20110156 Ver 1_Application_20110215

• •
~~~ THE LPA GROUT' INCORPORATED
Transportation Consultants
700 HUGER STREET ^ P.O. BOX 5805 ^ COLUMBIA, SC 29250 ^ 803-254-221 1 ^ FAX [phone]
2 0 1 1 0 1 5 6 ~~~ ,~ ~~~~..r
February 14, 2011 r-..... e`^-~ ~ ` ~~~ , ~' ~';~
~~ ~~. ~ , ~a°~ ;
,
Mr. Ian McMillan ~ r 1" ~., ~.,
North Carolina Division of Water Quality ~ ~ ~ ~j ~ ~ ~~ ~ '~~ ~ ("
401 Oversight and Express Permitting Unit ~ee++'' D``N--....-„, i ~"
512 North Salisbury Street ~Qaan~; ~ ~A~~ ~ j
Raleigh, NC 27604 S-a & ~ '~
Re: Mount Airy-Burry County Airport Section 40l Water Quality Certification
Mr. McMillan,
On behalf of Burry County, THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED (LPA) has prepared the necessary
documentation for a Section 401 Water Quality Certification for the extension of the existing Runway,
relocation of Holly Springs Road, and future development at the Mt. Airy-Burry County Airport. The
proposed project would be implemented in three phases, as shown on the attached permit drawings and
described in the attached project narrative.
The proposed project would impact approximately 0.70-acre of jurisdictional wetlands and 3,634 linear
feet of jurisdictional stream identified within the project study area. Detailed drainage design, cross
sections, and culvert profiles have not been completed for Phases 2 and 3 at this time. This data would be
provided prior to construction for the subsequent phases.
Please find attached five (5) copies of the Engineer Form 4345, Project Narrative, Permit Drawings,
Finding of No Significant Impact-Record of Decision (Appendix A), Approved Jurisdictional
Determination (Appendix B), Stream Determination (Appendix C), and the North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program Approval (Appendix D). Full size plans are being submitted under a separate cover.
A check in the amount of $570.00 for the Section 401 Water Quality Certification processing fee is also
attached.
Please contact me at 843-329-0050 or at esmailnu,lpagroup.com ifyou have any questions or require
additional information.
Sincerely,
THE LPA GROUP INCORPO TED
~~~
~~~
Edward J. Sma~l
Environmental Scientist
Enclosures
Cc: Mr. John Springthorpe, Mt. Airy-Burry County Airport (w/enclosures)
Mr. James Lastinger, USAGE (w/o enclosures)
Mr. Jeff Kirby, P.E., THE LPA GROUP (w/enclosures)
Mr. Gordon Murphy, THE LPA GROUP (w/enclosures)
Project File (w/enclosures)
ATLANTA ^ BALTIMORE ^ BATON ROUGE ^ CHARLOTTE ^ COLUMBIA ^ DESTIN ^ FALLS CHURCH ^ GREENSBORO ^ IRVINE ^ JACKSONVILLE ^ KENNESAW ^ KNOXVILLE
LITTLE ROCK ^ MOBILE ^ NASHVILLE ^ OCEAN SPRINGS ^ ORLANDO ^ RALEIGH ^ SARASOTA ^ ST. LOUIS ^ TALLAHASSEE ^ TAMPA ^ WEST PALM BEACH

• •
~~~ THE LPA GROUP INCORPORf~TED
Transportation Consultants
700 HUGER STREET ^ P.O. BOX 5805 ^ COLUMBIA, SC 29250 ^ 803-254-221 1 ^ FAX [phone]
February 14, 2011
Mr. James Lastinger
United States Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Re: Mount Airy-Surry County Airport Section 404 Individual Permit (Action ID 201001397)
Mr. Lastinger,
On behalf of Surry County, THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED (LPA) has prepared the necessary
documentation for a Section 404 Individual Permit for the extension of the existing Runway, relocation of
Holly Springs Road, and future development at the Mt. Airy-Surry County Airport. The proposed project
would be implemented in three phases, as shown on the attached permit drawings and as described in the
attached project narrative.
The proposed project would impact approximately 0.70-acre of jurisdictional wetlands and 3,6341inear
feet of jurisdictional stream identified within the project study area. The jurisdictional limits were
approved by the United States Army Corps on Engineers on October 6, 2010. The limits of Wetland DE/O,
as shown on Sheet 2 of the attached permit drawings were extended approximately 35 feet to the west
utilizing LIDAR, aerial photography, and 1-foot contours provided by a professional land surveyor to
encompass the project limits.
Detailed drainage design, cross sections, and culvert profiles have not been completed at this time for
Phases 2 and 3. This data would be provided prior to construction for the subsequent phases.
Please find attached Engineer Form 4345, Project Narrative, Permit Drawings, Finding of No Significant
Impact-Record of Decision (Appendix A), Approved Jurisdictional Determination (Appendix B), Stream
Determination (Appendix C), and the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program Approval
(Appendix D).
Please contact me at 843-329-0050 or at esmail cr~a>7roup.com if you have any questions or require
additional information.
Sincerely,
T/H' E LPA GRO//UlP INCORPORATE ,
Edward J. Smail
Environmental Scientist
Enclosures
Cc: Mr. John Springthorpe, Mt. Airy-Surry County Airport (w/enclosures)
Mr. Ian McMillan, NCDWQ (w/o enclosures)
Mr. Jeff Kirby, P.E., THE LPA GROUP (w/enclosures)
Mr. Gordon Murphy, THE LPA GROUP (w/enclosures)
Project File (w/enclosures)
ATLANTA ^ BALTIMORE ^ BATON ROUGE ^ CHARLOTTE ^ COLUMBIA ^ DESTIN ^ FALLS CHURCH ^ GREENSBORO ^ IRVINE ^ JACKSONVILLE ^ KENNESAW ^ KNOXVILLE
UTTLE ROCK ^ MOBILE ^ NASHVILLE ^ OCEAN SPRINGS ^ ORLANDO ^ RALEIGH ^ SARASOTA ^ ST. LOUIS ^ TALLAHASSEE ^ TAMPA ^ WEST PALM BEACH

~ ^C?1~~'s~~,
APPLICATION FOR DEPART NT OF THE ARMY PERMIT O APPROVAL N0.0710-0003
(33 CFR 325) EXPIRES: 31 Au ust 2012
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 11 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this
burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington
Headquarters, Executive Services and Communications Directorate, Information Management Division and to the Office of Management and Budget,
Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003). Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any
penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. Please DO NOT RETURN your form to
either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the bcation of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403; Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act, Section 103, 33 USC 1413; Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rule 33 CFR 320-332. Prinapal Purpose: Information provided on this
form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Routine Uses: This Infomration may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal,
state, and local government agencies, and the public and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by Federal law. Submission of
requested information is voluntary, however, if information is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit be issued. One set of
original drawings or good reproduclble copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this application {see sample
drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. An application that is not
completed in full will be returned.
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BYAPPLICANT)
5. APPLICANTS NAME: S. AUTHORIZED AGENTS NAME AND TITLE (an agent is not required)
First - John Middle - Last - Springthorpe First - EdweM Middle - Joseplt Last - sm~i
Company - Mourn Airy- Surry County Alrpon Authority Company - THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED
E-mail Address - E-mail Address - esrnailQlpagroup.com
6. APPLICANTS ADDRESS. 9. AGENTS ADDRESS
Address - p_O, gox 6607 Address -4401 Belle Oaks Drive, Suite 105
City - Mount Airy State - Nc ZP - 27030 Country - U3 Clty - North Charleston State - sC Zip - 2s4os Country - us
7. APPLICANTS PHONE Nos. W/AREA CODE. 10. AGENTS PHONE Nos. W/AREA CODE
a. Residence b. Business c. Fax a. Residence b. Business c. Fax
336-783-5901 843-329-0050 843-329-0055
STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZAT/0N
11. I hereby authorize, Edwerd J. Small to ad in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request,
supplemental information 'n support of this permit application.
aZ - Q-/
PLIC TS GN URE DATE
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
Runway 18 Extension, Relocation of Holly Springs Road, Hangar Area Development, and Taxiwa ~ . Extension
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (it apWicable) 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (it appf
Unnamed Tributaries to Rutledge Creek ~/~
Address t4s Ho,,,aro yy~ Jr. Way
"
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT ~
F~':
.

Latitude: °N 3s.assa7a
Longitude: °W .eoss46ns a

`~7
City - Mount Airy ~~;.,. ~ ~~` ~P4~"

16.OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions) ~a\r =;
State Tax Parcel ID 59490430-0256 Municipality s~~rco~,my r},, ~~~A'
Section - Township - Ma,m any Rarnre -
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
From US-52 take exit for dolly Springs Road (head east) take first right onto Airport Road (there are signs for the Airport). Airport offices are on left
at approximately 0.5-mile. A location map is attached. For security purposes all visitors much check in at Airport office.
ENG FORM 4345, SEPT 2009 EDITION OF OCT 2004 IS OBSOLETE Proponent CECW-OR

• •
~. -~.

18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, tnGude a1 tea
Refer to attached Project Narrative.
19. Project Purpose (Descnbe the reason or purpose a1 the projeU, see insWctions)
Refer to attached Project Narrative.
USE BLOCKS 20-23 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s)for Discharge
Placement of fill for runway extension, road relocation, hangar area development and taxiway
extension.
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards:
Type Type Type
Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards
Clean FII - 29,148 cubic yards
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see Instructrons)
Acres 0.70 acres wetland (mpact
Or
Liner Feet 3,634 linear feet stream impact
23. Description of Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation (see srswctions)
Refer to attached Project Narrative
24. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes ~ No,~ IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
25. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (it more than can be entered here, please attach a supplemental itst).
Address- Refer to attached Project Narrative
City - State - Zp -
26. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State, or Local Agencies #or Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
NC Division of Aviation FONSI 5/5/2006
USACE JD 201001397 10/6/2010
NCDWQ Stream Determination 8/31/2010
NCEEP Program Approval 7~zt3/2oto
' Would include but is not restricted to zoning, bur7ding, and flood plain permits
27. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. 1 certify that the information in this application is
complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duty authorized agent of the
applicant.
~~ ~ -
~- 9-~/ ~ ~ ~ y _
~,i SIG RE AP IC NT DATE SIGNAT E OF AGENT ATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly authorized agent if the
statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully
fals~es, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations or
makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than
$10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
ENG FORA9 4345, SEPT 2009

• •
Mount Airy - Surry County Airport
Runway Extension
Project Narrative
Block 18
The proposed project includes the extension of the existing Runway 18 and associated
taxiway to the north by approximately 1,200 feet for a total runway length of 5,500 feet.
The proposed project also includes the relocation of Holly Springs Road to the north of
the proposed runway extension, extension of existing Taxiway A, 650 feet to the south
and parallel to the existing Runway 36, and the expansion of the existing hangar area.
This development would occur in Three Phases over the next 10 years as funding from
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) becomes available.
Phase One
Phase One would consist of the extension of Runway 18 and associated taxiway
and the relocation of Holly Springs Road. The width of the runway would be
approximately 75 feet and the width of the taxiway would be approximately 40
feet. The runway extension would also include a 300-foot by 600-foot runway
safety area (RSA) north of the runway end to provide space for aircraft that
accidently overshoot or undershoot the runway.
Due to the existing location of Holly Springs Road, the road would be relocated to
the north to accommodate the runway extension. The road would be relocated
around the new runway from approximately the intersection with Cottage Drive to
350 feet east of the intersection with Janice Drive, for a total length of 1.1 miles.
The relocated Holly Springs Road was designed per North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) design standards. Impacts associated with Phase
One are shown on Sheet 1 of the attached permit drawings.
Phase Two
Phase Two would consist of the extension of Taxiway A to the south. The
dimensions of the southern extended Taxiway A would be approximately 40 feet
by 650 feet. This taxiway would be extended south, parallel to the existing
Runway 36. Impacts associated with Phase Two are shown on Sheet 3 of the
attached permit drawings.
Phase Three
Phase Three would consist of the expansion of the existing hangar area and the
expansion of existing hangars, including the construction of approximately 20
new corporate hangars, 40 new T-hangars, a new corporate area terminal, tie-
down areas, aprons with connections to the Taxiway, associated parking areas, a
new access road. The future development area is approximately 30 acres and the
access road is approximately 0.90 miles in length. Impacts associated with Phase
Three are shown on Sheet 2 of the attached permit drawings.
1

• •
An overview of the proposed improvements is shown on the Key Sheet of the attached
permit drawings.
The proposed improvements were analyzed in an Environmental Assessment (EA) to
comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). A Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI)/Record of Decision (ROD) was signed by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation -Division of Aviation (NCDOA) on May 5, 2006. A copy
of the FONSI-ROD is included in Appendix A. A Jurisdictional Determination was
issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on October 6, 2010, and is included in
Appendix B. A Stream Determination was made by the N.C. Division of Water Quality
on August 31, 2010, and is included in Appendix C.
Block 19
The purpose of the project is to provide a safer, more usable runway for the most
demanding aircraft currently conducting arrival and departure operations at the Airport.
The critical design aircraft for this project are the Lear 31 and the Citation XL business
jet aircraft. These aircraft are an Airport Reference Code (ARC) B-II aircraft. The
existing runway length does not meet NCDOA standards, which recommend a minimum
runway length of 5,000 feet for publicly owned airports in North Carolina. This standard
was established as a result of current industry business aircraft trends, aircraft insurance
requirements, and guidance from the FAA Advisory Circular (AC) Runway Length
Requirements for Airport Design, AC 150/5325-4A. Based on aircraft operations, aircraft
type, mean temperature during the hottest month, and elevation of the runway, AC
150/5325-4B specifies a 5,500-foot long runway at the Mount Airy-Surry County
Airport. In order to meet the current FAA design standard, the existing runway needs to
be extended by 1,200 feet for a total length of 5,500 feet. The Runway Safety Area
(RSA) and Object Free Area (OFA) also do not meet the standards defined in the FAA
AC Airport Design, 150/5300-13 for an ARC B-II airport. As defined in AC 150/1300-
13,Airport Design, the extended runway would require a 300-foot long by 150-foot wide
RSA to the meet the standards requirements for an airport classified as B-II with not
lower than 3/4-staute mile approach visibility minimums. The proposed extended RSA
would be 600 feet long by 300 feet wide, to meet the standards requirements for an
airport classified as B-II with lower than 3/4-statute mile approach visibility minimums.
The relocation of Holly Springs Road is required to allow for the additional runway
length. Additional alternatives were analyzed in the EA, but the northern alignment
(Alternative 2-A in the EA) was found to be the Preferred Alternative (refer to Table 1
below). Table 1 was taken directly from the EA and a copy of the EA is available by
request.
Runways shorter than 5,000 feet have difficulty accommodating even smaller corporate
jet aircraft, particularly during less than optimum weather conditions (dry, moderate
temperatures). In the absence of an expansion of the runway to meet minimum standards,
the Airport weakens its ability to attract new businesses, and could cause existing
businesses to leave Surry County.
2

• •
TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF ROADWAY ALTERNATIVES
Biotic Community
Impacts (Acres)
Pond
Stream
Wetlands
Total
Residential
Alternative
Man
Dominated
Forested
Areas Impacts
(Acres) Impacts
(Feet)
(Acres) Cost
(Mil)
Relocations
1-A 12.6 9.7 <0.1 1083 0 $3.15 4
1-B 16.4 9.6 <0.1 769 0 $3.25 4
2-A 12.8 10.0 0 906 0 $2.70 3
2-B 15.8 9.7 0 782 0 $2.80 3
3-A 11.5 10.5 0 1239 0 $2.85 1
3-B 13.8 10.4 0 734 0 $2.95 1
4 12.4 9.9 <0.1 718 <0.1 $3.85 4
5 3.1 0 0 260 0 $16.90 2
6 8.9 9.8 0 865 <0.1 $7.9 0
Source: THE LPA GROUP of North Carolina, p.a., Mount Airy-Surry County Airport, Environmental
Assessment, December, 2004.
The proposed extension of Runway 18-36, including the parallel taxiways, and hangar
area development would bring the existing runway up to current FAA design standards
and increase Airport utility and operational flexibility. The enhancements will address a
facility deficiency that limits the ability of the Airport to meet its planned role as a
general aviation facility for the Mount Airy area. The parallel taxiway would maximize
the use of the runway extension and provide safer operational conditions. The proposed
improvements are needed to:
- Meet current FAA runway design standards;
- Effectively accommodate both short and long-term aviation capacity/demand;
- Meet the needs of aviation users, which have not been met due to limitations
imposed by the existing airfield; and,
- Support regional growth and development consistent with the local plans of the
City of Mount Airy and Surry County.
3

• •
The Airport plays a significant role in contributing to the economy of the region. The
Airport's economic role is anticipated to grow just as aviation related activity is
forecasted to grow over the next 20-year period.
The proposed runway extension would strengthen the economic role of the Airport by
supporting the existing users as well as attracting future users in need of a longer runway.
The proposed extension allows for additional service into and out of the Airport that may
be diverted if the runway were not extended. The Airport represents a stable economic
provider within the region. The Airport directly provides jobs, wages, and production to
the economy.
Most large companies utilize corporate aircraft in their day-to-day operations. A
community without adequate airport facilities is at a disadvantage in the corporate
marketplace. Communities offering well-designed and attractive airports can better
accommodate the needs of corporate users. Companies considering new locations and
expansions would likely have interest in the availability of aviation transportation
facilities. With a global economy, business travel is conducted at greater distances
requiring larger aircraft with greater range. Just in time manufacturing requires timely
delivery of raw materials and subcomponents in order to keep inventory costs low.
Block 23
Avoidance
Due to the linear nature of the proposed improvements, total avoidance of all impacts to
waters of the U.S. is not feasible. However, steps were taken during the planning and
design process to minimize impacts as much as possible. Specific construction
techniques would also be used to minimize impacts to waters of the U.S.
Minimization
Since the Airport is bounded by U.S. Route 52 to the southwest and dense
residential/industrial development east of the Airport, the northern direction was the only
feasible direction to extend the runway. There are also no feasible alternatives for the
southern taxiway extension that meet the stated purpose and need. If the taxiway was
extended on the opposite side of the runway, aircraft would need to cross the runway
centerline to unitize the full length of the taxiway, which creates an unsafe condition.
The road alignment utilizes existing ridges to minimize valley fills, which in turn
minimizes stream impacts. The road alignment crosses perpendicular to Stream DMC,
thereby minimizing longitudinal impacts to the stream at the crossing. Due to the
tightness of the curves, the crossing of Streams A and DS occurs as far west as allowable
by NCDOT design standards. Additionally, making the crossing any further east/north
would have resulted in greater stream impacts. These impacts would also have occurred
to higher quality streams.
There is not a feasible alternative location for the proposed hangar area developments.
South of the existing terminal the location of U.S. Route 52 limits the amount of land
available for development. The eastern edge of the Airport property consists of
4

•
residential and industrial development. In order to develop the proposed hangar space on
the east side of the Airport, residential/industrial acquisitions and relocations would be
required.
Impacts to wetlands and streams in close proximity to the construction site will be
minimized through the implementation of standard erosion control and siltation control
measures as specified in FAA AC 150/5370-10, entitled Standards for Specifying
Construction of Airports, and specifically Item P-156, Temporary Air and Water
Pollution, Soil Erosion, and Siltation Control, as well as compliance with state and local
erosion control requirements. Temporary erosion control measures shall include, but not
be limited to, the use of temporary berms, dikes, dams, silt fences, drainage ditches, silt
basins, diversion ditches, slope drains, structures, vegetation, mulches, mats, netting,
gravel, rip rap, or any other methods that are necessary.
Compensation
Several options are currently being analyzed to provide compensation for the proposed
impacts.
Option One
Option One would consist of phased mitigation with payments into the North
Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement In-lieu Fee Program (NCEEP), supplemented
with purchase of available mitigation bank credits at time of purchase. With this
option mitigation would be provided prior to the construction of each phase by
either the purchase of credits from an approved mitigation bank, a payment into
the NCEEP's In-lieu Fee Program, or a combination of the two. The NCEEP has
approved 6,500 stream credits and 1.54 wetland credits for use to compensate for
proposed impacts. It is anticipated that existing mitigation banks would be used
prior to the NCEEP (in order to comply with Session Law 2008-152). However,
based on existing credit availability, it is likely that a payment to the NCEEP's In-
lieu Fee Program would be required to make up for the deficit in credit
availability. If additional credits are needed a supplemental request would be
submitted to the NCEEP. A copy of the NCEEP approval is attached in Appendix
D.
Option Two
Option Two would consist of permittee responsible mitigation at an off-site
location for stream impacts. If a potential site is identified to provide permittee
responsible mitigation, a site visit would occur with the applicant, USAGE, and
DWQ to determine if the site would provide viable mitigation for the proposed
impacts. If the site is determined to be feasible, the applicant would prepare a
detailed mitigation plan for submittal to the USAGE and DWQ. The mitigation
plan would be subject to the approval authority of the USAGE and DWQ. This
option would include payment to an approved mitigation bank or use of the
NCEEP's In-lieu Fee Program for wetland impacts, if wetland mitigation is not
available at the proposed off-site location.
5

• •
Option Three
Option Three would consist of the purchase of mitigation bank credits and
payment to the NCEEP's In-lieu Fee Program for Phase One of the proposed
project. Using the procedure outline above, permittee responsible mitigation
would be pursued for the future project phases. The mitigation for the future
phases would be approved prior to construction. This option would include
payment to an approved mitigation bank or use of the NCEEP's In-lieu Fee
Program for wetland impacts, if wetland mitigation is not available at the
proposed off-site location.
The 2008, USAGE and EPA issued Department of Defense, Department of the Army,
Corps of Engineers 33 CFR Parts 325 and 332/Environmental Protection Agency 40
CFR Part 230 Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule
(Final Rule), specifies that mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs are preferred to
permittee responsible mitigation. However, due to the significant amount of restoration
that permittee responsible mitigation would entail in this case, off-site mitigation could
have the ability to provide a significant ecological uplift when viewed on a watershed
basis, as well as a potential cost savings to Surry County. In order to comply with the
2008 Final Rule, the benefits of the restoration/enhancement versus the usage of a
mitigation bank and/or the NCEEP's In-Lieu Fee Program would be described and
outlined in the Final Mitigation Plan.
A Final Mitigation Plan will be submitted to the USAGE and DWQ for approval once a
determination is reached by the applicant on the mitigation options available.
Block 25
William C. Hosmer
304 Russell Road
Mount Airy, NC 27030
James Thomas Love
PO Box 1365
Pilot Mountain, NC 27041
Pike Electric Inc.
PO Box 868
Mount Airy, NC 27030
John Wesley Hunter II
336 Skyview Lane
Mount Airy, NC 27030
6

~ •
William Cook
258 Sage Lane
Mount Airy, NC 27030
Roger Cook
342 Sage Lane
Mount Airy, NC 27030
Ronald Owens Montgomery
285 Blue Bird Lane
Mount Airy, NC 27030
Leon Douglas Haynes
286 Blue Bird Lane
Mount Airy, NC 27030
Emory Dean Dray Jr.
PO Box 804
Mount Airy, NC 27030
Billy Lee Brown
657 Holly Springs Church Road
Mount Airy, NC 27030
7

r
~"1
~"1
~-

~ ~

~

V O
d
~ -
O E V J V j Q W ~
Ro ~ ~`
~ ~ N ~~
` ~OQUN
I Z
~ ~ J ~ ~
, , ~
',y Mv~
e OWE=ZOO
U~~
~
~
~
° ~
f
~WwO~I-
~
,
a~c ~
~}
w

'.
M1
~ Q
yQ--~
--
.
~~ -s~fi'~~.~., ~ ~ ~ LL ~

~ ~~~Q
~~„~
~,~~ Q
o
M ~
Z
~`~ o
x ~ °~
~
:, ~ ~
~ ~~
a
~ ~ t ~ ~r ~ f I~~' ~~`
°~, ~
~' "~~ ~~ p 0
a z
N
.
~~~ .`
Q 4 ~
Qm ~~~~- ++
r. 'c
~
~ R
~ ~?t ~~_ W Yf
'"t ~~
'~
~ ' ~ ~ ~`
~'~
~ ~'D~~r
v~ m 0 W
a a
~:. ~
~~~~ ~ ~ O O ~ Q
. ~~s~ ~ ~ a a d d. -
~`` ~' ' C
w
M O
L
___ ~._
Z
a

~__ _ ~
___ - _ _ O
_
i ~ ~ ~ M
J m ,_, - - ~
~ ~ ~ = Z N
Q ~
~
•1
Q
~ ~~a ~~
Ow~Z
p
a
0 ow
~~
_ ~
! po
_ y.
U X ~ ~ ~ N
0
~~
as I ~~
am
, ~~
~ww
~~'dUZW
a J or
w ~ ~~~~a~

nua~ -
b'~IIoH-==--~~~ -
~
' /
__-~
__ ~~ ~ o w .U)
~ z
~
-
`-~~~~..~ ~ O O J (n ~
~
~ H Q
1 ~ ~ as Q
~
t ~ ~ ~
z
_ ~ ~ ~ ~
O
~~r~~~a~~~~~~~~~~~`a ! ~
~ c
~~ ~~~~ ~
y
V
.~._.:--.~~_ - __ _.
W ~
_ _ Q
O -~---~ - -- - ..- - -
_ ,_,_~
_-°-- ~r a
m ~ _
~ ~ _,.~--
-`-
~
~
~ __,.._..--.--_ --'= ~ ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ "~.. G~ O fib '~ ~ d Q ~
H d Ll._
N
~
O ~
a ~
p !4 ~ Z ~
'
~` ~= Obi
~ ~ ~ a
~m '~-
O
a
p
O 4
O ~~
n
i
c ~ vo
~o o
yo
0
d
~ = a dN ~,
:~
..,
.,, ~ _ ~ o
~o _. ~.
- ~o
-,
...

-
..
__
_ _
_
~-- -

,f
~ ~ - -_._ .
_.
_ _. -: ~_0~_ -
_ . - -
_.- Q N
y
~ ~
d~
O
~
H
~ 0
OZ
a~
~O
am
~~
N
~
Ow
~~

as
M
W

2
a
N
N

Z -~~ O LL
O

r ~
~
a
o _
m
~ ~
m c
~ °' m
~
°- o
~
~
"-'
o
Q i a
i
a
~ a
p O
~ o
N
~ m ~ N ~ p
'a a~ m a o ~
C oo ~ o °-
d am ~ ~ Q ~~
d
© rs
" ~
c
I
J 1 ~
{ s~ .
~ o

1270
lzs5
12so
1255
1250
1245
12ao-
1235
1230
1225
1220
1215
1210
1205
1200
1195
1190
1185
1180
1175
1170
1165
MOUNT AIRY/
SURRY COUNTY AIRPORT
RUNWAY EXTENSION
WETLAND PERMIT
SURRY COUNTY, NC
DATE: JANUARY 14, 2011
SHEET 4 OF 5
also
155
SECTION 1 -CULVERT STATION 69+00 PROFILE

~n o .n o rcl g ~ o ~ o ~ o .n o ors a
m .c ~ N a n n N N o o s, v,
NR a N N N A N N N ~ N ~ F N
R R R R R R R R
_ I _ ~ -
I
aae
OL~ro,hB YLS
1
' +
rf
adsAnoH ~ I
s'A313 LYIa
._. ._ T.-. ^e ZS7.• w ANI es
,.._ _._. _
.. _ _ -
__. __.... .____. ll-MH _. ......__ __.._ __
_ _ ._..
I
f _: ~
_ 9A 8£
ii
g
,+~

_._..._

___. '.
I

I ,-
~~s, i

~

i
ece
~
6
s

+
~ j ~
~ d ~o
Jb ; ~1~ ~
,~ ea e
ai
N

~ ~~ i
`
i
i
. ~ ~
..-
...._ .....
_.
-- _...... ._ y~ f 4I 49LL
g~
I
~~

8

~ 6
a
``
~..
_ .

.
_
k
~
h
!! ____ __ _ v _

~
.
Lo sba
„ i +
~ ~ ~~ !
~
i.EVSU3saao - X ';
6E'70ab9 Y1S
..-.- ~ - .. ..-• -•. 1
~
~
'- -
' o
a Nlad$ AIIOH
,wszzt•tiia-wa
I OS S'~l
L +
L6-by+4 Wl8 ~ ',
'~. : ', '. I 6'HYI ~ '~
~n o in a in o in o ul o in a ~n o in o
t0 {O N N a 7 M M N N O O m m
N N N N N N N N N N N N' N N
MNl N O ill O ~ O N O iA O ~ O
N N N N N N N N m ~ ~ ~
_.. _.. - i__ '
' I ~
1.E9~fEL 135d~0! t ; __ _ . --._T _.. _ -_._ L. {. l;, rrt;.
ca•LE lse Yis ~
avoasoN=ads o~~ L s:zl-
'L'E Lr9 YlS '
l ~
~ o - --- ~ - ~ _^. j orezai
Ay ~ ~ J• ~
f .vj
• ~ 8 l '`s,
6 I I
C S (~A O , _.. _ `I. -_ _. 04'0p21 = W AVI .K ~~-.
i
r l _ _y
_ _-_ - i
\ ~ I ~ srszii
~. ~ i ~ ~.
N M N N N N O O ONi pOi 0~0 m r ~
r r .- .- ~ r N ~ r ~ .- r r
0
8
m
p~
tl
h
S

n
8 d
n

~ _
Q ~
~ ~ ~ Z N
Z(n~}d-~
}
$
a ~U ~ d
} ~
x
~ W Z ~ ~ ~
~ Q J } ZQ W
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
g ~~~~Q
a
o
z
~
C
C

• •
Mount Airy - Surry County Airport
Mount Airy, North Carolina
Runway Extension and Associated .Projects
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Aviation ~~
State Block Grant Program
Administrative Action
Finding of No Significant Impact
Submitted Pursuant to the Provisions of
The National Environmental Policy Act
And
Requirements of the State Aid to Airports Program.
Ap^prI~~ed:v
/L~k
Richard W. Barkes
Manager Airport System Development
o~
Date

• •
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Number
Preliminary Notes: 1
Purpose And Need: 1 - 3
Alternatives 3
Environmental impact Categories 4 - 11
Noise 4 - 5
Compatible Land Use 5
Social [mpacts 5
Induced Socioeconomic Impacts g
Air Quality g
Water Quality 6
Section 303 (c) Lands 7
Historical, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural Resources 7
Biotic Communities 7
Endangered and Threatened Species 7
Wetlands and Streams 7 _ g
Floodplains g
Coastal Zone Management Program g
Coastal Barriers g
Wild and Scenic Rivers ~ g~
Farmland g
Energy Supply and Natural Resources g
Light Emissions g
Solid Waste g
Construction Impacts g
Hazardous Sites/Material 10
Environmental Justice. 10 - 11
Other Considerations: 11
Recommendations 12

• •
A. -Preliminary Notes:
This environmental document is to be reviewed under the guidelines set forth
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The proposed
development of this airport will require that the federal and local governmental
units participate in the funding of this project and the development has been
proposed for federal funding under the State Black Grant Program.
Under the provision of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NCEPA) no funds may be dispersed
until the funding agency has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the
proposed projects and has concluded that the impacts, if any, are acceptable. In
the scoping of these projects, Statesville was required to develop an
Environmental Assessment (EA) meeting the provisions of both the federal and
state environmental regulations. After the EA was circulated and reviewed by
both state and federal agencies, the comments and concerns were addressed
and it has been determined that the environmental impacts are minimal. As a
result of this documentation, a Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is
appropriate and acceptable in this matter.
B. -Purpose and Need:
The Mount Airy -Surry County Airport is located in Surry County: It is
approximately four miles southeast of Mount Airy arid seven miles northwest of
Pilot Mountain. The Airport is on the east side of US 52 north of the Interstate 74
interchange.
The projects proposed are to extend the runway 18-36 1,200 feet for a total
runway length of 5,500 feet. Complete the parallel taxiway by extending it 1,200
feet northerly and 1030 feet southerly. More importantly the planned projects
include purchasing property both in fee simple and easement formats to bring the
existing Runway Safety Areas (RSA) and Object Free Areas (OFA) up to airport
reference code B-II standards. These projects will involve the relocation of Holly
Springs Church Road and provide for additional area for hangar expansion. See
attached drawing page 2. The current RSAs and OFAs do not meet standards
for this type of airport as defined in the FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13
"Airport Design": These improvements will allow for a precision approach (ILS
like) to the runway along with a potential airport approach lighting system can be
added sometime in the future.
The purpose of the project is to provide a safer and more usable runway for the
most demanding aircraft conducting arrival and departure operations at the
airport. The critical design aircraft for this project are the Lear 31 and the Citation
XL business jet aircraft. These aircraft are an Airport Reference Code (ARC) B-II
aircraft. The existing runway length does not meet NC DOA standards, which
recommend a minimum runway length of 5000' for publicly owned airports in

• •
N
~~~~~cccicop c5v °m ~ ' ~'"~
=~v mm~'ae~o Gv p J..., 1 to ~ ~T1 ~
~ g ~ I a a ~
~ ~~ ~~~ ~.~,I ~ ~-Jf ~
m m m
~~~~~ a~ ~'. ~ ~ I
n a
~,~s~ s ~y m ~r~ `,
L!U ~ z dl 1~f v ~~. ~; ~;/r,.fOO
s I I I I I~ I I ~ ro v I ~_;__ 1 ~"'
11 ~ ' \ ,
n0 ~ ~rJ „ I ~ ~~
~i ;1 I I'~ =o ,,/~jg/~ ,,,~T1. ~ ~~ ,1, •, ..~. vim- _--____-o.q o-~ ° ~o
I 11 LI L! ~"'°. -'~t1~.1 I;~ T~ ~I I I ~~..i. € , I I~~1~5 '• 1---... \`.. ° ' ~.00' ~4
II ~ pc off n ~~ !II ~ e j; , I ;, \ ~\ '\ ~~, a
., I I ~ ~ ,
I I Iii I I > ~n .. ~~ } ~ I 1 I'I ,~~ : ~ ° ~ ` 0 d1
I I~ I 1 1 \ /.. ~ ~ i I 1 IP~ I ~~ °~ ~ { ~ rfl1 . ° o o . ° ~ ~1
4 /- ~~
~/ ~ ~ u }L fig - ~ p
I ~I~_ p 7~
I I ~; o ^m~ F"~ o: ~0
o
o, D
0
o ~$ I t o o~ -~
s~ l" ~' ++ I I a 9 ~ ~ ~~~
~~ ~o - o
r=~ , `'
r~; 1 ~ ~ '~ ~ dl ~• Q
0
w ,I ~ ~i@yI g
V V I \~ I tl
l \ ~ I,
_...- ,
/~ o ~ ~. I'~ I~ ~ _ ~~, ~ ~ ~- tti~ ~ fir., , ~ ;;~,, - ~.
3 m ~~ ~I\ - ~~ ~~:~ =fix,,
3 ~ \ l ~...
~ ~ ~ ~ 3 '° ~ I I ~ ,~4 ,,~ ,;-TIC-j ~ ~a+ -
m~~ .~ a e a a ~
J ~ 1~'-
N

• •
North Carolina. This standard was established as a result, of current industry
business aircraft trends, aircraft insurance requirements, and guidance from the
FAA (Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design, AC-150/5325-4A).
Runways shorter than 5000' have difficulty accommodating even smaller
corporate jet aircraft, particularly during less than optimum weather conditions
(dry, moderate temperatures). In the absence of an expansion of the runway to
meet minimum standards, the County is concerned not only about its ability to
attract new businesses, but that existing businesses may leave the county.
C, -Alternatives:
The Mount Airy Airport considered several major project alternatives along with
eight separate alternatives for the Holly Spring Church Road relocation and the
"no action" alternative. Many alternatives were considered and rejected for
various reasons the most viable alternatives were discussed in detail in the
environmental assessment. Each alternative is discussed briefly below along
with the preferred alternative. The first alternative (preferred alternative} is to
extend the Runway 1220 feet to the north for a tots! length of 5,500 feet. This
option would involve one of the eight Holly Spring Church Road relocation
options, (the road relocation options were discussed in detail in the previously
circulated environmental assessment) and the completion of the parallel taxiway.
The effects of this alternative will be discussed in further detail later in this
document.
The second alternative considered was to extend the runway 1,900 feet north
and shift the southern end of the runway 700 feet to the north. This alternative
has several problems.. This alternative would improve the site to a C-II
configuration and allow fora 1,000 foot RSA it would have increased
environmental impacts and would not be cost effective. Therefore this alternative
was not considered as the preferred alternative.
The extension of the runway 1,900 feet north and shifting the southern end of the
runway 700 feet north while realigning the runway 2 degrees to the west. This
alternative was eliminated from detailed consideration because it would basically
require a complete runway reconstruction and vvould result in a church having to
be relocated.
A "No Action" alternative was considered and rejected, it would result in no
change in the current~configuration of the runway. This alternative does not fit
the purpose and need of the project. A "No Action" approach will not provide a
longer, safer runway operating environment for the heavier corporate aircraft
operating at the airport, nor likely allow a safe increase in operations to occur. It
has previously been determined that the current available RSAs and OFZs do
not meet FAA standards. In order to bring this airport up to standards it would
still require the acquisition of several existing residences.

• •
D. -Environmental Impact Categories Summary:
Noise
The FAA Integrated Noise Model (INM) was used to evaluate noise levels for the
Mount Airy -Surry County Airport both with and without the proposed runway
extension. Noise analysis was compiled as part of an ALP Update using the
projected 20-year fleet mix, which included any increase in aircraft. No increase
in 65 DNL contour was noted on sensitive areas. Significant land acquisition by
the City of properties adjacent to the airport will have to occur to acquire existing
65 DNL impacts.
Noise contours generated by the INM do not depict strict demarcation of where
noise levels begin or end. The noise model is useful for comparisons of noise
impacts and provide reasonable basis for performing airport noise planning. The
effect of aircraft noise on residents is a complex matter to quantify. In the past
twenty years, since aircraft noise began causing impacts on communities, many
different methods and efforts have been.made to determine the effects of noise,
and to develop ways of describing exposure and potential impacts.
Environmental regulations and guidelines tend to use cumulative measurements
to assess airport noises. This form of measurement concept is based on the
effect of noise on people is logarithmic, and further assumes that nighttime noise
are more intrusive than daytime noises. This cumulative noise analysis assigns
nighttime noise events greater weighting than daytime events. This methodology
of Day =Night average sound level or Ldn was specifically developed for
considering environmental noise sources. This method of measurement also
provides a means for determining how much noise an airport produces over and
above background noises.
A noise impact occurs when human activity is exposed to noise levels in excess
of those appropriate for that activity. To guide the impact identification procedure
the Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Policy states that "In
assessing community reaction to aircraft noise, the following interpretation of Ldn
value is used."
Less than 65 Ldn -essentially no complaints expected, noise may
interfere with community activi#y.
65 to 75 Ldn -Individuals may complain; group action passible;
Greater than 75 Ldn -Repeated vigorous complaints expected; group
action probable
The noise analysis performed for the Mount Airy -Surry County Airport indicates
that there are no existing or planned noise sensitive areas within the current or
4

• ~
projected 65 Ldn area that will not be acquired as a part of this. airport project for
any of the alternatives. Even the "no action" alternative has existing noise
issues. A detail discussion was made in the previously circulated environmental
assessment. Therefore no further analysis is necessary and it may be assumed
that there will be no significant noise impacts.
Compatible Land Use
The compatibility of existing and planned land uses in the vicinity of an airport is
usually associated with two factors: a) the extent of noise impacts related to the
airport and related development and, b) consistency with local land use plans
and development policies. No additional noise impacts are anticipated and this
was previously discussed in this document. None of the planned land uses for
any of the alternatives are incompatible with planned land uses in Surry County.
It can be concluded that there are no significant compatible land use impacts.
Social Impacts
The social impacts to consider are the relocation of any residences or
businesses, divide or disrupt established communities, disrupt orderly or planned
development, or create any negative appreciable change in employment of the
community.
Relocations
For all relocations, the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as codified in the FAA Advisory
Circular No. 15015100-17, Land Acquisition and Relocation Assistance for Airport
Improvement Program Assisted Projects, will be met. The preferred alternative
would result only in four additional relocation beyond the "no action" alternative,
due to the small number of relocations, impacts on individual neighborhoods from
the relocations are anticipated to be minor. There are an ample number of
comparable dwellings, for sale on the open market in Mount Airy to
accommodate the relocations.
Surface Transportation
Surface transportation impacts for the preferred alternative consists of relocating
a portion of Holly Spring Church Road. Contact with the N.C. DOT Division
Engineer indicates that the realignment should have little impact. None of the
alternatives are expected to increase congestion or access time to community
facilities, recreation areas, or places of residence or business.
Therefore as a result of the proposed mitigation factors no significant impacts are
anticipated for the social impacts topic.

• •
Induced Socioeconomic Impacts
This category is primarily concerned with induced or secondary impacts on the
surrounding communities. Induced impacts are usually not considered significant
unless there are significant impacts in other categories especially noise, land use
or direct social impacts. Induced socioeconomic impacts of airport development
normally involve shifts in population, increased public service use, or changes in
the local business and economic climate. The positive economic impacts of the
airport have been substantial, and the proposed actions are expected to extend
these positive impacts to the local community and region.
The preferred alternative would be expected to have positive induced
socioeconomic impacts due to the opportunity for the airport to serve existing
corporate users during a wider range of weather conditions. The expansion of
the airport to meet business-class airport requirements will contribute additional
opportunities for employment based on new businesses, increased airport
facilities and short-term construction employment. Based on the previous
discussions there are not any anticipated, negative impacts that will require
further analysis in this area
Air Quality
Mount Airy is currently in attainment of all of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, therefore, the requirements of general and transportation conformity
under the Clean Air Act do not apply to the project and no further analysis is
required for any of the alternatives. North Carolina requires an air quality permit
for the construction and modification of airport facilities designed to have at least
100,000 annual aircraft operations. The Mount Airy Airport is below this
threshold for existing and projected operations. Since no further analysis is
needed it can be determined that there is not any significant impact. Any open
burning that occurs during construction will adhere to all federal, state, and local
regulations
Water Quality
All of the alternatives would be constructed following N.C. stormwater regulations
15A NCAC 2H.1000, Starmwater Management. A sedimentation and erosion
control permit shall be obtained prior to commencing any construction for any of
the alternatives. A discussion of this topic was presented in the previously
circulated EA and it can be concluded that the potential impacts on water quality
will be minimized. By utilizing best management practices for stormwater
management the proposed construction is not anticipated to have significant
negative impacts on water quality issues.
6

• •
Department of Transportation Section 303/4(f)
Section 303(c), Title 49 USC, formerly known as Section 4(t) of the Departmenf
of Transportation Act, states that a project requiring the use of any publicly
owned land from a public park, recreation area, or from a historic site of national,
state, or local significance shall not be approved unless there is no feasible
alternative to the use of such land. No public parks, recreation areas, or historic
sites are located in the project areas for any of alternatives. Therefore, no
significant impacts are anticipated for this topic.
Historic, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural Resources
Based on consultation with the N.C. Department of Cultural Resources, no
historic, architectural, archeological, or cultural resources are known to exist in
the project areas for any of the alternatives. Therefore, no significant impacts are
anticipated for this topic.
Biotic Communities
Coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, NCDNR, and the US Army
Corps of Engineers revealed no direct or indirect impacts on plant communities
or the displacement of wildlife. If construction will cause only a minor permanent
alteration of existing habitat, it may be assumed that there will be no significant
impacts to biotic communities, particularly if the habitats affected represent a
small percentage of the area's inventory and support a limited variety or number
of common wildlife species. The majority of the biotic communities affected by
construction of the preferred alternative are man-dominated or agricultural land.
Construction of the preferred alternative will cause only a minor permanent
alteration of existing habitat in a relatively natural condition, and therefore, it may
be assumed that there will be no significant impacts to biotic communities.
Federal and State Listed Endangered and Threatened Species
In coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Services and subsequent biological
consultation indicates that the actions are not likely to impact any federally or
state listed or proposed threatened or endangered. species. Therefore, no
significant impacts are anticipated for this topic
Wetlands and Streams
Wetland habitats are defined as those areas that are inundated by water with
sufficient frequency and duration to support vegetation that is tolerant of
saturated soil conditions. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (US Army Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual) utilizes specific hydrologic, soil and
vegetation criteria in establishing the boundary of wetlands within their
7

• •
jurisdiction. A detailed discussion of the potential impacts took place in the
previously circulated EA and only portions of it will be repeated here.
Potential wetlands and streams have been surveyed and detail discussions of
these surveys were given in the EA. All practical alternatives will be used to
avoid and or mitigate any significant loss to wetlands and streams if they should
occur. The Airport has a couple of options for mitigating unavoidable wetland
losses. The North Carolina Wetland Restoration Program (NCWRP) is one of
these options. A second option would be for the Airport to find a suitable
mitigation site and prepare a mitigation plan for restoration and monitoring.
The preferred option at this time would be to use the NCWRP. Amore detailed
mitigation plan will be developed upon issuance of appropriate permits and
certifications.
Therefore if regulatory impacts should occur to wetlands and streams with
approved mitigation, no significant impacts are anticipated for this topic.
Flood~lains
Based on consultation with the ACOE and examination of the applicable Flood
Insurance Rate Map, none of the construction for the proposed alternatives will
occur within the 100 year flood boundary, and none of the alternatives are
expected to directly or indirectly support secondary development within a base
floodplain (i.e., 100 year flood area). Therefore, it may be assumed that there
are no floodplain impacts from any of the alternatives.
Coastal Zone Management Program
Surry County is not one of the communities regulated by the Coastal Resources
Commission (CRC). -Therefore the State's Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA) does not apply to this project.
Coastal Barriers
Surry County is not located in the Coastal Barriers Resource System (CBRS) or .
an Otherwise Protected Area (OPA). Therefore the Coastal Barrier Resource Act
(CBRA) does not apply to this project.
Wild and Scenic Rivers
There is not any designated wild and scenic river located in the project area.
Therefore, there are no anticipated impacts from any of the alternatives to any
federally designated wild and scenic rivers.

~ •
Farmland
As detailed in the previously circulated EA, coordination with National Resource
Conservation Services (NRCS) -Soil Conservation Service indicates no prime
or unique farmland nor federal government land would be impacted or used.
Therefore, it may be assumed there is no significant impact to farmland caused
by the preferred extension alternative.
Energy Supply and Natural Resources
Based on definitions given in FAA Order 5050.4A Airport Environmental
Handbook, the proposed action will not have significant demands on energy
supply or natural resources. It can thus be concluded that there will not be any
significant impact and no further action is necessary.
Light Emissions
The FAA requires the airport sponsor to consider the extent to which any lighting
associated with an airport action will create an annoyance among people in
surrounding areas. The types of lighting being installed, location, and method of
use for the lighting should not have any significant impact on residences in the
vicinity of the airport. If an annoyance lighting problem should develop from the
new lighting installed then measures can be taken to reduce or eliminate the
problem. There should not be a significant impact on this subject.
Solid Waste
There are not any solid waste impacts known or anticipated due to the
construction or operation of this project. In addition there are not any known
impacts to existing or proposed solid waste facilities in the area.
Construction Impacts
The types of impacts to be considered primarily are related to noise, air, water
and flora and fauna impacts. There was a discussion of the potential
construction impacts in the EA. Basically, there are not any anticipated noise
impacts that are not expected to unduly impact local residences or businesses
and the other impacts have been discussed in other areas of this document. In
general all applicable permits, (such as sediment and erosion control plans, and
burning permits) and good construction techniques and best management
practices (like those outlined in FAA Order 150/5370 - 10 Standards for
Specifying Construction of Airports) should alleviate any potential impacts in this
subject.
9

• •
Hazardous Sifies/Materials
There were three recognized environmental conditions (REC) discovered vvithin
the project area. These sites would have to be resolved and mitigated prior to
any land acquisition or construction occurring. Therefore upon resolution of the
RECs no significant impact is anticipated on this topic.
Environmental Justice
On February 11, 1994, President Clinton signed the Executive Order 12898,
"Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations." A Presidential Memorandum directed to the heads of
all Departments and Agencies accompanied the Executive Order 12898. The
Memorandum states "each Federal agency shall analyze the environmental
effects, including human health; economic and social effects, of Federal actions,
including effects on minority communities and low-income communities, when
such analysis is required by NEPA." Both the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are divisions of the U.S.
Department of Transportation and are included in the DOT Order 5610.2 "Actions
to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations" (62 Federal Register 98377 et sep• (April 15, 9997). On December
2, 1998 the FHWA issued Order 6640.23 that establishes policies and
procedures for the agency to use in complying with Executive Order 12898.
While the DOT and FHWA policies and procedures require analysis of
disproportionate impacts, they do not define thresholds for the analysis of
Environmental Justice (EJ) impacts.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established thresholds for the
determination of EJ impacts. In April 1999, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Region 4, which has jurisdiction for North Carolina, released its report
entitled Interim Policy to Identify and Address Potential Environmental Justice
Areas. This document defines environmental justice as "the fair treatment of
people of all races; cultures, incomes, and educational levels with respect to the
development and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.
Fair treatment implies.that no population should be forced to shoulder a
disproportionate share of exposure to the negative effects of pollution due to the
lack of political or economic strength." The EPA Region 4 Interim Policy Report
recommends relative thresholds be used as benchmarks to determine whether a
substantial low-income and minority population would be adversely impacted.
The relative threshold is determined as 1.2 times the state average of minority
and low-income population.
All of the EA study area minority populations are below the state thresholds, and
therefore there is no disproportionate impact on these populations from any of
the alternatives. Based on information contained in the EA no disproportionate
10

• •
impacts to low income populations are expected from any of the alternatives.
Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated for this topic.
E. -Environmental Consequences -Other Considerations:
The EA has addressed all the anticipated specific environmental impacts for this
project in both the construction phase and ultimate utilization of the project.
There were not any controversial issues raised during the EA development. The
project planning and subsequent design will take into account all anticipated
environmental impacts and make great efforts to avoid and minimize them. The
proposed actions appear to be consistent with all federal, state, and local
requirements for the surrounding area.
As outlined in FAA Order 5050.4A Airport Environmental Handbook, Mount Airy
Airport provided opportunity for the general public to comment on the proposed
projects contained in the EA. They conducted a public hearing, and the
comments received at this hearing were noted and responded to, therefore
satisfying this requirement.
In conclusion, the EA has shown that the proposed project can be completed
with no significant impact on the environment. All necessary permits are
expected to be obtained without incident and any additional measures that may
be necessary will be completed prior to, or when applicable in the construction
process.

• •
F. -Recommendations:
After careful review of the Environmental Assessment and comments and
response from the coordination process, and the facts contained herein, the
undersigned has found that the proposed project is consistent with the objectives
of the national and state environmental policies. The objectives and polices are
set forth in the National Environmental Policy Act and the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act, and the project will not significantly affect the quality of
human environment or otherwise include any significant condition requiring
further consultation with any federal, state, or local review agencies with the
following exceptions which shall be made a condition of the environmental
approval of this project:
1. Mount Airy, or its appointed representative shall obtain any and all
federal, state, or local permits (such as burning, sediment and erosion
control, NPDES general construction permit, 401 WQC, 404, etc.,) prior
to construction of this project.
2. Any mitigation that might prove necessary shall be developed and
implemented prior to, or during the construction phase of this project.
3. To the extent practicable every effort will be made to avoid and minimize
environmental impacts in the development of this project. The
development of this project will utilize best management practices and
good construction techniques.
Therefore it is the undersigned's recommendation that the project be given a
Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI) under the provisions set forth by the
State of North Carolina Block Grant Program, and the National Environmental
Policy Act.
,--n ~.~.
Richard W. Barkes Date
Manager, Airport System Development Section
Division of Aviation, North Carolina Department of Transportation
l2

• ~
Appendix B
USACE Jurisdictional Determination

• ~
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. 201001397 County: Surrv U.S.G.S. Quad: Mount Airv
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner/Agent: The LPA Group Incorporated
Address: Attn: Ed Smail
700 Huger St., P.O. Box 5805
Columbia, SC 29250
Telephone No.: 803-254-2211
Property description:
Size (acres) approximately 184 Nearest Town Mt. Airv
Nearest Waterway Ararat Rivera River Basin Yadkin
USGS HLTC 03040101 Coordinates N 36.4601 W -80.5542
Location description The project site is located at the existing Mount Airv-Surrv County Airport, adjacent to US
Hwv 52 near Mount Airv, Surrv County. North Carolina. Aquatic features flow to the Ararat River, in the Yadkin
River Basin.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
Based on preliminary information, there maybe wetlands on the above described property. We strongly suggest you have
this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction. To be considered final, a
jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action
under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
B. Approved Determination
_ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
X There are waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
X The waters of the U.S. including wetland on your property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified
by the Corps. We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed
and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA
jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied
upon for a period not to exceed five years.
_ The wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps
Regulatory Official identified below on .Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination maybe relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination maybe relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
Page 1 of 2

• •
Action ID:
_ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Washington, NC, at [phone] to determine
their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact James Lastinser at 919-554-4884 ext 32.
C. Basis For Determination
Established OHWM and the Coras 1987 wetland delineation Manual.
D. Remarks
Site visit conducted on July 21 2010 to verify the extent of iurisdictional waters on site.
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the
particular site identified in this request. The delineation/determinationrnay not be valid for the wetland conservation
provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation
in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
B. above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this
determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
District Engineer, Ra]eigh Regulatory Division
Attn: Jean Manuele, Field Office Chief,
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Dr., suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for
appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the District Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP.
Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by October 20.2010.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the District Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence.
Corps Regulatory Official:
Date October 6, 2010 Expiration Date October 6.2015
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue to
do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our website at http://regulatory.usacesurveY corn/ to
complete the survey online.
Copy furnished:
Page 2 of 2

• •
Applicant: LPA Group Incorporated File Number: SAW-2010-
01397 Date: October 6, 2010
Att ached is: See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of
ermission A
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of ermission) B
PERMIT DENIAL C
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E
A: IINiITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standazd Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the
permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your
objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal
the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the
permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit
having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer
will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
ACCEPT: If you received a Standazd Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP}, you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you
may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form
and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of
this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer
within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or
provide new information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of
this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form must be received by
the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

• •
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps
regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved
JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new
information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your
objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to
this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.}
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps
memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the
review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps
may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify
the location of information that is already in the administrative record.
If you have questions regarding this decision If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you
and/or the appeal process you may contact: may also contact:
James Lastinger, Regulatory Specialist Mr. Mike Belt, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office CESAD-ET-CO-R
3331 Heritage Trade Dr, suite 105 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
Wake Forest, NC 27587 60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15
Atlanta, Geor is 30303-8801
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any
government consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You
will be provided a 15 day notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site
investi ations.
Date: Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this
form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: Jean Manuele, Field Office Chief,
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office, 3331 Heritage Trade Dr., suite 105, Wake Forest, North Carolina
27587
For Permit denials and Proffered Permits send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Mike Bell,
Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD-ET-CO-R, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15, Atlanta,
Georgia 30303-8801

• •
Appendix C
DWQ Stream Determination

• •
~~~
~~~~
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
Mr. Edward Smail
LPA Group Incorporated
PO Box 5805
Columbia SC 29250
Subject Property: Mount Airy-Burry County Airport, Burry County
On-Site Determination for Applicability to the Mitigation Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0506(h)
Dear Mr. Smail:
August 31, 2010
On July 21, 2010, at your request and in your attendance, Sue Homewood conducted an on-site determination to
review features located on the subject property for intermittent/perennial determinations with regards to the
above noted state regulations. James Lastinger and other representatives from the US Army Corps of Engineers
(USAGE) were also present at the site visit. The features that were reviewed are identified on the attached map.
The Division acknowledges the areas and boundaries identified as jurisdictional wetlands by the USAGE. In
addition, the Division verifies the attached stream determination maps provided by LPA Group Incorporated,
and attached as reference, are an accurate reflection of the site conditions.
Please note that at the time of this letter, all intermittent and perennial stream channels and jurisdictional
wetlands found on the property are subject to the mitigation rules cited above. These regulations are subject to
change in the future.
The owner (or future owners) should notify the DWQ (and other relevant agencies) of this decision in any
future correspondences concerning this property. This on-site determination shall expire five (5) years from the
date of this letter.
Landowners or affected parties that dispute a determination made by the DWQ or Delegated Local Authority
that a surface water exists and that it is subject to the buffer rule may request a determination by the Director. A
request for a determination by the Director shall be referred to the Director in writing c/o Cyndi Karoly, DWQ,
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit, 2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250, Raleigh, NC 27604-2260.
Individuals that dispute a determination by the DWQ or Delegated Local Authority that "exempts" surface
water from the buffer rule may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that
you receive this letter. Applicants are hereby notified that the 60-day statutory appeal time does not start until
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, Winston-Salem Regional office
Location: 585 Waughtown St. Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27107
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Customer Service:1-677-623.6748
Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer
NoirthCarolina
~aturall~

• •
Edward Smail
August 31, 2010
Page 2 of 2
the affected party (including downstream and adjacent landowners) is notified of this decision. DWQ
recommends that the applicant conduct this notification in order to be certain that third party appeals are made
in a timely mariner. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North
Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C.
27699-6714. This determination is final and binding unless you ask for a hearing within 60 days.
This letter only addresses the applicability to the mitigation rules and the buffer rules and does not approve any
activity within Waters of the United States or Waters of the State or their associated buffers. If you have any
additional questions or require additional information please contact me at 336-771-4964 or
sue.homewood@ncdenr. gov
Sincerely,
~~+(b~
Sue Homewood
DWQ Winston-Salem Regional Office
Enclosures: USGS Topo Map
LPA Group Incorporated Maps (Figure 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
cc: James Lastinger, USACE Raleigh Regulatory Office (via email)
DWQ, Winston-Salem Regional Office

•
CJ
Appendix D
NCEEP In-lieu Fee Approval

~ •
Eco ,stem
~'- .
PROGRAM
October 26, 2010
John Springthorpe
Mt. Airy Surry Co. Airport
PO Box 6607
Mt. Airy, NC 27030
Project: Mt. Airy Sutry Co. Airport Improvements
Expiration of Acceptance: July 26, 2011
County: Surry
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is willing to accept
payment for impacts associated with the above referenced project. Please note that this decision does not assure that the payment will
be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts. It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact these
agencies to determine if payment to the NCEEP will be approved. You must also comply with all other state, federal or local
government Hermits, regulations or authorizations associated with the proposed activity includine SL 2009-337• An Act to Promote
Compensatory Miti ate ion by Private Mitigation Banks.
This acceptance is valid for nine months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not received a copy of the
issued 404 Permit/401 Certification/CAMA permit within this time frame, this acceptance will expire. It is the applicant's
responsibility to send copies of the permits to NCEEP. Once NCEEP receives a copy of the permit(s) an invoice will be issued based
on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the In
Lieu Fee to be paid to NCEEP by an applicant is calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed at www.nceep.net.
Based on the information supplied by you the impacts that may require compensatory mitigation are summarized in the following
table.
River
Basin CU
Location Stream (feet) Wetlands (acres) Buffer I
(Sq. Ft.) Buffer II
(Sq. Ft.)
Cold Cool Warm Ri arian Non-Riparian Coastal Marsh
Impact Yadkin 03040101 0 3,250 0 0.77 0 0 0 0
Credits Yadkin 03040101 0 6,500 0 1.54 0 0 0 0
Upon receipt of payment, EEP will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. If the regulatory agencies require
mitigation credits greater than indicated above, and the applicant wants NCEEP to be responsible for the additional mitigation, the
applicant will need to submit a mitigation request to NCEEP for approval prior to permit issuance. The mitigation will be performed
in accordance with the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources' Ecosystem Enhancement Program In-Lieu Fee
Instrument dated July 28, 2010.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at [phone].
Sincerely,
William .Gilmore, PE
Director
cc: Ian McMillan, NCDWQ Wetlands/401 Unit
James Lastinger, USACE-Raleigh
Sue Homewood, NCDWQ-Winston-Salem
Ed Smail, agent
File
R.P.StDYGK~... ~ ~ ... PYDtect%~c~ Ott,Y ,.~tG~P~
~~~
~IC~DENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net