian habitats; good hunting is localized in these areas in
Guilford County. Nests were commonly observed along all of the
streamcourses surveyed in November, 1976 by Radian biologists.
Availability of food—primarily acorns—seems to be the major
factor determining the year-to-year variations in size of the
squireel population, although its overall limits are set by the
availability of woodland habitat (NO-115).
Waterfowl of various kinds utilize the lakes, streams,
and ponds in Guilford County, primarily in winter and during mi-
gration. Canada geese are common winter migrants, and mallards
are common winter residents. Other species observed regularly,
but not commonly, include pintail, gadwall, blue-winged and green-
winged teal. Only the wood duck is listed as a permanent resi-
dent (DA-227). Hunting for waterfowl is limited in Guilford
County. Lake Brandt and possibly other lakes were hunted as. re-
cently as 1967 (VA-157).
Red fox, gray fox, and raccoon are popular quarries,
hunted with dogs and/or from horseback. Extreme pressure resulted
in population declines and unsupervised introductions during the
1950's by private sporting interests. Raccoon sign was found
nearly everywhere along North and South Buffalo Creeks and Reedy
Fork by Radian biologists, corroborating Hendrickson's earlier
observations (HE-214). Both also observed some raccoon sign
along Horsepen Creek.
In addition to the above species, muskrat and opossum
are trapped for fur. Muskrat is the most important furbearer in
-------
Guilford County. Muskrat sign or road kills were noted on or near
South Buffalo Creek, Buffalo Creek, and the Haw River by Radian
biologists, and along South Buffalo and Horsepen Creeks by Hendrick-
son (HE-214). Muskrat abundance is probably controlled mainly by
habitat availability. Adequate combinations of food, cover, and
permanent, relatively deep water are found naturally only along
the main streamcourses and their tributaries. Farm ponds were
not examined in the field, but it is probable that they supply
additional habitat. Muskrat are probably also found along the
shorelines of Lakes Brandt, Townsend, Richland, and other large
impoundments where cattail and other emergent vegetation offers
a combination of food and cover.
-------
LEGEND FOR TABLES A-2 THROUGH A-4
Relative Abundance
A - Abundant
C - Common
UC - Uncommon
R - Rare*
Habitat
MP-H - Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forest
FPF - Floodplain Forest
R - Riparian
PF - Pine Forest
OF - Old Field
Seasonality
PR - Permanent Resident
SR - Summer Resident
WR - Winter Resident
SM - Summer Migrant
WM - Winter Migrant
Tolerance of Man
1 Intolerant - avoids man by leaving area
2 Tolerant - moves short distance or not at all
3 Compatible - lives in close association with man
*For more information on species listed as rare, endangered, or of special
concern in North Carolina, the reader is referred to "Endangered and Threatened
Plants and Animals of North Carolina" published by the North Carolina State
Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina.
-------
TABLE A-2 .
MAMMALS & MARSUPIALS OF
GUILFORD CO.
REF: (BURT & GROSSENHEIDEO)
-------
MARSUPJALS
Oppossum
Didelphis marsupialis
MAMMALS
Southeastern Shrew
Sorex longirustrus
Short-tailed Shrew
Blarina brevicauda
Least Shrew
Cryptocis parva
Eastern Mole
Scalopus aquaticus
Little Brown Myotis
Myotis lucifugus
Silver Haired Bat
Lasionycteris noctivagans
Eastern Pipistrelk
Pipistrellus subflavus
Big Brown Bat
Eptesicus fuscus
Red Bat
• Lasiurus boreal is
Hoary Bat
Lasiurus cinereus
Evening Bat
Nycticeius humeralis
Seminde Bat
Lasiurus seminolus
RELATIVE
ABUNDANCE
C
R
UC
R
C
C
C
C
C
UC
UC
R
UC
HABITAT
All
MP-H
' Open fields
FPF
All
PFP
MP-H
Open areas
sandy soil
All
Woods near
streams, pond
All
i
All
Forests
Forests
Forests
Forests
TOLERANCE OF
MAN
2
1
1
1
2
COMMENTS
Game animal - also trapped for
hide
Burrower
Caves, hollow trees, old buildings
status undetermined in N.C.
Caves, hollow trees, old buildings
status undetermined in N.C.
.
.
-------
MAMMALS
fPnnt-tniif»rn
Refinesque's Big-Eared Bat
Plecotus rafinesquei
Eastern cottontail
Sylvilagus floridanus
Eastern chipmunk
Tamias striatus
Gray Squirrel
Sciurus carolinensis
Fox Squirrel
Sciurus niger
Southern Flying Squirrel
Glaucomys volans
Beaver
Castor canadensis
Rice Rat
Oryzomys palustris
Eastern Harvest Mouse
Reithrodontomys humulis
White Footed Mouse
Peromyscus leuocopus
Golden Mouse
Peromyscus nuttalli
Hispid Cotton Rat
Sigmodon hispidus
Meadow Vole
Microtus pennsylvanicus
Pine Vole
Microtus pinetorum
RELATIVE
AmiNnANf!F.
c
A
c
A-C
c
uc
uc
UC
UC
C
UC
C
C
UC
I
HABITAT
Forests
Open Forests
& fields
Hardwoods
FPF, MP-H
FPF, MP-H
Forests
FPF-streams
Fields
Fields
1
All
UPH.FPF marslJ
swamps
Fields with
tall weeds
Fields
RH
TOLERANCE OF
MAN
2
2-3
2
2-3
1-2
2
2
2
2
es
2
2
2
COMMENTS
Status undetermined in N.C.
Game animal
Game animal - economic importance
No open season in N.C.
Presence not confirmed, economic impor-
tance - fur bearing animal, trapped
for hide
Fossorial
-------
MAMMALS
(Continued)
Muskrat
Ondatra zibethica
Norway Rat
Rattus norvegicus
Black Rat
Rattus rattus
House Mouse
Mus rausculus
Meadow Jumping Mouse
Zapus hudsonieus
Red Fox
Vulpes fulva
Gray Fox
Urocyon cinereoargenteus
Raccoon
Procyon lotor
Long-tailed Weasel
Mustela frenat
Mink
Mustela vison
Striped Skunk
Mephitis mephitis
River Otter
Lutra canadensis
Spotted skunk
Spilogale putorius
RELATIVE
ABUNDANCE
UC
A-C
A-C
A
C
UC
UC
A-C
UC
UC
C
UC-R
C
HABITAT
FPF-streams
R
Cosmopolitan
Cosmopolitan
Fields & wast
places with
dense cover
All
FPF
MP-H
FPF
Forests
near water
All
1
FPF-streams
All
FPF-streams
FPFj MP-H
TOLERANCE OF
MAN
2
3
3
3
2
1-2
1-2
2-3
1-2
1-2
2
1-2
1-2
COMMENTS
Economic importance — fur bearer-
trapped for hide
Crop damage-especially stored grains
Crop damage-especially stored grains
Game animal
Game animal
Economic importance-fur bearer-
trapped for hide. Game animal
Fur bearer-trapped for hide
Economic importance - fur bearer-
trapped for hide
Furbearer-trapped for hide
Economic importance-fur bearer-
trapped for hide
Furbearer-trapped for hide
-------
MAMMALS
(fontinupd)
White-tailed deer
Odocoileus virginianus
RELATIVE
ABUNDANCE
UC
HABITAT
Forests
edges
I
TOLERANCE OF
MAN
1-2
COMMENTS
Game animal
-------
; TABLE A-3
BIRDS OF GUILFORD COUNTY
SOURCE: DA-227
-------
BIRDS
Common Loon
Gavia immer
Red-necked Grebe
Podiceps
Horned Grebe
Podiceps auritus
Pied-billed Grebe
Podilymbus podiceps
Double-crested Cormorant
Phalacrocorax auritus
Great Blue Heron
Ardea Herodias
Green Heron
Butorides virescens
Little Blue Heron
Florida caerulea
Common Egret
Casmerodius albus
Snowy Egret
Leucophoyx thula
Black-crowned Night Heron
Nycticorax nycticorax
Yellow-crowned Night Heron
Nyctanassa violacea
Least Bittern
Ixobrychus exilis
RELATIVE
ABUNDANCE
UC
UC
UC
UC
UC
C
C
UC
UC
UC
R
UC
UC
HABITAT
Ponds
and Lakes
Ponds
and Lakes
Ponds
and Lakes
Lakes
Lakes
Streams
Creeks
streams
ponds
Marshes
Streams,
lakes,
ponds
Streams,
lakes, ponds
Ponds,
lakes,
marshes
Marshes
Marshes
•
Ret: The Birds of^Guilford uo. , N. uaronna, uawxey, cnan
SEASONALITY
Winter
Migrant
Winter
Resident
PR
Winter
Resident
PR
SR
SM
SR
SR
SM
SM
SM
uLLe, 1934; L
TOLERANCE
OF MAN
1-2
2
1-2
2
2
2
2
1-2
it CliaL -Vcn
COMMENTS
Special care needed in
North Carolina
Special care needed
in North Carolina
Special care needed in
North Carolina
Special care needed in
North Carolina
Special care needed in
North Carolina
Breeding population
threatened In North Carolina
i
•. _lu, ••lrl,~June 1934. — '
-------
BIRDS
American Bittern
Botaurus lentiginosus
Wood Ibis
Mycteria americana
Canada Goose
Branta canadensis
Snow Goose
Chen hyperborea
Mallard
Anas platyrhynchos
'
Black Duck
Anas rubripes
Gad wall
Anas strepera
Pintail
Anas acuta
Green-Winged Teal
Anas Carolinensis
Blue-winged Teal
Anas discors
American Widgeon
Mareca americana
Shoveler
Spatula clypeata
Wood Duck
Aix sponsa
Redhead
Aythva americana
RELATIVE
ABUNDANCE
UC
K
C
DC
C
UC
UC
UC
UC
C
UC
UC
UC
R
HABITAT
Marshes
fonas
streams
Lakes and
grain fields
Lakes and
grain fields
Lakes and
ponds
Lakes, ponds
rivers, strea
Lakes, ponds
rivers, strea
Lakes, ponds
rivers, strea
Lakes, ponds
rivers, strea
Lakes, ponds
rivers, strea
Lakes, ponds
rivers, strea
Marshes
Creeks
marshes, RH
Large Lakes
SEASON
SM
SM
WM
WM
WR
WR
IS
WM
is
WM
is
WM
IS
WM
is
WR
is
WM
PR
WM
TOLERANCE
OF MAN
1-2
1-2
1-2
1-2
1-2
1-2
1-2
1-2
1-2
1-2
1-2
1-2
1-2
1-2
COMMENTS
Situation undetermined
in North Carolina
Special care needed in
North Carolina
v
•
-------
BIRDS
Ring-necked Duck
Aythya collaris
Canvasback
Aythya valisineria
Lesser scaup
Aythya affinis
Greater scaup
Aythya marila
Common golden-eye
Bucephala clangula
Bufflehead
Bucephala albeola
Old- squaw
Clangula hy emails
Ruddy Duck
Oxyura jamaicensis
Hooded merganser
Lophodytes cucullatus
Common Merganser
Mergus merganser
Turkey Vulture
Cathartes aura
Black Vulture
Coragyps atratus
Sharp-shinned hawk
Accipiter striatus
Cooper's hawk
Accipiter cooperii
RELATIVE
ABUNDANCE
UC
uc
UC
R
UC
UC
UC
UC
UC
UC
c
UC
UC
UC
HABITAT
FPF, ponds
streams
Ponds, lakes,
rivers
Ponds, lakes,
rivers
Ponds, lakes
rivers
Ponds, lakes
rivers
Ponds, lakes
rivers
Lakes, ponds,
rivers
Ponds, lakes,
rivers
Wooded ponds,
streams, lakes
Lakes, ponds
rivers
All
All
All
Wooded areas
SEASON
MR
WM
WR
WM
WM
WR
WM
WM
WR
WR
PR
PR
PR
HK
TOLERANCE
OF MAN
1-2
1-2
1-2
1-2
1-2
1-2
1-2
1-2
1-2
2
2
2
COMMENTS
Situation undetermined in N.C.
Threatened in North Carolina
Threatened in North Carolina
Breeding population
threatened in. North Carolina
Breeding population
threatened in North Carolina
-------
BIRDS
Red-tailed Hawk
Buteo jamaicensis
Red-shouldered Hawk
Buteo lineatus
Broad-winged Hawk
Buteo platypterus
Bald eagle
Haliaetus leucocephalus
Marsh Hawk
Circus cyaneus
Os prey
Pandion haliaetus
Peregrine falcon
Falco peregrinus
Sparrow Hawk
Falco sparverius
Bob-White
Colinus virginianus
Turkey
feleagris gallopavo
Cing Rail
lallus elegans
Virginia Rail
lallus limicola
>ora Rail
'orzana Carolina
Common Gallinule
>allinula chloropus
RELATIVE
ABUNDANCE
UC-C
UC
UC
Endangerec
UC
UC-R
Endangeret
C
C
UC
UC
R
R
R
HABITAT
All
Woodlands
Woodlands ,
Hardwoods
U-PH
FPF, near
water
Fields
Near water
Cliffs
Open fields
Open fields
& ifencerows
Woodlands
Marshes
Marshes
Lakes, ponds
marshes
Marshes
SEASON
PR
PR
SR
PR
WR
SM
WM
PR
PR
PR
PR
rfM
5M
5M
TOLERANCE
3F MAN
1
2
1
1
1-2
2-3
1
COMMENTS
Breeds in N.C., special concern
in N.C.
Breeding population
threatened in N.C.
Situation undetermined in N.C.
Endangered species in N.C.
Situation undetermined in
N.C.
Special care needed in
N.C.
Endangered species in N.C.
Breeding population
threatened In N.C.
Game bird
Special concern in N.C. -
Game bird
Special care needed in N.C.
•
Special care needed in N.C.
-------
BIRDS
American Coot
Fulica americana
Killdeer
Charadrius vociferus
American Woodcock
Philohela minor
Common Snipe
Capella* gallinago
Spotted Sandpiper
Actitis macularia
Solitary Sandpiper
Tringa solitaria
Laughing Gull
Larus atricilla
Bonaparte's Gull
Larus Philadelphia
Common Tern
Sterna hirundo
Caspian Tern
Hydroprogne caspia
Black Term
Chlidonias nigra
Herring Gull
Larus argentatus
Ring-Billed Gull
Larus delewarensis
Rock Dove
Columba livia
RELATIVE
ABUNDANCE
UC
C
UC
C
n
U
n
R
R
*
*
JC
JC
1
\
HABITAT
Lakes, ponds
narshes
Dpen areas,
near water
?PF- swamps
Swamps and
fields
Shorelines
Df lakes and
Jonds
Shorelines
Lakes, shore-
ines, dumps
Lakes, shore-
Lines, dumps
,akes , shore-
ines, dumps
Lakes , shore-
ines, dumps
,akes, shore-
ines, dumps
,akes, shore-
.ines, dumps
,akes , shore-
.ines, garbage
lumps
Cosmopolitan
SEASON
Ml
PR
PR
m
jR
>M
iR
>R
;R
iR
WM
R
PR
PR
TOLERANCE
OF MAN
2-3
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
COMMENTS
Pigeon in cities
-------
BIRDS
Mourning Dove
Zenaidura macroura
Yellow-Billed Cuckoo
Coccyzus americanus
Black-Billed Cuckoo
Coccyzus erthropthalmus
Barn Owl
Tyto alba
Screech Owl
Otus asio
Great-Horned Owl
Bubo virginianus
Snowy Owl
Nyctea scandiaca
Barred Owl
Strix varia
Long-Earned Owl
Asio otus
Short-Eared Owl
Asio flammeus
Chuck-Wills-Widow
Caprimulgus carolinensis
Whip-poor-will
Caprimulgus vociferus
Common Nighthawk
Chordeiles minor
Ruby-Throated Hummingbird
Archilochus colubris
RELATIVE
ABUNDANCE
A
UC
UC
C
UC
UC
R
UC
R
R
UC
C
C
UC
HABITAT
All
FPF orchards
etc.
FPF, orchards
etc."
Woodlands
Woodlands
mainly FPF
Woodlands
mainly FPF
Woodlands
Woodlands
mainly FPF
Evergreens
M^H
Open pastures
marshes
Hard woods
All
Open fields
All
SEASON
PR &
migrates
SR
SM
PR
PR
PR
WR
WR
WM
MM
SM
5R
3R
3R
TOLERANCE
OF MAN
2-3
1-2
1-2
1
2
2
2
2
2-3
COMMENTS
Gamebird
Situation undetermined in N.C.
Special concern in N.C.
'
-
-------
BIRDS
Chimney Swift
Chaetura jielagica
Belted Kingfisher
Megaceryle alcyon
Yellow-Shafted flicker
Colaptes auratus
Pileated Woodpecker
Dryocopus pileatus
Red-Bellied Woodpecker
Centurus carolinus
Red-Headed Woodpecker
Melanerpes erythrocephalus
Yellow-Bellied Sapsucker
Sphyrapicus varius
Hairy Woodpecker
Dendrocupos villosus
Downey Woodpecker
Dendrocopos pubescens
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker
Dendrocopos borealis
Eastern Kingbird
Tyrannus tyrannus
Great-crested Flycatcher
Myiarchus crinitus
Eastern Phoebe
Sayornis phoebe
Acadian Flycatcher
Empidonax virescens
RELATIVE
ABUNDANCE
C
C
C .
UC
C
UC
C
UC
C
Endangered
UC
UC-C
C
UC
HABITAT
Chimneys,
hollow traps
Near water
All
Deep woods
FPF, R
All
Open woods,
all
Woodlands
Woodlands
Open woods
MP-H, PF
Woodland edge
and fields
Woodlands
Open woodland
fields
FPF and
fields
SEASON
SR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
WR
PR
PR
PR
5 SR
SR
;, PR
SR
TOLERANCE
OF MAN
2-3
2
2-3
1
2
2
2
2
2-3
1-2
•
COMMENTS
Special concern in N.C.
Situation, undetermined in N.C.
Endangered species in N.C.
•
-------
BIRDS
Eastern Wood Pewee
Contopus virens
Least Flycatcher
Empidonax minimus
Horned Lark
Eremophila alpestris
Tree Swallow
Iridoprocne bicolor
Bank Swallow
Riparia riparia
Rough-winged Swallow
Stelgidopteryx ruficollis
Barn Swallow
Hirundo erythrogaster
Purple Martin
Progne subis
Blue Jay
Cyanocitta cristata
Common Crow
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Carolina Chicadee
Parus carolinensis
Tufted Titmouse
Parus bicolor
White-Breasted Nuthatch
Sitta carolinensis
Red-Breasted Nuthatch
Sitta canadensis
RELATIVE
ABUNDANCE
C
UC
C
UC
UC
C
UC
A
A
A
A
A
C
UC
HABITAT
MP-H
MP-h
Open fields
Open fields
near water
Open fields
near water
Open fields
near water
Open fields
Open fields
Woodlands
\
All
MP-H
FPF, swamps
FPF
MP-H
SEASON
SR
SM
PR
SM
SM
SR
SM
SM
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
WR
TOLERANCE
OF MAN
2
2-3
2-3
2
2
2
2
2
COMMENTS
•
-
Special care needed in N.C.
Special concern in N.C.
Special concern in N.C.
-------
BIRDS
Brown-Headed Nuthatch
Sitta pusilla
Brown Creeper
Certhia familiaris
House Wren
Troglodytes aedon
Winter Wren
Troglodytes troglodytes
Bewick's Wren
Thryomanes bewickii
Carolina Wren
Thryothorus ludovicianus
Long-Billed Marsh Wren
Telmatodytes palustris
Mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos
Catbird
Duraetella carolinensis
Brown Thrasher
Toxostoma rufum
Robin
Turdus migratorius
Brown Thrasher
Toxostoma rufum
Wood Thrush
Hylocichla mustelina
Hermit Thrush
Hylocichla guttata
RELATIVE"
ABUNDANCE
C
C
C
UC
UC
C
R
A
C
C
C
C
C
C
HABITAT
MP-1I
R, FPF
All
Forests
Woodlands
Woods,
swamps
Marshes
Open areas
and towns
Brush areas
1
Dry thickets
Open areas
FPF MP-H
FPF
MV
SEASON
PR
WR
SR
WR
SM
PR
WM
PR
PR
SR
PR
SR
SR
WK
TOLERANCE
OF MAN
2
2
2-3
2
1-2
3
2
2
2-3
COMMENTS
Breeding population threatened
in N.C.
-------
BIRDS
Swainson's Thrush
Hylocichla ustulata
Gray-checked Thrush
Hylocichla minima
Wilson's Thrush
Hylocichla fuscescens
Eastern Bluebird
Sialia sialis
Blue-Gray Gnatcatcher
Polioptila caerulea
Golden-Crowned Kinglet
Regulus satrapa
Ruby-Crowned Kinglet
Regulus calendula
Water Pipit
Anthus spinoletta
Cedar Waxwing
Bombycilla cedrorum
Loggerhead Shrike
Lanius ludovicianus
Starling
Sturnus vulgaris
White- Eyed • Vireo
Vireo griseus
Yellow Throated Viceo
Vireo flavifrons
Solitary vireo
Vireo solitarius
RELATIVE
ABUNDANCE
UC
R
UC
C
C
C
C
UC
C
C
A
C
C
C
HABITAT
Woods
Woods
Woods
Open areas
Thicket &
swamps
Thicket &
swamps
Thicket &
swamps
Open areas
Open woods
i
Open areas
Cosmopolitan
Woodlands
FPF
Woodlands
FPF
MP-H
SEASON
SM
WM
SM
PR
SR
WR
WR
WM
WM
PR
PR
bK
SR
SR
TOLERANCE
OF MAN
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
COMMENTS
Special care needed in
N.C.
Special concern in N.C.
Special concern in N.C.
•
-------
BIRDS
Red-Eyed Vireo
Vireo olivaceus
Warbling Vireo
Vireo gilvus
Black and White Warbler
Mniotilta varia
Prothonatary Warbler
Protonataria citrea
Worm- Eat ing Warbler
Helmitheros vermivorus
Blue-Winged Warbler
.Vermivora pinus
Parula Warbler
Parula americana
Yellow Warbler
Dendroica petechia
Cape May Warbler
Dendroica tigrina
Nashville Warbler
Vermivora ruficapilla
Orange-crowned warbler
Vermivora celata
•
Tennessee Warbler
Vermivora peregrina
Blackburnian Warbler
Dendroica fusca
Myrtle Warbler
Dendroica coronata
RELATIVE
ABUNDANCE
C
UC
C
R
R
R
UC
C
C
R
R
R
UC
C
HABITAT
Woodlands
Woodlands
FP?
FPF, swamps
FPF, R
Thickets
FPF
FPF, swamps
Woods, FPF
1
Woods, FPF
Moods, FPF
Woods, FPF
Woods, FPF
Woodlands
SEASON
SR
SM
SR
SM
SM
SM
SM
SR
SM
SM
WM
WM
SM
WR
TOLERANCE
OF MAN
COMMENTS
Breeding population threatened
in N.C.
Situation undetermined
in N.C.
Situation undetermined in N.C.
Smallest warbler
Special care needed in N.C.
-------
BIRDS
Black- Throated Green Warbler
Dendroica virens
Cerulean Warbler
Dendroica cerulea
Yellow- Throated Warbler
Dendroica dominica
Magnolia Warbler
Dendroica magnolia
Bay-Breated Warbler
Dendroica castanea
Black-Poll Warbler
Dendroica striata
Bobolink
Dolichonyx oryzivorus
Chestnut-sided Warbler
Dendroica pennsylvanica
Pine Warbler
Dendroica pinus
Prairie Warbler
Dendroica discolor
Palm Warbler
Dendroica palmar urn
Oven Bird '
Seiurus aurocapillus
Louisiana Water-Thrush
Seiurus mo ta cilia
Kentucky Warbler
Oporonis formosus
RELATIVE
ABUNDANCE
UC
UC
C
UC
R
C
UC
UC
C
C
C
C
UC
UC
HABITAT
MP-H
Open woods
MP-H
FPF
FPF
FPF
UP-H
FPF
Fields
FPF
MP-H
MP-H
1
MP-H
All
Woodlands
FPF-near
streams
FPF
SEASON
SM
SM
SR
WM
SM
SM
SM
SM
PR
SR
WM
SR
SR
SR
TULEKANUE
OF MAN
COMMENTS
Special concern in N.C.
Breeding population
threatened in N.C.
•
-------
BIRDS
Yellowthroat
Geothlypis trichas
Yellow-Breasted Chat
Icteria virens
Canada Warbler
Wilsonia canadensis
American Redstart
Steophaga ruticilla
m
Bobolink
Dolichonyx oryzivorus
House Sparrow
Passer domesticus
Eastern Meadowlark
Sturnella magna
Redwinged Blackbird
Agelaius phoeniceus
Orchard Oriole
Icturus spurius
Baltimore Oriole
Icterus galbula
Rusty Blackbird
Euphagus carolinus
Boat-tailed Crackle
Cassidix mexicanus
Common Crackle
Quiscalus guiscula
Brown-Headed Cowbird
Molothrus ater
RELATIVE
ABUNDANCE
C
C
UC
C
C
A
C
C
UC
UC
C
C
UC
UC
HABITAT
FPF
Thickets
Thickets
FPF
Near streams
& thickets
Woodlands
Fields
Cosmopolitan
Fields
Marshes &
fields
Orchards &
farmlands
Open woods
FPF
Swamps
Fields &
marshes
Fields &
towns
Open woods
& fields
SEASON
SR
SR
SM
SR
SM
PR
PR
PR
SM
SM
WM
PR
PR
PR
TOLERANCE
TO MAN
3
2-3
2
2
2-3
3
2
COMMENTS
.
• . •
-------
BIRDS
Scarlet Tanager
Piranga olivacea
Summer Tanager
Piranga rubra
Cardinal
Richmondena cardinalis
Blue Grossbeak
Cuir^ca caerulea
Indigo Bunting
Passerina cyanea
Evening Grosbeak
Hesperiphona vespertina
Purple Finch
Carpodacus purpureus
Common Redpoll
Acanthis flammea
Pine Siskin
Spinus pinus
American Goldfinch
Spinus tristis
Red Crossbill
Loxia carvirostra
Rufous-sided Towhee
Pipilo erythrophathalmus
Savannah Sparrow
Passerculus sandwichensis
Grasshopper Sparrow
Ammondramus savannarum
RELATIVE-
ABUNDANCE
UC
UC
A
UC
UC
UC
UC
UC
UC
C
UC
C
C
C
HABITAT
FPF & Upland
hardwoods
Woodlands
Thickets &
woodlands
FPF &
thickets
Thickets
Woodlands
MP-H
Fields &
swamps
MP-H
Open fields
PF MP-H
Conifers
Woodlands
Fields &
marshes
Fields &
prairies
SEASON
SM
SM
PR
SR
SR
WM
WM
WM
WM
PR
WM
PR
WR
SR
TOLERANCE
TO MAN
2
2
COMMENTS
Situation undetermined in
North Carolina
Situation undetermined in
North Carolina
-------
BIRDS
Hens low's Sparrow
Passer herbulus henslowii
Vesper Sparrow
Pooecetes gramineus
Bachman's Sparrow
Aimophila aestivalis
Slate-colored Junco
Junco hyemalis
.
Tree Sparrow
Spizella arborea
Chipping Sparrow
Spizella passerina
Field Sparrow
Spizella pusilla
White-Crowned Sparrow
Zonotrichia leucophrys
Wliite- Throated Sparrow
Zonotrichia albicollis
Fox Sparrow
Passerella iliaca
Swamp Sparrow
Melospiza georgiana
Song Sparrow
Melospiza melodia
*Red-Breasted Merganser
Mergus serrator
**Greater Yellowlegs
Tot anus melanpleueus
RELATIVE
ABUNDANCE
R
UC
UC
A
R
C
C
UC
UC
C
C
C
UC
C
HABITAT
Fields,
near water
Fields &
pastures
MP-H
All
Brushy,
low trees
MP-H
Edges
Fields, pas-
tures & brush
Thickets &
roadsides
Thickets &
brushy fields
Open woods
Swamps &
fields
Thickets &
shrubbery
Lakes, ponds
& rivers
Shorelines
SEASON
SM
WM
SR
WR
WM
SR
PR
WM
WR
WR
WR
PR
WR
SM
TOLERANCE
TO MAN
1-2
1-2
COMMENTS
Special concern in
North Carolina.,
Situation undetermined in
North Carolina
Breeding population in
North Carolina
'
-------
BIRDS
**Pectoral Sandpiper
Erolia fuscicollis
**Lesser Yellowlegs
Totanus flavipes
**Least Sandpiper
Erolia minutilla
**Semi-palmated Sandpiper
Ercunetes pusillus
m
RELATIVE
ABUNDANCE
UC
C
UC
UC
HABITAT
Shorelines
Shorelines
Shorelines
Shorelines
SEASON
WM
SM
SM
SM
TOLERANCE
TO MAN
1-2
1-2
1-2
1-2
COMMENTS
-------
TABLE A-4
REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS OF GUILFORD COUNTY
SOURCE: Conant
-------
LIZARDS
Eastern Fence Lizard
Sceloporus undulatus
Slender Glass Lizard
Ophisaurus attenuatus
Six-Lined Racerunner
Cnemidophorus sexlineatus
Ground Skink
Lygosoma laterale
Five-Lined Skink
Eumeces fasciatus
Broad-Headed Skink
Eumeces laticeps
Southeastern Five-Lined Skink
Eumeces inexpectatus
Green Anole
Anolis carolinensis
RELATIVE
ABUNDANCE
C
UC
C-A
C-A
C
C
UC
C
HABITAT
MP-H, FPH
Clearings
FPH
Moist areas
MP-H
Dry areas
All
Woods
Woods
Woods
Woods
t
TOLERANCE
TO MAN
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
COMMENTS
Fences and tree trunks
Burrows
•
-------
TURTLES
Snapping Turtle
Chelydra serpentina
Stinkpot
Sternotherus odoratus
Eastern Mud Turtle
Kinosternon subrubrum
Eastern Box Turtle v
Terrapene Carolina
Eastern Painted Turtle
Chryserays picta
River Cooter & subspecies
Pseudemys concinna
Pond Slider or Red-Eared Turtle
Pseudemys scripta
Gulf Coast Spiny Softshell
Trionyx spinifer
RELATIVE
ABUNDANCE
UC
C
C
C
UC
C
C
UC
HABITAT
Streams &
ponds
Streams &
ponds
Streams &
ponds
All
Streams &
ponds
Streams,
pools , ponds
Pools &
ponds
Streams
•
TOLERANCE
TO MAN
2
2-3
2
2
2
2
2
2
COMMENTS
Larger ponds and pools
Terrestrial
Used for food
•
-------
SNAKES
Queen Snake
Natrix septemvittata
Red-Bellied Water Snake
Natrix erythrogaster
Northern Water Snake
Natrix sipedon
Brown Snake
Storeria dekayi.
Red-Bellied Sanke
Storeria occipitoraaculata
Eastern Ribbon Snake
Thanmophis sauritus
Eastern Garter Snake
Thanmophis sirtalis
Rough Earth Snake
Haldea striatula
Smooth Earth Snake
' Haldea valeriae
Eastern Hognose Snake
Heterodon platyrhinos
Southern Ringneck Snake
Diadophis punctatus
Worm Snake
Carphophis amoenus
Rainbow Snake
Abaster erythrogrammus
Mud Snake
Farancia abacura
RELATIVE
ABUNDANCE
UC
UC
UC
UC
UC
C
C
UC
UC
UC
UC
UC
UC
UC
HABITAT
FPF
Rocky streams
Streams
Streams
All
Woodlands
FPF
Damp lowlands
All
FPF
Rocky areas
All
MP-H
Dry areas
MP-H
Fields
All
All
RH , Swamps
& streams
TOLERANCE
TO MAN
2
2
2
2
2
2-3
2-3
2
— ,
COMMENTS
Rocky areas and quarries — aquacic
vivaparus
Vivaparus aquatic
Vivaparus aquatic
Urban and rural
Viviparus
Viviparus
Viviparus
Viviparus
Viviparus
Subterranean bur rower
Burrower
-------
SNAKES
Northern Black Snake
Coluber constrictor
Rough Green Snake
Opheodrys aestivus
Northern Pipe Snake
Pituphis melanoleueus
Corn Snake
Elaphe guttata
Black Rat Snake
Elaphe obsoleta
Prairie Kingsnake
Lampropeltis calligaster
Eastern Kingsnake
Lampropeltis getulus
Scarlet Milk Snake
Lampropeltis doliata
Scarlet Snake
Cemophora coccinea
Southeastern Crownsnake
Tantilla coronata
Southern Copperhead
Agkistrodon contortrix
Cottonmouth
Agkistrodon piscivorus
Canebrake Rattlesnake
Crotalus horridus atricaudatus
Timber Rattlesnake
Crotalus horridus
RELATIVE
ABUNDANCE
UC
C
R
UC
UC
UC
UC
UC
UC
UC
C
UC
UC
UC
HABITAT
All
FPF
Arboreal
PF, MP-H
MP-H
Fields
MP-H
Fields
MP-H
Fields
All
All
MP-H, FPF
MP-H, FPF
UP-H, FPF
FPF, R
Near water
FPF, Streams,
marshes
MP-H
TOLERANCE
TO MAN
2
2-3
2-3
2
2-3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
COMMENTS
Stumps, fences, trees, etc.
Constrictor
Constrictor - immune to snake
venum
Constrictor
Burrower - constrictor
.
Rocky areas and hillsides
Viviparus , poisonous
Viviparus, poisonous
Poisonous
Poisonous
-------
SNAKES
Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake
Crotalus adamanteus
RELATIVE
ABUNDANCE
End.
HABITAT
Dry
Hillsides
1
TOLERANCE
TO MAN
*
COMMENTS
May not be in study area but
endangered in North Carolina
-------
SALAMANDERS
Spotted Salamander
Ambystoma inaculatum
Marbled Salamander
Ambystoma opacum
Dusky Salamander
Desraognathus fuscus •
Red-Backed Salamander
Plethodon cinereus
Slimy Salamander
Pletliodon glutinosus
Four-Toed Salamander
Hemidactylium scutatum
Mud Salamander
Pseudotriton montanus
Red Salamander
Pseudotriton ruber
Two-Lined Salamander
Eurycea bislineata
Three-Lined Salamander
Eurycea longicauda
RELATIVE
ABUNDANCE
C-UC
C-UC
C
C
C
C-UC
UC
UC
UC
UC
HABITAT
FPF, Streams
& moist woods
FPF, Streams
& moist wood:
FPF
Moist woods
FPF
Woods
FPF
Moist woods
FPF
Moist woods
FPF
streams
FPF
Springs
FPF, Streams
& moist soil
FPF, Streams,
aquatic
TOLERANCE
TO MAN
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
COMMENTS
Spring breeder
Fall breeder
'
Neotonic
-------
TOADS & FROGS
Fowler's Toad
Bufo woodhousei fowleri
,
Cricket Frog
Acris crepitans
Spring Peeper
Hyla crucifer
Gray Tree frog
Hyla versicolor
Upland Chorus Frog
Pseudacris triseriata
Narrow-mouthed Toad
Gastrophryne carolinensis
American Toad
Bufo americanus
Bullfrog
Rana catesbieana
Green frog
Rana clamitans
Leopard Frog
Rana pipiens
Pickerel Frog
Rana pal us tr is
RELATIVE .
ABUNDANCE
C
C
C
C
UC
UC
C
C
C
C
UC-R
HABITAT
All
FPF, Streams
& ponds
FPF, Streams
& ponds
All
FPF
Pools
MP-H
Rocky areas
All
FPF, Pools &
farm ponds
FPF, Pools &
fcarm ponds
FPF, marshes,
streams
MP-H, FPF,
Grassy mea-
dows & ponds
TOLERANCE
TO MAN
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2-3
2
COMMENTS
Caught for food
-------
TABLE A-5
FISHES OF THE HAW RIVER DRAINAGE
SOURCE: CA-380
-------
Clupeidae - herring
Gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) Lower reaches of Haw and tributary
streams
Esocidae - pike
Redfin pickerel (Esox americanus)
Chain pickerel (Esox niger)
Scattered populations throughout
the watershed
Widely distribured throughouth the
watershed
Cyrpinidae - minnows and carps
Rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides)
Silvery minnow (hybognathus nuchalis)
Bluehead chub (Hybopsis leptocephala)
Golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucus)
White shiner (Notropis albeolus)
Whitemouth shiner (Notropis alborus)
Highfin shiner (Notropis altipinnis)
Rosefin shiner (Notropis ardens)
Spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius)
Whitefin shiner (Notropis niveus)
Coastal shiner (Notropis petersoni)
Swallowtail shiner (Notropis procne)
Sandbar shiner (Notropis scepticus)
Steelcolor shiner (Notropis whipplei)
Creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus)
Found at only two stations on Haw
Creek and Haw River
Found at two stations in the Haw
River drainage
Ubiquitous
Found in all types of ecological
habitats
Collected from four tributaries of
the Haw River
Generally found in the lower tribu-
taries throughout the watershed
Widespread in the lower section of
the watershed
Found only in Troublesome Creek—a
headwater stream of Haw River
Widespread throughout the watershed;
generally associated with the larger
streams
Associated with the larger streams
Lower section of watershed
Lower area of the watershed
Well-distributed throughout all
ecological habitats
Well-distributed throughout the
Haw River tributaries
Rare in this watershed
-------
Catostomidae - suckers
Creek chubsucker (Erimyzon oblongus) Larger tributary streams
Lake chubsucker (Erimyzon sucetta) Found in the lower half of the
watershed but never very abundant
Redhorse sucker (Moxostoma spp.) Widespread throughout the watershed
Ictaluridae - freshwater catfishes
White catfish (Ictalurus catus) Larger tributaries near their
confluence with Haw River
Brown bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus) Collected throughout the watershed
Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) Found only in Haw River and in New
Hope Creek
Margined madtom (Noturus insignis) Throughout the watershed in all types
of habitats
Anguillidae - freshwater eels
American eel (Anguilla rostrata) Widely distributed throughout.the
watershed
Speckled killifish (Fundulus rathbuni) Clear, swift streams
Poeciliidae - livebearers
Mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) Well-scattered throughout the
watershed
Pirate perch (Aphraedoderus sayanus) Widely distributed throughout the
watershed
Centrarchidae - sunfishes
Warmouth (Chaenobryttus gulosus) Well-distributed throughout the
watershed but never very abundant
Redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus) Most abundant game fish; found in
all types of habitat throughout
the watershed
Green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) Distribution was very spotty over
the watershed
Pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus) Mostly associated with the Haw River
section of the watershed; never very
abundant
Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) All types of habitat throughout the
watershed; never abundant
-------
Centrarchidae (Cont.) - sunfishes
Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) Throughout the watershed; never
present in great numbers
Black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus) Spotty in distribution; always -
associated with the larger streams
or with lakes along the smaller
streams
Percidae - perches
Johnny darter (Etheostoma nigrum) Throughout the entire watershed
Yellow perch (Perca flavescens) Very rare species in this watershed;
found only in Reedy Fork Creek near
Greensboro
Piedmont darter (Percina crassa) Spotty distribution; generally assoc-
iated with the clearer streams of the
watershed
Shield darter (Percina peltata) Confined to the large swift streams
-------
TABLE A-6
BENTHIC ORGANISMS OF THE HAW RIVER BASIN
SOURCE: FE-187
-------
IV Station Description
1969
HAW RIVER SURVEY
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN
Station
Number
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
24
Stream Name
Haw River
Reedy Fork Creek
North Buffalo Creek
River
Mile
57.7
8.8
North Buffalo Creek 12.9
North Buffalo Creek 9.7
4.5
South Buffalo Creek 12.4
South Buffalo Creek 10.7
South Buffalo Creek 8.3
South Buffalo Creek 7.3
South Buffalo Creek 4.0
South Buffalo Creek 1.2
Buffalo Creek 6.7
Reedy Fork Creek 4.9
Reedy Fork Creek 0.8
Haw River 55.7
Haw River 53.0
Location
County Road 1561 Bridge
near Altamahaw, N.C.
County Road 2719 Bridge
near Monticello, N.C.
U.S. 220 Bridge in
Greensboro, N.C.
Culvert under U.S. 29
near Greensboro, N.C.
County Road 2832 Bridge
near Greensboro, N.C.
County Road 3300 Bridge
in Greensboro, N.C.
U.S. 421 Bridge in
Greensboro, N.C.
N.C. 6 Bridge near
Greensboro, N.C.
County Road 3000 Bridge
near Greensboro, N.C.
U.S. 70 Bridge near
Greensboro, N.C.
County Road 2821 Bridge
in McLeansville, N.C.
County Road 2795 Bridge
near McLeansville, N.C.
N.C. 61 Bridge near
Gibsonville, N.C.
N.C. 87 Bridge in
Ossipee, N.C.
County Road 1530 Bridge
near Ossipee, N.C.
County Road 1530 Bridge
near Burlington, N.C.
-------
25
27
28
29
31
34
35
45
47
48
Haw River
Haw River
Haw River
Haw River
Town Branch
Back Creek
Haw River
Alamance Creek
Haw River
Haw River
49.0
45.5
43.9
42.1
0.1
0.4
40.6
2.1
34.2
28.4
County Road 1700 Bridge
in Hopedale, N.C.
U.S. 70 Bridge on
Haw River
1-85 Bridge near
Graham, N.C.
N.C. 54 Bridge near
Graham, N.C.
County Road 2109 Bridge
near Graham, N.C.
N.C. 54 Bridge near
Graham, N.C.
County Road 2158 Bridge
in Swepsonvilla, N.C.
N.C. 87 Bridge near
Graham, N.C.
County Road 2171 Bridge in
Saxapahaw, N.C.
County Road 1005 Bridge
Saxapahaw, N.C.
-------
SURVEY RESULTS OF BENTH1C ORGANISMS - UPPER HAW RIVER BASIN
(Incl. Buffalo Creek and Reedy Fork Creek)
Station
12
II
IS 16
17
10 11 18 8
20
Mayflies
Aaeletus sp-
Baetls ap.
Ephestarella ap.
Heptaaenia sp.
Caddlsflles
Cheumdtopsyche sp. X
Hvdropsvche sp. X
Hellgraraite
Corvdalus ap.
Cill Breathing Snails
Caapalona ap.
Pleurocarca ap.
Pollution-Senaltlve Organiaaia
Crayfish
Caabarui ap.
Intermediate Organlans
Sov-fauga
Aaetlua ap.
Fingernail Clams
Sphaerium sp.
Oaaiaelfliea
Arala sp.
lachnura sp.
OragonfIiea
Epicorduiia ap.
Libellula ap.
Maaiaeachna ap.
Hidges
Cryptochironoama sp.
MetrtocnemuS sp.
Pentaneura ap.
folypedllua ap.
Procladius sp.
Diaawainae
19
-------
Blackf lies
Siaui iua sp. X
Craneflies (Tibulldae)
Tipula sp._
PhantOB Midges (Cuticidae)
Chaoborus fp.
Horseflies (Tabanidae)
Tabanus sp.
IS
17
10
II
IB
Intermediate Organlus (Continued)
20
Air Breaching Snail
Ftrritaia tp.
Hfcl iosoaa sp .
Lyanaea tp.
Sewage Fly Larvae
ftychoda «p.
gloodwona (Cbironoaldae)
Chironoomt ip.
Alrbreathing Snail
Leecbei
Erpobdella «p.
Clostiphonia *p.
Sludgeworas (Tublf Icidae)
Lianodf ibu» ap.
Tubitea «p.
Briiclewora
Ltwbriculidae
X
X
Pollution Tolerant Organisots
2
X 2 2
27 213
12 SO ISO 6 326 39
Nimber of
Genera (Kind*) 6
X - Present but not
collected in quantitative
•o. of bottra or-
ganisas in square
foot sample 2
27 21)
13 3
14 5A IS2 48 32H 69
-------
SURVEY RESULTS OF BENTH1C ORGANISMS - LOWER HAW RIVER BASIN
STATION 21 24 25
Mayflies
Aateletus sp.
Baetis sp .
Epheaerel la sp.
Heptagenia sp .
Stcnoneaa sp. X XX
Caddisf lies
Cheuaatopsyche sp. XX--
Hydropsyche «p. 11 X 3
HellgranaVite
Corydabus *p. 1
Cill breathing Snails
CaapeloBta sp.
Pleurocerca *sp.
Crayfish
Caaba rut ap.
Scuds
Caawarus ap. X
Hvalell. sp. X X 229
Sou -bugs
Aae 1 lus sp. X
Fingernail Claas
Sphaeriua sp.
Oaaselflias
Argia ap. XXX
Ischnura ap. -. X X
Dragonf lias
Epicordulla sp.
Masiaeschoa sp.
Midgas (Cblroooiidaa)
CryptocbironoBua ap. -- X
Hetrlocneaus sp.
Pantaneura sp. X -- X
PolypedlluB sp. XX--
Procladius sp. 2
Dfaaesinae X I
Blackf lias
Siaullua sp. -- -- 1
27 28 29 31A 31 3AA 34 35 45A 45 47 48
Pollution Sensitive Organises
j .. .. .. .. .. .. i
1
X
X -- -- -- -- X
X ------ X 1
•
X -- -- -- -- X
200 -- X •- X -- -- 2
X
..
..
Intermediate Organisms
j
X .... x
X
..
X
.". .. .. .. -. .. .. .. X
| .. .. .. .. .. .- -- -. X
.... .. .. .. .. .- -- ....
x
_.
.-X -.1
x
11 .. 2
.. .. l .. .'.
ia -- 10 -- -- -- •- x .... x
--
-------
29 3IA 31 34A 34 35 4S» AS 47 48_
Intermediate Organic** (Continued)
Cranefllea (Tlbulldae)
Ttpula ap. X
Phantom Mldgea
Chaobonia ap. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X
Horaefllea (Tebaoldae)
Tabanua ap. 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- . --
Coleoptera
Beroaut ap. ... -- 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X
Air Breathing Snail .
Hellotoma ap. -- X ----XX -- -- -- 2
Lyamaea ap. -- •- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Pollution Tolerant Organius
Sewage fly Larvae
Bloodwoma
Chironooua ap. X 2 X X 2 X -- X ......
Air breathing Snail
Phyaa ap. XXI 2 -- X -- -- -- 1
Leecbea
Erpobdella ap. 2 2 6 3671 ...... 10
Cloaalphonia ap. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -. -- X .
Sludge voraa
Llanodrilua ap.
TubiteM ap. X 43 1 67 845 3 4 X X 6O 66 X
Briatlewon
Lmbriculidae -- -- -- .. -. .. -- -. .- .. -- X
Number of
Genera (Kinda) 18 11 15 8397 18 1935
X- Freaent but not
collected In
quantitative aaaipla
No. of Bottom or-
ganlaaia in aouar* ' •
foot aaeiple 19 47 244 1O3 853 22 212 -- -- -- 74 66
--
..
- -
..
X
4
X
--
2
8
X
:: ::
--
15
18
-------
MAN-MADE E1TVIRONMENT
-------
Section II.B.I. Demography and Economics
Current and projected population and economic data were required
in this section. The methodology and detailed breakdowns of data are presented
herein.
a. Demography
To calculate the 1970 population within the Study Area and dis-
aggregate the population to subbasins, census tract and block information
were used. For each of the ten subbasins, census tracts were listed. (See
Figure for census tracts.) Boundaries often severed tracts. Where this
occurred and where possible, block data were used. In outerlying areas of
the county, however, both tracts and blocks become large. In these areas,
to calculate population, land use maps and aerials were used and the number
of structures multiplied by the average number of persons per household. •
After the 1970 population was calculated for each of the subbasins,
the percentage of population of each census tract within a particular sub-
basin was calculated. These percentages were then applied to 1975 census
tract data.
The 1975 breakdown by census tracts was prepared for the City of
Greensboro Planning Department by National Planning Data Corporation. The
methodology they used to update the 1970 census to 1975 may be obtained from
the Greensboro Planning Department, but generally includes regression analyses,
use of building permit data, and the like.
Table II-B-l(TR) shows the breakdown of the population within
the area by subbasin and census tract. Tables II-B-2(TR) and II-B-3(TR) show
breakdowns of certain characteristics of the population using the methodology
discussed above.
-------
BOCKIN6HAM CO
GUILFORD CO"
CENSUS TRACT MAP
GREENSBORO.-GUILFORD COUNTY
REGIONAL WASTE WATER
FACILITIES PLAN
ERIC HILL ASSOCIATES PLANNIMO CONSULTANTS
AflADIA, OA. viattM • SALMI. •. C.
-------
Table II-B-l(TR)
POPULATION WITHIN EIS STUDY AREA BY SUBBASINS AND CENSUS TRACTS, 1970 AND 1975
Census Tract or
Township by Subbasins
REEDY PORK:
121
124.01
Ctr. Grove Twp.
Deep River
Subtotal
DEEP RIVER:
D. River Twp.
124.02
Subtotal
HORSEPEN CREEK:
121
124.01
124.03
125.06
D. River Twp.
Ctr. Grove
Percentage of
Census Tract
Within Subbasin
90
20
85
20
15
1
5
80
66
50
5
5
Population
1970
3,667
443
3,961
740
8,811
555
33
588
204
1,774
3,364
1,792
185
233
1975
4,580
533
4,876
740
10,729
555
41
596
254
2,133
3,868
2,353
185
287
Subtotal
7,552
8,080
-------
Table II-B-l(TR)
POPULATION WITHIN EIS STUDY AREA BY SUBBASINS AND CENSUS TRACTS, 1970 AND 1975
C*&n ci i o TlrTai*»-i' or*
V^Ci iO vlb> X A. dO L. WJ-
Township by Subbasins
NORTH BUFFALO:
101
102
103
104.01
104.02
105
106.01
106.02
107
108.01
108.02
109.01
109.02
110
119.01
119.02
124.03
125.03
125.04
125.05
125.06
125.07
126.01
127.01
127.02
Subtotal
Percentage of
/"* onoiic T*v".3/"»'t"
V_*c2IU^L4o J.17CLOL.
Within Subbasin
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
71
100
100
37
57
34
100
100
100
50
100
40
100
98
Population
1970
3,237
3,608
1,384
2,056
4, "787
2,805
3,298
3,102
7,522
514
1,812
253
2,863
5,268
1,254
2,838
1,745
4,465
1,487
5,113
1,792
8,027
1,049
4,347
8,893
83,519
1975
3,197
3,862
1,584
1,875
4,163
2,505
3,095
2,677
6,166
515
1,974
229
2,253
4,456
1,396
3,303
1,993
4,843
2,211
5,430
2,353
9,290
1,038
5,321
9,810
85,539
-------
Table II-B-l(TR)
POPULATION WITHIN EIS STUDY AREA BY SUBBASINS AMD CENSUS TRACTS, 1970 AND 1975
Census Tract or
Township by Subbasins
SOUTH BUFFALO:
109.01
111.01
111.02
112
113
114.01
114.02
115
116.01
116.02
124.02
126.01
126.02
126.04
126.05
126.06
127.02
128.01
128.02
133.01
134.01
Subtotal
Percentage of
Census Tract
Within Subbasin
29
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
40
60
100
100
100
100
2
100
96
7
65
Population
1970
105
4,862
2,768
5,544
4,575
2,974
3,045
3,489
3,429
3,259
1,302
1,573
3,518
5,094
2,038
4,560
180
3,090
4,450
216
3,961
64,032
1975
94
3,933
2,593
4,078
3,223
3,929
2,705
2,994
3,480
3,046
1,641
1,558
4,499
5,454
2,634
6,097
200
6,046
3,949
264
5,035
67,327
-------
Table II-B-l(TR)
POPULATION WITHIN EJS STUDY AREA BY SUBBASINS AND CENSUS TRACTS, 1970 AND 1975
Census Tract or
Township by Subbasins
REEDY PORK (EAST) :
119.02
Madison
Washington
Subtotal
N. BUFFALO (EAST):
119.02
128.03
129
Madison
Subtotal
S. BUFFALO (EAST) :
128.02
128.03
JL29
Madison
Percentage of
Census Tract
Within Subbasin
10
70
25
33
5
10
15
4
49
15
15
1970
555
1,764
442
2,761
1,620
183
496
378
2,677
180
1,803
744
378
Population
1975
579
1,836
. 442
2,857
1,912
223
619
393
3,147
165
2,183
•929
393
Subtotal
3,105
3,670
-------
Table II-B-
POPULATION WUfflM EIS STUDY AREA BY SUBBASINS AND CENSUS TRACTS, 1970 AND 1975
Percentage of Population
Census Tract or Census Tract *-
Township by Subbasins Within Subbasin 1970 1975
ALftMANCE;
128.03 46
129 70
130 40
132 15
133.01 93
133.02 20
Subtotal 10*935 13,169
BUFFALO;
129 10
Washington 50
Subtotal
GRAND TOTAL
Sources: 1970 Census Tract data provided by Greensboro Planning Department and updated
by National Planning Data Corporation; U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of
Housing: 1970, Block Statistics, Final Report HC(3)-168 Greensboro, N.C.
Urbanized Area.
-------
Table II-B-20TR)
1970 BLACK POPULATION BY CENSUS TRACT AND SUBBASIN
Census Tract or
Township by Subbasins
REEDY FORK;
121
124.01
Ctr. Grove Twp.
Deep River
Subtotal
DEEP RIVER:
D. River Twp.
124.02
Subtotal
HORSEPEN CREEK:
121
124.01
124.03
125.06
D. River Twp.
Ctr. Grove
Subtotal
NORTH BUFFALO:
101
102
103
104.01
104.02
105
1Q70 TV~>iv*"l
±y i u *.\J\~Q>±.
Population
3,667
443
3,961
740
8,811
555
33
588
204
1,774
3,364
1,792
185
233
7,552
3,237
3,608
1,384
2,056
4,787
2,805
1970
Number
49
367
47
463
35
5
40
195
67
__ .
12
22
296
550
72
14
—
48
_
Black Population
Per Cent of
Total Population
11
9
6
5%
6
15
7%
11
2
rn-m- ,
6
9
4%
17 v
2
1
__
1
-------
Table II-B-2(TR)
1970 BLACK POPULATION BY CENSUS TRACT AND SUBBASIN
Census Tract or
Township by Subbasins
106.01
106.02
107
108.01
108.02
109.01
109.02
110
119.01
119.02
124.03
125.03
125.04
125.05
125.06
125.07
126.01
127.01
127.02
Subtotal
SOUTH BUFFALO;
109.01
111.01
111.02
112
113
114.01
114.02
115
lQ7fl TVit*^l
•L^ / \J -LvJL-dJ-
Population
3,298
3,102
i 7,522
i 514
1,812
253
2,863
5,268
1,254
2,838
1,745
4,465
1,487
5,113
1,792
8,027
1,049
4,347
8,893
83,519
105
4,862
2,768
5,544
4,575
2,974
3,045
3,489
1970
Number
«_
341
451
87
—
164
401
5,268
88
369
35
134
—
— — .
—
— —
73
— —
4,535
12,630
68
4,813
2,740
5,544
4,346
2,855
1,705
105
Black Population
Per Cent of
Total Population
__
11
6
17
• . —
65
14
100
7
13
2
3
—
• — —
—
— —
7
— —
51
15%
65
99
99
100
95
96
56
3
-------
Table II-B-2(TR)
1970 BLftCK POPULATION BY CENSUS TRACT AND SUBBASIN
Census Tract or
Township by Subbasiris
116.01
116.02
124.02
126.01
126.02
126.04
126.05
126.06
127.02
128.01
128.02
133.01
134.01
Subtotal
REEDY PORK (EAST);
119.02
Madison
Washington
Subtotal
N. BUFFALO (EAST);
119.02
128.03
129
Madison
lQ7fl TVit-^l
J..7 I\J J.TJLX1J-
Population
3,429
3,259
1,302
1,573
3,518
5,094
2,038
4,560
180
3,090
4,450.
216
3,961
64,032
555
1,764
442
2,761
1,620
183
496
378
1970
Number
_,„
261
195
110
—
—
61
456
92
989
4,093
2
317
28,752
72
601
81
754
211
38
5
129
Black Population
Per Cent of
Total Population
—
8
15
7
• ' ' —
... —
3
10
51
32
92
1
8
45%
13
34
18
27%
13
21
1
34
Subtotal
2,677
383
14%
-------
Table II-B-2(TR)
1970 BLACK POPULATION BY CENSUS TRACT AND SUBBASIN
Census Tract or
Township by Subbasins
1970 Total
Population
1970 Black Population
Number
Per. Cent of
Total Population
S. BUFFALO (E^ST) ;
128.02
128.03
129
Madison
Subtotal
ALAMANCE;
128.03
129
130
132
133.01
133.02
Subtotal
BUFFALO:
129
Washington
Subtotal
GRAND TOTAL
180
1,803
744
378
3,105
1,674
3,474
1,780
447
2,8.72
688
10,935
171
379
7
129
686
352
25
475
4
28
NA
884
95
21
1
34
22%
21
1
40
1
1
NA
8%
1
11
7%
24%
NOTE:
Source:
For the townships/ the 1970 Census of Population was used, and the total nunbec of blades
allocated to the subbasins assuming equal distribution within the township.
U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Housing: 1970, Block Statistics, Final Report
HC(3)-168, Greensboro, North Carolina, Urbanized Area'.
-------
Table H-B-3(TR)
1970 AND 1975 (Est.) HOUSEHOLDS AND PBOPIJE PER HOUSEHOIJ)
BY SUBBASINS AND CENSUS TRACTS
1970
Households
Within
Subbasin
People Per
Household
1975
Households
Within
Subbasin
People Per
Household
Change
Number Per Cent
REEDY PORK;
121
124.01
Ctr. Grove Twp.
Deep River
Subtotal
DEEP RIVER:
D. River Twp.
124.02
Subtotal
HORSEPEN CREEK;
121
124.01
124.03
125.06
D. River Twp.
Ctr. Grove
Subtotal
1,079
125
1,120
221
2,545
166
9_
175
3.4
3.6
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.5
3.4
3.6
3.6
3.8
3.3
3.3
1,447
160
1,546
224
3,377
168
13
181
3.2
3.3
3.2
3.3
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.3
3.2
3.6
3.3
3.2
368
35
426
3
832
2
4
2,093
2,738
20
143
272
185
1
24
645
34.1
28.0
38.0
1.4
32.7%
1.2
44.4
3.4%
33.3
28.7
28.8
39.6
1.8
36.4
30.8%
-------
Table II-B-3(TR)
1970 AND 1975 (Est.) HQUSEHOIDS AND PBOPIE PER HOUSEHOU)
BY SUBBASINS AND CEMSUS TRACTS
1970
1975
NORTH BUFFAD3;
101
102
103
104.01
104.02
105
106.01
106.02
107
108.01
108.02
109.01
109.02
110
119.01
119.02
124.03
125.03
125.04
125.05
125.06
125.07
126.01
127.01
127.02
Subtotal
Households
Within
Subbasin
1,023
1,403
488
791
1,572
1,153
1,301
1,204
1,707
196
822
168
1,267
1,016
374
984
488
1,450
617
1,575
467
2,352
324
1,358
1,152
People Per
Household
3.2
2,6
2.8
2.6
3.0
2.4
2.5
2.6
4.4
2.6
2.2
1.5
2.3
5.2
3.4
3.2
3.6
3.1
2.4
3.2
3.8
3.4
3.2
3.2
3.4
Households
Within
Subbasin
1,020
1,643
606
789
1,476
1,132
1,232
1,136
1,432
236
1,002
176
1,100
901
444
1,107
627
1,698
617
1,798
652
2,918
324
1,789
1,570
People Per
Household
3.1
2.4
2.6
2.4
2.8
2.2
2.5
2.4
4.3
2.2
2.0
1.3
2.0
4.9
3.1
3.0
3.2
2.9
2.2
3.0
3.6
3.2
3.2
3.0
3.2
Change
Number Per Cent
- 3
240
118
_ n
- 96
- 21
- 69
- 68
-275
40
180
8
-167
-115
70
123
139
248
223
185
566
431
4ia
- .3
17.1
24.2
- .3
- 6.1
- 1.8
- 5.3
- 5.6
-16.1
20.4
.21.9
4.8
-13.2
-11.3
18.7
12.5
28.5
17.1
14.2
39.6
24.1
31.7
36.3
25,252
27,425
2,173
8.6%
-------
Table II-B-3(TR)
1970 AND 1975 (Est.) HOUSEHOLDS AND PEOPLE PER HOUSEHOLD
BY SUBBASINS AND CENSUS TRACTS
1970
1975
SOUTH BUFFALO;
109.01
111.01
111.02
112
113
114.01
114.02
115
116.01
116.02
124.02
126.01
126.02
126.04
126.05
126.06
127.02
128.01
128.02
133.01
134.01
Subtotal
Households
Within
Suhbasin
68
1,465
815
1,540
1,260
675
873
1,214
1,067
911
377
487
984
1,470
609
1,318
48
888
1,257
70
1,152
18,548
People Per
Household
1.5
3.3
3.4
3.6
3.6
4.4
3.5
2.9
3.2
3.6
3.5
3.2
3.6
3.5
3.3
3.5
3.8
3.5
3.5
3.1
3.4
Households
Within
Subbasin .
72
1,267
770
1,189
940
945
830
1,129
1,093
859
510
486
1,347
1,686
844
1,890
57
1,866
1,192
91
1,570
People Per
Household
1.3
3.1
3.4
3.4
3.4
4.2
3.3
2.7
3.2
3.5
3.2
3.2
3.3
3.2
3.1
3.2
3.5
3.2
3.3
2.9
3.2
Change
Nurcfoer Per Cent
4
-198
- 45
-351
-320
270
- 43
- 85
26
- 52
133
- 1
363
216
235
572
9
978
- 65
21
418
5.9
-13.5
- 5.5
-22.8
-25.4
40.0
- 4.9
- 7.0
2.4
- 5.7
35.3
- 0.2
36.9
14.7
38.6
43.4
18.8
110.1
- 5.2
30.0
36.3
20,633
2,085
11.2
-------
Table II-B- 3 (TR)
1970 AND 1975 (Est.) HOUSEHOLDS AND PEOPLE PER HOUSEHOLD
REEDY FORK (EAST);
119.02
Madison
Washington
Subtotal
N. BUFFALO (EAST);
119.02
128.03
129
Madison
Subtotal
S. BUFFALO (EAST)
128.02
128.03
129
Madison
Subtotal
BY SUBBASINS AND CENSUS
1970
Households
Within
Subbasin
173
485
_122
780
570
55
146
104
875
52
541
219
104
916
People Per
Household
3.2
3.6
3.5
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.6
3.5
3.3
3.4
3.6
TRACTS
1975
Households
Within
Subbasin
194
539
__126
859
641
72
196
116
1,025 .
50
709
295
116
1,170
People Per
Household
3.0
3.4
3.5
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.4
3.3
3.1
3.2
3.4
Change
Number
21
54
4
79
71
17
50
12
150
- 2
168
76
12
254
Per Cent
12.1
11,1
3.3
10.1%
12.5
30.9
34.2
11.5
17.1%
- 3.8
31.0
34.7
11.5
27.7%
-------
Table II-B-3(TR)
1970 AND 1975 (Est.) HOUSEHOIDS AND PEOPLE PER HOUSEHOLD
ALAMANCE:
128.03
129
130
132
133.01
133.02
Subtotal
BUFFALO;
129
Washington
Subtotal
TOTAL
BY SUBBASINS AND CENSUS TRACTS
1970
Households
Within
Subbasin
508
730
537.
138
895
208
3,016
146
243
389
54,589
People Per
Household
3.3
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
3.3
3.4
3.5
1975
Households
Within
Subbasin
665
982
631
185
1,176
253
3,892
196
253
449
61,749
People Per
Household
3.1,
3.2
3.1
3.0
2.9
3.1
3.2
3.5
Change
Number Per Cent
157
252
94
47
281
45
876
50
10
60
7,160
30.9%
34.5
17.5
34.0
31.4
21.6
29.0%
34.2
4.1
15.4%
13.1%
Source: Data provided by Greensboro Planning Department with update by National Planning Data
Corporation. Census tract data was allocated to subbasins by Eric Hill Associates, Inc.
-------
Population density (1975) was determined by measuring the
acreage within each census tract and calculating the people per acre and
per square mile using Table II-B-1 (TR). However, in the outerlying area*
of the county where the census tracts are large, a different methodology
was used to better reflect the density. In these areas, aerials and
buiIding permit data were used and the structures counted. The number
of structures were then converted to people using the 1970 census figure
of 3.16 persons per household in Guiiford County.
For population projections, the methodology used is clearly
explained in Chapter II. Projections by OBERS for the Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area (SMSA), as disaggregated by the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management (NCDEM), projections by the Greensboro Planning
Department for the "701" Study Area (which closely coincides with the EIS
Study Area, and projections in the Hazen and Sawyer Environmental Assessment,
were carefully analyzed. Of most importance was the directive by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that base projections be made assuming
that sewer is not a constraint to development. Therefore, projections were
made assuming that sewer services would be available throughout the Study
Area.
Existing land use data, building permits over the last five
years (1970-1975), and environmentally sensitive lands were other critical
ingredients in the projections. The first step undertaken was to determine
population projections and land use projections for the entire Study Area.
For land use, population was converted to number of dwellings, single-family
and multi-family components, and acres of residential land needed. Finally,
population and land use were allocated to the subbasins.
-------
Several assumptions were made in the projections:
(1) In the Environmental Assessment/ population was converted
to dwelling units by dividing by an average household size: 2.2 for multi-
family units and 3.0 for single-family units. Based on discussions with the
Greensboro Planning Department (Mr. Ken Brown), the factor for multi-family .
units was lowered to 2.0, based on a survey-the department had recently com-
pleted.
(2) As in the Environmental Assessment/ dwelling unit require-
ments were converted to residential acreage by using an average gross density
of ten dwelling units per acre for multi-family housing units and two dwelling
units per acre for single-family housing. These figures are consistent with
those now being used by the Greensboro Planning Department.
(3) The breakdown of population into multi-family and single-
family components — by five year intervals^— was prepared and coordinated
with the Greensboro Planning Department and is similar to those figures used
in the Environmental Assessment. (See Table II-B-4(TR).) The city data were
used in the disaggregations since the greatest portion of the Study Area lies
within the city.
(4) To reiterate, sewer services is assumed where growth is
projected. Available capacities and constraints on the system were not
assumed as deterrents to growth.
-------
Table II-B- 4 (TR)
HOUSING TYPES AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE NON-INSTITUTIONRL POPUIATION
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
City of Greensboro
Multi-Family 22.50% 24.77% 27.27% 28.36% 27.1% 26.50%
Single-Family 77.50 75.23 72.72 71.64 72.9 73.50
Guilford County
Multi-Family 7.7% 9.7% 11.8% 12.7% 13.6% 15.7%
Single-Family 92.3 90.3 88.2 87.3 86.4 84.3
ASSUMPTIONS;
1. The multi-family rate in 1980 will increase because of: decreased family formations
resulting from more divorce and femaleheads of households; increased cost of single-
family housing; and uncertain economic conditions from worker mobility. However, the
increase is not anticipated to be as great as 1970-75 (30.3%). It is assumed the re-
covery rate in the slumping M-F market will be 1/3 of the 1970-75 increase or 10.09
percent.
2. For 1980-85 it was assumed that the multi-family market will increase an additional
10.09 percent.
3. For 1985-1990, another third of the 1970-75 increase was assumed because of a continued
increase in the primary age of M-F dwellers.
4. During 1990-1995 and 1995-2000, although the percentage multi-family decreases, the net
total units remain the same.
Source: Hazen and Sawyer, Environmental Assessment Statement, Exhibit E-l, p. E-38 and: E-39.
-------
b. Economics
Ihe methodology used to calculate current economic conditions
within each of the subbasins is similar to the methodology used for population.
Census tract data for 1969 and 1974 were used. For each subbasin, the per
capita income within census tracts was added and the average per capita in-
come calculated.
Other data developed required the mapping and summing of retail
opening and closings and new manufacturers. Data was provided by the
Greensboro Planning Department.
Projected per capita earning data is based on OBERS (Series E)
projections. Employment projections were provided by the Greensboro Planning
Department.
-------
Section II.B.2. Land Use
Current land use was prepared from aerials and naps provided by
the Environmental Protection Agency. However, the entire ECS Study Area
was not covered by the aerials. Therefore, no land use data was available.
To determine land use acreage for these areas, land use acreage within the
reminder of the subbasin was measured and the proportions of land use were
assumed to be the same.
For future general land use, population.projections and potential
growth were closely coordinated. Additional residential acreage required was
calculated from population projections. These calculations were made using
Table II.B.4(TR) and II.B.12.
Net developable land was determined by subtracting environmentally
sensitive lands from the vacant land within each subbasin. Environmentally
sensitive lands were defined as lands having at least one of the following
characteristics: slopes exceeding 15 per cent; erosive soils, flood plains
or wetlands, areas with existing and proposed noise problems from the airport
reservoir buffer zones, sanitary landfill areas, and quarrys.
The acreage for other land uses (ccmmercial, industrial, and parks)
was calculated assuming that the ratio of developed acreage for each use to
current developed land will remain the same in the year 2000. Therefore,.
cormercial will be 10.5 per cent; industrial 8 per cent; and recreational 8.5
per cent of the developed acreage.
The location of future land uses were mainly determined using
data supplied by the Greensboro Planning Department. Location of uses will
certainly be affected by decisions made about sewer service. The land use
map in Chapter II reflects potential growth area assuming that sewer service
will be available east and south of the Study Area.
-------
Section II.B.8. Taxes and Budgeting
Tables II.B.8.-KTR), 2(TR), and 3(TR) show the 1975 appropria-
tions and expenditures for Greensboro and Guilford County and the capital
budget expenditures for Greensboro.
-------
Table Il-B-8-1(TR)
1975-76 APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES
FOR SELECTED CGMIMITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES, GREENSBORO
Conmunity Services and Facilities
Transportation:
Powell Bill Funds (State)
Streets, Sidewalks & Maintenance
TOTAL
Water and Sewer:
% of % of Per
Total Total Capita
Appro- Appropri- Total Expen- Expen^-
priations ation Expenditures ditures ditures**
2,150,000 2.9 2,003,020 3.3 $10.33
3,269,580 4.4 2,865,122 4.8 14.78
5,419,580 7.3 4,868,142 8.1 25.11
7,951,150 10.8 7,552,219 12.5 38.95
Public Safety:
Administration (inc. Civil Defense) 95,855 .1 92,845 .1 .48
Police 7,061,205 9.6 6,689,060 11.1 34.50
Fire
TOTAL
Public Works:
Parks and Recreation:
Schools and I libraries;
3,977,645 5.4 3,883,117 6.4
20.03
11,134,705 15.1 10,665,022 17.6 55.01
4,627,270 6.3 4,192,656 6.9 21.63
4,651,515 6.3 4,548,395 7.6 23.46
1,237,465 1.7 1,128,371 1.9
5.82
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES* 73,890,095
60,222,796
*Figures in the table do not add to the total because many more items are included in the budget.
**Based on 1975 estimated population of 193,871.
Source: Greensboro Budget and Research Department.
-------
1975-76
Table II-B-8-2 (TR)
BUDGET EXPENDITURES, GREENSBORO
Transportation:
North Carolina
Greensboro
Water and Sewer:
Greensboro
Public Safety:
Police, Sheriff
Greensboro
Fire Protection
Greensboro
i
Public Works*
Greensboro
Parks and Recreation:
Greensboro
Schools and Libraries
Greensboro
Achdnistrative Facilities**
Greensboro
Redevelopment***
Greensboro
Capital
Budget
1,667,000
787,500
2,019,775
Capital
Expenditures
1,391,569
31,127
594,897
1,239,000
1,197,800
55,280
263,000
85,315
835,721
67,246
0
550
22,397
*Includes redevelopment monies spent for public works.
**Includes coliseum.
***Includes Downtown NDP and Rehabilitation. Remainder in Public Works total.
Source: Greensboro Budget and Research Department.
-------
Table II-B-8-3(TR)
1975-76 BUDGET AND EXPENDITURES FOR
SELECTED COMMUNITY
Community Services and Facilities
Transportation:
Water and Sewer:
Public Safety:
Law Enforcement
Fire Protection
Other
Total Public Safety:
Health and Welfare:
Public Works:
Parks and Recreation:
Schools and Libraries;
Administration Facilities:
SERVICES AND FACILITIES, GUILFORD COUNTY
Budget
0
726,224
3,540,432
1,183,600
1,810,859
6,534,891
34,742,082
1,083,364
70,900
28,926,722
1,900,346
Per Cent
of Total
Budget
0
.1
4.8
1.6
2.4
8.8
46.7
1.4
.1
38.9
2.6
Total
Expenditures
0
424,825
3,172,785
1,183,224
1,764,501
6,120,510
32,935,222
219,492
49,265
23,640,613
1,119,211
Per Cent of
Total
Expenditures
0
.6
4.3
1.6
2.4
8.3
44.6
.3
.1
31.9
1.5
Per Capita****
Expenditures
$ 0
3.71
27.69
10.33
15.40
53.42
106.78
1.92
.43
76.64
9.77
TOTAL BUDGET AND EXPENDITURES*
74,339,453**
73,882,795***
NOTES:
*Figures in the table do not add to the total because many more items are included in the budget.
**Original budget adopted by Board of County Commissioners.
***Excludes interfund.
****Based on 1973 county population (308,443) minus 1975 city population (193,871) equals 114,572 except
for Health and Welfare and Schools and Libraries for which 308,443 people were used.
Source: Guilford County Finance Department,
-------
C/J
o
c
n
o
n>
I
•-•
^J
ON
X
M
CO
H
O
o
o
§
o
H
O
-------
Cfl
O
O
(D
M
I
M
CO
H
O
O
£
M
a
3
I
w
z:
CO
Cd
O
§
C/l
c:
GREINS
UBURBAN
-------
ROCKINQHAM CO. _
THOMAS SCOTT HOUSE
JESSIE BENBOW HOUSE
6 "
-------
HISTORICAL SITES INVENTORY
Agricultural and Technical University 96
Apostolic Holiness University (former) 147
Arlington St.. 437..... 88
Asheboro St.
106-108 68
612. , 80
640 81
803 83
Battleground Ave.. 2931 174
Bennett College 94
Blandwood (Gov. John M. Morehead House) 34
Boyles House 136
Boyles. Norman House 148
Brady Hotel 76
Brooks Grocery Store 84
Buffalo Presbyterian Church... 162
Buick Motor Company 38
Bullock House 85
Bumpass-Troy House 139
Caldwell Log College Site 172
Cape Fear Manufacturing Company (Morris-
sette Caper Company) 93
Carlson. Carl House 120
Carnegie Negro Library 95
Carolina Theatre 7
Christian Advocate Publishing Company 8
Coltrane House 165
Cone House 121
Cone School (16th Street Baptist Church) 161
Crawford House 106
Cummings House. 107
Da vie Building 43
Oavie St.. 300 block 30
Dixie Hotel (former) 60
N. Elm St.
910 , 109
917 , 115
S. Elm St.
227.229.231.233 47
302.304 50
312 ., 52
314.316..... 53
318.320 54
319.321 55
322 .....56
325 57
334 58
341.343 59
408.410 65
502.504,508 67
511 68
517 , 70
524 _72
526....! ....73
528 74
600.602.604 .....76
603.605 , 77
Evergreens Rest Home 167
Faulkner House 15
Fields, William House : ..89
Fifth St.
517 104
612 103
First Presbyterian Church 116
Flowers Industries (Sunbeam Bread Plant).......13
Fordham's Drug Store 69
Fowler House 150
Galloway House 114
-------
HISTORICAL SITES INVENTORY
Glenwood Ave.. 1118 145
Gorrell St. '. '
400 . , 33
1538.1540.. 87
Gray. J. A. House (Arbor House) 18
Groan Hill Cemetery and Keeper's Cottage 22
Greensboro Bus Station 5
Greensboro College 126
Greensboro Historical Museum (former
First Presbyterian Church) 4
Greensboro Loan and Trust Company Office 55
Greensboro Motor Company 37
Gregory House 143
Grimsiey High School 169
Grimsley, George House Ill
Grissom Building 51
Gui(ford College 183
Guilford County—
.Greensboro Government Center 6
Guilford Roller Mills .65
Hughs. Betty House 24
Ireland House 19
Irvin Arcade 10
Isley House (Oolley Madison Memorial) 28
Jackson St.. 406 131
Jarboe House 123
Jefferson Standard Building 42
Johnston House 133
Jones Bros. Bakery 35
Jung's Restaurant 27
Justice House 112
Klutz. A. J. House 122
Koontz House 144
Kress. S. H. Building 48
Latham House 110
Lewis House 90
Lewis St.. 108,110.112 75
Lyndon St.. 195-201 29
McAdoo House 32
McAlister. A. W. House 124
McClamroch Mantel Co i.56
McConnell-Gray House ..........14
McCulloch St.. 420 E 82
Mclver House ;.. ,...129
McNairy. Francis House. 35
Madison, Oolley Birthplace Site.............:....168
Market St.. 2100,2102,2002...: 152
Martin House .1*1
Masonic Teroote ......9
Mebane. Allen House 11
Mendenhall, Cyrus P. House ("The Elms")....117
Mendanhall St.. 128 S ...138
Morton. Joe House 151.
Muir's Chapel Cemetery. 178
Muir's Chapel Rd. House .179
Murphy House 108
North State Milling Company ....36
Northwestern Bank. 48
Oak Hit) Hosiery Company.... 75
Oakland Ave. •
2702 ;....; 155
2704 154
Odell Hardware Company 57
0. Henry Hotel 39
Paisley. William House 149
Pearson St., 803.809.810.811 92
Pearson St., w. side, 2nd lot s. of jet.
with Julian St 91
Phipps Hardware 40
Piedmont Building...: .• 41
Plott St.. 729.739 79
Pollard Log House 171
Pomona Terra Cotta Manufacturing Company...177
Poole's Grocery 146
Porter's Drug Store (Arthur's) 45
Price. Julian House 113
Proximity Mill*!. 158
Revolution Plant 159
Reynolds House 137
Reynolds. R. J. Tobacco Plant 173
-------
HISTORICAL SITES INVENTORY
Rucker House 105
Salvation Army Canter 71
Scales. A. M. House 119
Scott Seed Company : S3
Scott Ave.. 639 157
Seminole St.. 1362 170
Sherwood House 73
South Greensboro National Bank 73
Southern Bell Office Building 1
Southern Railway
Freight Station 63
Overpass 52
Overpass 31
Passenger Station 64
Passenger Station (former) 61
Roundhouse 176
Southside District 78
222.223.224 E. Lee St.
336 Asheboro St.
351 Asheboro St.
Friends' Meeting House
Westminster Presbyterian Church
Southside Hose Company No. 4
N. Spring St.. 228.230.231 20
Spring Garden St.
1307 128
1831-1835 130
Stanley House 118
Stedman-McGee House 18
Sternberger. Sigmund House (United
Arts Center) 101
Summit Ave.
510 97
519 98
600 99
Tar Heel Manor 100
Tate St., 201 S 134
Tatum. Sam House 125
"The Flower Pot" 153
Trogdon House 132
United Methodist Church .....3
United States Post Office & Courthouse 2
United St.. 4723.4741 175
University of North Carolina at Greensboro ...127
Vaughan, Robert House 28
Vernon Building ..49
Vernon House 86
Wafco Mills 17
Warren & Wright sts.. SE. comer 142
Weir. Dr. House '. 21
White Oak Plant and Plant Housing 160
Willowbrook Dr.. 1109 '. 156
Wilson. N. H. 0. House '..140
Windburn Court Apartments .135
Woolworth, F. W. Building 44
World War Memorial Stadium 102
Worth House 164
Wysong & Miles Machine Company 12
-------
ROCKINGHAM CO.
O
U
i
o
"•I
RECREATIONAL AND CULTURA
FACILITIES IN GREENSBORO
. (8OURCI: HO-Sli)
CULTURAL
D MUSEUMS
• LIBRARIES
it SCIENCE CENTER
O ART CENTER
RECREATIONAL
I T TENNIS
B BALL FIELD
S SLAB
P .PLAYOROUND EQUIPMENT
• POOL
O RECREATION CENTCR
G GOLF COURSC
• STADIUM
A VWCA
A VMCA
-------
ROCKINQHAM CO.
O
U
o>
s
"•I
t ^34 5 6
SCALE IN MLE8
OUTDOOR RECREATION AREAS IN
STUDY AREA (BEYOND CITY LIMITS)
LEGEND
• PLAYGROUND
O COUNTY-WIDE PARK
* GOLF COURSES AND BOAT ACCESS AREAS
O ARBORETUM* AND CAMPGROUNDS
D HISTORIC SITES
-------
ROCKINGHAM jCO.
O
O
m
or
O
"•I
PARK AND RECREATION AREAS
-------
Southern Railway—SR
Seaboard Coast Line-SCL
Norfolk ft Western - N. W.
Clinchfield Rafroad-CRR
Norfolk Southern -NS
SOURCE: CL-093
DAILY TRAIN MOVEMENTS IN NORTH CAROLINA, 1973
-------
TRUCK TRAFFIC VOLUME IN NORTH CAROLINA. 1972
SOURCE: CL-083
-------
ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION OF GREENSBORO DISTRICT OF
DUKE POWER (IN MILLION KILOWATT-HOURS)
November 75
December 75
January 76
February 76
March 76
April 76
May 76
June 76
July 76
August 76
September 76
October 76
RESIDENTIAL
59
78
105
97
73
68
58
55
66
79
64
53
855
COMMERCIAL
60
63
65
69
64
61
61
62
67
74
71
66
INDUSTRIAL
31
31
27
28
29
30
31
34
34
32
34
34
GOVERNMENT
.7
.7
.8
.8
.7
.7
.8
.8
.8
.7
.8
.8
783 375 9.1
12 Month Total: 2022 Million Kilowatt Hours
Source: HO-318
-------
Private Class A Power Company Service Areas and Generating Points in N.C.. 1973
Greensboro
Power Companies
W' 'Carolina Power Er Uoht
Duka Power
Virginia Electric ft Power
Types of Fuel
fossil hydro nuclear
O 0 A
D 0 A
D 0 A
DOA
\
megawatts
below 10
10-100
100-1.000
1,000 and above
SOURCE: CL-093
PRIVATE CLASS A POWER COMPANY SERVICE AREA .
AND GENERATING PLANTS IN NORTH CAROLINA. 1973
-------
CITY OF GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA
WATER RATES
Effective July^ ±, 1975
Consumption per Month
First 5 hu. cu. ft
Next 28 hu. cu. ft.
Next 307 liu. cu. ft.
Next 3.600 hu. cu. ft.
All Over 4.000 hu. cu. ft.
INSIDE MONTHLY
Per 100
cu. ft. Cost
.44 2.20
.42 13.86
.34 138.74
.23 996.74
.17
ACCOUNTS
Total 100
Cu. Kt.
Accumulated
5
33
400
4.000
OUTSIDE MONTHLY
1'er 100
cu. ft. Cost
.88 4.40
.84 27.92
.68 277.48
.40 1.717.48
.25
ACCOUNTS
Total 100
Cu. Ft.
Accumulated
5
33
400
4.000
QUARTERLY ACCOUNT'S
Total 100
Per 100 Cu. Kt.
cu. ft. Cost Accumulated
.44 6.60 15
.42 42.30 100
.34 416.30 1.200
MINIMUM WATER CHARGES
Size of Meter
5/8"
3/4:
1"
IV
IV
2"
3"
4"
6"
8"
Cost
1.32
2.20
3.50
5.15
7.25
16.35
35.05
, 53.75
114.95
184.75
Water Allowed
Under
Miniaun Charge
in hu. cu. ft.
3
5
8
12
17
40
95
150
330
600
Water Allowed
Under
MinimuB Charge
Cost
2.64
4.40
6.92
10.30
14.50
32.70
70.10
107.50
229.90
357.50
in hu. cu. ft.
3
5
8
12
17
40
95
150
330
600
Water Allowed
Under
Minimum Charge
Cost in hu. cu. ft.
3.96 9
6.60 15
10.50 24
15.45 36
21.75 51
„
-------
ROCKINGHAM CO.
o
o
X
to
a.
O
•M
ACTIVE MINING OPERATIONS,
1976.
Sand and Gravel
Crushed stone
SOURCE: MC-249
-------
MAJOR INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER FLOWS IN GREENSBORO. NORTH CAROLINA
North Buffalo
Industry
Desoto
P. Lorillard
Charles Pfizer
United Dairies
Restaurants (est.)
Laundries (est.)
TOTAL
South Buffalo
Burlington Finishing
Burlington Hosiery
Carolina American Dyeing
Carolina American Textiles
Carolina By-Products
Chemol
Cindet
Cone Mills
Curtis Packing
Dixie Overall
Greensboro Fabric Converters
' Guilford Mills
Frito Lay
Oak Ridge Textiles
N.C. Dyeing and Finishing
Schlosser
Superior Knit
Vick
Restaurants (est.)
Laundries (est.)
TOTAL
Average Wastewater Flow
(MGD)
0.02
0.346
0.033
0.058
0.124
0.149
0.730
0.610
0.025
0.706
0.713
0.040
0.033
0.017
0.011
0.089
0.051
0.005
0.611
0.124
0.580
0.003
0.004
0.390
0.034
0.153
0.174
4.373
-------
ENGINEERING EVALUATION
-------
INVENTORY OF EXISTING WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT FACILITIES
Selection and modification of unit processes for expan-
sion and improvement of existing wastewater treatment facilities
is dependent on the capacity and condition of existing unit pro-
cesses. An inventory of existing facilities at both the North
and South Buffalo Creek treatment plants is included herein.
This information provided the basis for the cost and environmen-
tal analysis for wastewater treatment plant improvements.
-------
INVENTORY OF EXISTING TREATMENT FACILITIES
AT NORTH BUFFALO TREATMENT PLANT
Unit Process
Primary Sedimentation Tanks
Trickling Filters
Aeration Tanks
Final Sedimentation Tanks
Description
Four Identical Units:
Rectangular
Depth
Total Surface Area
Total Volume
Two Identical Units:
Diameter
Depth of Stone
Total Surface Area
Total Volume
Four Identical Units:
Rectangular
Depth
Total Volume
Total Aeration Capacity
Five Units:
(2) Circular
Diameter
Depth
Surface Area
(1) Circular
Diameter
Depth
Surface Area
(2) Circular
Diameter
Depth
Surface Area
Total Surface Area
80 ft x 40 ft
15 ft
12,800 sq ft
192,000 cu ft
200 ft
4 ft
62,800 sq ft
251,200 cu ft
42 ft x 261 ft
13 ft
580,000 cu ft
14,000 cfm
75 ft
16 ft
8,832 sq ft
75 ft
13 ft
4,416 sq ft
90 ft
15 ft
12,717 sq ft
26,000 sq ft
-------
INVENTORY OF EXISTING TREATMENT FACILITIES
AT NORTH BUFFALO TREATMENT PLANT
(Cont.)
Unit Process
Chlorine Contact Tank
Flotation Thickener
Primary Sludge Thickener
Vacuum Filters
Description
Rectangular
Depth
Volume
Total Surface Area
Diameter
Side Water Depth
Volume
Surface Water
Two Identical Units;
Diameter
Length
Area
95 ft x 50 ft
7.5 ft
35,625 cu ft
100 sq ft
60 ft
8 ft
169,350 gal
2,830 sq ft
11.5 ft
10.0 ft
720 sq ft
-------
INVENTORY OF EXISTING TREATMENT FACILITIES
AT SOUTH BUFFALO TREATMENT PLANT
Unit Process
Primary Sedimentation Tanks
Description
Trickling Filters
Aeration Tanks
Two Tanks:
<1) Square
Depth
Surface Area
Volume
(2) Diameter
Depth
Surface Area
Volume
Total Surface Area
Total Volume
Two Identical Units:
Diameter
Depth of Stone
Total Surface Area
Total Volume
Recirculation
70 ft x 70 ft
10 ft
4,900 sq ft
368,000 gal
80 ft
9 ft
5,024 sq ft
337,000 gal
9,924 sq ft
705,000 gal
155 ft
7 ft
37,716 sq ft
265,000 cu ft
9 MGD capacity
Four Tanks:
(1) Two with combined volume of 326,400 cf
and combined aeration capacity of 200 hp
of platform-mounted aerators
(2) Two with combined volume of 326,000 cu ft
and combined aeration capacity of 360 hp
of floating aerators
Total Volume
Total Aeration Capacity
652,800 cu ft
560 hp
-------
INVENTORY OF EXISTING TREATMENT FACILITIES
AT SOUTH BUFFALO TREATMENT PLANT
(Cont.)
Unit Process
Description
Incinerator
Final Sedimentation Tanks
Chlorine Contact Tanks
Primary Sludge Thickener
Flotation Thickener
Vacuum Filters
Power Supply
Tertiary Fitlers
One Unit:
Capacity of 2 to 3 tons per hour depending
upon volatile content of sludge solids
Two Identical Units:
Diameter
Depth
Total Surface Area
Volume
None
Total Surface Area
One Unit:
Area
105 ft
9 ft
17,300 sq ft
25,000 cu ft
250 sq ft
430 sq ft
Two Separate Sources of Duke Power
(being arranged)
Ten Units:
Area
Diameter
Total Surface Area
133 sq ft
13 ft
1,330 ft
-------
USE OF PEERS
The basis for determination of wastewater treatment"
plant design capacities which must be used in EPA Region IV
was issued on July 18, 1975 and is provided in the following
pages. This release specifies that "OBERS" economic projections
can be used to project future industrial flows but does not
specify an acceptable methodology for the use of such economic
projections. Therefore, an additional memorandum which outlines
an acceptable use of "OBERS" economic projections for projecting
future industrial flows was issued on August 14, 1976 and is
also included herein for review.
-------
Basis for Determination of Design Capacities
Tno question as to what basis should be used 1n determining the design
capacities for wustowater treatment facilities has been a problem to municipalities
consul tini.l ewiim.'ors, r.tato agencies, and CPA. The purpose of this document
1s to establish n consistent basis for the determination of wastewater needs
in an area.
J'or residential or domestic population projections 1n SMSA's, the "OBERS"*
population figures should be used. For non-SMSA areas, the population figures
contained 1n the July, 1972, publication entitled "Population by County -
tU.ltPilcJJJMO-1970) and Projected (1960*2020) - Region IV'should be used.
These county"population figures slfotncTbe used until new county wide projections
are available. Disaggre'gation of these population totals within an area Is the
responsibility of the local governmental entities Involved.
For determination of the Industrial wastewater needs for an area, one of
two methods can be used. In SMSA's, the "OBEUS" economic projections can be used
to project future Industrial flows. This involves converting projected earnings
increases for the Standard Industrial Classifications (SIC) to projected.
industrial flows for the area. In non-SMSA areas or 1n SMSA's that chose not
to use "ONERS" economic projections, Industrial wastewater needs can be estimated
from four possible sources. They are:
1. Present Industrial flow In the system.
?.. Reserved capacity for expansion of present industries already in the
system, I.e., present flow from the industry would Increase due to
expansion of the industrial plant. A letter from the Industry stating
how much flow they would need would be required. .
3. Reserved capacity for future Industries that would use the municipal •
wastewator treatment system. Future Industries that, desire capacity .
must be specifically named, their anticipated wastewater needs given,
and n letter from the industry stating their wastewater needs.
4 I'nr rinn-SMSA areas or for SMSA's that chose not to use "OBERS" economic
pro.jot-Lion-;, an extra Ion percent of the total calculated wastewater
need', (domestic' and industrial) for tho area will be allowed for non-
specified industrial I low. Tho ton percent does not apply to SMSA's that •
u;.(? "OHI US" economic projections., min letters from Indus tries asking
Tor rrsorvoo: capacity art; separate and not to be confused with the
lot.tors of intent required for compliance with 35.926-12 (industrial
cost recovery and user charges).
'developed by the Departments of Commerce & Agriculture for the Water Resources
Council
-------
- 2 -
In SMSA's lti.il: use "OBERS" economic projections for predicting Industrial
flow, tlu; dt'r,t«m ol interceptors should IK; based on the projected 20 year flow
with the pipe' Mowing 2/J full. In non-SMSA areas or In SMSA's that do not
a,,- "OiiEHY1 i.'<:iMiomk. projections for prndicl.inq industrial flow, the de- tgn or
in i rceptnrs -.;huii1'< IM; based on tin? projoctrd 2Q yrar flow with the pip«-
M'n imj M? full.
Peak factors usiul in thn design .of the intnrce|.tors will be determined on
d se by ca-,e basis and subject to tl'A rocjioiial -approval. Flows will be based
on , veraye daily flows multiplied by the appropriate peak factors.
-------
<- • • • ' ;v! • •' ••/ • •'•'/••'•••' " '• •"••• ""•'••' , u.
se of OBERS Data to Project '. -\ ; , . August 14
V/astcv/atcr Flows ' -. • : $01 """
"Director., "V/ster Pr.agrairia, P»
f ' '.••''•"'
Director, Muaicipal. Cocstructioa DIvisioa ';' ;.:•:•; •.'•';.;;/'.. , V^- ,,-./-.
. EPA, Waahia^tort, P. C, ' • :, ;,';'• V^'" ^-^V^—::'..-•''"i" *S'
• / . •
j ' SUMMARY ••'•;.•
j ^ . • . -. ••''•:J'./'•'' ' - " v":"'.'"'.7^'---;":?.; ••'•••-•:':;'' ' :/"; •-:-:j:''J'':-..
i . ' This is to eoafi^sa Gar discuaaion ors-fcLio inetiiod.o£ projectipa*
I ' "
i ' The raeti?.ad>'C3ed la.
." ' ' ACTION ...
• •• -:- '•'-•••'• '.•'••'•- - : " "I '''!•' r ';•: •' -v:r"!- : '"• •' '>£ ••'•";; -'•'''';'••',•:''.'''^-V.'! .•> "'.'.V :.-.V-;>. ^i.v :
Racsitt.diacusaipii., ,: ' .;-L;..;*.': '•• -»-... '.^.r^.-^ii. v?.'''',-5: ">.'!:.;'Y- v'-^'r •"-•'*'•'
• .•'•• -.-•• .'.sVi.: ": >•..••"'.''•'."''" . ''"'': "•.:'>• .-."' '•.'^S-'^k^-^y-i "r^-v'.' :'"-..->:-. ' 'K
David K< _
•"--"'•''•. * ' • * ' '* " ' •
' •' ",.' '-* '•'' '""••-• ' i.-, '-.vV1*" ':•''.•' '-•*'*• •.•';" ••-."'••«'•" .-'•"•
;.;•:.::•»;7*;^ :••
••••••"-'••'• •
._ ...
-
-------
Use Q"' Q3EP.S Data to Project Kastawater Flo-.-/-.
Region-al guidance, dated July 18, 1975, setting out the basis
for Determine fieri of Design Capacities, deals with industrial w?.ste-
waters by saying th.2 "03ER5" economic projections can.be ussd._ to.
projec_t_fyture indus tr ial__fJLous. The method'shown belov; is one
"way or accorapl fshir.g this. _ ^ . ."
1. Group the S MSA's pr'essnt industry into the correct two dicjH ..
Standard Industrial Classification. •. '
2. Estimate ths present v/astewater flov/ for each two digit SIC
group! ing, this should be based on the actual flows fro,:t
present industries.for each SIC. . . •
3. Establish total present employment (average annual for example) for
groupings in 2, above. . . . •
. •
4. Divide flows (in 2.) by employment (in 3.)» deriving a par'
" unit flow, for example MGDs/100 employees for each 2 digit
• ' sic. • - ••--..•
5. Using the total earnings, project the changes by decade.
For example,, if a 2-digit SIC is projected to increase
total earnings by 15%, wastawater flow projections should,
as a first'estimate, be increased by approximately 15/i.
'6. All industry .i'n the SMS.A should be'examined in this .manner
over the time horizon selected and total flows projected.
". • ••..•••.
7. The total flov;s projected in Step 6 above should be critically " "
'examined by local governmental units, engineering consultants
and planning bodies to determine their acceptability. Two
factors should be kept in mind:
a. Knovin or expected additions to or subtractions frotn the
SMSA's present industrial nix.
b. The natur'e of the present industry mix. For example, '
there is less likeliness of large changes in projected
flows for capital intensive facilities vn'th long economic
lives and a high capital employment ratio (e.g. - petroleum
refining) than for low capital, labor intensive industries
'such as apuarel. . ' .
There are dangers in using this technique uncritically sines
there are implicit assunptions, to.mention three^ of fixed 'technology,
constant relationships betv.'een earnings, employ^ant and v;a.stewater " .
generation and consistency in relative wage rates among SIC groupings.
-------
It should ba added tint disaggrogation* of industrial v:3Ste./ater
flows within' the S.X3A area, i. e. to urban sub-areas, is the respon-
sibility of the grantee.
.''."•• i
: 'If the grantee 'or applicant is outside a Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area or if he is in one and does not choose to use the
03EP.S economic projections for estimating future industrial flaws,
then industrial flows are establ ished, in part, based upon letters .
..fro." industry .indicating their future treatment capacity needs. These
letters v.-ill t ^ 'ssd to establish the flows consid°red in facilities
planning. "
Viheu the facilities plan, Step 1, is complete ancf tha applicant
proceeds to Step II, future_.industrial' flov/s established by letters
from industries must be substantiated before design begins. The
substantiation will consist of a letter, from the* industry stating
they need the capacity ar.d v/ill comply vnth all user charge and cost
recovery requirements associated v/ith that flow. If an industry has
said in the facilities plan they v/ill need a definite capacity and
then decides, before tha Step II work-'begins, they do not, the Step
II plans and specifications will be prepared .-excluding tha reserve
capacity for that particular industry. . .' '
'".-••
To avoid inflating future industrial needs.during tha facilities
planning process, th'a industries will have to coirjm't themselves ,to the
flow stated before design work cogences. T.ha futura flov/s used cust ..
be realistic estimates by the industries. In some cases where-
industries have indicated 'in the facilities.planning process, the
generation of large future flows and subsequently reconsidered, it may
prove necessary for the applicant to rework the original.facilities plan
before the Step II work'bagins. • ^ ' .. '
• . ™ ' • . -i ''.•.'.-•• •
ccs: J. R.- Franzmatnes
D. Olson
-------
Honorable Jim Itelvin
Jlayor, City of Greensboro
P. 0. Drawer VJ-2
Greensboro, NC 27402
Re: Greensboro Environmental Impact
Staterant
.Dear Mayor Helvin:
This is to confirm our meeting of February 25, 1977. The draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement will be completed using a design flow of 36 ngd
and presented in the format suggested by the EIS contractor.
As requested by your counsel, this method is compatible with the method
utilized on other projects in the Region based on the additional infor-
mation presented at the meeting. Our computations based on that infor-
mation:
Present Flow - 21 ngd •
Excess I/1 = 2 n>qd
Balance » .19 mgd
Industrial Flow » 5.6 mgd
Domestic Flow = 13.4 wgd
Future Domestic Flow .
265 x 13.4 = 22 mgd
162
Present Industrial weekly flow
converted to Design Flow:
5.6 x 7
5
Institutions (17,000 3 60 gpd =
10?, (31x7)
10- Allowance for Uniform
Industrial Goowth
. Total - 35.4 mgd
-------
2.
This 1s based on the area experiencing a population increase of 64% and
an Industrial expansion of 50". The City should be prepared to discuss
at the public hearing their plans and progra-ns for insuring that this
growth occurs in an orderly and environmentally sound nanner.
If the City desires to proceed with design, a deviation from 40 CFfl 35.925
-13(a)(3) must be requested. The January 23 menorandurn on this subject
1s attached. I would forward any request received for approval since your
situation is similar but not identical to those described 1n the memo.
'ty staff is available to assist you if further assistance is required.
Thank you for your assistance in our joint endeavor to clean up the waters.
Sincerely yours,
Jack E. Ravan
Regional Administrator
JFranzmathes:mh 3/10/77
-------
COMPLETE LIST AND PRESENTATION OF SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
The following table is a listing of 124 alternatives
identified for evaluation in the Environmental Impact Statement.
All of these alternatives can be implemented to satisfy the
wastewater treatment objectives for the City of Greensboro. After
an initial screening, forty-eight of these alternatives, includ-
ing sub-alternatives, were selected for a "high level" cost and
environmental analysis. These alternatives selected are indi-
cated by check marks on the left-hand edge of the list. A sche-
matic presentation of forty-five alternatives with estimated
present worth is also included. Alternatives in this presenta-
tion are arranged in order from least present worth.
-------
I. TWO PLANT CONFIGURATIONS BASED ON
Alternative*
. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 .
13
PREDICTED
(Flows in
North
Buffalo
13.6
15.6
31.6
16
18
33.6
34
4.4
2
2.4
20
20.4
27.4
FLOWS FROM BASINS (yr
MGD) EXISTING PLANTS
South Other
Buffalo Location
22.4
20.4
4.4
20
18
. 2.4
2
3U6
34
33.6
16
15.6
13 . 6
:2000)
ONLY
Construction
Date
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
*Some numbers have been emitted as they repeat configurations
already listed.
-------
II. TWO PLANT CONFIGURATIONS BASED ON
PREDICTED
FLOWS FROM BASINS
ONE EXISTING PLANT
Alternative
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
--38
39
North
Buffalo
13.6
16
18
31.6
34
33.6
2
2.4
4.4
20
20.4
22.4
15.6
31.6
South
Buffalo
13.6
16
18
4.4
34
33.6
2
2.4
4.4
20
20.4
22.4
15.6
PLUS ONE
(2000)
NEW PLANT
Other Construction
Location Date
22.4
20
18
4.4
2.0
2.4
34
33.6
31.6
16
15.6
13.6
20.4
22.4
20
18
2.0
2.4
34
33 . 6
31.6
16
15.6
13.6
20.4
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
-------
III. ONE PLANT CONFIGURATIONS
North South Other Construction
Alternative Buffalo Buffalo Location Date
/ 40 36 0 0 1980
/ 41 0 36 0 1980
/ 42 0 0 36 1980
IV. .THREE PLANT CONFIGURATIONS BASED ON
Alternative
43
44
/ ' 45
/ 46
ON HYDRAULIC CAPACITY OF EXISTING
FACILITIES
North
Buffalo
21
21
16
16
South
Buffalo
11
6
11
6
Other
Location
4
9
9
14
Construction
Date
1980
1980
1980
1980
-------
V. THREE PLANT CONFIGURATIONS BASED ON FLOW
PROJECTIONS
Alternative
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
North
Buffalo
13
13
13
13
13
13
15
15
16
16
18
18
18
18
18
18
20
20
20
20
.6
.6
.6
.6
.6
.6
.6
•6
.0
•0
.4
.4
PER BASIN
South
Buffalo
20
18
20.
2.
4.
7.
18
2.
2
18
2
16
4.
13.
15.
2.
.2.
13.
2
13.
4
4
4
0
4
4
6
6
4
4
6
6
Other
Location
2.
4.
2.
20
18
20.
2.
18
18
2
16
2
13.
4.
2.
15.
13.
2.
13.
2
4
4
0
4
4
6
4
4
6
6
4
6
Construction
Date
1997
1994
1997
1980
1980
1980
1997
1980
1980
1997
1980
1997
1980
1994
-1997
1980
1980
1997
1980
1997
-------
VI. PHASING: USING ONLY EXISTING SITES
Alternative
67
68
69
/ 70
/ 71-
72
/ 73
/ 74
/ ' 75
76
77
78
79
' 80
81
82
J 83
/ -84 .
/ -85
' -86
87
88
89
90
North
Buffalo
13.6+25
13.6
13.. 6+16
16.0+25
16
16+18
16+21
16+36
16C-)
18+30
18
18+36
18
18+36
18C-).
18+25
21
21+30
21.
21(-)
21+36
21+36
21(-)
South
Buffalo
11
11+22.4
11+20
11
11+20
11+18
11+15
1K-)
11+36
6
6+18
6 CO
6+36
11+18
1K-)
11+36
11
11+15
6
6+15
6+36
6 CO-
llC-)
11+36
Other Construction
Location Date-
1982
1982
1982
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1982
1982
1982
1982
1989
1989
1989
1989
1994
1986
1986
1986
1986
1994 •
1994
-------
VII. PHASING: THREE PLANT CONFIGURATIONS
Alternative
91
92
93
94
/ 95
96
/ 97
/ 98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
/ 113
/ 114
115
116
/ 117
/ 118
119
NO MORE
TIME
North
Buffalo
13.6(-)
13. 6(-)
13.6
16(-)
16
16(-)
16(-)
16*21
16(-)
16
1-.6.C-)
18
18(-)
18*21
18(-)
18(-)
18*21
18
18(-)
18*21
18(-)
18(-)
21(-)
21
21(-)
2K-)
2K-)
21
21(-)
THAN TWO ON
South
Buffalo
11
1K-)
ll(-)
11
-1K-)
11*18
1K-)
1K-)
' 18
18(-)
18(-)
6(-)
6
6
6*20
6(-)
6(-)
1K-)
11
1K-)
11*20
1K-)
6
6(-)
6*18
6*20
11
ll(-)
11*20
LINE AT ANY
Other
Location
25
36
22.4
25
20 .
18
36
15
18
20
36
18
30
9
16
36
15
18
25
15
15
36
30
15
18
16
25
15
16
ONE
Construction
Date
1982
1982
1982
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1997
1997
1997
1987
1982
1982
1982
1982
1982
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1986
1986
1986
1986
1994
1994
1994
-------
VII. PHASING: THREE PLANT CONFIGURATIONS
NO MORE THAN TWO ON LINE AT ANY ONE
TIME (Continued)
North South Other Construction
Alternative Buffalo Buffalo Location Date
2 Plant Configurations Hydraulic Cap; at Least 1 Plant
/ 120 21 15 1980
/ 121 11 . 25 1980
/ 122 6 30 1980
/ 123 30 6 1980
/ 124 25 11 . . ' 1980 .
/ - Indicated alternative was used in preliminary costing.
(-) - Means plant will be phased out in indicated year, of
construction.
-*• - Expansion of an existing facility to size indicated in year
of construction.
-------
1. All treatment facilities provide
secondary treatment followed by
nitrification and filtration.
2. Design period =20 years (1980-2000).
3. Interest rate.- 6 3/8%.
4. Salvage: >
Expected Life:
Treatment Plants = 30 years.
Pump Stations =20 years.
Force Mains and Outfall Sewers = 40 years.
Note: The schematics are listed in order by least
cost (1-43). These cost rankings correspond to the alternatives
in the complete list as below.
Schematic Complete Alternative List
1 71
2 73
3 86
4 84
5 .4
6 70
7 85
8 1
9 . 41a
10 41b
11 71
12 40
13 118b
-------
Schematic
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Complete Alternative List
75
114b
45b
118a
45a
124
114a
98b
95b
98a
42a
117
95a
42b
15b
25b
14b
23
120b
25a
122
15a
97
46b
14a
113
121a
128a
121b
46a
-------
43.213
45.007
0986)
4-7.HO
43.306
46. £
-------
46.793
47.077
I HOD
48385
43,694
2irV5D
47.7SZ
48.758
-------
48.79O
50.6(9
. 90Z
0990-1996")
2± . 5o. I4^
22.4
.^1.481
-------
5Z 016
52.ZZ4
<52.99Z
-------
43.900
SK AL12AMATIVE.
-looo)
-------
GREENSBORO EIS
BASIS FOR SCREENING ALTERNATIVES
I. Alternatives which require that facilities be constructed or upgraded and
then abandoned were deleted. These include alternatives: 45, 71, 73, 74,
75, 78, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86-103, and 105-119.
2. Three (3) plant configurations appear to be too costly as compared to two
(2) plant configurations; therefore, alternatives 43, 44» 47-66 and 104 were
eliminated. Alternative 46 has been included as a possible alternative and
will be evaluated according to cost in order tc test this criteria.
3. Alternatives which called for an inefficient use of existing facilities, such
as 2.0 or 2.4 mgd in facilities designed for 21 or 11 mgd, were eliminated.
These include alternatives: 6, 7, 20, 21, 22, 33, 34 and 35.
4. Alternatives which include small new treatment plants in combination with
large transportation requirements are too costly when compared with alternatives
that better make use of existing facilities. Alternatives 17, IS, and 19 were
eliminated using this criteria.
5. Several alternatives include upgrading and expansion of the South Buffalo
treatment facilities. Alternative 4 appears to accomplish this at the least
cost; therefore, it was selected as the alternative for further analysis and
alternatives 1, 2, 5, 8-13, 27-32, 36-39, 41, 68, 69, 72, 77, and 80 were
eliminated.
6. Alternatives 121 and 122 were eliminated because they don't efficiently use
N. Buffalo facilities.
7. Alternatives 23, 24, 25 and 120 a.re the same except for flow configurations.,
Alternative 23 appears to be the least cost of these alternatives and was
included in the 201 plan; therefore, it is included in the list of alternatives
for further analysis and alternatives 24, 25 and 120 are eliminated.
8. Alternatives 67, 70, 83, and 124 are the same except for the flow configuration
and time schedule. Alternative 67 was deleted because the 1982 time schedule
for upgrading and expanding the N. Buffalo plant follows too closely the 1980
date. Alternative 70 was deleted because its expansion date is 1986 whereas,
Alternative 83's expansion date of 1989 is closer to a 10 year phasing schedule
and should have a lower present worth cost. Tims, Alternative 83 and 124 are
to remain for further analysis.
9. Alternatives 76 and 123 are the same except for the time schedule. The time
schedule for Alternative 76. is short; therefore, it is eliminated.
1C. Alternative 14, 15, 16, and 26 are similar in that they involve upgrading the
N. Buffalo Plant and construction of a new treatment facility but with different
flow configurations. Alternative 15 was chosen as being the best representative
of this group because plant capacities would match the projected flows that can
be accepted with the least amount of puaping.
11. Alternative 3 was eliminated because of inefficient use of the existing South
Buffalo Treatment Plant.
-------
The following list of alternatives have been reviewed and evaluated
by the EPA-EIS Branch, and NCDNER, 201 Task Force.
Alternatives recommended by NCDNER to be priced out are located in the
far right hand column.
N.B.
Alt. #
S.B.
4
15a
15b
23a
23b
40
42a
42b
46
83
85
123
124
Reedy Fork
16
16
16
20
20
36
16
18-25
21-30
30
25
20
6
11
6
6
11
Other
Construction
Date
20
20
16
16
36
36
14
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1989
1986
1980
1980
EPA
Recommendations
X
X
X
X
X
X
State
Recommendations
X
X
X
*
*
X
X
#
X
*
X
X
*
*Reasons for elimination
1. 23a and 23 b were eliminated because of the similarity with 15a and
15b. Also, 15a was the selected alternative in the 201 Flan.
2. 42b was eliminated because a 36 MGD plant at the confluences of
North and South Buffalo Creeks (42a) would be cheaper than a 36 MGD
plant located between South Buffalo and the confluence: (42b).
3. #83 and #124 were eliminated because of their similarity with #85 and
#123 which will be priced out; also it was felt that #85 and #123
would be respectively cheaper than #83 and #124.
4. Reedy Fork was eliminated because the effluent limits at Reedy Fork
will require advanced treatment (36 MGD 14,4: 20 MGD 18,6) instead
of secondary treatment as was previously assumed.
-------
REMAINING ALTERNATIVES PRIOR TO FINAL SCREENING
4 Upgrade North Buffalo plant to 16.0 MGD and upgrade"
and expand South Buffalo plant to 20.0 MGD
15a Upgrade North Buffalo plant to 16.0 MGD; abandon
South Buffalo plant; construct new 20.0 MGD facility
at the confluence of North and South Buffalo Creeks
15b Upgrade North Buffalo plant to 16.0 MGD; abandon
South Buffalo plant; construct new 20.0 MGD facility
near intersection of Highway 70 and South Buffalo
Creek
15c Upgrade North Buffalo plant to 16.0 MGD; abandon
South Buffalo plant; construct new facility on
Buffalo Creek near Reedy Fork and Buffalo Creek
confluence
40 Upgrade and expand North Buffalo Creek plant to 36.0
MGD; abandon South Buffalo Creek plant
42 Abandon both North and South Buffalo Creek plants
and construct new 36.0 MGD facility near confluence
of North and South Buffalo Creeks
46a Upgrade North Buffalo plant to 16.0 MGD; upgrade
but derate South Buffalo plant to 6.0 MGD; construct
new 14.0 MGD plant near the intersection of Highway
70 and South Buffalo Creek
83 Upgrade North Buffalo plant to 18.0 MGD and expand
to 25.0 MGD in 1987; upgrade South Buffalo plant
to 11.0 MGD
85 Upgrade and expand North Buffalo plant to 21.0 MGD
and expand to 30.0 MGD in 1986; upgrade but derate
South Buffalo plant to 6.0 MGD
-------
123 Upgrade and expand North Buffalo plant to 30.0 MGD;
upgrade but derate South Buffalo plant to 6.0 MGD
NO ACTION
-------
North Carolina Department of
Natural & Economic Resources
JAMES B. HUNT, JR., GOVERNOR
HOWARD N. LEE, SECRETARY
May 6, 1977
DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
BOX 276H7. RALEIGH J7lil I
TELEPHONE -JI9 733-4MO
Mr. Lee Wilson
Project Manager
Radian Corporation
8500 Shoal Creek Boulevard
Austin, Texas 78766
Subject: Greensboro Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS)
Dear Mr. Wilson:
The following comments were generated as a result of the May 3rd meeting
with Mr. Everett Knight, Mr. Page Benton, Mr. Coy Batten, Mr. Vernon Harris, and
Mr. Berry Williams.
A. Alternative Screening:
The EPA, State, City of Greensboro, Guilford County, and Padian representa-
tives departed the May 3rd morning meeting in Greensboro with the following
alternatives (numbers refer to Radian's Master List of Eleven (11)).
Alt. #1 N.B. 16 MGD -
S.B. 20 MGD
*Alt. #2 N.B. 16 MGD
S.B. 20 MGD (S.B.- 70 Metro Site)
**Alt. #3 N.B. 16 MGD
Metro (Confluence) 20 MGD
Alt. #4 N.B. 36 MGD
Alt. #6 N.B. 36 MGD
S.B. 6 MGD
Metro (Confluence) I4 MGD
Alt. #7 N.B. 18 - 25 MGD (1989)
* EPA wanted to discuss Alternatives 2 and 10 before arriving at a decision to
eliminate one or both or none of them.
** Selected Alternative in the 201 Plan.
-------
Mr. Lee Wilson
May 6, 1977
Page Two
Alt. #10 N.B. 16 MGD
Reedy Fork 20 HCD
Alt. #11 "No Action"
The State eliminated alternatives 1, 4, and 6 for the following reasons:
(1) Alt. //I: In order to expand the South Buffalo Treatment Plant to a twenty
(20) KGD plant, land would have to be purchased from North Carolina A&T.
As of this writing, it was felt that A&T land would not be available for
purchase. The. determination as to A£T land availability must originate
from the Council of State. Radian Corporation has the responsibility to
r request a ruling from the Council of State on this matter.
(2) Alt. #4: The environmental effects of discharging 1500 Lbs. of BOD/day
into a stream with a 7 day - 10 year low flow of 1.0 CFS would be
biologically harmful to the stream.
(3) Alt. //6: The three (3) plant configurations were eliminated because O&M
costs would be extremely high. .
The State has requested Radian Corporation to perform an investigation
on alternatives #3, #7, and #11 (No-Action). EPA has requested that Radian
also investigate alternatives #1, #2, and #10. The analysis will follow
the Task Order (NA76-B445) and the Costing Criteria letter (dated April 20,
1977).
B . Conditions
Radian Corporation requested certain conditions from both the EPA and the
State in order to have a minimum amount of downtime when the EIS is reviewed.
The conditions are:
(1) The State will receive the EIS documents no later than the -morning of
the 17th of May. The State will have the required personnel standing
by (or on call) in order to perform a review on this document.*
(2) Review time will be three working days from the time the document is
submitted. The State requests twenty-seven (27) copies of the first
submittal.*
(3) An errata sheet on costs will cot be provided by the State.
* See attachment: Personnel Who Will Review the Greensboro EIS.
-------
Mr. Lee Wilson
May 6, 1977
Page Three
(4) the State has reserved the conference room at 210 North Dnwson Street,
Raleigh, and the Board Room afe 217 West Jones Street, Raleigh, in caee
Radian or EPA personnel request a meeting or need conference space.
(5) Effluent limits will not change from those previously listed on April
19, 1977 .(see attachment).
(6) The State will review information that is submitted on a piecemeal
basis (particularly costs) but only if the submittal is complete and
before the 17th of May.
' (7) State personnel will review the document in Raleigh, N.C.
(8) Mr. Everett Knight, Director of DEM will meet with Mr. John Ravan,
EPA - Region IV Director on May the 20th on or about 10:00 a.m. in
Atlanta. The purpose of this meeting will be to. select an alternative
from the final list of six (6).
(9) The State recommends that the location of the Metro Plant in alternative
#2 be downstream of the existing site and upstream of S.R. 70 (The
Citizen's Committee has mentioned one (1) to two (2) miles downstream
. of the existing South Buffalo Site). Aerial photographs and aerial
reconnaisance (helicopters) can be used in site selection.
The attachments are included for consolidation of pertinent information
concerning the screening of alternatives.
If you have any questions please contact me.
Sincerely,
M.W. Oakman
201 Environmental Planner
MWO:daw
cc: Mr. W.E. Knight
Mr. L.P. Benton, Jr.
Mr. C.M. Batten
Mr. R. Cooper
Mr. David Malish
Mr. Ray Shaw
Mr. Vernon Harris, Jr.
Mr. John Williamson
Mr. Berry A. Williams, Jr.
Mr. T.F. Armstrong
-------
Attachment 1
Alternative
A
5
6
8
9
10
11
Description
N.B. 16 MGD
S.B. 20 MGD
N.B. 16 MGD
Metro (S.B.- 70) 20 MGD
N.B. 16 MGD
Metro (Confluence) 20 MGD
N.B. 36 MGD
Metro (Confluence) 36 MGD
N.B. 16 MGD
S.B. 6 MGD
Metro (Confluence) 14 MGD
(Metro Location has changed from
S.B.— 70 to Confluence)
N.B. 18 - 25 (1989)
S.B. 11 MGD
N.B. 21 - 30 (1986)
S.B. 6 MGD
N.B. 30 MGD
S.B. 6 MGD
N.B. 16 MGD
Reedy Fork 20 MGD
No Action
-------
COMPONENTS EVALUATED FOR THE
GREENSBORO SIS
Component Description. • . ;
1 North Buffalo Creek Treatment Plant @
16 MGD. Construction of new facilities
will be confined to existing plant bound-
ary.
Effluent Characteristics
BOD = 6 mg/1
TSS =10 mg/1
NH3-N - 4 mg/1
Coliform - 1000/100 ml
2 North Buffalo Creek Treatment Plant @
25 MGD. This construction will occur
in 1987 and will be an expansion of
Component 1. Expansion will require
land just north of the existing plant
boundaries, i.e., across North Buffalo
Creek.
Effluent Characteristics
BODS - 6 mg/1
TSS -10.mg/1
NH3-N » 3 mg/1
Coliform = 1000/100 ml
3 South Buffalo Creek Treatment Plant @
11.0 MGD. Construction of new facilities
will be confined to existing plant bound-
ary .
-------
Component
3
(continued)
Description
Effluent Characteristics
BODs
TSS
NH3-N
Coliform
14 mg/1
10 mg/1 .
7 mg/1
1000/100 ml
South Buffalo Creek Treatment Plant @
20 MGD. Improvements and expansion will
require adjacent land (=20 acres).
Effluent Characteristics
BODS
TSS
NH3-N
Coliform
14 mg/1
10 mg/1
6 mg/1
1000/100 ml
New treatment plant on South Buffalo
Creek approximately 17,000 lineal feet
downstream of existing site. This
construction will require approximately
40 acres of land.
Effluent Characteristics
BOD3
TSS
NH3-N
Coliform
11 mg/1
10 mg/1
5 mg/1
1000/100 mg/1
6
New treatment plant on South Buffalo
Creek approximately 26,000 lineal feet
downstream of existing site. This
construction will require approximately
40 acres of land.
-------
Component
6
(Continued)
Description
Effluent Characteristics
BOD 5
TSS
NH3-N
Coliform
11 mg/1
10 mg/1
5. mg/1
1000/100 mg/1
New treatment plant at the confluence of
North and South Buffalo Creeks. Exact
location is just northeast of the conflu-
ence and east of Buffalo Creek. This
construction will require approximately
40 acres of land.
8
Effluent Characteristics
BOD5 - 6 mg/1
TSS = 10 mg/1
NH3-N = 3 mg/1
Coliform - 1000,100 mg/1
New treatment plant on Buffalo Creek ap-
proximately 20,000 lineal feet below the
confluence. This construction will
require approximately 40 acres of
land.
Effluent Characteristics
BODs - 14 mg/1
TSS = 10 mg/1
NHj-N = 4 mg/1
Coliform - 1000/100 mg/1
-------
Component . Description .
9 New 60-inch outfall sewer along South
Buffalo Creek from existing treatment -
plant to new facility on South Buffalo
Creek. The approximate length is 17,000
lineal feet.
10 New 60-inch outfall sewer along South
Buffalo Creek from existing treatment
plant to new facility on South Buffalo
Creek. The approximate length is 26,000
lineal feet.
11 New 60-inch outfall sewer along South
Buffalo Creek from existing treatment
plant to new facility on South Buffalo
Creek. The approximate length is 46,:5QO
lineal feet.
12 New 60-inch outfall sewer along South
Buffalo Creek to approximately 20,000
lineal feet below the confluence of
North and South Buffalo Creek
13 New 60-inch outfall sewer from a new
treatment facility below the confluence
of North and South Buffalo Creek to the
confluence of Buffalo Creek and Reedy
Fork Creek. The approximate length
is 30,000 lineal feet.
-------
Component Description
14 New 24-inch interceptor from South Buffalo
Creek treatment facility to intersection
of South Buffalo Creek and Highway 70;
pump station and new 14-inch force main
from intersection of South Buffalo Creek
and Highway 70 to existing South Buffalo
Creek facility
15 New force main from South Buffalo Creek
treatment plant to North Buffalo Creek
treatment plant. This force main has
a length of approximately 26,000 lineal
feet.
1 t
16 Alternative 1 - Upgrade the North Buffalo
Creek facility to provide a tertiary.level
of treatment at 16.0 MGD; upgrade and
expand the existing South Buffalo Creek
facility to provide a tertiary level of
treatment at 20.0 MGD; construct an outfall/
force main from the existing South Buffalo
Creek plant to Highway 70.
17 Alternative 2 - Upgrade the North Buffalo
Creek facility to provide a tertiary level
of treatment at 16.0 MGD; abandon the
existing South Buffalo Greek facility
and construct a new tertiary facility ap-
proximately 14,000 lineal feet downstream
of the abandoned plant; construct an outfall
sewer from the existing South Buffalo Creek
facility to the new facility downstream;
.construct an outfall/force main from the
new facility to Highway 70.
-------
18 Alternative 3 - Upgrade the North Buffalo
Creek facility to provide a tertiary IdVfii
of treatment at 16.0 MGD; abandon the
South Buffalo Creek facility and construct
a new tertiary facility approximately
26,000 lineal feet downstream of the aban-
doned plant; construct an outfall sewer
from the existing South Buffalo Creek
facility to the new facility downstream.
19 Alternative 4 - Upgrade the North Buffalo
Creek facility to provide a tertiary level
of treatment at 16.0 MGD; abandon the
South Buffalo Creek facility and construct
a new tertiary facility approximately
46,500 lineal feet (near confluence of..
North and South Buffalo Creeks) downstream
of the abandoned plant; construct an o,ut-
fall sewer from the existing South Buffalo
Creek facility to the new facility down-
stream.
20 Alternative 5 - Upgrade the North Buffalo
Creek facility to provide a tertiary level
of treatment at 16.0 MGD; abandon the South
Buffalo Creek facility and construct a new
tertiary facility approximately 20,000 lineal
feet downstream of the confluence of North
and South Buffalo Creeks; construct an out-
fall sewer from the existing South Buffalo
Creek facility to the new facility down-
stream and from the new facility to Reedy
Fork Creek for ultimate disposal of the
treated wastewater.
-------
Component Description
21 Alternative 6 - Upgrade the North Buffalo
Creek facility to provide a tertiary level
of treatment at 16.0 MGD immediately; up- ,
grade the South Buffalo Creek facility .
to provide a tertiary level of treatment
at 11.0 MGD; expand the North Buffalo Creek
tertiary facility to 25.0 MGD in 1987;
provide a pump station and force main to
transfer approximately 9.0 MGD from the
South Buffalo Creek facility to the ex-
panded North Buffalo Creek facility; con-
struct an outfall/force main from the
existing South Buffalo plant to Highway 70.
22 Alternative 7, No Action - Upgrade both
the North Buffalo Creek facility and the
South Buffalo Creek facility to provide
a tertiary level of treatment at the pre-
sent flow capacity; provide septic tanks
to additional households which are not
provided sewer service.
-------
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
-------
I. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Establishment of Relative Importance of
Specific Environmental Categories
The Public Review Group will be requested to assist in
the "calibration of the evaluation scheme to the Greensboro study
area. Each of these representatives will contribute equally to
the evaluation process. They will have reviewed a prior, advance-
information version of Chapter II, Existing Environment, and each
will be made aware of the categories that he or she would be asked
to rank. The group will be provided an opportunity to resolve
problems or questions about their task.
Each representative will rank each of the environmental
categories, to be designated, in accordance with his judgment of
their relative importance in his environment. A one to five scale
will be used:
1. Relatively least important,
2. • Relatively less important,
3. Relatively average in importance
4. Relatively more important, and
5. Relatively most important.
It will be explained to the representatives that their
responses, as shown by "X's," ideally should be more or less cen-
tered about the median value of "3," and that it is not essential
that they respond to each category, but failure to do so is tanta-
mount to abdicating their position on that category to the other
representatives.
To obtain a "mean importance unit" for each citizen,
the responses for an individual will be summed and divided by the
number of categories to which he or she responded. Then, each
-------
response value given by a member for a category will be divided
by his or her-mean importance unit to determine the "normalized
importance value" for that category and that individual. This
will be repeated for all categories and all individuals. This
normalization step is necessary to insure that values reflect
relative importance (i.e., marking all categories "5" would only
result in a neutral position for all categories).
To calculate the relative importance of each environ-
mental category as viewed by the citizens' group (and presumably
the larger community embodied therein), the individual normalized
importance values for that category will be summed and divided
by the number of citizens responding to that category. The result-
ing average number, generally ranging' from 0.5 to 1.5, will then
be squared and the squared number will be used as a weighting
factor applicable to that environmental category and its corres-
ponding criterion. .This process will be iterated for all environ-
mental categories. The squaring of the numbers performs two func-
tions: (a) it provides a wider spread in the ultimate Figures of
Merit which facilitates comparison, and (b) it emphasizes the two . .
extreme positions, i.e., those categories for which the most defin-
ite, least ambivalent judgments are made and which are most central
to the citizen-aided calibration procedure.
B. Ranking of Environmental Criteria
An objective enumeration of adverse impacts of compon-
ents will be performed by an unbiased professional group using
environmental criteria with a one-to-one correspondence to the
citizens' environmental categories.
The viable alternatives will be broken into their separate
workable components. Environmental criteria corresponding to the
citizens' environmental categories will then be evaluated for each
-------
of the components, as applicable. The evaluation of adverse im-
pacts associated with each of these components and systems will
be performed by a multi-disciplinary jury using a systematic
rating system. The rating system is as follows:
0 - No impact,
1 - Very small impact,
2 - Small impact,
3 - Moderate impact,
4 - Large impact, and
5 - Very large impact.
Fractions will be used as necessary, except in the domain between
0 and 1, where any impact will be assigned 1.
In order to provide consistency during the evaluation
procedure and concurrently to focus on just one component at a
time f.or interdisciplinary discussion and interaction, a rationale
for assessing each criterion will be developed during the evalua-
tion period. The number assigned to a particular criterion for a
particular component or system generally represents a professional
judgment of the aggregate impact of a number of associated factors.
In the final analysis, their consistent application among the com-
ponents or systems is more important than relatively small devia-
tions from the "real" impact value.
C. Final Environmental Ranking
All values of the environmental criteria assigned by the
mult.idisciplinary jury will be squared. This will be done to empha-
size large impacts and to avoid offsetting a large impact by an
insignificant one in the computation of the Figure of Merit (FOM).
Then, for every criterion that is aggregated in assembling the
system alternative from its individually rated components and in
the rating of the system per se, the squared value for the criterion
-------
is multiplied by the weighting function of its corresponding cate-
gory, which will be derived from citizen input. The product of
these values ({criterion} x {weighting function}) may be referred
to as an "environmental impact value." The sum of these values
for all criteria for all components of a system and for the sys-
tem per gje is then divided by the number of environmental impact
values which were summed to obtain an "average environmental impact
value" for that system alternative, with the larger numbers denot-
ing larger adverse impacts. The average environmental impact
value is similarly compiled for all alternative systems. Each of
these values is then subtracted from the same arbitrary positive
number to yield a FOM for each system, with the higher numbers
designating the environmentally more acceptable system alternative.
An inherent danger in such summary representations is
the inability to designate implicitly in the final FOM the exis-
tence of a value that in itself may be more important than the
aggregated FOM. For example, the imminent destruction of a very
important archaeological resource may be "lost" in the final re-
sult if there are many other less detrimental factors; neverthe-
less, its existence has important implications for the implemen-
tation of the proposed action and must be delineated. This will
be done using Red Flags/ Green Flags, corresponding to adverse/
beneficial impacts.
-------
PROCESS FOR RANKING
EACH SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE
21 December 1976
-------
PROCESS FOR RANKING EACH SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE
The environmental assessment system being exercised to
assist in selection of the Greensboro 201 Wastewater Treatment
System was designed to incorporate independently two sources of
evaluation:
(1) Evaluation of the relative importance of pertinent
categories of the environment as judged by each
individual of the citizens' committee, and
(2) A quantitative assessment of the impact of each
alternative upon each pertinent element of the
environment as analyzed by unbiased professional
environmental group.
These two measures will then be combined to form a
prioritized ranking of each alternative being considered. This
ranking will serve as an important factor in selection of the
recommended system. The process is summarized below;
Step 1 - Each citizen will rank each environmental
category in accordance to his judgment about what is
important in his/her environment. This value (ranging
from 1 to 5) is designated "I." Each environmental
element will receive a value "I."
Step 2 - To obtain a "mean importance value" for each
citizen, the values for I will be summed and divided
by the total number of environmental categories, "z."
This yields the mean importance value, "U."
-------
Step 3 - After completing Step 2, it is necessary to
determine the "normalized importance unit" for each
environmental category to reflect one category's
relative importance to the environment as a total.
This is done by dividing each value, I, by the
mean importance unit, tJ, and yields the "normalized
importance unit, "N."
Step 4 - To calculate the relative importance of each
environmental category as viewed by the citizens'
groups as a total, the individual normalized impor-
tance units, N, are summed and divided by the total
number of citizens, x, filling out a response form.
This provides a weighting factor, W, for each environ-
mental category.
Step 5 - For each system alternative component (inter-
ceptor, force main, etc.), a technical evaluation will
be performed to determine the degree of environmental
impact. Through analysis, each environmental criterion
will reflect the degree of impact with an impact value
of from 0 to 5. This is designated "M."
Step 6 - A Figure of Merit (FOM) or a relative degree
of impact for each alternative component is then deter-
mined by multiplying the technical impact value, M2
(Step 5), by the citizens' weighting, W (Step 4), and
dividing by the total number of technical environmental
criteria.
Step 7 - A FOM for the combined alternative components,
e.g., an alternative system, is determined by summing
the FOM's for each component.
-------
Step 8 - Step 7 provides the basis for computing the
condition to the overall FOM of a system alternative
as described by individual components. Some impacts ;
such as taxes, capital budgeting, etc;, cannot be
determined without considering a total system. Con-
sequently, these additional items will be analyzed
and quantified as in Steps 5, 6, and 7 above.
/
Step 9 - The overall FOM for a system alternative is
then determined by combining the above steps and
dividing by one (for the system) plus the sum of the
alternative components. This final value is subtracted
from a "to be determined" number, A, to provide a range
of numbers that most poeple are accustomed to dealing
with (e.g., 1-10, 10-100, etc.).
-------
LIST OF PARAMETERS TO BE
ASSESSED BY CITIZEN AND PROFESSIONAL GROUPS
RATING
Natural Environment
• Air Quality
• Noise
• Odor
• Water Quality:
Of Streams
Of Lakes
• Streamflow and Surface-
Water Quantity
• Ground-Water Quality
• Ground-Water Flow
• Natural Vegetation
• Terrestrial Fauna
• Aquatic Biota
• Biologically Sensitive Areas
• Substrate Suitability of
Projected Uses
\
Man-Made Environment
• Existing Land„Uses
• Future Industrial Land Use
• Future Residential Land Use
• Future Agricultural Land Use
• Other Future Land Uses
« .Transportation System
• Community Services and
Facilities
• Ongoing Projects and Programs
• Cultural Resources
• Resource Use Patterns
• Taxes and Budgeting
1
Low
_5
High
-------
11
J ^'
••• 2- .» t-
COMPOUEHT
DESCRIPTION
SYSTEM
1 NB-16 Upgrade
2 HB-25 Expand 1987
3 SB-11 Upgrade
4 SH-20 Upgrade
and Expand
5 SB-20 .lew Sice
Above Confluence
6 NB/SB-20 New Sice
AC Confluence
7 Buffalo-20 dew SlCe
Below Confluence
8 OuCfall from SB Co
SB-New Sice Above
Confluence
9 OuCfall from SB
co Confluence
10 OuCfall from SB co
Buffalo Below
Confluence and co
Reedy Fork
11 Force Ha in SB co rtB
12 Oucfall from
Component 7 Co
Reedy Fork
13 System 1
14 System 2
15 System 3
16 System 7
17 System 10
IS Ho Accion
19 SB New Sice SA
20 Oucfall SB co SA
21 System 2 A
22 Gravicy/ Force Main
Co llwy 70
1.2.3.7,10
7
7
1
2
3
10
2
3
10
7
10
1
2
3
7
10
Citizens Weighting
1 -f
1
2
1
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
5
2
1
3
1
1.27
0
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
2
5
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
.78
0
2
0
0
3
3
3
1
2
2
1
0
0
3
3
0
3
2
3
2
3
2
1 .07
— (
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
4
4
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
5
1
3
3
3
.42
[ '
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
3
3
3
5
0
0
3
0
1.42
r- f
0 1
1 2
0 i 1
2
3
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
3
0
l.ll
2
3
0
3
2
3
4
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
i
3
2
2
2
1 .27
0
0
0
0
2
3
3
1
1
1
0
I
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
1
3
1
1 .12
0
1
0
1
2
2
3
4
5
5
1
5
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
4
2
4
.88
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
4
4
1
4
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
3
.70
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
3
4
4
0
5
2
2
2
2
2
5
1
3
2
3
.82
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
4
4
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
: 0
3
1
3
1.0
Jo
1 3
1
1
0
0
0
1
3
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
5
4
2
1
2
.77
0
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
5
3
2
0
2
1.0
-*4
4
o i
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
.99
0 1
1 1
-0-
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
4
0
0
0
.99
0
0
0
4
4
4
I
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
2
1
0
1
.84
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
.85
0
2
0
2
2
2
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
2
1
I
1
.-"•
o|-i
0 i 1
0 i 1
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
5
0
0
1
0
.HI
1
1
I
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
I
1
5
1
1.
1
I
.Mil
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
3
4
1
3
I
1
1
1
1
3
I
2
1
2
./'"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
'j
0
0
1
0
.•*«
(1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
.95
-------
SUMMARY OF RATIONALE
USED IN EVALUATING COMPONENTS
-------
AIR QUALITY
-------
AIR QUALITY '
COMPONENT EVALUATION
Construction activities will generate fugitive dust.
This will have a small adverse impact on air quality. The study
area is part of the Guilford County Air Quality Maintenance Area
(AQMA) for total suspended particulates (TSP). The AQMA -regula-
tions require that the impact of all new sources of TSP emissions,
e.g. construction, be considered. Dust from construction acti-
vities in or near the urban area will have the severest impact.
SYSTEM EVALUATION
The basic alternative to be evaluated here is unplanned
growth versus planned growth. From an air pollution standpoint,
some degree of growth can be accommodated in the study area.
Currently, the only sensitive pollutant is TSP. AQMA regulations
should prevent future TSP problems. Growth in the study area
should generally increase ambient levels of other pollutants.
It can be expected that automotive-intensive pollutants such as
nitrogen' oxides, hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide will be directly
related to population growth. It is assumed that unplanned growth
results in a population more "spread out" than with planned growth.
Therefore, automobile trips would be longer and more frequent
resulting in higher emissions. This may cause violations of am-
bient standards especially photochemical oxidant. The "no action"
alternative therefore rates the severest impact.
-------
AIR QUALITY
COMPONENT EVALUATION SUMMARY
Rating Component Criteria '_.-.,
0 Not assigned.
1 Assigned to Components 1, 3, 8, 9, 10, and 11.
Fugitive dust generated by construction .activi-
ties.
2 Assigned to Components 2, 5, 6, 7, and 12.
Fugitive dust generated by construction activi-
ties for major new plant sites (Components 5,
6, 7, and 12). Expansion of North Buffalo as-
sumed to be across creek toward shopping center
(Component 2). This will impact shopping cen-
ter during construction.
3 Assigned to Components 4, 13,. 14, 15, 16, and
17. Dust generated from construction will have
moderate adverse impact due to adjacent resi-
dential areas. System components 13, 14, 15,
16, and 17 will allow air quality to degrade
to some degree, but no air quality violations
are predicted.
4 Not assigned.
5 Assigned to Component 18. "No Action" alternative
will result in more "spread out" growth. This
generally will increase automobile usage and
resulting emissions. This may cause and/or
contribute to violations of photochemical oxi-
dant standard.
-------
NOISE
-------
GREENSBORO WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
Ranking of Alternatives - Noise
I. CRITERIA
A. Construction Noise
(1) Equipment at construction site
(2) Truck traffic to and from site
(3) Blasting
B. Plant Operation Noise
(1) Compressors for aeration
(2) Trucks for moving sludge
(3) Other pumps, motors, etc.
C. Subjective Considerations
(1) Number of people affected
(2) Contrast with existing conditions
II. REASONING FOR SPECIFIC SCORES FOR COMPONENTS
1. NB-16 Upgrade
0 - Negligible amount of construction; during
regular working hours; no change in operation
noise
2. NB-25 Expand 1987
2 - Construction noise, earth moving
3. SB-11 Upgrade
3 - Blower house for aeration is new noise source
-------
4. SB-20 Upgrade and Expand
3 - Blower house for aeration plus construction
noise and truck traffic
5. SB-20 New Site
3 - New plant source and substantial construction
and traffic noise; offset somewhat by removal
of old SB plant
6. NB/SB Confluence, 20 MGD
3 - Same as 5
7. 20 MGD Above Confluence
3 - Same as 5
8. Outfall from SB to SB - New Site
1 - Pipeline construction; transient, not near ..
population centers
9. Outfall from SB to Confluence
2 - Same as 8 but a lot longer
10. Outfall from SB to new plant just above confluence
2 - About the same construction as #9
11. Force Main NB to SB
5, Red Flag - Construction and heavy equipment
.near schools, churches, parks, and
residence.
12 to 16. System effects due to urban growth
2 for all - Due to population approximately
doubling; more traffic, denser
residential areas, etc.
-------
17. No Action System Effects
2 - Same as 12 to 16
-------
ODOR
-------
ODOR
COMPONENT EVALUATION
At the component level odor impacts were evaluated
according to the following criteria. First, all components
which included upgrading and/or expanding existing facilities
were rated as zero (0). This acknowledges the fact that -exist-
ing and new equipment will be designed to reduce odors. But the
improvements will not be substantial. Therefore, a green flag
was not given. Expansion of North Buffalo plant (Component 2)
is rated with a small adverse impact because the expansion will
be across the creek towards the shopping center. For new plant
sites an adverse impact is indicated. This is due to a new odor
source being superimposed on the area surrounding the plant site.
Odors from new, well-designed facilities will be small, but still
detectable. It is not currently possible to further quantify
odor impacts of new plant sites.
New outfalls will have a minor adverse effect due to
the additional odors created by septic raw sewage. The longer
the lines the more opportunity for septicity. • .
SYSTEMS EVALUATION
On the systems level each alternative which results
in a shutdown of an existing plant is assigned a green flag.
At the same time, operations at new plant sites are rated
moderately adverse (3) for the same rationale as described for
the component level. Alternatives which include no new plant
site are rated as no change since conditions are bad now, but
no substantial benefit is indicated. The "no action" alternative
is rated to have a small adverse impact due to the possibility
of odors from increased septic tank use and failures.
-------
ODOR
COMPONENT EVALUATION SUMMARY
Rating Component Criteria ; '
0 Assigned to Components 1, 3, 4, 12, 13, and 16.
This rating was assigned to all treatment plant
expansions and improvements. It is acknowledged
that Components 1, 3, 4, 13, and 16 will result.
in better plant operations. The benefits, how-
ever, are not estimated to be substantial.
Component 12 (outfall from plant near confluence
to Reedy Fork carrying treated effluent) will
have no adverse impact.
Assigned to Components 8 and 11. The outfall in
Component 8 will carry raw sewage an additional
distance downstream. This will allow more time
for the sewage to turn septic. The force main
in Component 11 will be a closed system, but
the possibility of leaks rates a minor adverse
impact.
2. Assigned to Components 2, 9, 10, and 18. Ex-
pansion of North Buffalo STP across the creek
will enplace a new odor source nearer the shop-
ping center. Outfalls from South Buffalo STP
downstream to new plant sites will cause more
odors due to increase septicity. "No Action"
alternatives will result in more septic use
and failures.
3. Assigned to Components 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, and 17.
The new plant sites rate at moderate adverse
impacts. This is due to the impact of a new
odor source on the areas surrounding the sites.
The impacts will not be extreme due to the plants
being well-designed.
-------
ODOR
COMPONENT EVALUATION SUMMARY
(Continued)
Rating Component Criteria
4 Not assigned.
5 Not assigned.
-------
WATER QUALITY OF STREAMS
-------
WATER QUALITY OF STREAMS
COMPONENT EVALUATION .
Component 1:
Component 1 was given a zero CO) with no green flag.
Based on the existing water quality data and professional
judgement, the North Buffalo plant is not a major pollution
source compared to other sources of pollution in North Buffalo
Creek.
Component 2,4, 5, 6, and 7:
These components were given a one (1) which were based
on the impact of a short-term construction during plant expansion
or construction. The primary pollutant is sediment, with the
possibility that sediment will carry other pollutants, organics,
oil and grease, construction chemicals, etc.
Component 3:
Component 3 was given a zero (0) with a green flag.
South Buffalo Creek is. presently overloaded with industrial wastes
and domestic sewage. The plant was judged to be the major point
source of pollution on South Buffalo Creek. When viewing the
other components from this point alone, any alternative that up-
grades the South Buffalo plant or removes the South Buffalo
plant, should get a zero (0) and a green flag.
Componets 8, 9, 10, and 12:
These components are the gravity sewers to be constructed
along, in, and or crossing South Buffalo Creek, Components 8 and
12 were give a two (2) while Components 9 and 10 were given a four
(4). The adverse impacts will be due to construction in the stream
-------
boccom and floodplatn. The major pollutant will be sedlmant,
however, oil and grease and construction chemicals will be present.
The increase in ranking is due to the increase in the length of
sewer and the time period of constuction'.
Component 11:
Component 11 was given a 2 because the force main will
not follow a stream channel. However, increases in sediment
loads can be expected due to construction activities.
SYSTEM EVALUATION
All systems were assigned a rank of three (3). This
ranking is based on secondary impacts common to all systems.
The degrading of stream quality will be caused by continued urban-
ization of the watersheds. This impact cannot be completely
avoided and present control technology is limited primarily to
public awareness and public participation in keeping their city
clean (no littering, street sweeping, etc.).
v •
NO ACTION
No action was given a three (5) with a red flag. The
rank of five (5) is based on the large increase in the use of
septic tanks that would occur under the "no action" alternative.
In general, the soils in the Greensboro area are not suitable
for a large scale development with septic tanks.
-------
WATER QUALITY OF LAKES
-------
WATER QUALITY OF LAKES
COMPONENT EVALUATION
Primary impacts were considered during the evaluation
of the components. All components were assigned a value of zero
(0). Presently, there are no lakes man-made or natural down-
stream of the components or systems.
SYSTEM EVALUATION
Systems 1, 2, 3, 7, and 10;
These systems were given a rank of three (3). A rank
of three (3) was assigned to each of the systems following the
same reasoning used in assigning a three (3) to stream water
quality. The reasoning is that increased urbanization in the
water supply reserovirs watershed (Reedy Fork system) will de-
grade lake water quality. This impact was considered common to
all systems.
NO ACTION
No action was given a five (5) with a red flag. The
same reasoning used in stream water quality also applies to lake
water quality. In general the soils surrounding Greensboro and
the lake system are not suitable for a large scale development
with septic tanks.
-------
STREAM FLOW AND SURFACE WATER QUANTITY
-------
STREAM FLOW AND SURFACE WATER QUANTITY
COMPONENT EVALUATION
Component 1;
Low flow in the North Buffalo will increase; however,
no adverse effects are expected. Therefore, a zero (0) was
assigned.
Component 2:
Low flow in the North Buffalo will be further increased
by 9 mgd. A rank of one (1) was assigned based on professional
judgement that minor errosion of the stream channel will occur.
Component 3:
Component 3 was given a zero (0). No significant in-
crease in stream flow will result from this component.
Component 4:
Component 4 was given a two (2). The low flow rate
*
in South Buffalo Creek will be increased by 10 mgd or 5,5 cfs.
Due to the steeper stream slopes in South Buffalo Creek versus
North Buffal Creek a larger impact from channel errosion is ex-
pected.
Component 5„ 6, and 7;
These components were given a rank of three (3), four
(4), and four (4) respectively. The adverse impact will be from
significantly reducing the low flow in the South Buffalo Creek.
The average stream flow will be reduced by 15 cfs. The stream
-------
will become an intermittent stream. The increase adverse ranking
between components were assigned to reflect the increase stream
length affected.
Components 8, 9, 10, 11. and 12:
The construction and operation of the sewer collectors
will not significantly effect the stream flow rates or quantity
of water. If ground water is encountered during construction,
this water will be discharged to the streams, however, the volume
of water will not be significnat.
SYSTEM EVALUATION
Systems 1, 2, 3, 7. 10, and No Action:
The systems were assigned an adverse rank of three (3).
The secondary adverse effects of increased urbanization will
significantly increase the volume of storm runoff and peak flow
rates. Additional land will become a flood prone area removing
this land from the suitability for development or require flood
protection measures.
-------
GROUND-WATER QUALITY
-------
GROUND-WATER QUALITY
1. Score of 1 to Component(s):
- 1 and 3 because of some increased hazard form leaching
of additional sludge
- 11 because the force main might leak, but the recharge
in this urbanized area is already poor quality
2. Score of 2_ t£ Component(s) :
- 2 and 4 because of increment in sludge combined with plant
expansions which will contribute additional leakage
- 8 because of possible leakage into alluvial aquifers from
the new line from existing plant to new plant
- 12 because of leakage from long pipeline, but it is treated
effluent rather than sewage
3. Score of_ 3_ t£ Component (s) :
- 5, 6, and 7 because of added sludge, leakage from new plant,
and probable better existing baseline water quality
- 9 because of possible leakage into alluvial aquifers from
new line, which is longer than in Component 8
4. Score of_ 4 _to_ Component;
- 4 because of possible leakage from an even longer line
5. Score of_ 2_ t£ System:
- 1, 2, 3, 7, and 10 because of degraded quality of recharge
water from urban area
-------
6. Score of 5_ to System:
- NA because of degraded recharge water quality from much
more intensive use of septic tanks in large, diffuse urban-
ized area .
-------
GROUND-WATER FLOW
-------
GROUND-WATER FLOW,
1. Score of L t£ Component (s) :
- 8, 9, 10, and 12 because of some possible temporary flow
diversion during excavation of trenches for pipelines
2. Score of 2_ t£ Component (s) : .
- 2 because of streamflow reduction in reach of stream no
longer receiving effluent may reduce ground-water quantity
in alluvial aquifer
3. Score p_f 3_ _to Component (s) :
- 6 and 7 for same reason, but the length of stream and
associated aquifer is greater
4. Score of 3 to System(s):
- 1, 2, 3, 7, 10, and No Action because of urbanization over
the recharge zone of bedrock aquifers (in the uplands)
-------
NATURAL VEGETATION
TERRESTRIAL FAUNA
AQUATIC BIOTA
BIOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
-------
BIOLOGY
All ranks assigned to impacts associated with both
components and alternatives were given after comparison of the
proposed action with existing conditions, in the Greensboro.study
area. A rank of zero (0) indicates that no adverse impact on the
existing environment is anticipated. A rank of one (1) means
that a very slight impact is anticipated or that an impact of
unknown severity could occur. A rank of five (5) was the highest
assigned and was reserved for the most severe of impacts. A
"red flag" was automatically given all ranks of five (5) and
could be given any lesser rank in order to call attention to
severe impacts which might not rank as high as five (5). A
"green flag" was used to point out especially beneficial impacts.
A rank of three (3) was assigned impacts forecasted to be of
"average" severity.
The categories evaluated in assessing impacts on biptic
components of the natural environment were natural vegetation,
terrestrial fauna, aquatic biota, and biologically sensitive
areas. Evaluations of impacts on natural vegetation included
considerations of the quantity, present quality, and value to
wildlife of vegetation in affected areas. Impacts on terrestrial
fauna were assessed with regard to loss of habitat for, or out-
right destruction of wildlife. Aquatic biota such as food chain
invertebrates, plants, and fish or waterfowl of recreational value
were considered in the evaluation of impacts on aquatic habitats.
Biologically sensitive areas considered in this assessment in-
cluded habitats of threatened/endangered species or expansive
habitats considered to provide good food and cover for wildlife
in an otherwise fragmented setting.
At the component level, both short and long term direct
impacts were evaluated. Generally, these are impacts associated
with construction and include direct removal of vegetation or
-------
or wildlife, erosion and subsequent siltation of streams, pol-
putant discharge into streams, death of wildlife-and loss of
a t
wildlife habitat around construction sites. Indirect impacts
evaluated at the alternative level were generally the same as
those mentioned above, except that they occur as a result of
population increases after construction.
Components which required little or no new land for
construction or that would occur in areas already heavily urban-
ized received low ranks. When a component required removal of
large amounts of streamside (riparian) vegetation, such as the
proposed outfalls along and in South Buffalo Creek, all categories
received high ranks. These high ranks, and in some cases red
flags, were assigned because of loss of high quality riparian
habitat, loss of streambank stability and subsequent runoff and
siltation of associated streams, and degradation of aquatic habi-
tat quality downstream. As the length of outfall pipelines in-
creased, higher ranks and more red flags were given based on
loss of increasing amounts of streamside vegetation, wildlife
habitat, and increased sediment levels.. The existing quality
and quantity of terrestrial and aquatic habitats increases, with
distance from the city, thereby increasing the severity of their
loss.
All alternatives received the same relatively low ranks
because they encourage more orderly growth in areas already urban
in character. The "no project" alternative received comparatively
higher ranks because urban growth on septic tanks is more diffused
and will affect a larger area. The quantity of urban runoff to
area streams will increase as a result. Ground-water quality will
be lowered as a result of septic tank discharge. This ground
water will degrade aquatic habitat quality when it reaches streams.
For these reasons, impacts of aquatic biota associated with the
no project alternative were ranked high and red flagged.
-------
SUBSTRATE SUITABILITY
-------
SUBSTRATE SUITABILITY
1. Score of 1^ to Component(s) :
- 1, 2, 3, and 4 because the substrate at the sludge disposal
location may be permeable and may not renovate the sludge
leachate
- 8 and 11 because of the possibility of having to blast
during excavation of the trench for the pipeline
2. Score of 3_ to Component (s) :
- 9, 10, and 12 because of greater likelihood of blasting
3. Score of !_ _to System(s) :
- 1, 2, 3, 7, and 10 because of potential geologic problems
encountered during urbanization, including slope failures,
'having to blast, and consolidation of the saprolite under
the load of structures
4. Score o_f 5_ t£ System(s) ;
- NA because the substrate is poor for the widespread use
of septic tanks
-------
EXISTING LAND USE
-------
EXISTING LAND USE
COMPONENT EVALUATION
For each of the twelve components, direct impacts on
existing land use were examined. Ranking was based on what the
proposed construction would do to existing land uses immediately
surrounding the proposed site. A zero (0) was given when land
uses surrounding the site were not expected to change as a result
of the project and no acquisition of property or relocation of
families and structures would be required. A five (5) was given
when additional property was needed in our urban area, relocation
of structures was necessary, and/or existing plans of current
uses immediately surrounding the site would be altered signifi-
cantly or aborted.
Components 1 and 3:
Each of the upgradings are on land presently owned by
the city and used for sewage treatment. Minimal activity is
required for construction of improvements and no adverse impacts
on existing land uses are anticipated.
Component 2:
An apartment complex is within 3000 feet of the proposed
site as well as a shopping center. Land would be acquired from
the shopping center for construction. Adverse impacts are ex-
pected because shopping center expansion is planned and truck
traffic for construction and operation would be required between
the apartment complex and the shopping center.
-------
Component 4:
Expansion will require the acquisition of land from
the experiment station of A&T and will severely impact adjacent
residential land and commercially-zoned lands. To the north
and west of the site are residences and community facilities
which will be severely impacted. Because access to the site is
along a residential street and the expansion activity will in-
crease the use of this access road, the cluster of houses im-
mediately north of the site might change over the planning period
to nohresidential uses.
Component 5:
Within the immediate vicinity of this proposed site
(less than one mile), over fifty new houses have been built with-
in the last six years. However, no relocation of structures or
families would be required and land use for the site is presently
in open space. Because land is being removed from its present
use and residential development is north of the site and in the
immediate vicinity, a three (3) was given to this component..
Components 6 and 7:
The plant sites are in rural areas with little develop-
ment surrounding them. Minimal direct impact is expected.
Components 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12:
Adverse impacts on existing land use are expected -for
each of these components during the construction phase. However,
long-term adverse impacts are not anticipated since lines will
be buried, vegetation can re-establish itself, and buildings can
be placed over these lines. For the force main (Component 1),
-------
a zero (0) was assigned since this will be located along existing
rights-of-way.
SYSTEM EVALUATION:
Systems 1, 2, 3, 7, and 10:
The adverse impacts considered under the components
cover anticipated adverse impacts at the system level.
NO ACTION:
Severe adverse impacts are anticipated if no action
is taken because: (1) development will continue to occur to
the northwest of the city limits and on environmentally sensitive
lands, (2) development outside the city will continue to be on
septic tanks, (3) development in Reedy Fork and Alamance will
reach a level where the water supply system is threatened, and
(4) unplanned, scattered development in outlying portions of
the county will occur resulting in areas difficult to service
with public facilities and services.
-------
FUTURE INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL LAND USE
-------
FUTURE INDUSTRIAL/COMMERICAL LAND USE
COMPONENT EVALUATION
Fourteen-hundred additional acres of industrial land
are proposed for the study area in the year 2000. These indus-
tries would be scattered throughout the study area with a con-
centration around the airport and in the North and South -Buffalo
basins. By definition, for each component and each system, these
industries would be provided sewer service.
This category also includes commercial uses. Eighteen-
hundred additional acres are proposed for commercial uses. As
with industries, all commercial uses would be provided sewer
service.
For the evaluation of components and systems, adverse
impacts are anticiapted only where the location of sewage treat-
ment plant is such that industries would have difficulty and ex-
tremely high costs associated with their proposed location. Ad-
verse impacts were likewise assigned when expansion plans of
commercial uses would be aborted.
Components 1 and 3
Since the project activity is on existing property
being used for sewage treatment, no adverse impacts are antic
__ — .!_ _ J • ' '
now
are antici-
pated.
Components 5, 6, and 7
Little if any industrial/commercial land uses would
be anticipated in the immediate vicinity of these sites in the
year 2000 based on the future land use plan. Therefore, no ad-
verse impact is anticipated.
-------
Components 2 and 4
Both of these components involve the upgrading of plants
in existing urban areas. Component 2 has commercially zone land
within 3000 feet of the proposed action. Also, plans to develop
this land may be dropped because of the proposed action. Like-
wise, for Component 4, acquisition of commerical land would be
required and the shopping center's plans for expansion would be
revised or dropped. These are greater than average adverse im-
pacts .
Components 8, 9, 10, 11. and 12
No adverse impact is anticipated except for short
periods of time during construction. Since development of future
industrial use could follow construction, a zero was assigned to
each of these components. .
SYSTEM EVALUATION
Systems 1, 2, 3. 7, and 10;
By definition all proposed industrial/commericaluses
would be provided sewer service. Therefore, no additional ad-
verse impacts than those at the component level are anticipated.
With the no action alternative, extreme adverse impacts
will occur and should be red flagged. Plans for new industrial
development or expansion would have to be curtailed and new
industries discouraged from locating within Guilford County.
Commercial development would be similarly hampered.
-------
FUTURE RESIDENTIAL LAND USE
-------
FUTURE RESIDENTIAL LAND USE
In evaluating each of the components, an assumption
is made (in accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency
Task Order and North Carolina Guidelines) that sewer service will
be provided to 95 percent of projected future residential land
uses. For the evaluation, the transition areas, as shown on
the future land use map in Chapter II, were the baseline .for
future growth areas.
Components 1, 3, 6, and 7:
Components 1 and 3 are the upgrading of existing plants.
No direct adverse impacts are anticipated from these projects
since the land surrounding the sites is already developed. For
components 6 and 7, no direct adverse impacts are anticipated
because these sites are further east than residential growth is
expected.
Component 2:
Only minor adverse impact is expected from this proposed
action.since land adjacent to the site is projected to be non-
residential.
Component 4;
This component was given a 4 because any new residential
uses planned for the area immediately surrounding the site would
most likely be abandoned.
Component 5;
Component 5 was considered to have an substantial ad-
verse impact on future residential land use since this is a
-------
growth area. Subdivisions and houses have been built in the
last six years. However, the impact was not rated as high as
Component 4 because the development around 4 is now urban with
higher densities than can be anticipated in Component 5.
Components 8. 9, 10, 11. and 12:
The components are anticipated to have no adverse im-
pact over the long-term. Construction activity may cause tem-
porary adverse impacts. However, after construction building
will be permitted over the outfalls. For the force main, no
adverse impacts are anticipated since the line will be located
in existing rights-of-way.
SYSTEM EVALUATION: '
Systems 1, 2. 3, 7, and 10:
By.definition, projected residential land uses will .
be provided with sewer service and, therefore, no adverse im-
pacts are anticipated.
NO ACTION:
With no action, future residential land uses will be
adversely affected because sprawl will be encouraged. Develop-
ment will occur with septic tanks which may threaten the water
supply of the area. Also, residential development will continue
in the northwest portion of the study area and encroach on en-
vironmentally sensitive areas.
-------
FUTURE AGRICULTURAL LAND USE
-------
FUTURE AGRICULTURAL LAND USE
COMPONENT EVALUATION
Although agriculture continues to decline within the
study area, it will have a role in the future of Guilford County.
Therefore, in the component and system evaluation, it has been
assumed that existing agricultural land use in areas outs-ide of
the transition areas will remain agricultural. The evaluation
was based on the impacts to this agricultural land. In addition,
the land northeastward of the South Buffalo .plant was considered
to be agricultural since this belongs to A&T University and is
used as an agricultural experiment station. Any component which
would involve the removal of this university land from agricul-
tural use was considered to have a significant adverse impact
and rates as a five (5) with a red flag.
Component 1,2. and 3:
Components 1 and 2 are assigned a zero (0) because
future land use within the vicinity of the site would not be
future agricultural land. Component 3 is assigned a zero (0)
because the project is not an expansion but an upgrading of the
present plant on the present site.
Component 4:
This component was give a five (5) with a red flag
because land belonging to the experiment station would have to
be acquired and any agricultural use of the land stopped.
Components 5, 6, and 7;
Each of these components were assigned, a four (4) be-
cause they remove existing and potential future agricultural lands
-------
Components 8, 9. and 10:
Each of these components were assigned a one (1)
cause construction activity for the outfalls from South Buffalo
may disrupt experiments on A&T property. However, when con-
struction is completed, and since outfall lines will be buried,
minimal long-term adverse impacts are anticipated.
Components 11 and 12:
The force main from South Buffalo to North Buffalo is
through an urban area with little if any agricultural land uses.
Therefore, a zero (0) was assigned. Component 12 will be in the
creek bed of Buffalo Creek and there, except during construc-
tion and at selected points along the creek, is not expected to
have an adverse impact on future agricultural land uses.
SYSTEMS EVALUATION;
No additional adverse impact.
NO ACTION:
With no action, individuals will continue to purchase
small parcels of agricultural land throughout the study area for
the development of residences. This represents a very severe
adverse impact.
-------
OTHER FUTURE LAND USE
-------
OTHER FUTURE LAND USE
COMPONENT EVALUATION
No adverse impact on other future land use can be
attributed to upgrading at existing sites (1 and 3) and to out-
falls which will be covered over allowing unlimited future
development (8 through 12). An unknown minor adverse impact
("1") may be associated at new or expanded sites.
SYSTEM EVALUATION
No adverse impact beyond those attributed to the
components can be attributed to the system. No action may have
an undetermined minor adverse impact ("1").
-------
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
-------
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
COMPONENT EVALUATION
The direct adverse impacts on the existing transporta-
tion system would normally be on either the traffic flow or the
physical location of the components of the system or both. Traf-
fic flow on nearby highways during the construction of new plants
or outfalls would be disrupted for nearly all components being
evaluated. In this evaluation, none of the components will re-
quire the relocation of transportation facilities.
. Zero impact was assigned to those components which
would have no expansion of existing acreages. No major earth
moving equipment would be required and little concrete would
be required. Very few workers will have to travel to the
sites to install the new equipment. Components 1 and 3 should
have no adverse impact.
A slight adverse impact (1) should be associated with -
the construction of outfalls. Causing this slight adverse im-
pact will be the movement of equipment and materials to the
construction sites. Some disruption will occur where highways
must be crossed by pipes. These problems are minimal since the
time of disruption is brief and because predominately rural areas
are involved. Components 8, 9, 10, and 12 will cause minimal
adverse impacts.
A somewhat more adverse impact (2) will be associated
with the construction of new plants or the expansion of existing
plants. The time of disruption will be longer. In the case of
rural sites, the roads map not be physically able to accommodate
the heavy trucks. Components 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 will cause this
level of adverse impact.
-------
An extremely severe impact (5) will be experienced
with the construction of an outfall in the urbanized area (Com-
ponent 11). More streets will have to be crossed and more
traffic will be subject to disruption.
SYSTEM EVALUATION
All the proposed systems will have an undetermined
effect on the total system. No obvious adverse impacts have
been recognized. Hence, a slight adverse impact (1) is all
that can be expected.
However, in the case of "No Action", an extremely
adverse impact will occur. The pattern of future population
growth will feature development on septic tanks. This will
mean low density, scattered growth. It follows that the
transportation system will have to be expanded significantly
to serve this pattern of growth.
-------
COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES '
-------
COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES
COMPONENT EVALUATION
To adversely affect a community service or facility,
a component would have to cause a structure to be moved or dis-
rupt the provision of a service. Only Component 12 should cause
any problems. Since it involves much traffic disruption -in an
urbanized area, vehicular services such as police, fire, and
ambulance may be made less efficient.
SYSTEM EVALUATION
The aggregate effects of the respective systems are
unknown. No substantial adverse impacts have been detected.
However, no action alternative will have a severe impact related
to residential sprawl in rural areas and the added cost of pro-
viding services to those areas. -
-------
ONGOING PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS
-------
ONGOING PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS
COMPONENT EVALUATION
Programs such as U.S. Army Corps of Engineer water pro-
jects, major construction activities, highway construction, and
the like have been considered in section. A slight adverse im-
pact on other programs may be associated with any activity. For
this reason most components were scored "1". However, component
"4" will cause the termination of activities underway or scheduled
at North .Carolina A&T University. This is a major adverse impact.
SYSTEM EVALUATION
All systems may have a slight adverse impact on other
projects and program in a manner similar to the components. No
action will have a severe adverse mpact on all proposed activi-
ties, public and private, since sewage treatment will be a con-
straint on development.
-------
CULTURAL RESOURCES
-------
CULTURAL RESOURCES
COMPONENT EVALUATION
The primary cultural resources which could be affected
are archaeological and are probably located along the streams
of the area. A project on previously disturbed land will have
no adverse impact. Construction at a particular site has a low
probability of effecting archaeological artifacts and may, there-
fore, have a slight adverse impact (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). Outfalls
along streams will have an increasing probability of adverse im-
pact as the length of the outfall increases (8, 9, 10, 12). Com-
ponent 12 is an outfall in an urban area and should have little
possible adverse impact.
With respect to other cultural resources such as churches,
historical sites, recreational facilities, and the like, none of
the components are close enough to cause adverse effects.
SYSTEM EVALUATION .
All systems will have an unknown effect .on cultural
resources. No action will probably be more severe since rural
areas will have to be utilized for residential land and the
probability of archaeological loss increases.
-------
RESOURCE USE PATTERNS
-------
RESOURCE USE PATTERNS
COMPONENT EVALUATION
The pattern of urban growth was determined before the
components were selected. Hence, the components are to serve
that pattern and will not change it. This pattern should be
held as the norm and assumed to be efficient with respect to
resource allocation and utilization in the Greensboro area. No
adverse impacts have been identified.
SYSTEM EVALUATION .
As a system, a set of components (zero impact on each)
may have some adverse impact on resource allocation and utiliza-
tion. Since this impact is unknown, it must be scored as minimal
("1"). However, no action will have an extremely adverse effect
on the cost effective utilization of resources. Rural sprawl
will be very expensive in terms of labor and materials (especially
energy).
-------
NB*iS iJPGRDE
*
*
*
*
• *(
4
I
R
0
U
A
L
I
T
Y
»«i
N
0
I
S
£
B*I
0
0
0
R
i*«
*
Q
0
F
S
T
R
E
A
H
• t-
M
Q
0
F
L
A
K
E
S
• *'
S
T
R
M
&
S
a
R
F
0
N
» i
G
R
Y
0
4
Q
U
A
L
»*•
6
R
H
0
14
T
R
F
L
K
• *i
N
A
T
V
E
6
»
*
*
*
1*1
T
E
R
R
F
A
U
N
A
>*«
A
Q
U
A
T
B
I
0
T
A
»*<
B
I
0
L
S
E
N
S
*
*
•
*
-•
S
U
8
S
T
R
S
U
I
T
NATURAL CRITERION
N8«16 UPGRDE
7 *
6
5
R
A 4
T
I
S
G 3
2
t
0 ]
[«•*•
E:
X
U
A
H
0
U
S
E
-*•
F
U
T
I
N
0
L
A
N
0
**v
F
U
T
R
E
S
U
A
N
0
•»**
F
U
T
A
G
R
L
A
N
0
**-
Q
T
H
R
F
U
T
L
N
0
• **
T
R
A
N
3
S
Y
3
T
»*v
C
0
H
H
S
e
R
V
*
*
*
-*«
p
R
0
J
ft
p
R
Q
G
••»*-
C
U
L
T
ft
g
$
ft
t
^
R
E
S
R
C
I
U
3
E
• *
T
A
X
ft
B
U
0
G
E
T
HADE CRUERXOH
-------
7 +
I
I
1
6 +
I
I
I
5 *
I
I
R I
A 4 *
T I
I I
N I
G 3 *
I
I
I
2 * * * *
I * * *
I * * *
I * * *
It***
I * * *
I * * *
I * * *
NB«25 EXPAND
*
*
*
*
** *** * * *
** *** ** *
** *** ** *
** *** ** *
0 I W*»*««*«*P»*»*««*»*****«*-*ft*
ANOWWSGGNTABS
IODQQTRRAEQIU
RIO RNNTRUQB
SROOHOO R A L S
QE F F S V T T
U S « W E F S R
A SLUQTGABE
L TARUR U I N S
I RKFA NOSU
T E E L F AT I
V A S Q L AT
M N H
NATURAL CRITERION
NB«2b EXPAND
R
A
T
I
N
G
7 +
I
I
I
6 t
5
I
4 +
I
I
I
3 *
I
I
I
2 +
I
I
I
1 *
I
I
0 I*»
{
>
I
/
f
(
I
1
-*<
•! f
( I
1
.1
\
4 1
) 1
i 1
> '
' i i
1
*
*
*
»*«**•
• F
J U
r T
[ R
4 E
) S
. I
I A
4 N
) 0
«*-
F
U
T
A
G
R
U
A
N
0
*
*
*
«»*-i
0
T
H
R
F
U
T
L
N
0
*
*
*
i ••*«>*•*•«
TCP
R 0 R
A H 0
N H J
S
S &
8 E
V R P
S V R
T 0
G
*
*
*
»*-•
C
U
L
T
R
E
S
R
C
E
»*»
R
E
S
R
C
E
U
S
e
*
*
:*
»*
T
A
X
S
B
U
0
G
E
T
MAN*HAOC CRITERION
-------
SB»H UPGROE
7 *
6
5
R
A 4
T
I
N
6 3
2
1
0 :
*
*
.*
*
[•*«
A
I
R
Q
U
A
U
I
T
Y
P* !
N
0
I
s
E
1*1
Q
0
0
R
»*•
M
Q
0
P.
S
T
R
E
A
M
»*<
W
Q
0
F
t
A
K
E
S
f*f
S
T
R
M
ft
S
U
R
F
Q
N
*
*
*
t
S'
R
^
0
4
Q
U
A
I
»*«
6
R
N
0
M
T
R
F
L
H
• *•
N
A
T
V
E
6
* <
T
E
R
R
F
A
U
N
A
f*i
A
0
U
A
T
a
i
0
T
A
1*4
B
I
0
I
S
E
N
S
*
t
*
*
»*
S
U
a
s
T
R
S
M
I
T
MATURAL CRITERION
SB-II UPGROE
6
5
R
A 4
T
I
6 3
2
1
0
«••*
g,
X
LI
A
N
0
U
s
Ei
»*w
P
U
T
I
N
0
t
A
N
0
**»
F
U
T
R
E
3
L
A
N
0
»**
P
U
T
A
6
R
L
A
N
0
***
0
T
H
R
F
U
T
L
N
0
**•>
T
R
A
N
8
8
V
S
T
«*9
C
0
M
N
3
e
R
V
*
*
*
*
-*-
P
R
0
J
ft
P
R
0
6
'
•• «•
C
U
t
T
R
E
S
R
C
E
«*»
R
E
3
R
C
E
U
8
E
«*
T
A
X
ft
9
U
0
6
E
T
MAN-MADE CRITERION
-------
SB«23 UPG/EX
I
I
6 *
I
I
I
5 *
I
I
R I
A 4 t
T I
I I
N I
G 3 +
I
I
I
2 +
I
I
I
IA
*
t
I
.
0 I***
A >
I t
' R 1
<
Q E
U
A
L
I
T
V
?*«*<
4 0 M
) 0 Q
[ Q
i R Q
• F
S
T
R
E
A
M
»*•
W
Q
0
F
L
A
K
E
S
*
*
*
*
• *•
S
T
R
M
&
3
U
R
F
Q
N
*
*
*
• *•
G
R
V|
0
Hi
Q
J
A
L1.
•*!
G
R
M
0
M
T
R
F
L
14
»*i
KJ
A
T
V
E
G
• *•
T
E
R
R
F
A
U
N
A
• *<
A
Q
U
A
f
B
I
0
T
A
• *•
B
I
n
L
S
E
N
S
9
S
U
B
S
T
R
S
U
I
T
NATURAL CRITERION
53-23 UPl»/EX
R
A
T
I
M
G
I
I
I
3 *
I
I
I
IS +
I
I
I
4 +
I
I
I
3 +
I
I
I
2 +
I
I
I
I,
•
Ij
•
a !*••<
i
>
1
t
i«
C
L
1
e
v
*
• F F 1
t U U t
T T 1
,1
^ I R i
I N E t
) D S f
i L U I
J A A i
r y u i
i • ™ ™ '
o o r
- *
•
*
*
7 0 T C F
J T R 0 F
r HA M c
R N M s
* S
i F 31
» U S E
T Y R F
S V F
V L T t
4 N C
> 0
1 C
i U
) L
I T
I R
E
» S
t R
) C
i E
--*»
R
E
S
R
C
E
U
3
E
«*
T
A
X
&
B
U
0
G
E
T
MAN-MADE CRITERION
-------
7 *
SB»28 MEM
6
5
R
A 4
T
I
N
6 3
0
*~
9*4
A
I
R
Q
U
A
I
I
T
V
»*<
N
0
I
s
E
»*•
0
0
0
R
• *•
hi
Q
0
F
S
T
R
E
A
H
»*«
W
Q
0
F
t
A
K
E
S
*
•
*
•
• *•
$
T
R
M
ft
S
U
R
F
Q
N
*
*
»
*.
»*«
S
R
M
0
4
Q
U
*,
if
r*«
6
R
N
0
W
T
R
F
t
M
»*i
N
A
T
V
E
G
• *•
T
E
R
R
F
A
U
N
A
• *«
A
Q
U
A
T
B
I
0
T
A
• *i
B
I
0
L
S
E
N
S
»*
S
U
B
S
T
R
S
U
!
T
NATURAL CRITERION
1 *
33-20 MEN
6
9
R
A 4
T
I
G 3
2
I
B"
.
E. F F F
X U U I
T T 1
U
AIR/
M N E C
0 D S t
J L t, L
3 A A t
EN N h
0 0 C
*
• *
*
^ *
7 0
J T
r H
R
^
S F
I U
T
•
t L
r N
> 0
*
*
*
*
TCP
R 0 R
A M 0
N H J
S
S ft
S E
Y R P
S V R
T 0
G
*
*
*
*
C
U
L
T
R
E
S
R
C
E
R
E
S
R
C
E
U
8
E
*
*
*
*
T
A
X
ft
a
u
0
G
E
T
MAN-MADE CRITERION
-------
NB/S3 CIN-20
7 t
I
I
I
6 +
5
R I
A 4 *
T I
I I
N I
G 3 *
2 «
• *
*
*
0 »•«*!
A LI
ni
10
R I
S
Q E
U
A
L.
I
T
Y
*
t
• ***«
0 vf
0 Q
0
R 0
F
S
T
R
E
A
H
)**<
M !
Q 1
f
0 f
F I
i
L I
A f
K }
t
S (
f
»9*l
} &
r R
i N
1 0
I
$ *
i 0
I U
' A
L
1
4
• *•
6
R
14
0
w
T
R
F
L
M
*
*
*
*
*
n
A
T
V
E
6
*
*
*
*
• *•
T
E
R
R
F
A
U
N
A
*
*
*
*
• *»
A
Q
U
A
T
B
I
n
T
A
*!
B
I
0
L
S
E
N
S
i*
S
u
8
S
T
R
S
U
I
T
NATURAL CRITERION!
MB/SB CIN*29
7 f
I
I
I
6 *
I
I
I
5 +
I
I
R I
A 4 +
T I
I I
H I
6 3 +
I
I
I
2 +
I
I
I
1 >
I
I
I
B !«•* -
E:
X
u
A
N
0
U'.
3
E;
**«
P
U
T
I
Hj
0
L
A
N
D
-*•?••
F f
U t
T 1
R /
E (
S F
L I
A /
N t
0 t
*
*
*
*
• -*-
f 0
J T
r. H
R
k
; F
1 U
T
J L
4 N
) 0
• *»
T
R
A
N
S
S
V
s
T
-
-*•«
C
0
N
M
S
E
R
V
*
*
*
*
•*«M
P
R
0
J
&
P
R
0
G
*
*
*
*
1 ^f " *
C
U
L
T
R
E
S
R
C
E
• *••
R
E
S
R
C
E
U
3
E
•
T
A
X
&
B
U
0
6
E
T
MAN-MADE CRITERION
-------
7 t
8L* CON
6
3
R
A 4
T
I
N
6 3
J4
"
i
• ..
0 1
A
V
*
_
[ +
*
t»«i
A
I
R
Q
U
A
I
1
T
V
»*<
N
0
I
3
E
r*i
0
D
0
R
-*i
tf
0
0
F
5
T
R
E
A
H
»*i
M
Q
0
F
L
A
K
E
S
r*<
S
T
R
H
&
S
U
R
F
Q
N
•
*
•
*
r*fl
6
R
H
0
M
Q
U
A,
U1
*
*
*
*
>*>
6
R
N
0
w
T
R
F
L
w
*
*
*
*
• *»
N
A
T
V
E
6
>*i
T
E
R
R
F
A
U
N
A
»*•
A
Q
U
A
T
B
I
0
T
A
r*i
B
I
0
L
S
E
N
S
• *
3
U
B
S
T
R
S
U
I
T
NATURAL CRITERION
BUFF BUM
8
5
R
A 4
T
X
S 3
2
t
0'
i
.
•
Et F P t
X U U I
T T 1
Li
AIR/
N NEC
0 0 S f
U L L I
S A A t
E N N »
DDt
•
*•
t
? 0 T C
J T R 0
r H A M
R N H
I S
J F S
} U 3 E
T Y R
S V
* 1 T
t H
) 0
*
*
*
• *
P C
R U
0 L
J T
& R
f.
P S
R R
D C
6 E
• A «
* w W
R
E
S
R
C
E
U
S
E
t
t
*
M A
V W
T
A
X
&
B
U
0
G
E
T
HAN.HADE CRITERION
-------
OF S3-SB NEW
7 <
6
S <
1
R
A 4
T
I
N
G 3 •
2
.
1
0
>
t
•
;
•
>
i
*
_
t
»*«
A
I
R
0
U
A
L
I
T
V
*
»*i
N
0
I
S
E
*
*.
»*-*
0 W
0 Q
0
R 0
F
S
T
R
E
A
M
• *•
W
0
0
F
L
A
K
E
S
>*
S
T
R
M
&
S
U
R
F
0
N
•
*
*
-*•
6
R
N
0
ri
Q
U.
A
L:
»*•
G
R
N
D
W
T
R
F
L
W
J*1
N
A
T
V
E
G
S*.
T
E
R
R
F
A
U
N
A
.*
A
Q
U
A
T
B
I
0
T
A
•**«*
B S
I U
0 B
L S
T
S R
E
N S
S U
I
T
MATURAL CRITERION
OF; SB-SB NEri
7
6
S
R
A 4
T
I
H
G 3
2
I
•
I
I
1
+
m m A m
^£ T> w ™
E;
X
U
A
N
0:
U-'
S
• Ei
m + mm
^ w If 1
F
U
T
I
K|
0
L
A
N
0
» * M
f W 9
F
U
T
R
E
S
L
A
N
0
*
*
*
*
• * •
W V T
F
U
T
A
6
R
U
A
N
0
• M A •
* ~ " ™
0
T
H
R
F
U
T
L
N
0
*
*
*
*
•§*«
^ w ^
T
R
A
N
S
S
V
S
T
• * • •
^ W ^P •
C
0
M
M
8
E
R
V
• w i
P
R
0
J
&
P
R
0
G
C
U
L
T
R
E
S
R
C
E
M A M
^ W ^
R
E
S
R
C
E
U
S
E
— ^
W w
T
A
X
&
B
U
0
G
I
T
MAN.MADE CRITERION
-------
CDF
n
n
ii
n
n
n
ii
u
n
n
n
n
n
n
ii
8 H
ii
u
n
R
A 44
T
I
N
6 D
tt
a
n •*
ii •*
n •*
AA
II
13
U
I
I
T
** **
^ GO M 44 SS
D CO 33 03 TT
II 10 <*
38 RR 00 03 *1
EE * rr i&
ss
SSIL JJ
£^ {^
AA as u
3G GG «W
4? PR AA
*
*
*
T
R
A
N
S
S
Y
S
T
C
0
M
M
3
E
R
V
*
P
R
0
J
ft
P
R
0
5
-*
-*
»
•*
*
C
U
I
T
R
E
S
R
C
E
R
E
S
R
C
E
U
S
e
• ^
w
T
A
X
I
9
U
0
6
E
T
HAN.MADE CRITERION
-------
Of S3-BUFFI
7 *
6
5
R
A 4
T
I
N
Gn
j
0
*
• ^
9
• A
W
*A
W
1 f» t ^* »* W1
A N Q t
I Q 0 (
R 1 0
SRI
Q E 1
U
A !
L- 1
I i
T (
Y i
*
*
*
*
*
*
k •* * * * *-*.*»*-*
4 N S G G M T A
J Q T R R A E Q
R N N T R U
3 0 H 0 0 R A
* F ft V T
S 4 W E F
J L U 3 T G A B
r A R j R ui
\ K F A NO
: E L F AT
I S Q I. A
*
* ~
*
*
* *
* *
• *<**
B S
I U
o a
L S
T
S R
E
N S
S U
I
T
NATURAL CRITERION
OF 38-BUFF
7 *
6
5
R
A 4 *
T I
I I
N I
S3*
I
I
I
2 +
I
I
I
1 *
1
I
I
0 I?- -
E;
X
LI
A
M
0
U
s
Ei
-*-
F
U
T
I
Kl
D
I
A
N
0
*.*
F
U
T
R
E
S
L
A
N
0
*
*
*
*
-•»*
F
U
T
A
6
R
U
A
N
D
-•*<•
0
T
H
R
F
U
T
L
N
0
*
*
*
*
**«•
T
R
A
N
S
S
Y
3
T
-*<•
C
0
H
H
S
E
R
V
'
" •»•!
P {
R I
0 I
J 1
& \
[
P J
R F
0 (
6 i
«•**«
: R
J E
. 3
r R
c
i t
•
j U
* s
: E
»#
T
A
X
&
B
U
0
6
E
T
HAN«MADE CRITERION
-------
7 «•
MAIY S3-S3
6
S
R
A 4
T
I
N
63
2 •
I
t *
*
*
*
*
• *
*
. *
0 »*»****•»*»*•
A N 0 N M S
I 0 0 Q 0 T
RIO R
3 R 0 0 N
Q E F F ft
U 3
A 5 L U
L; TAR
I R K F
T E E
Y A S Q
M N
* * *
• * *
* * *
* * *
*«*»*«***9*<
B G N T A 8
R R A E 0 I
4 N T R U 0
00 R A L
V T
* M £ F S
Q T G A B E
U R U I N
A N 0 S
U F AT
L A
W
•
S
U
a
8
T
R
S
U
I
T
NATURAL CRITERION
MAIN NB-S8
7 *
R
A 4
T
I
N
G 3
2
•m
£!'
X
LI
A
*
D
J
S
Ei
e*«
F
U
T
I
N
D
I
A
N
0
»*!•
F
U
T
R
E
S
I
A
N
0
**-
F
U
T
A
G
R
L
A
N
D
«•••••«<
0 1
T 1
H /
R 1
1
F
U 1
T 1
!
L 1
N
0
*«•»*•
r c
» 0
\ M
4 N
1
8
i e
t R
> V
r •
**«M
P
R
0
J
t
P
R
0
G
»•*•
C
U
t
T
R
E
3
R
C
e
«*•
R
E
8
R
C
E
U
3
E
••
T
A
X
ft
B
U
0
G
E
T
MAN-MADE CRITERION
-------
OF CXP7»«EED
7 *
I
I
I
6 +
5
R
A 4
T
I
N I
G 3 *
4
*
, 0 f * •
A
I
R
Q
U
A
L-
I
T
Y
• *•
N
0
I
S
E
r*v*i
Q W
0 Q
0
R 0
F
S
T
R
e
A
M
»*<
H
Q
0
F
L
A
K
E
S
»*<
S
T
R
M
&
$
U
R
F
Q
N
•
»*•
S
R
N
D
4
9
U
A
Li
?*•
6
R
H
D
M
T
R
F
L
M
• *i
N
A
T
V
E
6
»
*
*.
*
Hit
T
E
R
R
F
A
U
N
A
»*•
A
Q
U
A
T
8
I
0
T
A
r*«
8
I
0
L
S
E
N
S
*
*
*
*
t*
S
U
3
S
T
R
S
U
I
T
NATURAL CRITERION
OF CMP7»REEO
7 *
I
I
I
6 +
I
I
I
3 *
I
I
R I
A 4 t
T I
I I
N I
6 3 *
I
I
I
2 *
I
I
I
1 t
I
I
I
a i «?».*-
E.
X
LI
A
a
0
LJ
3
£'
**«
F
U
T
I
N
0
L
A
N
0
»*e
F
U
T
R
E
S
I
A
N
0
-*».
F
U
T
A
G
R
L
A
N
0
»*-
0
T
H
R
F
U
T
L
N
0
*
*
«*»
T
R
A-
N
S
S
Y
S
T
•
«**
C
0
M
H
8
E
R
V
>.
*
*
*
*
»**
P
R
0
J
&
P
R
0
G
-
«*•
C
U
L
T
R
E
S
R
C
E
**»
R
E
3
R
C
E
U
S
E
**
T
A
X
&
B
U
0
G
E
T
MAN-MADE CRITERION
-------
NO ACTION
7 <
1
]
1
6 '
5
R
A 4
T
I
N
8-1
o
24
"
0
k
[
t
[
>•
*
•
*
*
* '
*
*
*
«**
A
I
R
0
u
A
U
I
T
Y
>*<
N
0
I
s
E
r*i
0
0
0
R
?*i
K
0
0
F
S
T
R
E
A
H
*
*
*
*
•
*
*
*
• *i
W
Q
0
F
L
A
K
E
S
r*t
S
T
R
H
&
8
U
R
F
Q
H
• *«
6
R
H
9
4
Q
J
A,
L
• *•
6
R
N
0
M
T
R
F
L
ri
• *•
N
A
T
V
E
6
• *«
T
E
R
R
F
A
U
N
A
• *•
A
Q
U
A
T
B
I
0
T
A
• *•
8
I
0
L
S
E
N
S
»*
S
u
B
8
T
R
S
U
I
T
NATURAL CRITERION
NO ACTION
R
A
T
I
N
8.
7 *
I
I
I
5 *
I
I
I
5 t
I
I
I
4 t
I
I
I
3A
T
I"
2 A
~
I'
1A
*
Ij
1
I,
•
9T •• i
t ff • i
1
1
1
I
1
-
\
»,
'
1 ^ *'
• r
< i
i
.1
t i
4 I
) 1
J t
J )
[i i
1
4
•
>4
i
1 W ^ 1
V V 9 1
r f
J 1
r i
[ i
4 f
) :
. i
t i
i i
) I
_
•
.
•
'
: F Q T C P C R T
JUTRORUEA
FTHAMOLSX
R N M J T R
* A S C 1
IGF 8 S R E
J R U 8 E E B
T Y R P S U U
. L 8 V R R 8 0
\ A L T 0 C E 6
4 N N G E E
) 0 0 T
MAN-MADE CRITERION
-------
7 *
I
I
I
6 *
AIR QUALITY
9
R
A 4 <
T ]
I
N
G 3
2
0
h
•
t.
• *«
H
B
m
t
6
U
P
G
R
0
E
*
*
*
*
• *<
N
B
»
2
9
E
X
P
A
N
0
,*•
S
B
•
I
1
U
P
G
R
0
E
-
»*•
S
B
•
2
0
U
P
G
/
E
X
*
*
*
• *•
$
B
•
2
0
N
E
W
*
*
*
*
»*•
N
B
/
S
B
C
I
N
•
2
0
*
*
*
*
>*•
a
u
F
F
B
L
rt
C
0
<4
r**
0
F
S
a
*
s
B
N
E
M
.*•
0
F
S
B
«
C
0
14
F
»*•
D
F
S
B
•
B
U
F
F
»*f
H
A
I
N
N
B
•
S
B
*
*
*
*
.*.
0
F
C
H
P
7
•
R
E
E
0
• *
H
Q
A
C
T
I
0
N
COMPONENT
-------
7 *
I
I
I
6 *
I
NOISE
R
A 4
T
I
N
G 3
*<
N
8
1
0
U
p
G
R
0
E
1*4
N
8
2
5
X
P
A
N
0
r*i
s
B
1
i
u
p
G
R
0
E
»*f
S
B
2
0
U
P
G
/
E
X
r*<
$
B
2
0
N
E
N
»*«
N
B
/
S
B
C
I
H
*
2
»*«
B
U
C
F
B
L
M
C
0
»*•
0
F
S
B
«
S
B
N
E
»*«
0
F
S
B
•
C
0
N
F
0 »
F I
i
S I
a
w 1
8 I
U i
F !
F I
b*>*«
1 0
1 F
i
4 C
M
4 P
J 7
t w
J R
) E
E
D
N
0
A
C
T
I
0
H
COMPONENT
-------
7 +
6
5
R
A 4 +
T I
I
N
G 3
I
1 +
I
I
I
0 I<
*«
N f
8 E
1 :
6 !
u <
P )
G f
R 1
0 '
E I
»*•
4 S
i 8
! 1
s i
: U
< p
1 G
* R
4 0
> E
• *<
S
8
2
9
U
P
G
/
E
X
*
*
*
*
»*-
S
8
2
a
N
E
W
*
*
*
*
*•
N
B
/
S
8
C
I
N
«
2
0
*
*
*
*
• *«
8
U
F
8
L
M
C
9
N
?*•
0
F
S
B
*
3
B
N
E
H
r*<
0
F
S
B
• •
C
0
N
P
!*•
0
F
S
8
«
B
U
F
F
• *
M
A
t
4
N
N
B
w
S
B
• *
0
F
C
M
P
7
V
R
E
E
D
*-*
N
Q
A
C
T
I
Q
N
COMPONENT
-------
7 <
1
1
1
6 <
• :
5
4
3
2
0
k
t
t '
[
k
t
.
• *«•
ty
B
1
6
U
P
0
R
0
E
*i
N
B
2
5
E
X
P
A
ty
0
1*1
S
B
t
1
U
P
6
R
0
E
!***«
S S
B B
2 2
0 0
U N
P E
6 M
/
E
X
*•
14
B
$
B
C
I
M
9
2
0
*•
B
U
F
B
L
u
C
0
M
*
*
*
*
»*<
0
F
S
B
••
S
B
N
E
M
p*«
0
F
S
B
*
C
0
N
F
*
•
*
*
• *
0
F
S
B
•
B
U
F
F
*
*
*
*
«**
M
A
N
N
B
«
S
B
**•
0
F
C
M
P
7
«
R
E
E
D
M
0
A
C
T
I
0
N
COMPONENT
-------
7 *
A 4
T
I
M
G 3
0 f**» **•*•;*****«*»*«*»*«*»*
HNSSSN8000MON
8888BBJFFFAFO
*««••/ F I
12122SFSSSNCA
6 5 I B 0 B BBB M C
B « « « N P T
UEUUNCt SCBB7I
B 0 U » •» 0
P X P P E I H
S P G 6 M N
ft A R / • C
U • -»
N F S R
N F F B
0 N 0 E
E 0 E X
2 0
0 N
COMPONENT
-------
7 *
I
I
I
6 *
I
S
R
A 4
T
I
N
6 3
2
I
• * •
V W 1
H
9
1
6
U
P
6
R
0
E
*
*
*
• ft .
' w 1
N
9
2
9
E
X
P
A
N
0
S
B
1
t
U
P
6
R
0
E
s i
a E
2 2
0 (
U ^
P t
6 *
/
E
X
i f
» f
> J
) f
4 (
• ]
4 t
i
S
(
4 E
> t
/ i
' 1
J f
J
I
: i
[ i
4
• I
> (
) I
) 0
J F
•-
• S
9
1 «
. 3
4 B
: N
) E
4 4
» *« *•
' W W • i
0 0
P F
S S
B B
* *
C B
0 U
Ki F
P F
. Jt .
MOM
A F 0
j
N C A
H C
N P T
B 7 I
• w 0
S R M
B E
E
0
COMPONENT
-------
7 *
I
I
I
6 *
I
I
I
5 *
I
I
R I
A 4 t
T I
I I
N I
G 3 +
I
J
I
24
*
I*
»
0 !«*<
H
a
•»
i
6
U
P
G
R
0
E
• *
N
a
•
2
5
E
X
P
A
N
0
»*•
s
8
*
1
1
U
P
c
R
0
E
-*.
S
8
»
2
e
u
p
6
/
E
X
*
*
*
*
»*•
S
8
«
2
0
N
E
W
»»«
N
8
/
S
B
c
I
N
«
2
0
*
*
*
*
.*•
3
J
F
F
a
L'
M
C
0
M
>*•
0
F
S
B
»
S
B
M
E
M
*
*
*
*
.*.
0
F
S
8
9
C
0
N
F
*
*
s*.
0
F
S
B
«
B
U
F
F
.*•
M
A
I
N
N
B
t>
S
B
?*«
0
F
C
M
P
7
V
R
E
E
0
»*
N
0
A
C
T
I
0
N
COMPONENT
-------
7 i
]
1
1
6 4
S
R ;
A 4 i
T
I
M
6 3
2
0
k
[
[
r
>
:
>
*•
*
*
*
* A A A A A -*- ' -*-
• .**•• * ir
MNS8SN8000HOM
8BBB6BUFFFAFO
««•••/ p T
12I22SFSSSKICA
6SI00B 898 HC
B * • » N P T
UEUUNCL, SCBB7I
PXPPEIMBOU»«0
GPGGMN N F S R N
RARX *CNFFBE
0 N 0 E 20E E
E 0 E X 0 M W 0
COMPONENT
-------
1
1
1
6 <
1
1
1
5 <
1
1
R 1
A 4 <
T 1
I
N
G-»
•*
0
:
t
h
[
t
[
k *
I *
I *
I . *
> * *
t * *
* *
* *
e
-------
6
5
R
A 4
T
I
N
GT
8''
1
0
* *
* *
* *•
* *
.*«*,*»*,*,*- ***,***,*-*»*
NNSSSNBOOOMON
8BBBB8JFFFAFO
• **••/ F I
t 2 1 2 2 S F S S S N C A
65100B BBS NC
9 « « m N P T
UEUUNCLSCBB7!
PXPPEIMBOU»«0
GPGGHN MFSRN
RAR/ "CNFFBE
0 N 0 E 2 0 E E
EOEX 0NM 0
COHPONEMr
-------
7 <
1
1
1
6 4
1
5
R
A 4
T
I
N
G-I
• o
2j
i
0
t
[
I
I
y
:
>
*
w*
N
a
i
6
u
p
6
R
0
e
•*
N
8
2
5
E
X
P
A
N
0
«*
S
9
1
1
U
P
6
R
0
E
-***
S S
B B
2 2
a 0
U N
P E
G W
/
E
X
-*
N
B
S
8
C
I
N
«
2
0
-*•!
8
U
p
r
F
3
L
M
C
0
N
*•
0
F
S
a
«
S
B
H
E
w
*
*
*
*
r*
0
F
S
B
-
C
0
N
F
*
*
*
*
B*"
0
F
S
B
<•>
B
U
F
F
*
*
*«*•
H 0
A F
j
N C
M
N P
8 7
« «
S R
B E
E
0
>*
*l
0
A
C
T
I
0
M
COMPONENT
-------
6
R
A 4
T
I
N
6 3
I
0 !
[••<
N
9
1
6
U
P
G
R
0
E
r*
N
B
2
S
E
X
P
A
N
0
»*<
S
B
1
t
U
P
6
.R
0
E
1*1
S
B
2
0
U
P
6
/
E
X
• *i
S
B
2
0
N
E
M
*••
N
B
/
9
S
B
C
I
N
•
2
0
• •«
B
U
•
F
B
I
4
C
0
N
*
*
*
*
•
•
*
r*«
0
F
S
B
«•
S
B
N
E
M
*
*
*
*
1*1
0
F
S
B
*
C
0
N
F
*
•
•
•
r*«
0
F
S
B
«
B
U
F
F
• *•
M
A
»
»
N
N
B
«
3
B
*
*
*
•
• •«
0
F
C
M
P
7
*
R
E
E
0
.*
*
*
*
•
*
•
>*
N
0
A
C
T
I
0
N
COMPONENT
-------
7 *
R I
A 4 t
T I
I I
N I
G 3 +
I
I
I
2 *
1.
*
_
0 **•
8
«
1
6
U
P
G
R
0
E
N
B
*
2
5
E
X
P
A
N
0
it
s
B
*
1
t
U
P
G
R
0
E
S
B
*
2
0
U
P
G
/
E
X
S
B
•
2
0
N
E
M
B
/
S
B
C
1
N
«
2
d
• *•
' W
a
u
F
F
B
L1
4
C
0
n
* t m
0
F
S
B
*
S
B
N
E
rt
• *«
^ .
0
F
S
B
*
C
0
N
F
i £ |
0
F
S
B
w
B
U
F
F
• *•
M
A
I
N
Kl
B
«•
S
B
• *«
0
F
C
M
P
7
-
R
E
E
0
-
t.*
0
A
C
T
I
Q
N
COMPONENT
-------
7 «•
R
A 4
T
I
N
G 3
*
*
*
*
N N S S S
3 B B B B
«*«*«§
12122
65100
U E U U N
P X P P E
G P G G W
R A R /
0 N 0 E
E 0 E X
»*•*•*»*«*•
N B 0 00
B U F F F
/ F
S F S S S
3 888
B « « *
C L S C B
I M B 0 U
N N F
• C N F F
2 0 E
a N w
*-*•»
M 0 N
A F 0
I
N C A
M C
N P T
B 7 I
• - a
S R N
B E
E
0
COMPONENT
-------
R
A
T
I
N
G
7 *
6
5
4
I
3 +
I
I
I
2 t
I
1
0T
i
«
*
. A — 4
B W (? w
*J N
a
i
6
U
P
S
R
0
E
B
2
5
E
X
P
A
N
0
• A •
M*_*_Ar_*M*_*_*_*_*
WWW »•• W W • HT IP ™
S S S M 9
B B B B U
t 2 2 S F
1 0 0 B
B
U U N C L
P P E I *
G G N M
R / • C
0 E 20
EX 0S
0 0 0 M 0 N
F F
S S
B B
• m
S C
B 0
N
M F
E
N
F A F
I
S N C
B M
» N P
B B 7
U • *
F S R
F B E
E
D
0
A
C
T
I
0
M
COMPONENT
-------
7 *
5
R
A 4
T
I
N
6 3
2
1
a
'
«*•
N
B
*
1
6
U
P
6
R
0
E
t
*
*
*
»*•
N
8
»
2
9
E
X
P
A
s
0
r«v<
S !
B t
9 <
i :
t f
U (
P f
6 (
R -
0 (
E )
kei
} !
) 1
r i
> ;
i i
j i
» «
; i
^
<
k>*<
S N
J B
> /
2 S
a a
4 C
i i
« N
v
2
0
>*****••*•
a o o o
U F F F
F
F S S S
9 B B
B * * *
L S C B
K B 0 U
N F
C N F F
0 E
N H
>*«*»*
M 0 N
A F 0
I
N C A
M C
N P T
R 7 I
» « 0
S R M
a E
E
D
COMPONENT
-------
rui AUK
6
3
R
A 4
T
I
N 1
G 3 '
2
*
*
*
> *
*
. *
[ *
h *
• *
*
*
t *
*
*
*
i
•i
k
k
v*n*«*v*«***9*«*w*9**>**>*9*
INSSSNBOOQ'MON
B8BBBBUFFFAFO
V
I
6
U
P
0
R
I)
E
*
2
5
E
X
P
A
N
0
1
1
U
P
G
R
0
E
•
2
0
U
P
G
E
X
•
2
E
W
/
S
B
C
I
N
2
f
B
I
rt
C
0
S
B
S
B
E
M
S
B
C
0
N
F
S
B
0
B
U
F
F
I
N
N
B
S
B
C
M
P
7
R
E
E
D
A
C
T
I
0
N
COMPONENT
-------
OTHR PUT CNO
6
5
R
A 4
T
I
H
G 3
1
2 <
.
t
a i
:
h
h
[»•<
N
a
i
6
U
P
G
R
0
E
*
*
*
t
>*<
N
8
2
9
I
X
P
A
N
0
»»•
s
9
1
t
U
P
G
R
0
E
*
*
*
•
»*•
S
a
2
B
U
P
G
/
E
X
*
*
*
*
»*i
S
a
2
0
N
E
W
*
*
*
*
• *i
N
B
/
f
S
B
C
I
>4
• •
2
0
*
*
*
*
• *n
a
u
r
f
F
a
L^
4
C
0
N
*<
0
F
S
B
*
S
B
N
E
H
• *i
0
F
S
B
«
C
0
M
F
>*«
0
F
S
B
9
B
U
F
F
*
*
*
*
• *•
H
A
T
4
N
N
B
• »•
S
B
!*•
0
F
C
M
P
7
*
R
E
E
D
*
*
*
*
**
H
0
A
C
T
I
0
M
COMPONENT
-------
TfcANS SYSf
7 *
I
1
I
6 *
I
I
I
5 *
I
I
R I
A 4 *
T 1
I I
N I
G 3 +
I
I
I
2 *
I
I
I
I *
I T
a i
»*
M
9
1
6
|J
P
6
R
0
E
**
H
8
2
5
E
X
P
A
N
0
**<
S
8
1
t
U
P
G
R
0
E
*
*
4
*
»*«
S
8
2
0
U
P
G
/
E
X
*
*
*
*
•*l
S
8
2
0
N
E
M
*
*
*
*
-*?
M
8
/
r
S
a
c
i
M
•
2
P)
*
*
*
*
5*«
a
u
F
a
i
n
c
0
M
• *«
0
F
S
6
w
S
8
M
E
rf
*.
0
F
S
8
*
C
0
M
P
»*»!
0 f
F /
]'
S \
B
0 1
B {
U <
F !
F f
t-**
1 0
k F
J C
M
* P
J 7
» «•
5 R
) E
E
0
i*
N
0
A
C
T
I
Q
N
COMPONENT
-------
COMM
7 *
I
I
I
6 *
5
R
A 4
T
I
N
G 3 t
I
1 *
*
*
0 r *»•«*•***«*« *«*s*e *»*<»*•
NNSSSNBOOOHON
9BBBB8UFFFAFO
• ••«••/ F- I
t
6
U
P
G
R
0
E
2
9
E
X
P
A
N
0
1
t
U
P
G
R
0
E
2
a
u
p
G
/
E
X
2
0
N
E
M
S
B
C
I
0|
*
2
0
F
B,
j^;
'4
C
0
H
S
a
*
s
a
N
E
N
S
B
t
C
0
N
F
S
B
«
B
U
F
F
N
N
R
*
S
B
C
M
P
7
•
R
E
E
0
A
C
T
I
0
N
COMPONENT
-------
PROJ & PSOG
7
6
5
R
A 4
T
I
N
6 3
2
0
I
I
I
*
I
I
I
t
I
I
i
t
i
i
i
*
i
i
i
t
i
i
i
!»*!»*»•*»*****»*•***«***»***
NNSSSN8QOQHQN
88888BUFFFAFO
t2122SFSSSNCA
6510613 886 M C
8 « « * N P 1
U E U U N C t S C B B 7 I
PXPPEIt
-------
CULT RES^CE
7 *
I
I
I
6 <•
I
I
!
5 *
I
I
R I
A 4 +
T I
I I
N I
6 3 *
I
I
I
2 ^
T
(
1
0 !-*•
M
8
t
6
U
P
6
R
D
E
• *•
N
3
2
5
E
X
P
A
N
D
!*•
s
a
i
i
u
p
6
R
0
E
• *«
S
8
2
0
U
P
6
/
E
X
»*•
S
8
2
0
N
E
M
»**
N
B
/
r
S
B
C
I
N
•
2
0
!>*«
a
u
P
r
F
B
L
W
C
0
»J
*
*
*
• *«
0
F
S
8
«
S
B
N
E
W
• *•
0
F
S
a
*
c
0
H
F
t*i
0
f
8
B
•
B
U
F
F
r*«
M
A
f
&
N
N
B
«
S
8
• *«
n
F
c
M
p
7
•
R
E
e
0
p*
M
0
A
C
T
I
0
M
COMPONENT
-------
"RESRCE USE
7 *
I
5
R
A 4 1
T
I
N
6 3
2
1
a
:
k
>
k
«*•
N
9
*
1
6
U
P
6
R
0
E
• *<
N
B
9
2
5
t
X
P
A
N
0
r*«
S
B
.
t
1
U
P
6
R
0
E
• »«
S
B
«
2
0
U
P
6
/
E
X
»*•
S
B
•
2
0
N
e
w
N
B
/
S
B
C
I
N
•
2
0
»*•
B
U
F
F
B
L
M
C
0
N
r*<
0
F
S
B
f
S
B
N
E
M
• *•
0
F
S
B
«
C
0
N
F
»*•
0
F
S
B
V
B
U
F
F
» * *
M
A
I
N
N
8
•
S
B
>•*•
0
F
C
M
P
7
«•
R
E
E
n
• *
N
n
A
C
T
I
0
N
COMPONENT
-------
Evaluation of Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964
as it applies to the continued
existence of South Buffalo
Wastewater Treatment Plants
as a part of the alternatives
Evaluation
Recommendations by U.S. EPA's
Office of Civil Rights and
Urban Affairs
-------
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
July 12, 1977
Greensboro, N.C. Project
Matthew J. Robbins _ , ,. y
Regional Director, Officyfi of Civil Rights, fiftlrban Affairs
John Hagan
This memorandum is to provide information regarding Title VI
considerations on subject project.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC 2000d to d-4,
prohibits discrimination on the grounds of race, color, or
national origin in programs and activities receiving federal
financial assistance. Title VI provides that, "No person in
the United States shall be excluded from participation f.n, be
denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrmination in
such programs or activities. Title VI applies to any program
authorized under a statue administered by the agency, including
all EPA grant programs or activities (including, but not limited
to those listed in 40 CFR 30.301-4), and assistance under the
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Land Acquisition Policies
Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4621 et. seq.). Accordingly, Title VI
of the Act applies to any and all parts of the wastewater
treatment system.
Based upon meetings attended by me and my staff, and upon
on-site review and information provided this Office by the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and
the Greensboro Citizens Association, I present the following
Title VI evaluation: If EPA provides financial assistance for
the upgrading of the South Buffalo Wastewater Treatment Plant
located adjacent to a predominantly minority community, the
agency will in effect be supporting an existing discriminatory
situation. Present effects of past patterns of discrimination
have been challenged successfully in the courts.
Historical background indicates that prior to open housing,
in Greensboro, racial discrimination in housing practices
restricted minorities to Southeast Greensboro. Until the 1960's,
Blacks had only one area within which to purchase homes. Blacks
were not permitted to purchase real estate in other neighborhoods
EPA Form 13206 (Rev. 3 76)
-------
until long after the enactment of the Federal Fair Housing Law
Title VIII of the 1968 Civil Rights Act. During the early 1970's
an additional area known as the Kings Forest Subdivision was
opened to Blacks. This community is now predominantly Black.
As is evident in many municipalities, practices in housing dis-
crimination allowed wastewater treatment facilities construction
adjacent to minority communities less able to fight site
selection.
According to the Greensboro, N.C. Chapter of the NAACP and
the Greensboro Citizens Association, the minority residents of
Greensboro have suffered grossly by the existing plant in question.
These organizations are prepared to move legally to protect their
civil rights.
It is the opinion of this Office that the funding for the
upgrading of the Southeast Buffalo Wastewater Treatment System
will in effect perpetuate discrimination and cause direct conflict
with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. From a civil rights
perspective, alternate proposal 2-A possesses the most feasible location.
Not only will 2-A satisfy environmental concerns, it will comply with
the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights of 1964.
Therefore, it is strongly recommended that you move forward
with site alternative 2-A as proposed. It is recognized that costs
will be significantly higher utilizing this alternative, in comparison
with upgrading the South Buffalo Creek Plant. However, it is
incumbent upon the City of Greensboro to take the more stringent
action to redress the plight of their citizens, and it is important
that EPA assist in this significant program through Agency civil
rights accountability and financial assistance.
-------
|