20140263 Ver 1_401 Application_20140314

F)
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
S &ME, Inc., (S &ME)
134 Suber Road
Columbia, South Carolina 29210
803 / 561 -9024
Fax 803 / 561 -9177
TO:
Ms. Karen Higgins
N.C. Division of Water Resources
WBSCP Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1650
WE ARE SENDING YOU:
DATE:
3 -14 -14
Proj. #:
1614 -12 -162
RE:
NWP -14 PCN Submittal
Charlotte- Monroe Executive Airport
ERSA Project
COPIES
DATE
NO.
DESCRIPTION
5
3 -14 -14
NWP -14 PCN Submittal
Charlotte- Monroe Executive Airport ERSA Project
1
3 -14 -14
$570 Application Fee (Check)
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
❑ For your approval ❑ For your use ❑ As requested ® For review and comment
REMARKS:
Ms. Higgins,
On behalf of the Charlotte- Monroe Executive Airport (applicant) and Talbert & Bright (engineer), S &ME is
providing a copy of the NWP -14 PCN submittal for the project located in Union County, NC. The applicant
is proposing approximately 285 If of fill /rip- rap /piping impacts to a Dry Fork Creek to comply with Federal
Aviation Administration design standards. Please call if you have questions regarding the submittal.
Thank you,
Chris Daves (cdaves (6-smeinc.com)
SIGNED:
� L9 V LS
COPY TO: Judy Elder, Talbert & Bright "MAR 2014
William Elliott — USACE AL
USFWS — Asheville Office a+
IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED, PLEASE NOTIFY US AT ONCE.
This Letter of Transmittal and the documents accompanying this Letter of Transmittal contain information from S &ME, Inc., which is
confidential and legally privileged The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named on this Letter of
Transmittal. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of
any action in reliance on these documents is strictly prohibited.

Corps Submittal Cover Sheet
Please provide the following info:
1. Project Name: Charlotte- Monroe Executive Airport ERSA Project
2. Name of Property owner /Applicant: City of Monroe
3. Name of Consultant /Agent: S &ME, Inc. Attn: Chris Daves, PWS
*Agent Authorization needs to be attached
4. Related/Previous Action ID Number(s): SAW 2012 -01470 (JD)
The project area is an approximately 35 -acre area located NE of Runway 05-
5. Site Address: 23 within the Charlotte- Monroe Executive Airport property.
6. Subdivision Name: N/A
7. City: Monroe
8. County: Union Co. (Portion of Tax Parcels 093690021301, 09369001, & 09369003A).
9. Lat: 35.0275 Long: - 80.6105 (Decimal Degrees Please)
10. Quadrangle Name: Bakers, N.C. (197111987)
11. Waterway: Dry Fork Creek (DWQ Index No. 13- 17- 36 -6 -3)
12. Watershed: Upper Pee Dee /Yadkin (HUC 03040105- 05 -01)
13. Requested Action:
X Nationwide Permit # 14
General Permit #
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Pre - Application Request
The following information will be completed by Corps office:
Prepare File Folder
AID:
Assign number in ORM
Authorization: Section 10 Section 404
Project Description/Nature of Activity /Project Purpose:
Site /Waters Name:
Keywords:
Begin Date

wii - 11 11 11 11- I'll ­ . �'
.'� a >�- ,t« ' ?r yw„�• , *d €,Y " vr .� � , °Rx:o ;x` ,�. ti,L,C" "'A ati,.wHv� V Y p. i "*
i " . »� ,:,x• ,�-" }q
'3ti.'"r' ".',,.',".," =, "e`'r�`` "r••
ai yy
December 3, 2013
Mr. William Elliott, USACE Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801 -5006
Ms. Karen Higgins
N.C. Division of Water Resources
WBSCP Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1650
Reference: Nationwide Permit #14 Submittal
Charlotte - Monroe Executive Airport - Extended Runway Safety Area Project
SAW 2012 -01470
Monroe, Union County, North Carolina
S &ME Project No. - 1614 -12 -162
Dear Mr. Elliott and Ms. Higgins:
On behalf of the Charlotte - Monroe Executive Airport and Talbert Bright & Ellington, Inc., S &ME,
Inc. (S &ME) is pleased to submit a Nationwide Permit package for impacts to approximately 285
linear feet (10 of Dry Fork Creek within the above - referenced project area.
PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED OF PROJECT
The approximately 35 -acre project area is located northeast of Runway 05 -23 at the Charlotte -
Monroe Executive Airport (the Airport) in Monroe, Union County, North Carolina. In 2011,
Runway 05 -23 was extended from 5,500 feet to 7,000 feet to accommodate the short- and long -term
aviation demands of airport users and the region. Although the runway was extended, the Extended
Runway Safety Area (ERSA) was not extended to meet Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
design standards. According to FAA Advisory Circular 150 15300 -13- Airport Design (Changes I-
18), the ERSA should be 400 feet wide and 1,000 feet long and should be:
• Cleared, graded, and have no potentially hazardous ruts, humps, depressions, or other surface
variations;
• Drained by grading or storm sewers to prevent water accumulation;
• Capable of supporting emergency vehicles and occasional passage of aircraft without causing
structural damage to the aircraft; and
• Free of objects, except for objects that need to be located in the ERSA because of their function.
The proposed project includes expanding the existing Runway 05 -23 ERSA from its current size
(150 feet wide by 425 feet long) to 400 feet wide by 1,000 feet long. The project will bring the
Airport into compliance with FAA design standards for ERSAs and increase safety. Also, a new
localizer will be installed as well as a new gravel access road, localizes shelter, and parking pad. The
new localizer will allow airport operations to continue in inclement weather conditions.
S &ME. LIC / 134 Suber Road/ Columbia SC 29210 /p 803 5619024 /If 803.661.9177 / NNXNw smemc com

Nationwide Permit Submittal S &ME Project No. 1614 -12 -162
Charlotte- Monroe Executive Airport — ERSA Project December 3, 2013
IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL WATERS
The proposed project will impact approximately 285 if feet of Dry Fork Creek, a perennial
relatively permanent water (PRPW). On October 16, 2012 during the site verification, the U.S
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, Steve Kichefski) and the North Carolina Division of Water
Resources (Michael Burkhart) determined Dry Fork Creek was perennial and was to be mitigated
at a 1 to 1 ratio due to its current condition.
The impacts will include fill (approximately 254 If) of portions of Dry Fork Creek located at the
ends of an existing culvert underneath the ERSA. The purpose of the fill is to extend the width
of the ERSA. New 42 -inch culverts extensions will be placed on ends of the existing culvert to
maintain flow of Dry Fork Creek. Rip -rap (approximately 31 10 will be placed at the ends of the
culvert to dissipate water velocity and erosion. Please refer to Figures 4 -6 in Appendix A for
details of the proposed culvert.
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION
Mitigation banks were not available within the watershed; therefore, the applicant is to proposing
payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) for the 285 if of
stream impacts at the aforementioned 1 to 1 ratio. Please see the NCEEP acceptance letter in
Appendix B.
APPENDICES
Attached in Appendices A -D, please find the following information to supplement the permit
submittal:
Appendix A
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Topographic Map
Figure 3 - Aerial Map
Figure 4 — Overall Site Plan
Figure 5 — Profile View
Figure 6 — Cross Section View
Appendix B
• NCEEP Letter (October 29, 2013)
• USACE Jurisdictional Determination Letter (December 3, 2013)
• U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Letter (July 27, 2012)
• NC Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office Letters (July 10 and
October 15, 2012)
• Finding of No Significant Impact Letter signed by NC Division of Aviation (April 11, 2013)
• NC Department of Administration State Clearinghouse Letter (January 23, 2013)

Nationwide Permit Submittal S &ME Project No. 1614 -12 -162
Charlotte- Monroe Executive Airport — ERSA Project December 3, 2013
Appendix C
Pages 1 -9 of Environmental Assessment conducted by Talbert Bright & Ellington, Inc.
(February 2013)
Appendix D
Agent Authorization Form
CLOSING
Thank you for your time and attention to this project. If we can provide additional information,
please do not hesitate to contact Chris Daves at 803 - 561 -9024.
Sincerely,
S &ME, Inc.
Chris Daves, P.W.S. Tom Behnke, P.G.
Biologist Environmental Services Manager
Peer Review: Joe Lawler, P.W.S.
CC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
SAENVIRON\1 6 1 4 - 12 JOBS \1614 -12- 162 \Charlotte - Monroe Executive Airport \NWP

o�o� wA r�RQ�
pj P
> r
-i
O Y
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
❑x Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 14 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
E] Yes ❑ No
1 d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
❑z 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
❑ Yes ❑X No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes [j] No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for
mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank
or in -lieu fee program.
❑x Yes ❑ No
1g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1h
below.
❑ Yes [j] No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes ❑Q No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Charlotte- Monroe Executive Airport Extended Runway Safety Area (ERSA) Project
2b.
County:
Union
2c
Nearest municipality / town.
Monroe D
2d.
Subdivision name.
N/A
2e.
NCDOT only, T I.P or state project no:
N/A
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed.
City of Monroe (Charlotte- Monroe Executive Airport) NR - WA ITY
3b
Deed Book and Page No.
4035/341, 0418/127, 3218/599
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
City of Monroe (Charlotte- Monroe Executive Airport)
3d.
Street address:
Post Office Box 69
3e.
City, state, zip.
Monroe, NC 28111 -0069
3f.
Telephone no:
704 - 226 -2300
3g.
Fax no..
N/A
3h.
Email address:
CPlate @monroenc.org
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a.
Applicant is:
❑ Agent ❑ Other, specify:
4b.
Name:
Same info as owner
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
4d.
Street address:
4e.
City, state, zip.
4f.
Telephone no.:
4g.
Fax no.:
4h.
Email address:
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
Chris Daves, P.W.S.
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
S &ME, Inc.
5c.
Street address:
134 Suber Road
5d.
City, state, zip.
Columbia, SC 29210
5e.
Telephone no.:
803 - 561 -9024
5f.
Fax no.:
803 - 561 -9177
5g.
Email address:
cdaves @smeinc.com
Page 2 of 10

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
09369002B01, 09369001, 093669003A
1b.
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.0275 Longitude. - 80.6105
1c.
Property size:
35 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
Dry Fork Creek
2b.
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
Class C
2c
River basin:
Upper Pee Dee/Yadkin (HUC 03040105- 05 -01)
3.
Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The project area consists of open, grassed field at the end of Runway 05 -23. Dry Run Creek runs through the project area. Dry Run Creek is in poor
condition with minimal riparian buffer, three culverts, and portions of rip -rap in the project area The surrounding land use consists of the airport,
aviation - related businesses, and multiple industrial facilities along Airport Rd., Teledyne Rd., Old Charlotte Hwy., and North Rocky River Rd.
3b.
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.02
3c.
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 1,115
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
To expand existing Runway 05 -23 extended runway safety area (ERSA) to increase safety & to comply with FAA guidelines. (Appendix C)
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Project includes expanding existing ERSA from 150' wide /425' long to 400' wide /1,000' long. Industry standard construction equipmentwill be used.
A new localizer with gravel access road and parking pad are also proposed. See Appendix C for details of the proposed project.
4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a.
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑x Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
Comments: see section ad.
4b.
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
El Preliminary Final
4c.
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known). Chris Daves, P.W.S
Agency /Consultant Company: S &ME, Inc.
Other.
4d If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
Site was visited by USACE (Steve Kichefski) and NCDWR (Michael Burkhart) on October 16, 2012. Dry Fork Creek was determined by both USACE
and DWQ to be perennial and to be mitigated at a 1 to 1 ratio. Jurisdictional Determination letter SAW 2 01 3 -01 470 dated Dec 3, 2013.
5.
Project History
5a.
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑ Yes F!] No ❑ Unknown
5b.
If yes, explain In detail according to "help file" instructions.
6.
Future Project Plans
6a.
Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ❑,r No
6b.
If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑ Wetlands ❑x Streams — tributaries ❑ Buffers ❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
Wetland impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Tem ora T
2b.
Type of impact
2c.
Type of wetland
2d.
Forested
2e.
Type of jurisdiction
Corps (404,10) or
DWQ (401, other)
2f.
Area of
impact
(acres)
W1 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
W2 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
W3 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
W4 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
W5 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
W6 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
Stream impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
3b.
Type of impact
3c
Stream name
3d.
Perennial (PER) or
intermittent (INT)?
3e.
Type of
jurisdiction
3f.
Average
stream
width
(feet)
3g.
Impact
length
(linear
feet)
S1 P
Fill
Dry Fork Creek
PER
Corps /DWR
4
254
S2 P
Rip -rap
Dry Fork Creek
PER
Corps /DWR
4
31
S3 -
-
S4 -
S5 -
-
S6 -
-
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
285
31 Comments:
Dominant impacts will be to fill daylighted portions of Dry Fork Creek through the project area; however, the flow of Dry Fork Creek will be maintained
and confined into new 42" culverts at both ends of an existing culvert underneath the existing ERSA. Rip -rap will be placed at the ends of the culvert to
dissipate water velocity.
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then indivii ually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody
type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
01 -
Choose one
Choose
O2 -
Choose one
Choose
03 -
Choose one
Choose
O4 -
Choose one
Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, the complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID number
5b.
Proposed use or
purpose of pond
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
P1
Choose one
P2
Choose one
5f. Total:
5g. Comments:
5h Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction.
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require miti ation then you MUST fill out Section D of this form
6a. Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar - Pamlico ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other:
6b.
Buffer Impact
number–
Permanent (P) or
T
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Stream name
6e
Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f
Zone 1
impact
(square
feet )
6g.
Zone 2
impact
(square
feet
—Temporary
B1 -
Yes /No
B2 -
Yes/No
B3 -
Yes /No
B4 -
Yes /No
B5 -
Yes /No
B6 -
Yes /No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
6i Comments:
Page 5 of 10

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Due to the location of the existing runway and Dry Fork Creek, complete avoidance was not possible. Headwalls were considered to minimize stream
impacts, but were not permissible per FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300 -12- Airport Design, which states that the ERSA should be "cleared, graded with
no potentially hazardous ruts, humps, depressions, or surface variations ".
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) per NPDES permit requirements are proposed during construction for erosion control and water
quality protection. These include sediment traps, straw bales, diversion dikes, rock dams, grassed swales, and slope seeding to prevent sedimentation
to Dry Run Creek.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
❑x Yes ❑ No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
El DWQ El Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
❑ x Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank: None available
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type: Stream
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Quantity: 285
Quantity:
Quantity:
3c. Comments. Per USACE and DWQ, stream impacts to be mitigated at a 1 to 1 ratio.
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑x Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
285 linear feet
4c If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
warm
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only)
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f. Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested.
acres
4h. Comments. Stream impacts only
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
Yes Q No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e g , payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 7 of 10

E.
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1b.
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
5
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ❑z No
2c.
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
The project will consist primarily of construction of a relatively - level, grassed, open field at the end of Runway 05 -23 and will not create impervious
surfaces, except for a gravel access road connecting the end of the runway to the proposed localizer shelter and parking pad. The project will actually
reduce impervious surfaces by removing a portion of asphalt -paved Teledyne Rd through the project area.
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan.
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plant
N/A
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
❑ Phase II
❑ NSW
3b.
Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
El Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a.
Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ORW
(check all that apply):
El Session Law 2006 -246
❑ Other.
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a.
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
[—]Yes ❑ No
5b.
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the
❑x Yes
❑ No
use of public (federal /state) land?
1 b.
If you answered 'yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑Yes
❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c.
If you answered 'yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
x Yes
❑
❑ No
letter.) FONSI for EA by NC Division of Aviation on April 11, 2013 (Appendix B). Also see
Comments- State Clearing House letter dated January 23, 2013 (Appendix B).
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes
No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B 0200)?
2b.
Is this an after - the -fact permit application?
❑Yes
Q No
2c.
If you answered 'yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a.
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result "in
❑ Yes
❑x No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b.
If you answered `yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
The project was designed to comply with FAA guidelines by constructing a relatively - level, grassed, open field (ERSA) at the end
of Runway 05 -23.
Additional development is not expected in the area that could impact downstream water quality.
4.
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non - discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Wastewater will not be generated by the project.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑ Yes ❑Q No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
Q Yes ❑ No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted
Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
USFWS and NC Natural Heritage Program websites consulted
Protected Species Assessment done by S &ME in 2012. USFWS concurrence letter (FWS Log No. 4 -2 -12 -217) issued on July 27, 2012 (Appendix B).
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes Q No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NOAA (http- / /www.nmfs.noaa.gov /) and NCCOS (http. / /ccma nos.noaa gov /products /biogeography /sa -efh /) websites.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ❑x No
status (e.g , National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
Background research conducted at NC Office of State Archaeology and NC SHPO on April 26, 2012 Also http. //www.hpo dcr state.nc.us. S &ME
performed Phase I Cultural Resource Survey in May 2012. Concurrence letters issued by NC SHPO on July 10 & October 15, 2012 (Appendix B)
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑ Yes ❑Q No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
N/A
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
http. / /www.ncfloodmaps.com and FEMA FIRM 3710541600J (October 16, 2008). Protect area is located in Zone X and not in a floodplain.
12 -03 -2013
Applicant /Agent's Printed Name
Date
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization
letter from the applicant is provided
Page 10 of 10

Appendix A
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Topographic Map
Figure 3 - Aerial Map
Figure 4 — Overall Site Plan
Figure 5 — Profile View
Figure 6 — Cross Section View

a
a-
O
f
Indian
Trail
O
•42 PkY
Lake C.,
Park
innvme Ind,a�
r
• i1,d4
Oa
z e. N.
• •
Pop1(n (1v ' 4
ts
a �`1 µ c
U
.5 ��`
a
iz by
` a
sAlr
t ots
t� 2
• ` a s . x
9Itz r
m T
Q.G
.l'
P f i ,G
e
e'tc
rm_
Wesley
Chapel
84
dlorrghby�
Cr
0 0.5 1
A
2
Miles
Monroe
Air part
84'
ab
a•
4?
•
74 z
W•ddoti ton 4 %"-
V w Fr•anYlin St Mon
e
z.
i
7.
•
a
Kt
*y
,
e v
ti
h t*
'it•{
200
SCALE: 1 in = 1 mi
$S&ME
VICINITY MAP
CHARLOTTE - MONROE EXECUTIVE AIRPORT
MONROE, UNION COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE NO.
1
1
CHECKED BY: WCD
DRAWN BY: ADW
DATE 11/1/2013
PROJECT NO: 1614 -12 -162
SOURCE: ESRI RESOURCE CENTER - STREETMAP

N
6A ; f
Shil
Bakers
z
PP T SITE BO
<= "*:
-80.6105,3 5.0275 .. �♦
fn
-Ai '
4
-- _ �70
FEET Y q
0 500 1;000 1 2,000 •
w i
SCALE: 1 in= 1,000ft
*S &ME
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
CHARLOTTE - MONROE EXECUTIVE AIRPORT
MONROE, UNION COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE NO.
CHECKED BY: WCD
DRAWN BY: ADW
DATE: 11/1/2013
1 PROJECT NO: 1614 -12 -162
SOURCE: USGS TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE MAP - BAKERS, INC - 1971/1987

SCALE: 1 in= 250 ft
AERIAL MAP FIGURE NO.
CHECKED BY: WCD
S &ME
CHARLOTTE - MONROE EXECUTIVE AIRPORT
2
DRAWN BY: ADW
MONROE, UNION COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
J
DATE: 11/1/2013
PROJECT NO: 1614 -12 -162
SOURCE: ESRIRESOURCECENTER - NAIPAERIALPHOTOGRAPHY

1- BALLnom 30WOOR UOTM10
r.sr.w s�sr�oi �
w.un�avo.ovawavdww d
��s vrc,wmoiun�vw
uwva�oma�vu�onvmo 0 39vFW V6l9 BE AYMNflU 4
lillorde,91113TIVI 1VlIOl1A108RlfM of wavdra i 9� J >i 1
e
N
_ n
N C 1 �� \, \ ZG
! V ` �I \ w
e� \ \ \ z cs..� �\ \ \
CL 0
fO (L
r o. F
CL
fL
Li
CL
/J I ZZ eX�
W W
_ LL
F 0. a a F �w
z0 �j�z
z
m0 ° F
CL
uj
i n i /i%i' \ \1 �. J \ \ \moo �/ / !»lx > r r FyN
Woo
goy
CL CL
1 Al a a a v
I— -- Cr
Ln
ui
Lox
OZ:_
d Kv o
i
/ •: r�i 'Ifs \ III � + 1 /:y \`- .__- -� "�\
-u
N
r In
/! I // �( �/ / / \ \ jllll \I(/ /i•\ ��.� / fir` U`o
r
s �
i' / //l �° ! 1111' I \ \ \t \\ / / 1 /+►' ~ / 2. k� N k' j
LL
o
c)
W zoos a0
IIIJ�gpr / ° =__ -y �t + ► 1t1 /r;J !'t (9 x�� ;tea$
J w a a z� It a cr

IR^
to tn w
C) ~
+ J Lij
p
U_ Z W 0 0 US
LO x. a v 000 Y E
W O z m
M U Y
Z Z O O
W Q
a D ^ LO
Ill
- -I W
lIVMOV3H Z4 'dOld a °
° o
LU_ L
'N
10 +
XOB N0110Nnr 'd06d a a O O L
LO
[�
LZ Z _
Ln o o J
W O�
°w z° 0 O 00
13 dMNna
030N31X3' z �° f
c� i ! p a o
N Ul LO
+
_ _ a 0
r �+
W
O
Lu
0 a
0 +
i
X 8 N LL Nfl s Jd0Nd 0
i 0 Q'
U
= m
u)
N e
t J
a o ® + W
Of 0_ U N d W
131N1 d080 'd08d 0 xi W
- LO a 0
lIdMOV3H ,Zt, 'd0ad ¢ pG
-_ 0 Q o
J Y H
a 0< W
a O
LO Lr M
Za� � 0 =uj ¢ O C
W� 00 OO
+ W ~
to Ln It O Q II II
so in �n
LO x N
p4 U

670
i
660
— °-
~
FINISHED
uJ
GROUND
Ln >
V I
X Q
W a
\
0Q
\
\
650
0 X
w F
\
EXISTING
3
'
I
EXISTING 8"
FORCE MAIN
PROPOSED 42" RCP
i
DRAINAGE DITCH
640
INV.
LEADING TO DRY
1642.10
FORK CREEK [
EXISTING
CHANNEL
(DRY FORK
CREEK)
EXISTING, 8"
SANITARY
SEWER
CROSS ISECTION1
NEAR WESTERN
EDGE (OF PROPIOSED GRADING
(Cross Section taken at Proposed Mablio Profile
station 242.79. ParaOel to Runway Centwins)
0 +00 0 +50 1 +00 1 +50 2 +00 2 +50 3 +00 3 +50 4 +00
SCALE:
1" = 60' HORIZONTAL
1" = 6' VERTICAL
FIGURE 6 - CROSS - SECTION VIEW
RUNWAY 23 ERSA - PHASE II TALBERT&BRIGHT
CHARLOTTE - MONROE EXECUTIVE AIRPORT DMMM&KAMMCON$UL Mn
*"?MWATMATHSOUWAMSIAi W
CHAKOM,N MCABOLINA M"
�"` " M"`IN41=
3212 -1302 NC UCENSE NM c -1163
....tomatamrW^i.eam

Appendix B
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program Letter (October 29, 2013)
USACE Jurisdictional Determination Letter (December 3, 2013)
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Letter (July 27, 2012)
NC Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation
Office Letters (July 10 and October 15, 2012)
Finding of No Significant Impact Letter signed by NC Division of
Aviation (April 11, 2013)
NC Department of Administration State Clearinghouse Letter
(January 23, 2013)

Ecosystem
-.'__z X fF i L.
PROGRAM
October 29, 2013
Chris Plate
Charlotte- Monroe Executive Airport
PO Box 69
Monroe, NC 29811- Expiration of Acceptance: April 29, 2014
Project: Charlotte- Monroe Executive Airport ESRA Project' County: Union
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is willing to accept
payment for compensatory mitigation for impacts associated with the above referenced project as indicated in the table below. Please
note that this decision does not assure that participation in the NCEEP'will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation
for project impacts. it is the'responsibility of the applicant to contact these agencies to determine if payment to the NCEEP will be
approved. You must also comply with all other state, federal or local government permits, regulations or authorizations associated
with the proposed activity including SL 2009 -337: An Act to Promote the Use of Compensatory Mitigation Banks as amended by
S.L. 2011-343.
This acceptance is.valid for six 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 in your request to use the NCEEP, the impacts that may require compensatory mitigation are
summarized in the following table. The amount of mitigation required and assigned to NCEEP for this impact is determined by
permitting agencies and may exceed the impact amounts shown below.
Impact
River
Basin
CU
Location
Stream (feet)
Wetlands (acres)
Buffer I
(Sq. Ft.)
Buffer i1
(Sq. Ft.)
Cold
Cool
Warn
Riparian
Non-Riparian
Coastal Marsh
Yadkin
03040105
0
0
295
0
1 0
0
0
0
Upon receipt of "payment, EEP will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. The mitigation will be performed in
accordance with the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources' Ecosystem Enhancement Program In -Lieu Fee
Instrument dated July 28, 2010.
Thank you for your interest in the NCEEP. If you have any questions or need additional information. please contact Kelly Williams at
(919) 707 -8915.
Sincerely,
Asset Manaaement Supervisor
cc: Karen Higgins. NCDWR Wetlands /401 Unit
Steve Kichefski, USACE - Asheville
Michael Burkhard, NCDWR- Mooresville
Chris Daves, agent
Moir 'File E .. Prot" t� 0" State, ��
• NC ®ENB2
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 / 919 -707 -8976 / www.nceep.net

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action I.D.: SAW - 2012- O1�`70 County: 16iecfslenbwf U.S.G.S Quad: Bakers
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DE, TERMINATION
Property Owner /Agent: City of Monroe/ Attn: Claris Plate
Address: PO Box 69 Monroe, NC 29811
'telephone No.: 704- 226 -2300
Property description:
Sine (acres): •--35 acres Nearest Town: Monroe
Nearest Waterway: Dry Fork Creck River Basin: Rocky Watershed; Upper Pee Dee Basin
Coordinates: 35.0249 / - 80.6114 Hydrologic Unit Code 03040105
Location Description: The site is located at the northern end of the runway, west of Teledyne Road at the Charlotte -
Monroe Executive Airport in Monroe, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
Indicate Which of the HollowAplalye
A. Preliminary Determination
Based on preliminary information, there may be waters and wetlands on the above described property. We strongly
su;gest 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 fart 331). ). 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.
B. Approved Determination
_ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or
oar published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
X There are waters and wetlands on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
We strongly suggest you have the waters and wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property
and/or our present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a
more timely delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by
the Corps.
X The waters and wetlands 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 waters and 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.
'}'here are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described property which are subject to the
T 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.

Aetior7 Id.: SAW-2012-01.470
Placerracnt of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitwe a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Watei Act (33 1_JSC § 1311) If you have any questions regarding This
deterinination and /or the Corps regulatory program, please, contact Steve Kichefski at 828 - 271 - ,7980.
C. Basis For Determination
The sitecontains wetlands as determined by the 1957 Cores gfEngineers ffetland Delineation Manual and the Interim
Regivlld,Supplenrent to the Corps gfEngineers Ietlands Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountain and Piedmont Region. These
wetland; are adjacent to stream channels located on the property that exhibit indicators of ordinary high water marks. The
streamiliannel on the property is known as Dry Fork Creek which flows into the Rocky Watershed; Upper Pee Dee Basin.
t ry roi'< Creek flows to the Atlantic Ocean via Bearskin Creels, Richardson Creek, the Rocky River and the Pee Dee River.
The pecDee River is a Section 10 navigable water at the Blewett Falls Dam.
113. Tdenarks: JD based on revised map submitted via eireail on December G, 2012.
E. Ailention USDA Program Participants
Tbis delineation /determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the
particui,r site identified in this request. 'fhe delineation /deteriiiiiation niay not be valid for the wetland conservation
provrsias of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation
ira USD +,programs, you should request a certified wetland determination fi-om the local office of the Natural Resources
Consenation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
�. abort)
Attachetho this verification is an approved jurisdictional determination If you are not in aD eement with that approved
jurisdictional determination, you can make an administrative appeal imder 33 CkR 33 1. Enclosed you will find a request for
appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this determination you must submit a completed RFA foram to the following
address
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 10M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 -8801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for
appeal uder 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP.
Should you decide to submit an RFA fora, it must be received at the above address by January 31, 2014.
* *It is rro: necessary to submit an RFA fora to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this
col—respondence." Ilk
Corps Regulatory Official: _ Steve Kichefski ,`
Issue Date: December 3, 2013 Expiration Date: December 3, 2018
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue to
do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our website at http1 /per2.nwp.usace.army mil /survey.html
to complete the survey online.
CF: Chris Daves, S &Mr, Lie., 134 Suber Road, Columbia, SC 29210
2

Date: December 3,
,;late File; Number: SAW-,2012-
City ot- Motlr oe/ Attii: Chris I 01470 2013
-------- - - - - -- -
- - -- -- - - -- -- - -- - -- -- -- - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- See Section below
_xttached i -s: - - -- _ _ - -- - -- _ - -- - -- - -- - - - -- - - -- — _- - - - - A -- -
INITIAL PROPEL RED PERMIT (Standard Permit or better of Permission) � B
— ---------------------------
PROFFER�D PERMIT (Standard PerDllt or Letter Of �erillJSS1011 - - - -- -- - -- -- ---- - - -_ -- C - - - -- -- -
-----------
✓ —
PERMIT DENIAL ------- ------- --- - - - - --
- - - -- - -- - - - - - -- - -- D
X APPROVED JURISll1C 'TTONAL,1)ETL;RMINA'C'iC)N _____-- ___,_- .. - - -- - - -- - - - - - -- �,-------- - - - - --
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
SECTION I_- The 'following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above
,decision.. Additional - information may be found at
1tt :� /www.usace. army .nil /CECWlI'ages /re materials_ aspx or ulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
Corps reg —_
A : INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the Per It-
ACCEPT: if you received a Standard Permit, you may sign tholp na i adoouY thetla0 and your work is authorized.
Yourinal
authorization. if you received a Letter of 1 ennission (LOP), y P
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights
signature conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
to appeal the permit, including its terms an
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 11 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 pennit 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, —
Q: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit for f
ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Pen-nit, you may sign the may m accept the tl and return. it to the district OP and your wok is authorized.
e Your nal
authorization. if you received a Letter of Pennission (LOP), y p
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,
o 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 wider 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 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. — — — — — — - - -- — — __
_ -- —
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved TD 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
JD in, entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD,
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved
a APPEAL: 1f you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
0 day s s 11 of this of the date m this d notdmc °the form to the division engineer. This form must be received
Appeal Process by completing Section an
by the division engineer within 6 y

E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DE;TBRMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps --
regarding the preliminary .ID. 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 Iurther consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.
SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT _
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 ally 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. l lowcver,
iou may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative record.
I POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and /or the appeal
process you may contact:
Steve Kichefski, Project Manager
USACE, Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Ave
RM 208
Asheville, NC 28806
828- 271 -7980
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
also contact:
Mr_ Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
CESAD -PDO
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
60 Forsyth Street, Room I OM 15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 -8801
Phone: [phone]
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:
of appellant or a ,2ent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
Telephone number:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: Steve Kieiiefski, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington,
North Carolina 28403
For Permit denials, Proffered .Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele,
Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD -PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M1S, Atlanta, Georgia 30303 -8801
Phone: [phone]
4

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville f=ield Office
160 7illicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
July 27, 2012
Mr. Chris Daves
S &ME, Inc.
134 Suber Road
Columbia, South Carolina 29210
Subject: Endangered and Threatened Species Assessment, Charlotte- Monroe Executive Airport,
Runway Safety Area Extension Project, West of Monroe, Union County, North
Carolina
Dear Mr. Daves:
In your letter dated June 29, 2012, you requested our comments on the subject project. We have
reviewed the information you presented and are providing the following comments in accordance
with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C.
661- 667e), and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531 -1543) (Act).
Endangered Species — According to the information in your letter, you conducted field surveys
on May 23, 2012 for species federally listed as endangered or threatened on the project site. You
state that there are areas that contain habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus
schii�einilzii); however these areas are continually mowed due to FAA regulations. Therefore, it
is your opinion that this or any other federally listed species occur within the project area.
Based on the information provided, we agree that no listed species occur on the site; and we
concur with your determination that the proposed project will have "no effect" on federally listed
species. Therefore, we believe the requirements under section 7 of the Act are fulfilled.
However, obligations under section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if: (1) new information
reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a
manner not previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was
not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is determined that
may be affected by the identified action.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If we can be of assistance or if you
have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Bryan Tompkins of our staff at
828/258 -3939, Ext. 240. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference
our Log Number 4 -2 -12 -217.

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Rartos, Administrator
Beverly Paves Perdue, Governor
a' f" ; ( ) ffice of Archives and J Iistor
landa A. Carlisle, Secretary
/t.'.. ;• ` ' " f ;• �, Division of I listodeal Resources
Jeffrey). Crow, Depuly secretary
•. ' -'' David Brook, Director
`•.
.. J`Y~<
f •1' `
Jul y10, 2012
� ,��$.(' "f +:.,
William Green,
S &ME, Inc.
134 Suber Road
Columbia, SC 29210
Re: Draft Report. Phase I Cultural Resource Investigations of Approximately 35 Acres at the
Charlotte- Monroe Executive Airport,
S &ME 1616 -12 -171, Union County, ER 12 -0982
Dear Mr. Green:
Thank you for your letter of May 29, 2012, transmitting the above referenced report.
The report authors note one newly recorded archaeological resource (31UN362) was identified during the
above noted investigation and was determined not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
We concur with this assessment and are of the opinion that no further archaeological investigations are
necessary or warranted.
For the purpose of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur with the
report's finding that the Shiloh Elementary School (UN 0356) remains eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places under Criterion A for education. In the final report, include the proposed National
Register boundary and boundary justificiation.
We also concur that the following properties are not eligible for listing in the National Register:
® House (Structure MA -1);
® House, 3612 Old Charlotte Highway (Structure MA -21),
♦ McCorkle House, 3609 Old Charlotte Highway (Structure ?VIA -3); and,
* House, 3606 Old Charlotte Highway (Structure MA -4).
However, before we can comment on the proposed effects on Shiloh Elementary, please submit a detailed
project proposal, including site plans showing the existing and proposed conditions and information on the
types and frequency of planes taking off and landing (current and after the proposed improvements).
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 Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Location: 109 Past ]oats Street, Ralegh NC 27601 Mailing Addres6: 4617 Mail Smice Center, Rale gh NC 27699-4617 Telephone /Fax: [phone] -6599

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill- Farley, environmental review coordinator, at 919 -807 -6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above- referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
(a, �J,
d�aj ��
Ramona M. Bartos
0
cc: Mandy Van, Monroe Historic District Commission, mvariQmonroenc.org

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona Al. Bartos, Administrator
Beverly l %aces Purdue, Governor
Linda A. Carlisle, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Daputy Secretary
October 15, 2012
Jennifer Betsworth
S &ME, Inc.
134 Suber Road
Columbia, SC 29210
Re: Charlotte - Monroe Executive Airport Extended Runway Safety Area Extension,
S &ME 1616 -12 -171, Union County, ER 12 -0982
Dear Ms. Betsworth:
office of ArchivLs and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
Thank you for your letter of August 27, 2012, which we received on October 4, 2012, transmitting additional
information concerning the above project.
As you know, the Shiloh Elementary School has been determined eligible for listing in die National Register of
Historic Places. I Iowever, since the proposed project includes only the extension of the north runway safety
area, which will have no impact on the type or frequency of air traffic, we concur with your finding that the
project will have no adverse on historic properties.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of doe National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Presentation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. if you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill- Earley, environnnental review coordinator, at 919 -807 -6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above - referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona Ito. Bartos
cc: Mandy Vari, Monroe Historic District Conunission, mvari winonroenc.org
Location, 109 1 •:ast Junes Street, Raleigh \C 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 \nail Sun ice CCAntcr, Raleigh \C, 2769()--V)17 Telephone /Fax. [phone].6599

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
MONROE
lEX(ECa1T0dl_ AURFM0IT
and
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF AVIATION
Runway 23 Extended Runway Safety Area
Monroe, North. Carolina
February 5, 2013
Date
February 5, 2013
Date
NCDOA No:. 36237.17.12.1
February 2013
Documentation Prepared by:
TALBERT, BRIGHT
& ELLING ON) INC.
Carl M. Ellington, Jr., P.E., cipal
Judith El r- Lincke, Project Manager
For the:
CHARLOTTE - MONROE EXECUTWE AIRPORT
February 5, 2013
Date Cris Plate;,`Exec}' ve D['rector of
Economic Development and Aviation
This environmental document becomes a federal document when evaluated and signed by
the responsible NCDOA official,
Rio,V J. V111 ,77
Responsible NCDOA Official Date/

Conclusion:
In conclusion,. the EA has shown that the proposed project can be completed with no significant
impact on the environment that cannot be mitigated.. All necessary. permits are expected to be
obtained without, incident and any additional mitigation measures that may be necessary will be
completed prior to, or when applicable in the construction process.
Recommendations:
After careful review of the Environmental Assessment and comments and response from the
coordination process, and the facts contained Herein, the undersigned has found that the.
proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the national and state environmental policies.
The objectives and policies, are set forth in the National Environmental Policy Act-and the North
Carolina Environmental Policy Act, and the project will not significantly affect the quality of the
natural or human environment or otherwise include any significant condition. requiring further
consultation with any federal, state, or local review agencies with the following exceptions which
shall be made a condition of the environmental approval of this project:
+ City of Monroe, or its appointed representative shall obtain any and all federal, state, or local
permits (such as burning, sediment and erosion control, NPDES general construction permit,
Section 401 Water Quality -Certification, Section 404 Clean Water Act permit, etc.,) prior to
construction of this project.
+ All necessary mitigation shall be developed and implemented prior to, or during the.
construction phase of this project.
+ To the extent practicable, every effort will be made to avoid and minimize environmental
impacts in the development of this project. The development of this project will utilize best
management practices and good construction techniques.
Additionally, as required under 49 USC 44502(b), (formerly Section 308 of the Federal Aviation
Act of 1958, as amended), the undersigned certifies that the proposed improvement project is
reasonably necessary for use in air commerce or for national defense.
After careful and thorough consideration of the facts contained herein, the undersigned finds that
the proposed Federal action is consistent with the national environmental policies and objectives
as set forth in Section 101(a) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and that
with the mitigation that is a part of the project, it will not significantly affect the quality of the
human or natural environment or otherwise include any condition requiring consultation pursuant
to Section 101 (2) (c) of NEPA. Therefore it is the undersigned's recommendation that the project
be given a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) under the provisions set forth by the State of
North Carolina Block Grant Program, and the National Environmental Policy Act.
Dion J. Viv , PE
Airport Project Manager
Division of Aviation, North Carolina Department of Transportation
Nl_%� ., __
DIVISION �ACOtF J`AVI'ATI`ON
Date
0

tl�STA16A
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor
September 28, 2012
Ms. Judith Elder - Lincke
Federal Aviation Administration
c/o Talbert & Bright
4944 Parkway Plaza Blvd.
Suite 350
Charlotte, North Carolina 28217
Moses Carey, Jr., Secretary
Re: SCH File # 13 -E- 0000 -0072; SCOPING; Proposed project is for the Charlotte- Monroe
Executive Airport Runway 23 Extended Runway Safety Area Improvements.
Dear Ms. Elder- Lincke:
The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are continents made by agencies in the course of this review. The Department of
Cultural Resources has requested additional information prior to their concurrence with the above
referenced document.
Therefore, pursuant to 1 NCAC 25 .0506(c), this office recommends that a supplemental document
providing the information requested by the Department of Cultural Resources be submitted to the
Clearinghouse for further review and comment.
Sincerely,
Crystal Best
State Environmental Review Clearinghouse
Attachments
cc: Region P
A9ailing Address: Telephone: [phone] Location Address:
1301 Mail Service Center Fax [phone] ) 6 West tones Street
Raleigh, NC 27699-1301 Slate Courier H31 -01 -00 Raleigh, North Carolina
e -mad slate clearinghouse`a),doa nc gov
11n Equal Opporlunrl),�4ffirtnauve Action Employer

Appendix C
Pages 1 -9 of Environmental Assessment
conducted by Talbert Bright & Ellington, Inc.
February 2013

Section 1
�0-0AOR� ®44�
PROPOSED ACTION M O N R O E
EXIECUTOVE AORFOD;;rr
1.1 Proposed Action
The Proposed Action includes expanding the existing Runway 23 extended runway safety
area (ERSA) from its present size of approximately 150 feet wide by 425 feet long to a
completed ERSA of 400 feet wide by 1,000 feet long. This will bring the Charlotte- Monroe
Executive Airport (EQY or the Airport) into compliance with Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) ERSA design standards. During this process, a new localizer will be
installed outside of the completed ERSA (Figure 1.1 -1, page 2). Also included will be the
construction of a new gravel access road and parking area for the proposed localizer shelter.
The new localizer will enable resumption in operation of the instrument landing system for
the Airport to allow operations in inclement weather conditions.
1.2 Responsible Reviewing Agency
The North Carolina Department of Transportation Division of Aviation (NCDOA) has
accepted the role of lead agency for the Proposed Action, as the project would involve
funding for extended runway safety area improvments through the FAA.
1.3 Human and Natural Environment Impacts
There may be a number of alternative solutions that accomplish die purpose and need of the
Proposed Action. Each alternative would impact the human and natural environment
differently, and each alternative would provide varying benefits. In developing the Proposed
Action, impacts to the human and natural environment would be minimized when avoidance
is not possible.
This environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared to comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in accordance with:
• FAA Order 5050.4B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Irastrnctims
forAirport Projects (April 28, 2006)
FAA Order 1050.1 E Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures (March 20,
2006)
• North Carolina Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (as amended, SEPA)
Runway 23 Extended Runway Safety Area
Environmental Assessment

Section 1
C4-0/RL=TTE
PROPOSED ACTION M O N R O E
EX ECUTUVE AUNF ®PST
t i
tFt T
mW
8
{
m
w
0
3s
o
0
a ..
m
w
O_
z
�o
b
Figure 1 1 -1
Charlotte- Monroe Executive Airport
Proposed Action Overview
0
se
o=
�g
0
Runway 23 Extended Runway Safety Area
Environmental Assessment 2

Section 1
PROPOSED ACTION
The purpose of the NEPA document is to provide decision makers with the best available
information so an informed decision about the Proposed Action can be made. The intent of
the NEPA is to promote better decision making by agencies when they undertake actions
that may have effects on the environment.
1.4 Evaluated Impacts
Impacts to the human and natural environment are studied through detailed analyses, as
required by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). There are three types of impacts
that may occur when an action takes place: direct, indirect, and cumulative.
• Direct impacts are caused by the Proposed Action and occur at the same time and
place (e.g., sediment runoff associated with construction).
• Indirect impacts are caused by the Proposed Action and are later in time and farther
removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect impacts may include
growth- inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern
of land use; population density; or growth rate and the related impacts on air, water,
and other natural systems, including ecosystems (e.g., runoff associated with future
runway /taxiway use).
• Cumulative impacts are impacts on the environment, which result from the
incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person
undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually
minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (e.g.,
impacts to wetlands associated with other aviation - related projects and /or private
development projects).
1.5 Avoid and Minimize Impacts to the Human and Natural
Environment
As alternatives meeting the purpose and need of the Proposed Action are identified,
avoidance of impacts would be the first consideration. Where avoidance is not possible,
impacts would be minimized to the extent practical. In seeking to minimize relevant impacts,
reasonable mitigation measures that may improve the Proposed Action would be identified.
If the Proposed Action has significant impacts, those impacts would be considered, and
mitigation measures would be developed where appropriate.
Runway 23 Extended Runway Safety Area
Environmental Assessment 3

Section 2
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
2.1 Purpose of the Environmental Assessment
CKARLDTrE
MONROE
EAECUTUVE AORTF®R T
The purpose of the EA is to determine if the runway safety area improvements at EQY
would significantly impact the quality of environmental resources within the Proposed
Action study area. The City of Monroe, operating as the airport sponsor, is seeking
environmental acceptance from the NCDOA for the proposed runway safety area
improvements. To ascertain this for the Airport, the EA contains a level of analysis
necessary to achieve the following.
• Identify and satisfy special purpose federal, state, and local rules and regulations
applicable to the Proposed Action
• Coordinate and solicit comments from local, state, and federal agencies concerning
planned improvements for the recommended airport development plan
• Provide a review of current and planned conditions to establish a baseline for any
subsequent environmental requirements
• Prepare sufficient analysis for the NCDOA to support a conclusion of a Finding of
No Significant Impact (FONSI) to the EA or determine whether further
environmental analysis is required as part of an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS)
• Identify any applicable permits, certifications, licenses, or other entitlements required
by the Proposed Action
• Identify development recommendations that may require more extensive
environmental analysis, along with possible mitigation strategies
This EA utilizes a systematic interdisciplinary approach and involves local, state, and federal
officials, as well as firms or individuals having expertise in identifying environmental issues.
The environmental document and consultation process are to provide officials, airport
representatives, and members of the public with an understanding of the potential
environmental impacts of the Proposed Action.
As part of the environmental process, it is the objective of the Airport to enhance
environmental quality and avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts in a manner
consistent with the NCDOA's mission to provide for the safety of aircraft operations.
Runway 23 Extended Runway Safety Area
Environmental Assessment 4

Section 2�L "—
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION EXECUTOVE AU F®usv
2.2 Purpose and Need of the Proposed Action
The Charlotte- Monroe Executive Airport extended Runway 05/23 in 2011 from 5,500 feet
long by 100 feet wide to 7,000 feet long by 100 feet wide with a parallel taxiway system. The
runway was extended to accommodate short- and long -term aviation demand of the region,
meet the needs of existing airport users, and support the regional growth and development
in accordance with the local comprehensive plans of the City of Monroe and Union County.
Although the runway was extended in 2011, the ERSA for the Runway 23 end was not
extended to meet FAA design standards. According to FAA Advisory Circular 95015300 -13 —
Airport Design (Changes 1 -18)' and based on the existing airport design standard dimensions,
the ERSA should be 400 feet wide and 1,000 feet long on either end of Runway 05/23 for a
C -II airport reference code (ARC) and should be:
• Cleared, graded, and have no potentially hazardous ruts, humps, depressions, or
other surface variations
• Drained by grading or storm sewers to prevent water accumulation
• Capable, under dry conditions, of supporting snow removal equipment, aircraft
rescue and firefighting equipment, and the occasional passage of aircraft without
causing structural damage to the aircraft
• Free of objects, except for objects that need to be located in the runway safety area
because of their function
The runway safety area improvements required for Runway 23 at EQY are considered an
enhanced safety project under FAA guidelines.
Federal ,A-6ation ,Administration, ",Adxnsory Circular 150/5300 -13 — ,Airport Design, Changes 1 -18,"
December 30, 2011, <htrp: / /,,vw\v.fan.gov / >, accessed ,August 29, 2012.
Runway 23 Extended Runway Safety Area
Environmental Assessment

Section 3
ALTERNATIVES
3.1 Alternatives Analysis
CHARLOTTE
MONROE
EXIEC ATUVE AIRPO63r
Reasonable alternatives are those that meet the underlying purpose and need for the
Proposed Action and that would cause a reasonable person to inquire further before
choosing a particular course of action. If a large number of reasonable alternatives are
identified, limited alternatives may be selected for detailed environmental analysis to a
reasonable range or to a reasonable number of examples covering the full spectrum of
alternatives.
3.2 Reasonable Development Alternatives for Runway Safety Area
Improvements of Runway 23
In an effort to meet FAA requirements, several alternatives were evaluated to extend the
Runway 23 ERSA to 1,000 feet in length including:
o Alternative 1 — displace the threshold on Runway 23 by 575 feet, leaving the existing
ERSA at 475 feet in length.
O Alternative 2 — installation of an engineered material arresting system (EMAS)
• Alternative 3 — extend the existing ERSA 575 feet to an ultimate length of 1,000 feet.
3.2.1 No- Action Alternative
The No- Action Alternative is considered the basis of comparison for evaluating the benefits
and impacts of other reasonable alternatives. The No- Action Alternative is also defined as
the do nothing alternative, which means no major changes to the existing use of the property.
The No -Action Alternative would not improve the ERSA to meet FAA standards. This
alternative is mandated to be considered as part of this EA to provide baseline information
and consider the ramifications of a decision not to perform the runway safety area
improvements.
3.2.2 Alternative 1— Displace the Threshold on Runway 23 by 575 Feet
The ERSA for Runway 23 extends 425 feet beyond the end of the runway. The ARC for
EQY is a C -II, and FAA Advisog Circular 15015300 -13 — Airport Design (Changes 1 -18) states
that the ERSA should extend 1,000 feet beyond the end of the runway for a C -II airport.
Currently, the following declared distances cover the deficiency of the ERSA (Table 3.2.2 -1,
page 7).
Runway 23 Extended Runway Safety Area
Environmental Assessment 6

Section 3
ALTERNATIVES
MONROE
O;= 3stECUTONE AURFORT
In order to comply with FAA Advisory Circular 15015300 -13 - Air
iort Design (Changes 1 -18),
Runway 23 threshold would have to be displaced 575 feet. However, FAA Advisory Circular
15015300 -13 - Airport Design (Changes 1 -18) also states threshold displacement should be
undertaken only after a full evaluation reveals that displacement is the only practical
alternative. Displacement of the threshold will reduce the length of Runway 23 landing
distance available from 7,000 feet to 6,425 feet. However, there would be no change to the
other declared distances.
Displacing the threshold would require numerous expenses. In order to achieve a runway
with uniform markings, the entire runway would need to be completely stripped of the
existing airfield pavement markings and new pavement markings painted. It would also
require new threshold lights and changing the lenses on existing threshold lights and runway
lights to indicate a displaced threshold. The existing runway end indicator lights (REIL) and
precision approach path indicator lights (PAPI) would also need to be relocated due to the
new threshold position. A new RNAV approach would need to be prepared for the
displaced landing threshold.
3.2.3 Alternative 2 — Installation of an Engineered Material Arresting
System (EMAS)
An EMAS is designed to stop an overrunning aircraft by exerting predictable deceleration
forces on its landing gear as the EMAS material crushes. The EMAS is located beyond the
end of the runway, centered on the extended runway centerline, and beginning some
distance (100 feet or more) from the end of the runway to avoid damage because of jet blast
or short landings. The minimum width of the EMAS is the width of the runway. The system
is designed to arrest aircraft types using a runway at exit speeds of up to 70 knots. EMAS
uses a patented cellular- cement system jointly developed and tested by Engineered Arresting
Systems Corporation and FAA. Costs for EMAS vary greatly depending on the condition of
the existing overrun, mix of aircraft to be controlled, available run -out distance, cost and
Runway 23 Extended Runway Safety Area
Environmental Assessment
Table 3.2.2 -1
Declared Distances
Charlotte- Monroe Executive Air ort
tDescri�tioii
iuriova05 ';
°Ruriwa` 23`
TORA
7,000'
7,000'
TODA
7000'
7000'
ASDA
6 425'
7,000'
LDA
6:425'
7,000'
TORA
- Takeoff Run Available
TODA
- Takeoff Distance Available
ASDA
- Accelerate Stop Distance Available
LDA -
Landing Distance Available
Source: Talbert & Bright, Inc. (August 2012).
MONROE
O;= 3stECUTONE AURFORT
In order to comply with FAA Advisory Circular 15015300 -13 - Air
iort Design (Changes 1 -18),
Runway 23 threshold would have to be displaced 575 feet. However, FAA Advisory Circular
15015300 -13 - Airport Design (Changes 1 -18) also states threshold displacement should be
undertaken only after a full evaluation reveals that displacement is the only practical
alternative. Displacement of the threshold will reduce the length of Runway 23 landing
distance available from 7,000 feet to 6,425 feet. However, there would be no change to the
other declared distances.
Displacing the threshold would require numerous expenses. In order to achieve a runway
with uniform markings, the entire runway would need to be completely stripped of the
existing airfield pavement markings and new pavement markings painted. It would also
require new threshold lights and changing the lenses on existing threshold lights and runway
lights to indicate a displaced threshold. The existing runway end indicator lights (REIL) and
precision approach path indicator lights (PAPI) would also need to be relocated due to the
new threshold position. A new RNAV approach would need to be prepared for the
displaced landing threshold.
3.2.3 Alternative 2 — Installation of an Engineered Material Arresting
System (EMAS)
An EMAS is designed to stop an overrunning aircraft by exerting predictable deceleration
forces on its landing gear as the EMAS material crushes. The EMAS is located beyond the
end of the runway, centered on the extended runway centerline, and beginning some
distance (100 feet or more) from the end of the runway to avoid damage because of jet blast
or short landings. The minimum width of the EMAS is the width of the runway. The system
is designed to arrest aircraft types using a runway at exit speeds of up to 70 knots. EMAS
uses a patented cellular- cement system jointly developed and tested by Engineered Arresting
Systems Corporation and FAA. Costs for EMAS vary greatly depending on the condition of
the existing overrun, mix of aircraft to be controlled, available run -out distance, cost and
Runway 23 Extended Runway Safety Area
Environmental Assessment

Section 3
ALTERNATIVES
availability of support labor, and on-
site storage space available at the
airport. Typical EMAS installation
costs vary from $2 million to $4
million plus site preparation costs.
3.2.4 Alternative 3 —Extend
the Existing ERSA 575
Feet
As stated above, the minimum
required ERSA dimensions for the
existing airfield use are 400 feet wide
by 1,000 feet long. This alternative
requires constructing an additional
575 -47oot Bon ERSA be and the
CHARLOTTE
MONROE
EXECUTIVE AIRPORT
TYPICAL PLAN VIEW
- ----- - RUNWAY SAFETY AREA LENGTH
TYPICAL ELEVATION VIEW
DEBRIS DEFLECTOR
LEAD IN RAMP / OVER CONCRETE BEAM
AARESTOR BED
BASE SURFACE
SIDESTEPS
g Y
existing ERSA. Figure 3.2.4 -1 (page
9) depicts the anticipated construction area for this alternative. The estimate of probable
projects costs for this alternative is included in Table 3.2.4 -1 (page 10).
3.3 Reasonable Alternatives for the Proposed Action
Of the reasonable alternatives considered, the No- Action Alternative and Alternative 3
(Extend the Existing ERSA 575 Feet) were identified for further consideration and are
evaluated separately in Section 4 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
(page 11). Although Alternative 3 (Extend the Existing ERSA 575 Feet) involves more
impacts than the No- Action Alternative, from an initial evaluation of environmental
thresholds, Alternative 3 (Extend the Existing ERSA 575 Feet) is not viewed as
insurmountable by type or intensity. Accordingly, Alternative 3 (Extend the Existing ERSA
575 Feet) is viewed as offering the safest, most economically responsive, and most
environmentally plausible alternative available to EQY for meeting Section 2 — Purpose and
Need for the Proposed Action (page 4). Consequently, Section 4 — Affected Environment
and Environmental Consequences (page 11) advances Alternative 3 (Extend the Existing
ERSA 575 Feet) as the Airport's Proposed Action.
Runway 23 Extended Runway Safety Area
Environmental Assessment 8

Section 3
ALTERNATIVES
}
k"
O�tt t
' I
c
Figure 3.2.4 -1
Charlotte- Monroe Executive Airport
Extend Existing ERSA 575 -Feet
Runway 23 Extended Runway Safety Area
Environmental Assessment 9

Appendix D
Agent Authorization Form

ENq
4"t
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
Date: 5 -24 -12
Project Information
Project Name: Charlotte- Monroe Executive Airport ERSA Project
Type of Project: Jurisdictional Delineation or Permitting for Wetland /Stream Impacts
Location: Monroe, Monroe County, North Carolina
Yrooerty Uwner /Keoresentative lntormatlon
Business Name: Charlotte- Monroe Executive Airport/City of Monroe
Mailing Address: Post Office Box 69
City, State, Zip Code: Monroe, NC 29811
Telephone No. 704- 226 -2300
Contact: Chris Plate, Airport Director
Aizent Information
Business Name:
S &ME, Inc.
Street Address:
134 Suber Road
City, State, Zip Code:
Columbia, SC 29210
Telephone No.
803.561 -9024
Contact:
Chris Daves, P.W.S.; cdav_es smeinc.com_
CAOf VW%06 ___hereby authorize
(Nam of Landowner or Project Sponsor)
S &ME to act as agent with the USACE in connection with the above -
mentioned project.