19970708 Ver 2_Individual_20081215

ILR? THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED
Transportation Consultants
700 HUGER STREET ¦ P.O. BOX 5805 ¦ COLUMBIA, SC 29250 ¦ 803-254-2211 ¦ FAX [phone]
December 12, 2008
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
401 Oversight and Express Review Program
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
L:? D 16 12
DEC 1 5 2n0A
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
Re: Coastal Carolina Regional Airport Runway 22 Safety Area Extension Section
401 Water Quality Certification (DWQ Project # 97-0708 Ver. 2)
Ms. Karoly,
As requested in the letter dated November 25, 2008 to the Coastal Carolina Regional
Airport, THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED has prepared the materials required for
the Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC). The Section 401 WQC is required
for unavoidable impacts associated with the extension of the Runway 22 Safety Area.
This extension is required to comply with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Safety
regulations.
Please find enclosed five (5) copies of the Section 404 Individual Permit Application
(SAW-2008-03051), five (5) copies of the Coastal Zone Consistency Application, and a
check in the amount of $240.00 for the DWQ Section 401 processing fee.
On behalf of the Coastal Carolina Regional Airport, THE LPA GROUP
INCORPORATED is requesting the approval of approximately 0.81-acre of wetland
impact under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act of 1972. Please contact me at 843-329-
0050 or [e-mail] if you have any questions or require additional
information.
Sincerely,
THE LPA GROUP INCORP RATED
Edward J. Smail
Environmental Scientist
Enclosure
Cc: Mr. Thomas Braaten, Coastal Carolina Regional Airport (w/o enclosure)
Ms. Tracey Wheeler, USACE (w/o enclosure)
Mr. Terry Bumpus, P.E., THE LPA GROUP (w/o enclosure)
Project File (w/enclosure)
ATLANTA ¦ BATON ROUGE ¦ CHARLESTON ¦ CHARLOTTE ¦ COLUMBIA ¦ GREENSBORO ¦ GULFPORT ¦ JACKSONVILLE
KNOXVILLE ¦ LITTLE ROCK ¦ MOBILE ¦ ORLANDO ¦ RALEIGH ¦ SARASOTA ¦ TALLAHASSEE ¦ TAMPA ¦ WEST PALM BEACH
UMI3 AFVKUVAL NU. 0710-0003
Expires December 31, 2004
hours or less. This includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of
information, including suggestion for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of Information
paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC 20503. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
Please DO NOT RETURN your forms to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having
jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act. Section 10, 33 USC 403: Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act, 33 USC 1413, Section 103. Principal Purpose: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit.
Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other Federal, state, and local government agencies. Submission of
requested information is voluntary however, if information is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies, which show the location and character of the proposed activity, must be attached to this
application (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed
activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
b. APPLIUAN I'S NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENTS NAME AND TITLE (an agent is not required)
Coastal Carolina Regional Airport THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED
Attn: Mr. Thomas Braaten Attn: Mr. Edward J. Small
b. APPLIGAN I'S ADDRESS 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
200 Terminal Drive THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED
New Bern, NC 28562 4401 Belle Oaks Drive, Suite 105
North Charleston, SC 29405
7. APPLICANTS PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE 10. AGENTS PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE
a. Residence a. Residence
b. Business 252-638-8591 b. Business 843-329-0050
i • STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to
furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.
Refer to the attached Authorization Letter
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE
DATE
NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
Runway Safety Area Extension
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN
Wetlands abutting Scotts Creek
TION OF P
applicable)
Craven
North Carolina
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
Coastal Carolina Regional Airport
(Formally Craven Regional Airport)
200 Terminal Drive
New Bern, NC 28562
http://www.newbernairport.com/
COUNTY STATE
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions)
Coastal Carolina Regional Airport is located in Craven County, North Carolina, near the city of New Bern.
airport is situated just west of US 70, on a peninsula at the confluence of the Trent and Neuse Rivers. The
project location is shown on the attached permit drawings.
The
D ??jLS? V
17 DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE C ( 2008
TO BE FILLED BY
DENR. WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
Refer to the attached Site Location Map (Sheet 1).
ENG FORM 4345, JUL 97 EDITION OF FEB 94 IS OBSOLETE. (Proponent: CECW-OR)
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
See attached Project Narrative and attached drawings.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason of purposes of the project, see instructions)
See attached Project Narrative.
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
To extend the RSA in order to comply with FAA safety regulations. See attached Project Narrative.
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Clean Fill - Approximately 6,000 cubic yards would be discharged into wetlands. This fill will be obtained from a
borrow area (in uplands) located on existing Airport property approximately 1.0 mile south of the project area
adjacent to the southern end of Runway 4-22.
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
The proposed project would unavoidably impact 0.81-acre of wetlands. This would include 0.58-acre of fill impact
and 0.23-acre of impact associated with clearing and grubbing. These impacts are detailed in the attached Project
Narrative and Permit Drawings.
23. Is any portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes No X IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (if more than can be entered here,
please attach a supplemental list).
One property owner adjoins the impacted wetland south of Williams Road:
Mr. William Laughinghouse
795 Williams Road
New Bern, NC 28567
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
USACE Jurisdictional Determination (Action ID 200510994) 5/23105
FAA Finding of No Significant Impact 1/23/07
USFWS Concurrence 3/30/05
SHPO Concurrence 5/16/05
NCEEP In-lieu Fee Request 10/23/08
'Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building and flood plain permits
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this
application is complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly
authorized agent of the applicant.
Refer to the attached Authorization Letter
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT
DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT
O
/I I Z?
DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly authorized agent if
the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and
willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or
representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry, shall be
fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
PROJECT NARRATIVE
Coastal Carolina Regional Airport
Runway 22 Safety Area Extension
The Coastal Carolina Regional Airport (formally the Craven Regional Airport) is located
in Craven County, North Carolina, south of the City of New Bern, situated just west of
US 70, on a peninsula at the confluence of the Trent and Neuse Rivers. The location of
the proposed project is shown on Sheet 1 of the attached permit drawings.
Block 18
In order to improve runway safety and comply with Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) safety regulations, the Coastal Carolina Regional Airport is proposing to extend
the Runway Safety Area (RSA) for Runway 22. RSA requirements are defined in FAA
Order 5200.8, Runway Safety Area Program, and the "Airport Design" Advisory Circular
(AC) 150/5300-13 (Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports), and other
applicable FAA guidance. For an airport the size of Coastal Carolina Regional (a C-lI
Airport) the FAA requires a 1,000-foot long RSA from the end of the runway.
Blocks 19-20
The purpose of this project is to improve the safety of the Coastal Carolina Regional
Airport by extending the Runway 4-22 RSA to meet current FAA design and safety
standards.
A RSA is a surface surrounding the runway that has been prepared for reducing the risk
of damage to airplanes (or injuries to personnel/passengers) in the event of an undershoot,
overshoot, or excursion from the runway. The FAA currently requires an RSA extending
250 feet on either side of the runway centerline and 1,000 feet beyond each runway end
for an Airport Reference Code (ARC) C-II Facility, such as the Coastal Carolina
Regional Airport.
Currently, the Runway 22 RSA is in non-compliance for RSA length. The
implementation of this project will address this issue and bring the Airport close to FAA
compliance. Due to the location of Williams Road (as shown on Sheet 2), obtaining the
full 1,000-foot RSA length is not feasible.
The existing Runway 22 RSA is 500 feet wide by 600 feet long. The RSA extension
would be accomplished by constructing an additional 290 feet of RSA north of Runway
22. The final RSA length for Runway 22 would be 890 feet measured along the
centerline of Runway 22.
It was determined in an Environmental Assessment (EA)/Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) (approved by the FAA on January 23, 2007) that extending the RSA
north of Runway 22 is the Preferred Alternative, due to impacts to Brices Creek
associated with shifting the runway to the south. A copy of an Alternative Analysis and
the FONSI are attached.
1
10/29/08
Block 22
Impacts to jurisdictional areas were determined by overlaying the construction limits on
the limits of the approved jurisdictional determination. The construction of the project
would permanently impact approximately 0.81-acre of jurisdictional wetlands. This
includes 0.58-acre of fill impact and 0.23-acre of impact due to clearing and grubbing.
These impacts are detailed on Sheet 2 of the attached permit drawings.
Avoidance
Due to the linear nature of the project, total avoidance of impacts to water
resources is not possible. There are no other feasible directions, or locations to
construct the safety area. The alternative selection process is detailed in the
attached Alternative Analysis. The selection of Alternative 1 as the Preferred
Alternative avoided approximately 300 linear feet of stream impacts associated
with the relocation of Scotts Creek that would occur with Alternatives 2 and 3 by
limiting construction to the south side of Scotts Creek.
Additional impacts to adjacent wetlands and streams would be avoided by
confining construction activities to the construction limits.
Minimization
Wetland impacts were minimized by limiting the extension of the RSA to the
south side of Scotts Creek. Alternatives 2 and 3 would have further impacted
wetlands by adding approximately 0.4-acre of additional fill to wetlands north of
Scotts Creek. Alternative 3 would have also impacted additional wetlands
associated with the relocation of Williams Road.
Construction activities would be confined within the permitted construction
limits. Also during construction, potential temporary impacts to streams would be
minimized by implementing sediment and erosion control measures to include,
seeding and steepening of side slopes, hay bale placement, silt fences, and
sediment basins, as appropriate. Other BMPs would be required of the contractor
to ensure compliance with the polices of FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5370-
1 OA entitled Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports, and specifically
Item P-156 Temporary Air and Water Pollution, Soil Erosion, and Siltation
Control.
Mitigation
On-site wetland mitigation could be a wildlife attractant especially to wading
birds and waterfowl, which is in conflict with guidance provided in the Advisory
Circular (AC) 150/5200-33, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports.
Per the recent requirements issued jointly by the USACE and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the Department of Defense,
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers 33 CFR Parts 325 and
332/Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 230 Compensatory
Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule, dated April 10, 2008,
existing mitigation banks in the Neuse River Basin (HUC 03020204) were sought
2
10/29/08
for the purchase of mitigation credits. Three commercial mitigation banks are
located in the Neuse River Basin; however none have credits available at this
time. Additionally, in order to comply with Session Law 2008-152 and
USACE/EPA guidance, mitigation banks serving HUC 03020204 were contacted
to determine if credits were available before the request to use the NCEEP In-lieu
Fee Program was made. No credits were available within HUC 03020204 at the
time of the request.
ID Therefore, THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED is proposing the use of the
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) In-lieu Fee Program
to compensate for unavoidable impacts to waters of the U.S. A request was
submitted to the NCEEP on October 13, 2008, and approved on October 23, 2008.
A copy of the NCEEP acceptance letter is attached.
Neuse Riparian Buffer Rules
The proposed project is in HUC 03020204, which is in the Neuse River Basin and
is subject to the Neuse Buffer Rules as defined in 15A North Carolina
Administrative Code (NCAC) 02B .0233. Scotts Creek and the associated
riparian buffers are within the proposed project area. According to FAA AC
150/5300-13 Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports, the RSA should
be, "Free of objects, except for objects that need to be located in the runway
safety area because of their function." Therefore, the vegetation within the RSA
must be removed to comply with FAA safety design standards. This includes
vegetation within the riparian buffer of Scotts Creek. According to FAA
AC/5300-13, "The dimensional standards remain in effect regardless of the
presence of natural or man-made objects or surface conditions that might create a
hazard to aircraft that leave the runway surface." The RSA was not extended to
its fullest extent in order to minimize impacts to Scotts Creek, wetlands adjacent
to Scotts Creek, and Williams Road. However, while some of the clearing areas
are beyond the grading limits of the project they are still maintained as RSA to
improve safety and meet the obstruction requirements of FAA AC 150/5300-13.
Clearing would occur within Zones 1 and 2 of the riparian buffer of Scotts Creek.
Areas within 35 feet of Scotts Creek would be cleared only and the remaining 15
feet of the buffer areas would be cleared and grubbed. Vegetation within Zone 1
and five feet of Zone 2 (approximately 15,682 square feet) would be cleared only
(no grubbing) to minimize impacts to wetlands and the riparian buffer of Scotts
Creek. Vegetation within the remaining 15 feet of Zone 2 (approximately 5,700
square feet) would be cleared and grubbed. The limits of clearing are shown on
Sheet 2 of the attached permit drawings.
The proposed project is deemed Allowable under the NCDWQ Memorandum,
Vegetation Management as it Pertains to Airport Facilities in the Neuse,
Catawba, and Tar-Pamlico Protected Riparian Buffer (May 9, 2006). This
memorandum addresses the removal of vegetation when it is necessary to comply
with FAA safety requirements. In order to comply with this memorandum, heavy
3
10/29/08
equipment would not be used in Zone 1, vegetation would not be compromised
(the grubbed areas/fill slope for the RSA will be re-seeded), no large trees will
require removal by chain, permanent felling of large trees would not be required
in the buffer, the area contains scrub/shrub vegetation and the project would not
require the removal of large stumps, and at the completion of the project the
grubbed areas will be re-seeded with grass and the cleared areas will be allowed
to naturally re-vegetate with herbaceous vegetation.
Since the proposed project is deemed allowable and would be completed in
accordance with the NCDWQ Memorandum, Vegetation Management as it
Pertains to Airport Facilities in the Neuse, Catawba, and Tar-Pamlico Protected
Riparian Buffer (May 9, 2006), mitigation for impacts to riparian buffers is not
proposed. However, the areas of clearing and grubbing (0.23-acre), which all
would occur within riparian wetlands abutting Scotts Creek are included in the
total wetland impacts. The wetland impacts associated with the clearing and
grubbing are included in the request to NCEEP to use the In-lieu Fee Program.
4
10/29/08
Airport Authority
Curtis Bare
James Creech
Scott Dacey
Royce Jordan
William Naumann
John Price
Clemens Schaller
Fletcher Watts
Airport Director
Thomas Braaten
October 3, 2008
COASTAL
CAROLINA
Regional Airport
Mr. Terry Bumpus
Manager of Aviation Design
THE LPA GROUP of North Carolina, p.a.
5000 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 304
Raleigh, NC 27609
Re: Coastal Carolina Region Airport
Runway 22 Safety Area and RPZ Improvements
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION
200 Terminal Drive
P.O. Box 3258
New Bern, NC 28564
E-mail:
[e-mail]
Web:
www.NewBernAirport.com
[phone]
Fax [phone]
This letter is provided to acknowledge that THE LPA GROUP is hereby allowed to be the Duly
Authorized Representative for the Coastal Carolina Regional Airport in regards to submitting
documents and applicable fees for permits, certifications, and/or approvals as applicable for the
obtaining of the required federal and state permits for the above referenced project.
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at
[phone], ext. 224.
Sincerely,
G Tom Braaten
Airport Director
Coastal Carolina Regional Airport
Serving Eastern North Carolina for over 75 years
Gateway to NC's Crystal Coast
SITE LOCATION MAP
3000 1500 0 3000
GRAPHIC SCALE I" = 3000'
COASTAL CAROLINA REGIONAL AIRPORT
RUNWAY 22 SAFETY AREA IMPROVEMENTS
CRAVEN COUNTY, N.C.
OCTOBER 29, 2008
SHEET /OF 3
N35*4'24.84" / SOURCE. USGS Topogroph/c Map, New Bern Quadrangle
W77°2'32.66"
0
Z
o ?
z
U m
am
rl) 0
N 0

o ad

°1b
#r
J I -- J
Z
N Z
Z ?
w
a Q Q J Q a o
N 3 U LL U Z J U N LLJ Q Z
V) V) V) 00
N J In W W W 00 \ N
s J. LLJ ? = Q
Z
o C) 0 0 0 0 Q O N N
? ?' ? ` ? I I I I Q ? U ?
Ltd
N U
? ?? Q N
s ?.
°OW
M1s°!33 ' N
Q
a3a O
N
N
Z J
3b B
m -j
Q J ? / O
S s,
Q
s w
?s \
B a
? r ? NJ
IN
Sp?N
N
?J Q
V
? CU
LLJ
aa11llo?
Z V

?3y O
O
\ O O
N O
N
II
\ c\ W
O J
Q
U
N
U
C O EE
d o CD
N

?
W

j W

Q
?
° v
co
2
zz
O cv
r
r^^ I
a0 t0 Y N O N V LQ O
I I I I I I I I ? N
W Q O

° Q v cr-

° J Z Q W
O lL j O
=

N V O

N

Q

0 ?
0 j

0

I
O Q

O
DNIlSD13 LO
tt'Z AGIS _
-
I t
00
C)
W
L
M3 CID
03sodoad ?
a v
co) 41

a

1
71
/ r
v
I W W

_$
C7 (? N

W
0 Z
/
O ~

\ C)
o
Of
X
W
p
U
1
!L N O
O
'? O
I
I I
? aD I
f0 I I
a N I I
O N I
v _
W
O J
U Q
W N

O U
(n Ln S
U
O a
0
? O C'
0
Alternative Analysis
Coastal Carolina Regional Airport
Runway 22 Safety Area Extension
Alternative Analysis
1.0 Introduction
According Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 5200.8, Runway Safety Area
Program, and the "Airport Design" Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13 (Standards for
Specifying Construction of Airports) the FAA currently requires 1,000 feet of Runway
Safety Area for an Airport the size of Coastal Carolina Regional Airport. Currently
Runway 4/22 is not in compliance with the FAA RSA requirement. Runway 4/22 lies in
an approximate north to south configuration with the Runway 4 end to the south and the
Runway 22 end to the north. Currently, the Runway 4 end has approximately 700 feet of
existing RSA, and the Runway 22 end has approximately 600 feet of existing RSA. This
deficiency needs to be corrected to meet FAA standards and improve airport safety.
2.0 Purpose and Need
Coastal Carolina Regional Airport has recently begun regular scheduled commercial jet
service to Charlotte, NC and Atlanta, GA, utilizing a CRJ Canada Air jet. There are
currently 34 departures per week, resulting in approximately 68 operations per week.
Thus, there are 3,536 operations per year of the CRJ Canada Air jet. This level of
activity results in the Airport being designated a C-II airport, which requires a minimum
of 500 operations per year. As a C-II airport, the existing conditions of the north end of
Runway 22 (runway safety areas and object free zones) do not meet FAA Design
Standards. Currently the FAA design standard is a 500-foot by 1,000-foot RSA for C-II
airports. The existing RSA is 500 feet wide by 600 feet long.
In order to bring the existing safety area into compliance with current FAA design
standards for a C-II airport, it is proposed to lengthen the RSA by approximately 290
feet, for a total length of approximately 890 feet. The total length of the safety area is
limited to by physical and environmental factors; this is discussed further in the
Alternatives section.
If an airport does not meet the requirements for runway safety area length, the FAA may
require a "displaced threshold" or require reduced payloads (fuel, passengers, baggage,
cargo and etc.). A displaced threshold requires that the length of safety area needed to
comply with current FAA regulations be taken from the overall runway length, reducing
the effective length of the runway. The Design Aircraft, the CRJ, requires a Runway
length of 6,000 feet or longer to operate efficiently (which is the existing length of
Runway 4-22). Therefore, any reduction in runway length would not meet the runway
length requirement for the Design Aircraft.
3.0 Alternative Analysis
For purposes of a Federal Environmental Assessment to comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) the following five alternatives (plus the No-Build
1
10/29/08
Alternative) were studied to determine the Preferred Alternative for the extension of the
RSA for Runway 4/22.
3.1 No-Build Alternative
The No Action Alternative would leave the safety area in its current condition.
The current conditions do not comply with current FAA Design Standards.
Therefore, the No Action Alternative does not meet the purpose and need, and is
not recommended.
3.2 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative)
The proposed improvements include extending the RSA to meet current standards
for a C-II airport. The proposed RSA would be approximately 500 feet wide by
890 feet long (length is measured from the centerline of the runway). With this
alternative the RSA would not infringe upon Scotts Creek.
Pros
• Avoids impacts to Scotts Creek;
• Avoids impacts to Williams Road;
• Reduces wetland impacts between Scotts Creek and Williams Road;
and,
• Gains 290 feet of new RSA for Runway 22.
Cons
• Does not fully extend the RSA to 1,000 feet; and,
• Impacts approximately 0.81-acre of wetland.
3.3 Alternative 2
Alternative 2 is similar to Alternative 1 except that the RSA would be extended to
the southern edge of Williams Road, instead of the edge of Scotts Creek. This
would gain approximately 90 feet more RSA length on the east side of the RSA
than with Alternative 1. With this Alternative, Scotts Creek would either be piped
under the RSA, or relocated to the north side of Williams Road.
Pros
• Gains an additional 90 feet of RSA (when compared to Alternative 1)
by extending up to southern edge of Williams Road; and,
• Avoids Impacts to Williams Road.
Cons
• Does not fully extend RSA to 1,000 feet;
• Impacts Scotts Creek; and,
• Would impact additional wetland between Scotts Creek and Williams
Road.
2
10/29/08
3.4 Alternative 3 (Eliminated From Further Study)
Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 1 except that Williams Road would be
relocated to the north in order to gain the full 1,000 feet for the RSA length. With
this Alternative, Scotts Creek would either be piped under the RSA, or relocated
to the north along with Williams Road.
Pros
• Fully extends RSA to 1,000 feet.
Cons
• Would impact Williams Road;
• Impacts Scotts Creek (north and south of existing Williams Road);
• Would impact additional wetlands north of existing Williams Road;
• Would likely cause additional wetland impacts associated with the
road relocation; and,
• Would impact a CAMA Area of Environmental Concern.
3.5 Alternative 4 (Eliminated From Further Study)
Alternative 4 would attempt to gain the RSA length on the opposite end of the
Runway, south of Runway 4. To facilitate the 1,000-foot RSA, this alternative
would require the relocation of Brices Creek (Brices Creek can be seen on Sheet 1
of the attached permit drawings). Additionally, if Runway 4 was extended 500
feet to the south and the Runway 22 threshold was displaced 500 feet to gain the
RSA length, Runway 4 would then not have a sufficient RSA without the
relocation of Brices Creek.
Pros
• Fully extends RSA to 1,000 feet.
Cons
• Would impact Brices Creek by relocation;
• Would impact wetlands abutting Brices Creek; and,
• Would likely impact CAMA Area of Environmental Concern.
3.6 Alternative 5 (Eliminated From Further Study)
Alternative 5 would gain the additional RSA length by displacing the threshold of
Runway 4-22. This was determined not be feasible because the Design Aircraft,
the CRJ jet, requires a Runway length of 6,000 feet or longer to operate
efficiently. The existing length of Runway 4-22 is 6,000 feet any reduction in
runway length would not meet the runway length requirement for the Design
Aircraft.
Pros
• Avoids wetland and stream impacts.
10/29/08
Cons
A reduction in runway length would not meet the FAA length
requirement for the current Design Aircraft.
4.0 Alternative Selection
Alternative 1 was selected as the Preferred Alternative because it satisfies the purpose
and need of the proposed project, and avoids/minimizes environmental impacts.
Alternatives 1 and 2 would have the same RSA length at the centerline of the safety area.
Therefore, the extension of the runway safety area across Scotts Creek (Alternative 2)
would not result in a net gain of RSA length. Alternative 1 minimizes impacts to Scotts
Creek and avoids wetland impacts on the northern side of Scotts Creek, which would
occur with the other alternatives. By reducing impacts to streams and wetlands,
Alternative 1 would also reduce costs associated with mitigation. Alternative 3 was
eliminated from further study due to the economic, social, and environmental costs
associated with relocating Williams Road to the north. Alternative 4 was eliminated from
further study due to the environmental impacts and mitigation costs associated with the
relocation of Brices Creek. Alternative 5 was eliminated from further study because
displacing the threshold would reduce the runway length below the runway length
requirement for the Design Aircraft. A summary of the alternative selection process is
included in the Alternative Selection Matrix below.
Table 1
Runway 22 RSA Extension
Alternative Selection Matrix
DECISION CRITERIA Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5
Net RSA Gained 290 Feet 380 Feet 400 Feet 400 Feet 400 Feet
Reduces Usable Runway
Length No No No No Yes
Relocates Williams Road No No Yes No No
Wetland Impacts (acres) 0.81 1.2 1.2* 2.5 None
Stream Impacts linear feet) None 300 300* 2,000 None
Impacts CAMA-AEC No No Yes Yes No
*Does not include potential impacts that could occur from the relocation of Williams Road.
4
10/29/08
Jurisdictional Determination
Action ID 200510994
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. 200510994 County: Craven U.S.G.S. Quad: New Bern
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner/Agent: Craven "County Regional Airport c/o Edward Small
Address: The.LPA Group of North Carolina P.a.
4904 Professional Court, Suite 201
Raleieh, North.Carolina 27609
Telephone No.: [phone]
Property description:'
Size (acres) 48.86 acres Nearest Town New Bern
Nearest Waterway Scotts Creek River Basin Neuse
USGS HUC 03020204 Lower Neuse Coordinates N 35.082441 W -77.037078
Location description A 48.86 acre project area located on either side of NrcR 1167 nnrrh of 4}.e *---f D...a.......
County, North Carolina.'
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
_ Based on preliminary information, there may be wetlands on the above described property. We strongly suggest you have
this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction. To be considered final, a
jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action
under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
_ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
X There are wetlands on the above described project area subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination
may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
X The wetland on your property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the Corps. We strongly
suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps.
Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property
which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed
five years.
_ The wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps
Regulatory Official identified below on . Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
X The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to
determine their requirements.
Page 1 of 2
Action Id. 200510994
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Scott Jones at 252.975.1616 ext. 27.
Basis For Determination: This site exhibits wetland criteria as described in the 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual
and is part of a broad continuum of wetlands connected to Scotts Creek, a tributary of the Neuse River.
Remarks: Field drawing prepared by the LPA Group of North Carolina P.a., entitled "Craven County Regional
Airnnrt Rnnwav 22 Cafesty Arn?_h. ar. T..,..,...,o..,o..s? It --A a..a..A A_-.*I I nnn?
Corps Regulatory Official:
Date 05/23/2005
Copy Furnished:
Expiration Date 05/23/2010
Page 2 of 2
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
DISTRICT OFFICE: CESAW-RG-W
FILE NUMBER: 200510994
PROJECT LOCATION INFORMATION:
State: NC
County: Craven
Center coordinates of site (latitude/longitude): 35.082441 / -77.037078
Approximate size of area (parcel) reviewed, including uplands: 48.86 acres.
Name of nearest waterway: Scotts Creek
Name of watershed: Lower Neuse
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Completed: Desktop determination Date:
Site visit(s) Date(s): 05/11/2005
Jurisdictional Determination (JD):
Revised 8/13/04
Preliminary JD -Based on available information, ? there appear to be (or) ? there appear to be no "waters of the United States"
and/or "navigable waters of the United States" on the project site. A preliminary JD is not appealable (Reference 33 CFR part
331).
Approved JD -An approved JD is an appealable action (Reference 33 CFR part 331).
Check all that apply:
0 There are "navigable waters of the United States" (as defined by 33 CFR part 329 and associated guidance) within the reviewed
area. Approximate size of jurisdictional area:
There are "waters of the United States" (as defined by 33 CFR part 328 and associated guidance) within the reviewed area.
Approximate size of jurisdictional area: 11.69 acres.
There are "isolated, non-navigable, intra-state waters or wetlands" within the reviewed area.
® Decision supported by SWANCC/Migratory Bird Rule Information Sheet for Determination of No Jurisdiction.
BASIS OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION:
A. Waters defined under 33 CFR part 329 as "navigable waters of the United States":
The presence of waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or are presently used, or have been used in
the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
B. Waters defined under 33 CFR part 328.3(a) as "waters of the United States":
(1) The presence of waters, which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in
interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subtject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
(2) The presence of interstate waters including interstate wetlands .
(3) The presence of other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats,
wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could
affect interstate commerce including any such waters (check all that apply):
? (i) which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
? (ii) from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
? (iii) which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
(4) Impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the US.
(5) The presence of a tributary to a water identified in (1) - (4) above.
(6) The presence of territorial seas.
(7) The presence of wetlands adjacenO to other waters of the US, except for those wetlands adjacent to other wetlands.
Rationale for the Basis of Jurisdictional Determination (applies to any boxes checked above). If the jurisdictional water or
wetland is not itself a navigable water of the United States, describe connection(s) to the downstream navigable waters. IfB(1) or B(3)
is used as the Basis of Jurisdiction, document navigability and/or interstate commerce connection (i.e., discuss site conditions, including
why the waterbody is navigable and/or how the destruction of the waterbody could affect interstate or foreign commerce). If B(2, 4, 5 or
6) is used as the Basis of Jurisdiction, document the rationale used to make the determination. If B(7) is used as the Basis of
Jurisdiction, document the rationale used to make adjacency determination: This site exhibits wetland criteria as described in the 1987
Corps Wetland Delineation Manual and is part of a broad continuum of wetlands connected to Scotts Creek, a tributary of the Neuse
River.
Lateral Extent of Jurisdiction: (Reference: 33 CFR parts 328
Ordinary High Water Mark indicated by:
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank
? the presence of litter and debris
?- changes in the character of soil
? destruction of terrestrial vegetation
? shelving
? other:
and 329)
High Tide Line indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
? physical markings/characteristics
? tidal gages
? other:
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? survey to available datum; ? physical markings; ? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
Wetland boundaries, as shown on the attached wetland delineation map and/or in a delineation report prepared by: The LPA Group
of North Carolina, p.a.
Basis For Not Asserting Jurisdiction:
The reviewed area consists entirely of uplands.
Unable to confirm the presence of waters in 33 CFR part 328(a)(l, 2, or 4-7).
Headquarters declined to approve jurisdiction on the basis of 33 CFR part 328.3(a)(3).
The Corps has made a case-specific determination that the following waters present on the site are not Waters of the United States:
? Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons, pursuant to 33 CFR part 328.3.
Artificially irrigated areas, which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased.
? Artificial lakes and ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and
retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing.
? Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created
by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons.
? Water-filled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose
of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting
body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States found at 33 CFR 328.3(a).
? Isolated, intrastate wetland with no nexus to interstate commerce.
Prior converted cropland, as determined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Explain rationale:
? Non-tidal drainage or irrigation ditches excavated on dry land. Explain rationale:
? Other (explain):
DATA REVIEWED FOR JURSIDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (mark all that apply):
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant.
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant.
® This office concurs with the delineation report, dated 04/04/2005, prepared by (company): The LPA Group of NC, p.a.
? This office does not concur with the delineation report, dated , prepared by (company):
Data sheets prepared by the Corps.
Corps' navigable waters' studies:
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 Minute Topographic maps: New Bern
U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 Minute Historic quadrangles:
U.S. Geological Survey 15 Minute Historic quadrangles:
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey: Craven
National wetlands inventory maps:
State/Local wetland inventory maps:
FEMA/FIRM maps (Map Name & Date):
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (NGVD)
Aerial Photographs (Name & Date): CESAW
Other photographs (Date):
Advanced Identification Wetland maps:
Site visit/deterntination conducted on: 5/11/2005
Applicable/supporting case law:
Other information (please specify):
Wetlands are identified and delineated using the methods and criteria established in the Corps Wetland Delineation Manual (87 Manual) (i.e., occurrence of
hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology).
21lte term "adjacent" means bordering, contiguous, or neighboring. Wetlands separated from other waters of the U.S. by man-made dikes or barriers, natural
river berms, beach dunes, and the like are also adjacent.
Applicant: Craven Co. Regional Airport File Number: 200510994 Date: 05/23/2005
Attached is: See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of A
permission
PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter of ennission B
PERMIT DENIAL C
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMM You may acceptor object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you
may request that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return
the form to the district engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of
the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your
letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your
concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit having
determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the
district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration
as indicated in Section B below
,
.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district. engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and
conditions therein, you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal
Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must
be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or
provide new information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of
this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section 11 of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by
the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps
regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved
JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new
information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your
objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to
this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps
memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the
review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps
may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify
the location of.information that is already in the administrative record.
If you have questions regarding this decision If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you
and/or the appeal process you may contact: may also contact:
Scott Jones, Project Manager Mr. Michael F. Bell, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
CESAW-RG-W CESAD-ET-CO-R
Post Office Box 1000 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
Washington, North Carolina 27889, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any
government consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You
will be provided a 15 day notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site
investigations.
Date: Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
DIVISION ENGINEER:
Commander
U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic
60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3490

O \ r
t
2 Ln
C7 O MIL
I N 1
r
TF
w^ ' \ n\? to
,??°--?? III ? ? ?n
?o off, d0? ???
O s
O -1 Z OE
ad O?

m Ooc
tiVDiOOm?OnV
r
m m' ?
M a;XL
moo
in 0
M "n
Oma2 NG'? Nm
zmm m c? a
D ONOOr 2ti-1
?c v
0--n-M-0
z1-- pprmm
-m-C 2mON
?N rCNDC
z X:l
M
zo
>
>
o?
-
co.-s
D DON D a
r-1«zooI
• xm N mm ?
mnm• -a-?aox
am xm T-
?N Oman N
m a2a?O-1
Tm xn
laro z Z mO
o- -mc v
nmmoNOZC<
om oc
awmaO
-T
E
m Ka
.
m
-van
N
NOEX"O,
O zDOx
O 2zmmn-
->0 10
m- Z
zm
zm?
ov
,-
n ZZ• ommNzr
D a
mmvO-+va-MCI'
m--mTm-.ti n
aNa n Nn
N N Zrmn
v mr?
m?ynOxoE?m
,Mz
m
Zm
2
raOp
O
Z3 2m
<
Oz

Z

IN ?m
i
N
/ ? _ I f az
N ?- Z I O
S'? znno ?1 (1/
_ i R TNk
aNO i'

n a
W2 m ^

n </?)
V'
m0
W O
1= I
I \

S
. i v ?mA %
?T
? - f

?
f
Sc
I
•1
.
or,
pT S cR f K ??*+g s

?- o 0

o4a
y - i °im ? ?'.1f

?
n w v yP' O
.
ONO NO ?nC
Mmo /
I ?~•T °'

• aan
wc-
mO N-I
Owe Nc
m -Lv

`
d?` zNcic m ti
n
. m C N m m
N A ! Q a o
\
Noy
F n
N
y f? Do
•"a
m `" r
n ?
n n n n
n a n m
a m A a
m N m m
N N N
N
-1 m
n ~ a
r z D
v
Q-, ? Zl ? I ? r
7 m? e? 2 I I I I
Rl 2 2 N n °m c °m = °m
1 z c z a z
W N m m Z m
= ` ?1 ? ? N as N A N
? X47 l`•]
z Z ° W a o n n
z v ;
K O N
A
z

?O
N O
N•
N O
O+ D
-DA
Zn.
ma
A N ?
a
?c
~? K
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
Jan-23-2007 11:31am From-FAA ATL-ADO
07
U.s. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Atlanta Airports District Ofloe
January 23, 2007
Mr. Thomas Braaten, Airport Director
Craven County Regional Airport
200 Terminal Drive
New Bern, North Carolina 28590 `
Dear Mr. Braaten:
4043057155 T-070 P.001 F-733
DA0115
1701 Columbia Avenue
Campus Building, Suite 2-260
Coilege Park, Georgia 30337
This responds to your submission of an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the
proposed construction of an extension of approximately 290' to the existing Runway
Safety Area (RSA) for Runway 22, and construction of a blast pad (200' long x 150'
wide) for Runway 22 at the Craven County Regional Airport. Enclosed is a copy of the
approved Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for this proposed project.
This finding is issued pursuant to certain continuing requirements for mitigation and
permits that are discussed and indicated in the Environmental Assessment and in the
Record of Decision which are considered to be conditions of approval.
In accordance with FAA procedures, the FONSI must be made available to the public.
The enclosed notice should be placed in a local newspaper(s) as soon as possible and
run for a minimum of three days. Please provide this office with a certified copy of the
notice as it appears in the newspaper(s).
This letter should be attached to the FONSI for public inspection. If there are any
questions,' please feel free to contact me at 404-306-7151.
Sincerely,
F
Scott L. Seritt
Manager
PARTNERS IN CREATING TOMORROW'S AIRPORTS- +
Jan-23-2007 11:31am From-FAA ATL-ADO 4043057155 T-6T0 P.002 F-733
NOTICE
of Availability of Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Atlanta Airports District Office on January
23, 2007, issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for proposed construction
at Craven County Regional Airport. Copies of the FONSI are available for review by the
public for thirty (30) days at the following locations:
Federal Aviation Administration
Atlanta Airports District Office
1701 Columbia Ave
Campus Building 2-260
College Park, Georgia 30337
Craven County Airport Authority
200 Terminal Drive
New Bern, NC 28590
(List any other location as may be subsequently deemed appropriate and convenient.)
Jan-23-2007 11:31am From-FAA ATL-ADO 4043057155 T-670 P.003/010 F-733
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
AIRPORTS DISTRICT OFFICE
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF AN EXTENSION OF APPROXIMATELY 290' TO
THE EXISTING RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA) FOR RUNWAY 22, AND
CONSTRUCTION OF A BLAST PAD (200' LONG X 150' WIDE) FOR RUNWAY 22
CRAVEN COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA
January 23, 2007
Jan-23-2007 11:31am From-FAA ATL-ADO
4043057155 T-M P.004/010 F-733
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF AN EXTENSION OF APPROXIMATELY 290' TO
THE EXISTING RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA) FOR RUNWAY 22, AND
CONSTRUCTION OF A BLAST PAD (200' LONG X 150' WIDE) FOR RUNWAY 22
CRAVEN COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA
I have carefully and thoroughly considered the facts contained in the attached EA.
Based on that information, I find the proposed Federal action is consistent with existing
national environmental policies and objectives of Section 101(a) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). I also find the proposed Federal action (with
the required mitigation) will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment
or include any condition requiring any consultation pursuant to section 102(2)(0) of
NEPA. As a result, FAA will not prepare an EIS for this action.
APPROVE u;tt- DATE: January 23.2007
DISAPPROVED: DATE:
Jan-23-2007 11:31am From-FAA ATL-ADO 4043057155 T-670 P.005/010 F-733
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA)
RECORD OF DECISION
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF AN EXTENSION OF APPROXIMATELY 290' TO
THE EXISTING RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA) FOR RUNWAY 22, AND
CONSTRUCTION OF A 13LAST PAD (200' LONG X 150' WIDE) FOR RUNWAY 22
CRAVEN COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA
Proposed Federal Action: The proposed project (Alternative 1) involves construction
of an extension of approximately 290' to the existing Runway Safety Area (RSA) for
Runway 22, and construction of a blast pad (200' long x 150' wide) for Runway 22 at
the Craven County Regional Airport, New Bern, North Carolina. The proposed project
is to meet airport design standards to accommodate the larger aircraft utilizing the
airport. This project will provide additional safety for aircraft operating at the airport and
improve the operational flexibility and reliability of the airfield system. The proposed
Federal Action includes FAA's approval of construction and operation of the proposed
development and possible future approval of Federal Airport Improvement Program
(AIP) funding for this project.
The Craven County Regional Airport Authority (the Airport Sponsor) has submitted an
Environmental Assessment (EA) of the work described above. The Environmental
Assessment, with its appendices, is hereby made a part of this document, As indicated
above, the proposed project may be accomplished partially with Federal funding. The
FAA supports the objectives of the proposed project to provide necessary airport safety
and flexibility to meet the current and forecast needs at Craven County Regional
Airport.
Basis of Finding:
Although the FAA was presented with the Sponsor Preferred Alternative, six
alternatives, including the No-Action alternative (Alternative 2) were evaluated. The No-
Action alternative (Alternative 2) would not satisfy the purpose and need for the RSA
extension. (page 3) Three other alternatives would meet the necessary airports
standards: Alternative 3-2, extension of the RSA to the southern edge of Williams road
and relocate or pipe Scotts Creek (page 2); Alternative 3-3, extension of the RSA to the
Jan-23-2007 11:32am From-FAA ATL-ADO
4043057155 T-670 P.000/010 F-733
2
full 1000' length and relocate or pipe Scotts Creek (page 3); and, Alternative 3-4,
extension of Runway 4-22 to the south by 500' to shift the Runway 22 threshold to gain
the 1000' RSA, and relocate Brices Creek (page 3). These three alternatives were
eliminated from further study because of the impacts to Scotts and Brices Creeks.
Alternative 3-5, displacement of the threshold of Runway 22, was eliminated from
further study because this alternative would not provide the required runway length for
the design aircraft. (page 3)
Alternative 1 was selected as the Sponsor Preferred Alternative because it minimizes
impacts to the extent possible while meeting the purpose and need for the proposed
project.
The FAA determined that the Sponsor Preferred Alternative would not significantly
impact the human environment. This Finding of No Significant Impact is based on the
attached EA which was independently evaluated by the FAA and determined to
adequately discuss the environmental issues and impacts of the proposed project. It
provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) is not required. The FAA takes full responsibility for the accuracy,
scope and contents of the attached EA.
No significant air uali impacts are expected as a result of the proposed project.
There is no potential for the proposed action to cause the area to exceed the NAAQS
for any of the time periods analyzed or have any affect on the attainment and
maintenance of air quality standards. Craven County is in an attainment area for all six
(6) criteria pollutants under the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). No
further consultation, analysis, or documentation is required. (page 4)-
Pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 15 CFR 930, it has been
determined that the proposed project is consistent with the State of North Carolina
Coastal Zone Management Program. No impacts to any coastal resource will occur as
a result of the proposed project. This project will have no effect on the objectives,
goals, or policies of the Coastal Zone Management Program. (page 10)
The surrounding land uses will remain compatible with the airport. Construction of the
proposed project would take place entirely on existing airport property. No relocation of
residences or businesses or disruption of any community will take place as a result of
the proposed project. (page 4)
The proposed project will not cause significant construction impacts. Measures will be
taken to minimize any potential temporary adverse effects from construction. (pages
11-12)
The Sponsor Preferred Alternative will not cause noise sensitive areas to experience an
increase in noise of DNL 1.5 dB or more at or above DNI.65 dB noise exposure when
compared to the no action alternative. No significant noise impacts on noise sensitive
Jan-23-2007 11:32am From-FAA ATL-ADO
4043067165 T-670 P.007/010 F-T33
3
areas will occur within a national park, national wildlife refuge or historic site, including
traditional cultural properties. (page 4)
The FAA has determined that no parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl
refuges, or any historical sites will be impacted by the proposed project. Therefore,
Section 4 does not apply. (page 4)
The proposed project would impact approximately 1.5 acres of prime and unique
.
farmland, and approximately 13.5 acres of statewide and local imnortant farmland
Form AD-1006 was completed and coordinated with the NRCS, and the site scored a
94.6. Therefore, because the score is less that 160, the provisions of the Farmland
Protection Policy Act (FPPA), as they pertain to the protection of prime farmlands and
soils of statewide importance, are not applicable. (pages 10-11)
Based on the results of field surveys and coordination with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), it is anticipated that the proposed project is not likely to adversely
affect a federally or state-listed threatened endancered, or otherwise significant
species nor critical habitat. (page 5)
A review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance rate
maps (FIRM) was performed. Approximately one acre of fill will be located within the
limits of the 100-year floodplain of Scotts Creek. There is no practicable alternative to
placing the project in the floodplain and all measures to minimize harm will be included
in the project. The proposed project is not considered to be a significant encroachment.
(pages 9.10)
The proposed project does not have the potential for hazardous substances
contamination. The proposed project will not affect the quantity or type of solid waste
generated or method of collection or disposal except for the temporary effects of
construction. (page 6)
The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurs with the determination that no
historic properties or resources eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places are located within the project's area of potential effects. Should historic
properties be discovered at any point during project implementation, construction will
stop and the SHPO will be notified immediately. The FAA, in compliance with Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, has determined that the proposed project
will have no significant impacts to historic architectural, archaeological or cultural
resources. (page 5)
There will be no adverse impacts from light emissions from the proposed project. (page
6)
The proposed project will not have a measurable effect on local supplies of energy o
natural resources. (page 5)
Jan-23-2007 11;32am From-FAA ATL-ADO 4043057155 T-670 P.006/010 F-733
4
There will be no potential for negative secondary- impacts as a result of the proposed
project, (page 4)
No residential areas will be impacted by the proposed project. Therefore, there will be
no impacts associated with the relocation of residents or issues involving epvironmental
justice or children's environmental health and safety risks. (page 6)
All water quality standards and any Federal, state, or local permit requirements will be
met through the U. S. Corps of Engineers, and the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources {NCDENR). The construction and operation of the
proposed project will not result in violations of water quality standards and will not
degrade ambient water quality. The stormwater management system will be designed
to meet or exceed the required criteria. The potential for short-term water quality
impacts resulting from the construction will be mitigated through the implementation of
an erosion and sedimentation control plan that includes the use of construction controls
to prevent degradation of water quality and associated impacts on aquatic ecology.
Based on information In the EA, the FAA has determined there will be no significant
impacts to water quality as a result of the project- (pages 6-7)
Approximately one acre of wetlands located in the floodplain of Scotts Creek would be
affected by the proposed project. The habitat in this area is of low quality due to past
disturbances. All fill material necessary for construction would come from a certified
off-site location. Impacts to Scotts Creek will be minimized by limiting the extension of
the RSA to the edge of the creek bank. Mitigation for the impacts will include purchase
of credits from an approved mitigation bank or purchase of property for stream/wetland
preservation, enhancement, or restoration within the Neuse River basin. (pages 7-9)
No State or Federal designated wild and scenic rivers are located near the airport.
(page 6)
A public involvement program was carried out during the project development. The EA
also included a review and coordination process involving applicable Federal, state
and local government agencies. All comments received as a result of various public
input have been addressed in the EA. The proposed project is reasonably consistent
with existing plans of public agencies for development of the area and fair consideration
has been given to the interest of communities near the airport.
The approved EA addresses all of the viable alternatives that were studied during
project development. The environmental effects of the alternatives under consideration
were evaluated when preparing the EA.
Following the submittal of the draft environmental assessment, the FAA conducted an
independent review of the document. The June 2006 Environmental Assessment
represents the federally accepted environmental document, The Airport Sponsor's
Preferred Alternative is the environmentally preferred alternative and so becomes the
FAA's preferred alternative.
Jan-23-2007 11:32am From-FAA ATL-ADO
4043057155 T-670 P.009/010 F-733
5
Mitigation Measures: This finding is contingent upon the airport sponsor's
implementation of the following mitigation measures:
1. The airport sponsor shall obtain all permits required by Federal, state or local
laws and regulations.
2. The wetland mitigation plan included in the EA and in the application for the U.
S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit shall be required as part of this
approval, and a plan for implementation must be approved prior to start of
construction. The mitigation will consist of purchase of credits from an
approved mitigation bank or purchase of property for stream/wetland
preservation, enhancement, or restoration within the Neuse River basin. The
appropriate wetland credit calculations will be determined through the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers permit process. A final mitigation plan will be
developed, filed and approved, during the design phase, and prior to any land-
disturbing activity. The approved mitigation shall be included in any other permit
process and initiated prior to completion of the proposed project.
3. The Section 401 Water Quality Certification shall be obtained prior to any land-
disturbing activity. Construction limits shall not impact Scotts Creek. The North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has suggested that fill be placed no
closer than 30 feet from the creek bank. An erosion and sedimentation control
plan that includes the use of construction controls to prevent degradation of
water quality and associated impacts on aquatic ecology shall be approved by
the North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources and
shall be implemented during construction.
4. Sediment and erosion measures used during all construction phases shall be in
accordance with the State of North Carolina and the Neuse River Buffer Rules.
Approval from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality shall be obtained for
impacts to the buffers prior to start of any land-disturbing activity (including any
woody vegetation removal), and, if required, a mitigation plan shall be
developed and approved prior to the start of any land-disturbing activity.
Extreme care shall be taken to implement measures to protect the State
classification for nutrient sensitive waters.
5. The project shall comply with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water permit(s)
as applicable. Because of its status with the State, stormwater BMP's should
include bio-retention areas, grassed swales, and dry retention basins followed
by forested filter strips, where possible.
6. Construction activity shall conform to requirements of FAA Advisory Circular
150/6370-10A, Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports and FAA
Jan-23-2007 11:32am From-FAA ATL-ADO 4043057155 T-670 P.010/010 F-733
6
Advisory Circular 150/5200-33 Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near
Airports.
7. Should archaeological artifacts or historic properties be discovered at any point
during project implementation, work will stop and the SHPO shall be notified
immediately.
8. Floodplain impacts shall be mitigated in accordance with the requirements of
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Section 404 permit, and shall receive the
public review as required during the permit process.
9. The Coastal Area Management Act Consistency Certification from the North
Carolina Division of Coastal Management shall be obtained prior to any land-
disturbing activity.
This Record of Decision is a decision document and it is an order subject to the
exclusive judicial review under 49 USC 46110 by the: U. S. Circuit Courts of Appeals
for the District of Columbia, or the U. S. Circuit Courts of Appeal for the circuit In which
the person contesting the decision lives or has a principal place of business.
EgDERAL FINDING: Having carefully considered the project need, and being properly
advised as to the anticipated environmental impacts of the proposal, I find the project Is
reasonably supported and should be processed for the Federal action to approve the
proposed construction of an extension of approximately 290' to the existing Runway
Safety Area (RSA) for Runway 22, and construction of a blast pad (200' long x 160'
wide) for Runway 22 at the Craven County Regional Airport, New Bern, North Carolina.

Federal Aviation Administration Date: January 23, 2007
U.S. Department of Transportation
Agency Coordination/Concurrence
.. ? ??aa5TA78y,
qN,
Michael F. Easley, Govemor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
jefkey j. Crow, Deputy Secretary
May.16, 2005
gray 1 20??
S
It'd. .
IS?Y?Y?
.............
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources.
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Smdbeck, Adminirtratot
Office of Archives and History
Divi4on of Mtgdcsl Resources
David Brook, Director
Richard B. Davis
Environmental Manager
The LPA Group of North Carolina
4904 Professional Court, Suite'201
Raleigh, NC - 27609
Re: Improvements (Safety Run) to Craven County Regional Airport, Craven County, CH 05-0541
Dear Mr. Davis: .
Oi1.April-27, 2005, staff from our office and met with you concerning the above project.
At the meeting we reviewed photographs and maps of the project area. Based upon our review of the
information discussed at the meeting, we recommend that no historic architectural survey be conducted for
this project.
We have no further comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments axe made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank.you fot.your cooperation and consideration. If you have quesdons-concerning the above comment,
..contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
ter Sandbeck
cc: Rick Barkes, DOA
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street Raleigh NC 4617 M0 Service Centcr. Raleigh NC 27699 1617.
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC .4617 Marl Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699=4617
SURVEY k PLANNING 51514. Blount Street, Ueigh, NC 4617 Mil Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617
a ?
? rte... ,.
_.4 logs
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE T "L.`'.?5-
Raleigh Field Office -----^" "" ?- -
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
March 30, 2005
Mr. Richard B. Davis
The LPA Group of North Carolina, P.A.
4964 Professional Court, Suite 201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
.Deart1&. barns:
This letter is to inform you that a list of all federally-protected endangered and threatened species
with known` occurrences in North Carolina is now available on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's (Service) web page at <http://nc=es.fi ±s.gov/es>. Therefore, if you have prbjee Its that
occur within the Raleigh Field Office's area of responsibility (see attached county list), you no
longer need to contact the Raleigh:Rielo'Offide :for, a list of federally-protected species.
Our web page eontaing-a 66inplete 1?dated list' of all endangered and threatened
s Acf of 19'13,' as ame?ided (16
specie's ioteCt? 4,i? bvig V r
: y.t :o' • `: f ; Y at are known to occur in
aili° „, .
iJ,$,C.1.531. et se?,cl•?Act?earpi .doncern ..tl .
each 00--pity in North Carolina. '
Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal- agencies (or their designated non-federal
representative), in consultation with the Service', Insure-that any action federally authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agencies is -not lively to jeopardize the continued existence of any
federally-listed endangered or threatened species: A biological assessment or evaluation may be
prepared to fulfill that requirement and in deteimining. whether additional consultation with the
Service is necessary. In addition to tho federally-protected speeies list, information on the
species' life histories and habitats and, infonTaation..on'completing a. biological assessment or
evaluation and can be found on our web page at <http:1/nc-es.fws.gov/es>. Please check the web
site often for updated information or drags:
If your project coiitaind'suitable-habitat for any of the federally4isted species known to be
present within. the. county where your project. occurs, the proposed action has the potential to
adversely affect'those species. • As such,,we recommend that surveys be conducted to determine
the species' presence or absence within.* project area. The use of North Carolina Natural
Heritage program data should not be'substiw!t6d for actual field surveys.
t The term "federal species of concern'' refe4torpyspec tes which the Service believes might be in need of
concentrated conservation. actions. Federal apeCie$.of<oncern receive no legal protection and their dedignation does
not necessarily imply that the species will evasCmytlirb'.roposed for listing as a federally endangered or threatened
species. However, we recovurtend that allpraCfi?able; triek5tues be taken to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to
federal species of concern
'.jtw y;FY.•il a• . _ .: vt??a?''.? l 'f If you determine that the proposed Qti 4y, ect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a federally-p; otetecscs; you should notify this office with your
determination; the results of your,surveys, suv„,e?y methodologies, and an analysis of the effects
of the action on listed species, includir'i c?a r jration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects,
before conducting any activities that::: t o species. If.you determine that the proposed
' direct or indirect effect) on federally
action will have no effect (i.e., no ben: c .? averse,
listed species, then you are not required , a Vour office for-concurrence. However, you
should maintain a complete record of ft. 04' ?sment, including steps leading to your
determination of effect, the qualified- persdranel `85' CO the assessment, habitat conditions,
site photographs, and any other related articles.
With regard to your letter, dated Match 2q'95;,requesting comments fr om the Service on the
proposed extension of approximately 600 feet'to-Runway 22, including a 200-foot paved blast
pad, at the Craven County Regional AirpoNorth Carolina, we offer the following remarks.
Our comments are submitted pursuant to, and m accordance with, provisions, of the Endangered
Species Act.
The Service has an old record (mid-A5d" ;6f;al occurrence of the federally-threatened plant,
sensitive jointvetch (Aeschynomene vrginica), within the proposed project area. An extensive
survey for the species was conducted.in'ttir?v i ity of proposed project by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation in the 19.9904 .but 'ila.plants were discovered. Other surveys have
yielded similar results. As a result, ii that sensitive jointvetch most likely no
longer occurs in the general area of th.6.pk i W, project site.
Based on the information provided and other inortnation available, it appears that the proposed
project is not likely to adversely affect arty federally-listed endangered or threatened species,
their formally designated critical habitat, or species currently proposed for listing under the Act.
We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act have been satisfied. Please
remember that obligations under section 1 cons' Ttation must be reconsidered if (1) new
information reveals impacts of this identiffed:action that may affect listed species or critical
habitat in a manner not previcqusly considdi4; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a
manner that was not considered in this review; or, (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat
determined that may be affected by the ideiitfied action.
We hope you find our web page useful and informative and that following the process described
above will reduce the time required , and-e?ninate the need, for general correspondence for
species' lists in the future. If you have auy qubsthons or comments, please contact Mr. David
Rabon of this office at [phone];:?teii ion •16.
S.
.v
Pete Benjamin
Ecological Services Supervisor
Enclosure
2
f?r
List of Counties in the Service's Raleigh Field Office Area of Responsibility

A.lamance Person
Beaufort Pitt
Bertie Randolph
Bladen Richmond
Brunswick Robeson
Camden Rockingham
Carteret Sampson
Caswell
Scotland
Chatham Tyrrell
Chowan. Vance
Columbus Wake
Craven Warren
Cumberland Washington
Currituck Wayne
Dare Wilson
Duplmi
Durham
Edgecombe
Franklin
Gates
Granville
Greene
Guilford
Halifax
Harnett
Hertford
Hoke
Hyde s
Johnston
Jones
Lee*
Lenoir
Martin
Montgomery
Moore
Nash
New Hanover
Northampton
Onslow
Orange
Pamlico
Pasquotank
Pender
Perquimans.
3
st' el?t
Rem
?11.PROGRAM
October 23, 2008
Mr. Thomas Braaten
Coastal Carolina Regional Airport
200 Terminal Drive
New Bern, NC 28562 Expiration of Acceptance: July 23, 2009
Project: Coastal Carolina Regional Airport - Runway 22 Safety Area County: Craven County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is willing to accept
payment for impacts associated with the above referenced project. Please note that this decision does not assure that the payment will
be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts. It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact these
agencies to determine if payment to the NCEEP will be approved. YQU must 1 c*mply wfth all other state. federal _or_ local
This acceptance is valid for nine months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not received a copy of the
issued 404 Permit/401 Certification/CAMA permit within this time frame, this acceptance will expire. It is the applicant's
responsibility to send copies of the permits to NCEEP. Once NCEEP receives a copy of the permit(s) an invoice will be issued based
on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the In
Lieu Fee to be paid to NCEEP by an applicant is calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed at www.nceep.net.
Based on the information supplied by you the impacts that may require compensatory mitigation are summarized in the following
table.
River
Basin CU
Location Stream (feet) Wetlands (acres) Buffer I
(Sq. Ft.) Buffer II
(Sq. Ft.)
Cold Cool Warm Riparian on-Riparian Coastal Marsh
Impact Neuse 03020204 0 0 0 0.81 . 0 0 0 0
Credits Neuse 03020204 0 0 0 1.62 0 0 0 0
Upon receipt of payment, EEP will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. If the regulatory agencies require
mitigation credits greater than indicated above, and the applicant wants NCEEP to be responsible for the additional mitigation, the
applicant will need to submit a mitigation request to NCEEP for approval prior to permit issuance. The mitigation will be performed
in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers dated November 4, 1998.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Valerie Mitchener at [phone] or Kelly Williams at
[phone].
Sincerely,
Willi . Gilmore, PE ?J
Director
cc: Cyndi Karoly, NCDWQ Wetlands/401 Unit
Tracy Wheeler, USACE-Washington
Kyle Barnes, NCDWQ-Washington
Edward Smail, agent
File
Rutoriltg... 'E... Pro" Oct S-ta t&
&MMA
NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
Statement of Compliance with :session. Law 2008-152 An Act to Promote
Compensatory Mitigation.by Private Mitigation Banks
(link to. SL 2008452)
Prior to accessing the.Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) In-Lieu Fee
Mitigation Program, all applicants are. now required by law to comply with
Session Law 2008-152 An Act to Promote Compensatory Mitigation by Private
Mitigation Banks. All.new requests submitted. on or after Oct. 1,, 2008 MUST
include this form signed and dated by the permit applicant or an authorized
agent. Applicants with unexpired acceptance letters may continue with their
plans to use the In-Lieu Fee Program or withdraw their request and seek other
available mitigation options.
Compliance Statement:
I have read and understand SL-2008-152 and have, to. the best of my knowledge,
complied with its requirements.
Please check all that apply:
There. are no known private mitigation banks with the requested credit type
located in the hydrologic unit where this impactwill take place flank to DWQ
list .
A- I have contacted the mitigation bank(s) in the hydrologic u it where t1?e impacts
will occur and credits are not available. C Scc c 4k4c 4,dn C?,.,a l
Note: It is the applicant's responsibility to document any Inquiries made to private
mitigation banks.
t
Signature of A scant or Agent Printed Name
I0/f 3 /as
Date
Page I of 2
Smail, Ed
From: Norton Webster [[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 6:33 AM
To: Smail, Ed
Subject: RE: Wetland. Mitigation Credits (Craven County NC) HUC 03020204
Ed,
There are currently no wetland credits available from the Westbrook Lowgrounds or the Marston site.
Thanks.
Norton
Norton Webster.
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
Research IV
909 Capability Drive; Suite 3 100
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
office 919.829.9909
ce# 919.608.9688
fax [phone]
[e-mail]
www.ebxusa.com
From: Small, Ed.[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 11:02 AM
To: Norton Webster
Subject: RE: Wetland Mitigation Credits (Craven County NC) HUC 03020204
Mr. Webster,
Since we spoke the other day DWQ revised the mitigation bank list on the NCEEP website, found here:
hdp://h26.enr state nc us/ncwetiands/documents/mitigation banks doc
According to this list, in addition to the "Westbrook Lowgrounds" , the "EBX-Neuse 1 - Marston" bank also serves
this HUC. Based on the most recent design, the proposed project would impact 0.81-acre of wetland. In order to
comply with Session Law 2009-152, could you please. verify (via response.to this email) that. there are currently no
wetland credits. available for these two banks? Please let me know if you have any questions or need any
additional information.
thanks
Edward J. Small
Environmental Scientist
THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED
4401 Belle Oaks Drive, Suite lo5
North Charleston SC 29405
843-329.0050
http://www.loaorouD.com
10/13/2008
Page 2 of 2
From: Small, Ed
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 10:53 AM
To: '[e-mail]'
Subject: Wetland Mitigation Credits (Craven County NC) HUC 03020204
Mr..Webster,
We are currently in the process of preparing Section 404 permit application for a project at the Coastal Carolina
Regional Airport in New Bern, NC. We had.originally planned on using the North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (NCEEP) to compensate for wetland impacts associated with this project. It has come to
my attention, that NC is now requiring permit applicants to first investigate the use of a private mitigation bank.
before using the NCEEP in-lieu fee program. This project is in HUC 03020204 and according to the NC Division
of Water Quality's latest list;: the "Westbrook Lowgrounds" serves this HUC. Are there currently credits available
in this service. area? This project would impact approximately 1.17 acres of wetland. If credits are not available; I
may need something in writing to submit with the NCEEP in-lieu fee request. Let me know if you have any
questions.
Thanks
Edward J. Small
Environmental Scientist
THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED
4401 Belle Oaks:Drive, Suite 105
North Charleston, SC 20405
843-329-0050
http://Www.lpaciroup.com
10/13/2008
NORTH CAROLINA ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, NCEEP
IN-LIEU FEE REQUEST FORM
Revised 9/11/2008
Print this form, 611 in requested information, Sion and date. and either mail to NCEEP, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC
27699-1652, fax to 919415-2219, or email toVglerie:M?tchenert?nomail net Attachments are acceptable for clarification
purposes (location map is required).

CONTACT INFORMATION APPLICANT'S AGENT (optional) . ) APPLICANT

,Business or Individual Name
F
THE LPA GROUP, INCORPORATED
Coastal Carolina Regional Airport
2. Street Address orP 0 Box 4401 Belle Oaks Drive, suite 105 200 Terminal Drive
3. City, State, Zip Charleston., SC 29405 New Bern, NC 28562
4. Contact Person Edward J. Smail Mr. Thomas Braaten -
5. Telephone Number: 1 843-329-0050 252-638-8591
S. Fax Number 843-329-0055
7. E-Mail Address (optional) [e-mail]
.
PROJECT INFORMATION
8 Project Name - - oastal Carolina RegionalAirport- Runway 22 a e Area
Extension
9. Project Location (nearest town, city)
"AT
A ew Bern, NC (see attached Mapj - - - - - - "--'-7
T
CH MAP SHOWING IMPACT LOCATION`'
10. Lat-Long Coordinates (optional) 35:081712 Deg. N 77.036889 Deg. W
-
11.--•Proj-ect- Co-u---nty --------- -------•
-County_..------------------------___.?.__
raven
12. River Basin euse
13. Cataloging Unit (84igR) (see Note 1 30 020204 ----
i 14. Riparian Wetland Impact (ac.) 0.13)
I ?J.81-Acre
i
15. Non-Rlparlan Wetland Impact. (ac.) None
18. Coastal Marsh Impact (ac.) --
---.- _
17. Stream Impact (ft.) (e
g
1
234)
I i--------- --- -----
None -
j
.
.
,
(See Note 2) Warm Cool ( Cold f
None --
None one
18. Buffer Impact-Zone (sq. 12,345)
.
(See Note 3)_.
Zone 1: N/A

Zone 2: N/A
19. Regulatory. Agency Staff Contacts
1 (Indicate names,. N known) I USACE: Ms. Tracey Wheeler DWQ: Mr. Al Hodge I l
20. Other Regulatory ID Information
(e:g_, USACE AeUon ID,.if known)
-
--
-
- USACE Action ID 200510994
-
-
------------------------
I ?
IMPORTANT -
Check. (b. below if this request is a: i Signature of Applicant or ent: f
revlslon to a current acceptance
or '
,
_ re-submIsslon of an expired acceptance I i
extension of unexpired acceptance i I
- - t Date: w./310 5- i
Note `7: For. help in determining the Cataloging Unit, go to EPNs'Surf Your Watershed' web page:
httoJ/cfoub:eoa.aov/su no a A index dm Note (9) above: requirement to attach location map:
Note 2: For guidance on stream temperatures, go to:
htfo/Miww.saw.uaar?.armvmiWVET ANDS/Mhigatio /rk,.,,,,,,,,,,ts/crmaMAA=ndigeWAonendixl.odf
Note 3: Buffer mitigation applicable only In. the Neuse, Ter-Pamlico. and Catawba river basins, and the Randleman Lake
Water Supply Watershed: Direct all questions to Valerie Mitchener at 919-715-1973 or valed&mitchenerd2ncmail n -t
Consistency Determination for
Coastal Carolina Regional Airport l?E? 1 5 2008
Runway 22 Safety Area Extension
Craven County, North Carolina p AR goa"XTER?cH
1.0 Background
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) authorized the construction of an extension
to the Runway Safety Area (RSA), north of Runway 22 at the Coastal Carolina Regional
Airport (formally the Craven Regional Airport) in an Environmental Assessment
(EA)/Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to satisfy the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The FONSI was approved by the FAA on
January 23, 2007. A copy of FONSI is included in Appendix A. The RSA extension was
identified as a necessity, due to the increased amount of flights to and from the airport.
This increase in flights upgraded the classification of the Airport, which required
additional safety features. The RSA north of Runway 22 in its existing condition is not in
compliance with FAA Regulations. The extension would serve to bring the RSA into
FAA compliance. Several alternatives were studied in the EA, and the extension of the
Runway 22 RSA by 290 feet to the north was determined by the FAA to be the Preferred
Alternative.
2.0 Project
Coastal Carolina Regional Airport has recently begun regular scheduled commercial jet
service to Charlotte, NC and Atlanta, GA, utilizing a CRJ Canada Air jet. There are
currently 34 departures per week, resulting in approximately 68 operations per week.
Thus, there are 3,536 operations per year of the CRJ Canada Air jet. This level of
activity results in the Airport being designated a C-II airport, which requires a minimum
of 500 operations per year. As a C-II airport, the existing conditions of the north end of
Runway 22 (runway safety areas and object free zones) do not meet FAA Design
Standards. Currently the FAA design standard is a 500-foot by 1,000-foot RSA for C-II
airports. The existing RSA is 500 feet wide by 600 feet long.
In order to bring the existing safety area into compliance with current FAA design
standards for a C-II airport, it is proposed to lengthen the RSA by approximately 290
feet, for a total length of approximately 890 feet. The total length of the safety area is
limited to by physical and environmental factors; this is discussed further in the attached
Alternatives Analysis.
If an airport does not meet the requirements for runway safety area length, the FAA may
require a "displaced threshold" or require reduced payloads (fuel, passengers, baggage,
cargo and etc.). A displaced threshold requires that the length of safety area needed to
comply with current FAA regulations be taken from the overall runway length, reducing
the effective length of the runway. The Design Aircraft, the CRJ, requires a Runway
length of 6,000 feet or longer to operate efficiently (which is the existing length of
Runway 4-22). Therefore, any reduction in runway length would not meet the runway
length requirement for the Design Aircraft.
10/29/08
To comply with Executive Order 11990, potential impacts were quantified and the
mitigation of unavoidable impacts is addressed. The potential impact areas were
calculated based on the estimated construction limits of the proposed improvements.
Within the study area, approximately 10.77 acres of wetlands were identified. The
wetland delineation was approved as a wetland approximation by the USACE on May 23,
2005 (Action ID 200510994). A copy of the Jurisdictional Determination is included in
Appendix B. The wetlands were all located in the floodplain of Scotts Creek. The
wetlands are divided into two sections by Williams Road, and due to past clearing
activities, the wetlands are in varying stages of succession. The wetland types within the
study area include deciduous shrub-scrub, wooded swamp, and cleared-disturbed
wetlands. As a result of past disturbances the majority of the wetlands within the study
area are of low quality.
The deciduous shrub-scrub wetlands are located adjacent to existing perimeter road north
of Runway 22 and on both the north and south sides of Williams Road. The deciduous
shrub-scrub wetlands are in the early stages of succession and are dominated by low-
growing vegetation. Approximately 0.5 acres of wetlands north of Williams Road,
within the existing runway safety area were hand cleared in February 2005 for safety
compliance. The wooded swamp is located in the northwestern section of the study area
(north of Williams Road) and is adjacent to the western airport property boundary.
The construction of the project would permanently impact approximately 0.81-acre of
jurisdictional wetlands south of Williams Road. This includes 0.58-acre of fill impact
and 0.23-acre of impact due to clearing and grubbing.
2.1 Avoidance
Due to the linear nature of the project, total avoidance of impacts to water
resources is not possible. There are no other feasible directions, or locations to
construct the safety area. The alternative selection process is detailed in the
attached Alternative Analysis. The selection of Alternative 1 as the Preferred
Alternative avoided approximately 300 linear feet of stream impacts associated
with the relocation of Scotts Creek that would occur with Alternatives 2 and 3 by
limiting construction to the south side of Scotts Creek.
Additional impacts to adjacent wetlands and streams would be avoided by
confining construction activities to the construction limits.
2.2 Minimization
Wetland impacts were minimized by limiting the extension of the RSA to the
south side of Scotts Creek. Alternatives 2 and 3 would have further impacted
wetlands by adding approximately 0.4-acre of additional fill to wetlands north of
Scotts Creek. Alternative 3 would have also impacted additional wetlands
associated with the relocation of Williams Road.
2
10/29/08
Construction activities would be confined within the permitted construction
limits. Also during construction, potential temporary impacts to streams would be
minimized by implementing sediment and erosion control measures to include,
seeding and steepening of side slopes, hay bale placement, silt fences, and
sediment basins, as appropriate. Other BMPs would be required of the contractor
to ensure compliance with the polices of FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5370-
1 OA entitled Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports, and specifically
Item P-156 Temporary Air and Water Pollution, Soil Erosion, and Siltation
Control.
2.3 Mitigation
On-site wetland mitigation could be a wildlife attractant especially to wading
birds and waterfowl, which is in conflict with guidance provided in the Advisory
Circular (AC) 150/5200-33, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports.
Per the recent requirements issued jointly by the USACE and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the Department of Defense,
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers 33 CFR Parts 325 and
332/Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 230 Compensatory
Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule, dated April 10, 2008,
existing mitigation banks in the Neuse River Basin (HUC 03020204) were sought
for the purchase of mitigation credits. Three commercial mitigation banks are
located in the Neuse River Basin; however none have credits available at this
time. Additionally, in order to comply with Session Law 2008-152 and
USACE/EPA guidance, mitigation banks serving HUC 03020204 were contacted
to determine if credits were available before the request to use the NCEEP In-lieu
Fee Program was made. No credits were available within HUC 03020204 at the
time of the request.
Therefore, THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED is proposing the use of the
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) In-lieu Fee Program
to compensate for unavoidable impacts to waters of the U.S. A request was
submitted to the NCEEP on October 13, 2008, and approved on October 23, 2008.
A copy of NCEEP acceptance letter is attached in Appendix C.
3.0 Areas of Environmental Concern
The project area is located approximately 0.5-mile from the Neuse River in Craven
County, which is a tidally influenced water body. In order to determine if the project
would require a CAMA Major Development Permit, it was necessary to determine if the
project would impact an Area of Environmental Concern as defined in the North Carolina
Administrative Code 15A NCAC 07H. In this area the most applicable areas of
environmental concern would include coastal wetlands, estuarine waters, estuarine
shorelines, public trust areas, and outstanding resource waters. An assessment of the
presence of absence of these waters within the project area is described below.
3
10/29/08
3.1 Coastal Wetlands
The Administrative Code 15A NCAC 07H .0205 describes coastal wetlands as
any salt marsh or other marsh subject to regular or occasional flooding by tides,
including wind tides (whether or not the tide waters reach the marshland areas
through natural or artificial watercourses), provided this shall not include
hurricane or tropical storm tides. Coastal wetlands contain some, but not
necessarily all, of the following marsh plant species:
- Cord Grass (Spartina alterniflora);
- Black Needlerush (Juncus roemerianus);
- Glasswort (Salicornia spp.);
Salt Grass (Distichlis spicata);
- Sea Lavender (Limonium spp.);
- Bulrush (Scirpus spp.);
- Saw Grass (Cladium jamaicense);
- Cat-tail (Typha spp.);
- Salt Meadow Grass (Spartina patens); and,
- Salt Reed Grass (Spartina cynosuroides).
THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED and the EcoScience Corporation
performed wetland delineations with the project area based on the United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 1987 Delineation Manual. Based on the
description in the Administrative Code, the project area was determined to not be
defined as a coastal wetland. This determination was based on the vegetation
observed within the project area which included:
- Red Maple (Acer rubrum);
- Black Willow (Salix nigra);
- Sweet Gum (Liquidambar styraciflua);
- Tag Alder (Alnus serrulata);
- Wax Myrtle (Myrica cerifera);
- Multiflora Rose (Rosa multiflora);
- Chinese Privet (Ligustrum sinense);
- Japanese Honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica); and,
- Cat-tail (Typha latifolia).
These are species that thrive in a freshwater environment are with the exception
of cat-tail are not listed as coastal wetland species as identified in the
administrative code and further the proposed area of impact is not subject to
regular or occasional flooding by tides, including wind tides, expect in those cases
that would include hurricanes or tropical storm tides. Additionally, the project
area was reviewed by Mr. Mark Hardeman, Field Representative for the North
Carolina Division of Coastal Management on June 16, 2005, and again by the
acting Field Representative for the NCDCM, Mr. Jonathan Howell on April 22,
2008. Both Mr. Hardeman and Mr. Howell concurred that the project as proposed
would not impact coastal wetlands. Therefore, the project as designed, will not
impact coastal wetlands areas of environmental concern.
4
10/29/08
3.2 Estuarine Waters
Estuarine waters are defined in 15A NCAC 07H .0206 to include all the waters of
the Atlantic Ocean within the boundary of North Carolina and all the waters of the
bays, sounds, rivers and tributaries thereto seaward of the dividing line between
coastal fishing waters and inland fishing waters. The boundaries between inland
and coastal fishing waters are set forth in an agreement adopted by the Wildlife
Resources Commission and the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources and in the most current revision of the North Carolina Marine Fisheries
Regulations for Coastal Waters, codified at 15A NCAC 3Q .0200. According to
15A NCAC 3Q .0200 9 a (vii) Scotts Creek is considered inland waters from its
confluence with the Neuse River (35.091962 deg. N, 77.036508 deg. W) upstream
to its source. Therefore, the project area does not contain estuarine waters and
would not impact this area of environmental concern.
3.3 Public Trust Areas
As defined in 15A NCAC 07H .0207, Public trust areas are all waters of the
Atlantic Ocean and the lands thereunder from the mean high water mark to the
seaward limit of state jurisdiction; all natural bodies of water subject to
measurable lunar tides and lands thereunder to the normal high water or normal
water level; all navigable natural bodies of water and lands thereunder to the
normal high water or normal water level as the case may be, except privately-
owned lakes to which the public has no right of access; all water in artificially
created bodies of water containing public fishing resources or other public
resources which are accessible to the public by navigation from bodies of water in
which the public has rights of navigation; and all waters in artificially created
bodies of water in which the public has acquired rights by prescription, custom,
usage, dedication, or any other means. During the site visit by Mr. Hardeman on
June 16, 2005 he indicated that the portion of Scotts Creek south of Williams
Road (the project area) would not be considered navigable. Therefore, waters
within the project area are not Public Trust Areas and the proposed project would
not impact this area of environmental concern. Additionally, the project would
occur on existing airport property, which is a federally restricted area.
3.4 Estuarine Shorelines
Coastal shorelines are defined in 15A NCAC 07H .0209 as The Coastal
Shorelines category includes estuarine shorelines and public trust shorelines.
Estuarine shorelines AEC are those non-ocean shorelines extending from the
normal high water level or normal water level along the estuarine waters,
estuaries, sounds, bays, fresh and brackish waters, and public trust areas as set
forth in an agreement adopted by the Wildlife Resources Commission and the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources [described in Rule .0206(a) of
this Section] for a distance of 75 feet landward. For those estuarine shorelines
immediately contiguous to waters classified as Outstanding Resource Waters by
the Environmental Management Commission, the estuarine shoreline AEC shall
extend to 575 feet landward from the normal high water level or normal water
level, unless the Coastal Resources Commission establishes the boundary at a
5
10/29/08
greater or lesser extent following required public hearing(s) within the affected
county or counties. Public trust shorelines AEC are those non-ocean shorelines
immediately contiguous to public trust areas, as defined in Rule 07H .0207(a) of
this Section, located inland of the dividing line between coastal fishing waters and
inland fishing waters as set forth in that agreement and extending 30 feet
landward of the normal high water level or normal water level. Since Scotts
Creek is not defined as an estuarine water, there are not estuarine shorelines
within the project area. Therefore, the project, as proposed would not impact this
area of environmental concern.
3.5 Coastal Shorelines/Outstanding Resource Waters
As defined in 15A NCAC 07H .0209, management objectives have been
established to ensure that shoreline development is compatible with the dynamic
nature of the shoreline, and North Carolina's objectives for, conserving and
managing the important natural features of the estuarine and ocean systems. The
proposed project would occur approximately 3,000 feet from the shore of the
Neuse River, and there are no outstanding resource waters (ORW) located within
the project area. The latest ORW list' obtained from NCDWQ did not list waters
within the project area (Scotts Creek) as an ORW. The proposed project would
also not impact coastal wetlands, submerged aquatic vegetation, shellfish beds,
and historical resources. Therefore, the proposed project would not impact
coastal shorelines, as defined in 15A NCAC 07H.0209.
3.6 Ocean Hazards
As defined in 15A NCAC 07H .0303, management objectives have been
established to ensure that development in ocean hazard areas is compatible with
the goals of eliminating unreasonable danger to life while achieving a balance
between the financial, safety, and social factors involved in development of these
areas. The proposed project would occur approximately 30 miles from the
Atlantic Coast, therefore the proposed project is consistent with 15A NCAC 07H
.0303.
3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species
As defined in 15A NCAC 07H .0505, management objectives have been
established to both protected habitats necessary for survival of threatened and
endangered plants and animals, and minimize land use impacts that might
jeopardize these habitats. As stated in the attached letter (Appendix C) from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the proposed project would not impact Section 7
Resources. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with 15A NCAC 07H
.0505.
3.8 Coastal Complex Natural Areas
As defined in 15A NCAC 07H .0506, management objectives have been
established to protect the features of designated coastal complex natural areas for
' North Carolina Division of Water Quality. North Carolina Waterhody Reports, Neuse River Basin.
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/basinsandwaterbodies/alphaNeuse.pdf (October 22, 2008).
6
10/29/08
the purpose of safeguarding these areas' biological relationships, and educational,
scientific and aesthetic values. The project area consists of a maintained area
within existing airport property which is heavily impacted by human activity and
is in a federally restricted area. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with
15A NCAC 07H.0506.
3.9 Unique Geologic Formations
As defined in 15A NCAC 07H .0507, management objectives have been
established to protect coastal geologic formations for the purpose of preserving
the formation's physical components that serve as important scientific and
educational sites, or as valuable scenic resources. The only designated unique
coastal geologic formation is Jockey's Ridge in Nags Head, NC. Nags Head is
approximately 100 miles from the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed
project is consistent with 15A NCAC 07H.0507.
3.10 Archaeological Resources
As defined in 15A NCAC 07H .0509, management objectives have been
established to conserve significant archaeological resources for the purpose of
preserving their value as scientific, educational, and aesthetic resources. As stated
in the attached letter (Appendix C) from the State Historic Preservation Office the
proposed project would not impact archaeological resources. Therefore, the
proposed project is consistent with 15A NCAC 07H .0509.
3.11 Architectural Resources
As defined in 15A NCAC 07H .0510, management objectives have been
established to conserve significant coastal historic architectural resources for the
purpose of preserving their value as scientific, educational, and aesthetic
resources. As stated in the attached letter (Appendix C) from the State Historic
Preservation Office the proposed project would not impact architectural resources.
Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with 15A NCAC 07H.0510.
3.12 Development Standards
As defined in 15A NCAC 07H .0600, management objectives have been
established for all AECs for the purpose of preventing pollution of shellfish
waters, maintaining aircraft safety, and preventing noise pollution resulting from
airspace activity. The proposed project would not impact shellfish waters and
would address a safety issue for an Airport. The proposed project would extend
the existing RSA, which would not move the runway further north. The existing
noise contours would not change since the runway would not move closer to noise
sensitive receptors. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with 15A NCAC
07H .0600.
3.13 Conclusion
The proposed project as designed (refer to the attached permit drawings Sheets 1
through 3) is outside of any area designated by NCAC 15A NCAC 07H as an area
of environmental concern. Therefore, as defined in General Statute 113A-
7
10/29/08
103(5)a, the project does not require authorization pursuant to the Coastal Area
Management Act in that it will not occur in a duly designated area of
environmental concern.
4.0 General Policy Guidelines
THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED has reviewed Section 15A NCAC 07M General
Policy Guidelines and has determined that the proposed project is consistent with the
guidelines. A discussion of each guideline and its relation to the proposed project is
below.
4.1 Shoreline Erosion Policies
As defined in Section 15A NCAC 7M .0201 it is the policy of North Carolina
that the general welfare and public interest require that development along the
ocean and estuarine shorelines be conducted in a manner that avoids loss of life,
property and amenities. It is also declared that protection of the recreational use of
the shorelines of the state is in the public interest. The proposed project is
approximately 30 miles from the Atlantic Coast, as described in Sections 3.2 and
3.4, Scotts Creek is not an estuarine water, and does not involve construction
along ocean and/or estuarine shorelines (as shown on Sheet 2 of the attached
permit drawings). Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with Section 15A
NCAC 7M.0201.
4.2 Shorefront Access Policies
As defined in 15A NCAC 7M .0301, it is the policy of North Carolina to foster,
improve, enhance, and ensure optimum access to public beaches and waters of the
20 coastal counties concurrent with the needs of private property owners and
protection of important coastal natural resources. Since the proposed project
would not occur in an area of estuarine waters (as described in Sections 3.2 and
3.4), no impacts to estuarine access would occur. Additionally, the proposed
project would take place within existing airport property, which is a federally
restricted area. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with 15A NCAC 7M
.0301.
4.3 Coastal Energy Policies
As defined in 15A NCAC 7M .0400, it is the policy of North Carolina that
development of energy resources and facilities shall avoid significant adverse
impacts upon vital coastal resources or uses, and public trust or access areas. The
proposed project does not meet the definition of a Major Energy Facility as
defined in 15A NCAC 07M .0402(b). Therefore, no further action is needed in
determining the consistency outlined in 15A NCAC 07M .0401.
4.4 Post Disaster Policies
As defined in Section 7M .0501, its is the policy of North Carolina that all state
agencies coordinate activities in coastal areas for the purpose of reducing the
damage from coastal disasters. In accordance with this policy, local governments
must include disaster planning activities in their land use plans, temporary
8
10/29/08
emergency housing must be located outside of hazardous areas, and building
repair and reconstruction activities must comply with the standards of the
Guidelines for Areas of Environmental Concern, North Carolina Building Code
(including wind resistant standards), the National Flood Insurance Program, and
local reconstruction plans. The proposed project does not include the construction
of structures, as shown on the attached permit drawings. Therefore, the proposed
project is consistent with 15A NCAC 07M.501.
4.5 Floating Structure Policies
As defined in Section 15A NCAC 07M .0601, it is the policy of North Carolina
that floating structures used for residential or commercial purposes not infringe
upon public trust rights nor discharge into public trust waters. The proposed
project does not include the construction of floating structures, as shown on the
attached permit drawings. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with 15A
NCAC 07M.0601.
4.6 Mitigation Policies
As defined in Section 15A NCAC 07M .0701, it is the policy of North Carolina
that adverse impacts to coastal lands and waters will be mitigated through proper
planning, site selection, compliance with development standards, and creation or
restoration of coastal resources. Mitigation polices are addressed in the
Mitigation Proposal provided to the United States Army Corps of Engineers and
include a payment to the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program to
offset losses to jurisdictional areas caused by the proposed project. This proposal
is consistent with Section 15A NCAC 07M.0701.
4.7 Coastal Water Quality Policies
As defined in Section 15A NCAC 07M .080 1, the waters of the coastal area are a
valuable natural and economic resource of statewide significance. Traditionally
these waters have been used for such activities as commercial and recreational
fishing, swimming, hunting, recreational boating, and commerce. These activities
depend upon the quality of the waters. Due to the importance of these activities to
the quality of life and the economic well-being of the coastal area, it is important
to ensure a level of water quality which will allow these activities to continue and
prevent further deterioration of water quality. It is hereby declared that no land or
water use shall cause the degradation of water quality so as to impair traditional
uses of the coastal waters. The proposed project would employ various sediment
and erosion control methods to limit impacts to water quality including silt
fencing, erosion control matting, temporary sediment traps, and diversion ditches.
Additionally, the project will require a State Stormwater Permit and Section 401
Water Quality Certification through NCDWQ to ensure that impacts to water
quality would be minimal. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with
Section 15A NCAC 07M .0801.
4.8 Policies and Use of Coastal Air Space
As defined in Section 15A NCAC 07M .0901, it is the policy of North Carolina
that use of Aircraft for the purpose of managing and protecting coastal resources,
9
10/29/08
detecting violations or environmental rules and laws and performing public
health, safety and welfare services is of vital public interest. The proposed project
will lead to safer operations at an existing airport, which is consistent with the
policy set forth in Section 15A NCAC 07M .0901.
4.9 Policies on Water and Wetland Based Target Areas for Military Training
Activities
As defined in Section 15A NCAC 07M .1000, it is the policy of North Carolina
that the use of water and wetland-based target areas for military training purposes
may result in adverse impacts on coastal resources and on the exercise of public
trust rights. The public interest requires that, to the maximum extent practicable,
use of such targets not infringe on public trust rights, cause damage to public trust
resources, violate existing water quality standards or result in public safety
hazards. This policy is not applicable to the proposed project as military
munitions training would not occur within the project area.
4.10 Policies on the Beneficial Use and Availability of Materials Resulting
from the Excavation or Maintenance of Navigational Channels
As defined in Section 15A NCAC 07M .1 100, it is the policy of the State of North
Carolina that material resulting from the excavation or maintenance of navigation
channels be used in a beneficial way wherever practicable. This policy is not
applicable to the proposed project as dredging would not occur as part of the
project.
4.11 Ocean Mining
As defined in Section 15A NCAC 07M .1200, it is the policy of North Carolina
that every avenue and opportunity to protect the physical ocean environment and
its resources as an integrated and interrelated system will be utilized. This policy
is not applicable to the proposed project, the project is approximately 30 miles
from the Atlantic Coast and as shown in the attached permit drawings would not
involve ocean mining.
4.12 Conclusion
Based on the review of the General Policy Guidelines for Coastal Areas, the
proposed project is consistent with T15A NCAC Subchapter 07M.
5.0 North Carolina Dredge and Fill Law (NCGS 113-229)
The proposed project would not result in any excavation or filling within estuarine
waters, tidelands, or State-owned lakes. The proposed project would impact
approximately 0.81-acre of freshwater wetland for the extension of the Runway 22 Safety
Area. This impact is being permitting through the USACE with a Section 404 permit,
through NCDWQ with the issuance of a Section 401 Water Quality Certification, and
through NCDCM with a Coastal Zone Consistency Determination. Therefore, no further
action regarding compliance with NCGS 113-229 is required.
10
10/29/08
6.0 Land Use Plan Review
A copy of the Craven County North Carolina Land Use Plane was reviewed to determine
if the proposed project is consistent with land use recommendations made by Craven
County. The Land Use Plan discusses transportation improvements directly and states,
"Transportation improvements are essential to Craven County's continued growth and
economic development."3 The Land Use Plan also states, "The Craven County Regional
Airport is extremely important to the County's overall transportation system. A The Land
Use Plan details improvements at the Airport that were deemed consistent with the plan
at the time of its approval.5 The proposed project is beyond the timeframe of projects
included in the Land Use Plan. However, the proposed project is similar to safety
enhancement projects addressed specifically in the plan, such as, Runway 13 Obstruction
Removal and Runway 31 Partial Parallel Taxiway. Based on the discussion of the
Airport specifically in the plan and the similar nature of projects the plan deemed to be
consistent in the plan, it is determined the proposed project is consistent with the Craven
County North Carolina Land Use Plan.
7.0 Project Consistency Determination
These supporting documents, in accordance with 15CFR 930.58 put forth the data
necessary to assess our assertion that the proposed project is consistent with the Federal
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended and the enforceable policies of the
North Carolina approved Coastal Management Program. We request that the North
Carolina Division of Coastal Management concur with our Consistency Determination
that the proposed activity complies with the enforceable polices of the North Carolina
Approved Management Program and will be conducted in a manner consistent with such
Program.
z Craven County, North Carolina. Craven County North Carolina 1996 Land Use Plan, Addendum 1998.
Craven County Board of Commissioners (June 21, 1999). Coastal Resources Commission (July 23, 1999).
31bid. Page II-10.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid. Pages I1-10 and IV-7.
11
10/29/08
SITE LOCATION MAP
7
HUNWAY ZZ SAf- L / Y AREA IMPROVEMENTS
3000 1500 0 3000
GRAPHIC SCALE I" = 3000'
CRAVEN COUNTY, N.C.
OCTOBER 29, 2008
SHEET / OF 3
C.7
z
U
z
am
3Q N C
01-d
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
# # Al
Ilb
# #
# #
#
# #
# p,
#
# # #
# # #
#
#
# #
#
J / -- J U)
z
0
UZ ? CD LLJ
N _
.
w
12 z a a J a
# a
## # 3 U LL U Z Q Z °
# # N N N co
°
# # N J N W W W CO
# # # # w w w F ?-- =) O ? N
# # o z o 0 0 0? Q
# # # # # z a z w w Ld W Z °
# # # # ° LLJO m WQ 0 0 0.6 Q N N
# #
# # # ` I I I I Q U A
# # # # # Z W
# # # # # # # LJ co ?
# # W
## # # # #### ' a Q:: Q Z
# # # ?? Q N
Q ?
l
*3
N
Z J
rr,
Q
?s w
LL
?-J Q
co J
L' J
O 1I,,
r Oy
•B ?41?$ t?
j?JN3
V`
W
j
z
Q

0
0
O
\ O O
N
O
N
II
\ c\ W
J
O
Q
U
Cn
O U
/ o
o
0 CD
N
?3y 0

>3y O (}

W

z W

0

O
2 ::?i O

O N
? '_nn
' I
? OO t0 Y N O N q V ? r Q
I I N
W Cc
Q
O

g z Q v
W ? W
L
LJ
1 O .
O j =
1

v
N
N

Q
?
U j

All
0

-$ Q
I
O Q

O
ONLLSIX3 Ln

- - LL'L ^el3
' ?'
OD
0
L A013
LO
03SOdOHd
Q v

Q
_$

0

W W

$
7 C7 -
N
Li z
W
N Z
/
O ~

\ d
0
d•
X
W
p
fN

d V
?. O
O
\ O
I
I I
? GO I
'O I I
V N I I
O N I
v __
O LLJ
O Q
v N

U)
o c)

V)

O a

o Q?:
CD
?? 0
Alternative Analysis
Coastal Carolina Regional Airport
Runway 22 Safety Area Extension
Alternative Analysis
1.0 Introduction
According Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 5200.8, Runway Safety Area
Program, and the "Airport Design" Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13 (Standards for
Specifying Construction of Airports) the FAA currently requires 1,000 feet of Runway
Safety Area for an Airport the size of Coastal Carolina Regional Airport. Currently
Runway 4/22 is not in compliance with the FAA RSA requirement. Runway 4/22 lies in
an approximate north to south configuration with the Runway 4 end to the south and the
Runway 22 end to the north. Currently, the Runway 4 end has approximately 700 feet of
existing RSA, and the Runway 22 end has approximately 600 feet of existing RSA. This
deficiency needs to be corrected to meet FAA standards and improve airport safety.
2.0 Purpose and Need
Coastal Carolina Regional Airport has recently begun regular scheduled commercial jet
service to Charlotte, NC and Atlanta, GA, utilizing a CRJ Canada Air jet. There are
currently 34 departures per week, resulting in approximately 68 operations per week.
Thus, there are 3,536 operations per year of the CRJ Canada Air jet. This level of
activity results in the Airport being designated a C-II airport, which requires a minimum
of 500 operations per year. As a C-II airport, the existing conditions of the north end of
Runway 22 (runway safety areas and object free zones) do not meet FAA Design
Standards. Currently the FAA design standard is a 500-foot by 1,000-foot RSA for C-II
airports. The existing RSA is 500 feet wide by 600 feet long.
In order to bring the existing safety area into compliance with current FAA design
standards for a C-II airport, it is proposed to lengthen the RSA by approximately 290
feet, for a total length of approximately 890 feet. The total length of the safety area is
limited to by physical and environmental factors; this is discussed further in the
Alternatives section.
If an airport does not meet the requirements for runway safety area length, the FAA may
require a "displaced threshold" or require reduced payloads (fuel, passengers, baggage,
cargo and etc.). A displaced threshold requires that the length of safety area needed to
comply with current FAA regulations be taken from the overall runway length, reducing
the effective length of the runway. The Design Aircraft, the CRJ, requires a Runway
length of 6,000 feet or longer to operate efficiently (which is the existing length of
Runway 4-22). Therefore, any reduction in runway length would not meet the runway
length requirement for the Design Aircraft.
3.0 Alternative Analysis
For purposes of a Federal Environmental Assessment to comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) the following five alternatives (plus the No-Build
1
10/29/08
Alternative) were studied to determine the Preferred Alternative for the extension of the
RSA for Runway 4/22.
3.1 No-Build Alternative
The No Action Alternative would leave the safety area in its current condition.
The current conditions do not comply with current FAA Design Standards.
Therefore, the No Action Alternative does not meet the purpose and need, and is
not recommended.
3.2 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative)
The proposed improvements include extending the RSA to meet current standards
for a C-II airport. The proposed RSA would be approximately 500 feet wide by
890 feet long (length is measured from the centerline of the runway). With this
alternative the RSA would not infringe upon Scotts Creek.
Pros
• Avoids impacts to Scotts Creek;
• Avoids impacts to Williams Road;
• Reduces wetland impacts between Scotts Creek and Williams Road;
and,
• Gains 290 feet of new RSA for Runway 22.
Cons
• Does not fully extend the RSA to 1,000 feet; and,
• Impacts approximately 0.81-acre of wetland.
3.3 Alternative 2
Alternative 2 is similar to Alternative 1 except that the RSA would be extended to
the southern edge of Williams Road, instead of the edge of Scotts Creek. This
would gain approximately 90 feet more RSA length on the east side of the RSA
than with Alternative 1. With this Alternative, Scotts Creek would either be piped
under the RSA, or relocated to the north side of Williams Road.
Pros
• Gains an additional 90 feet of RSA (when compared to Alternative 1)
by extending up to southern edge of Williams Road; and,
• Avoids Impacts to Williams Road.
Cons
• Does not fully extend RSA to 1,000 feet;
• Impacts Scotts Creek; and,
• Would impact additional wetland between Scotts Creek and Williams
Road.
2
10/29/08
3.4 Alternative 3 (Eliminated From Further Study)
Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 1 except that Williams Road would be
relocated to the north in order to gain the full 1,000 feet for the RSA length. With
this Alternative, Scotts Creek would either be piped under the RSA, or relocated
to the north along with Williams Road.
Pros
• Fully extends RSA to 1,000 feet.
Cons
• Would impact Williams Road;
• Impacts Scotts Creek (north and south of existing Williams Road);
• Would impact additional wetlands north of existing Williams Road;
• Would likely cause additional wetland impacts associated with the
road relocation; and,
• Would impact a CAMA Area of Environmental Concern.
3.5 Alternative 4 (Eliminated From Further Study)
Alternative 4 would attempt to gain the RSA length on the opposite end of the
Runway, south of Runway 4. To facilitate the 1,000-foot RSA, this alternative
would require the relocation of Brices Creek (Brices Creek can be seen on Sheet 1
of the attached permit drawings). Additionally, if Runway 4 was extended 500
feet to the south and the Runway 22 threshold was displaced 500 feet to gain the
RSA length, Runway 4 would then not have a sufficient RSA without the
relocation of Brices Creek.
Pros
• Fully extends RSA to 1,000 feet.
Cons
• Would impact Brices Creek by relocation;
• Would impact wetlands abutting Brices Creek; and,
• Would likely impact CAMA Area of Environmental Concern.
3.6 Alternative 5 (Eliminated From Further Study)
Alternative 5 would gain the additional RSA length by displacing the threshold of
Runway 4-22. This was determined not be feasible because the Design Aircraft,
the CRJ jet, requires a Runway length of 6,000 feet or longer to operate
efficiently. The existing length of Runway 4-22 is 6,000 feet any reduction in
runway length would not meet the runway length requirement for the Design
Aircraft.
Pros
• Avoids wetland and stream impacts.
3
10/29/08
Cons
• A reduction in runway length would not meet the FAA length
requirement for the current Design Aircraft.
4.0 Alternative Selection
Alternative 1 was selected as the Preferred Alternative because it satisfies the purpose
and need of the proposed project, and avoids/minimizes environmental impacts.
Alternatives 1 and 2 would have the same RSA length at the centerline of the safety area.
Therefore, the extension of the runway safety area across Scotts Creek (Alternative 2)
would not result in a net gain of RSA length. Alternative 1 minimizes impacts to Scotts
Creek and avoids wetland impacts on the northern side of Scotts Creek, which would
occur with the other alternatives. By reducing impacts to streams and wetlands,
Alternative 1 would also reduce costs associated with mitigation. Alternative 3 was
eliminated from further study due to the economic, social, and environmental costs
associated with relocating Williams Road to the north. Alternative 4 was eliminated from
further study due to the environmental impacts and mitigation costs associated with the
relocation of Brices Creek. Alternative 5 was eliminated from further study because
displacing the threshold would reduce the runway length below the runway length
requirement for the Design Aircraft. A summary of the alternative selection process is
included in the Alternative Selection Matrix below.
Table 1
Runway 22 RSA Extension
Alternative Selection Matrix
DECISION CRITERIA Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5
Net RSA Gained 290 Feet 380 Feet 400 Feet 400 Feet 400 Feet
Reduces Usable Runway
Length No No No No Yes
Relocates Williams Road No No Yes No No
Wetland Impacts acres 0.81 1.2 1.2* 2.5 None
Stream Impacts linear feet None 300 300* 2,000 None
Impacts CAMA-AEC No No Yes Yes No
*Does not include potential impacts that could occur from the relocation of Williams Road.
4
10/29/08
Appendix A
Finding of No Significant Impact
Jan-23-2007 11:31am From-FAA ATL-ADO
01W
u.s. Department
of Transportatlon
Federal Aviation
AdMinlstration
Federal Aviation Administration
Atlanta Airports District Office
4043067166 T-670 P.001 F-733
'til-4J?? C)AUO
1701 Columbia Avenue
Campus Building, Suite 2-260
college park, Georgia 30337
January 23, 2007
Mr. Thomas Braaten, Airport Director
Craven County Regional Airport
200 Terminal Drive
New Bern, North Carolina 28590 `
Dear Mr. Braaten:
This responds to your submission of an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the
proposed construction of an extension of approximately 290' to the existing Runway
Safety Area (RSA) for Runway 22, and construction of a blast pad (200' long x 150'
wide) for Runway 22 at the Craven County Regional Airport. Enclosed is a copy of the
approved Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for this proposed project.
This finding is issued pursuant to certain continuing requirements for mitigation and
permits that are discussed and indicated in the Environmental Assessment and in the
Record of Decision which are considered to be conditions of approval.
In accordance with FAA procedures, the FONSI must be made available to the public.
The enclosed notice should be placed in a local newspaper(s) as soon as possible and
run for a minimum of three days. Please provide this office with a certified copy of the
notice as it appears in the newspaper(s).
This letter should be attached to the FONSI for public inspection. If there are any
questions,' please feel free to contact me at 404-305-7151.
Sincerely,
Scott L. Seritt
Manager
PARTNERS IN CREATING TOMORROW'S AIRPORTS -+
Jan-23-2007 11:31am From-FAA ATL-ADO 4043057155 T-670 P.002 F-733
NOTICE
of Availability of Finding of No Significant Impact (TONSI)
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Atlanta Airports District Office on January
23, 2007, issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for proposed construction
at Craven County Regional Airport. Copies of the FONSI are available for review by the
public for thirty (30) days at the following locations:
Federal Aviation Administration
Atlanta Airports District Office
1701 Columbia Ave
Campus Building 2-260
College Park, Georgia 30337
Craven County Airport Authority
200 Terminal Drive
New Bern, NC 28590
(List any other location as may be subsequently deemed appropriate and convenient.)
Jan-23-2007 11:31am From-FAA ATL-ADO 4043057155 NT0 P.003/010 F-733
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
AIRPORTS DISTRICT OFFICE
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF AN EXTENSION OF APPROXIMATELY 290' TO
THE EXISTING RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA) FOR RUNWAY 22, AND
CONSTRUCTION OF A BLAST PAD (200' LONG X 150' WIDE) FOR RUNWAY 22
CRAVEN COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA
January 23, 2007
Jan-23-2007 11:31am From-FAA ATL-ADO
4043057155 T-670 P.004/010 F-733
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF AN EXTENSION OF APPROXIMATELY 290' TO
THE EXISTING RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA) FOR RUNWAY 22, AND
CONSTRUCTION OF A BLAST PAD (200' LONG X 150' WIDE) FOR RUNWAY 22
CRAVEN COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA
I have carefully and thoroughly considered the facts contained in the attached EA.
Based on that information, I find the proposed Federal action is consistent with existing
national environmental policies and objectives of Section 101(a) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). I also find the proposed Federal action (with
the required mitigation) will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment
or include any condition requiring any consultation pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of
NEPA. As a result, FAA will not prepare an EIS for this action.
')CJ
- DATE: January 23,2007
APPROVE
DISAPPROVED: DATE:
Jan-23-2007 11:31am From-FAA ATL-ADO
4043057155 T-670 P.005/010 P-733
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA)
RECORD OF DECISION
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF AN EXTENSION OF APPROXIMATELY 290' TO
THE EXISTING RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA) FOR RUNWAY 22, AND
CONSTRUCTION OF A BLAST PAD (200' LONG X 150' WIDE) FOR RUNWAY 22
CRAVEN COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA
Proposed Federal Action: The proposed project (Alternative 1) involves construction
of an extension of approximately 290' to the existing Runway Safety Area (RSA) for
Runway 22, and construction of a blast pad (200' long x 150' wide) for Runway 22 at
the Craven County Regional Airport, New Bern, North Carolina. The proposed project
is to meet airport design standards to accommodate the larger aircraft utilizing the
airport. This project will provide additional safety for aircraft operating at the airport and
improve the operational flexibility and reliability of the airfield system. The proposed
Federal Action includes FAA's approval of construction and operation of the proposed
development and possible future approval of Federal Airport Improvement Program
(AIP) funding for this project.
The Craven County Regional Airport Authority (the Airport Sponsor) has submitted an
Environmental Assessment (EA) of the work described above. The Environmental
Assessment, with its appendices, is hereby made a part of this document, As indicated
above, the proposed project may be accomplished partially with Federal funding. The
FAA supports the objectives of the proposed project to provide necessary airport safety
and flexibility to meet the current and forecast needs at Craven County Regional
Airport.
Basis of Findinq:
Although the FAA was presented with the Sponsor Preferred Alternative, six
alternatives, including the No-Action alternative (Alternative 2) were evaluated. The No-
Action alternative (Alternative 2) would not satisfy the purpose and need for the RSA
extension. (page 3) Three other alternatives would meet the necessary airports
standards: Alternative 3-2, extension of the RSA to the southern edge of Williams road
and relocate or pipe Scotts Creek (page 2); Alternative 3-3, extension of the RSA to the
Jan-23-2007 11:32am From-FAA ATL-ADO
4043057155 T-670 P.006/010 F-733
2
full 1000' length and relocate or pipe Scotts Creels (page 3); and, Alternative 3-4,
extension of Runway 4-22 to the south by 540' to shift the Runway 22 threshold to gain
the 1000' RSA, and relocate Brices Creek (page 3). These three alternatives were
eliminated from further study because of the impacts to Scotts and Brices Creeks.
Alternative 3-5, displacement of the threshold of Runway 22, was eliminated from
further study because this alternative would not provide the required runway length for
the design aircraft. (page 3)
Alternative 1 was selected as the Sponsor Preferred Alternative because it minimizes
impacts to the extent possible while meeting the purpose and need for the proposed
project.
The FAA determined that the Sponsor Preferred Alternative would not significantly
impact the human environment. This Finding of No Significant Impact is based on the
attached EA which was independently evaluated by the FAA and determined to
adequately discuss the environmental issues and impacts of the proposed project. It
provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an 1=nvironmental Impact
Statement (EIS) is not required. The FAA takes full responsibility for the accuracy,
scope and contents of the attached EA.
No significant air clyallty impacts are expected as a result of the proposed project.
There is no potential for the proposed action to cause the area to exceed the NAAQS
for any of the time periods analyzed or have any affect on the attainment and
maintenance of air quality standards. Craven County is in an attainment area for all six
(6) criteria pollutants under the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). No
further consultation, analysis, or documentation is required. (page 4)
Pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 15 CFR 930, it has been
determined that the proposed project is consistent with the State of North Carolina
Coastal Zone Management Program. No impacts to any coastal resource will occur as
a result of the proposed project. This project will have no effect on the objectives,
goals, or policies of the Coastal Zone Management Program. (page 10)
The surrounding land uses will remain compatible with the airport. Construction of the
proposed project would take place entirely on existing airport property. No relocation of
residences or businesses or disruption of any community will take place as a result of
the proposed project. (page 4)
The proposed project will not cause significant construction impacts. Measures will be
taken to minimize any potential temporary adverse effects from construction. (pages
11-12)
The Sponsor Preferred Alternative will not cause noise sensitive areas to experience an
increase in noise of DNL 1.5 dB or more at or above DNl_ 65 dB noise exposure when
compared to the no action alternative. No significant noise impacts on noise sensitive
Jan-23-2007 11:32am From-FAA ATL-ADO 4043057155 T-670 P.007/010 F-TH
3
areas will occur within a national park, national wildlife refuge or historic site, including
traditional cultural properties. (page 4)
The FAA has determined that no parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl
refuges, or any historical sites will be impacted by the proposed project. Therefore,
Section 4 does not apply. (page 4)
The proposed project would impact approximately 1.5 acres of prime and unique
farmland, and approximately 13.5 acres of statewide and local important farmland.
Form AD-1006 was completed and coordinated with the NRCS, and the site scored a
94.6. Therefore, because the score is less that 160, the provisions of the Farmland
Protection Policy Act (FPPA), as they pertain to the protection of prime farmlands and
soils of statewide importance, are not applicable. (pages 10-11)
Based on the results of field surveys and coordination with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), it is anticipated that the proposed project is not likely to adversely
affect a federal) or state-listed threatened endangered, or otherwise significant
species nor critical habitat. (page 5)
A review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance rate
maps (FIRM) was performed. Approximately one acre of fill will be located within the
limits of the 100-year floodplain of Scotts Creek. There is no practicable alternative to
placing the project in the floodplain and all measures to minimize harm will be included
in the project. The proposed project is not considered to be a significant encroachment.
(pages 9-10)
The proposed project does not have the potential for hazardous substances
contamination. The proposed project will not affect the quantity or type of solid waste
generated or method of collection or disposal except for the temporary effects of
construction. (page 6)
The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurs with the determination that no
historic properties or resources eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places are located within the project's area of potential effects. Should historic
properties be discovered at any point during project implementation, construction will
stop and the SHPO will be notified immediately. The FAA, in compliance with Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, has determined that the proposed project
will have no significant impacts to historic architectural, archaeoloaical or cultural
resources. (page 5)
There will be no adverse impacts from light emissions from the proposed project. (page
6) -
The proposed project will not have a measurable effect on local supplies of energy or
natural resources. (page 5)
Jan-23-2007 11:32am From-FAA ATL-ADO 4043057155 T-670 P.006/010 F-733
4
There will be no potential for negative seconds im acts as a result of the proposed
project. (page 4)
No residential areas will be impacted by the proposed project. Therefore, there will be
no impacts associated with the relocation of residents or issues involving environmental
justice or children's environmental health and safe risks. (page G)
All water quality standards and any Federal, state, or local permit requirements will be
met through the U. S. Corps of Engineers, and the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources •(NCDENR). The construction and operation of the
proposed project will not result in violations of water quality standards and will not
degrade ambient water quality. The stormwater management system will be designed
to meet or exceed the required criteria. The potential for short-term water quality
impacts resulting from the construction will be mitigated through the implementation of
an erosion and sedimentation control plan that includes the use of construction controls
to prevent degradation of water quality and associated impacts on aquatic ecology.
Based on information In the EA, the FAA has determined there will be no significant
impacts to water quality as a result of the project- (pages 6-7)
Approximately one acre of wetlands located in the floodplain of Scotts Creek would be
affected by the proposed project. The habitat in this area is of low quality due to past
disturbances. All fill material necessary for construction would come from a certified
off-site location. Impacts to Scotts Creek will be minimized by limiting the extension of
the RSA to the edge of the creek bank. Mitigation for the impacts will include purchase
of credits from an approved mitigation bank or purchase of property for stream/wetland
preservation, enhancement, or restoration within the Neuse River basin. (pages 7-9)
No State or Federal designated wild and scenic rivers are located near the airport.
(page 6)
A public involvement program was carried out during the project development. The EA
also included a review and coordination process involving applicable Federal, state
and local government agencies. All comments received as a result of various public
input have been addressed in the EA. The proposed project is reasonably consistent
with existing plans of public agencies for development of the area and fair consideration
has been given to the interest of communities near the airport.
The approved EA addresses all of the viable alternatives that were studied during
project development. The environmental effects of the alternatives under consideration
were evaluated when preparing the EA_
Fallowing the submittal of the draft environmental assessment, the FAA conducted an
independent review of the document. The June 2006 Environmental Assessment
represents the federally accepted environmental document, The Airport Sponsor's
Preferred Alternative is the environmentally preferred alternative and so becomes the
FAA's preferred alternative.
Jan-23-2007 11:32am From-FAA ATL-ADO 4043057155 T-670 P.000/010 F-733
5
Mitigation Measures: This finding is contingent upon the airport sponsor's
implementation of the following mitigation measures:
1. The airport sponsor shall obtain all permits required by Federal, state or local
laws and regulations.
2. The wetland mitigation plan included in the EA and in the application for the U.
S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit shall be required as part of this
approval, and a plan for Implementation must be approved prior to start of
construction. The mitigation will consist of purchase of credits from an
approved mitigation bank or purchase of property for stream/wetland
preservation, enhancement, or restoration within the Neuse River basin. The
appropriate wetland credit calculations will be determined through the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers permit process. A final mitigation plan will be
developed, filed and approved, during the design phase, and prior to any land-
disturbing activity. The approved mitigation shall be included in any other permit
process and initiated prior to completion of the proposed project.
3. The Section 401 Water Quality Certification shall be obtained prior to any land-
disturbing activity. Construction limits shall not impact Scotts Creek. The North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has suggested that fill be placed no
closer than 30 feet from the creek bank. An erosion and sedimentation control
plan that includes the use of construction controls to prevent degradation of
water quality and associated impacts on aquatic ecology shall be approved by
the North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources and
shall be implemented during construction.
4. Sediment and erosion measures used during all construction phases shall be in
accordance with the State of North Carolina and the Neuse River Buffer Rules.
Approval from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality shall be obtained for
impacts to the buffers prior to start of any land-disturbing activity (including any
woody vegetation removal), and, if required, a mitigation plan shall be
developed and approved prior to the start of any land-disturbing activity.
Extreme care shall be taken to implement measures to protect the State
classification for nutrient sensitive waters.
5. The project shall comply with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water permit(s)
as applicable. Because of its status with the State, stormwater BMP's should
include bio-retention areas, grassed swales, and dry retention basins followed
by forested filter strips, where possible.
6. Construction activity shall conform to requirements of FAA Advisory Circular
150/6370-10A, Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports and FAA
Jan-23-2007 11:32am From-FAA ATL-ADO 4043057155 T-670 P-010/010 F-733
6
Advisory Circular 150/5200-33 Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near
Airporls,
7. Should archaeological artifacts or historic properties be discovered at any point
during project implementation, work will stop and the SHPO shall be notified
immediately.
8. Floodplain impacts shall be mitigated in accordance with the requirements of
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Section 404 permit, and shall receive the
public review as required during the permit process.
9. The Coastal Area Management Act Consistency Certification from the North
Carolina Division of Coastal Management shall be obtained prior to any land-
disturbing activity.
This Record of Decision is a decision document and it is an order subject to the
exclusive judicial review under 49 USC 46110 by the: U. S. Circuit Courts of Appeals
for the District of Columbia, or the U. S. Circuit Courts of Appeal for the circuit In which
the person contesting the decision lives or has a principal place of business.
FEDERAL FINDING: Having carefully considered the project need, and being properly
advised as to the anticipated environmental impacts of the proposal, I find the project is
reasonably supported and should be processed for the Federal action to approve the
proposed construction of an extension of approximately 290' to the existing Runway
Safety Area (RSA) for Runway 22, and construction of a blast pad (200' long x 150'
wide) for Runway 22 at the Craven County Regional Airport, New Bern, North Carolina.
4""t "-? 4,z'-a-
Federal Aviation Administration Date: January 23, 2007
U.S. Department of Transportation
Appendix B
Jurisdictional Determination
Action ID 200510994
- U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT -
Action Id. 200510994 County: Craven U.S.G.S. Quad: New Bern
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner/Agent: Craven County Regional Airport c/o Edward Small
Address: The. LPA Group of North Carolina, p.a.
4904 Professional Court, Suite 201
Raleigh, North.Carolina 27609
Telephone No.: [phone]
Property description:
Size (acres) 48.86 acres
Nearest Waterway Scotts Creek
USGS HUC 03020204 Lower Neuse
Location description A 48.86 acre project ar
Nearest Town New Bern
River Basin Neuse
Coordinates N 35082441 W -77.037078
County, North Carolina.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
Based on preliminary information, there may be wetlands on the above described property. We strongly suggest you have
this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction. To be considered final, a
jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action
under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
_ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
X There are wetlands on the above described project area subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination
may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
X The wetland on your property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the Corps. We strongly
suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps.
Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property
which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed
five years.
_ The wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps
Regulatory Official identified below on . Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
2i The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act'
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to.
determine their requirements.
Page 1 of 2

Action Id. 200510994
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Scott Jones at 252.975.1616 ext. 27..
Basis For Determination: This site exhibits wetland criteria as described in the 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual
and is part of a broad continuum of wetlands connected to Scotts Creek, a tributary of the Neuse River.
Remarks: Meld drawine prepared by the LPA Group of North Carolina, ma., entitled "Craven County Reeional
Airport Runway 22 Safety Area-Overrun Improvements," and dated April 1, 2005.
Corps Regulatory Official:
Date 05/23/2005 Expiration Date 05/23/2010
Copy Furnished:
Page 2 of 2
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
DISTRICT OFFICE: CESAW-RG-W
FILE NUMBER: 200510994
PROJECT LOCATION INFORMATION:
State: NC
County: Craven
Center coordinates of site (latitude/longitude): 35.082441 / -77.037078
Approximate size of area (parcel) reviewed, including uplands: 48.86 acres.
Name of nearest waterway: Scotts Creek
Name of watershed: Lower Neuse
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Completed: Desktop determination Date:
Site visit(s) Date(s): 05/11/2005
Revised 8/13/04
Jurisdictional Determination (JD):
® Preliminary JD - Based on available information, E] there appear to be (or) E] there appear to be no "waters of the United States"
and/or "navigable waters of the United States" on the project site. A preliminary JD is not appealable (Reference 33 CFR part
331).
10 Approved JD -An approved JD is an appealable action (Reference 33 CFR part 331).
Check all that apply:
M There are "navigable waters of the United States" (as defined by 33 CFR part 329 and associated guidance) within the reviewed
area. Approximate size of jurisdictional area:
There are "waters of the United States" (as defined by 33 CFR part 328 and associated guidance) within the reviewed area.
Approximate size of jurisdictional area: 11.69 acres.
There are "isolated, non-navigable, intra-state waters or wetlands" within the reviewed area.
Decision supported by SWANCC/Migratory Bird Rule Information Sheet for Determination of No Jurisdiction.
BASIS OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION:
A. Waters defined under 33 CFR part 329 as "navigable waters of the United States":
The presence of waters that are subj ect to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or are presently used, or have been used in
the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
B. Waters defined under 33 CFR part 328.3(a) as "waters of the United States":
(1) The presence of waters, which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in
interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
(2) The presence of interstate waters including interstate wetlands .
(3) The presence of other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats,
wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could
affect interstate commerce including any such waters (check all that apply):
? (i) which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
? (ii) from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
? (iii) which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
(4) Impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the US.
(5) The presence of a tributary to a water identified in (1) - (4) above.
(6) The presence of territorial seas.
(7) The presence of wetlands adjacenO to other waters of the US, except for those wetlands adjacent to other wetlands.
Rationale for the Basis of Jurisdictional Determination (applies to any boxes checked above). If the jurisdictional water or
wetland is not itself a navigable water of the United States, describe connection(s) to the downstream navigable waters. IfB(I) or B(3)
is used as the Basis of Jurisdiction, document navigability and/or interstate commerce connection (i.e., discuss site conditions, including
why the waterbody is navigable and/or how the destruction of the waterbody could affect interstate or foreign commerce). If B(2, 4; 5 or
6) is used as the Basis of Jurisdiction, document the rationale used to make the determination. IfB(7) is used as the Basis of
Jurisdiction, document the rationale used to make adjacency determination: This site exhibits wetland criteria as described in the 1987
Corps Wetland Delineation Manual and is part of a broad continuum of wetlands connected to Scotts Creek, a tributary of the Neuse
River.
Lateral Extent of Jurisdiction: (Reference: 33 CFR parts 328
Ordinary High Water Mark indicated by:
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank
? the presence of litter and debris
?- changes in the character of soil
? destruction of terrestrial vegetation
? shelving
? other:
and 329)
High Tide Line indicated by:
[? oil or scum line along shore objects
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
? physical markings/characteristics
? tidal gages
? other:
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? survey to available datum; ? physical markings; ? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
Wetland boundaries, as shown on the attached wetland delineation map and/or in a delineation report prepared by: The LPA Group
of North Carolina, p.a.
Basis For Not Asserting Jurisdiction:
The reviewed area consists entirely of uplands.
Unable to confirm the presence of waters in 33 CFR part 328(a)(1, 2, or 4-7).
Headquarters declined to approve jurisdiction on the basis of 33 CFR part 328.3(a)(3).
The Corps has made a case-specific determination that the following waters present on the site are not Waters of the United States:
? Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons, pursuant to 33 CFR part 328.3.
Artificially irrigated areas, which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased.
? Artificial lakes and ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and
retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing.
? Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created
by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons.
? Water-filled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose
of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting
body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States found at 33 CFR 328.3(a).
? Isolated, intrastate wetland with no nexus to interstate commerce.
? Prior converted cropland, as determined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Explain rationale:
? Non tidal drainage or irrigation ditches excavated on dry land. Explain rationale:
? Other (explain):
DATA REVIEWED FOR JURSIDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (mark all that apply):
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant.
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant.
® This office concurs with the delineation report, dated 04/04/2005, prepared by (company): The LPA Group of NC, P.a.
? This office does not concur with the delineation report, dated , prepared by (company):
Data sheets prepared by the Corps.
Corps' navigable waters' studies:
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 Minute Topographic maps: New Bern
U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 Minute Historic quadrangles:
U.S. Geological Survey 15 Minute Historic quadrangles:
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey: Craven
National wetlands inventory maps:
State/Local wetland inventory maps:
FEMA/FIRM maps (Map Name & Date):
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (NGVD)
Aerial Photographs (Name & Date): CESAW
Other photographs (Date):
Advanced Identification Wetland maps:
Site visit/determination conducted on: 5/11/2005
Applicable/supporting case law:
Other information (please specify):
'Wetlands are identified and delineated using the methods and criteria established in the Corps Wetland Delineation Manual (87 Manual) (i.e., occurrence of
hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology).
"Me term "adjacent" means bordering, contiguous, or neighboring. Wetlands separated from other waters of the U.S. by man-made dikes or barriers, natural
river berms, beach dunes, and the like are also adjacent.
Applicant: Craven Co. Regional Airport File Number: 200510994 Date: 05/23/2005
Att ached is: See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of A
permission
PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B
PERMIT DENIAL C
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you
may request that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section H of this form and return
the form to the district engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of
the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your
letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your
concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit having
determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the
district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may-sign the permit document and return it to the district. engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and
conditions therein, you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal
Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must
be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or
provide new information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of
this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by
the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps
regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved
JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for fitrther instruction. Also you may provide new
information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your
objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to
this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps
memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the
review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps
may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify
the location of.information that is alread in the administrative record.
If you have questions regarding this decision If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you
and/or the appeal process you may contact: may also contact:
Scott Jones, Project Manager Mr. Michael F. Bell, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
CESAW-RG-W CESAD-ET-CO-R
Post Office Box 1000 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
Washington, North Carolina 27889 60 Forsyth Street, Room 9MI5
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any
government consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You
will be provided a 15 day notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site
investigations.
Date: Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
DIVISION ENGINEER:
Commander
U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic
60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3490
? cr
x ?

!
W ?
? 4b lnOMn3?] 6911'b•5

j£
/ to
loo ?
II It
0, 0
wmD
Y we`? mAKv
a
aNV I? m
¦j
1

? nNV
f` I V
0 C) scoT } f+ - }J-
}+ S ARE 4
e e?N °?? Vl
e If,
W C? p W y N W
mOc t
AN mm
\^W Na °v
x
a °m
r? \ \ Hpq N m ? f. _
? N N
? N
n ~
a n n n
n A n n
A m A A
m N m m
N N N
N
O A
r N Zv O
I ? M
C n re ? k '
n? ? (ate 2 N cq? m ? m o m
W40 ,K C y K CI m o
r 2 N D N N
-0 m
•` C . A D f?+l N1
W 2 rn m o n a
m C Z ;
c'n D y I z v
K O N
A
Z
m
N °
rma
--a n?
mp°
ANA
m
c
<
?" 0 i
@. q +'+
9 9t + }.
\ Rpm + } +'
o z 0
1
ppnav?
*
8
N
a?XC-•+SAOn
3DnCN•-•T Tyn
Oma2N°? Nm
Zmm-m C? a
n v<nvvrx-.-i
?c v snmx-
am-A1 mT
:
o--nmm
-n
zr<
ti°• prmm
-
mC ZmON
;N orcv+ac
D--znz -a
zzN erazz
vx
cc?.--;-mNEnn
D DON DAH
r-IKKZNVIK
• 2m N mm -1
mnm• aox
Am 2m m..
?N ?mAD N
l0 ASA;n-.
mmm-m-tiSn
ArN Z m0
o- -mc A
A;mvN02L<
o vm vc
Ati ?nmmao
vxcm <A-m
N-9an N
NO;2-1?0?
oo
2
2
Z
2
=
r
n I
nn
'\',
2
DmDn tiN
m-io timm•-•
zmA z
- aoA
c• o-vmzr
nzzmN a
z-+ amo?
m2vo-+NZm
m-mmx-, n
ANA m° Nn
N N zrmn
oppmrmanc
m
O y£OZ tin
m
1192? r
K
Z
On
Z

1
Appendix C
Agency Coordination
Got
Michael F. Easley, Governor
I.isbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
May. 16, 2005
Office of Archives and History
Division of Hatgemst Itewurees
David Brook, Director
Richard B. Davis
Environmental Manager
The LPA Group of North Carolina
4904 Professional Court, Suite'201
Raleigh, NC' 27609
Re: Improvements (Safety Run) to Craven County Regional Airport, Craven County, CH 05-0541
Deat Mr. Davis: .
On -AptA.27, 2005, staff from our office and met with you concerning the above project
At the meeting we reviewed photographs and maps of. the project area. Based upon our review' of the ':
information discussed at the meeting, we recommend that no historic architectural survey be conducted f4t
this project.
We have no further comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compkance with Seo-don 106 codifted tit 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions* concerning the above comment,
contact kenee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
ter Sandb6ck
cc: Rick Barkes, DOA
MIaY 1 8 2005
rr w. w...........r:.r r.r.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources.
State Hisiodc Preservation Office
Peter B. Sendbwk. Administrator
Locadon MalRagAddreea
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Ralco NC 27699.46t7.•
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mary Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617
SURVEY & PLANNING 51514. Blount Sheet, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mal Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699.4617
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
March 30, 2005
Mr. Richard B. Davis
The LPA Group of North Carolina, P.A.
4904 Professional Court, Suite 201
Raleigh, North' Carolina 27609
.Deaf Mr. Davis:
.............
This letter is to inform you that a list.of all federally-protected endangered and threatened species
with knowdoccurrences in North .Carolina is now available on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's (Service) web page at <http://nc'-es.fws.gov/es>. Therefore, if you have projects that
occur within the Raleigh Field'Office'-s area•of responsibility (see attached county list), you no
longer need to contact the Raleigh.Field'-O;fFice -for a list of federally-protected species.
Our web page containg•a d6tuplae'and, q. ::' l?iiated list'of all endangered and threatened
se Ad's pio#eCtgd 11 j?.th-e.p' yisigr s t , f ? edw ie, ie A ?f of'19'13,- as amended (16
"r•e .cnnceril..tlai .ar6 known to occur in
U.&C. 1531. et se?.)? cx)> .ali ti ?.Q „ .
each county in North Carolina.
Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their designated non-federal
representative), in consultation with the J. Mdd, }insure-that any action federally authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
federally-listed endangered or threatened species: A biological assessment or evaluation may be
prepared to fulfill that requirement and in determining. whether additional consultation with the
Service is necessary. In addition to the %4 q-rally-protected species list, information on the
species' life histories and habitats arid. itif)nriation-on 'coinpleting -a biological assessment or
evaluation and can be found on our web page at --41ttp:1/nc-es.fws.gov/es>. Please check the Web
site often for updated information or changes:
If your project coritains;suitable habitat for any of the federally-listed species known to be
present within, the. county inhere your project. occurs, the proposed action has the potential to
adversely affect those species. - As such,,we repgminend that surveys be conducted to determine
the species' presence or absence within-the project area. The use of North Carolina Natural
Heritage program data should not•be'substittzted for actual field surveys.
1 The term "federal species of concern'' refe46: species which the Service believes might be in need of
concentrated conservation, actions. Federal speCiCg. vf?coneern receive no legal protection and their designation does
not necessarily imply that the species will eve liyll `#bposed for listing as a federally endangered or threatened
species. However, we recommend thaf all'pra4dible iAikures be taken to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to
federal species of concern. ,.
:!Alll LO-4
If you determine that the proposed acJ Qn Wect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a federally-proteCEe rs' ' cW; you'should notify this office with your
determination; the results of your survey..s, s. L,%y methodologies, and an analysis of the effects
of the action on listed species, including a-i&z lion of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects,
before conducting any activities that: ff ct t, a species. If.you determine that the proposed
ve rse direct or indirect effect) on federally
'
action will have no effect (i.e., no ben S#Ro?,'
listed speciesthen you are not require . jx dt our off ce for-concurrence. However, you
should maintain a complete record of th'oesment, including steps leading to your
determination of effect, the qualified•persoruiel ponducting the assessment, habitat conditions,
site photographs, and any other related aiticles.
With regard to your letter, dated Match 29;QS?.r?questing comments from the Service on the
proposed extension of approximately 600:feetIg-Runway 22, including a 200-foot paved blast
pad, at the Craven County Regional Airpfo ` J? grtli Carolina, we offer the following remarks.
Our comments are submitted pursuant to, and in accordance with, provisions- of the Endangered
Species Act.
The Service has an old record (mid-1930"s')Vp, occurrence of the federally-threatened plant,
sensitive jointvetch (Aeschynomene v rginica. ? within the proposed project area. An extensive
survey for the species was conducted:in tfi?rty of proposed project by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation in the 19.90 ,'b4t ho, plants were discovered. Other surveys have
yielded similar results. As a result, it'.lk-`9W' .t pinion that sensitive jointvetch most likely no
longer occurs in the general area of the pxo*piised project site.
Based on the information provided and other •inrormation available, it appears that the proposed
project is not likely to adversely affect'. any federally-listed endangered or threatened species,
their formally designated critical habitat, or species currently proposed for listing under the Act.
We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act have been satisfied. Please
remember that obligations under section 7 coatis>tltation must be reconsidered if (1) new
information reveals impacts of this ideiitiffed faction that may affect listed species or critical
habitat in a manner not previqusly considered; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a
manner that was not considered in this review; or, (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat
determined that may be affected by the identified action.
We hope you find our web page useful and informative and that following the process described
above will reduce the time.required, and-.eliminate the need, for general correspondence for ,
species' lists in the future. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Mr. David.
Rabon of this office at (919) 856-452(1;: e?tieiision •16.
Pete Benjamin
Ecological Services Supervisor
Enclosure
2
Lis' t of Counties in the Service's Raleigh Field Office Area of Responsibility

' ..::VJ
Alamance Person
Beaufort Pitt
Bertie Randolph
Bladen Richmond
Brunswick Robeson
Camden Rockingham
Carteret t .. Sampson
Caswell Scotland
Chatham Tyrrell
Chowan. Vance
Columbus Wake
Craven Warren
Cumberland Washington
Currituck Wayne
Dare Wilson
Duplin
Durham
Edgecombe
Franklin
Gates
Granville
Greene
Guilford
Halifax
Harnett
Hertford
Hoke
Hyde
Johnston
` Jones
Lee
Lenoir
Martin
Montgomery
Moore
Nash
New Hanover
Northampton
Onslow
Orange
Pamlico
Pasquotank
Pender
Perquimans,
3
ov 11M
PROGRAM
October 23, 2008
Mr. Thomas Braaten
Coastal Carolina Regional Airport
200 Terminal Drive
New Bem, NC 28562 Expiration of Acceptance: July 23, 2009
Project: Coastal Carolina Regional Airport - Runway 22 Safety Area County: Craven County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is willing to accept
payment for impacts associated with the above referenced project. Please note that this decision does not assure that the payment will
be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts. It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact these
agencies to determine if payment to the NCEEP will be approved. You must also comply with all other state federal or local
o n activibdu_cWding SL 2008-152: An A t t Promote
Coni»ensat 6 Mitigotlon by T'rivate Mitigjjj Banks
This acceptance is valid for nine months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not received a copy of the
issued 404 Permit/401 Certification/CAMA permit within this time frame, this acceptance will expire. It is the applicant's
responsibility to send copies of the permits to NCEEP. Once NCEEP receives a copy of the permit(s) an invoice will be issued based
on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the In
Lieu Fee to be paid to NCEEP by an applicant is calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed at www.nceep.net.
Based on the information supplied by you the impacts that may require compensatory mitigation'are summarized in the following
table.
River
Basin CU
Location Stream (feet) Wetlands (acres) Buffer I
(Sq. Ft.) Buffer II
(Sq. Ft.)
Cold Cool Warm Riparian Non-Riparian Coastal Marsh
Impact Neuse 03020204 0 0 0 0.81 0 0 0 0
Credits Neuse 03020204 0 0 0 1.62 0 0 0 0
Upon receipt of payment, EEP will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. If the regulatory agencies require
mitigation credits greater than indicated above, and the applicant wants NCEEP to be responsible for the additional mitigation, the
applicant will need to submit a mitigation request to NCEEP for approval prior to permit issuance. The mitigation will be performed
in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers dated November 4, 1998.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Valerie Mitchener at [phone] or Kelly Williams at
[phone].
Sincerely,
Willi .Gilmore, PE
Director
cc: Cyndi Karoly, NCDWQ Wetlands/401 Unit
Tracy Wheeler, USACE-Washington
Kyle Barnes, NCDWQ-Washington
Edward Smail, agent
File
kmt'DYGl;19... E ... Prot", ow Stag
???
MCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1662 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
Statement of Compliance with Session Law 2008-152 An Act to Promote
Compensatory Mitigation by Private Mitigation Banks
(link to. SL 2008-1521
Prior to accessing the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) In-Lieu Fee
Mitigation Program, all applicants are. now required by law to comply with.
Session Law 2008-152 An Act to Promote Compensatory Mitigation by Private
Mitigation. Banks. All new requests submitted on or after Oct. 1, 2008 MUST
include this form signed and dated by the permit applicant or an authorized
agent. Applicants with unexpired acceptance letters may continue with their
plans to use the In-Lieu Fee Program or withdraw their request and seek other
available mitigation options:
Compliance Statement:
I have read and understand SL-2008-152 and have, to the best of my knowledge,
compiled with its requirements.
Please check all that apply:
There. are no known private mitigation banks with the requested credit type
located in the hydrologic unit where this impact will take place (link to DWQ
M.
have contacted the mitigation bank(s) in the hydro ogic unit whereata
impacts
will occur and credits are not available. C Scc o•f?cl??d r, t
-
Note: It is the applicant's.responsibilityto document any Inquiries made to private
mitigation. banks.
i
'dw..Old J SH-ic ,
Signature of A cant or Agent Printed Name
Io/f/ors
Date
Paged of 2
Smail, Ed
From: Norton Webster [[e-mail]
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 6:33 AM
To: Smail, Ed
Subject: RE: Wetland. Mitigation Credits. (Craven County NC) HUC 03020204
Ed
There are currently no wetland credits available from the Westbrook Lowgrounds or the Marston site.
Thanks.
Norton
Norton Webster
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
Research IV
909: Capability Drive; Suite 3100
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
office 919.829.9909
cell 919.608.9688
fax [phone]
norton [e-mail]
www.ebxusa.com
From: Small, Ed [melito:[e-mail]
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 11:02 AM
To: Norton Webster
Subject: RE: Wetland Mitigation Credits (Craven County NC) HUC 03020204
Mr. Webster,
Since we spoke the other day DWQ revised the mitigation bank list on the NCEEP website, found here:
http://h26.enr state nc us/ncwetiands/documents/mitigation banks doc
According to this.list, in addition to the "Westbrook Lowgrounds", the "EBX-Neuse 1 -Marston" bank also serves
this HUC. Based on the most recent design, the proposed project would :impact 0.81-acre of wetland. In order to
comply with Session Law 2009-152, could you please. verify (via response to this. email) that there are currently no
wetland credits: available for these two banks? Please let me know if you have any questions or need any.
additional information.
thanks
Edward J. Smail
Environmental Scientist
THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED
4401 Belle Oaks Drive, Suite 105
North Charleston, SC 29405
843-329-0050
hftp://www.lbaci up.com
10/13/2008
Page 2 of 2
From: Small, Ed
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 10:53 AM
To: '[e-mail]'
Subject: Wetland Mitigation Credits (Craven County NC) HUC 03020204
Mr. Webster,
We are currently in the process of preparing Section 404 permit application for a project at the Coastal Carolina
Regional Airport in New Bern, NC. We had.originally planned on using the North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (NCEEP) to compensate for wetland impacts associated with this project. It has come to
my attention that NC is now requiring permit applicants to first investigate the use of a private mitigation bank
before using the NCEEP in-lieu fee program. This project is in. HUC 0302.0204 and according to the NC Division
of Water Quality's latest list; the "Westbrook Lowgrounds" serves this HUC. Are there currently credits available
in this service area? This project would impact approximately 1.17 acres of wetland. If credits are not available; I
may need something in writing to submit with the NCEEP in-lieu fee request. Let me know if you have any
questions.
Thanks
Edward J. Small
Environmental Scientist
THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED
4401 Belle Oaks Drive, Suite 105
North Charleston, SC 20405
843-329-0050
hftp:/twww.lpaciroup.com
10/13/2008
NORTH CAROLINA ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, NCEEP
IN-LIEU FEE REQUEST FORM
Revised 9/11!2008
Print this form, fill in requested information, sign and date. and all her mail to NCEEP, 1652 Mail Service Center,. Raleigh, NC
276994652, fax to 919-715-2219, or emaiLtoValerie:Mitchener?nanail Attachments are acceptable for darification
purposes (location map is required).

CONTACT INFORMATION APPLICANT'S AGENT (optional) APPLICANT
1. Business or Individual Name THE LPA GROUP; INCORPORATED Coastal Carolina Regional Airport
I
2. Street Address orP O Box 4401 Belle Oaks Drive, Suite 105 200 Terminal.Drive
3. City, State. Zllp
4. Contact Person -- Charleston, SC 29405
Edward J. Small New Bern, NC 28562
Mr. Thomas raaten
5. Telephone Number,. X 843-329-0050 X 252-638-8591
6. Fax Number 43-329-0055
.7. E-Mall Address (optional) [e-mail]
PROJECT INFORMATION
8. Protect Name --- oastal Carolina.RegionalAlrport= Runway 22TeTr area --
- _
9. Project-Location (nearest town, city)
I "ATTACH MAP SHOWING IMPACT LOCATIO
' Extension
IVew Bern, NG (see attached Map) -'- ----`- '"- -""--'-
i
N
10. Lat-Long Coordinates (optional)

35.081712 Deg. N 77.036889 Deg. W
1
11. Project County Craven County ------ - - ---- ---_..- _ --
12, .River Basin - ?Neuse
13. Cataloging Unit (8-digit) (see Note 1) 03020204 ---?
14. Riparian Wetiand Impact (ac..) (e.g., 0.13)
I .81-Acre _
,
15. Non-Riparian Wetland Impact (ac.) one
78. Coastal Marsh Impact (ac.)
-
1 None ---
17. Stream Impact (ft.) (e.g. 1,234)-
-- -
(see Note z) Warm
Cool Cold
i
None None None
118. Sufter impact-Zone (sq. ft.) (e.g. 12,345)
i
(See Note 3)
Zone 1: N/A

Zone N/A

19: Regulatory. Agency Staff Contacts I
(Indicate names, if known) I

# USACE: Ms. Tracey Wheeler -
-
DWQ: Mr. Al Hodge
1
20. Other Regulatory ID Information
(e:g., USACE Action ID,.if known)
-
-
- i
USACE Action ID 200510994
-
---T----•----------------------=----?
i
IMPORTANT -
Check (J below if this request is a: i Signature of Applicant or ent:
revision to a current acceptance, or i. l
_ re-submission of an expired acceptance
i ` extension of unexpired acceptance i
__-----_ -- .-_ i - Date: 1011310 Note 1: For help in determining the Cataloging Unit, go to EPA's'Surf.Your Watershed' web page;
tttin://ofo &J12A gov/aurUloeat index cfm Note (9) above: requirement to attach location map:
Note 2: For guidance on stream temperatures, go to:
Note 3: Buffer mitigation applicable only in the Neuse, Tar-Pamlico and Catawba.rnrer basins, and the Randleman Lake
Water Supply Watsrshed. Direct all questions to Valerie Mitchener at 919-715-1973 orvalede:mitchener0ncniatl n t