19970708 Ver 1_Complete File_19970606

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, , t
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
&41- rep VIA
OM 21
ID FE F1
April 9, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn
From: Eric Galam
Subject: EA for Craven County Airport Terminal Area Expansion
Craven County
EHNR # 96-0592, DEM # 11208
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management (DEM) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401
Water Quality Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including
wetlands. The subject project will impact 0.13 acres of wetlands and 150 linear feet
of waters. The following comments are based on the document review and should be
addressed in the FONSI:
A) There is no discussion of costs associated with the alternatives. DEM may be
able to support an alternative that impacts more wetlands if the wetland quality
is known coupled with costs.
B) An approved stormwater plan will be required. Wet detention ponds or similar
structures may be incorporated into the plan. If carefully designed and
maintained, the pond with a large littoral shelf should replace the aquatic life
uses of the stream.
DOT is reminded that the 401 Certification could be denied unless water quality
concerns are satisfied. Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to
Eric Galamb (733-1786) in DEM's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
cc: Mike Bell, Washington COE
Monica Swihart
Charles Jones, DCM
Bradley Bennett
cravenap.ea
FAXED
APR 1 0 1996
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number: I County:
Date:
? Project located in 7th floor library
l I0 bg
Date Response Due (firm deadline):
Sf Z L? . 3 LS' ?? 14 1 -f Y
T3
Th s project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All R/O Areas ? Soil and Water y° Marine Fisheries
? Fayetteville ?Air Coastal Management ? Water Planning
Water Resources ? Environmental Health
? Mooresville t IWildlife ?Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh C'/ `l4 Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
Washington El Land Resources ? David Foster
Parks and Recreation ?Otherr(Wecify)
? Wilmin ton ACC
g nvironmental Management/ /? CF?VED
? Winston-Salen Monica Swihart n/ r9,4R
261
996
Fiv,, R
1 ? A/W
Manager Sign-Off/I In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check a
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
? Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
P$.104
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
THE LPA GROUP of North Carolina, p.a.
Transportation Consultants
4904 Professional Court, Suite 201
Post Office Box 17736
Raleigh, North Carolina 27619
[phone]
FAX [phone]
August 8, 1997
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Environmental Management
NC. Dept. of EHNR
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Re: Pre-Construction Notification Application
Terminal Area Site Preparation
Craven County Regional Airport
New Bern, N.C.
Dear Sir:
970708 Enclosed are seven copies of the Pre-Construction Notification Application that
has been sent to the field office of the US Army Corps of Engineers in Washington, N.C.
If you should have any questions during your review, please do not hesitate to
give me a call.
Sincerely,
THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED
Scott A. Yarley,
Project Enginee
Member of THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED
stir ?
q
ATLANTA, GA 0 AUSTIN, TX • CHARLESTON, SC • CHICAGO, IL • COLUMBIA, 5C • GREENSBORO, NC s KNOXVILLE, TN • MOBILE, AL
MYRTLE BEACH, SC 0 PHILADELPHIA, PA 0 RALEIGH, NC 0 TALLAHASSEE, FL 0 TAMPA, FL

THE LPA GROUP of North Carolina, p.a.
Transportation Consultants
4904 Professional Court, Suite 201
Post Office Box 17736
Raleigh, North Carolina 27619
[phone]
FAX [phone]
August 8, 1.997
Washington Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1000
Washington, N.C. 27889-1000
Re: Pre-Construction Notification Application
Terminal Area Site Preparation
Craven County Regional Airport
New Bern, N.C.
Dear Sir:

On behalf of the Craven County Regional Airport Authority, we are submitting the
Pre-Construction Notification Application for the construction for the above referenced
project. We have also enclosed a sketch of the proposed project for your use.
The project is located at the northeastern boundary of the Airport and is the first
phase of the construction of a new terminal building and associated apron, access
roads, and parking facilities. The second phase of the project will be the paving of the
new facility, which will begin in the late spring of 1998.
Scott's creek, which runs through the middle of the project will be relocated to the
west of its current location and conveyed through a double 10 ft x 5 ft reinforced box
culvert under the new apron. The Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) for the
revision of the Floodway Map, was submitted to FEMA (via the Craven County Planning
Director) on July 22, 1997. The phased construction of this channel relocation will be
such that the new channel will be in place and vegetation established prior to the
diverting of stream flow. The lining to be used for the relocated channel will be grass
with either Pickerelweed or Arrowhead planted on the outside banks of the meanders to
provide bank stability and shading. Rip rap will be provided at the inlet and outlet of the
culvert to dissipate energy of the flow and reduce erosion.
Member of THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED
ATLANTA, GA 0 AUSTIN, TX • CHARLESTON, 5C • CHICAGO, IL • COLUMBIA, SC • GREENSBORO, NC • KNOXVILLE. TN • MOBILE, AL
MYRTLE BEACH, 5C 9 PHILADELPHIA, PA 0 RALEIGH, NC 0 TALLAHASSEE, FL 9 TAMPA, FL.
40(
August 8, 1997
Page 2
A permanent wet retention pond with an adjacent temporary detention basin has
been planned for this development to control erosion and sedimentation during
construction, as well as, provide stormwater management after construction is
complete. The accumulated sediment will be removed from the basins during and after
construction to maintain the capacity of the basins. Following the completion of the
project, the Airport will have regularly scheduled maintenance of the basins, principal
and emergency spillways. These devices will be maintenanced on a yearly basis. The
stormwater drainage pipe system has been designed to convey the majority of the
runoff from impervious areas to the basins for stormwater management and water
quality purposes.
If you should have any questions during your review, please do not hesitate to
give me a call.
Sincerely,
THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED
Scott A. Yarley P
Project Engine r
Enclosures/
Cc: John H. Price, Jr., Airport Director
John Dorney, NC Dept. of EHNR

DEM ID:
CORPS ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #):
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL b9MAGMdENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). SEVEN
(7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL, M.MNIAGEMENT
(SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: 8eA\-/t l-1 0ouH-ry Aksc?j-x Au-nAoQITi

2 . MAILING ADDRESS: moo
SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY: _Hew t3e2j A STATE: ZIP CODE: ZBSCoo
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE) CtZ,rAV?O 600t-f'r`y AP22bOl-
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME):
(WORK) . 919 - & 38- 85x1
4.. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICI=-, ADDRESS,
PHONE NUMBER:
-7OI-?M i
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A PAL?P, PREFERABLY A COPY OF US GS TOPOG:i?D:i!C
`??P OR AERIAL PHCTOGRAPHY WITH SC2=):
COUNTY : f''?Avr=-?-( () t-lTY NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: ?A Ew
1
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD
NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.) : 10CA,TP-7 O &T ?-1DZTNF,??,-? Q07R-' eQ
0 A? t 2T -t4lE4k- TI-kF= 11-IT Q?c?TiON nC-
10 5 -7c) Lt AJA5 -Ro
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER:
RIVER BASIN:
??{t= v?,E
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW), WATER
SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [ J NO [4 IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC) ? YES [ J NO [x
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE, 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNA!'.ION?
Sa. HAVE ANY SECTION \40,?4 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE_ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES [?Y NO [ J IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [ J NO y?J IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
3
_ i
9a. ESTIM. TED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: 4 2.
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE:
0. l5,9-c-
a
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: D,i9?) EXCAVATION:
FLOODING: OTHER:
DRAINAGE:
TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: o. I3
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION) :
LENGTH BEFORE: 1100 FT AFTER: ISLE FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): ?O FT
WIDTH AFTER: VAP/e75 zn FT
i
i
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: -? FT AFTER: -'2 f FT
(2) STREAK? CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: V PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAN/FLOODING:
OTHER:
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE .
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND? 13 A--
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA? d 4,ac ?y c/ p?T?NTia>/?'Dge G'r,?=rR?o r
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X !I" DRAWINGS
ONLY) :
rr? r-5 ?r-c ?nr I A C"&.- WEB, C*-4 r-l--m/ r r-raT?ot-I ycl 17.1-I ,4 L xO'Rc E VV1 L L "r3' 3 l,` f E ,d, IMC)-

13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: 00H-_" ?ucmc)R OF
-F=?t /CIF-tlkl_ ll 1711--(? ?,t? ITf-l AfX!50QA "Ei1 A_2 lQ (
AM c? t?.?i2Kt}-4b tpT-=>
3

14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS) : ('n'?"..?-1? I? "R?L)C'?TIC?f-I.('T?-11? lam- -?ZT?O?-I r-)F
iA - 6cmt l5 13?1-( -tc>

15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND "WILDLIFE SERVICE
(USFWS) AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENCY
ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR
PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL HABITAT
IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT. DATE
CONTACTED: 3113 /q(o (ATTACH RESPONSES
FROM THESE AGENCIES.)
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC
PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED
PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED: 1/8/90
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR-THE USE OF
PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES X NO [] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL,
DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA_ ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT?
YES 'K NO [ ]
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES NO [ ]
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
4
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21, 25,
29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE PROPERTY
MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS 50 FEET OR 1
INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY?
- tA_)Mf-f U 'T ZAHI?s u 5 r= R?: 2
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
LI/A
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.`
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) ( IN THE TWENTY COASTAL, COUNTIES ONLY) , A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
OER'S/AGENLVS SIG URE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
?7- (- -TI
DATE
5
n
n
r- rI
rl
i'
1 _
/
---
``
s? l ?•' / \??\ l\\ \ ` 11111\ ` \\.1
I 1 / \ 1 1\\`\1\?,1
/ 1 1 / ` 1 \\ //111111
II
\ 1 ? I \\ ) i I

`?\•-__'? `` `\ \? i%
-?`
; i
' i Iii
j?
\
y
i
Ill IW it
\ ? \ , 1 \i ! l 11;1 1 I S

\
1 LLJ
N

i ??
? J I
i 1 ';i I 1' W

/ ' 1 \\ III r

h f f /I'?\\\ 1/ ;lii I' ?i
`\\ 1 1 '\
; \ I 11111 IIII /
( \\ /Ill 111, ) ,
I ;I;; pit
\\\`\ 1 \\u\` !. ?? \ 1 1 \1111 IIII I 1
\ `\\\ 1 ? \ \?.\\\ d. ?` ? \ ?` , ` / ! ,11;1 ul;, (
1`\ \\`4\\ \ \ i ;\1 ?\\\\ `p.\ 1\._ 9 III;; ;ii'I '
`j ? 1 \\\ \\ \?\ `````.` \\ III;, t'1;I i I
? \\ \\?.i r-_? ? \ s\\ `\" ? 1 \``I 11111 ;;;II 1
1 \j \ 1 \ ? 1 \'"\ f \\ ? 1 1 ? 11;11 Il lk ; 1
\I \ 1 \ •\ \`\\? \?._ / I'lli'll 111! 1
' , 11111\ {
I \, 1 11? ,, i\ I I ,1
II // 1 \\\ `??'`\` 1 I I 111
` ill ` /i jr ; ? ?`?•.(\ \ 1 (-1 .r ??,4.p7 I I 11;1111.. ?
? /' • 1 - - - - ? ?-7'? .?. S%/\?-1 / i 1/ / f e _ \ ? I 1 1 m 111 J,i rll''I j'``I I 1? a ??+??..?
9;i;'; III
\ + II \ ai it 1 /?' \`-' ,11111, /
13 I1
ITIN
1 11 l / ; ; 1 I 1 ?' \ ) N \ •;1 1'? II '11111
' If-(' t I \ ` fill illrpt 1 'l C`
is/? ,%,'?? ___ ` ?•,I 1 .y??r,,._%-.Ii'/ 'l`\?' ?T? \?\+I `i+'I"?i rl?f1'
111111
• ' / :: ?, - -? --`-)C-\' \ f: ? ?--t?-???FF?I'.3''lL:f-s??-....._-. ? ? J -----e. \yn? . ?» ? r ;:? = 1 `_/ l;litl '!?'I _ __ -- \ / . ;r +. .. --_ _ _ - __-__ f'\ \C. \'•? r .)k 1 /it'll 711' -fK 1 A
Lim
t
/ ____ _: -° ? ? ? / _.- _.__-. _ _ : _ ?•?<?'. , r f??(1 r\ I 67
;
'.' s?? '- ?` \ =_.. -- '/?\-i / 4 ; ?' 1? r?`'•x- `?' , ' 1,1;1 ' i
OV021 33Y d001
/!? ?? ` \\`?9 ``•: `. ?\` I 'S/ !"a`-. \ ?'??r' r? ' i ?? l ?' ?T`? '4'r -!_-% r. it
17 7 7
\
1 1 i ? t'1 r 1 `I F
13
1;' '' \ .•l 1 ? I ; '. \ 13C ? ? 'a. Sul .r'_ '?? ?' 1'',' ? '
\ \/ ===III It 1 ' 1
``9 ` `'?'?. /ice , \0 ' ?`/i ? ? L / -.:+•-..?- +?..y_ ?. , _ _. ?s ?.? ?.r '.?:::1i ? ?r I W
ay a ?S 300Y 9NINHY \ \\\ Jl j
I of
( I
I / 1J •j 1/ ?,/ J i / ' i ; I < 11 f ;1
\l ( \`\`?? `\? ` / It ?\ :%/ /.y I; i' %', I! I/ // ?' /r ,% R ?1\\ II ?'^
\`I 1 1 ?` +\?\ \ `/ , I ' 1, /.T i ' / I l? \\ 1 1 V J
I ; \, _? \w) ly/ / ''T ;1
i \ J I 11111 O ?r?! L? I'ji
1 1 / \\\ 1 11 I mWAtO / / / / / % / / I W 1 / ? , I I
\0\ 0 q, sr nrr» ? / , / ,
LL
' 1111 J' ' ? `I.' ; `\` \r ' I / ?' I 1 '. _ \ `` \ '
' l1ll1 l 1 "
1 1
I ' I I 1 I 1 , \ `V?\ I IIII , 1
I i / 1 I`' \ ! S? I' , \\ \ N.
/ O `\\ 1111 ? J -.\ 1 \ 1 l / (.? '? I I I/
•?' r f\ ?\ \ :i:?\ ,\\`` __ `???; ,\'?\'Sp .\` i I\ 11 ?l / ?/. /'? ? II 111q; ?I'1/\i
it,
`__ ?^•'? .?f r\/^I lit 1 p4; It; ills
//??' ? ?? l iii! 1 \` --? - "\ \? ?\? l ? ?' ? 11,1 ?, ?/ 11 h'I
eJ / ; 1 Ir?l ,111/1 \\?\ \°l ?\ \ ??'o+?\ ?, so ?/ \Y ?II 1 II; 1111
I1t
\'F /___ _ s @''.?+a / f%/?` \ ?? \? ?.?f, 0 ?N \\ / ` •? I(;f I I t' '1111;
O / „, 1 ;i" \ \ ?t 1 \\\ k ?3Nk /X;III r IIt ;
II
I 1I1'
I
1 Nr'Ir 11,111111171 ,1? '/'?\ \aa 1 \ 11 / HI[+da ?.\.. 1
`pI 'l' ill i
111111 II/I /11 ?.? ?\ \ a\ 1 i / \\• \ ,.?.o /y Ar \ Il, 1 I , ,?
I\
'- I I //1111 r\l/?\\,, \ \` \? 1 I \ - 1 / -`` QLJItlp I'I M' I I' I '
?? `\`\ ;;ii,1+ Ilrrr' 1 W r/ \? `: \\\al \\ ?./ \ 1 , +°? \ sr 3ann III )+J N? II1 ' III' ;
?s?'/ ///y/J, ` 1111111'1111;j I / \\`i\? \ \\ ; _? . Y3rv ??\11\\I\`j 1 I
V III \ \ \ / \?` ! ``?">vYr 1,1 ` pr'll 1 I 41 I ;
/ O \`I i 111; ilm? 1 - \\ \ \ !!•\? \ I / II Idl f II 1
,1111, I dlun 1 1 1_`. \ \ \ • \, _ / , \ \ ``.\ ``. ill 1 Iu I III
It 4 11
1 ;
-_ \ IIn1' r / ' ? / ?`\ \ `.? ` \ n\1\ url 11 I \ ,/ 1 I
1,x111 ',1;\'` t 1,1 f ? ? ?, \ / \ /!/\?[?/?'` ? ' 1\ Via/ 1 r, 111111 1 I
-I ?? ? O r'I slll; ;1 ii; \ - '' , A\ `? 1 wV \ f? 1'r ? \ --? \ \ '-i/ \?/ r III If I i
\?` `.\ .` \' ` ? 1, 1, Ill I1 1 1 1 1 ```` \ \\ l?\J ` \`?-- / i `/? 1iN 111 I I I
V j11,1f1111 1 1 1 1` I ?\. d`\\ ```` / / "\ / - l 1111 11.11 I 1 I
1 1 r I \`\ z?"??\ I \ i '
i
;Ill; hill!"
11111111 ?1 //\???/•I 1 I / \\ ``S.N / 1 / _ '1 r
??\\\ ?? 11111,111 `/ 1 1 ' 'W 1 / / _ 1 lnlli 1411 I
1
_ _ . Irll1, 111/I 1 1 / ?.\ ? / I ? 111NI
Will
_-^-? ?? ` `?? " (?-, 11'1111 1 ' 1 ' 1 •?\\?`? % _ C-``.` / '--_ 1 / '1'II 11111 i I
•?;' ???`?`\ //U, I 11 \ ; \\ 1 . 1 / 1111; 1Gl JN111
----- ------
j 4 ? ti `?_- - \ ; /\ ?`?`/?'\, ,\??` \ l / 1 ??//??// _ ? ? `` / lye;; 111,1; I ;
O ~ • \_ ` / ii ?`I ?/ : i 1/ ?`\ 1 i ? ' ``''??u? ) :: I i `\ i N; III(' 1 ; I
?? l LA??? ,Ir / , I 1 "\ P I `.III !I I I
CV ? "2 ?S .Cep>\ 1 ?l\ 1 , 1 \\?\\; / / II 11;11 III;?,/ / 1
\\\ l / `\_. ' \ I 1111 fill' I, `
It t 1 tN \- 1 k , \; --------
Q.
p -~_ i ` l.:`.? / + \I,\nd4 ? , ? 1 I Ili 1 kI I
Jim
\\;?; ? 1 f ;1111 "m'; 1 a?o?
I,;(; oil O
_8
04-17-96
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NCRTH CAROLINA 27603800.3
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
MAILED TO: FROM:
FAA-ATLANTA AIRPORTS DIST OFF MRS. CHRYS BAGGETT
TERRY WASHINGTON _ DIRECTOR
1701 COLUMBIA AVE, STE 2-260 N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
COLLEGE PARK, GA 30337-2747
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
PRELIM. ENV. ASSESS. - PROPOSE[) TERMINAL AREA EXPANSION AT THE
CRAVEN COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT
SAI NO 96E00000592 PROGRAM TITLE - PRELIM. ENV. ASSESS.
THE A30VE PROJECT HAS BEEN SU3yITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESUL'T OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
SUEMITTED: ( ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
( X) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone].
C.C. REGION P
The LPA GROUP of N.C.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources I
Division of Environmental ,Managerrlent
('( James B. Hun". Jr., Gover^or 1
Jonathon B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director;
i
MEMORANDUM Aril 9, 1996
To: Melba McGee f
4 • _:
??HtV
?
i
From:
Subject: EEAric fcr Graven County Airport Terminal Area Expansion
Craven County i
EHNR r 96-0592, DEM nl 11208
The subject document has been revie,r ad by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management (DEM) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401
Water Quality Certificaticn for activities which impact waters, of the state including
wetlands. The subject project will impact 0.13 acres of wetlands and 150 linear feet
of waters. The following comments are based on the document review and should be
addressed in the FONSI.
A) There is no discussion of costs associated with the alternatives. DEM may be
able to support an alternative that impacts more wetlands if the wetland quality
is known coupled with costs.
Through: John Dorn :/
GalGmt?
cc: Mike Bell, Washington .. COE
Monica Swihart
Charles Jones, DCM
Bradley Bennett
B) An approved stormwa,er plan will be required. Wet detention ponds or similar
structures r-,ay be incorporated into the plan. if carefully designed and
maintained, the pond with a large littoral shelf shouid replace the aquatic life
uses of the stream.
DOT is reminded that the 401 Certificajion could be denied unless water quality
concerns are satisfied. Questions reg rding the 401 Certification should be directed to
Eric Galamb (733-1786) 'n DEM's Wat?r Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
cravenap.ea
F.O. Box 29535, R'deigh. Nortr Corouna 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Ecod CG=oriur ty Af. -r wive ACtio^ ?ioyet sco-, recycled/ 1C% pos'-consu.^ner paper
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
VIEW DISTRIBUTION
y
STATE NUMBER 96-E-0000-0592
F03
*F AGRICULTURE
O CUL RESOURCES
'T OF EHNR
'T OF TRANSPORTATION
OF COAST MANAGEMENT-EllM
`T OF CCEPS - NFP
ATE PLANNING REGIGN P
DATE RECEIVED 03 34 96
STATE AGENCY RESPONSE DUE 0 4 12 96
47-
04 31 96
04 14 96 31"
LOCAL RESPONSE DUE
REVIEW CLOSED
Ja•-%T
'PL: FAA-ATLANTA AIRPOr-ITS LIST OFF
_lAn.* 00Q 12002
:.r = PtjAV M. E"!'d. ASSESS- - PROPOS-D TERMINAL AREA EXPANSION AT THE
CN COUNTY icE';Iu :AL AIRPORT
R_FEREtdCE Nim3-R:
;._.V!-":W T'E'E ATTACHED PRU.IECT• SUBMIT YOUR RE-SPONSE BY THE ABOVE INDICATED
):.,, IF ADDI T I:.:iNAL R;---VTLz-W TIME IS NEEDED CONTACT THIS OFF ICE•
?S R=SULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED
(V-1d0 C'%MMC-NT
( ) C?^t;,?idT? ATTACHED
3 ?1= J 3 y: ----------------------
--
iIt
v?
RECEIVED
10
MAR 2 5 V% "
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
2 0 MAR 1990
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL AIANA
Air Quality Section
March 26, 1996
tilEN10RANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Environmental Assessment Section
From Alan Klimek, Chief
Subject: Project No. 96-0592
Environmental Assessment
Terminal Area Ex Tension
The Craven County Regional Airport Authority
Craven County, North Carolina
The environmental assessment has been reviewed by the Air Quality Section. The described project
does not require an air permit per revelation NCAC 15A 2D.080-4 "Airport Facilities." However, if
the proposed project includes any eq)ansion to an existing parking lot or construction of a new
parking lot, a permit may be required per 2D .0805 "Parking Facilities." This is generally not required
if the total number of parking spaces is less than 1,500.
Should you require further information, please contact Tom Anderson at [phone].
c: Lesley Biller
Tom Anderson
craven.ea

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, Forth Carolina 2 7 636-3 7 26
T0: Mr. I ?naS t??0.kZ??e
LPf} &rcy of ?)rrl-k&tr 11;-V,' 19, a .
PC. 4cx ! 77-36
R4(z? ,?, A.'C 7u-c I
Thank you or your letter requesting information or recommendations from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This form provides the Service's response
pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
Re: 0
(errn I n cSC
S%
Pro; ect \am6j'Loc?ti o -/Coup
Date 'of lnco-ing etcer
The attached page(s) list(s) the Federally-
may occur within the project area.
? Based on the information provided, it appears
does not contain suitable habitat for
endangered or threatened species known to
believe that the requirements of Section 7
,2-.
Log \umber
listed species which
that your project site
any Federally-listed
occur in the area-We
of the Act have been
satisfied. We remind you that obligations under' Section 7
consultation must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals
impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or
critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this
action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered
in this review; (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat
determined that may be affected by the identified action.
further information.
If the proposed project will be removing pines greater than or equal
to 30 years of age in pine or pine/hardwood habitat, surveys should
be conducted for active red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees in
appropriate habitat within a 1/2 mile radius of project boundaries.
if red-cockaded woodpeckers are observed within the project area or
active cavity trees found, the project has the potential to affect
the red-cockaded woodpecker, and you should contact this office for
&AAZL
?'?1Ca Wtt Bio logist Date ?s,W,Endangered Species Coordinator
Clayton, N.C.
March 25, 1996
N Er10RANDUII
TO: Melba McGw, Office of Leg. Affairs
FROM: Don H. Robbins, Staff Forester
SUBJECT: LPA EA for Terminal Area Expansion for the Craven County Regional Airport Authority
PROJECT: f 96-0592 and 93-0044
DUE DATE: 4-4-96
We have reviewed the above subject document and have the following comments:
1. We have no problems w : uh their need and purpose for the expansion.
2. We understand their reasoning and have no problems with Quadrant Alternatives r=I, II and III being
turned down and not bei:-ig considered any further.
3. We would not favor the Relocate Airport Alternative.
4. We have no problem N ith the Quadrant ?IV Section being considered in depth for the proposed
expansion. We do have further comments below on the four Alternative Concept location sites.
5. We are definitely not in favor of Alternative Concept sites Y 1, 2 and 3 for the following reasons -
a. The,-NNU either L-npact directly or indirectly ourNCFS Fire Retardant Tanker Base. We have
had to move in the past and do not want to move again. We presently have an excellent
functioning site for our fire suppression aircraft to work out of.
b. Higher wetland impacts.
C. Higher woodland impacts.
d. Higher people impacts.
e. Requires more land to be purchased.
6. We could accept their Preferred Alternative Concept IV site, so long as it would not now or in the fixture
affect our NCFS Fire Retardant Tanker Base or our operations at the Base. We are concerned that
congestion and traffic problems may develop in the future on Clermont Road which is our access road
to our base. We would hope that this problem does not develop.
7. Woodland. Open Burning and Land Clearing -Their page number 3-3 indicates the following,
"It is unlikely that any merchantable timber is present. Cue will be taken to protect the remaining
standing trees from equipment damage, including petroleum spills. Given the nature of the project, all
trees will be removed from a generally rectangular area which will allow equipment movement,
minimizing damage to treys which will not be cut. All open burning will be subject to North Carolina
Regulation Number 15 N CAG 2D.0520."
Our response to the above -
a. If any merchantable trees are present, we would encourage salvage for forest products to include
pulpwood, chips, saw-timber and mulch.
b. Craven County is a High Hazard County and G.S. 113-60.23 does apply here, if any land
clearing and open burning are attempted on more than five contiguous acres and long windrows
or round piles are going to be burned. A special permit is required from our local county
forestry people. The provisions of G.S. 113-60.23 is as follows -

Page 2
"113-60.23. High hazard counties- permits required, standards.
(a) The provisions of this section apply only to the counties of Beaufort, Bladen, Camden,
Carteret, Chowan, Craven, Currituck, Dare, Duplin, Gates, Hyde, Jones, Onslow,
Pamlico, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Tyrrell, and Washington which are classified as
high hazard counties in accordance G.S. 113-60.21.
(b) It is unlawful for any person to willfully start or cause to be started any fire in any
woodland under the protection of the Department or within 500 feet of any such
woodland without first having obtained a permit from the Department. Permits for
starting fires may be obtained from Forest Rangers or other agents authorized by the
County Forest Ranger to issue such permits in the county in which the fire is to be
started. Such permits shall be issued by the ranger or other agent unless permits for the
area in question have been prohibited or cancelled in accordance with G.S. 113-60.25
or Ili-60.27.
(c) It is unlawful for any person to willfully burn any debris, stumps, brush or other
flammable materials resulting from ground clearing activities and involving more than
five contiguous acres, regardless of the proximity of the burning to woodland and on
which such materials are placed in piles or windrows without first having obtained a
special permit from the Department. Areas less than five acres in size will require a
re_wlar permit in accordance with G.S. 113-60.23(b).
(1) Preyailina winds at the time of ignition must be away from any city, town,
development, major highway, or other populated areas, the ambient air of
which may be significantly affected by smoke, fly ash, or other air
contaminates from the burning.
(2) The location of the burning must be at least 1,000 feet from any- dwelling or
structure located in a predominately residential area other than a dwelling or
structure located on the property on which the burning is conducted unless
permission is granted by the occupants.
(3) Th-- amount of dirt or organic soil on or in the material to be burned must be
minimized and the material arranged in a w•av suitable to facilitate rapid
burnng.
(4) Burriiria may- not be initiated when it is determined by a Forest Ranger, based
on information supplied by a competent authority that stagnant air conditions
or inversions exist or that such conditions may occur during the duration of the
burn.
(5) Hea,.ti• oils, asphaltic material, or items containing natural or synthetic rubber
may not be used to ignite the material to be burned or to promote the burning
of such material.
(6) Initial burning may be commenced only between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and
3:00 P.M. and no combustible material may be added to the fire between 3:00
P.M. on one day and 9:00 A.M. on the follo«ing day, except that when
favorable meteorological conditions exist, any Forest Ranger authorized to
issue the permit may authorize in writing a deviation from the restrictions."
C. We have had problems in the past with land clearing contractors not being aware of this General
Statue and many problems can develop here.
PC: Derryl Walden, John Shepherd, Mike Thompson, David Jarman, Warren Boyette - CO
Ralph Cullom, John Morris, Bill Palmer - D4
James R- Hines - Craven County
File
A

ter; .`?. 1
Action ID
Property Owner/Agent ,
Address _ I n !
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Telephone No. _G(( 9 ) A Z 9,
/v 3 8833 o-a
E 3!Lf 700
CountyI--- la ,&"

Size and Location of project (waterbody, road name/number, town, etc.)
0HP Vl a C/ )3 / o/
"of
Description of Activity
I ae:C -fI wJu,.41 -, (3 wti{eis of ? u.s.
It c ?o
1
.Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344) only.
Section 10 (River and Harbor Act of 1899) only.
Section 404 and Section 10.
/,/L,/ 'Z6Regional General Permit or Nationwide Permit Number.
Any violation of the conditions of the Regional General or Nationwide Permit referenced above may subject the
permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order, and/or appropriate legal action.
This Department of the Army Regional General/Nationwide Permit verification does not relieve the undersigned
permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other required Federal, State, or local approvals/permits. The permittee
may need to contact appropriate State and local agencies before beginning work.
By signature below, the permittee certifies an understanding and acceptance of all terms and conditions of this
vermit.
Property Owner/Authorized Agent Sig
Regulatory Project Manager Signature
Date_ q L IQ A?
SURVEY PLATS, FIELD SKETCH, WETLAND DELINEATION FORM, ETC., MUST BE ATTACHED TO
THE YELLOW (FILE) COPY OF THIS FORM, IF REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE.
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
CESAW Form 591
Dec 1993
r_xpiration Date_ l 1 [ 1 ) q
s- .
a
U.S. Deportment
If Traruportation
federal Aviation
Administration
July 25, 1996
Atlanta Airports District Office
Mr. John Price
Airport Director
Craven County Regional Airport
post office Box 3258
New Bern, North Carolina 28564
Campus Building
1701 Columbia Avenue, Suite 2-260
College Park. Georgia 3403432$77155
Tel:[phone]. FAX:0
Dear Mr. Price:
responds to the July 5 and 15 letters of Thomas Blaketa y On n o rPb Group, 'atplia
This the
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Mr. Blakeney has requeste ? be categorically excluded
new air carrier terminal project at New u Bern, ass Carolina, (EA).
from the requirements of a formal environmental win the preliminary EA with comments from other agencies, the Federal
the
After rev>e g finds
new ' Aviation Administration concurs with Mr. Blakeney's he renuirementsi of a formal EA
air carrier terminal project categorical) inl accordance with paragraph 23(a)(4) of FAA
This finding, made on July 18, 1996, is
Order 5050.4A, "Airport Environmental Handbook."
If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,

Terry R. Washington, P.E.
Program Manager
cc: /
Mr. Thomas Blakeney
Mr. Frank Newton, III
NC Department of Transportation
I
i
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Mr. John Price, Director
Craven County Airport Authority
1501 Airport Road
New Bern, NC 28560
Dear Mr. Price:
Re: 401 Water Quality Certification
Craven County Regional Airport
Craven County
DWQ #970708
A IT4
.41i I;
ED EHNR
August 18, 1997
On 8 August 1997 you wrote to the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) requesting a 401
Water Quality Certification for your project to fill 0.13 acres of wetlands and an uncertain
length of stream placed in a culvert for airport construction at Craven County Regional
Airport in Craven County. We believe that this project is currently under review by the
State Clearinghouse. DWQ cannot issue the 401 Certification until the project has received
a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or Record of Decision (ROD) from the State
Clearinghouse in accordance with NCAC 15A: 01C .0402. Therefore, I must hereby place
this project on indefinite hold until the State Clearinghouse has issued the FONSI or ROD.
However we will continue to review the project and make you aware of any concerns. We
recommend that you notify us that the NEPA/SEPA process is complete so we can
reactivate the project. In addition, by copy of this letter, I am also notifying the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers that this project should be placed on hold. Please inform us of 1)
Whether this project will require an individual 404 Permit from the Corps of Engineers, 2)
what length of stream will be culverted and 3) what design techniques will be used to
relocated the stream (guidelines for stream relocation are attached).
If you believe that this decision is in error, please call me at 919-733-1786 to discuss
the matter.
Sincerely,
ey
J R:l
ater ty ca 'on Program
cc: Washington DWQ Regional Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District Office
Scott Yarley; The LPA Group
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Field Office
Central Files 970708.nocert
Division of Water Quality - Environmental Sciences Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27626-0535 - Telephone [phone] - FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

THE LPA GROUP of North Carolina, p.a.
Transportation Consultants
4904 Professional Court, Suite 201
Post Office Box 17736
Raleigh, North Carolina 27619
[phone]
FAX [phone]
August 8, 1997
Washington Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1000
Washington, N.C. 27889-1000
9 4
I9J
°Fd'
TF
rub 0?O)?,

1,4_j1_P"Jfl
Re: Pre-Construction Notification Application
Terminal Area Site Preparation
Craven County Regional Airport
New Bern, N.C.
Dear Sir:
On behalf of the Craven County Regional Airport Authority, we are submitting the
Pre-Construction Notification Application for the construction for the above referenced
project. We have also enclosed a sketch of the proposed project for your use.
The project is located at the northeastern boundary of the Airport and is the first
phase of the construction of a new terminal building and associated apron, access
roads, and parking facilities. The second phase of the project will be the paving of the
new facility, which will begin in the late spring of 1998.
Scott's creek, which runs through the middle of the project will be relocated to the
west of its current location and conveyed through a double 10 ft x 5 ft reinforced box
culvert under the new apron. The Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) for the
revision of the Floodway Map, was submitted to FEMA (via the Craven County Planning
Director) on July 22, 1997. The phased construction of this channel relocation will be
such that the new channel will be in place and vegetation established prior to the
diverting of stream flow. The lining to be used for the relocated channel will be grass
with either Pickerelweed or Arrowhead planted on the outside banks of the meanders to
provide bank stability and shading. Rip rap will be provided at the inlet and outlet of the
culvert to dissipate energy of the flow and reduce erosion.
Member of THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED
ATLANTA, GA • AUSTIN, TX • CHARLESTON. SC • CHICAGO IL • COLUMBIA, SC • GREENSBORO, NC w ISNOXVILLE TN • MOBILE AL
MYRTLE BEACH, SC 0 PHILADELPHIA, PA • RALEIGH, NC 0 TALLAHASSEE FL • TAMPA. FL

August 8, 1997
Page 2
A permanent wet retention pond with an adjacent temporary detention basin has
been planned for this development to control erosion and sedimentation during
construction, as well as, provide stormwater management after construction is
complete. The accumulated sediment will be removed from the basins during and after
construction to maintain the capacity of the basins. Following the completion of the
project, the Airport will have regularly scheduled maintenance of the basins, principal
and emergency spillways. These devices will be maintenanced on a yearly basis. The
stormwater drainage pipe system has been designed to convey the majority of the
runoff from impervious areas to the basins for stormwater management and water
quality purposes.
If you should have any questions during your review, please do not hesitate to
give me a call.
Sincerely,
THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED
Scott A. Yarley P
Project Engine r
Enclosures/
Cc: John H. Price, Jr., Airport Director
John Dorney, NC Dept. of EHNR
.. .,
DEM ID: CORPS ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT n):
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL.MANAGe. NT
SEND THE ORIGINAL, AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SF.EET). SEVEN
(7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENT?, IMAINAGE2MENT
(SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAZM E : (__Z?UL?
2. MAILING ADDRESS: SUBDIVISION NA-MIE:
CITY: Hew BaV STATE; ZIP CODE: Z8SCa0
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NALE (IF DIF_ERENT _RCM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE) : GtRAV?I?f &L)H'r-`r 4,
3. TELEPHONE NUM37-R (HCME) . (WoRiC) . t 19 - 6 's- B3 5q/
4.- IF APPLICABLE. .GENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OF F! CI:17', ADDRESS,
PHONE NUMBER:
_Vo , i cxz.
121 j? FCTO SZ
LCC._^ION OF wGRX (PROVIDE A i'L=?, 2REFER..?3I,Y ? COPY C iSCj ^_CCCa?--'IC
MAP OR AERIAL P CTOGR;._2 :Y 7Tt' SC?- S) 1 '
COUNTY: E4 0njlWY y NEAREST T0WN OR CITY: -E)F_
1

PECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD
NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.): L(xA'C?? ?T .744 ?:7 A .= leo
o? -A ( 2T '1-1 ?Q- -n4,- 1 cam- ON n(-
Q 5 _70 AMi-\ \, I l--lASS --pC),t
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST . STREAM/RIVER:
RIVER BASIN:
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAT, SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW)i OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW)
WAT=R
SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [ ] ,
NO D< IF YES, EXPLA_N:
7b. IS THE PROJECT LCCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COAST=`,
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC) ? YES ( ] NO rx
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNA7ION?
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE'-ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES N NO ( ) IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY O_ ? 40?
_ _ _
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN TiiE
FUTURE? YES [ ] NO p] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
°a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: 4 z
5b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT SIT E•
z
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: D.I95 EXCAVATION:
FLOODING:
OTHER:
DRAINAGE: . TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 0- 13
1Ob. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION)
LENGTH BEFORE: 1100 FT AFTER: FT
i
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): ?D } FT
WIDTH AFTER: V,421e75 FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: FT AFTER: I - Z i- FT
(2) STRFA1`4 CHAINNEL IMPa:CTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK PT ,L T:: _T APPTY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: ? PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CH;U NEL• V_
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER:
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, W4.AT IS THE S=ZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND?
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA? -0.4A1- &40- ?TEWTJa N? D geG CT?or?r
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X DR"'-WINGS
ONLY) :
C'C14-S-rP?r ? Injd c,E ,A k- - L- r*-f r r raZ?ot I u/ (-T-+4 A :D DRc E:
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: _ lAMST20CTiOR OF

3

14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS) : -RE( L--)r 'Tlr a. I . ?'T?a 1 ? tom- ?ZTIO1-? n F
'?C'DTC1? ?_?g1L ?4A-7:;' j3r-? "FA61GALL, r >? e -tt7
-1`( -GAG: e2p12?5 017
? N ? ? MEEIZS
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
(USFWS) AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENCY
ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR
PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL HABITAT
IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT. DATE
CONTACTED: 5113 l q (o (ATTACH RESPONSES
FROM THESE AGENCIES.)
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFT-C7R
(SHPO) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC
PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED
PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED: l/a/g( 'o
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FONDS OR THE USE OF
PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES X NO (] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT?
YES 'K NO ( ]
b. IF YES, r=kS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES r NO ( ]
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEII-RINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
4
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21, 26,
29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE PROPERTY
MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS 50 FEET OR 1
INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WtTLP.NDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY?
up rt7-N U T u 5 6: P X1-(6
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.'
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
-1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TFv7ENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY) , A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEI-f?NT
PROGRAM.
0 S4GU RE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
?- ( - cr 'I
DATE
5
00
0 100 200 2
ME*
;/
// 1 1

/%//
R
( I ij

1
E J
TH
LPA
C1F?OUP
THE LPA C OIF of North Caroms, p-
T7 WA'OIRATION COIALTAMI!
P.O. So, 17736
Ro.;O. North Carolina 27619

11?
1
/ r
/ 7E
--
vt,
,
. 1
- - - ---------
o/
/
1
r i
itf
8/5/97
SKETCH No.
1

\\\\ \``\"d\.
- 1 11 .u

- - - - --- - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
li\11,\ql I -? /?
1 X111
' ' ?
/ .
'
I 1 1111
1 \ / .
?

r rl `

50
------------
--------------- --------
-------------- - --
- - - - - - - - - -
- -

'a
.8
04-17-96
NUKiH CARLLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NCRTH CAROLINA 276038003
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
MAILED TO: FROM:
FAA-ATLANTA AIRPORTS DIST OFF MRS. CHRYS BAGGETT
TERRY WASHINGTON _ DIRECTOR
1701 COLUMBIA AVE, STE 2-260 N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
COLLEGE PARK, GA 30337-2747
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
PRELIM. ErlV. ASSESS. - PROPOSED TERMINAL AREA EXPANSION AT THE
CRAVEN COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT
SAI NO 96E000005-92 PROGRAM TITLE - PRELIM. ENV. ASSESS.
THE A30VE PROJECT HAS SEENI SU3yITTED TO THE !FORTH CAROLINA
TNTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
SU?'MITTED_ ( ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
( X) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone].
C.C. REGION P
The LPA GROUP of N.C.
;c

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources i
Division of Environmental Manage lent
James B. Hunt. Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary I
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director;
i
A f aril 9, 1996
MEMORANDUM l
To: Melba McGee i
ft *7v?A?
E D F-= F
From:
Subject: EA Eric fcr C Galam
Craven County Airport Terminal Area Expansion
Craven County i
EHNR r 96-0592, DEM #I 11208
The subject document has been revie,?ed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Manager ent (DEM) Is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401
Water Quality Certification for activiMct ) which impact waters of the state including
wetlands. The subject project will 0.13 acres of wetlands and 150 linear feet
of waters. The followina comments are based on the document review and should be
addressed in the FONS I:
A) There is no discussion of costs associated with the alternatives. DEM may be
able'to support an alternative that impacts more wetlands if the wetland quality
is known coupled with costs.
Through: John Dorn V
cc: Mike Bell, Washincto, .. (-'AOE
Monica Swihart
Charles Jones, DCM
Bradley Bennett
B) An approved storr~water plan will be required. Wet detention ponds or similar
structures may be incorporated into the plan. if carefully designed and
maintained, the pond with a large littoral shelf should replace the aquatic life
uses of the stream.
DOT is reminded that the 401 Certification could be denied unless water quality
concerns are satisfied. Questions reg rding the 401 Certification should be directed to
Eric Galamb (733-`786) 'n DEM's Watr Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
cravenap.ea
F.O. Box 29535, Rcleiph. Norte Carolina 27526-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Ec:,al CR=,criur:ity A°-.--rive Actio- E- z? loyer bC°b recycled/ 1C% post conx)rner Paper

.?.VI7W DISTRIBUTION
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
r
STATE NUMBER 96-E-0000-0592
! ,F AGRICULTURE
'. r CUL RESOURCES
'T uF E H N R
'7 OF TRANSPORTATION
OF COAST =MANAGEMENT-EHNR
`T OF CCEPS - HFP
?TE PLANNING REGIGN P
DATE RECEIVED
F03
03 14 96
STATE AGENCY RESPONSE DUE 04 12 96
LOCAL RESPONSE DUE
REVIEW CLOSED
Opt 11 96
04 14 96
der--. ?' F ? 3??y`
:CT
'r:1 L: FAA-ATLANTA AIRPORTS FIST OFF
-.A 00i,` 12G02
P?•7 :1. ENV- ASSESS. - PROPOSED TERMINAL AREA EXPANSIOIN AT THE
CL Av 11 COUNTY REGIC,:AL AIRPORT
-nc•Fc?:ct:CE NJt1Bci?.
ZzVI`W THE ATTACHE-D PROjE:CT. SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE BY THE ABOVE INDICATED
),:? , i= ADDI; I:3NAL REVIEW TIME IS NEEDED CONTACT THIS Gr=FICE-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ZS A R=CULT F THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED
(v (--14 0 COMMENT
( ) C ?l;;cid 1 .i A T T AChct7
3i3HED 3Y
RECEIVED
MAR25
N.C. ST ATE CLEARINGHOUSE
1-1 7
J
2 0 MAR 1090
DIVISION OF FNVIRONNENTAL JNI A.NA
Air Quality Section
March 26, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Environmental Assessment Section
From Alan Klimek, Chief
Subject Project No. 96-0592
Environmental Assessment
Terminal Area F Tension
The Craven County Regional Airport Authority
Craven County, North Carolina
The environmental assessment has been reviewed by the Air Quality Section. The described project
does not require an air permit per regulation NCAC 15A 2D.080-4 "Airport Facilities." However, if
the proposed project includes any e q)ansion to an e?istinQ parking lot or construction of a new
parking lot, a permit may be required per 2D .0805 "Parking Facilities." This is generally not required
if the total number of parking spaces is less than 1,500.
Should you require further information, please contact Tom Anderson at [phone].
c: Lesley Biller
Tom Anderson
craven.ea
J
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
T0: Mr. I +n4S glak????
04 &Z 114ki P 6L.
e C, 8 cx 1'7,7-3(,
RCL t 2,?,/, , &) C C9 7 c? r
Thank you or your letter requesting information or recommendations from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This form provides the Service's response
pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
Re: L_YUV r^ LCrY

Cxazr7si
Project A;amGLoc?&tion/Coup
Date 'of Incoming _etcer
Log Number
The attached page(s) list(s) the Federally-listed species which
may occur within the project area.
Based on the information provided, it appears that your project site
does not contain suitable habitat for anv Federally-listed
endangered or threatened species known to occur in the area.4;e
believe that the requirements of Section 7 of the Act have been
satisfied. We remind you that obligations under, Section 7
consultation must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals
impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or
critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this
action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered
in this review; (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat
determined that may be affected by the identified action.
.Lf the proposed project will be removing pines greater than or equal
to 30 years of age in pine or pine/hardwood habitat, surveys should
be conducted for active red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees in
appropriate habitat within a 1/2 mile radius of project boundaries.
If red-cockaded woodpeckers are observed within the project area or
active cavity trees found, the project has the potential to affect
the red-cockaded woodpecker, and you should contact this office for
further information.
,l
.1, ?'' i/4-
Date ?{ Endangered Species Coordinator Date
Biologist &W,
i
Clayton, N.C.
March 25, 1996
MEINIORAtNDUM
TO: Melba MCG--, Office of Leg. Affairs
FROM: Don H. Robbins, Staff Forester ?/\
SUBJECT: LPA EA for Terminal Area Expansion for the Craven County Regional Airport Authority
PROJECT: r 96-0592 and 93-0044
DUE DATE: 4-4-96
We have reviewed the above subject document and have the following comments:
1. We have no problems w uh their need and purpose for the expansion.
2. We understand their reasoning and have no problems with Quadrant AItematives `I, H and III being
turned down and not being considered anv further.
3. We would not favor the Relocate Airport Alternative.
4. We have no problem with the Quadrant -""IV Section being considered in depth for the proposed
expansion. We do have further comments below on the four Alternative Concept location sites.
5. We are defuiitely not in favor of Alternative Concept sites 'r 1, 2 and 3 for the following reasons -
a. Then will eit^.er impact directly or indirectly our NCFS Fire Retardant Tanker Base. We have
had to move in the past and do not want to move again. We presently have an excellent
functioning site for our fire suppression aircraft to work out of.
b. Higher wetland impacts.
C. Higher woodland impacts.
d. Higher people impacts.
e. Requires more land to be purchased.
6. We could accept their Preferred Alternative Concept IV site, so long as it would not now or in the fixture
affect our NCFS Fire Retardant Tanker Base or our operations at the Base. We are concerned that
congestion and traffic problems may develop in the future on Clermont Road which is our access road
to our base. We would hope that this problem does not develop.
7. Woodland. Open Burning and Land Clearing - Their page number 3-3 indicates the following,
"It is unlikely that any merchantable timber is present. Care will be taken to protect the remaining
standing trees from equipment damage, including petroleum spills. Given the nature of the project, all
trees will be removed from a generally mctangilar area which will allow equipment movement,
minirnizing damage to trees which will not be cut. All open burning will be subject to North Carolina
Regulation Number 15 , CAG 2D.0520."
Our response to the above -
a. If any merchantable trees are present, we would encourage salvage for forest products to include
pulpwood, chips, sawtimber and mulch.
b. Craven County is a High Hazard County and G.S. 113-60.23 does apply here, if any land
clearing and open burning are attempted on more than five contiguous acres and long windrows
or round piles are going to be burned. A special permit is required from our local county
forestry people. The provisions of G. S. 113-60.23 is as follows -
i ?
Page 2
"113-60.23. High hazard counties: permits required. standards.
(a) The provisions of this section apply only to the counties of Beaufort, Bladen, Camden,
Carteret, Chowan_ Craven, Currituck, Dare, Duplin, Gates, Hyde, Jones, Onslow,
Pamlico, Pasquotanl-, Perquimans, Tyrrell, and Washington which are classified as
high hazard counties in accordance G.S. 113-60.21.
(b) It is unlawful for any person to willfully start or cause to be started any fire in any
woodland under the protection of the Department or within 500 feet of any such
woodland without first having obtained a permit from the Department. Permits for
starting fires may be obtained from Forest Rangers or other agents authorized by the
County Forest Ranger to issue such permits in the county in which the fire is to be
started Such permits shall be issued by the ranger or other agent unless permits for the
area in question have been prohibited or cancelled in accordance with G.S. 113-60.25
or 113-60.27.
(c) It is unlawful for any person to willfully burn any debris, stumps, brush or other
flammable materials resulting from ground clearing activities and involving more than
five contiguous acres, regardless of the proximity of the burning to woodland and on
which such materials are placed in piles or windrows without first having obtained a
special permit from the Department. Areas less thanfive acres in size will require a
regular permit in accordance with G.S. 113-60.23(b).
(1) Prevailing winds at the time of ignition must be away from any city, town,
development, major highway, or other populated areas, the ambient air of
which may be significantly affected by smoke, fly ash, or other air
contaminates from the burning.
(2) The location of the burning must be at least 1,000 feet from any dwelLng or
structure located in a predominately residential area other than a dwelling or
structure located on the property on which the burning is conducted unless
permission is granted by the occupants.
(3) The amount of dirt or organic soil on or in the material to be burned must be
minimized and the material arranged in a ,vav suitable to facilitate rapid
burning.
(4) Burning mav not be initiated when it is determined by a Forest Ranger, based
on information supplied by a competent authority that stagnant air conditions
or inversions exist or that such conditions may occur during the duration of the
burn.
(5) Heavy oils, asphaltic material, or items containing natural or synthetic rubber
may not be used to ignite the material to be burned or to promote the burning
of such material.
(6) Initial burning may be commenced only between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and
3:00 P.M. and no combustible material may be added to the fire between 3:00
P.M. on one day and 9:00 A.M. on the following day, except that when
favorable meteorological conditions exist, any. Forest Ranger authorized to
issue the permit may authorize in writing a deviation from the restrictions."
C. We have had problems in the past with land clearing contractors not being aware of this General
Statue and many problems can develop here.
PC: Derryl Walden, John Shepherd. iviike Thompson, David Jarman, Warren Boyette - CO
Ralph Cullom, John Morris. Bill Palmer - D4
James R Hines - Craven Count,;
File r
A/ -3&83'30-.
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS E 31L19oo
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action I.D. County ( ??
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property
Address
Telephone No. ( q _ 7 <4 -z,
Size and Location of project (waterbody, road name/number, town, etc.) 75 I`
LQ -n d- vi 0 44L, ' ?_/f _/?
Description of Activity
-till "Jen"J
I -
Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344) only.
Section 10 (River and Harbor Act of 1899) only.
Section 404 and Section 10.
ti t11 0 Z(:Regional General Permit or Nationwide Permit Number.
Any violation of the conditions of the Regional General or Nationwide Permit referenced above may subject the
permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order, and/or appropriate legal action.
This Department of the Army Regional General/Nationwide Permit verification does not relieve the undersigned
permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other required Federal, State, or local approvals/permits. The permittee
may need to contact appropriate State and local agencies before beginning work.
By signature below, the permittee certifies an understanding and acceptance of all terms and conditions of this
permit.
Property Owner/Authorized Agent Sig
Regulatory Project Manager Signature
q?z
Date 130
SURVEY PLATS, FIELD SKETCH, WETLAND DELINEATION FORM, ETC., MUST BE ATTACHED TO
THE YELLOW (FILE) COPY OF THIS FORM, IF REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE.
wti {e/& of ,e u.5.
CESAW Form $91
Doc 1993
r-xpiration Date_ 1 1411 cf

Campus Building
all
Atlanta Airports District Office 1701 CDlumbia Avenue, Suite 2-260 I
u.S. Deporfmenf College Park. Georgia 30337-2747
f _)f Transportation Tel:[phone]: FAX:[phone]
i federal Aviation
Administration
July 25, 1996
Mr. John Price
Airport Director
Craven County Regional Airport
post office Box 3258
New Bern, North Carolina 28564
Dear Mr. Price:
the July 5 and 15 letters of Thomas Blakeney, The LPA Group, Inc.,
This responds to our behalf, that the
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Mr. Blakeney has requested, be categorically excluded na, new air carrier terminal project at n uonmental ass ssCaro ment (EA).
from the requirements of a formal
ewin the preliminary EA with comments from other agencies, the Federal
After revs g
Aviation Administration concurs with Mr. Blakeney's he determination and finds the new
t A exc
of FAA
from air carrier terminal project c18 g199611yis inlaccordan e with paragraph 23(x)(4)
Order This finding, 5050.4A , " made AironeortlEnvironmental Handbook."
If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,

Terry R. Washington, P.E.
Program Manager
cc: /
Mr. Thomas Blakeney
Mr. Frank Newton, III
NC Department of Transportation

THE LPA GROUP of North Carolina, p.a.
Transportation Consultants
4904 Professional Court, Suite 201
Post Office Box 17736
Raleigh, North Carolina 27619
[phone]
FAX [phone]
September 11, 1997
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Environmental Management
NC. Dept. of EHNR
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Re: Terminal Area Site Preparation
Craven County Regional Airport
New Bern, N.C.
Dear Sir:
T,19
9`SC/S
Enclosed is a partial set of plans for the above referenced project for your use.
This plan set shows the proposed grading for the entire project, as well as, the
relocation of Scott's Creek. In reference to your letter of September 4, 1997, to Mr. John
Price, Director of the Craven County Airport, we are submitting these plans for your
approval of the proposed stream relocation, as well as, to respond to other concerns
stated in your letter.
During the course of the design of this project, we met with representatives from
the Washington Regional Office of NCDEHNR (Bill Moore and Debra Sawyer) several
times to discuss various issues concerning water quality and stormwater management.
As a result of these discussions, several items were incorporated to-the plans as
requested by the regional office. They are as follows:
• A permanent wet detention pond was added to the plans to address the
concerns of the Stormwater Management Section. Basically, the design has
been such to convey runoff to the wet detention pond to allow sediment to
settle out of the runoff before being released into Scotts Creek.
Member of THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED
ATLANTA, GA • AUSTIN, TX • CHARLESTON, SC . CHICAGO, IL . COLUMBIA, SC • GREENSBORO, NC • KNOXVILLE, TN * MOBILE, AL
MYRTLE BEACH, SC • PHILADELPHIA, PA • RALEIGH, NC 9 TALLAHASSEE, FL 9 TAMPA, FL

Mr. John Dorney,
September 11, 1997
Page 2

The proposed relocation of Scotts Creek has incorporated Pickerelweed
and/or Arrowhead to be planted on the outside meanders of the channel
alignment to reduce erosion and provide shading. Every effort has been made
to reduce the amount of rip rap in the channel. However, due to the hydraulics
of the culvert, rip rap has been added to the inlet and outlet of the box culvert
to minimize erosion and scour.
• Every effort has been made to provide the required vegetative buffer along
the channel relocation. There will only be a few places where it will be less tI
than 50 feet due to the geometry of the site. (e.g. Taxiway crossing)
• The Stormwater Management Permit Application was submitted to the
Washington Regional Office in early August and is currently under review. As
09" stated above, this plan incorporates the use of a wet detention pond, as well
as, an adjacent detention pond. In effect, stormwater runoff from this project
will be conveyed through both of these ponds before being released into
Scott's Creek.
We hope that this addresses your concerns stated in your September 4, 1997 letter. If
needed, we are available to meet with you in person at your office to discuss any
additional concerns that you have. If you have any questions or comments, please feel
free to give me a call.
Sincerely,
THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED
Scott A. Yarle P L?
Y
Project Engineer
C1aQUVY e

THE LPA GROUP of North Corolina, p.a.
Transportation Consultants
4904 Professional Court, Suite 201
Post Office Box 17736
Raleigh, North Carolina 27619
[phone]
FAX [phone]
September 11, 1997
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Environmental Management
NC. Dept. of EHNR
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Re: Terminal Area Site Preparation
Craven County Regional Airport
New Bern, N.C.
Dear Sir:
Srp > > j =
/p?'?l???r 99l
4
C?S
Enclosed is a partial set of plans for the above referenced project for your use.
This plan set shows the proposed grading for the entire project, as well as, the
relocation of Scott's Creek. In reference to your letter of September 4, 1997, to Mr. John
Price, Director of the Craven County Airport, we are submitting these plans for your
approval of the proposed stream relocation, as well as, to respond to other concerns
stated in your letter.
During the course of the design of this project, we met with representatives from
the Washington Regional Office of NCDEHNR (Bill Moore and Debra Sawyer) several
times to discuss various issues concerning water quality and stormwater management.
As a result of these discussions, several items were incorporated to the plans as
requested by the regional office. They are as follows:
• A permanent wet detention pond was added to the plans to address the
concerns of the Stormwater Management Section. Basically, the design has
been such to convey runoff to the wet detention pond to allow sediment to
settle out of the runoff before being released into Scotts Creek.
ember of THE LPA GROUP INCORPO .-JED
• AUSTIN. TX • Cn.Af++.___ SC • CHICAGO I • CI • GR.c!t, N • ?<<Gi:.._-- ir: • .
03 i_G
_. AL
MYRTLE 3EAC - • PHILADELPHIA PA 0 RALEIG' N:- 6 T;-._L,:'-A5SEE • TA""' _

Mr. John Dorney,
September 11, 1997
Page 2
• The proposed relocation of Scotts Creek has incorporated Pickerelweed
and/or Arrowhead to be planted on the outside meanders of the channel
alignment to reduce erosion and provide shading. Every effort has been made
to reduce the amount of rip rap in the channel. However, due to the hydraulics)
of the culvert, rip rap has been added to the inlet and outlet of the box culvert
to minimize erosion and scour.
• Every effort has been made to provide the required vegetative buffer along
the channel relocation. There will only be a few places where it will be less A.
than 50 feet due to the geometry of the site. (e.g. Taxiway crossing)
• The Stormwater Management Permit Application was submitted to the
Washington Regional Office in early August and is currently under review. As
L stated above, this plan incorporates the use of a wet detention pond, as well
? as, an adjacent detention pond. In effect, stormwater runoff from this project
941 will be conveyed through both of these ponds before being released into
Scott's Creek.
We hope that this addresses your concerns stated in your September 4, 1997 letter. If
needed, we are available to meet with you in person at your office to discuss any
additional concerns that you have. If you have any questions or comments, please feel
free to give me a call.
Sincerely,
THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED
Scott A. Yarley P I
Project Engineer
U3CLPU
'0'?J '
bqw*"-
'
THE LPA GROUP of North Carolina, p.o.
Transportation Consultants
4904 Professional Court, Suite 201 %cev'
Post Office Box 17736
Raleigh, North Carolina 27619 SEP2-;t 1997
[phone] ENV1R0A1%1vTg4SC Fs
FAX [phone]
September 23, 1997
Mr. E. R. Lewis
E. R. Lewis Construction Company, Inc.
P. O. Box 565
Greenville, N. C. 27835
Re: Craven County Regional Airport
Terminal Area Site Preparation
FAA AIP # 3-37-0050-14
Dear Harvey:

A Pre-Construction Conference has been scheduled for the above referenced project for
Tuesday, September 30, 1997 at 10:00 AM in the Airport Authority Conference Room. You will
need to have all key project personnel as well as any major subcontractors present. Please be
prepared to discuss your schedule. The schedule should be based on a Notice to Proceed date of
October 6, 1997.
Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
THE LPA GROUP of North Carolina, p.a.
JAMES C. FARTHING
Construction Manager
cc: Mr. John Price, Craven County Airport
Mr. Terry Washington, FAA
Mr. Patrick H. McClain, NCDEHNR-Land Quality
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR-Water Quality
Mr. Bill Biddlecome, USCOE
Mr. William J. Moore, NCDEHNR-Water Quality
Mr. Jim Dunham, The LPA Group
Member of THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED
ATLANTA, GA • AUSTIN, TX • CHARLESTON, SC • CHICAGO, IL • COLUMBIA, SC • GREENSBORO, NC s KNOXVILLE, TN • MOBILE, AL
MYRTLE BEACH, SC 0 PHILADELPHIA, PA • RALEIGH, NC e TALLAHASSEE, FL 0 TAMPA, FL
AUG 29 '97 10:52AM EHNR-PUBLIC AFFAIRS
North Carolina
Department of iMi istratlon
James B. Hans Jr., GaftnV r
August 27, 1997
P.2/2
Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
TO: Melba McGee,,NCDERNR
FRONT: Chrys BaggetP, State Clearinghouse
2E: SCH File #96-E-0562; Craven County Regional Airport Terminal
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
The above referenced environmental document was circulated for intergovernmental
review on Maareh 14, 1996. The Federal Aviation Administration on July 18, 1996 (see
attached) declared that this document is categorically excluded from the requirements of a
formal Environmental Assessment. Since this document has now been deemed
categorically excluded a Finding of No Significiant Impact (FONSI) will not be prepared
and the review process is now complete for this proposal.
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
/jf
Attachment

116 West Jortz Street * Raleigh, North Carolina 27W3-8003 * Telephone [phone]
State Courier 514)1-00
An Egppl Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
d?b
AUG 29 '97 10:51AM EHNR•PUBLIC AFFAIRS P.1/2
r'- w
LEGISLATIVE &
INTERGO?ERN1BENT, L
AMIRM
.14TH FLOOR ARCIYDALE BUILDING
,Suites 1419 A-E
S12 N. Salisbury Street
RALEIGHp NC 27604
[phone]
[phone]
.8 ? &
FR
FAX TRANSMISSxON COVER SHEET
Date: ? t 7
To: J-0 V, ID G r rigj
Re.
Sender. t r ix.-1 1 ? GA-
i
YOUSHOULD RECEIVE ( ACES), ,INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET.
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE .PAGES, PLEASE CALL 919 715-4148
?i•- 21-97 03'!29P THE LPA GROUP 954 134 P_01
THE LPA GROUP
FAX [phone]
Total Number of Pages Transmitted
S
8/zz/v? ? Meru
off, Ld??
(Including Cover Sheet)
TO: Ta n _ • QQ n ey DATE: ifZ21'1q'7
COMPANY: fort a ll?gt?. FAX #: ql9 733 -7711
'v?a
FROM:
REMARKS:
per Your KP4U?5 r
t _ .r r it
1? Pre /J,<.- nn+/ aj)"-< a»l nlpe e e The inf nparion in rhis me.wigc is intended tnr hhe use of the individual named above only. if you have receivtxl this crimmunicalion in a:rior,

plcasx, nntify the "nder immediately by telephone. Thank you-
THE, LPA GROUP INCORPONA;lED
4904 Professional Count, Suite 201
Post Office Box 17736
Raleigh, NC 27619
[phone]
Aug-21-97 03t20P THE EPA GROUP
THE LPA GROUP of North Carolina, p.a.
Transportation Consultants
4904 Profcssionol Court, Suite 201
Post Office Box 17736
Raleigh. North Carolina 27619
[phone]
FAX [phone]
August 21, 1997
Mr. John R, Dorney
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27828-0535
Re, 401 Water Quality Certification
Craven County Regional Airport
DWQ #970706
Dear Mr. Dorney:
0-
O n behalf of the Craven County Regional Airport, this letter is to confirm that a
Categorical Exclusion finding for the new air carrier terminal project was issued by the Federal
Aviation Administration, Atlanta Airports [district Office on July 25, 1995 (see attachment). Even
though the project will fill only 0.13 acres of wetlands a 404 Permit was still issued on April 30,
1996. Additional design details and water quality adjustments, worked out in cooperation with
the Water Quality Washington, North Carolina, field office, are included in the accompanying
letter.
I trust this additional information will satisfy the questions expressed by your August 18,
1997, letter to Mr, John Price, Craven County Airport Authority. If these accommodations are
satisfactory, we request that you notify the Corps of Engineers offices of you concurrence. If
there are any questions, please advise.
Sincerely,
The LPA GROUP of North Carolina, p.a.
Thomas L. Blakanay
Senior Planner
TLBlpcj
cc: John Price
Member of THE LPA GRC)UP INCORPORAILD
919 954 1345 P_02
ATLANTA 6A + AIJ51I1N. rX + C:HARI FaTLA S(: • CJ CAGC1, IL + C01,064611A. SC 0 C:REEN500N,) N, 0 KPJC.;N:Li E TFJ AL
MYRILE TEACH, 5C + PHILAW PHIA, PA w RALLK.7H. NC 0 TALLAHASSEE FL & T.-%MPA. FL
& Aug-21-07 03:20P THE LPA GROUP
?W.?
U.& Department
of 7ranWortallon
Federal Aviation
AdminMrotion
919 954 1345 P-03
Atlanta Airports District Office
Campus Building
1701 Columbia Avenue, Suite 2.200
College Park, Georgia 30337-2747
Tel:[phone]; FRX;40413054155
July 25, 1996
Mr. John Price
Airport Director
Craven County Regional Airport
Post Office Box 3258
New Bern, North Carolina 28564
Dear Mr. Price:
This responds to the July 5 and 15 letters of Thomas Blakeney, The LPA Group, Inc.,
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Mr. Blakeney has requested, on your behalf, that the
new air carrier terminal project at New Bern, North Carolina, be categorically excluded
from the requirements of a formal environmental assessment (EA).
After reviewing the preliminary EA with comments from other agencies, the Federal
Aviation Administration concurs with Mr. Blakeney's determination and finds the new
air carrier terminal project categorically excluded from the requirements of a formal EA.
This finding, made on July 18, 1996, is in accordance with paragraph 23(a)(4) of FAA
Order 5050.4A, "Airport Environmental Handbook."
If we can he of further assistance. please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,

Terry R. Washington, P.R.
Program Manager
cc:
Mr. Thomas Blakeney .?
Mr. Frank Newton, 1H
NC Department of Transportation
l
Aug-21-97 03:29P THE EPA GROUP
THE LPA GROUP of North Carolino, p.a.
Tronsporration Consulronts
4904 Professional Court, Suite 201
Posr Office Box 17736
Raleigh, North Corolina 27619
(919.) 954-1244
FAX [phone]
August 21, 1997
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Environmental Management
NC. Dept. of EHNR
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Re: Terminal Area Site Preparation
Graven County Regional Airport
New Bern, N.C.
Dear Sir:
LPPA
Per conversations with Tom Blakeney of this office, I am writing to explain the
various steps that we have taken to ensure that the proper regulations and procedures
have been met in regards to water quality and stormwater management for the above
referenced project.
At the initial phases of this project, we arranged on-site mootings with Ms. Debra
Sawyer and Mr. Bill Moore of the Washington Regional office of NCDEHNR. We
discussed the stormwater management and water quality issues during these meetings.
In regards to the stormwater management issues, we have designed two
detention ponds, in series, to collect runoff from the impervious areas. The first pond is
a wet detention pond that will permanently store a portion of the runoff. Any excess
runoff volume will spill over into the dry detention pond. The dry detention pond will then
provide temporary storage of the runoff and release it over a period of two to three days.
This system should remove a high percentage of the sediment from the runoff.
The channel relocation has been designed according to the "Slream
Relocation/Channelization Guidelines" distributed by the NCOEHNR. (We obtained this
copy from Ms. Debra Sawyer). Channel plantings have been incorporated in the design
to replace the shading qualities in the stream. The choice of Pickerelweed and
Arrowhead was used because it is native to the area-
Mernoer Or TI IF I-PA GROUP INCORPORATED
919 954 1345 P-04
AV ANTA. GA 0 AUSTIN, 'X • CHARLESTON SC • C t IICAGO, IL • CC?IINDIA, 5C 9 GRFEN500RO. NC 0 KNOXVILLE. IN • AL
MYRTLE BEACH. SC 0 PHILADFI N IIA. PA 0 RAI'If?FI. NC 0 TAI LAr IA5`:cf rl 9 WAPA FL
,. Aug-21-97 03:30P THE LPA GROUP 919 954 1345 P_05
August 21, 1997
Page 2
The stormwater management application was submitted to the Washington
Regional office on August 8, 1997.
If you should have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to give me
a call,
Sincerely,
THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED
Scott A, Yarley P
Project Engineer
Awl
THE LPA GROUP of North Carolina, p.o.
Transportation Consultants
4904 Professional Court, Suite 201
Post Office Box 17736
Raleigh, North Carolina 27619
[phone]
FAX [phone]
5 1997
-'WRoNra?N??L

August 21, 1997
Mr. John R. Dorney
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27828-0535
Re: 401 Water Quality Certification
Craven County Regional Airport
DWQ #970708
Dear Mr. Dorney:
On behalf of the Craven County Regional Airport, this letter is to confirm that a
Categorical Exclusion finding for the new air carrier terminal project was issued by the Federal
Aviation Administration, Atlanta Airports District Office on July 25, 1996 (see attachment). Even
though the project will fill only 0.13 acres of wetlands a 404 Permit was still issued on April 30,
1996. Additional design details and water quality adjustments, worked out in cooperation with
the Water Quality Washington, North Carolina, field office, are included in the accompanying
letter.
I trust this additional information will satisfy the questions expressed by your August 18,
1997, letter to Mr. John Price, Craven County Airport Authority. If these accommodations are
satisfactory, we request that you notify the Corps of Engineers offices of you concurrence. If
there are any questions, please advise.
Sincerely,
The LPA GROUP of North Carolina, p.a.
A.1
Thomas L. Blakeney
Senior Planner
TLB/pcj
cc: John Price
Member of THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED
ATLANTA, GA • AUSTIN, TX • CHARLESTON, SC • CHICAGO, IL • COLUMBIA, 5C • GREENSBORO, NC • KNOXVILLE, TN • MOBILE, AL
MYRTLE BEACH, SC • PHILADELPHIA, PA • RALEIGH, NC 0 TALLAHASSEE, FL 9 TAMPA, FL
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
July 25, 1996
Atlanta Airports District Office
Mr. John Price
Airport Director
Craven County Regional Airport
Post Office Box 3258
New Bern, North Carolina 28564
Dear Mr. Price:
Campus Building
1701 Columbia Avenue, Suite 2-260
College Park, Georgia 30337-2747
Tel:[phone]; FAX:[phone]
This responds to the July 5 and 15 letters of Thomas Blakeney, The LPA Group, Inc.,
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Mr. Blakeney has requested, on your behalf, that the
new air carrier terminal project at New Bern, North Carolina, be categorically excluded
from the requirements of a formal environmental assessment (EA).
After reviewing the preliminary EA with comments from other agencies, the Federal
Aviation Administration concurs with Mr. Blakeney's determination and finds the new
air carrier terminal project categorically excluded from the requirements of a formal EA.
This finding, made on July 18, 1996, is in accordance with paragraph 23(a)(4) of FAA
Order 5050.4A, "Airport Environmental Handbook."
If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,

Terry R. Washington, P.E.
Program Manager
cc:
Mr. Thomas Blakeney
Mr. Frank Newton, III
NC Department of Transportation
THE LPA GROUP of North Carolina, p.a.
Transportation Consultants
4904 Professional Court, Suite 201
Post Office Box 17736
Raleigh, North Carolina 27619
[phone]
FAX [phone]
August 21, 1997
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Environmental Management
NC. Dept. of EHNR
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Re: Terminal Area Site Preparation
Craven County Regional Airport
New Bern, N.C.
Dear Sir:

Per conversations with Tom Blakeney of this office, I am writing to explain the
various steps that we have taken to ensure that the proper regulations and procedures
have been met in regards to water quality and stormwater management for the above
referenced project.
At the initial phases of this project, we arranged on-site meetings with Ms. Debra
Sawyer and Mr. Bill Moore of the Washington Regional office of NCDEHNR. We
discussed the stormwater management and water quality issues during these meetings.
In regards to the stormwater management issues, we have designed two
detention ponds, in series, to collect runoff from the impervious areas. The first pond is
a wet detention pond that will permanently store a portion of the runoff. Any excess
runoff volume will spill over into the dry detention pond. The dry detention pond will then
provide temporary storage of the runoff and release it over a period of two to three days.
This system should remove a high percentage of the sediment from the runoff.
The channel relocation has been designed according to the "Stream
Relocation/Channelization Guidelines" distributed by the NCDEHNR. (We obtained this
copy from Ms. Debra Sawyer). Channel plantings have been incorporated in the design
to replace the shading qualities in the stream. The choice of Pickerelweed and
Arrowhead was used because it is native to the area.
Member of THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED
ATLANTA, GA • AUSTIN, TX • CHARLESTON, SC • CHICAGO, IL • COLUMBIA, SC • GREENSBORO, NC • KNOXVILLE, TN • MOBILE, AL
MYRTLE BEACH, SC 0 PHILADELPHIA, PA 9 RALEIGH, NC 9 TALLAHASSEE, FL 0 TAMPA, FL
4- --. . 6
August 21, 1997
Page 2
The stormwater management application was submitted to the Washington
Regional office on August 8, 1997.
a call.
If you should have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to give me
Sincerely,
THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED
&04
Scott A. Yarley P
Project Engineer
THE LPA GROUP of North Carolina, p.a.
Transportation Consultants
4904 Professional Court, Suite 201
Post Office Box 17736
Raleigh, North Carolina 27619
[phone]
FAX [phone]
October 22, 1997
RECEIVED
OCT -2 2 1997
8WRONMENTALWas
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Environmental Management
NC. Dept. of EHNR
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Re: Terminal Area Site Preparation
Craven County Regional Airport
New Bern, N.C.
Dear Mr. Dorney;

Enclosed =5 e t vo prints of the channel mitigation plan. We have provided a
interior ditch within the channel that approximately matches the cross-sectional area of
the existing creek. This ditch will meander within the proposed channel. We have also
shown the locations where channel plantings can be placed without interfering with line
of sight issues. Due to height restrictions, we have chosen tag alders and/or buttonbush
as the trees to be planted within the channel.
Please review as soon as possible. We need to get this project underway before
the construction season ends. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free
to contact this office. V -
Sincerely,
THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATES
Scott A. Yarle . ` F It I
Project Engin F
4

Member of THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED
ATLANTA, GA • AUSTIN, TX • CHARLESTON, SC • CHICAGO, IL • COLUMBIA, SC • GREENSBORO, NC • KNOXVILLE, TN • MOBILE, AL
MYRTLE BEACH, SC • PHILADELPHIA, PA • RALEIGH, NC 0 TALLAHASSEE, FL • TAMPA, FL

` /1 I I
I a44, I
I II
P7
I I ! I ?
i t I I I I f r I I ? ! I ! i I - ? ` i-
I VI ?C.J?'

? I I
I I
I
I I
I i?
I i I I .
I I I
I I I
I
? ?L I
i
I
I •I F
I I
I? ? I I
?
? I
I
I
I ? I, ? I i
I
I
I I
? I
?
I I I 'I I 1
? I I '
I ? ?
I
?
I I
I
I I I

i i ai i i ?1 I I I /?I I I ?-
I? I I I I ? 1 I I ? I I y - I ?-
I ?
I
I I I I? I ? I ? ? I I i ? I /"pqI I ?
I / T
L I
i i I i i i I I I
',

I

I
i I

I i I I I I 1 I I I

I
I
I I I

? I
lf?A
Ile
? {! i i l' I i l l I? I
1
I
I I I I i
I
i
4
I I
N? C
' 46
? q i ?I
C I i I I i i i i

? I I

I I/
j I I i I
I
I C i I I I
I I I I ' I I I i.
I42 i
' iA I I i
v? I I

'
I i
I I ? j I
I-
A
li
I'll, %Jwl x! I

' I I T 1 I I I ( v i I ! I I I I ?I
i T -^ i
I I i I
I ? a
'j, M' ?
fX ?
? I I ?.-
I
I j
I
I I I i t I
I
I I ?

i
A) -Pro
N
A
CA? Qc i
0 JA //Y)

PY= I '!
; 6'
' i ! ' p ? I
i I I ' i 'I I i
I l I
I _? I 1 1 i I I i j
I

? I j I ' j l ? I l l
i 3- / I
l j l l I I' I I
I i I I ??? I I I
I
i I
tiN.GU' G?
I ? ?;

-
I I
?
I

i I
T
I I
I
,
i
??
I
I
i i
i I

I
i I I I i ; i ~ T-
! ? i
I .
I I j 1 ; I j
i I I I
II
' -
GI
I
I i T i I
I I T I 1 ? ?
i i I I
I ? i ? I
: j ? I I I ? I
i I

i
I
14
III/ UM_Rr?

I I ? i

I
i
I i i I I i i i I I I i
I
i-
: i I
' i i I I I I I I i i .. i
I I : i
:
I I I I j !
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 4 • •
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary p E H N 1=?L
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
September 4, 1997
Craven County
DWQ Project # 970708
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Mr. John Price, Director
Craven County Airport Authority
1501 Airport Road
New Bern, NC 28560
Dear Mr. Price:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to
place fill material in 0.13 acres of wetlands and 150 feet of waters for the purpose of expanding an
existing airport at Craven County Regional Airport, as you described in your application dated 8
August 1997. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General
Water Quality Certification Number 3108. This certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit
Number 26 when it is issued by the Corps of Engineers. In addition, you should get any other
federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to)
Sediment and Erosion Control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed
regulations. This approval will expire when the accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless
otherwise specified in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application
except as modified below. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required
to send us a new application. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one
acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7).
For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification and
any additional conditions listed below. A final stream relocation plan shall be submitted to DWQ's
written approval before stream or wetland fill occurs. Woody vegetation such as shrubs shall be
incorporated into this design. The relocated stream shall have 50 foot wide vegetated buffers along
each side. An additional condition is that a final, written stormwater plan including a wet detention
basin must be approved by DWQ before wetland (or stream) impacts occur.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory
hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. 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, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 276 1 1-7447. This certification
and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Attachment
cc:
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Washington Field Office
Was1ft on DWQ Regional Office
Central Files
Thomas Blakeney; The LPA Group
William Moore; WARO
970708.1tr
Division of Water Quality - Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer - 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
State of North Carolina M]W
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources ? •
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary C) G t--' N F1
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
October 31, 1997
Mr. John Price, Director
Craven County Airport Authority
1501 Airport Road
New Bem, NC 28560
Dear Mr. Price:
RE: Stream mitigation approval
Craven County airport expansion
Craven County
DWQ # 970708
On 4 September 1997, DWQ issued a 401 Water Quality Certification for this
project to allow the expansion of the existing airport. This Certification was conditioned
to require 1) written approval of a stormwater plan for the airport and 2) written approval
of a stream mitigation plan for the airport. The Washington Regional Office of the
Division of Water Quality (Mr. Bill Moore) will be handling the stormwater approval for
this project. Written approval of that plan from him will constitute compliance with this
provision of the Certification. The stream mitigation plan as outlined in the 27 October
1997 letter from your consultant (Mr. Scott Yarley, The LPA Group) is hereby approved
to meet the second condition of our Certification.
Please call me at 919-733-1786 if you have any questions.
Sincerely yours,
qJo R. Dorn y
970708.mit
Cc: Bill Moore, Washington DWQ Regional Office
Ray Cox
Central Files
Washington Field Office, US Army Corps of Engineers
Scott Yarley, The LPA Group
Division of Water Quality - Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper

THE LPA GROUP of North Carolina, p.a.
Transportation Consultants
4904 Professional Court, Suite 201
Post Office [Box 17736
Raleigh, North Carolina 27619
[phone]
FAX [phone]
October 27, 1997
Mr. John Dorney
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Re: Supplement to Water Quality Mitigation Plan
for the Craven Regional Airport Terminal Construction
and Relocation of "Scotts Creek"
Dear Mr. Dorney:
Uri,
?M,?'O?'?vr?`? 199j

As was discussed by telephone on October 27, 1997, the following Water Quality
mitigation elements will be accomplished:
1. The planting density will be with 10 foot centers as shown on the enclosed
revised plan sheet.
2. As-built plans will be provided.
3. Selected areas (10 meters by 10 meters) will be surveyed to insure an 80
percent tree/shrub survival rate after 3 years (see August 4, 1995, memo -
Stream Relocation/Channeliaation Guidelines - Steve Tedder).
4. Water Quality Flora and Fauna will be monitored at two locations (upstream and
downstream) both prior to construction (baseline) and 1 1/2 to 2 years after
construction and again 3 years after construction. Fauna monitoring will be
directed to benthic macro i nverteb rates. The monitoring will be directed to 10 to
20 meter sections of the Scotts Creek during wet periods. The monitoring will
be accomplished by LPA biologists.
Member of THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED
ATLANTA, GA • AUSTIN, TX • CHARLESTON, SC • CHICAGO, IL • COLUMBIA, SC • GREENSBORO, NC 0 KNOXVILLE, TN e MOBILE, AL
MYRTLE BEACH, SC • PHILADELPHIA, PA • RALEIGH, NC 9 TALLAHASSEE, FL 9 TAMPA, FL

-,
Mr. John Dorney
Page 2
I trust the above supplement will complete the Water Quality commitments for the
Craven Terminal 401 permit. If there are any questions, please advise. _
Sincerely,
THE LPA GROUP of North Carolina, p.a.
Scott A. Yarley, P. .
Project Engine r
SAY/pcj
Enclosure
cc: John H. Price, Jr., Craven County Regional Airport Manager w/enclosure
1
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

L
Terminal Area Expansion
prepared for
The Craven County Regional Airport Authority
THE J
?
LPA
GROUP
AVIATION CONSULTANTS

THE LPA GROUP is a multidisci-
plinary consulting firm whose goals
are:
1) to provide a quality product that ex-
ceeds each client's expectations for
accuracy, innovation, and timeliness;
2) to provide personal client service that
exceeds each client's expectations for
communications, accessibility, and
responsiveness; and
3) to provide a work environment that
recognizes the importance of each
individual's contributions and the
need for a balanced life.

I
I
I
I

I

I

I
I

e

0

Terminal Environmental Assessment

Craven County Regional Airport

C

LJI

0

I

Terminal Environmental Assessment
Craven County Regional Airport
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE

1 PURPOSE AND NEED 1-1
1.1 Purpose 1-2
1.2 Need for Improvements 1-2
1.3 Desired Federal/State Action 1-5
1.4 Time Frame for Proposed Improvements 1-5
2 ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS 2-1
2.1 Do-Nothing Alternative 2-1
2.2 Quadrant I Alternative 2-1
2.3 Quadrant II Alternative 2-1
2.4 Quadrant III Alternative 2-2
2.5 Relocate Airport Alternative 2-2
2.6 Terminal Building Concepts 2-2
2.7 Quadrant IV Site Alternative Descriptions 2-3
2.7.1 Alternative Concept I 2-3
2.7.2 Alternative Concept II 2-4
2.7.3 Alternative Concept III 2-5
2.7.4 Alternative Concept IV 2-6
3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3-1
3.1 Wetlands 3-1
3.2 Woodlands 3-2
3.3 Endangered and Threatened Species of Fauna
and Flora 3-3
3.4 Water Quality/Floodplains 3-3
3.4.1 Floodplains 3-3
3.4.2 Water Quality 3-4
3.5 Compatible Land Use/Noise Impacts 3-5
3.6 Social/Socioeconomic Impacts 3-6
3.7 Historic, Architectural, Archaeological,
and Cultural Resources 3-6
3.8 Air Quality 3-7
3.9 Department of Transportation Act, Section 4(F) 3-9
3.10 Coastal Zone Management Program 3-9
3.11 Coastal Barriers 3-9
3.12 Wild and Scenic Rivers 3-9
3.13 Prime or Unique Farmland 3-9
3.14 Energy Supply and Natural Resources 3-10
3.15 Light Emissions 3-11
i
I

I

i
Terminal Environmental Assessment
Craven County Regional Airport
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)
SECTION PAGE
3.16 Solid Waste Impact 3-11
3.17 Construction Impacts 3-12
3.17.1 Noise 3-12
3.17.2 Impact on Flora and Fauna 3-12
3.17.3 Air and Water Pollution 3-12
3.18 Conclusion and Recommendations 3-13
4 MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION 4-1
4.1 Preparers 4-1
4.2 Consulted Agencies 4-1
4.3 Public Involvement 4-1
APPENDICES
A Environmental Analysis - July, 1992 Concepts I A-1
Through V Agency Response Letters
B Preliminary Terminal Building Concepts B-1
C Biological Survey Results C-1
ILLUSTRATIONS
FOLLOWS PAGE
Exhibit 1-1 Quadrant ALP 1-2
Alternative I Diagram 2-3
Alternative II Diagram 2-4
Alternative III Diagram 2-5
Alternative IV Diagram 2-6
Exhibit 3-1 Floodway Map 3-3
Terminal Drawings B-2
TABULATIONS
TABLE PAGE
1-1 Terminal Requirements/Deficiencies 1-3
3-1 Historical Aircraft Operations 3-8
ii

t

I

n

I
t
I

t
I

I

Terminal Environmental Assessment

Craven County Regional Airport
I

I
1

I
Terminal Environmental Assessment
Craven County Regional Airport
Section 1
PURPOSE AND NEED
This Environmental Assessment is a revision to a previously reviewed Environmental
Analysis for Terminal Area Expansion at the Craven County Regional Airport. The
Environmental Analysis was submitted for preliminary review during July of 1992.
Responses to this original submission are contained in Appendix A, accompanied by the
original five concept drawings submitted at that time. The Environmental Analysis was
not carried forward beyond the receipt of agency responses in August, 1992. This
Environmental Assessment report is a continuation of the terminal area expansion
investigations. Significant portions of the previous analysis have been incorporated into
this new Environmental Assessment.
For clarification purposes the following comparison of alternatives and concepts is
provided.
Environmental Assessment
Alternative Concept 1 identical
Alternative Concept 2 identical
Alternative Concept 3 very similar
Alternative Concept 4 new
(preferred)
Environmental Analysis
Concept II
Concept IV
Concept V
The Environmental Analysis Concepts I and III were deleted from this Assessment with
the understanding that they are very similar in environmental impacts to Alternative
Concept 1 and the original Concept II.
It is a preliminary judgment of the airport owners that the new Alternative Concept 4
reduces the overall environmental impacts significantly.
1-1
022696

I

t

I

Terminal Environmental Assessment
Craven County Regional Airport
The following investigations will review Alternative Concepts 1 through 4 for their
I relative impacts.
1.1 PURPOSE
' The purpose this Assessment is to provide a preliminary perspective directed toward the
potential expansion of the Air Carrier Terminal at the Craven County Regional Airport.
' The Assessment will be directed toward obtaining a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) for the selected terminal expansion Alternative Concept IV.
The following Airport Layout Plan (Exhibit 1-1) is for locational purposes only. The
' location of the new terminal in Quadrant IV of the Airport Layout Plan is not the
selected terminal location in this study.
1
1.2 NEED FOR IMPROVEMENTS
The need for a new terminal at the Craven County Regional Airport was justified in the
' 1989 Master Plan Update and Terminal Area Study and in the on-going 1996 Terminal
Enhancement Study. The following Table 1-1 is an excerpt from the 1996 study and
' illustrates the need for terminal expansion. As shown by Table 1-1, the existing 11,845-
square foot terminal is only 60 percent of the typical terminal size required as of 1996,
and 34 percent of the size terminal need by the year 2006.

1 1-2
022696

t

I

1

m
N
H
H
n
8"c:s tic
>:a;?= aao
N
E E i R p? O>
Tai z s
iL plp p' p i
1 O

? S i
y i> >
. ? 3
,p, ?', ? n Li >
< i
y o
m
t 8 $ l oo
I i i=l e . ?? ?" 8
r n
y
<! °I Z
7 "`> Q e S°qy z
f c f

i

[

C

n

a'

w[ L ;
p
L n G - o

>

_ v L'< O'^ i Q ;? ew o?4 ? a s 6
a 11 . L

Od
\
Y Z m
c
w z
N IF
? r
m
t I A
• m
t m
z N ?
O
S
o m
< ?o
m S
]o -NZ 7p S
i ==v z
m ?#4 Z p
eon 0
o m 1
f N
" m
.. °l•I I I )z
J
0
r? i t
/I ? i? 9 9 )?• r °
' InQ \ L - ° w
0.1
r
P ? ° L L

I '?C > 1
1 ? y ? J• ?J
o
> r
? O?°
-
?? (
1 ? ?/
D tF O -
?
O <iyn-mow
"?
m

CID

??' ? W m _ z f p s
z y m >
- ATLAN w o \\
i

A?ROERN - '
-Les
r
\i
CAROL/Nq RAILgOAD

_ 23 ` USA
\i O. O
1
ts
N
?x
0m
e
q
s =
.
e my
X
? Z
?
?
0
mm
r
D D
n
n
? m
m c?
uD D m <
W
o
a 0a
13
"o
= s o
n

""'' w
m 0
O
Z = c
O ? o

=D
z
O O
O C D 0 o
m
Or

c In
D D
?
p
N a III?? Z O0 p

RFC' e
' -4

N D
r ? 1
m-
p r;'. i, nn
.IJ.p. ? DID
oY ?m
yOd
T
ti
g ?
__NCSR 11q? /
?NO2 tl \ ?
slial owl pro, 3Un?i
L?z • X O
>
n !7-
H
n o
1
z z p
33
J m m r
V IJ = 7-
m
e cn
? m m
? 0 1
r
o m < \NCSq
> o ?
0
m 1 p
?Np yl
1

II I I 1 ? I I
?

' II ? i
? ? I I
o n
m r G

> m a

X c m

c X a c •? m

g m"o o
le ? z? x a c p {v
o 0
N
Ell

a O

1 fI1
m
m O y
= m
p z ;

C C A =

m c
m I
II Q < O
I 9 T T
m 0 0 !1 p N S H
X >?^ f i <
N
mq
CC

m
03
N N
O N
N o
O
.?
> m m n
_ " X
A
Z _ Z N = y
a n ? m
_z
?
s -
i
a
_

ry
`F
4
h. C(r ?O
?o

m
E
m m
O> ? i

V z z
ll zm ?I
r Z
n
mr n?
n
'e, ,
J „/ + 1
9
m ? a

L

17,

Terminal Environmental Assessment
Craven County Regional Airport
Table 1-1
TERMINAL FACILITY
AREAS
Administration/Security
Airline Operational
Ticket Counters/Lobby
Departure Lounge
Public Waiting
Baggage Claim/Lobby
Restrooms (Public)
Concessions
Food/Service
Circulational/Mechanical
Total All Components
TERMINAL REQUIREMENTS/DEFICIENCIES
Craven County Regional Airport
SOUARE FOOTAGE REOUIREMENTS/DEFICIENCIES
Standard
S. F. Per Existing 1996 97 TPHP' 2001 129 TPHP'
TPHP' Facilities Standard Def. Standard Def.
19.9 1,831 1,930 99 2,567 736
32.1 2,298 3,114 816 4,141 1,843
15.1 1,069 1,465 396 1,948 879
18.2 950 1,765 815 2,348 1,222
27.2 1,748 2,638 890 3,509 1,761
19.9 908 1,930 1,022 2,567 1,659
6.0 526 582 56 774 248
13.9 386 1,349 963 1,793 1,407
6.0 127 582 455 774 647
41.7 2002 , 4,045 2043 , 5,379 3.377
200.0 11,845 19,400 7,555 25,800 13,955
' TPHP - Typical Peak Hour Passenger (peak month).
SOURCE: THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED.
1-3
022696

J

LI

Terminal Environmental Assessment
Craven County Regional Airport
Table 1-1 (Cont.)
TERMINAL FACILITY
AREAS
Administration/Security
Airline Operational
Ticket Counters/Lobby
Departure Lounge
Public Waiting
Baggage Claim/Lobby
Restrooms (Public)
Concessions
Food/Service
C irculational/Mechanical
Total All Components
TERMINAL REQUIREMENTS/DEFICIENCIES
Craven County Regional Airport
SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENTS/DEFICIENCIES
Standard
S. F. Per Existing
TPHP' Facilities
19.9 1,831
32.1
15.1
18.2
27.2
19.9
6.0
13.9
6.0
41.7
200.0
2,298
1,069
950
1,748
908
526
386
127
2,002
11,845
' TPHP - Typical Peak Hour Passenger (peak month).
SOURCE: THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED.
1-4
022696
2006 173TPHP'
Standard Def.
3,443 1,612
5,553 3,255
2,612 1,543
3,149 2,199
4,706 2,958
3,443 2,535
1,038 512
2,404 2,018
1,038 911
7,214 5,212
34,600 22,755
2016 258TPHP'
Standard Def.
5,134 3,303
8,281 5,983
3,896 2,827
4,696 3,746
7,018 5,270
5,134 4,226
1,548 1,022
3,586 3,200
1,548 1,421
10,759 8,757
51,600 39,755

1

e

l

H

Terminal Environmental Assessment
Craven County Regional Airport
While terminal square footage expansion is justified, it should be noted that the present
11, 845-square foot terminal will not structurally support significant expansion on the site.
This finding was determined by Craven County building inspection and inspection by the
City of New Bern, North Carolina electrical service.
Additional 2006 terminal requirements show a minimum auto parking deficiency of 482
parking spaces and significant aircraft apron deficiencies of approximately 8,000+ square
yards. These deficiencies are the minimum requirements as of 2006 and do not cover
requirements past 2006 which need to be under development before 2006.
Given the above documented needs, a study of terminal siting with respect to
environmental consequences is necessary. The terminal analysis will review
environmental issues as pertinent to a series of alternative concepts. Alternative concept
drawings will be developed to establish preliminary terminal site specific limits and to
establish comparative perspectives.
1.3 DESIRED FEDERAUSTATE ACTION
The federal/state action desired is a Finding of No Significant Impact for the selected
proposed Terminal Expansion and associated parking, access, and apron development.
1.4 TIME FRAME FOR PROPOSED EUPROVEMENTS
The earliest time frame being considered for the construction phase of the airport
terminal improvements is late 1997 or soon thereafter; however, design elements of the
project would begin in 1996.
1-5
022696

r
t

t

?i

n
fl

n
J

0

I
C
r
L

Terminal Environmental Assessment
e
Craven County Regional Airport

L

u

J

Terminal Environmental Assessment
Craven County Regional Airport
Section 2
ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
In the search for reasonable alternatives, the following possibilities were at a minimum
briefly review.
2.1 DO-NOTHING ALTERNATIVE
In this alternative the environmental impacts would not occur;however, this status quo
condition would not alleviate the extreme crowding conditions of the existing terminal
and the auto parking lots. In addition, the aircraft ramp crowding could cause safety
concerns in the near future. Without an adequate terminal to accommodate the Craven
County region's growth, the overall economic development of this portion of eastern
North Carolina would be restrained. Based on these factors, this alternative is judged
by the Sponsor to be unreasonable.
2.2 QUADRANT I ALTERNATIVE
At first inspection it would appear that terminal development in this location might be
feasible; however, two restraints are noted at the outset. Access to the property would
require a costly long main roadway which would possibly bring additional environmental
questions. Second, and most importantly, the airport has tried to obtain some of this
property (i.e., the Claude Hall property) and has been in litigation for over seven years.
The bottom line is that this land is not available in a practical judgement.
2.3 QUADRANT H ALTERNATIVE
The land in this quadrant, while by appearance vacant, is all committed to municipal
2-1
022696

n

f.

' Terminal Environmental Assessment
Craven County Regional Airport
sewage irrigation and not available for airport use. Highway access to this quadrant
' would cause excessive traffic through several established neighborhoods.
1 2.4 QUADRANT III ALTERNATIVE
This quadrant is totally dedicated to general aviation usage and rapidly filling up with
new hangars. It would be undesirable from a safety standpoint to mix air carrier activity
in with general aviation activity. Additionally, much of the remaining vacant land in this
area is occupied with archaeological grave sites and cannot be developed in an intensive
' fashion.

2.5 RELOCATE AIRPORT ALTERNATIVE
This alternative would only be considered if it were not practical to expand the terminal
and the runways at the existing site. The expense to the community and all levels of
government would be intolerable. It should be noted that the airport's location near U.S.
70 is one of the primary factors for its success.
Given the above alternative reviews, a decision was made to investigate terminal
expansion alternatives in Quadrant IV in an intensive fashion. In this intensive analysis
four alternative concepts were examined with Alternative Concept Number IV being
selected as the preferred concept. The following sections will examine the individual
concepts followed by an environmental synopsis.
2.6 TERMINAL BUILDING CONCEPTS
It is anticipated that the terminal building per se would be constructed in a fashion
similar to one of three possibilities. These possibilities, "A", "B", and "C" are very
2-2
022696

7

F1

t

Terminal Environmental Assessment
Craven County Regional Airport
' similar and should not alter the environmental evaluations in any significant way.
' Examples of these three possibilities are shown in Appendix B.
2.7 QUADRANT IV SITE ALTERNATIVE DESCREPTIONS
' 2.7.1 Alternative Concept I (See Following Diagram)
This terminal concept locates the terminal roughly northeast of the existing terminal along
Runway 4-22. This allows the new terminal to be fully constructed prior to the
abandonment and demolition of the existing terminal. The new location is also close
enough to the existing terminal's location to make use of a portion of the existing aircraft
' apron. Some additional apron, however, will be required to tie in to the new terminal.

L

1

The southern most portion of the terminal, the Baggage Claim wing, has been angled to
closely parallel the existing terminal. This allows the wing to be built in front of the
existing terminal to maintain airport terminal operations during construction of the new
terminal. It also positions the new terminal closer to the existing apron and adds critical
apron depth required for larger aircraft.
A portion of the existing entrance road is to be abandoned and a new loop access road
constructed. It provides one-way traffic to various parking lots, curbside
loading/unloading, and back out the existing road. To achieve acceptable radii along the
loop access roadway for vehicular movement, the area within the loop is significantly
larger than that needed for parking. This additional area will remain undeveloped
through the planning period for long-range expansion.
This terminal location will require the acquisition of several parcels of property.
Included in this acquisition of approximately 27 acres of land are 13 houses and 6 mobile
2-3
022696

1

1
'Z of--I
' o 'Um
°= IIII?
z IIII
y
c
Z

pY
Y
s I

127

s.

?'?'. ?
y.
.p p, ud t
?"y h
I p
lB?yd E?
... .? rxw 4yu7

F ?66y 7r'I, J?; ?r
?
apa
V y? p
?:?
?yiy3 ? x

_

x
I? ..
tlaa'

I

i 110 ¦¦
g

yzz
r
h
0
b
y
O

L'

Terminal Environmental Assessment
Craven County Regional Airport
homes. All of these structures are south of Clermont Road.
2.7.2 Alternative Concept II (See Following Diagram)
This alternative shifts the new terminal location northeast along Runway 4-22 to a point
midway between the existing entrance road and Clermont Road. The new terminal
location is well clear of the existing terminal building and terminal area to allow the new
building to be fully constructed with only minor impact to existing operations. The new
location requires a new aircraft apron along Runway 4-22.
A loop access roadway is provided by utilizing Clermont Road with Airport Road to
create a loop roadway with only a minimum of new pavement connecting the two. In
addition to providing loop access, this connector creates a curbside loading/unloading
area. Upgrade and widening of Clermont Road may be required to utilize this road as
a portion of the airport's loop access road.
The area between these two existing roads is significantly larger than is required for
parking. This additional area will remain undeveloped through the planning period for
long-range expansion.
This terminal location will require the acquisition of approximately 36 acres of land
primarily between Airport Road and Clermont Road. Included in this acquisition are
approximately 17 houses and 11 mobile homes. Since Clermont Road will be utilized
as the primary airport access road, the purchase of homes along both sides is advised.
Not included, however, is the cost to acquire the mobile home park on the north side of
Clermont Road.
2-4
022696

D

r

1
i
1
1
1
i1J
o yam
O IIII?
1 z illl
C
N
Iz
1
1
1
.1
i
i
1
_.
?__ ---------
- F - =
---------- ----------- -
. ?. H,y` H 7y
y?
0
,a.
? O ¦ yM?+e+'?-- y I
p ? ?k
C1
e +
E El .. 7i; 11 I ..H4.
A
y z Z
N
n
b
y
O
N

fl

Terminal Environmental Assessment
Craven County Regional Airport
2.7.3 Alternative Concept III (See Following Diagram)
This terminal concept shifts the new terminal northeast along Runway 4-22 north of
Clermont Road adjacent to the new extension of Runway 4-22 and Taxiway "A". The
new terminal location is well clear of the existing terminal building and terminal area to
allow the new building to be fully constructed with no impact to existing operations. The
new location requires a new aircraft apron along Runway 4-22 and Taxiway "A"
extensions.
' A new loop access roadway is provided off of Clermont Road utilizing approximately
700 feet as part of the loop. This new road creates a curbside loading/unloading area
adjacent to the new terminal location. Upgrade and widening of Clermont Road may be
required to utilize this road as a portion of the airport's loop access road.
To achieve acceptable radii along the loop access roadway for vehicular movement, the
' area within the roadway loop is significantly larger than is required for parking. This
additional area will remain undeveloped through the planning period for long-range
i expansion.
J

This alternative requires the acquisition of approximately 29 aces of land. Included in
this acquisition are approximately 30 mobile homes and 3 houses.
South of Clermont Road are 6 houses and 1 mobile home which should be purchased to
eliminate potential problems affiliated with residences along the airport's loop access
road. These residences occupy approximately 7 additional acres of land.
2-5
022696
I

r

J

L J'

r?

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
D
' o IUDm
Iiiiir
1 z aii m
N
z
y
1z
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

h
b
y
O
C44
J

J

n
0
I

' Terminal Environmental Assessment
Craven County Regional Airport
2.7.4 Alternative Concept IV (See Following Diagram)
This alternative shifts the terminal concept to the end of Runway 22 and on to land
' already acquired by the Craven County Regional Airport Authority. The new terminal
location is well clear of the existing terminal building and terminal area to allow the new
' building to be fully constructed with no impact to existing operations. The new location
requires a new aircraft apron near the end of Runway 22.
r
The new loop access roadway will be contained on airport property. Upgrade and
' widening of only a portion of Clermont Road may be required in this alternative.
' To achieve acceptable radii along the loop access roadway for vehicular movement, the
area within the roadway loop is significantly larger than is required for parking. This
' additional area will remain undeveloped through the planning period for long-range
expansion.
' This alternative requires the acquisition of approximately 16 acres of land. Included in
this acquisition are approximately 7 mobile homes.

s

' 2-6
' 022696

J
1
H

C
Ci

i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 o C>m
1
(III
1 z IIII
C
Z
i
1
1
1
i
i
1
1
! C1
O ?
C3
I El 0 loss
4
op ? 4?
00 0o I j
Op00p O j
OppOp j i
p DD j i
00

j
IV.
i
n
oo?
yz?z
r
h
n
'ro
y
O

C

1

0
u

Terminal Environmental Assessment

Craven County Regional Airport
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Terminal Environmental Assessment
Craven County Regional Airport
Section 3

r

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
In this section the 21 specific categories of environmental impact are reviewed. These
categories correspond to the FAA order 5050.4A "Airport Environmental Handbook,"
paragraph 47e. The sequence of category presentation begins with categories judged to
have some variance from one alternative to other alternatives. The final categories of
review are judged to be either equal to each alternative or to not have an impact to any
alternative.
3.1 WETLANDS
On several occasions qualified biologists (see Section 4) have reviewed the general
terminal alternative site area culminating in selected wetland delineations on August 9th
and 10th, 1994. A complete narrative of these findings can be found in Appendix "C".
A summary of these findings for the four terminal site alternatives is as follows:
WETLAND ACREAGE ESTIMATES
Min. Max.
Alternative No. 1 1 to 3 acres 5 to 8 acres
Alternative No. 2 1 acre 2 acres
Alternative No. 3 0.0 acre 0.0 acre (delineated)
Alternative No. 4 0.13 acres (delineated)
In conclusion, given discussions with the USACOE and on-site verifications by this
agency, the impacts to wetlands are considerably less for all alternatives than previously
believed and particularly for alternatives near the end of the runway.
3-1
022696
u

n

I

E

n

r

Terminal Environmental Assessment
Craven County Regional Airport
3.2 WOODLANDS
A breakdown of the woodland impacts to the respective alternatives is as follows:
Alternative No. 1 27 acres
Alternative No. 2 12 acres
Alternative No. 3 less than an acre
Alternative No. 4 7 acres
The predominant species of trees for each of the areas can be summarized as follows:
ALTERNATIVES 1 AND 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 ALTERNATIVE 4
Dominant Hardwoods
Sweet Gum
Black Gum
Red Maple
Yellow Poplar
Water Oak
Willow Oak
Red Mulberry
Southern Magnolia
Sweet Bay
Predominantly former
or current agricultural
land
Predominantly former
or current agricultural
land
Loblolly Pine dominant
narrow forest area
Secondarv UDlands
Loblolly Pine
Black Cherry
Sassafras
Mimosa
A more detailed analysis of woodlands and biotic communities can be found in Appendix
"C" "Biological Survey."
3-2
022696
n

n

Terminal Environmental Assessment
Craven County Regional Airport
It is unlikely that any merchantable timber is present. Care will be taken to protect the
remaining standing trees from equipment damage, including petroleum spills. Given the
nature of the project, all trees will be removed from a generally rectangular area which
will allow equipment movement, minimizing damage to trees which will not be cut. All
open burning will be subject to North Carolina Regulation Number 15 NCAG 2D.0520.
3.3 ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES OF FAUNA AND FLORA
As documented fully in Appendix "C", there are three endangered and three threatened
species in Craven County. The endangered species include the red-cockaded
woodpecker, Kemp's ridley sea turtles, and the bald eagle (recently removed from the
list). The threatened species include green sea turtles, loggerhead sea turtles, and
sensitive joint-vetch. The biological analysis in Appendix "C" concludes a lack of habitat
for the red-cockaded woodpecker and a lack of salt water habitat for the remainder
species.
3.4 WATER QUALITY/FLOODPLAINS
3.4.1 Floodplains
All four alternatives will be in floodplain areas (see Exhibit 3-1) to some degree or
another. The following provides an estimate of intrusion into the 100-year floodplain
area:
FLOODPLAIN COVERAGE (ESTIMATE)
Alternative No. 1 80%
Alternative No. 2 100%
Alternative No. 3 90%
Alternative No. 4 60%
3-3
022696

C

L

r
5
F
C7

m C r

O
? z O
0

M O
c D
z
z -?
f
z -<
O O
;u

? m C:

0 0
D D
D
r
O ?

Z ;
D -0 D
O

-1
m
x
w
w
I

J

L

Terminal Environmental Assessment
Craven County Regional Airport
Adjustment for the floodplain area will be required in the design/engineering project
development. The floodplain is part of the Scotts Creek headwaters which has a small
drainage basin. This drainage basin size should allow engineering solutions to the
situation.
3.4.2 Water Quality
Significant water quality impacts or public water supply contamination are not
anticipated. Fill material will be required for the terminal, apron, and auto parking
areas. This construction may result in the temporary discharge of fill material into the
drainage system.
Prior to construction, the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of
1973 will be properly addressed. An erosion and sedimentation control plan will be filed
with the Regional Office of the State Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development at least 30 days before beginning activity.
Mitigation of possible adverse impacts on water quality will be achieved by following
best management practices during the construction period. Permanent vegetation planted
after construction will effectively contain siltation after construction.
Consultations will be held with the State Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, with regard to the
requirement of a 401 water quality certification.
With respect to storm water runoff, the Craven County Regional Airport will be required
to conform to the NPDES storm water discharge regulations.
3-4
022696

u

Terminal Environmental Assessment
Craven County Regional Airport
3.5 COMPATIBLE LAND USE/NOISE IMPACTS
The compatibility of a new terminal area centers around issues of noise and roadway
access. Noise impacts are only those impacts associated with run-up or idling of aircraft
engines near the terminal. The new terminal per se will not attract or decrease the
anticipated air traffic to the airport. A judgment of the noise and access road impacts
per alternative is listed below:
COMPATIBILITY IMPACTS
Alternative No. 1 No significant changes.
Alternative No. 2 No significant noise impacts, given the acquisition
of nearby residences. Access road traffic would be
split onto two roads, Airport Road and Clermont
Road.
Alternative No. 3 No significant noise impacts, given the required
acquisition of residences and trailer homes north of
Clermont Road. Only the lower portion of
Clermont Road will have increased traffic.
Alternative No. 4 No significant noise impacts, given the expected
acquisition of the northern most portion of the
mobile home park. This will require the relocation
of seven mobile homes. The remaining mobile
homes will be at their nearest point approximately
400 feet from the aircraft apron. Only the lower
portion of Clermont Road will have increased
traffic. This alternative allows a long-term option
of connecting to Williams Road to the north.
A final compatibility observation is the very obvious run-down condition of particularly
the mobile home trailers. It is possible that a new terminal in the vicinity of the mobile
home area could precipitate the redevelopment of this area to higher land use category.
The airport expansion program is consistent with existing land use plans. (See August
3-5
022696

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
P?
I
I
I

I
I
I

Terminal Environmental Assessment
Craven County Regional Airport
13, 1992, letter from Kathy B. Vinson - Appendix A).
3.6 SOCIAL/SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS
The social impacts that would occur with the terminal alternatives are principally
acquisition of land and homes. As defined earlier, these impacts can be listed as follows:
ACQUISITION IMPACTS (ESTIMATES)
Alternative No. 1 27 acres of land 13 houses, 6 mobile homes
Alternative No. 2 36 acres of land 17 houses, 11 mobile homes
Alternative No. 3 29 additional acres of land 3 houses 30 mobile homes
28 acres recently purchased
Alternative No. 4 11 to 16 acres of land 0 to 2 houses 7 mobile homes
(Preferred)
Long-term relocations of principally trailer-type residences should be easy to accomplish
' if required. Substantial mobile home park sites are available off of Williams Road within
a mile of the Clermont Road area. Given the depreciation condition of the trailers in the
mobile home park and the single ownership, it is anticipated that physical movement of
most of the trailers will not be a consideration.
3.7 HISTORIC, ARCHITECTURAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL, AND CULTURAL
' RESOURCES
With respect to property included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places, a visual inspection concludes that such properties do not exist in the
study area for any of the alternatives. Housing in the area all appear to be less than 50
' years old and would not have federal, state, or local historical, architectural, or cultural
significance.
' 3-6
022696

F1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Terminal Environmental Assessment
Craven County Regional Airport
Considering property of archaeological significance, while important archaeological burial
grounds have been discovered to the west of Runway 4/22, none have been discovered
to date in the direction of the terminal expansion. During the recent Runway 4/22
extension toward Williams Road, additional archaeologic field research (including test
trenches) revealed no discoveries. This result could be expected given the lower water
table to the east of Runway 4/22.
The above conclusion of no significant impact was verified in a response letter to the
previous Terminal Analysis from the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
dated August 10, 1992. (See Appendix "A").
3.8 AIR QUALITY
' The Craven County Regional Airport is forecast to have less than 180,000 operations
annually through the year 2016; therefore, in accordance with FAA Order 5050.4A,
' paragraph 47.e(5)(C)l.b, no air quality analysis is required. (See Table 3-1).

Also, the airport is forecast to have less than 100,000 aircraft operations annually or 45
peak hour operations; therefore, in accordance with Section .0804 of the North Carolina
Administrative Code, subchapter 2D, Air Pollution Control Requirements, no permit is
required for the improvements at the Craven County Regional Airport.
3-7
022696

1

Terminal Environmental Assessment
Craven County Regional Airport
Table 3-1
HISTORICAL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
Craven County Regional Airport
AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
OPERATION TYPE 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Air Carrier
Commuter 8,760 7,280 7,280 9,547 9,765
Air Taxi 5,360 5,310 5,310 5,460 5,130
G/A Local 36,367 37,731 32,731 35,000 33,000
G/A Itinerant 9,693 9,590 9,590 9,995 8,495
Military 1.240 1.240 1.240 1.647 1.421
Total 61,420 61,151 56,151 61,649 57,811
NOTE: The numbers shown equate to fiscal year estimates.
SOURCE: FAA 5010 Forms.
OPERATION TYPE
Air Carrier
Commuter
Air Taxi
G/A Local
G/A Itinerant
Military
TOTALS
AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS FORECAST
Craven County Regional Airport
AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
1996 2001 2006 2016
5,828 9,300 10,730 15,740
5,300 5,300 5,300 5,300
35,600 37,100 38,700 42,000
10,200 10,600 11,100 12,000
1.600 2.000 2.400 3.400
58,528 64,300 68,230 78,440
NOTE: The years shown equate to calendar year estimates.
SOURCE: THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED.
3-8
022696

1

E

0

r

Terminal Environmental Assessment
Craven County Regional Airport
It is anticipated that, during construction, a certain amount of burning will be necessary.
Any open burning will be in accordance with 15 NCAG 2 D.0520.
3.9 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ACT, SECTION 4(F)
The proposed airport improvements will not require the use of, nor significantly impact,
any public park, recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local
significance, nor any land from a historic site of national, state, or local significance.
3.10 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Craven County is in a Coastal Zone; therefore, requirements of the North Carolina
Division of Coastal Management will be met.
3.11 COASTAL BARRIERS
There are no coastal barrier islands within Craven County; therefore, the proposed action
would have no effect on the Coastal Barriers Resources System.
3.12 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS
There are no rivers classified as a wild and scenic river within the vicinity of the Craven
County Regional Airport Terminal; therefore, the proposed action would have no impact
on any wild and scenic river.
3.13 PRIME OR UNIQUE FARMLAND
As discussed in Appendix "C", two types of soils classified as prime or unique farmland
3-9
022696

L

0

u

Terminal Environmental Assessment
Craven County Regional Airport
are found on the four terminal alternative sites, i.e., the Altavista Series and the
Goldsboro Series. Considering soil coverage only, a comparison by alternatives for these
soil types is as follows:
DEVELOPMENT AREA SOIL TYPES
PRIME OR UNIQUE FARMLAND
Alternative No. 1 50 percent Altavista'
Alternative No. 2 75 percent Altavista'
Alternative No. 3 75 percent Altavista'
Alternative No. 4 5 percent Altavista 5 percent Goldsboro'
(preferred)
' A significant amount of the Altavista soils are within the present-day boundaries of the
airport and could not be utilized as farmland.
' Most of the Altavista soils are either within the present-day boundaries of the airport
or already contain development and thereby could not be utilized as farmland.
s Some of the Altavista and Goldsboro soils already contain development.
Given the fact that the preferred alternative is number 4, then the proposed development
should not affect prime or unique farmland in any significant way.
3.14 ENERGY SUPPLY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Except for minimal additional lighting requirements for aircraft and auto parking, and
possibly some terminal lighting increase, the energy requirements would be similar to
those experienced at the existing terminal. This would not require a significant additional
impact on the area's energy resources.
3-10
022696

I
r

Terminal Environmental Assessment
Craven County Regional Airport
It is unlikely that any unusual national resources will be required by the construction of
the planned improvements.
3.15 LIGHT EMISSIONS
Light emissions from the terminal and auto parking areas would be of a low intensity
level and should not create an annoyance. To the contrary, this level of lighting could
be considered as beneficial to the security of nearby residences.
The aircraft apron lighting will be of a higher intensity but directed away from existing
residences.
3.16 SOLID WASTE IMPACT
The Craven County Regional Airport is in the Neuse River Water and Sewer District
system. This district has been operating under a two and a half-year-old moratorium on
new sewer connections. This moratorium should end with the expansion of the Stately
Pines Wastewater Treatment Plant from a daily treatment capacity of 25,000 gallons to
100,000 gallons by spring of this year.
All sewage disposal will be by connection to sewage treatment facilities. The new
terminal would not add appreciably to the sewage volume in that it is only a replacement
of the existing terminal.
Any debris resulting from construction will be disposed of in strict compliance with
federal and state requirements.
3-11
022696

1

l

7
0

f

Terminal Environmental Assessment
Craven County Regional Airport
3.17 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
There are several kinds of construction impacts which must be addressed: noise from
construction impacts, noise from construction activity, impact on flora and fauna, and
air and water pollution.
3.17.1 Noise
Construction equipment will make noise similar to that of the heavy vehicular traffic that
operate in the area. Thus, the effects of noise from airport terminal construction should
be negligible and no noise control program will be necessary.
3.17.2 Impact on Flora and Fauna
The probable area of impact will be the area of construction itself. Impacts have been
discussed in previous sections.
3.17.3 Air and Water Pollution
Construction equipment used during the construction of the various facilities is not
expected to produce any significant air pollution problems. The most stringent of state
and local laws regarding open burning will be followed. An erosion and sediment
control plan will be prepared for approval by local authorities prior to the commencement
of any construction activity. Construction specifications will include the provisions as
set forth in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-10, "Standards for Specifying Construction
of Airports." Preventative practices, such as off-site disposal, sodding and anti-dust soil
dampening, will be instituted if a problem does develop.
3-12
022696

I
C

11

n

' Terminal Environmental Assessment
Craven County Regional Airport
' 3.18 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
From the analyses of the foregoing elements, it is concluded that the proposed terminal
' improvements for the Craven County Regional Airport will not cause significant impact
to the environment in the vicinity of the airport.
Therefore, it is recommended that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) be
' approved.

P

' 3-13
022696

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Li

Terminal Environmental Assessment

Craven County Regional Airport

t

Terminal Environmental Assessment
Craven County Regional Airport
Section 4
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION
This section presents miscellaneous information to fulfill the requirements.
4.1 PREPARERS
This document was prepared by Thomas L. Blakeney of THE LPA GROUP of North
Carolina, p.a., located in Raleigh, North Carolina.
The biologist for the project was Mr. Gordon Murphy. A copy of his resume is
provided at the end of this section.
4.2 CONSULTED AGENCIES
To follow.
4.3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
To follow.
4-1
022696

?J

F

A. CORDON MURPHY
Assignment: Environmental Scientist

QUALIFICATIONS. B.S., Biology
University of South Carolina
PROFESSIONAL 1973 -1995 (Career)
EXPERIENCE. 1994 -1995 (LPA)
Environmental Scientist
THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED
Mr. Murphy's areas of expertise include environmental evaluations, soil and
ground water sampling, wetland studies, flora taxonomy, and endangered/
threatened species studies. Selected project experience since joining LPA includes:
? Environmental Scientist - Carolina Bays Parkway - Performed aerial photography
interpretations identifying potential wetland areas within the study area.
? Environmental Scientist - S. C. Ports Authority - Performed a wetland
delineation on a 100 acre site located in Charleston, S. C.
AREAS OF ? Environmental Scientist - Bull Point Development - Performed a wetland
EXPERTISE. delineation on a 720-acre tract located in Beaufort County, S.C.
* Environmental
Evaluations Prior to joining LPA, Mr. Murphy's project experience included:
• SoiUWaterSampling Environmental Evaluations for Real Estate Transactions
• Wetland Studies
• Flora Taxonomy ? Westinghouse Evaluation Services Group, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Assisted
• Endangered Species in a Phase I Environmental Site Evaluation for a site situated at a former
Studies military base in Columbia, S.C. Activities included review of aerial
photography and a site reconnaissance.
? Brendle's, Columbia, South Carolina - Conducted a Phase I Environmental
Site Evaluation for a commercial site. Activities included site reconnaissance;
review of historical and regulatory records and aerial photography; and report
preparation.
Soil and Ground Water Sampling
? Solvent Recycling Company, Sumter, South Carolina - Performed soil
sampling, monitoring well development, and ground water sampling for RCRA
RFL.
? Hoechst Celanese Corporation, Rock Hill, South Carolina - Performed soil
sampling, monitoring well development, and groundwater sampling for a
RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI).
? Fashion Fabrics, Orangeburg, South Carolina - Responsible for the operation
of a field lab to determine PCB levels in soil samples using the Dexsill 2000
system.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I
I
I
r
I ELFAI

n

A. GORDON MURPHY
(Continued)
PROFESSIONAL
EXPERIENCE
(Continued:
? Amphenol Corporation, Columbia, South Carolina - Performed ground water
sampling, constructed and installed V-notch weirs in two on-site streams. Was
responsible for obtaining stream flow measurements using weirs as well as
calculating stream flow through culverts and a concrete flume. Also assisted
in a wetland delineation on-site.
? City of Gastonia, North Carolina - Conducted a wetland delineation study for
a proposed airport. Project activities involved evaluation of vegetation,
hydrologic, and soil conditions and review of maps and aerial photography.
? Sampson County, North Carolina - Conducted a wetland delineation for the
proposed expansion of the county landfill. Project activities involved
evaluation of vegetation, hydrologic, and soil conditions and review of maps
and aerial photography.
? Jefferson Dam Project, Jefferson, South Carolina - Assisted in a wetland
delineation for a proposed 90-acre reservoir. Project activities involved
evaluation of vegetation, hydrologic, and soil conditions and review of maps
and aerial photography.
? South Carolina Ports Authority, Charleston, South Carolina - Assisted in a
wetland delineation for the proposed expansion of Ports Authority facilities.
Project activities involved evaluation of vegetation, hydrologic, and soil
conditions and review of maps and aerial photography.
? The Mungo Company, Columbia, South Carolina - Conducted a freshwater
wetland delineation on a 241-acre tract for a proposed residential development.
? Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina - Conducted preliminary receptor
analyses for six sites as part of a RFI/R1 program plan.
? Atlantic Little Neck Clam Farms, Charleston, South Carolina - Conducted a
freshwater wetland delineation on a 20-acre tract for proposed expansion of
aquaculture operations.
? Black River Electric Cooperatives, Sumter, South Carolina - Assisted with a
freshwater wetland delineation as part of a Phase I site evaluation on a 157-
acre tract for proposed industrial use.
El Palmetto Electric Cooperatives, Ridgeland, South Carolina - Conducted a
freshwater wetland delineation on a 31-tract for proposed industrial use.
? TEC Builders, Calhoun Falls, South Carolina - Performed a freshwater wetland
delineation on a 4-acre tract for a proposed residential development.
? TEC Builders, Calhoun Falls, South Carolina - Performed a freshwater wetland
delineation on a 1000 foot pipeline right-of-way.
? Norfolk Southern Railway, Austel, Georgia - Assisted in a freshwater wetland
delineation on an 880-tract for a proposed industrial site.
? South Carolina Ports Authority, Charleston, South Carolina - Assisted in the
evaluation of 20 sites around the Charleston area as part ofa mitigation site study.

1
u

1

L

A. GORDON MURPHY
Continued
' PROFESSIONAL
EXPERIENCE
(Continued):

J

r

n
SPECIAL TRAINING:

? TEC Builders, Chapin, South Carolina = Performed a freshwater wetland
determination on a 48-acre tract for a proposed residential development.
? Shaw Air Force Base, Sumter, South Carolina - Conducted a habitat
characterization as part of a site-wide ecological risk assessment.
? Spartanburg Sanitary Sewer District, Spartanburg, South Carolina - Performed
a freshwater wetland delineation on a 2800 foot pipeline right-of-way. Activities
included a delineation, obtaining proper permits, and report preparation.
Robins Air Force Base, Warner Robins, Georgia - Performed a freshwater
• wetland delineation on approximately 600 acres. Project is still in progress.
? Robins Air Force Base, Warner Robins, Georgia - Currently conducting a
base-wide inventory of all trees located in the urban areas of the base. All
trees are to be identified, evaluated for health defects, given a hazard rating,
and mapped using the GPS system.
? White Oak Plantation, Yulee, Florida (a privately-owned endangered species
breeding facility) - Program Supervisor responsible for the acclimatization of
wild-caught Florida panthers; record keeping oftheir behavioral changes, food
intake and general health. Assisted in inspections of zoological facilities that
will eventually house these cats. Prepared yearly progress reports to Florida
Freshwater Fish and Game Commission of the status of Florida panther and
western cougar captive breeding program. Traveled to Peru observing
threatened animal species. Worked with Peruvian villagers to show them
alternatives to slash-and-burn agriculture and logging as means of subsistence.
? Riverbanks Zoological Park, Columbia, South Carolina - Senior Mammal
Keeper responsible for managing a section of the zoological exhibits and
supervising the work of mammal keepers. These are in addition to carrying
out the full range of keeper duties. Traveled to Kenya and Peru observing
threatened and endangered species, their habitats and inter-relationships with
other species. Information gathered was used in captive breeding programs
and zoological exhibit construction.
Wetland Training Institute - wetland training course with emphasis on soils and
hydrology.
Interpretation of the United States Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland
Delineation Manual and explanation of the regional indicators of saturated soils.
AAZPA School of Professional Management Development for Zoo and Aquarium
Personnel.

1

n

L

L

Terminal Environmental Assessment

Craven County Regional Airport

r

J
t

C
' Terminal Environmental Assessment
Craven County Regional Airport
C

1

APPENDIX A
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS - JULY, 1992
CONCEPTS I THROUGH V
AGENCY RESPONSE LETTERS

1

u

7

x
>r=i?
mo'lu
D II?I?
mri o
•
We
m ?
n?
?O
n\
• W
p = H
x
CrJ
MW
A t
• 17
_7, z a
a 0 .ro (7)
o b
m_ Z Z
G7 • 0 Z
n? C 0
D (n 0
nZ 3
? d
r
r
z
s
n?
?m
a=
?cZ
?M
?z
?
z 0
00 o
WIC OR
m -l z r?
Z
0
X0
=urn
n
o 0?
2 0
z
sa
?rM r
x30
x
E
m
prat ?
Z
a
`t
m
v
g
O
M
ax
N_
o?
w
Q
a N

1
I,
-60-
/ V
r C ,?
1
?-l
r- j
_- o
?Q

1 ?
f I
I
I I
I '
I 1
I '
I 1
I '
1 I
K I
I
I?
I I
I I
I I
I 1
I '
I i
I
I II y I ? '
i • la ? ? i
r? ? I I
' G1G 1 ? ,? I I \ I
I ill 111 ?
!
- O ?
O CD C
I

a it
1?1
1 I 1
1

A
1 11
1 I?1
I I I
II
1 1 1
II1
1 1
1 1
111
I.1
I I
1'I
111
111
I I
1I1
I , 1
I I
1

o-f
o
CD ,
>?
W gIIP
m V)
m•
W 0
Me
D ?
n "p
SO
A
n\
• W
r
_ 0 .Ti
m can [
• ro
z a
z
0 O
0
DF O
•m ? C
?' o ro
m z
?• " z
m y O
C
•2 y ro
O
1
a
D Z L'a'y
r
m
0
am
<_
?rn30
AZ
Z M2.
0 \I
z 00 n
iZ
Z o?
?sM$
M r AM m
a Y/
7D - ?o
0000
s -7°i Z
30 30
I
xa X.
'D
m
?o
m
4c
!m
i
g
O
a
H
0
m
n
9
ni
O
iflffl
m
ax
i=
w?
°a
z T
z to
z
N
?_ - -? _ -H4MyAY p?

p /
? I"

1 '
I '
1 I
I '
1 I
I 1
1 I
K ?
I
I f
1 I
I 1
1 I
I 1
1 I
1 I

I
ill ? I
J, I ill i i ,
1
I
.I
i
i
V
\ f?1
\f-
0

r/O
- O NvQ
Q Q 1
I
I
I
I
?I I I , 1 , ?u
I
\\. III
ILA ICI
I I I
A a I I
Y lil
'a 1 ( I
I I (
I
H
I ?? I
I >?
I I.I
I '
II
.11
III
1,1
I I
1 I 'I
I..
II
III
I I
I I (
ICI
I 1
m m
m
CV_
mA V)pM
?D H1?r
m•
to G)
n?
A ?
?O
•F
vo
xx
hi
• ro
_x n y
Yz
v < O
•m ?•
b°' o b
m z z
n Z
O
21
M1 co O
• ? O
>
r ?
r
am
<z
mrn),
4c
m ?o
Z C)
z 0000
m
zC z
m?Z?
z z -? -?
z ak
13.Mm
s r m zm
? z G)
0 00 0
?z ?
=r
0a?
0 m
z
-40
m
z
c
m
s ?
t
0
a
s
m
°m
n
V
g
O
TITI
m
ax
=
AW
w
p>
n
N?
m r m= m== m ==== m

I
I ?
/
/
/
/
/
'JA
V
I
,' II
V I
I I
I ?
I
i
I '
? I
( 1
i I

I -
;?, j?hb, I? , ? ?• I I
11?, II ? i
1 III
i I
III
1 I
I I
111
II
I III
W„ I '-
?i
1 I? I
:I
I 1
!?I
111
I 1
I'I
III
I,I
I I
III
ICI
III
I I
I'I
III
I,I
I I
111
1?1
F I
i I

,e
/4f

9,Q7

I ( _
C:D
*14
I I
>? I I?
i
O
0
,
aQ a. I i
I ? I

L

I ?
I !
I ? 1 , I
•i I I I I
I II I I I I I
III _- ''J I I
------ - I i iii
I I ` Ij
?? I III ? I?
tzjw

I ? I• i I
bt-
,
I
I ? II I
?i I
I
I I
?
I
I ? : it I
I
I •• I
?. III I

I
i
I
? I
i II I I
I

I
I , I
?
I- .? I
i
_ ?
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
!
1
i
I
!I
+I !
I
it

I
!I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
i
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
?

I - -
FM208
1 08-28-92

RECEIVED
AUG 31 1992
f4-C. Depart mend of Tracsroriation
Division Of Aviation
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003
I4TERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
MAILED TO FROM
1 NC DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION MRS. CHRYS BAGGETT
RICK BARKES DIRECTOR
DIV OF AVIATION N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
HIGHWAY .BLDG/INTER-OFFICE
1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1 SCOPING FOR COMMENTS FOR PROPOSED CRAVEN COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FOR TERMINAL EXPANSION
1 S AI NO 93E42200044 PROGRAM TITLE -- SLOPING

pia
THE ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED ( I NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
i X J COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOJLD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone].
C.C. REGION P

u

1

J

Fl

'.1

i

' - ... SATE a
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Srreet • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba 'McGee I'& 4-1
Project Review Coordinator
1992
r.
RE: 92-0044 - Craven County. Regional Airport
Regarding an Environmental Analysis for
Terminal Expansion, New Bern
DATE: August 25, 1992
Douglas G. Lewis
Director
Planning and Assessment
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed environmental analysis regarding the
proposed terminal expansion for the Craven County Regional Airport.
our divisions comments have raised some general and some
specific concerns that are necessary for us to completely evaluate
project impacts and provide beneficial recommendations when
reviewing the environmental document. The applicant is encouraged
to notify our reviewing divisions with any problems or questions
they may have in addressing these concerns.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
MM:bb

Attachments
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, Nor: Carolina 27611-7687 Telcohnne 919.73;.617A

L

r

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
' MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Environmental Assessment Section
' Department of DEH&N
FROM: Dennis Stewart
' Habitat Conservation Program Manager
DATE: August 12, 1992
' SUBJECT: Request for information from the Craven County
Regional Airport regarding an Environmental
' Analysis for terminal expansion, New Bern,
Craven County, North Carolina.
' This correspondence responds to an Environmental Assessment
from the Craven County Regional Airport concerning their plans
for terminal expansion. The proposed plans call for a relocation
' of the terminal which will impact 2 to 4 acres of wetlands along
Scotts Creek. We feel that this document should be sufficient in
the initial planning stages for development. However, more
detailed plans should be available once the project is initiated
' so that we may make more informed comments. Wetlands are
important habitat to a variety of avian and terrestrial species
and wetland impacts during development of this airport expansion
should be avoided or mitigated if avoidance is impossible.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the
' early planning stages for this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please call on us.
' cc: Bobby Maddrey, District
2 Wildlife Biologist .

E

1
r

r

i

1 .?n
1 State of o North Carolina
1 Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Marine Fisheries
P.O. Box 769 • Morehead City, North Carolina 28557-0769
' James G. Martin, Governor William T. Hogarth, Director
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary 1?? .
' ?` ?7?19,
August 20 , 19:9 L r 9 [phone] 912
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
THROUGH: Mike Street
1 _
FROM: Linda Mercer
' SUBJECT: Craven County Regional Airport Environmental Analysis for Terminal
Area Expansion
The Division of Marine Fisheries is concerned that the project may increase
1 sedimentation and alter flow in lower Scotts Creek. This small creek enters
Neuse River a short distance from the airport and probably serves as a nursery
area for resident and estuarine species. Project approval should be contigent
1 on minimizing impacts to this creek.
i
1
1
1
1
1
1

C

J

J

James G. Martin, Governor
William W Cobey, Jr., Secretary
,CW
TO: Melba McGee, Division of Planning & Assessment
Stephen B. Benton, NC Division of Coastal Management
SUBJgC'T • R v '
Roger N. Scheaer
Director
e iew of SCH
?r /.`; -i•C't?y DAZE : /-JL 5,
REVIEW Cam' ?-'" Reviewer Com-ents Attached
This document is being reviewed for
coPY l of astencygenwith;the NC Coastal
Management Program. Please forward aconsistency
' they are received. c comments to us as
L
A CAMA Permit or Consistency Determination is/may be required
' for this project. Applicant should contact
in phone no.
for assistance.
Proposal is in draft form, a consistency response is inappropriate.
consistency determination should be included in the final document.
' A CAMA Permit or Consistency Response has already been issued,
or is currently being reviewed under a separate circulation.
Permit/Consistency No. Date Issued
' Proposal involves < 20 acres or a structure < 60,000 sq.ft. and no
ABC's or Land Use Plan problems.
Proposal not in the Coastal Area and will have no significant
impacts on the Coastal Area.
Proposal is exempt from CAMA by statute. Other (See attached)
CONSISTENCY POSITIpN:
' The proposal is consistent with the NC Coastal Management Program
provided that all State authorization and/or permit requirements are
' met prior to implementation of the project.
A consistency position will be developed based on our review on, or
before
The proposal is inconsistent with the
NC Coastal Management Program.
Not Applicable Other (See attached)
' P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7657 Telephone [phone]
77-
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and N-atura-l Re
Division of Coastal Management
225 North ,'AcDov,-ell Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I
6 0 6 1992 I:
1 State of Noah w*----«.•?..__.M__--
Carolina
f'raj'tlm .5. ?-1 t Of Fnvirvnment, Health, and Natural Res-so urcess
1 i Division, of Coast;:;l Management -
225 North tilcDowc Jl Strcct 4 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
James G. Martin, Governor Roger N. Scheaer
1 William "y/ Cobey, Jr., S icretarv Director
07/31/92
MEMORANDUM
1 To: Mr. Charles Jones
NC DEk&NR
Division off Coastal Management
P.O. fox 769 lZ;l; y?^?l_.
Moreh6ad City, NC 28557
From: StevelBenton, Consistency Coordinator
' Subject:
Pr6ject Number SCH93-0044, Dated 03/10/92
Scoping: Craven County Regional Airport Terminal Expansion
1 Proposed by:1 NC Division of Highways in Craven County
The above lifted document is being circulated to you for review
1 and comment by 08/10/92.
Type of Review Requested:
1 General comments / FYI
Determin6tion of Permits Needed / Local Land Use Plan Issues
NEPA / NhEPA Comments
Prelimin6ry Federal / State Consistency Comments
Federal state Consistency Comments
1 Please contabt me before the response due date if additional
review time lis needed. Thank you.
REPLY 'his office objects to the project as proposed.
' Comments on this project are attached.
.his office supports the project proposal.
1 23o Comment.
Signed
Date'
1
P.t:.) Box 2769:, i:,ii?•;?.?., Vorh Carolina 27h11.76r Tdcphonc 919-733-2;93

1

1

E

IJ

f]

NEEATORA1vDUM:/
1 IT
TO: STEVE BE.WON
s::1
FROM: KA'ItY B. VINSON

Post-It` brand fax transmitt?i memo 7671 #of pages ? j
fi ? Fro
C Co.
Dept. " A. Phorre r
Fax Fe s r
TT-
SUBJECT: CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION - PROJECT #SCH93-0044
CRAVEN COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT TERMINAL EXPANSION
' DATE: August 13, 1992

Craven County Regional Airport proposes to expand the air carrier terminal with associated
parking, access, -rld apron development. The Airport has prepared an Environmental
Analysis (EA) for ?a Terminal Area Expansion, which considers several alternatives for
expansion. The analysis concludes that expansion should occur in Quadrant IV and
recommends Concept Number V, as described in the analysis document. The Airport desires
a categorical exclusion for the selected expansion option.
I have reviewed thi's project for consistency with the 1988 Craven County Land Use Plan
Update.
The Land Use Planl (LUP) classifies the project area as 'Transition'. Page 87 of the Plan
describes the relatiobship of policies and land classifications and states that "The Developed
and Transition classes were specifically designated to accommodate these more intensively
developed areas andi land uses, including residential, commercial, industrial parks and open
space, community facilities and transportation."
The EA notes that a small portion of the development area of Concept Area V falls within
possible wetland areas. Page 84 of the Plan states that major wetlands (other than statutorily
defined coastal wetlands) may be classified as 'Conservation'. On Page 85, the Plan goes on
to state that "Certain wooded swamp areas" are classified as 'Conservation', yet neither the
text of the Plan nos the Land Classification Map identifies the location of these areas as
being in the vicinity pf the proposed project.
The County's policy' regarding residential and commercial land development is discussed on
Page 57. Craven bounty considers commercial and industrial development as desirable
because of the impottant local revenue and employment generating impacts. The Plan states
that "...land development, whether for residential, commercial or industrial uses, compatible
with existing constraints (i.e., poor soils, flood hazards, etc.) and in conformance with
existing regulatory controls, will be encouraged in Craven County."

r

Based on the above] policy and the Transition classification of the project area, this project
appears consistent H;ith the 1988 Craven County LUP. Although the Plan is somewhat vague
regarding the Count's intentions regarding locations of Conservation classified wetlands, the
Plan indicates that a project of this type would not be inconsistent with the Conservation
classification, provided all necessary local, State and Federal pern-dts can be obtained.
Jim Mercer of our, regulatory staff has also reviewed this project and indicates that no
LAMA permits will! be required, since no CAMA AECs appear to be involved.
KBV/dh
cc: Charles S. Jones
1
1

C'

F1
J

I I.,
' DIVISION OF ENVIROMmgTAL mmGa= "--'?
N
Air Quality Section
c", 2
August 11, 1992
' MEMORANDUM e
TO: Melba McGee
' Environmental Assessment Section
FROM: Alan Klimek, Chief ?-
' Project No. 93-0044
Environmental Analysis for Craven County Regional Airport
1 Terminal Area Expansion
Jackson, North Carolina
Craven County

I

(_,•:
The Environmental Analysis for the above referenced project has been
reviewed by the Air Quality Section. As per NCAC 15D .0804 "Airport
Facilities", before constructing or modifying any airport facility
expected to have 100,000 or more annual aircraft operations, or 45 or more
peak hour aircraft operations (one operation equals one takeoff, or one
landing) within ten years, a person shall apply for and received a permit
as described in Paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of Regulation .0802. A
permit to construct and operate the facility may not be required but we
do not have enough information to determine if the airport facility. is
projected to have 100,000 or more annual aircraft operations, or 45 or
more peak-hour aircraft operations 100,000 hours. Consequently until
additional information is submitted and has been reviewed by this Section
we are unable to detennine if a permit is required and the potential air
quality impacts.
should you require further information in this regard please contact me or
Mr. Jim Roller of the Air Quality Analysis Unit.
cc: Charles F. Yirka
Jim Roller

J

!J

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
5 August 1992
MEMORANDUM

TO: Lorraine Shinn
Regional Manager
Washington Regional Office
FROM: William J. Moore
Environmental Engineer
SUBJECT: A-95 Review
Project # 93-0044
Craven Regional Airport
Craven County
The subject document has been reviewed. An erosion control
plan has already been submitted to this office.
The proposed project must comply with the State Stormwater
regulations.

?I

i
i
i
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Reviewing Office:
Washington Re Tonal Office
Project Number: Due Date:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
Z
3-00 8 112 -19
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Otipstinnc ranarriinn thpsp nprmits shnulrf he addressed to the Regional Office indirated on the rpvpmp of the fnrm
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same
Regional Office. Normal Proce.
Time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory tin,
limit)

? Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions, & sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90.120 days

? permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to
discharging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply (N/A)
time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
?
Water Use Permit
Pre-application technical conference usually necessary 30 days
(N/A)
?
Well Construction Permit
Complete application must be received and permit issued 7 days
prior to the installation of a well. (15 days)
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 days
? Dredge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
? Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement
f
ili
i
i
i
S
15A NCAC 21H
E
06 60 days
on
t
es and/or
m
ources as per
.
ac
ss N/A (90 days)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal Q(J, Jso?J 3'/t?? V' G1o55!'/ 7'i
r7l must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A 60 days
?7I NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal N/A
/yam prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
919.733.0820. (90 days)

? Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D.0800.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentatio
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect.) at least 30 20 days
days before beginning activity. A fee of S30 for the first acre and $20.00 for each additional acre or art must accomoan the Dian. 130 days)
? The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: (30 days)
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
? Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond (60 days)
must be received before the permit can be issued.
? North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days (N/A)
? Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required -if more 1 day
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections (N/A)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned."

? 90.120 day!
Oil Refining Facilities N/A (N/A)
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction.

? Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans. 30 days
Dam Safety Permit inspect construction, certify construction is according to EHNR approv-
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And (60 days)
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces-
sary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of S200.00 must ac-
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
o1.,n-.

I

1
L?II'

J

11

F-1

A,,:rnal Pr,ce
Time

PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory tirr
limit)

Permit to drill exploratory oil or as well
9 File surety bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to State of N.C.

conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall
u 10 day s
Y
,
pon
abandonment. be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations. (N/A)
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit
Application by letter. No standard application form. P
O State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include 152
descriptions & dra
wings of structure & proof of ownership
of riparian property.
401 Water Quality Certification
NIA 60 days
(130 days)
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development
$250.00 fee must accompany application 55 days
(150 days)
CAMA Permit for MINOR development
$50.00 fee must accompany application 22 days
(25 days)
Q Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Abandonment of any wells, if required, must be in accordance with Title 15A, Subchapter 2C.0100.
Notification of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (USTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
Compliance with 15A NCAC 21-1.1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required. 45 days

*
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority): (NIA)
-?
^? ?

' REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Re
ional Offic
k
g e mar
ed below.
? Asheville Regional Office ? Fayetteville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place
Asheville
NC 28801 Suite 714 Wachovia Building
' ,
[phone] Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone]
? Mooresville Regional Office [] Raleigh Regional Office
' 919 North Main Street, P.O. Box 950
Mooresville, NC 28115 3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
Ralei
h
NC 27609
[phone] g
,
(919) 33-2314
? Washington Regional Office ? Wilmington Regional Office
' 1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington
NC 27889 127
Cardinal Drive Extension
,
[phone] Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone]
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
8025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100
Winatnn.Cnlam fir` 971nR

L

E

Project Number

County
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT,. HEALTI3,
AND NATURAL
ESOURGES'?
R
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL :HEALTH
' Inter-Agency Project Review. Response
Project Name Cruy-t- Type of Project r A
' The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications for all water
system improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental
Health prior to the award of a contract or the initiation of construction (as
required by 15A NCAC 18C .0300 et seq.). For information, contact the
Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
This project will be classified as a non-community public water supply and
t must comply with state and federal drinking water monitoring
requirements. For more information the applicant should contact the
Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
d
d
ill
l
f
i
i
d
- as propose
, we w
s constructe
recommen
c
osure o
If th
s project

F
1 feet of adjacent waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information
regarding the shellfish sanitation program, the applicant should contact
'
the Shellfish Sanitation Branch at [phone].
'
? The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a
mosquito breeding problem. For information concerning appropriate
mosquito control measures, the applicant should contact the Public Health
Pest Management Section at [phone].
'
The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of
dilapidated structures, an extensive rodent control program may be
necessary in order to prevent the migration of the rodents to adjacent
rodent control
contact the local health
ation concernin
i
f
F
,
orm
g
areas.
n
or
department or the Public Health Pest Management Section, [phone].
' The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department
a regarding their requirements for septic tank installations (as required
under 15A NCAC 18A .1900 et. seq.). For information concerning septic
' tank and other on-site waste disposal methods, contact the On-Site
Wastewater Section at [phone].
J The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department
J? regarding the sanitary facilities required for this project.
z ? b-e-j u ? a

C_ C_!S IY A7
Reviewer Section/Branch Date

DEHNR 3198 (Revised 2/92)
Division of Environmental Health
Review 2/94

n

11

I

0

,a
State of North Carolina-
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural-=:R_ es'
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW CbmcgNTS
J
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
Project Number: 3- ?- - County: ! 4?% /L-
4 -
Charles H. Gardner
Director
Project Name: T7?';,,p • J L X,' ?? ?,??
' Geodetic Survey
' This project will impact geodetic'survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
' other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewer Date
' Erosion and Sedimentation Control

J
7

E

No comment
V This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any-land-disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program, delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality' Section at [phone].
Reviewer
Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh. N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

0

n

n

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor August 6, 1992 A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Acting Di=tor
' MEMORANDUM
' To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn e
Eric Galamb
From: Monica Swihart.oj
' Subject: Water Quality Checklist for EA/EIS/Scoping Documents
Craven County Regional Airport
Craven County
EHNR # 93-0044, DEM WQ # 6445
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental Management requests that
' the following topics be discussed in the EA/EIS/Scoping documents:
A. Will deicing be available? If so, will the runoff be treated?
' B. Will borrow locations be in wetlands?
C. Mitigation for lost flood storage capacity and wetland impacts should be at a 2:1
(replace ment:loss) ratio. Mitigation should be on-site rather than offsite.
Restoration, enhancement, creation and banking (in order) are the preferred
mitigation actions.
' D. Please ensure that sediment and erosion control measures are not laced in
wetlands. p
' E. DEM believes that a Categorical Exclusion permit would only be appropriate if
the Regional Airport fully mitigates the wetlands which are unavoidably lost (see
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be required for this project.
' Please be aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have not
been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
' REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh - Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/571-4700 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 919/896-7007
' Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affvmative Action Employer

0

n
0

?
A
v 'C
117
?L 1
Y •44 n T ??
' North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor Division of Archives and History
Patric Dorsey, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
' August 10, 1992
The LPA Group
' P.O. Box 17736
Raleigh, NC 27619
' Re: Proposed Craven County regional airport
terminal expansion, CH 93-E-4220-0044
Dear Sirs:
' We have received information concerning the
above project from
the State Clearinghouse.
' We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no
properties of architectural, historic, or archaeological
' significance which would be affected by the project. Therefore,
we have no comment on the project as currently proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory
council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance
with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
' Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have
questions concerning the above comment, please contact Renee
' Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-
4763.
Sincerely,
' David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
' DB:slw
cc: LSrt-ate Clearinghouse
North Carolina Division of Aviation

109 Eastjones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

l

1

1?

r

July 21, 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO: North Carolina State Clearinghouse
Department of Administration -?
FROM: Janie S. Archer
National Flood Insurance Program
North Carolina Division of Emergency Managment
SUBJECT: Intergovernmental Review
State # 92_L_4220-0044
Craven Co. Airport Terminal
Com1T!ents: T}.e arcaa is located in the 100
year floodolain and all
regulatior:s of Craven County Flood Prevention Ordinance
and City of New Barr, (if within the city limits) would
apply to further development.
For information purposes the Commission is advised that
on-July 24, 1990, Governor Martin signed Executive Order
123, a Uniform Floodplain Mangement Policy, which must
be followed for development on any site located within
the Special ;Mood Hazard Area.

STgTj o
q,,,..KS•P a-
North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
James G. Marnn, Governor Division of Emergency Management
Joseph W. Dean, Secretary 116 W. Jones St., Raleigh, N. C. 27603-1335
[phone]

LJ

' Terminal Environmental Assessment
Craven County Regional Airport

t

PRELIMINARY TERMINAL BUILDING CONCEPTS
APPENDIX B

J
J

J

Terminal Environmental Assessment
Craven County Regional Airport
APPENDIX B
PRELIMINARY TERMINAL BUILDING CONCEPTS
Craven County Regional Airport
TERMINAL CONCEPTS
Terminal Building Concepts "A", "B", and "C" are very similar in their spacial
arrangement. Their differences are a result of differing site conditions. All three are
organized around a primary circulation corridor and a secondary circulation corridor.
The primary corridor runs roughly parallel to the access roadway/curbside and AOA.
The primary corridor connects from the Ticketing areas to the Baggage Claim areas.
Ticketing is located along the initial approach area of curbside. Baggage Claim is at the
opposite end. This organization segregates enplaning from deplaning passenger traffic,
thus reducing congestion along the roadway, curbside, and within the terminal.
The secondary corridor leads to the security screening station and beyond to the
Passenger Holding Lounge, the Holding Lounge being located adjacent to the aircraft
apron.
The areas at the intersection of the two corridors contain Public Waiting space,
Restrooms, and Concession spaces for a restaurant, newsstand, video arcade, or other
miscellaneous tenants and centralizes concession to the predominant traffic flow. Also
located in this area is an elevator to the second floor.
The second floor provides a sweeping view of the Airfield and a mezzanine overlook
down into the central portions of the first floor. This floor contains a Public Observation
area, public restrooms, Airport Administration Suite, and available lease space. Within
B-1

n

'
Terminal Environmental Assessment
Craven County Regional Airport

the Administration Area is a Public Meeting Room.

Distributed throughout the facility are various support spaces such as Mechanical and
' Electrical Rooms and custodial areas. Also lease spaces for Carriers and Rental Car
Vendors are provided.

The differences between Terminals "A", "B", and "C" do not affect their internal
' organizational layout. Terminal "C" is a linear building to be incorporated in locations
where the access road and curbside are straight. Terminal "B" angles the Baggage Claim
' wing at approximately 45 ° to reflect a similar bend in the access road and curbside to
retain a close relationship between curbside loading/unloading and the buildings entrance
' doors and maximize utilization of the existing aircraft apron. Terminal "A" goes one
step further and angles both the Bag Claim wing and the Ticketing wing at approximately
45°, creating a wrap-around effect along a curved access roadway.
' All three terminal concepts have roughly the same overall area and distribution of area
to the various functions within the building.
' In organizational layout and construction costs, these concepts are roughly equal offering
no significant advantages over the others. The selection of a terminal concept will be
dictated by site conditions and efficiencies.

I

? a=

C

Fl

J

0
O
C
?s
73 0?
m•
47 C
A ?
n .?
= O
A
h
•w
v O x
ry29 x
m (A
sZ a
0
bA
r- C:
p z .0
f, 4 Z ..
A r (n o
C r?
'r o
a
?z a
t%l
a
i
rn
z
s
041
t?
C) M
?2?
mg00
IE z a z
n -?c Z C)
>m0
?M
?_
O Z
z -? z A
°a?
'4 co
< H
0z
.? z
4
fm
m
in
?
y
Y

m
x
w x
too
-I
w
i
0
co
N
s app ??p
?? 'l1 tiq
y? ?p
Qp .?
v9? Cyr ?G.o
9• G? r-?
_7 I t
AG ? I I
Isa p I i
I I
9/ ? I I
I I
S I I
f?l I
I
Cf)
g Z1
a r- '
014
I
O = rn
I
1 I
rn• rn I I
I t
I I
I I
< I I
I I
I I
L - J
v
D
m
PH

0
0
m•
WC
?^ r
x?
C7 W
xx
t2l
v:
=x a
no
rn z z b
_• 8z
z;
pZ H
? G
0
ar
?M31
<Z3
Z o i
z c 0,
m-4Zr
z A -i
-?
?v
_rM
) Lo G)
>
?_:
0 0 0!
z -71i Z
z I
0)11,
? i
-f
I a
11211111111
III

J
!

m
0o x
co
w
o?
N
rrn'
n
W.
C
0 D
< z
A
O +
8 '
A t
+
c D+
? z
.. Cn PD _ o
o it ?
z ;rn
8 -n <
lpn
n n
O m
'
® m'
z
D i
O L . J
c !I n O ED
T
r

O
?A
mA?
O
m ?
?C
?r
A
=0
U):3
A\
•?
ZO
? ' LTJ
m 0
ro
2 F ??77
D O O
h
x? .
°z ro
?• A z
zM CZ 0
A
?- ro
a O
pz a
r
z
m
m
?o
z
0
m
a
m
0
r
Z
a

MM
mZ
C) o
00
zC
4 Z
o?
r
'rn
>
0o
'-i Z
>
Sr
°a
q5i
My
0
r
rn
?o
z
>
-4
m
m
z
r
s
m
>
A
0
z
0
m
ro
0
m
z
0
A
z
>
r
>
co
rn
IC
4
0

?n
m
mx
?m
w 00 00,
00, //
/
/
00
/s
00
\
\
\
\
\ /h
n Cn
>M
rn 0
r
-? o
g z
0
7
r
0
0
m

C
r4ii
h
y/ 00 00
\
00 00, 000 00 00, 00 00 000 % x t/
\
\
PH \
r 0,
0 t/
f/ 00
\
\
\
\\ LEASE
i
?

mr

n

10 0
;pn
o
o

Z --
?

P6

,
,
,
? I
,
,
t
t
t
r
t
I
rn '
r I
o
`v
' Terminal Environmental Assessment
Craven County Regional Airport
fl
u

t

r

F

APPENDIX C
BIOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS
AUGUST 9-10, 1994
0

i
C

L

t

0
n
e
ALTERNATIVE 1 ANALYSIS
• Wetlands
' Wetlands are defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) as "those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support,
t and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for
life in saturated soil conditions". The Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual sets forth
' the criteria and methods to be used for wetland determinations in the United States. The federal
guidelines for wetland identification utilize a multiparameter approach which requires at least one
' positive indicator of each wetland characteristic: (1) hydrophytic (wetland) vegetation; (2) hydric
(wetland) soils; and, (3) wetland hydrology.
' Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, requires federally supported projects to preserve
wetlands and to avoid and minimize wetland impacts to the maximum extent practicable.
' Information gathered during this study was used to design the alternatives to avoid or, where
avoidance was not possible, minimize impacts to wetla-ids. The wetlands on the project site have
' been defined based upon a review of the soil survey and aerial photography with limited on-site
ground-truthing. = Because the wetlands have not been delineated on-site, the wetlands indicated
' on figures used to estimate potential impacts should be considered approximations of the actual
locations and extent of wetlands.
Wetlands are protected by laws and executive orders because of the functions and values they
' provide with respect to:
• Hydrology - flood control, groundwater recharge and discharge, and dissipation
' of erosive forces;
• Water Quality - removal of sediments, toxins, and nutrients;
' Food chain support and nutrient cycling - primary production and nutrient
'
' export/utilization;
• Wildlife habitat - breeding, rearing, and feeding grounds for fish and wildlife
' October 13, 199 1

E

7

u

1

1
' species; and,
• Socio-economics - recreational, educational, aesthetic, and consumptive uses.
' The USACOE, under authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (1972) and with oversight
from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), regulates the disposal of dredged or
' fill material into waters of the United States, which includes wetlands. The USEPA, together
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and other federal and state agencies, reviews
Section 404 permit applications and is actively involved in other wetland regulatory issues.
' The wetlands on the project site have been defined based upon a review of the soil survey and
aerial. photography with limited on-site ground-truthing. Because the wetlands have not been
' delineated on-site, the wetlands indicated on figures used to estimate potential impacts should be
considered approximations of the actual locations and extent of wetlands.
Wetlands and partially drained wetlands are located on both sides of Airport Road, in low areas
' adjacent to a ditch that was installed to drain wetlands when land in the area was used for
agriculture. Dominant plant species identified in the wetlands and partially drained wetlands
' north of Airport Road include sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica),
red maple (Ater rubrum), yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), water oak (Quercus nigra),
' willow oak (Quercus phellos), red mulberry (Morus rubra), southern magnolia (Magnolia
' grandifolia), sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), beauty berry
(Callicarpa americana), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), common greenbrier (Smilax
' rotundifolia), honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea). In
addition to the aforementioned species, sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), horse-sugar (Symplocos
' tinctoria), pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), and pawpaw (Asimina triloba) were observed in
wetlands and partially drained wetlands south of Airport Road.
' Uplands in the project site are dominated by loblolly pine Pinus taeda black then'Y (Prunu
Y P ( )? s
' serotina), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), mimosa (Albizia julibrissen), and honeysuckle.
October 13, 1995 2

u

C

J

n

Based on a review of project location in relation to the approximate wetland boundaries indicated
' on the site diagram and limited ground-truthing, Alternative 1 would cause the greatest amount
of wetland impacts, of all the alternatives. Prior to the construction of Alternative 1, on-site
' wetlands would have to be delineated and USACOE approval of the delineation obtained. In
addition to the delineation, a USACOE Section 404 permit would be needed if the impacts total
' more than 10 acres, or, if impacts total less than 10 acres, the project might qualify for a
Nationwide Permit (NWP) #26. Mitigation for the impacts would be required to obtain the
' USACOE permit. The amount of mitigation that would be required would be based on the total
acreage of wetland impacts.
' If impacts total less than 1 acre but greater than 1/3 acre, an application/notification form must
be submitted to the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM) prior to
' impacting the wetlands. Since Craven County is a coastal county, an additional
application/notification form must be submitted to the North Carolina Division of Coastal
' Management (NCDCM) prior to impacting wetlands totaling 1/3 to 1 acre.
' Soils
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS, formerly
' Soil Conservation Service) has mapped the soils that occur in Craven County. Based on a review
of the Soil Survey of Craven County. North Carolina (March 1989), 3 soil types are present on
' the project site. One is considered hydric (wetland), one can have hydric inclusions, and one is
an upland soil.
Altavista Series - Altavista fine sandy loam is described as a moderately well drained soil, found
' in higher elevations on stream terraces. It has been designated by the USDA as a prime farmland
soil. According to the soil survey, its main use is as cropland.
Augusta Series - Augusta fine sandy loam is described as a somewhat poorly drained soil, found
t on flats and depressions on stream terraces. Tomotley fine sandy loam is the hydric inclusion
commonly found associated with this soil. According to the soil survey, its main use is as
' October 13, 1995

l
J

u

u
r

i
cropland.
Tomotley Series - Tomotley fine sandy loam is described as a poorly drained soil, found on broad
' flats and in depressions on stream terraces. It has been identified by the NRCS as a hydric soil.
According to the soil survey, its main use is as woodland. In some areas it is used as pasture or
' cropland.
• Flora and Fauna
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 ("the Act"), as amended, requires federal agencies, in
' consultation, with and assisted by, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), to insure that
their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat of such species. To
' facilitate compliance with Section 7(c) of the Act, the objective was to determine if any federally
protected species are likely to occur on the project site and, if so, to identify their locations.
' Various habitats that occur on site were identified during a site visit conducted on October 9,
1995. Natural habitats observed consisted of bottomland hardwoods and loblolly pine dominated
forest (these are described in the wetlands section). Mowed and maintained lawns associated with
private residences are also located on the proposed project site.
A list of threatened and endangered species, dated April 19, 1995, known to exist in Craven
County was obtained from the North Carolina field office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
' (USFWS) on October 4, 1995. The list contained three endangered and three threatened species.
One of the species listed, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), has been removed from
' endangered status since this list was published. Threatened species listed include green sea turtles
(Chelonia mydas), loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta), and sensitive joint-vetch
(Aeschynomene virginia). Endangered species listed include red-cockaded woodpeckers (Picoides
borealis), and Kemp's ridley sea turtles (Lepidochelys kempi).
The list also contained 14 candidate species. The "candidate species" designation indicates that
October 13, 1995 4
I i

C

L

n

L

r
the USFWS presently has limited information to support listing the species as threatened or
' endangered. The candidate species are not presently listed nor officially proposed for listing as
endangered or threatened; i.e., they are not legally protected under the Act and are not subject
' to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
threatened or endangered. These species may, however, be listed in the future, at which time
' they will be protected under the Act.
' The red-cockaded woodpecker requires mature pine forest stands free of heavy undergrowth in
which to build nests and to forage. The dominant overstory of most of the forested areas consist
of hardwood species which are not suitable nesting or foraging habitat. Loblolly pine is dominant
in forested uplands, however, due to the presence of heavy undergrowth, these areas are not
suitable nesting or foraging habitat. Therefore, the proposed project would not impact the red-
cockaded woodpecker.
' The remaining threatened and endangered species known to occur in Craven County, listed by
the USFWS, are dependant on salt-water habitats which are not present on the project site.

0

0

October 13, 1995 5

t

F

J

u

n
H
r

r
ALTERNATIVE 2 ANALYSIS
• Wetlands
' The wetlands on the project site have been defined based upon a review of the soil survey and
aerial photography with limited on-site ground-truthing. Because the wetlands have not been
' delineated on-site, the wetlands indicated on figures used to estimate potential impacts should be
' considered approximations of the actual locations and extent of wetlands.
Wetlands and partially drained wetlands are located on the north side of Airport Road, in low
areas adjacent to a ditch that was installed to drain wetlands when land in the area was used for
' agriculture. Dominant plant species identified in the wetlands and partially drained wetlands
north of Airport Road include sweet gum, black gum, red maple, yellow poplar, water oak,
willow oak, red mulberry, southern magnolia, sweetbay, Chinese privet, beauty berry, poison ivy,
common greenbrier, honeysuckle, and giant cane.
Uplands in the project site are dominated by loblolly pine, black cherry, sassafras, mimosa, and
' honeysuckle.
' Based on a review of the project location in relation to the approximate wetland boundaries
indicated on the site diagram and limited ground-truthing, -Alternative 2 would cause the second
greatest amount of wetland impacts, of all the alternatives. Prior to the construction of
Alternative 2, on-site wetlands would have to be delineated and USACOE approval of the
' delineation obtained. In addition to the delineation, a USACOE Section 404 permit would be
needed if the impacts total more than 10 acres, or, if impacts total less than 10 acres, the project
' might qualify for a NWP #26. Mitigation for the impacts would be required to obtain the
USACOE permit. The amount of mitigation that would be required would be based on the total
' acreage of wetland impacts.
' If impacts total less than 1 acre but greater than 1/3 acre, an application/notification form must
be submitted to the NCDEM prior to impacting the wetlands. Since Craven County is a coastal
' October 13, 1995 6
I
J

J

county, an additional application/notification form must be submitted to the NCDCM prior to
impacting wetlands totaling 1/3 to 1 acre.
- Soils
Based on a review of the Soil Survey of Craven County. North Carolina (March 1989), 3 soil
' types are present on the project site. One is considered hydric (wetland), one can have hydric
inclusions, and one is an upland soil.
Altavista Series - Altavista fine sandy loam is described as a moderately well drained soil, found
in higher elevations on stream terraces. It has been designated by the USDA as a prime farmland
soil. According to the soil survey, its main use is as cropland.
' Augusta Series - Augusta fine sandy loam is described as a somewhat poorly drained soil, found
on flats and depressions on stream terraces. Tomotley fine sandy loam is the hydric inclusion
' commonly found associated with this soil. According to the soil survey, its main use is as
cropland.
r
Tomotley Series - Tomotley fine sandy loam is described as a poorly drained soil, found on broad
' flats and in depressions on stream terraces. It has been identified by the NRCS as a hydric soil.
According to the soil survey, its main use is as woodland. In some areas it is used as pasture or
cropland.
- Flora and Fauna
Various habitats that occur on site were identified during a site visit conducted on October 9,
1995. Natural habitats observed consisted of bottomland hardwoods and loblolly pine dominated
forest (these are described in the wetlands section). Mowed and maintained lawns associated with
' private residences are also located on the proposed project site.
' Mature pine forest stands free of heavy undergrowth are required by the red-cockaded
woodpecker for nesting and foraging. The dominant overstory of most of the forested areas
' October 13, 1995 7

1
1

1

consist of hardwood species which are not suitable nesting or foraging habitat. Forested areas
dominated by loblolly pine contain dense undergrowth and are not suitable habitat. Therefore,
the proposed project would not impact the red-cockaded woodpecker.
The remaining threatened and endangered species known to occur in Craven County, listed by
the USFWS, are dependant on salt-water habitats which are not present on the project site.

October 13, 1995
8

u

'.J

J
0

' ALTERNATIVE 3 ANALYSIS
' Wetlands
Much of the land on airport property and in the vicinity is currently or was formerly agricultural
land. Drainage ditches are evident in the fields and many of the natural streams in the area have
been channelized to remove water from the fields, including Scotts Creek which flows through
the northern portion of the airport property. These ditches and channelized streams have greatly
reduced the amount of wetlands on-site by removing the hydrology from them.
A wetland delineation was performed on the Alternative 3 site on August 9 and 10, 1994.
t Approval for the delineation was received from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on November
25, 1994. During the delineation, 2 ditches, dug through uplands, were identified on the
' Alternative 3 site. USACOE representative, Mr. Mike Bell, agreed with the determination that
these were indeed ditches and not stream channels.
The delineation approval was also coordinated with the NRCS, as a portion of the agricultural
' fields, on which much of the site is located, are mapped as having hydric soils, according to the
soil survey. NRCS personnel determined that these fields are Prior Converted Cropland (PCC),
which are not subject to jurisdiction of the USACOE.
No jurisdictional waters of the United States or wetlands were identified on the Alternative 3 site,
therefore, no impacts would result from the construction of this alternative.;
• Soils
' Based on a review of the Soil Survey of Craven County, North Carolina (March 1989), 4 soil
' types are present on the project site. One is considered hydric (wetland), one can contain hydric
inclusions, and two are upland soils.
I Altavista Series - Altavista fine sandy loam is described as a moderately well drained soil, found
' in higher elevations on stream terraces. It has been designated by the USDA as a prime farmland
October 13, 1995 9

1

1

1i

soil. According to the soil survey, its main use is as cropland.
Augusta Series - Augusta fine sandy loam is described as a somewhat poorly drained soil, found
on flats and depressions on stream terraces. Tomotley fine sandy loam is the hydric inclusion
commonly found associated with this soil. According to the soil survey, its main use is as
cropland.
Goldsboro Series - Goldsboro loamy fine sand is described as a moderately well drained soil
found in upland areas near drainageways. It has been designated by the USDA as a prime
farmland soil.' According to the soil survey, its main use is as cropland.
Tomotley Series - Tomotley fine sandy loam is described as a poorly drained soil, found on broad
flats and in depressions on stream terraces. It has been identified by the NRCS as a hydric soil.
According to the soil survey, its main use is as woodland. In some areas it is used as pasture or
cropland.
• Flora and Fauna
Various habitats that occur on site were identified during a wetland delineation that was
performed on the site and subsequent site visits. Most of the proposed Alternative 3 would be
constructed on former and current agricultural land. The former agricultural land is currently a
mowed and maintained area located along the eastern edge of the north end of Taxiway A. The
current agricultural land located north of Clermont Road. A portion of the site consists of mowed
and maintained areas associated with private residences. Impacts to natural flora and fauna would
be minimal due to the lack of habitat and continuous disturbance in these areas.
There are no mature pines forests on the site, therefore the red-cockaded woodpecker would .not
be impacted. The remaining threatened and endangered species known to occur in Craven
County, listed by the USFWS, are dependant on salt-water habitats which are not present on the
project site.
October 13, 1995 10

J

n

1

ALTERNATIVE 4 ANALYSIS
• Wetlands
1 Wetlands on the Alternative 4 site were identified and USACOE approval obtained during the
same .delineationthat was performed for the Alternative 3 site. During the delineation approval
' by the USACOE drainage ditches were distinguished from jurisdictional waters of the U.S., and
PCC was determined to be present by the NRCS.
I Soils
Based on a review of the Soil Survey of Craven County. North Carolina (March 1989), 6 soil
types are present on the project site. Three are considered hydric (wetland), and three are upland
soils.
Altavista Series - Altavista fine sandy loam is described as a moderately well drained soil, found
' October 13, 1995 11

n

1

F
J

in higher elevations on stream terraces. It has been designated by the USDA asa prime farmland
soil. According to the soil survey, its main use is as cropland.
' Conetoe Series - Conetoe loamy sand is described as a well drained soil found on low ridges, on
stream terraces. According to the soil survey, its main use is as cropland.
Goldsboro Series - Goldsboro loam fine sand i descried
y is b as a moderately well drained soil
' found in upland areas near drainageways. It has been designated by the USDA as a prime
farmland soil. According to the soil survey, its main use is as cropland.
Masontown Series - Masontown mucky fine sandy loam is described as a very poorly drained soil
found in depressions on flood plains and on narrow flood plains. It is a hydric soil. Due to the
wetness of this soil, it is not suitable for agriculture or building sites.
Muckalee Series - Muckalee sandy loam is described as a poorly drained soil found in
' depressions on flood plains and on narrow flood plains. It is a hydric soil. Due to the wetness
of this soil, it is not suitable for agriculture or building sites.
Tomotley, Series - Tomotley fine sandy loam is described as a poorly drained soil, found on broad
flats and in depressions on stream terraces. It has been identified by the NRCS as a hydric soil.
According to the soil survey, its main use is as woodland. In some areas it is used as pasture or
' cropland.
• Flora and Fauna
Various habitats that occur on site were identified during a wetland delineation that was
performed on the site and subsequent site visits. Most of the proposed project would be
' constructed on land that was formerly or is currently agricultural land. The former agricultural
land is currently a mowed and maintained area located along the eastern edge of the north end
of Taxiway A. The agricultural land that is currently being farmed is located north of Clermont
Road. A portion of the project consists of mowed and maintained areas associated with private
October 13, 1995 12

1
i?
n

I

1
t
residences. Impacts to natural flora and fauna would.be minimal due to the continuous
j disturbance in these areas.
I One forested area would be impacted by the proposed project. It is located in the eastern portion
' of the project site. It consists of a narrow, natural area between an agricultural field and a former
agricultural field. The dominant tree species is loblolly pine. Other plant species include
sweetgum, water oak, black cherry, yellow poplar, hickories, red cedar (Juniperus virginiana),
sassafras, blackgum, giant cane, honeysuckle, common greenbrier, pepper vine, lance-leaf
' greenbrier, and saw greenbrier. This area could potentially provide habitat for birds and small
mammals.
The red-cockaded woodpecker requires mature pine forests free ofheavy undergrowth in which
' to build nests and to forage. Although the dominant tree species in the forested area consists of
mature pines, the undergrowth in this area is dense. Therefore, this would not be suitable habitat
for the red-cockaded woodpecker. The remaining threatened and endangered species known to
occur in Craven County, listed by the USFWS, are dependant on salt-water habitats which are
not present on the project site.

L
' October 13, 1995
13

n

0

IJI

I

RFVISFD APRIL 19, 1995
Craven County
ird
Bald eagle (Ifa-filnetus Ieucocephilus) - E
tied-cockaded woodpecker Ifieoides boreauj) - t'
Green sea turtle (ChelAna nyydes) - T
Kerttp's (Atlantic) Ridley sea turtle (L idochelys iceqjp() - F
Loggerhead sea turtle (Carocta caretta) - T
ns
Sensitive joint-vetch (Aescltvnomene viralntra) • T`
'!?, V V

Sea turtles when "in the water" site under the jtaNdic0oo of the National Marine Fisheries Service and
should be contacted concerning your agency's responsibilities under Section 7 of the Endangered species
Act. Their address is:
National Marine Fisherios Sorvica
U-S. Department M commerce
9450 Koger Boulevard
Duval Building
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
There are species which, although riot now listed or olflOaliy proposed for listing as endangered or
threatened, are under status review by the Service. These "Candldato'(r; ) and C2) species are not legally
protected under the Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they ate
formally proposed or listed as threatened or ctidangerod. We are providing the below list of candidate
species which may occur within tho fuojcrct -vtua for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
spaciss may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected under the Act. In the meantime,
we would appreciaie anything you rnight do for them.
811.41
Sachman's sparrow QkjMgr 21ilg aty; ivalis) - C2
Black rail (Latorallua iarnicQnsis) - C2
Crustaceans
Croatan crayfish (PrOCart)-L'1drus piop i n' h --i - C2
Lim =
Ceromatic noctuid moth (referrj t:erom i a) - C2
FWrits
Carolina goldenrod (ScijLggac o puicltra) - C2
Chapman's sedge (Carex cha gkA!!j) - C2
Godfrey's sandwort (.ilrlir gALtt9 n 1ofreYi) - C2
Looso watermilfoil (Mvrioohvllu(n Itrxum) - C2
Savanna cowbane (x ' li ternala.) - C2
Smooth bog-asphodel (T Qftidia gt ?) - C2'
Spring-floM,ering goldenrod i lid go vernal - C2
Venus flytrap (Didnaea mtscipula) - C2
Wagner's spleenv?ort (AuLgt?kjm h@terorasitiens) - C2
Wlrelaaf dropseed (SpgLgb lus ULglioliu ) - C2
"Indicates no specimen In at least 20 years from this county.

n

J

,. $CIUF o
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor August 6, 1992 A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Acting Dim-ctor
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorne .I
Eric Galamb
From: Monica Swihart
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for EA/EIS/Scoping Documents
Craven County Regional Airport
Craven County
E H N R# 93-0044, DE M WQ # 6445
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental Management requests that
the following topics be discussed in the EA/EIS/Scoping documents:
A. Will deicing be available? If so, will the runoff be treated?
B. Will borrow locations -be in wetlands?
C. Mitigation for lost flood storage capacity and wetland impacts should be at a 2:1
(replace ment:loss) ratio. Mitigation should be on-site rather than offsite.
Restoration, enhancement, creation and banking (in order) are the preferred
mitigation actions.
D. Please ensure that sediment and erosion control measures are not placed in
wetlands.
E. DEM believes that a Categorical Exclusion permit would only be appropriate if
the Regional Airport fully mitigates the wetlands which are unavoidably lost (see
C.).
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be required for this project.
Please be aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have not
been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/571-4700 919/946-6481 9191395-3900 919/896-7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportuniry Affirmative Action Employer

,? qq,6'
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Planning and Assessment
Project Review Form
? Project located in 7th floor library
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response
Dui (firm deadline):
(fi3 -(2 This project is being reviewed as indicated below:

Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ?All R/O Areas Soil and Water Marine Fisheries
`
? Fayetteville Air Coastal Management /
Water Planning

? Mooresville Water ? Water Resources Environmental Health
Groundwater Wildlife ? Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh Land Quality Engineer Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
Washington Recreational Consultant Land Resources ? David Foster

? Wilmington ?Coastal Management Consultant Parks and Recreation ?Other (specify)
?? Environmental Management

? Winston-Salem a \?

'J UL ,`o /9 g

Manager Sign-Off/Region: WATER-,QUALITY,
,, Da
?:
In-House Reviewer/Agency:

Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager.
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
1).
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
, Division of Planning and Assessment by Due Date shown.

Craven County Regional Airport
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FOR
TERMINAL AREA. EXPANSION
FINAL REPORT
THE LPA GROUP OF NORTH CAROLINA, P.A.
1?

i
11

L

The preparation of this document was financed in part through a planning grant from the ,
Federal Aviation Administration as provided under Section 505 of the Airport and Airway Safety
and Capacity Expansion Act of 1987. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views
or policy of the FAA. Acceptance of this report by the FAA does not in any way constitute
a commitment on the part of the United States to participate in any development depicted
therein nor does it indicate that the proposed development is environmentally acceptable in
accordance with appropriate public laws.
j
r
t

TABLE OF CONTENTS
......? PRELIMINARY
SUBJECT TO CHANEL
PAGE
CHAPTER NUMBER
1. TERMINAL NEED 1-1
Purpose 1-1
Need for Improvements 1-1
Desired Federal Action 1-4
Time Frame for Proposed Improvements 1-4
ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS II-1
Do-Nothing Alternative II-1
Quadrant I Alternative II-1
Quadrant II Alternative 11-1
Quadrant III Alternative 11-2
Relocate Airport Alternative II-2
III. TERMINAL CONCEPT DETAILED ANALYSIS III-1
Terminal Concepts III-2
Site Concepts III-4
Concept 1 III-4
Concept II 111-5
Concept III 111-6
Concept IV III-7
Concept V III-8
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY IV-1
Conclusion IV-3

J
7

u

I
C
rI

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
FOLLOWS
EXHIBIT PAGE
A Airport Layout Plan 1-1
G Terminal "A" First Floor III-2
H Terminal "B" First Floor III-2
1 Terminal "C" First Floor 111-2
J Typical Second Floor III-2
B Alternative Terminal Area - Concept 1 III-4
C Alternative Terminal Area - Concept II III-5
D Alternative Terminal Area - Concept III 111-6
E Alternative Terminal Area - Concept IV 111-7
F Alternative Terminal Area - Concept V 111-8
K Generalized Wetlands - Terminal Area IV-2
L Floodway Boundary and Floodway Map IV-2
TABULATIONS
PAGE
TABLE NUMBER
1-1 Air Carrier Terminal 1989 Space Comparisons 1-2
1-2 Air Carrier Terminal Space Requirements 1-3
Conceptual Cost Summary III-9

r_

i

L
?I
J

7

' Purpose
Chapter I
TERMINAL NEED
The purpose of this analysis is to provide a preliminary perspective directed toward

L
C

C
C

the potential expansion of the Air Carrier Terminal at the Craven Regional Airport. The
analysis will: be directed toward obtaining a Categoricgi Exclusion, for a selected terminal
expansion alternative` concept. If a Categorical Exclusion is not granted, then the
information in this analysis will be incorporated into subsequent environmental analyses.
The following Airport Layout Plan (Exhibit A) is for locational purposes only. The
location of the new terminal in Quadrant IV of the Airport Layout Plan is not the selected
Quadrant IV location in this study.
Need for Improvements
The need for a new terminal at the Craven County Regional Airport was justified
in the 1989 Master Plan Update and Terminal Area Study. The following Tables 1-1 and
1-2 are excerpts of Tables 7-3 and 7-4 in the Master Plan Report and illustrate the need
for terminal expansion. As shown by Table 1-1, the existing 1989 square footage per
Typical Peak Hour Passenger (TPHP) of 64.2 is only 42.8 percent of the typical standard
of 150 square feet per TPHP. Only limited terminal additions have been made since 1989
and passenger enplanements have continued to increase. Passenger enplanements as
of April, 1992 are within approximately 1 percent of the 1989 forecasts, thereby confirming
Tables 1-1 and 1-2 as being statistically valid for 1992 analyses.
I - 1
J

J

1
1
1
1
ti
ALL WEATHER WIND ROSE
RUNWAY 4-22 RUNWAY 13-31
N-30 47 48'-E H-52 03' 49'-W
12 MPtt 97.9% 12 MPIt 96.9%
15 MPIt 99.9% 15 MPIt 99.9%
WIND COVERAGE

EXIST. SO TCL
IN,
SOURCE.
o19FACE j
3EYMOUR
TIME PERIL
DATES 196.
13a.

NEW
fMA RAVEN CO UNT IONAL AIRPORROATAN
NATIONAL
FOREST 70
ab NERRf
YSVILLE
LOCATION MAP
LIN
--- E (EXISTING)
PROPERTY
--•-- PROPERTY LINE (FUTURE)
----- CLEAR ZONE LINE
--- RIGHT OF WAY LINE
- - - BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE
----- TERRAIN CLEARANCE LINE
-- ?a- ?-- EXIST. CONTOUR LINES (2' INTERVALS)
PAVED ROADS
UNPAVED ROADS
?--r? RAILROAD
-.-a- FENCE (EXISTING)
_ EXISTING BUILDINGS
® FUTURE BUILDINGS
o RUNWAY LIGHTING (EXISTING)
• TAXIWAY LIGHTING (EXISTING)
=q LOCALIZER,GLIDE SLOPE CRITICAL AREA
AVIGATION EASEMENT
LAND ACOUISTION
Staging
STAGE 1 (0-5 YEARS)
STAGE S (6-10 YEARS)
STAGE SI (11-20 YEARS)
o??o \ / ? )III
L\ / / / II 600' 40S 0 400' B00•
\\ //??I
II( 200'
SeBla 1'- 400'
AIRPORT DATA
DESCRIPTION EXISTING ULTIMI
RPORY ELEVATION (MOL) IN IV
RPORT REFERENCE LAT. 3/` 1' 22.1' 36 4'
POINT LONG. 77' 2'3 77' 2'
SAN MAX. TEMP OF
OTTENT MONTH

BdF

s61
UNWAY LAT.
7.7'
1:
36. BAN
END aw 4 LANG :
T7• '
5.s BAN
ORDINATES UT. 36' 4'3$.3' 36 4'
RW 22 LOMO 77. 2' 23.7 77' 2'
LAT. 35'4'39.4- BAI
aw 13
LONG. 77'1* 13.6' BAI
LAT.
"3t 4 33. 4' 14.1'
Craven County Regional Airport
BAY

EXHIBIT NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA

A
AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN
:S T.B.
K.G.P. THE LPA GROUP of NORTH CAROLINA, P. A. _;
iK T.B. E NGI NEERS•AR CHITE CT S-PLANNERS DATE SEPT
20J. NO. BPOB/001 RALEIGH DWG. NO. 2

u

1

C

1

r
1

Table 1-1
AIR CARRIER TERMINAL 1989 SPACE COMPARISONS
Craven County Regional Airport
TERMINAL STANDARD
1 EXISTING SQUARE
FACILITY S.F. PER S.F. PER FOOTAGE
AREAS TPHP TPHP (APPROX)
Ticket Lobby 10 4.7 630
Lobby Waiting 18 11.4 1,580
Airline Operational 24 14.6 2,020
Bag Claim 10 6.8 940
Holding Rooms 15 3.8 530
Eating 10 0 0
Kitchen/Storage 5 1.0 140
Concessions 5 3.6 500
Restrooms 3 5.3 730
Circulation/Administration/
Mechanical 50 13.0 11800
150 64.2 8,870
1TPHP = Typical peak hour passenger for the Craven County
Airport is 138 in 1989.
SOURCE: THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED
I - 2

F

Fj

C

C
F1
11

i
i
i
i
i
i
Table 1-2
AM ?IMOUMI, SMM MOMMIMUS
Craven C=ty Regional Airport
Te ffdnal
Facility
Ticket ?Abby
Lobby Waiting
Airline Operational
Bag Claim
Holding Rooms
Eating
Kitchen/Storage
Concessions
Restrocros
Circulation,/
Administration/
Mechanical
Standard
S. F. Per
FACILITY SPACE PER TPHP(S.F.)

1989 1994 1999 2009
1,380 2,440 3,020 4,390
2,484 4,392 5,436 7,902
3,312 5,856 7,248 10,536
1,380 2,440 3,020 4,390
2,070 3,660 4,530 6,585
1,380 2,440 3,020 4,390
690 1,220 1,510 2,195
690 1,220 1,510 2,195
414 732 906 1,317
6,900 12,200 15,100 21,950
10
18
24
10
15
10
5
5
3
50
150
TYPICAL PEAK HOUR PASSENG]M
SOURCE: THE IPA GROUP INCORPORATED
20,700 36,600 45,300 65,850
138 244 302 439
I - 3

f:
?I

n
u

J

u

' While terminal square footage expansion is justified, it should be noted that the
present 12,600-square-foot terminal will not structurally support significant expansion on
' the site. This finding was determined by Craven County building inspection and
t inspection by the City of New Bern electrical service.
Additional 1994 terminal requirements show a minimum auto parking deficiency of
237 parking spaces and significant aircraft apron deficiencies of approximately 4,000+
' square yards. These deficiencies are the minimum requirements as of 1994 and do not
' cover requirements past 1994 which need to be under development before 1994.
Given the above documented needs, a study of terminal siting with respect to
' environmental consequences is necessary. The terminal analysis will review
environmental issues as pertinent to a series of alternative concepts. Concept drawings
will be developed to establish preliminary terminal site specific limits and to establish initial
' comparative cost estimates. Site renderings of each alternative including auto parking,
' highway access, aircraft aprons, and general terminal configuration will be developed.
Desired Federal Action
' The federal action desired is a Categorical Exclusion for the selected proposed
' Terminal Expansion and associated parking, access, and apron development.
' Time Frame for Proposed Improvements
The earliest time frame being considered for the construction phase of the airport
' terminal improvements is late 1993 or soon thereafter. However, land acquisition and
' design elements of the project could begin in the summer of 1992.
1
1 - 4

I

C

7

Chapter II
I . ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
t In the search for reasonable alternatives, the following possibilities were at a
minimum briefly reviewed.
Do-Nothing Alternative - In this alternative the environmental impacts would not
' occur; however, this status quo condition would not alleviate the extreme crowding
' conditions of the existing terminal and the auto parking lots. In addition, the aircraft ramp
crowding could cause safety concerns in the near future. Without an adequate terminal
' to accommodate the Craven County region's growth, the overall economic development
of this portion of eastern North Carolina would be restrained. Based on these factors, this
alternative is judged by the Sponsor to be unreasonable.
' rant I Alternative - At first inspection it would appear that terminal
_ ,_
' development in this location might be feasible; however, two restraints are noted at the
' outset. Access to the property would require a costly long main roadway which would
possibly bring additional environmental questions. Second, and most importantly, the
airport has tried to obtain some of this property (i.e., the Claude Hall property) and has
' been in litigation for over seven years. The bottom line is that t .land is not avail&e
?raot?calj' judge`?rient. ,
0016"rant II Alternative - Thq land-in this quadrant, while by appearance vacant,
a111,cornmitted-to municipal-sewagJr.rigationAnd not available for•gkirport:use. Highway
access to this quadrant would cause excessive traffic through several established
neighborhoods.

II - 1

0
0

C

r

I
L

7

F

01 ad-T, RU'Alterna , - This quadrant is totally dedicated to general aviation
usage and rapidly filling up with new hangars. k1 would be' undesirable from a aafety
s 1poiint to mix air carrier activity in' with general aviation activityk Additionally, much of
the remaining vacant land in this area is occupied with archaeological grave sites and
cannot be developed in an intensive fashion.
I iocatejAirpo"Iternative - This alternative would only be considered if it were
not practical to expand the terminal and the runways at the existing site. Th&'expense
a cpmrnunity and all, levels-of government would be intolerable." It should be noted
that the airport's location near U.S. 70 is one of the primary factors for its success.
Given the above alternative reviews, a decisionUwas made o investigate terminal
expansion alternatives in Quadr t4YmJP ;an intensive fashion. In this intensive analysis
five concepts were examined with obncept Number V being,-selected as.,,the preferred
incept: The following chapters will examine the individual concepts followed by an
environmental synopsis.
II - 2

u

i
Chapter III
TERMINAL CONCEPT DETAILED ANALYSIS
In this section five terminal expansion concepts are analyzed. This analysis
includes the following:
TERMINAL CONCEPTS NARRATIVES
SITE CONCEPTS NARRATIVES
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
SITE CONCEPT GRAPHICS
TERMINAL CONCEPT GRAPHICS
III - 1

1

i
' CRAVEN COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT
MARCH 10, 1992
TERMINAL CONCEPTS
Terminal Concepts "A", "B" and "C" are very similar in their spacial arrangement. Their
differences are a result of differing site conditions. All three are organized around a
primary circulation corridor and a secondary circulation corridor. The primary corridor
runs roughly parallel to the access roadway, curbside and AOA.
The primary corridor connects from the Ticketing areas to the Baggage Claim areas.
I Ticketing is located along the initial approach area of curbside. Baggage Claim is at the
opposite end. This organization segregates enplaning from deplaning passenger traffic,
thus reducing congestion along the roadway, curbside and within the terminal.
' The secondary corridor leads to the security screening station and beyond to the
Passenger Holding Lounge, the Holding Lounge being located adjacent to the aircraft
' apron.
The areas at the intersection of the two corridors contain Public Waiting space;
Restrooms, and concession spaces for a restaurant, newsstand, video arcade or other
miscellaneous tenants and centralizes concessions to the predominant traffic flow. Also
located in this area is an elevator to the second floor.
1
The second floor provides a sweeping view of the Airfield and a mezzanine overlook
down into the central portions of the first floor.- This floor contains a Public Observation
area, public restrooms, Airport Administration Suite, and available lease space. Within
the Administration Area is a Public Meeting Room.
Distributed throughout the facility are various support spaces such as Mechanical and
Electrical Rooms and custodial areas. Also lease spaces for Carriers and Rental Car
' Vendors are provided.
The differences between Terminals "A", "B" and "C" do not affect their internal
organizational layout. Terminal "C" is a linear building to be incorporated in locations
where the access road and curbside are straight. Terminal "B" angles the Baggage Claim
wing at approximately 450 to reflect a similar bend in the access road and curbside to
retain a close relationship between curbside loading/unloading and the buildings entrance
doors and maximize utilization of the existing aircraft apron. Terminal "A" goes one step
further and angles both the Bag Claim wing and the Ticketing wing at approximately 45°
creating a wrap-around affect along a curved access roadway.
III - 2

E

7

J

? g
m A ?
O
?C
•s
:
M We
?T
A
=0
8A
W
LO ,,7
s2 X :?i
G
? ta?++
rri (A
r • ? "0
$ Z ? 9
r O
•m ? C
z
Z
0• 0 z
0 ; C 0
O
VA 0
2
d
m
0m
m "-mg
a C =
rn 30
Viz,
?n>
loon
=c=
z nni
m m
1
=?rn?
G)
r, 0 0 °z
.4z
Sys
0a(A
fA
o=
o
m
m
N
m
m
x
o?
? N
?9s ti ?
?o40 ti
B Q 9<
IQ -if-
C611,
7-7
'q9 ti
n 7n n0 c - ??
CD
N ? ? < Z 0
R
i? Y{
g „z
o r? ?
O rn rn,
M* rn
Cl)
L - J
Z
rn?
rn ? D W
? ? g o n
rn
.00011,

?q
M)
r- 0
o
r
g C
's
0 aa?
m•
Wc
I'M
A M
=0
A
A\
W
x O
20
C+7
rn •
5z 9
0 O
aS
r O
Fri z z b
?• A z
o
rr+ rzn O
!N o
y m
D Z Cs]
r d
r
m
z
m
? rn
a?
<z
?M
<z!
Aos
z o0?
z a °z
llz
Z cc
0 'n
m
x r m m
z
zM'
000 =
s I Z m
O r
?a30
?v ;
OEm
?o z
-I O
m
W
K
m
x
N
P
? n
n n ai
C -" C)
0 D =
PD r
I I
rn I I
I I
? I I
II
I I
I I
IS I
D
I
co 'n M
n D
.. CO n o PD =
I
n ICA
? r
o "- 0 2 1
rn
o m'
I
M _
I
I I
I I
II
I I
I I
e I
I I
I I
II
< II
II
L - J
0 71? z
2 0
? rn
?i
m m
g?
mA 1>1
w
's
m 0
;•
m 0
W`
=o
A
A W
=0
25
rn (A
r 0 'r0
= xo a
D z0
o
?m C
z
3• 0 Z
A ; C ;1
? a ?O?yy
~ N ? N
Z o-3
C
r
_
s
o
<z
9 m r
z ^
" >
A
>
00
n0°i z
z a?
1 _, ?o
x r M m
> '- +!'7 <
m m ? %
°o O zz
;Izm
3,
cr>
O r
m >
. co
t m
co
OEm
? N 00
m
M
a
m
K
m
x
a

00 00 00 00 00 0 00 00 000 go 00 00 00 00 Olk % x NO 00 00 00 A. % %
00 00 00 00 go
</ O <I/
/>
00 00 \ r
y/
/
t ?
co
?rn
.. 0
O
Z
0
0
rn
r
O
O
:o
LEASE
1 ? 1 1
1 1 1
1 ? 1 1
`- ?o ---a
c z
--I n
p
z
o o
0 z
i
\
\
\
\
\
---J
13
/~\
I
t
\
\
\
\
\
r
O '
4k z

All three terminal concepts have roughly the same overall area and distribution of area
to the various functions within the building.
In organizational layout and construction costs these concepts are roughly equal offering
no significant advantages over the others. The selection of a terminal concept will be
dictated by site conditions and efficiencies.
III - 3

C

' CRAVEN COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT
MARCH 10, 1992
'
SITE CONCEPTS
' CONCEPTI
' Concept I retains the terminal location central to the airfield near the intersection of
runways 422 and 13-31. Portions of the new terminal will overlay the existing terminal
so a phased construction program is necessary to maintain operations.
t To maximize the new terminal's long-term expandability the ends of the building have
been angled to parallel their adjacent runways. Terminal growth is therefore not hindered
' by airfield geometries.
The existing approach road to the airport is retained until it comes to within approximately
' a quarter of a mile of the terminal. The road then forms a large one-way loop carrying
vehicles around a circle to various parking lots, terminal curbside and backs out the
existing road. Public parking is located inside the loop and employee and rental car
parking areas are located along the access roadway perimeter.
To achieve acceptable radii along the loop access roadway for vehicular movement the
t area within the loop is significantly larger than that required for parking. This additional
area will remain undeveloped through the planning period for long-range expansion.
g W, n of t0, a developmenVi Ws within the ,estimated .we#lartds?i rea `The
al,a ?e"ands impact is•6-10?acrds:
' Also, the program requires the acquisition of several parcels of property. Thenloperty;
ranges-iroTnvUndeveloped wetlands o property improved with houses and mobile homes.
The parcels are located along both sides of the existing entrance road and on the south
' side of Clermont Road.
Included in this acquisition of approximately 27 acres of land are 13 houses and 6 mobile
' homes. North of Clermont Road are several houses, mobile homes and a high density
mobile home park. Clermont Road is not programmed for airport traffic so acquisition of
' this property and those residences is not included in this study.

III - 4

I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
w = m
m o?-1
F o 1304
.m
A 0 IIII?
m•
WO
m C
D r
n m
? 0
O
A
n \
-.O
2 x
CJ
H pr
m (n • Cb
=z a
DOz
v < 4o
x7
•m C
z ti7
mz
2 • O Z
C')
zm
• 2 yy b
aN Z O
>
C
z
s
n m
a;
30
?rn
0 <_
n s
z 00
zC ?
?z
zp
? M
_ rn
m?
000
z - z
> ?a
= r
< M
O
A
m
s !Q
v
°a
m
m x
A
V
g
0
m
1
m
x
00 =
ao
? N

iZ7

I I
I
• I
i I
I I
I I
LCD I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ? I
I I
? I
I I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
? I
I
I
I
I
? I
I
I I
? I
I I
I
' I
II
? I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
II
? I
I I
I
' I
' I I
I

t CONCEPT II
Concept II shifts the terminal location roughly north-east of the existing terminal along
1 runway 4-22. This allows the new terminal to be fully constructed prior to the
abandonment and demolition of the existing terminal. The new location is also close
' enough to the existing terminal's location to make use of a portion of the existing aircraft
apron. Some additional apron, however, will be required to tie in to the new terminal.
' The southern most portion of the terminal, the Baggage Claim wing, has been angled to
closely parallel the existing terminal. This allows the wing to be built in front of the
existing terminal to maintain airport terminal operations during construction of the new
' terminal. It also positions the new terminal closer to the existing apron and adds critical
apron depth required for larger aircraft.
' A portion of the existing entrance road is to be abandoned and a new loop access road
constructed. It provides one-way traffic to various parking lots, curbside loading/unloading
and back out the existing road. To achieve acceptable radii along the loop access
' roadway for vehicular movement, the area within the loop is significantly larger than that
needed for parking. This additional area will remain undeveloped through the planning
period for long-range expansion.
' f#fite cieldprnent falls withi rr the testimated wetlandsarea The total ,area of
ri tt; in erc ry t -10 acres. Mitlgatio -,411 most likely be required.
' Also the Pro9ram requires the, acquisition of several parcels of property. The property
-rangw4,rc J'dbiveioped wetlands to property improved with houses and mobile homes.
' The parcels are located along both sides of the existing entrance road and on the south
side of Clermont Road.
' Included in this acquisition of approximately 27 acres of land are 13 houses and 6 mobile
homes. North of Clermont Road are several houses, mobile homes and a high density
mobile home park. Clermont Road is not programmed for airport traffic so acquisition of
' this property and those residences is not included in this study.

III - 5
r

i

7

fJ

C

r
u

0

0

F

0
u

THE THE IPA GROUP INCORP
?"E?"
PROJECT NO. DATE
3-M92
= PA
?
A
L TRANSPORTATION CONSULT
GRO
U
P EXHIBIT
C

COLUMBIA, SC • GULFPORT/BILOXI, MS* KNOXVILLE, TNO MEMPHI.
O
MOBILE, AL*MYRTLE BEACH, SC • PHILADELPHIA, PA O RALEIGH, NC
DESCRIPTION sv
DRAWING NO.

H

r
CONCEPT III
' Concept III shifts the new terminal further northeast along runway 4-22. Different from
Concept 11, the new terminal location is shifted far enough to leave the existing terminal,
entrance roadway and most of the existing parking undisturbed during its construction,
leaving operations relatively undisturbed. The new location, however, only marginally
utilizes the existing apron. Expansion of the existing apron is required to shift the aircraft
parking.
' The southern most portion of the terminal, the Baggage Claim wing, has been angled to
closely parallel the existing terminal. This allows positioning of the new terminal as close
' to the existing apron as possible and provides critical apron depth required for larger
aircraft.
' A portion of the existing entrance road is to be abandoned and a new loop access road
constructed. It provides one-way traffic around to various parking lots, curbside
loading/unioading and back out the existing road. This additional area will remain
' undeveloped through the planning period and will provide for long-range expansion.
fgnifacont potion; of the development area fails within the estimated wetlands area.
' T , e total; area>-at wetlands impact is'6-10 'acres.
Also, the program requires the acquisition of several parcels of property. The property
' ranges fro%_ developedwetlands to property improved with houses and trailers. The
parcels are located on both sides of the existing entrance road and on the south side of
' Clermont Road.
Included in this acquisition of approximately 27_acres of land are 13 houses and 6 mobile
' homes. North of Clermont Road are several houses, mobile homes and a high density
mobile home park. Clermont Road is not programmed for airport traffic so acquisition of
this property and those residences is not included in this study.

J

' III - 6

J

l

F1

r

I
l

I r-1
>l1
D IIII?
A ? IIII?
m•
W?
m?
D?
?O
A \
• m
=0 ?
C'h
m t0i) ?
•
i? N a
ro O
D0
D rte-- y `O
m y G'
z b
mz
i• o Z
c?
w O
z "'
n? e
• = H `d
z
Z a
n M
? C7
m
30
?rn
sZ
z
Z O
0
"
I? ? z
? M.
o?
?o
M M
M
00
xz
i
?a
0
O
5 ?
g ?
A
.1111112

0
m
x
v=
a
N

1
/ I.
\ f
r. 1 Sir

I? I
I
? I
I
? I
I
I
I -

I/ I !

I?
i

?-
V-11 1-D
pro

? I
I \
I I
I I I
"mzacsnuw?un I I I \
I'I
III
? I
III
I
I I? I
I ,K I
I s; i
I I
ICI
III
I I
I'I
III
I,I
I I
III
ICI
III
I I
I'I
III
I,I
I I
III
ICI
I I
I I
-? D
o Q
f?^j

CONCEPT IV
L?
Concept IV shifts the new terminal location northeast along runway 4-22 to a point
' midway between the existing entrance road and Clermont Road. The new terminal
location is well clear of the existing terminal building and terminal area to allow the new
building to be fully constructed with only minor impact to existing operations. The new
' location requires new aircraft apron along runway 4-22.
A loop access roadway is provided by utilizing Clermont Road with Airport Road to create
' a loop roadway with only a minimum of new pavement connecting the two. In addition
to providing loop access, this connector creates a curbside loading/unloading area.
Upgrade and widening of Clermont Road may be required to utilize this road as a portion
' of the airport's loop access road.
The area between these two existing roads is significantly larger than is required for
' parking. This additional area will remain undeveloped through the planning period for
long range expansion.
' vq,,?pofbQn of-the development area falls within the `estimated wetlands area. The total.
?rarea'of;wetlands impact48 acres. Mitigation: will most likely be requiredf

Fj
L

u

C
Also, the program requires the acquisition of numerous parcels of property. The property
ranges from gpndevelo wetila ids to property improved with houses and trailers. the
parcels fall between the two existing roads and north of Clermont Road.
Included in this acquisition of approximately 36 acres of land are 17 houses and 11
mobile homes. Since Clermont Road will be utilized as the primary airport access road,
the purchase of homes along both sides is advised. Not included, however, is the cost
to acquire the mobile home park on the north side of Clermont Road. Due to the large
numbers of individuals who would be displaced, this neighborhood has been left intact.
III - 7

J

1

m m
O
Ogg
co NNE
4 0
m•
m0
M c
D?
n?
=0
A\
• W
°V) r
•
_x z >
DZO
O
DF O
? m y C"
?' o b
mz Z
2 • O Z
zm
(7)
a O
nz y
d
r
>
r
m
M
I
nm
? m
a?
n C Z
?rn
z r
m
A >
z p 0 n
zC
m :IZ n,
z0
1s?m
= r rn A
z
000
s IZ
>a=
r- >
zz r
?a
oZ
z
p
N
°s
0
x
n
A
V
g
A
141
y
O
m
K
m
x
m=
w
D ?p
z
o N
m

I
I ?
_ T""n"-" y
\\???\` AAA-?Y4Rfs? ? _
RAE
/
/
.1'
?J \
'I
I I I ?\
II
I,I
I I ?
III \
I.
I
III
, I I
I'I
III
? II
I I I
ti, I I I
I I? I
I ,< I
sl
I I I
I11
III
I I
II
III
I,I
I I
III
I ? I
III
I I
II
III
I,I
I I
III
ICI
I I
I?
I?
? I
I
r I
i I
I
i I
I '
i I

I
?II? I I ,

CONCEPT V
ur.
Concept V shifts the new terminal location northeast along runway 4-22 north of Clermont
' Road adjacent to the planned runway 4-22 and Taxiway "A" extensions. The new
terminal location is well clear of the existing terminal building and terminal area to allow
the new building to be fully constructed with no impact to existing operations. The new
location requires a new aircraft apron along runway 4-22 and Taxiway "A" extensions.
A new loop access roadway is provided off of Clermont Road utilizing approximately 700
' feet as part of the loop. This new road creates a curbside loading/unloading area
adjacent to the new Terminal location. Upgrade and widening of Clermont Road may be
required to utilize this road as a portion of the airports' loop access road.
t To achieve acceptable radii along the loop access roadway for vehicular movement, the
area within the roadway loop is significantly larger than is required for parking. This
additional area will remain undeveloped through the planning period for long range
expansion.
' nall,:portonof the development area falls within the estimated wetlands area.. The
Waharea of.wetlands impact 2-4 acres. `-Mitigation wilt most::likeiy.be required,
' Also, the program requires the acquisition of numerous parcels of property. The property
ranges from rrdevefaped:wetlan, s to property improved with houses and-trailers. The
primary acquisition is north of Clermont Road and is owned by a single individual, W.V.
' Laughinghouse. A minimum of 65 acres of property is required in this area. A trailer park
is located within this 65 acre area north of Clermont Road and has been included in the
land acquisition cost estimate. This acquisition will displace approximately 26 families.
South of Clermont Road are 6 houses and 1 mobile home which should be purchased
to eliminate potential problems affiliated with residences along the airport's loop access
' road. These residences occupy approximately 7 additional acres of land.
l

7
III - 8

J

r

0.4
CD
oo ?sei
3D NNP'
A? aN?
m•
m0
M c
D'0
n'0
?o
M
O
2 X
3 ,r
• ib
= 7C Z >
Dz ro
DP O
• fr*1 ? C,,
?? o ro
mz Z
i• o z
m co O
.= yy ro
DN Z O
3 9
nz H
d
z
n ?
A
< z
z
?M
s
zn s
z c0
IE zC
?Z
Z o<?
> m 02
M
A
M :i
a
0 C) o
z -I Z
> >30 z
or r
0
g ?
0
m
m x
n
g
A
`M
ti
0
m
m
x
?s
00
0
D
am
Z
o N

I I
? I

i
i
i
-
C:D
•? iii 1
'? I i II 1?
I I<

I/ Z
o
A? -oz ro
i
O

aq G i j

I ill I ? I
. ? I
I ? I , I
I I I I
I ill I I I I I

I> v

g ?l i11
I
?I 11 I
1? I
O ? I II
aE al M?dr?bem I
III
?I
III
ill
ill
I
1
i
1
L
L
I
I
I
I?
I?
i
i
I
?I
s I
I
I ,
?
It I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I

'
I
?
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
'
I

I
,

I
?
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I
I
I
I
----
I
I
I
I
------
'
I
---
I
I
I
I
----
FLWUY M107ECTM ZOM

i

M ? N
O dt- .
t %O -.t M O•
r O. O ? N N ?O 1
N N M
N C ?N P M I1 N N
?
}
?- Z -- WN V1
N
Nr N N N N
CL'
d
N

N O P v ti J ILA r
O
u tA
10 a0
r O
O J to

ui
co C)
W v-
=0 0 I-- d
rU
O 10
O O•
O
O

O'
c
v (A
oc N N N N N
0
c
6
L) Z 0 K ? Ln
11 v M p O
p CM ti
Ln
N
M
J I.- -J -IA lltlO co
Q 10 CD %0 1010 O O
o
[a P Lr% O O
N Olt J 1? M
o U
UA O co
N
r N to
N
Q
d
at at a-t ale ag

^ ? v
?'
r
c
CO
^.
J
O O ?O
l
r .n ti N N CO N Go J CO
tA N CD N
r M

O. J
W -
p
P
d
N
N
N
N
N
r ?
K
co cli co ti co
JLU Q
J 00 r
Z Oct J to
C7
Z 2 c
r
?O
Ln
CD

a
P M M
e Z
o a
0 in In O
r6 r4 ^ J J t2
d N N N N N
W
Z ?

S
r
N
W

r

Z
LU
;
J ...• .-. ...

Or r r r r r

Q W W W W W
Z 2 U U U U U

2 CA O O O O O
W U U U U U
uj
N ?-
W 3
0) LLS
N Z
6
J
r Q

O z
E
cc
a
99
J
a >
O W
0 .

cc >
cc
r S

N
U
r
Z a
W W
? U
Q Z
U U
III - 9
O O ?
7 U
v a ?o
wd?
L
-a ccp
C O 7
yE w
M
? Q!
OC L
•O
•a+ W d
L >. f0
N ?
O_ >c0 C
d M
M m2 N Cd LM
> 7E O)
?v7- d a+ 7
L. V L O O
W yEc o >
41
li' W W W 4j
L V O O W
++•? W U a
N H O
Z W - W Q.
OJ O L.
U C U LpNp??
O8.2 2A
C 7w o
U c O O
U t0 W c
O CCo O a
c 8. 41 U (A
4) 4)
-0'O c L7.
aO+yO NL
W •? N c m
" c 10 Q c
g O . O
OJ J•-
yp, 0 P ?.+
y _a c Of
•^•UN c7
C •? •- O Q
O a+ O
p
4 L.
W ?'+ 22
L
«. L U W
L O
L. v.- m4
O) 7 ?+
M N •id •F.
U ?+ N N
.i WN W W
N
O!
Y
O
Z

r

r

L

0

Chapter IV
ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY
This section summarizes the environmental impacts as applicable to Terminal
Expansion Concept V (Exhibit F).
Environmental Categories with no impact:
• Impact on Section 4(F) land;
• Significant impact on natural, ecological, cultural or scenic resources of
national, state, or local significance;
• Significant air quality impact;
• Actions inconsistent with federal, state, or local law, or administrative
determination relating to the environment.
• Actions likely to directly or indirectly affect human beings by creating
significant impact on the environment;
• Actions that have an overall significant cumulative environmental impact;
• Connected actions which trigger other significant impact actions; and,
• Effect on property included in or eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places or other property of state or local historical,
architectural, or cultural significance.
It is the Airport Sponsor's opinion that the above impact categories simply do not
apply to the proposed terminal expansion.
Environmental Categories with very low level impact potentials:

• Effect on property of archaeological significance - While important
archaeological burial grounds have been discovered to the west of
Runway 4/22, none have been discovered to date in the direction of the
terminal expansion. Some additional archaeological investigation is ongoing
to the east of this runway. If discoveries are found in this location, this
analysis will be revised.
IV - I

J

t ?Effect2:on,wetland or floodplain:.areas Exhibits K;, and L 4114stOW"he
generalized wetland areas and:floodplain:: areas, respectively. ,,,?Thoe,Wetland
areas have been sample surveyed by a biologist and?phecl ed again ktaerial
' infrared photography. Limited field observations have also been conducted
by the Corps of Engineers. Based on these observations, it is+ believed that
2 to 4 acres<of the selected Concept V will be wetlands Signific-ant-:orelfas
' of the auto parking will fail under the classification .. of : prior. conversion
farmland:
' With-respect to the floodplains areas, engineering adjwstments will be
required; but given the headway nature ofi<Scotts {Creek and ;ahe=small
' drainage basin, these adjustments should be-possible,=,1 Large.. size culverts
Volf be required.
' Endangered or threatened species - Preliminary field checks by a biologist
on two occasions have not revealed any endangered or threatened species.
Reference should be made to the recent Environmental Overview Study for
' the Runway 22 Extension. Concept V eliminates very minimal habitat; i.e.,
essentially only along Scotts Creek.
' Increase in noise over noise-sensitive areas - The only increases in noise
would be in the ramp area with initial engine run-ups. The only communities
that could be impacted are either presently being relocated due to the
' Runway 22 extension, or would be relocated as part of the terminal
expansion project.
' Involvement of farmland acquisition scoring over 160 on AD-1006 Form and
protected under the EPPA to nonagricultural use - While farmland will be
involved, the total acreage is small and should not score over 160 on AD-
1006 Form.
' 8 ificant'water quality impacts or public water supply eontamination -
or
iaiven' that Scotts Creek is not a public water supply -and the p.4
agricultural conversion category of this section of land, water-quality impacts
are not considered to be sign Tian The Airport Sponsor will still be
4osponsible: for contaminated runoff` from the ramp as regufatedf by-water
discharge-permits:
' The following Environmental Categories are interrelated and thereby discussed as
a group:
Construction or relocation of entrance or service road connections to public
roads which adversely affect the capacity of such public roads - The
proposed Concept V will utilize Clermont Road instead of Airport Road;
however, the total access impacts will be similar or less. Additionally,

IV - 2

l

J

m mow
r 9
c
0 CL
0 !t n )o
CL
%C m
0
0 om 0 MO
a R 00 m
r.
w -4 0
0-4 0 0
C m C rn m
m M-
z z
a
M M
ca 0 < -< -<
m z
m )w m
30 m
m
ca
L
X/A\
I?

dMW

S

z
?o
0 -4
ror
(A a Z r
+41 ol
0 >
mzc
m

N 2 A
Ob m
V
ZC
omr
-1,00
0
CMM
MU) r
M 0 (A
m

m
x
rE

0
m
m z
4 m
0
0
m
m
l t'
ZO
o C
V oz
m
0
10 z
m >
m M
m -<
"Z? m
>
oz
Z
F
m 0
00
m C)
;<
ic

-PROIPER - LINE
t
X- 2 t
400 1 x
11T
im
IX
300'
22

Concept V allows the option of a second access to State Route 1167 if
capacity problems arise.
' Preliminary analysis of potential housing relocation impacts and business
disruption - As previously discussed in the Concept Section, 27 trailer
' homes and 6 houses are proposed to be purchased. Twenty-six of the
trailer homes are located in a single trailer park which is potentially for sale.
The immediate area has large quantities of particularly trailer sites that can
' absorb the relocations. No businesses are involved.
• Community division or disruption, or the disrupting of an orderly planned
' development - The biggest disruption would be with the 26 trailer homes;
however, this park could not be considered part of an orderly planned
' development. To the contrary, much of this trailer park has fallen into
significant disrepair.
' Highly controversial actions on environmental grounds - Concept V is the
least damaging on environmental grounds and thereby should not be
controversial.
Conclusion
' Given a review of the pertinent environmental questions, it is the belief of the
Airport Sponsor that the proposed Concept V Terminal Expansion Alternative merits a
' Categorical Exclusion.

Iv - 3

l
J