19960975 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19960925

Project Team Communication
Hobbs Upchurch
& Associates, P.A.
290 SW Broad St.
P.O. Box 1737
Southern Pines, NC 28388
910 692-5616
Fax [phone]
Columbus County Airport
Subject
Environmental Assessment
Response to Wetlands Comments
95-004
Communication No.
November 13. 1995 CC9201
Date Job Number
Eric Galamb and Keith Ashley
To
Marcus A. Jones
Frm
Signature
Distribution
Rick Barkes, NCDOT Division of Aviation
Dempsey Herring, Columbus County
file
This communication summarizes our meeting Thursday, November 9, 1995 regarding the
wetlands located on the Columbus County Airport.
1. We decided the Environmental Assessment should be for both the proposed runway
extension and the proposed parallel taxiway. In addition, the permit and any subsequent
mitigation needs to be for all the proposed construction. Therefore, all impacted wetlands due
to the runway extension and the parallel taxiway will be addressed up front in one permit.
2. I discussed the probable time line for the two projects. The runway extension will be
constructed next year. However, the parallel taxiway is at least five years from construction.
This will allow for the use of the natural wetlands to be impacted by the taxiway for at least
five more years.
3. In addition to the five year future for the taxiway, we agreed to a three phased
construction which divides the taxiway into a west, middle and east section. The east section
has by far the greatest potential wetland impact, approximately 9 acres. The middle section
will impact approximately 2 acres, and the west will not impact any wetlands not already
impacted by the construction of the turn-around-taxiway during the construction of the
runway extension. Obviously, the east section will be the last built again allowing for the use
of natural wetlands for the longest amount of time possible. Also due to the cost of mitigation
for the east section, it will probably be determined the cost is not practical and this section will
not be constructed.
Thank you and please call if you have any questions.
MAJ/c .4
R'se"11"
yp??L?, 6
? t") 19
RO 9S
OctFNO?s
Mate of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Henry M. Lancaster II, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee 04-1
Project Review Coordinator
DEHNR
RECEIVED
OCS 19 1994
ENviRONMENTAL SCIENCES
RE: 95-0159 EA Columbus County Airport Improvements,
Columbus County
DATE: October 14, 1994
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed project.
The environmental assessment did not adequately address
departmental issues. Before concurring with the finding of no
significant impact, there are several points that will need further
clarification, as noted in the attached comments from the Division
of Environmental Management and the N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission. This department encourages the applicant to work with
these reviewers prior to submitting further documentation through
the State Clearinghouse. Concurrence with the project will be
conditional upon our comments being satisfactorily addressed.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. If this office can
be of further assistance, please let me know.
attachments
cc: Keith Ashley
Eric Galamb V
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

E0 North Carolina Wildlife Resources ConmAssion
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Policy Development
DEHNR
FROM: Keith W. Ashley, District 4 Fisheries Biologist
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
DATE: September 15, 1994
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment (EA) Review for the Proposed Columbus County
Airport Runway Extension, Whiteville, Columbus County, North Carolina. Office
of Policy Development Project No. 95-0159.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (N.C.W.RC.) has reviewed the
subject document for the proposed runway extension at the Columbus County Airport and is
familiar with habitat values associated with the proposed project area. These comments are
provided in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U. S.C. 4332(2) (c)) and
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U. S. C. 661 et
seq. ).
Columbus County, in, association with the N.C. Department of Transportation, is
proposing to extend the runway of the Columbus County Airport from its current length of 3,700
feet to 5,000 feet, with an ultimate length of 5,500 feet. The proposed project will also involve
widening the runway from 75 feet to 100 feet, providing turnarounds to the extension, and
ultimately, providing a full parallel taxiway.
The EA is generally well,written and provides a good description of proposed project
alternatives. Unfortunately, the document does not provide sufficient information for a
determination regarding the extent of adverse impacts on wildlife, fisheries, and wetland resources
in the proposed project area. In addition, the natural resources associated with the proposed
construction corridor have not been adequately described nor does the document adequately
address all environmental concerns or the total loss of wetlands which may result from the
proposed project. The N.C.W.RC. is concerned over impacts to fisheries, wildlife, and wetland
resources within and adjacent to the proposed construction corridor.
We agree the selected alternative, involving extension of the runway to 5,000 feet and
ultimately, to 5,500 feet, is the least environmentally damaging alternative and as presented,
should have minor adverse impacts on fisheries and wildlife resources. However, during the initial
Scoping Request phase of the project we requested the applicant submit a detailed wetlands map
;4
` Columbus Co. Airport Extension Memo 2 September 15, 1994
of the project area delineating the types and locations of all wetlands on the site that may be
impacted by the project. While the wetlands map accompanying the project documentation does
indeed identify the types and locations of all wetlands on the site, it does not specify the location
of the 4 ac of jurisdictional wetlands that will be impacted by the project. Without knowing the
location of these 4 ac of jurisdictional wetlands, or the types of impacts that will occur to them
(stream relocation, wetland fill, etc.), we cannot concur with the EA as written. Furthermore, we
recommend all wetland impacts be mitigated on a minimum 2:1 basis and not 1:1 as indicated in
the project documentation.
Measures to avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive resources, including wetlands, should
be implemented during facility construction. Where impacts to wetlands are unavoidable, the
N.C.W.RC. will recommend mitigation of the losses. Professional wildlife and fisheries biologists
should be consulted if aquatic, wetland, or terrestrial habitats are affected by these types of
development.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this EA. If we can provide
further assistance, please contact Keith W. Ashley, N.C.W.RC. District 4 Fisheries Biologist at
919-866-4250 or N.C.W.RC. Habitat Conservation Program Manager Frank McBride at 919-
528-9886 or 919-733-3633.
cc: Frank McBride, Habitat Conservation Program Manager
Keith W. Ashley, District 4 Fisheries Biologist
Tom Padgett, District 4 Wildlife Biologist

:\??\i ? i?•!;? I III\??i i?;.:il .. .?'.)
(rater-Agency Pro)eca l\cvicw Responsc
i
?"(liIllCV

ct Nzn-: C47,,,, 4.45 Type of Project J0
-- The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications for all water system
r
-? improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to.the-award
of a contract or the initiation of construction (as required by 15A NCAC 18C.0300 et. seq.).
For information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
- This-project will be classified as a non-community pubic water supply and must comply with
r
?
?--J state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the applicant
should contact the Public Water Supple Section, [phone].
?-- if this project is constructed as proposed; we will recommend closure of feet-of adjacerit
arding the shellfish sanitation progra
formation -e
i
F
llfi
h
h
f
L
? .
g
or
n
s
.
e
s
waters to the harvest o
- m, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Branch at [phone].
---, The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this project rna:• produce a mosquito breeding-problem.
r
?--? For information concerning appropriate mosquito _onrrol measures, the applicant -should`_
contact the Public Health Pest Managem°.nt- Section =t (919) 726-897C.
-- The applicant should be advised that prior to she removal or demolition of dilapidated:
l
? structures, an extensive rodent control program ma: be necessary in order to prevent the
rodent--control;
concernin
tion
:
Th
g
.
e
n-forma
migration of the rodents tc adiacen areas.
contact the local health department or the Public Hz-alth Pest Management.Sectiontat (919)
733-6407.
1--? The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their
--? requirements for septic. tank installations (as requirea.under 15A NCAC 18A .1900
For information concerning septic tank and other or-site waste disposal methods, contact the
On-Site Wastewater Section at. (919) -i33-2895.
?-? The applicant should be advised to contract the local health department regarding the sanitary
=-? facilities required for this project.
If existing water lines will be relocates: during th-_ construction, plaps far the water line
i---? relocation must be submitted to the Division of En- ironmental Health, Public Water Supply
Section, Plan Review Branch, 1330 St. Mary's Street ,\aleigh, North Carolina, [phone]
?evieaiei S ction/I3 ranch ate
#-# 0
6
10/141/94 14:31 V919 733 9959
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
October 14, 1994
MEMORANDUM
00
LDEHNF
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn?}?
Monica Swihart
From: Eric Galamq
Subject: EA for Columbus County Airport Improvements
Columbus County
EHNR # 95-0159, DEM WO # 10741
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact of waters of the state including
wetlands. The subject project as proposed would impact 4 acres of wetlands.
DEM is concerned that the wetland survey was competed in late 1992, yet the COE
since that time has not certified that the wetland survey is accurate. DEM is not
assured that the wetland impacts are accurate, and therefore may not concur with the
EA. The EA did not address any of the topics requested for discussion in DEM's April
9, 1992 scoping letter except for subsections i, v, and vi of topic H. The missing
discussions should be sent to DEM prior to the FONSI, and included in the FONSI.
DEM requests that sediment and erosion control measures be kept out of wetlands
whenever possible. The measures should be placed just upslope of the wetlands.
DEM requests that wetland minimization efforts be undertaken. Such measures
should not be limited to, but include siting the taxiway to minimize wetland impacts,
maximize the taxiway slopes and locating the terminal facility including hangers out of
wetlands.
DOT should develop a mitigation plan for the wetland impacts. The mitigation plan
should be submitted to DEM for review and comment. The project sponsor should be
aware that a mitigation ratio of 1:1 may not be unacceptable.
This project will require a 401 Certification. Application for Certification may be made
before the FONSI but DEM cannot issue the 401 until the document has cleared the
State Clearinghouse. The sponsor will need to inform DEM when the document has.
INL DL31 "W h-Al'Ji-1
LIE] V V 1
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 5096 recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
10/14/94 14:32 V919 733 9959 NC DEM WQ E\`'SCI 0002
Alf
Melba McGee Memo
October 14, 1994
Page 2
Until the above concerns are adequately addressed to the satisfaction of DEM, we do
not concur with the EA and would not concur with a FONSI. Please be advised that
this review of the EA by DEM does not preclude the denial of a 401 Certification upon
application if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to the maximum
extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb in DEM's
Water Quality Planning Branch.
colbairp.ea

I I
State of North Carolina Reviewing Office: 1( 1
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources M r? e,
Proj tumber: Due D e:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS ? _ ?/s ?. ^)
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
M the form
Questions regaroing inese perrnnb Jnuuiu Uc 0 u.GaocvzP,••? 1.? .? ...-- . ------
All applications. information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Ncrmal Prpcess
Regional Office. Time
is:atulory time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREt.AENTS lim t
Permit to construct & operate waste.•:ater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award o` 30 da..s
sever system extensions. 6 sewer
facilities construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
_ .
svstems not dischargino into stale surface waters. technical conference usual ;90 da7s)
NPDES permit to discnarce into surace water and!or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection 90-12C nays
permit :o oceraie and construct was--%ater facilities Pre-applicatto^ conference usual. Additionally. ootain permit
d schar _ "_ s;>: - "a-< :. at=rs construct :.as-.e':.ater treatment facilily-grantee after NPDES reply N ...
time. 30 days after receipt cf plans or issue of NPDES
permit-svh!c)'._:er is latter.
30 ca, s
- ter use Porn i
dil Pre-acplica:,o" technical cc-erencc usually necessary
a 04
7 ca:s
- ;ell Gcr.succtar. Perm;; Compiete ac; ::cation must to received and permit issuec
prior to the i'stal!ation of a :veil.
(i5 cars
Application copy must be s.:ed on each adjacent r pa-art c =:)eriy 55 _a,s
On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual =fling
owner
-
_ Dredge anc F l' Perm.: .
may require casement to F:! from N.C. Department of t90 cars
Administra:,on and Feoeral Dredge and Fill Permit.
_ Permit to --cnstruct operate Air Po!iution Abatement 60 oa's
90 ca
s
facilities a..,, or Emission Szurces as ,:er 15A NCAC 21H.DE N:A. .:
:
;
open ourn:ng asscc;a*.ec : tth sup!ect proposal
_ must to m comp: ante :.r.n 15A NCAC 2D.0520.
Demolition or renc+auor.s of structures containing
60 ca
s
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A r
- NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal N A

- prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
919-733-0820. (9C aays

Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D.0800
edimenta: :
T e Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion: 5
^
ired if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (.Land Quality Sec' at least 3
ill 20 days
be requ
control plan :,
oa s before pedrnn:ne activity. A iee of S30 for the firs; ace and 520.00 for each additional acre or part must accompar; : - pla^ (30 ca •s,
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: 130 days)
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bone amount
Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land ;ny area 30 days
- mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropr•rte bond 160 days)
must be received before the permit can be issued.
i On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
t
North Carolina Burning perm (N'A)
- exceeds 4 days
- Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more 1 day
counties in coastal N C :vitn organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved Ins:,ections IN A)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is cianned.
90.120 days
Oil Refining Facilities NIA iN.'A)
If permit required. application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans. 30 days
-?
,
;
Dam Safety Permit
inspect construction. certify construction is according to EHNR approv
- ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And (60 days)
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces-
sary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of 5200.00 must ac-
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
Continued or. reverse
I }
C
L_

Normal Process I
Time
(statutory time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
File surety bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to State of N.C. 10 Gays
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon IN A)
abandonment. be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at lean 10'days prior to issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. (N r
State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include 15-20 days
descriptions 8 orawings of structure 8 proof of ownership (N A)
of riparian property.
60 oays
401 :Dater Quality Certification NIA (130 says)
55 cars
CA :+A Perms 'or MAJOR development S250.00 fee mus: accompany application )150 says)
22 g' : s
C '. Perm • '. MINOR deveiopmen: 550 00 fee mus accompany apph a:ion r25 caysi
Se._•al geoceuc monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to de mowed or destroyed. please notify.
N.C. Geodetic Survey. Box 27687. Raleigh. N.C 27611
Accra gonment G' any v:ells, ii required. must be in accordance wain Title 15A. Subghapter 2C.0100.
Nc:.',cation r, ,. e proper rec ona! o"ice is requested if orphan undergrourc storage tanks (USTS) are discover-_c during an,., excavation opera:.--n.
ay5
..
Co-pl ance :with 15A NCAC 2H.1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is requirea. N Al
O:-_• comments .attach adcihonal pages as necessary. being certain to cite =ornm_n: authority):
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional marked below.
Offiicce
C Asheville Regional Office l
I Fayetteville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Asheville. NC 28801 Fayetteville. NC 28301
[phone] [phone]
C Mooresville Regional Office Raleigh Regional office
919 North Main Street, P.O. Box 950 3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
Mooresville. NC 28115 Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone] [phone]
? Wilmington Regional Office
LJ Washington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Washington, NC 27889 Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone] [phone]
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
8025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
.hState of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources O
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor [D E ['N] f?
Jonathan B. Howes, , Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
October 14, 1994
MEMORANDUM ..
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorne
Monica Swihart
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: EA for Colum us County Airport Improvements
Columbus County
EHNR # 95-0159, DEM WQ # 10741
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact of waters of the state including
wetlands. The subject project as proposed would impact 4 acres of wetlands.
DEM is concerned that the wetland survey was competed in late 1992, yet the COE
since that time has not certified that the wetland survey is accurate. DEM is not
assured that the wetland impacts are accurate, and therefore may not.concur with the
EA. The EA did not address any of the topics requested for discussion in DEM's April
9, 1992 scoping letter except for subsections i, v, and vi of topic H. The missing
discussions should be sent to DEM prior to the FONSI, and included in the FONSI.
DEM requests that sediment and erosion control measures be kept out of wetlands
whenever possible. The measures should be placed just upslope of the wetlands.
DEM requests that wetland minimization efforts be undertaken. Such n, -asures
should not be limited to, but include siting the taxiway to minimize wetland impacts,
maximize the taxiway slopes and locating the terminal facility including hangers out of
wetlands.
DOT should develop a mitigation plan for the wetland impacts. The mitigation plan
should be submitted to DEM for review and comment. The project sponsor should be
aware that a mitigation ratio of 1:1 may not be-Wacceptable.
This project will require a 401 Certification. Application for Certification may be made
before the FONSI but DEM cannot issue the 401 until the document has cleared the
State Clearinghouse. The sponsor will need to inform DEM when the document has
cleared so that the 401 can be issued.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
, A :-
Melba McGee Memo
October 14, 1994
Page 2
Until the above concerns are adequately addressed to the satisfaction of DEM, we do
not concur with the EA and would not concur with a FONSI. Please be advised that
this review of the EA by DEM does not preclude the denial of a 401 Certification upon
application if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to the maximum
extent practicable.
M
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb in DEM's
Water Quality Planning Branch.
colbairp.ea
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., RE., Director
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn
Monica Swihart
From: Eric Galaml4- 1
Subject: EA for Columbus
Columbus County
EHNR # 95-0159,
October 14, 1994
Al ?
C)EHNR
County Airport Improvements
DEM WQ # 10741
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact of waters of the state including
wetlands. The subject project as proposed would impact 4 acres of wetlands.
DEM is concerned that the wetland survey was competed in late 1992, yet the COE
since that time has not certified that the wetland survey is accurate. DEM is not
assured that the wetland impacts are accurate, and therefore may not concur with the
EA. The EA did not address any of the topics requested for discussion in DEM's April
9, 1992 scoping letter except for subsections i, v, and vi of topic H. The missing
discussions should be sent to DEM prior to the FONSI, and included in the FONSI.
DEM requests that sediment and erosion control measures be kept out of wetlands
whenever possible. The measures should be placed just upslope of the wetlands.
DEM requests that wetland minimization efforts be undertaken. Such measures
should not be limited to, but include siting the taxiway to minimize wetland impacts,
maximize the taxiway slopes and locating the terminal facility including hangers out of
wetlands.
DOT should develop a mitigation plan for the wetland impacts. The mitigation plan
should be submitted to DEM for review and comment. The project sponsor should be
aware that a mitigation ratio of 1:1 may not be unacceptable.
This project will require a 401 Certification. Application for Certification may be made
before the FONSI but DEM cannot issue the 401 until the document has cleared the
State Clearinghouse. The sponsor will need to inform DEM when the document has
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
-,, . w 3
Melba McGee Memo
October 14, 1994
Page 2
Until the above concerns are adequately;addressed to the satisfaction of DEM, we do
not concur with the EA and would not concur with a FONSI. Please be advised that
this review of the EA by DEM does not preclude the denial of a 401 Certification upon
application if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to the maximum
extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb in DEM's
Water Quality Planning Branch.
colbairp.ea

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Ja mes B. Hunt, Jr., G ove mor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
July 18, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorneyqu
From: Greg Price X.I
Subject: Columbus County Airport FONSI
ColumbusCounty
EHNR #96-0830
fflI.9;WA
IT41 0
[D EHN1zI
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for
activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands. The following comments are
offered in response to the FONSI.
1. A tabular accounting of wetland fill from both the proposed runway extension and
parallel taxiway should have been included in the FONSI. Total impacts should be
approximately 2.8 acres from runway extension construction and approximately 11 acres
from taxiway construction (from memo by Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates dated 13
November 1995). A detailed map showing wetlands to be impacted from taxiway
construction should have also been included in this document.
2. The mitigation ratio for wetlands impacted will be determined during the permitting
phase.
The applicant is reminded that endorsement of an EA/FONSI by DWQ would not preclude
the denial of a 401 Certification upon application if wetland impacts have not been avoided
and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Questions regarding the 401
Certification should be directed to Greg Price (733-1786) in DWQ's Environmental
Sciences Branch.
cc: Michelle Suverkrubbe
Jim Gregson, Wilmington DWQ Regional Office
Environmental Sciences Branch 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
State of North Carolina IT I
Department of Environment, F
MA
Health and Natural Resources / • •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor p E H N F=?
Jonathan B. Howes, , Secretary A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
November 21, 1995
Mr. Marcus Jones
Hobbs, Upchurch and Associates
290 S.W. Broad Street
P.O. Box 1737
Southern Pines NC 28388
Dear Mr. Jones:
A meeting was held on November 9, 1995 to discuss concerns
that the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) had
concerning the Columbus County Airport Expansion. Your meeting
minutes accurately reflect the concerns and the solutions that we
agreed to. Therefore, providing that satisfactory answers to the
comments on the EA and the solutions presented in the November
13, 1995 minutes, DEM probably will agree to a FONSI.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at (919)
733-1786.
Sincerely,
f - / /
Eric Galamb
Environmental Specialist
cc: Melba McGee
Keith Ashley, WRC
colap.com
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh. North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 1096 post-consumer paper

lee,
Sa
Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P.A.
Consulting Engineers
290 S.W. Broad Street • Post Office Box 1.737 • Southern Pines, NC 28388
October 13, 1995 RECEIVED
OCT 101995
Mr. Eric Galamb ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
n n , nL,l
Wetland Specialist
Department of Environmental Management
P. O. Box 29535
Raleigh, N. C. 27626-0535
Re: REPONSE TO D.E.M. COMMENTS ON THE COLUMBUS COUNTY
AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, PROJECT NO. 95-0159
HUA No. CC9201
Dear Mr. Galamb:
We apologize for the delay in addressing your comments on the above mentioned project;
the funding for the project has just recently become available. The project's
Environmental Assessment has become active again as a result. In response to the
comments, we have the following additional information:
1. We have enclosed an updated copy of the wetlands map of the runway extension site.
The site was revisited by our biologist, Dr. Jay Carter to survey the wetlands beyond the
airport boundary lines. These new areas are included on the enclosed wetlands map which
has been reviewed and signed by the Corps of Engineers. The 4 ac mentioned in the draft
EA is the amount of wetlands the extension of the runway will impact; 4 ac is a very
conservative estimate. With the information from the latest wetlands map dated 9/29/95,
only approximately 2.8 ac will be impacted (note copy of wetlands map with impact
highlighted). Please note, the exact acreage of the impact on wetlands will be determined
from the grading plan during the design phase of the project. Only the exact impact from
the design phase will be used for the wetlands permit process. Also note, the runway
extension is the only consideration for this Environmental Assessment; the parallel taxiway
will be considered at a later date if funding becomes available and necessary
environmental measures will be pursued and/or repeated at that time. A third
consideration to note, all of the wetlands impacted will be by fill or cut due to the
earthwork necessary to grade the runway extension. Due to the wetland impact, we will
grade the runway extension and the parallel taxiway for minimum impact on the wetlands.
The slopes used will be as steep as the FAA Advisory Circular, AC 150/5300-13 will
allow and still produce a safe operating platform for the aircraft.
Southern Pines, NC Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
Winston-Salem, NC Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
Myrtle Beach, SC Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
Mr. Galamb
October 13, 1995
Page 2
2. The list below is the missing disscussions responding to your April 9, 1992 scoping
letter.
A. Will deicing agents be used? No.
B. Please identify borrow locations. A more accurate location will be available
after the grading plan has been complete. However preliminary the the plan's
completion, we can assure that the borrow locations will be on the airport property
and will not impact wetlands.
C. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. There are no
impacted streams.
D. Identify the linear feet of stream channelization/relocations. There are no
impacted streams.
E. Number of stream crossings. None
E Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to be employed
The temporary stormwater controls used during construction of the runway
extension will be in accordance with the erosion control permit to be submitted
prior to construction. The permanent controls will consist of a continuation of the
existing grass Swale sized to the applicable design storm. Another permanent
control will be a closed drainage structure to remove stormwater from the center
of the turn around taxiway located at the end of the extension; it will be similar to
the existing turn around taxiway.
Mr. Galamb
October 13, 1995
Page 3
Thank you for your comments on the above mentioned project. We hope this letter
responds adequately to your concerns and will allow for your concurrence with the
Columbus County Airport Environmental Assessment. We would appreciate your written
response to this letter and will incorporate it as with your original comments and this letter
to the final EA document. Again, thank you and please do not hesitate to call if you have
any further questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
HOBBS, UPCHURCH AND ASSOCIATES, P. A.
Marcus A. Jones, E. I. T.
Project Manager
MAJ\maj
Enclosures
cc: Rick Barkes, NCDOT Division of Aviation
• .ory
1: r. t u" w.
a
,I
? a J
•a tr? ??? I ? ?
.•t 4 ' ti
W
a
d u N .
• r:
•w
s ti ? \ y ? ?. . 1 ?. J
U)
ol?
w
uj
z
0
z
w
ll.
0
U)
Cl
cr
0
ir
Q
N?
W
0
U
y.
r ? .a

FILE
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: Keith W. Ashley, District 4 Fisheries Biologist
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
DATE: October 23, 1995
SUBJECT: Additional Comments Concerning the Environmental Assessment (EA) Review for
the Proposed Columbus County Airport Runway Extension, Whiteville, Columbus
County, North Carolina. Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs Project
No. 95-0159.
This correspondence is to advise you that after review of additional information (wetland
maps) provided by Mr. Marcus A. Jones, (E.I.T.) of Hobbs, Upchurch and Associates, P.A., our
concerns regarding the proposed Columbus County Airport Runway Extension project have still
not been satisfactorily resolved. In his letter dated October 13, 1995, Mr. Jones states that "only
approximately 2.8 ac of 404 wetlands will be impacted" by the first phase of the project. He also
states that "the runway extension is the only consideration for this Environmental Assessment;
the parallel taxiway will be considered at a later date if funding becomes available and necessary
environmental measures will be pursued and/or repeated at that time". However, after careful
review of the wetland maps, it appears.that wetlands impacts associated with wetland area 1 have
been underestimated and that more than 2.8 ac of wetlands will be impacted by the first phase of
the project. Also, it would appear that wetland impacts associated with wetland area 2 (parallel
taxiway construction - phase 2) are potentially greater than the total wetland impacts associated
with phase 1 of the project. Consequently, we feel that all phases of development associated with
this project should be handled under a single 404 wetlands permit application and recommend that
either a Final Environmental Assessment or Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) be
prepared to address the total adverse impacts associated with this project. Mitigative measures
proposed to avoid and/or compensate for adverse impacts to wetlands should also be described.
Finally, Mr. Jones states that `eve will certainly mitigate any wetlands impacted at the ratio
required by the appropriate permit As we recommended in our earlier comments, all wetland
impacts should be mitigated on a minimum 2:1 basis and not 1:1 as indicated in the project
documentation. Therefore, based on the additional information provided by Mr. Jones, as well as
the comments noted above, we still can not concur with the EA.
9/29/89

. p,
? ?0
? a
X
d _
- all. E4r W
? C
I Ca
Q O
W
Q
~ a
w
Q
y y
Q
3
Z
O 0
0.'
y/
`v/ ref
4er
at O W
/ W
`N 1? y
yOa
r 3
y0==
U) cc
p3 _
0 W t)

?y
O O4L
{~y
?OI~ W
?
0 0 ?.
MO- 0 Q C EW
4.

• jx 39 0

at
)0
at H
N at
O f*
ae
o8
lt?
Ia
X0
j
N

a
W
AC 003M13
Ar.poe4 `Des;
IK CL M V a l
a i-
2 CA
l c O
la !"'
> 2 W

Q N Cn =
W
LLJ
Cr 3 o a
. ac
0 LL S
a ? ° Q
F- a a
W Cn
W
a o
UJ a
Q N O W W .J W
Z a N Q
La ,z
H
W = 2
CL A a
a F.. W = W
Z = Z Q
W O F- >

Cr
Z
CL Q
a
W
a 0
O Q

=
3
3 >
Q Z U.
a a =
N
O J z Z
J 1 N CA W
CO
W
2
Q W
W O
f-
in CD
Q
CL Z U- a 3 uj U-
O F a W ?- W Q M
N J ? Z W
CD J
CO CL
Z O
(n

W
O
O W
7
Q ?
CA ? N - 1i W
Cr O W
Ca -
in O
F' > V
V N W W Q
W to Q W Cr W a 1 a

W Z
Q

W a

O

W
GO
U)
fn

W

d
1--
1--
NJ Z
H
FO-
?'
? =
F-

_ ?• i
..0 zIn!
o -
A
s
w
in
0
H
? in Q
W
? a
Figure 5.2. Transverse grade limitations for aircraft approacb categories A & B
Chap 5
51
IMPORTANT
To G /7? C
Date 9 D Time
WHILE YOU WERE OUT
M 'Aa *u s
of 1 ?6t. 4101A IX4 + 145soe-;14S
Phone 9!0 - &q a - 5-Ma
AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION
Message
Signed
TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
eI Printed on Recycled Paper

Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P.A.
1qj Consulting Engineers
290 S.W. Broad Street • Post Office Box 1737 • Southern Pines, NC 28388
October 10, 1994
Mr. Eric Galamb
Wetland Specialist
Department of Environmental Management
P. O. Box 29535
Raleigh, N. C. 27626-0535
Re: Wetlands
Columbus County Airport E. A.
HUA No. CC9201
Dear Mr. Galamb:
?Cbl*
I
This correspondence is to follow tip our phone conversations during the past two weeks.
As you requested, I have checked the measurement oMe wetlands to be encroached upon
bythe expansion of the runway at the Columbus County Airport. I measured
approximately four acres. It must be noted that this measurement was made prior to the
actual design of the runway expansion and does not reflect precise and final grading. Also
for your information, I have enclosed a copy of ".Transverse grade limitations for the
aircraft approach categories A & B" from AC 150/5300-13 the NCDOT aviation's Design
Manual.
I hope this information assists you and please feel free to call if you have any further
questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
HOBBS, UPCHURCH AND ASSOCIATES, P. A.
Southern Pines, NC Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
Winston-Salem, NC Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
_11.1 it
Y
It
LTy o$rAT(4
1. r
QMU.n ?4?
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary April 9, 1992
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John DornePP-P
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: Columbus County Airport Runway Extension
Columbus County
EHNR # 92-0729, DEM WQ # 5173
George T. Everett, Ph.D.
Director
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental Management requests that
the following topics be discussed in the EA/EIS/Scoping documents:
A. Will deicing agents be used? If so, where will the deicing agents be applied
and will they be treated?
B. Please identify the borrow locations.
C. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The stream
classifications should be current.
D. Identify the linear feet of stream channelization/relocations.
E. Number of stream crossings.
F. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to be employed.
G. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? If so, identify the responsible
party for maintenance.
H. Wetland Impacts
i) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and delineating jurisdictional
wetlands.
ii) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/571-4700 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 919/896-7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

iii) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
iv) Mitigation measures to compensate for habitat losses.
v) Wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
vi) Total impacts of wetland impacts.
vii) List the 401 Water Quality General Certification numbers to cover the
project.
Please be aware that written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project.
columbap.sco
cc: Eric Galamb
tr
S10
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Planning and Assessment
Project Review Form
Project Number:
? Project located in 7th floor library
Date Response Due (firm deadline):
L / -/s -9)
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All R/O Areas ? Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
? Fayetteville ? Air ? Coastal Management ? Water Planning
? Mooresville 11 Water
groundwater ? Water Resources ? Environmental Health

? Raleigh
,and Qualit
E
in dlife ? Solid Waste Management
y
ng
eer ? Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
? Washington ? Recreational Consultant ? Land Resources ? David Foster

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

? Winston-Salem ? Others
b
k nvironmental Management
MAR 27 1992
Manager Sign-Off/Region:
WATER QUALITY A-K
!Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
SECTION
Response (check all applicable)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
?Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific i£ substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attach ed/authority(ies) cited)
? Other (specify and attach comments)
Melba McGee
Division of Planning and Assessment by Due Date shown.
Ps-,o.
ni (??Ld
Date:

CS
h
Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P.A.
Consulting Engineers
Post Office Box 1737 • Southern Pines, NC 28388
March 18, 1992
Ms. Chrys Baggett, Director
North Carolina State Clearinghouse
Department of Administration
116 W. Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 Q
Re: Environmental Impact of the Proposed Runway Extension ?199 2
Columbus County Airport Columbus County, North Carolina Dear Ms. Baggett:
Columbus County, in conjunction with the North Carolina Department of Transportation,
Division of Aviation, proposes to construct an extension to the existing 3700 foot runway
at the Columbus County Airport. The Columbus County Airport is located near the Town
of Brunswick, approximately four miles south of Whiteville, North Carolina (see Figure 1).
The airport is located near the center of Columbus County. The airport facilities consist
of a paved 3700 foot runway (5-23 runway alignment), 75 feet in width. An Environmental
Assessment is being prepared to evaluate alternatives and to recommend a preferred
alternative for this project.
The purpose of this letter is to solicit comments and initiate coordination of the proposed
project. The project will consist of an extension of the current 3700 foot runway to an
initial length of 5000 feet and an ultimate length of 5500 feet. In addition, the runway
width will ultimately be expanded from the current 75 foot width to the proposed 100 foot
width (see Figure 2). Various alternatives for this expansion will be investigated and
evaluated. The no-build alternative and improvement of existing facilities will also be
evaluated.
The project area is located entirely in Columbus County. Land use surrounding the
proposed runway extension is primarily farmland or rural residential. It is not anticipated
that any relocation of residents and/or businesses will be required (see Figure 3).
Preliminary background research for archaeological and historical resources has begun.
Cultural resource surveys are also presently being conducted to identify and evaluate any

290 S.W. Broad Street Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
Ms. Chrys Baggett
March 18, 1992
Page 2
potentially significant resources. All research in these areas is in full compliance with
appropriate state regulations.
Freshwater wetlands may be encountered by the proposed runway extension along the
northeast end of the runway. Floodplain land will be impacted throughout the project
area. Any required mitigation and all best alternative designs will follow State and Federal
regulations and guidelines.
Federally-listed and state-listed endangered species of plants or animals are believed likely
to be in the proposed construction area. Of the threatened and endangered species which
may possibly occur in the project area, the most likely to be found is:
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Waccamau silverside (Menidia extensa) - T
Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum: cooleyi) - E
Michaux's poison-sumac (Rhus michauxii) - E
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia) -
Canby's dropwort ( olis canbvii) - E
Waccamaw killifish (Fundulus waccamensis) - SR
Savannah shore mussel (Carunculina pulla) - SR
Waccamaw spike (Elliptio waccamawensis) - SR
Waccamaw lance pearly mussel (Elliptio sp.) - SR
Pee Dee lotic crayfish (Procambarus lepidodac , lus) -
Resinous thoroughwort (Eupatorium resinosum) - E
Sarvis holly (Ilex amelanchier) - SR
Carolina grass-of-parnassus (Parnassia caroliniana) - E
Spring-flowering goldenrod (Solida o verna) - E
Wireleaf dropseed (Sporobolus teretifolius) - T
Rafinesque's big-eared bat (Plecotus rafinesquii) - SR
Harper's fringe-rush (Fimbristylis prepusilla) - SR
Pineland plantain (Plantago sparsiflora) - E
Yellow fringeless orchid (Platanthera integra) - T
Plymouth gentian (Sabatia kennedyana) - T
E
SR
E: Endangered
T: Threatened SR: Significantly Rare
A
Ms. Chrys Baggett
March 18, 1992
Page 3
The construction area will be reviewed in the field to verify the presence or absence of
any Federally- or State-listed threatened or endangered species.
Please note that no informal interagency scoping meeting will take place for this project.
This letter, therefore, constitutes solicitation for scoping comments related to this project.
In order that we may fully evaluate the impacts of the proposed project, responses in
writing concerning any anticipated beneficial or adverse impacts of the project relating to
the interest of your or your agency are requested. For our consultants to stay on schedule
and for your comments to be included in their draft report, please respond no later than
April 24, 1992.
Sincerely,
HOBBS, UPCHURCH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Kenneth . Justice, E.I.T.
Project Manager
KMJ/tgb
290 SM. Broad Street
I;P Post Office Box 1737
Southern Pines, NC 28388
[phone]
FAX [phone]
Winston-Salem. N.C. [phone] • FAX [phone]
s?
C
rOCt vil? warRlon
' Kelly
42 9 12 Carvers
6 err 2 ?l 13 ] i I ?S,r 3
B m i 13 nal 87
t .? Ercf¢fcen
Bar 6 East Arcadi
` Mariet A 5 3 74 iteYill ?8
? 6 16 6 1 130 0 - - ? 14
` f i it Bluff Cerro Gord Chadbovrn 4 Halls nkr Bolton freci
1 Brunswick tw
% ccamou
C 12 O w L?1` U M U S
Cherry crone lot. wo<Xo o
% Ctar 701 F' swF. port
1 Sc /kens
Si d /
1 ' lit Id - ? 74
?t
ill 14akins v it
q
SITE 13 B R % Buyhill U N I
tan Ash
3 t
% Pireway 7 130 $upQ
1 onZ-10o - II-Shallot 6
0t hic
Gri5scttown
J \ ? 3C
6
FIGURE 1 . 4 7
cazid
CO`UMIBUS COUNTY AIRPORT
LOCATION MAP
(N r--' S CALE,;
z
0
v
m
0
(7)
z
N
0
0
z
n
5D
y
0
Ul.
c,.
0
0
V
m
Cn
z-
Z C)
o O
D C
O
O Q7
-T
M
O l
C
Cn? c
D
l C) C-
O c
n
_ -? ?
zm Z
F
F
N
m ;u
N s
m O 9
J
? II
rn L ?
1
I?
I, I
I 1 I
I , _I
i !I
I ? I
' I
O I N
?0 O p
N
m
D
O
m I --1 -D I
low I ?
M O
N oO o
I fI- I
O I°Omi
0
I V
I
m
o
m
z
O I I
z
I i
I o
0
I/ I I I 0
0
N
I: I 0
I x ?I Z
;o rTl x
CX I >
I D Z I
"? Gi x I
I rn W l
/ 00 ®®'
I O x
i I x
I ?
? 3 t I. ?.....? f n 1
I I ? ? J
l I x
i m
D _x
?E Z
I X Z.
I
• i ? I
x ?
I ?
I x rn I
T
{ p '0 I X
Z
O
Z x
0O D N_I
• 10m I I I C)
I Q? x I >
I I O
D x
• ? x I Ri
'? I ?r
16
R
I X I I R
? ? ?
R R ?
I x I ? } R!
I
X
I I
X I
i I
R
x 12 ? ? ? ?
X
? I ? ? I
R I ?
?
a r i
?1 R 1 R I r
R 16R
I
? Y R ? R?,R R ? ? ??
-? O^f
Z?
=c
v
J
t,
n
m
N)
O
0
0
n
0
r-
<c
?
? _
Z I
D D
0

l °
l
- \
O j
?
ire o:
??, C
? II• I

? ? ?
?V ?.\ \ ? 1 ? i la
r 1 \

ITIM
Z
O
>
IS.

,•
??.. _'
~0 •• ;illy
I l o /• \? '•,/
'? •I0
.10
o.. I••. .\'^i

/
J ) l 1(\` Duo (
0

.0. co

2-0

1 \ //
•
1'I! • \
°'. o°??. i/
'- - 1 '?i:? \,
;J ? .' ??\ \? •• .? / ? ?`-' _? ?I?
?(,' .?' ??I `? f ',? I f 1` If ?
,?' I ? I I} ?, I , } ,}
' 1 1 k '}I ? I 'r I ?, I A'}I I?I k I I I ,} I 'k I ,} ' ??-??
? k I ?I ?I I} , II I r ? \ ? ? r I ``I
. I I I ? 'r I? I
I I•\ \c
?J / -..\ \??_., , ? ??r/ ' _.`J ° I '?, I?I'? } I ? } '? I I }I I Ik.,l } I'? Ik''k I } II I?'f l ?' I I} ? I} I}I ik.l/r ? . I, I'} }I I I}'
I I
' I i k ? I Ik i I IF I
'
' '
'r
? ) • • ? 1' ' - -- ? I I
Ik1 '} } 'i I
' 'f 'k I I i '} .
} ,,} } ,} 1 k I I y I
} I I ? i ' ' '} ? 4 ? IF I
I Ik I ?
I k I II ' '
I
k
'I I }
, I I,
I I I{ I' '} ,k
?V I Ik I ? I ?k
' I` ?? f 9 ' I I? i I '} I
'?
'? 'k I
k ? ?} , I
1 ,?
I y ,
E I I ? I ?! I '1 I
1 • '
F
'?
1
l \ !
•) ` I '
?\_-_ I ' I 'f I k' ` I} ?r I

'
Y'k I
??/ r I
I} I II '} I r f I •
I i'k .
' I ik I } I ?k I k, I} I It
Ik I I I}
'k I I?
} ,
,
?
I
k II I lk l k I k l k I i1 I?.'k"i
I
'k1
i'r
'r ' ,
1
I? ,? '? I 't I 'k
'I {{{ ??'I r,?\
'k it
?t
}
?k k ,E I F '} ! Ik
1 ,l t/ ' I
I
T II I ` '1
;r' I IF, !'
k I , i '? 1 I

n N I
r
(\
I 'f
{? I} I (
1 r ', 'I alp 'I I? ` I} ?I
P k k I f IF I 'f ?k It
, I ,
I
I
I' l 11 I I I I'1 I I
k } ?I', k , Ik t k 11 ? I ? 1 Ir
' I 'k l k '` 'R , 'f, I F k Ik ,
' I •? -?
"
l'r
' I I 11 I? I I,
? I }t ?k? ? I I , I I , I ? k
I "?- ?. k I? ,} I } k I} I? I Ik
e
I I ? I I' I i?? R I' ?F BFI
I I} k I ! I 1 i;
I Ik IR I I? I} IL I} .r ! r. k ' 11' I I ?
'F '?? ? I 1 k I?
. 't I k I ?F
AS,
;'
-, ;? ,? ?- , t
I ,? : k
I' •E I r ,F I,E ' I I I i } I I
`
I ? k :k ?,t ? I } k , 1 I Ik
} .
t ?
}
?
'? ! I'} I
k
'
} I'k II It I
? ?
'r ' I I ?} r i} i} '
I} I} i I } 1 I Iy , Ik i
??
'
1} '?
'? ? T I k 'k I I
' '? ?I I
1 '} I
y k I k k I i }.
T } I I k?'r 11-+-11
I} I 11} I , ? ? ? I1 ( ' '
kl Ik
k
'}
I I ?' ' I r I I I` I 1 11 1 i) I Ii r
?. I'? f f ?t I 1
F ?• ` .? I , , ,
'k'
'? ? 1?- ? 1!
t ?
I k I "I ' ?k 1 I }
: A k k' ?1 } .
, I 'F } I
I ? 'f I •? '
,? ?. I
I
I E •?
IK,
I
I I ?
, '? i f ,
I i44 I , ` IF !I } } 1} 1
'}
Ik '
?
'r'
'
l
? '?
`I IF 1
?} I 1
I ? ? ?( ? ? k. '(, i k 'k '}
Ik f
}
}
?
' I
l Ik
l
T '1 ?
' t T I '? 'k '? I 'k I ? '? I I
' I
'
-y!
I , ? Y I I I L , k ' ' I ? I I ,) ? , '? I r I) ? }
I? I '{• I ,} 'r
I :}' Ik
' j
I ;1 i ,k
'} I
I}'k
f I
I I
:f r'}'
Ik
I 1 ,} I 'i
I} I} ,
I}
I I?
? '}' I ?
? k
il ? I I} ?. I 'k I
I
'
i
'r

I
r
} I.:. I '?
'
? I
, I }
?, # I I} ,
i I ?
? I
?
? ? ?
?
I -
T
I I A, I I I; I 1
, } ? ,k ! , rr ` . t I? I ?
`
I
f ' I
?
?} ? I I
'
t
I I} ¢ I A I? I
I ? '} k ? 'r '} t Ik I
?
' I
?} I Ik I
I
?
,
I, I I' I I} I?' I I, I I
I ? I k } ? P ? I }
t
1 I
I f
I} I
k I
I?
I
'
t A I r t I (' I
}
I
? I ?
? ? I f( I '? I

1 } }
I
I
, ?t r
k I I?''; k ?'t '}' E
ir' '} ?
. ' '} I? 1 k
i
I
I ,?
,?
i ? I
f I
I I '}
' I I? 'k ? I ? I } I' , ? , '?
? ? I f ?} 1 ? ? k I ? FI`},1}i4 ? '
1 r Y 17 I A . It 'f If
I
F
?
k I
? '
f
?
?• ,L I I 1} , I}
} . I} ? i I } IF I , '} I} I I } f 1 'I
I,k I d I? I ?j if } ? i?. ,?I I? ? } I } I}
?
}
? ?
I I
, 1 ,} I I} I I} I '} I ? }
? I I I?• ? I ? ? ' 1
!I } I } 'k 1 ? II?'}I ? I ?,{ ? I? I ? ! ? ? i
i } i k
I
1
;
I
' '
?
'? ? }
k }
} ? ? } I ? ? 'f ,t
dI t ? l I} I I I} 1'}I I} I I? I ? ,'k '}' I'F n0 C
I
?
?' 1 I ? I
I A' I ? I ? I i
1 I'? 1.'1 I A ,'? ? # ? ? ? I
_ 'All
J C i

Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates,
f5a <a
P.Ang
. ?pR ig 1992
s
I
I
?i
Consulting Engineers
Post Office Box 1737 • Southern Pines, NC 28388
March 18, 1992
Mr. George T. Everett, Director
Department of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27687
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27687
Re: Environmental Impact of the Proposed Runway Extension
Columbus County Airport
Columbus County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Everett:

Columbus County, in conjunction with the North Carolina Department of Transportation,
Division of Aviation, proposes to construct an extension to the existing 3700 foot runway
at the Columbus County Airport. The Columbus County Airport is located near the Town
of Brunswick, approximately four miles south of Whiteville, North Carolina (see Figure 1).
The airport is located near the center of Columbus County. The airport facilities consist
of a paved 3700 foot runway (5-23 runway alignment), 75 feet in width. An Environmental
Assessment is being prepared to evaluate alternatives and to recommend a preferred
alternative for this project.
The purpose of this letter is to solicit comments and initiate coordination of the proposed
project. The project will consist of an extension of the current 3700 foot runway to an
initial length of 5000 feet and an ultimate length of 5500 feet. In addition, the runway
width will ultimately be expanded from the current 75 foot width to the proposed 100 foot
width (see Figure 2). Various alternatives for this expansion will be investigated and
evaluated. The no-build alternative and improvement of existing facilities will also be
evaluated.
The project area is located entirely in Columbus County. Land use surrounding the
proposed runway extension is primarily farmland or rural residential. It is not anticipated
that any relocation of residents and/or businesses will be required (see Figure 3).
Preliminary background research for archaeological and historical resources has begun.
Cultural resource surveys are also presently being conducted to identify and evaluate any
\\-Q 290 S.W. Broad Street Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
Q?J
,S
Mr. George T. Everett
March 18, 1992
Page 2
potentially significant resources. All research in these areas is in full compliance with
appropriate state regulations.
Freshwater wetlands may be encountered by the proposed runway extension along the
northeast end of the runway. Floodplain land will be impacted throughout the project
area. Any required mitigation and all best alternative designs will follow State and Federal
regulations and guidelines.
Federally-listed and state-listed endangered species of plants or animals are believed likely
to be in the proposed construction area. Of the threatened and endangered species which
may possibly occur in the project area, the most likely to be found is:
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Waccamau silverside (Menidia extensa) - T
Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum coolevi) - E
Michaux's poison-sumac (Rhus michauxii) - E
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia) - E
Canby's dropwort ( olis canbvii) - E
Waccamaw killifish (Fundulus waccamensis) - SR
Savannah shore mussel (Carunculina pulla) - SR
Waccamaw spike (Elliptio waccamawensis) - SR
Waccamaw lance pearly mussel (Elliptio sp.) - SR
Pee Dee lotic crayfish (Procambarus lepidodactylus) - SR
Resinous thoroughwort (Eupatorium resinosum) - E
Sarvis holly (Ilex amelanchier) - SR
Carolina grass-of-parnassus (Parnassia caroliniana) - E
Spring-flowering goldenrod (Solidaao verna) - E
Wireleaf dropseed (Sporobolus teretifolius) - T
Rafinesque's big-eared bat (Plecotus rafines? - SR
Harper's fringe-rush (FimbrisbLhs prepusilla) - SR
Pineland plantain (Platago sparsiflora) E
Yellow fringeless orchid (Platanthera integ a) - T
Plymouth gentian (Sabatia kenned ana) - T
E: Endangered
T: Threatened SR: Significantly Rare
i
y
M
Mr. George T. Everett
March 18, 1992
Page 3
The construction area will be reviewed in the field to verify the presence or absence of
any Federally- or State-listed threatened or endangered species.
Please note that no informal interagency scoping meeting will take place for this project.
This letter, therefore, constitutes solicitation for scoping comments related to this project.
In order that we may fully evaluate the impacts of the proposed project, responses in
writjir ncermng any anticipated beneficial or adverse impacts of the project relating to
the ere§t of your or your agency are requested. For our consultants to stay on schedule
anqyour comments to be included in their draft report, please respond no later than
Sincerely,
HOBBS, UPCHURCH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Kenneth Justice, E.I.T.
Project Manager
KMJ/tgb

C
FIGURE I
` Pirexay
3
2
J
COLUMBUS COUNTY AIRPORT
LOCATION MAP
(NO SCALE)
`,? ash
z
0
m
0
m
O
Z
O
D
N
m
0
0
z
D
0
C
-C
n
C7
rC
D
0
cn
w
0
O
I
w
D
O
0
m
z
r
z
1 0
I
I
v . O

-0
D r
c:
Op c
Cpl
-

0 ?
V) ^
V
J c
c
Y O
?
<
M O
0 C: Co
Zm x
-N

MR ;o s
r
rn 0

•II
O
q
O ? I I Z
O
O Q I o I
rn I O 00 I
O O -
N 0
O
z oml I
I m I
o
rri
z .0 D
I I
c I
I/
/, S I
X ?I
x
ICx I
I DZ I
/ Z z
O x
I Z C4
0
? x
I
i I x I
• I i x.. n .. i -.
t I I I
x ^:
I rn
l x
1 z
I I? x O I
• I ? I
x -
I ?_ t
°
I x rn I
C I
o ?p z I
Za x D
Z0
• ( Oo I i
I O;0 x I
I oz i
OD x
? I I
x I
I x I I
11 x
I ? I
• I - I
lI x
I I
x I
I i
x
2
r I' J ? ?i
1 i
l i f I i i V, t? PA i t
? !• i i i
! i
!
!I/ M l i ! i!
IV.
1
1
1
X
o?
Oy
0~
?07
2C
U)
C>
D
r
M
N
O
O
O
C)
O
r
C C
^. iz
1 I
Z1
On
?
C
z
-c
D D
1
O
7
G)
m
W
° N
O
i

-- ire o .•

f -? f
a

01
1
.I

?
,: ? ° •?' ? ? ? ? ?_,-•, ` .-,?,,, ; ;• \?J, ? ?,\ , .. :• ::?? gal .: -,? o?
\

?
,• R
I Z?
'??-J ,? J `:r\? `\
i,. .r•
:
vii
' 0
It
03 N
?$ `
`? ?' ? ?
\\? "
? J ,?.\ ! 1 ?. V
/ ?
/-?-?••? :?
^., _•J ill j ? II I ?
I
•

/ ?.._
?•i
•
-
( a - I `•\ \? It I 11
?.? `\ IE I IE 1 11
IE
-
?;
'? ; .
,:' 1
?!?,
I
-• I ( \\._/ )
Q
? I , ? I IE IE
IE
o !
I I IE IIE ,EI ?I ?,.?^\
? ??
I L I E 1! I ? 7 I
I
. oo..
1 ?• ?\
•/ `/mar/
";(?
•'\ .?.J _-.\.. \\'•
' a ' \! ? . I
: ?.
` ,
.. ?'! ?? IEI I IE II 1f IE
I I I
E P ? I ! IE IE
r ,E l
?`j 1 I
t
1 IV I 'E ?E IEI'f IEI r111 k ! Ikl IE 11
I I I I f I T
?
? I IE I IE I I
IE I
I,1 ,?I I?. Ifl I
'f Ik I E II T't
It
'? '? r t I
Il
441
-._... 'f 'lE
I 'E
\ `
?
'
'?
\A
\• ? / o..) \
I I ? J. 1
:
\
? ??? I
Ik
__ ? I Ik I 'k I
I P
1J
I ?
? I
?' I
111 ¢ I ?E I I 'E I ? I I? It
? I ? I 'E
IE
P
'E E I I I I I
I 'E If I ? y? ? ?? I ? I? I IE
I I E !?'i I I ,
I I I If
I Ik
I
r ? _I
?'
E
I
I? I IE ?? f y??E '? I I ? ` If I
' 'k
I
`
I 'f
`
.`\ \
,' is \ - ? r.
?• I
IP
N
°, I I? IP , I
'1
I 11 I I 'E' , IE IP I I T I .' E
I
? ? 1 1 I , I I I
E
1
I I ? ? I I I

\ ,?

r

?..
) _..
.... I
• ` ? I I

I'E ?!
, ? , 'E , 'P I IP' 'E •
I ?' ll I I ' ' I ?
E
E ll I I if
If
1 I, ,? I I I I II T I I I
' E I P 'k E 'E I I E ?
I IE I IE I
IP I ' I 1
E It I
I f E I y IE I 1 IE 'F
? 'f I IE ? I? I I I I I I?
'E ? f k I I ? 'E , 'k E
'E ` ,
I I I 11 i I , I
1 '( I I? I I'i 1 !
?F. I I f 1 ? I ? 1 I I?
'k Ik 1 ,E
' ,? I '! '? ? ,{ .? k I .
?

?y ?.
1 k
', ? I E. 'E If
I k I
C I k
'E I IE I
'
? I li
.
I I I
' I ? IP I I 'E E IE I IE IE I ? 1'
II II IE I I
# P I E I
'? I P
i
Ik 'I II
1
!
't' .
^i
I I I IEI , I I I
! IE I ? I ? ? E ?
EIII ?Ii,E'I
E II }_k1 4 i I F P
t
? i
I I? I ,` E 'E I
? , IE P '?
`I I? '?I'I;'r??
, IE E Ip I f IEI 'E g E
'
I I
I
? '
,
4 I
If I I I
g11EFkltl?
I 'f ' i It ! I rl I ! !
E I

\ - '1
l I'

1'E;,kl P
. I 1 I I
i
I r .k k ,E IE I'f I? I IV IE
IIE 'I••' IE
' ? I? R I I k
I ,? f I ,? IE I I I II`` P,
F I P
E T I I,
r?,'klk.? l I PI P
E
E
' E
; .?
11
,
II
EI
f I
I EI IE E ,c I? I I' 'tI IE E IV I
I 'E Ii E I '? I I '
I I I , P IC I?Ir1
E I I ? F I?
11 I I It
EE Ey,IkE /'_
I
II` I I
I , 11
I? i IE IIE t I IV I I IE I I?

,r I ^ ! a 'E I
I I If 4 I= I I } I

III E I ?T 1? k E I
P IPEI ??.EE
'` + •
E
P
E R
.1
. , I I
kI
IE I I ! ? '1
IE E I? '
I Ik 'IEI
IIE IV I E
11 I I I I I I '? ? I?I F. ?
?? !•
?
P
E
I
E
IE '' Ik I I

'k '1 I I 'f I, I? I ! I
k ` l? I(

? I. ?!? '? I? ?I
w I Y
I EM1?I?,1 i?'I
E
P
k, Ik , yl l l . t, . ,
f I I
F r

I
' ?
IE I IEI I
.y I? ,
'E I I
I I1 Ik I I I f I I
E k k '` I E
I
I 'P
'
I ,E
: 1 IE I
P IEI IE I?'E I IE I ?
I E I I
I I P ?I''E E E I IE IE
'? .L J
,". k IE , ?
E
f,E I IV I
I EI
A ` I I I ,(11 E I
I, E 'F f I E
k E
lE E
k
a
I E I I
? y
I
I
I I E
C
;
E, I?' E E'''E- - I
_
E 7 I? I f
! ? , I
I IE I
I
I, I,
-
'
1'
l I!
y l lE lk
kP I ,E E
f
IE „
I I I
I
E 'k I I'., I IE , I? E 1
E
,E }
,k
! E I 1
! :E T,L , 11-i
' I
"E •1 . 'P E IE IE !
IV I
I
IE I
i '
E
E
fE l
E
I ,
I I
I
IE
I k T k E k I I
'k I
I I `
I It
I'E
CIE I
P I I
I I 1 1 1 1 IE , r
1 V
I I I E I r
' kl A E E
'
1 4?E ' I
j T
F
I I 'E I 'E t Ii
}.
I I i 1 1
'
1 I
I
1
IV IE
f
IE
IV I
IE
P
IP
I IE I
l
I
E
IE I
IE
I
E It
'P f
E
I
I 1
1 I
'f
11

I
EIIEII,III 71

1
k 'k k
IEI
,
I

I IP

I V I I E P

I
klA I I I I I
'f I I IE , I 1 P' I
'F
4
E
P I E
P

1 1IIP I P I' ,' J I

i
P 'P I I I I IE
I k ;E 1? I, I It
P
I

I Ik,
IIE IE iI I I

E I
I E I It
E ,E ,E E E I IE I I
E
E
f

I IP V I I I I
it

IE IE I I E I IE 1!
I E P IE I! EI P' P

E
I
I I
I I
f
I
I

I ? I 1

7 I I I I ! I

I 14
I E I
?
I?
I
k
I
rl
. E. I. 'f IE It
EI'P,,,
? d ? ? {L, I A
I I i I
I'f
IE
IV I
IV I
I IE I I?
,II#' ?,IEIE,IE'E I
, I
? I ? ? I }' 'P P E IP I I i I I
IV ? 'IV IE IP' P PI
IE I k I IE E I E I
I I?!I IIPI I ?I II
? ? I P ,P
I , I I I ? IP
I E
P E I II I IE
I I IEI IE I
IIi
?` e E I I
IIP ?II E
I I E Ik 1 ? I IPI ? I I? I ? I 1 IE ?
? IE I 7{
! ? ,IE
IE
,P I
IE
I
IEI Il
I?
I IE I IE 1
P EI I P I'f I
IV
I I ? I I IP I PI ? ? E ?
?
1 I IE
!
?
1 f ?' I
I
PjI
1y?
F ' j
I#Ia7 ICI
' I . I j .
IP IE f ! ? 1 ? I ? ? ( I? I

+.?I ?I I+i1

' IIF j IfI IV ?iI11E•'f ?? I I k
,1
1
l IP I.i IIE!1?171?' ?. j i 4l 7!Ik ,? i
11 I?
1
IV
TaT I???IF7 a'??I ?r !Ili ?,IT ?J.I
if
+
1
a 1
rl l? 1 II?I?i l7 1' 7I?IT I .T?al
A
I
!? 1?
' IPA I y'???. \+ ? 1 f
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE
COLUMBUS COUNTY AIRPORT
COLUMBUS COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED FOR THE
COLUMBUS COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY
AND THE
COLUMBUS COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
"This Environmental Assessment becomes a Federal Document when evaluated and
signed by the responsible FAA official."
Responsible FAA Official
Date
Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P.A.
Consulting Engineers
Post Office Box 1737
290 S.W. Broad Street
Southern Pines, North Carolina 283,88
919/692-5616 FAX [phone]
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. PURPOSE AND NEED
II. ALTERNATIVES
III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
1. Noise
2. Compatible Land Use
3. Social Impacts
4. Induced Socioeconomic Impacts
5. Air Quality
6. Water Quality
7. Department of Transportation Act, Section 4(f)
8. Historic, Archaeological and Cultural Resources
9. Biotic Communities
10. Endangered and Threatened Species of Flora and Fauna
11. Wetlands
12. Floodplains
13. Coastal Zone Management
14. Coastal Barriers
15. Wild and Scenic Rivers
16. Farmland
17 Energy Supply and Natural Resources
18. Lighting Emissions
19. Solid Waste Impact
20. Construction Impacts
21. Other Considerations
V. APPENDIX
Appendix I
Appendix II
Appendix III
Appendix IV
Appendix V
Appendix VI
Mailing List
Scoping Letter and Responses
Water Quality Report
Architectural Report
Archaeological Report
Biological/Wetlands Report
i
Page Number
1
5
8
11
12
12
13
13
13
13
16
16
17
17
18
18
21
21
21
21
22
22
22
22
23
it

1

J
1
1

Appendix VII Farmland Forms
Appendix VIII Resume of Preparers
Appendix IX Public Hearing Transcript

1

I I. PURPOSE AND NEED:
Columbus County is located in southeastern North Carolina, bordered by the State
of South Carolina to the southwest and the North Carolina counties of Robeson to
the northwest, Bladen to the north, Pender to the northeast, New Hanover to the
' east and Brunswick to the southeast. Whiteville, the county seat of Columbus
County, is located approximately 50 miles due west of the City of Wilmington, North
Carolina and approximately 50 miles southeast of the city of Fayetteville, North
r Carolina.
The Columbus County Airport is located near the Town of Brunswick, approximately
four (4) miles south of Whiteville (See Figure 1), North Carolina. The airport is
located near the center of Columbus County. Airport facilities consist of a paved
3700 foot long runway (5-23 runway alignment), 75 feet wide, with 200 foot overruns
at each end. The airport has a non-directional beacon and a unicom radio. The
runway is defined by medium intensity runway and identifying lights. There is a
stubbed taxiway to a paved 485 foot by 150 foot parking apron. There are 8 existing
airport hangers. Currently, 14 aircraft are based at the airport, which also has a 1500
square foot terminal building and a 50-car paved parking lot.

17
i

1

Columbus County is gradually transforming from a primarily agricultural area to one
more oriented toward commerce and industry. The growth in commerce and industry
has been largely due to successful efforts by Columbus County and local municipal
industries to relocate to the local area. However, while economic indicators predict
the area's population, employment and per capita income will increase slightly, the
county is falling behind the rate of growth projected for the State and region. One
reason Columbus County's economic growth lags behind is the county's competitive
disadvantages in recruiting additional industry to the area. Industry representatives
seeking potential relocation sites have indicated they lost interest in Columbus
County when they learned the nearest airports capable of handling corporate jets are
located almost 30 miles away in neighboring counties.
One way to improve Columbus County's ability to entice relocating industries and
enhance economic growth is to upgrade the existing airport so it can accommodate
corporate aircraft. Previous studies have shown a correlation between the availability
of a suitable airport and an area's economic development. In response to such data,
the Airport Layout Plan prepared for Columbus County in 1988 called for a runway
extension from its existing 3700 foot length to a length of at least 5000 feet,
preferably 5500 feet.

Not to scale
? Pireway
FIGURE I
LOCATION MAP
COLUMBUS COUNTY AIRPORT

Other factors contributing to Columbus County's need to expand the airport's
capabilities are a current increase in aircraft operations and the anticipated future in-
air traffic.
Projections of future air traffic demand are based on trend-line projections that
considered the NORTH CAROLINA AIRPORT SYSTEM PLAN (NCASP), 1992,
the Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P.A. AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN UPDATE,
1990, and a subsequent revision. Future projections are also supported by increases
in industrial development experienced by Columbus County. The Fixed Base
Operator (FBO) reports increases in overall air traffic with the total at approximately
5000 annual operations in 1983. Annual aircraft operations at Columbus County are
anticipated to increase from its current level of 7,000 operations to 14,500 in the year
1995, 21,000 in the year 2000, and 45,000 in the year 2010. (See Table 1).
Based on the year 2010 projections of 45,000 annual operations and using a Learjet
25 (maximum takeoff weight of 15,000 pounds) as the critical aircraft, the airport
needs a 5,500 foot runway with turnarounds at each end. These improvements, along
with the existing stub taxiway at the midpoint of the runway and the recently
expanded parking apron, are needed so the Columbus County Airport can meet Basic
' Transport Standards. A sketch of the proposed airport layout configurations with an
extended runway is shown in Figure 2 in Section II.
The FBO also reports an increase in itinerant usage at Columbus County Airport.
Occasionally, itinerant aircraft are corporate jet type aircraft which have difficulty in
landing and taking off at Columbus County Airport.
Project implementation will require state and local participation. Fifty percent of all
costs would be funded by the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division
of Aviation, while fifty percent would be funded by Columbus County. There will be
no federal funding or involvement for the proposed improvements.
L?

i
1
1

TABLE 1
FORECAST OF AVIATION ACTIVITIES
COLUMBUS COUNTY AIRPORT
TIME BASED AIRCRA FT ANNUAL OPERAT IONS
PERIOD NCASP* HUA** HUA*** NCASP* HUA** I UA***
1990 13 14 14 13,200 9,500 13,200
1995 13 33 15 13,200 14,500 14,000
2000 13 42 20 13,200 21,000 18,800
2010 13 88 36 13,200 45,000 33,600
* From the North Carolina Department of Transportation
NORTH CAROLINA AIRPORT SYSTEM PLAN,
1992
** From Hobbs, Upchurch and Associates, P.A.
' AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN UPDATE,
1990
*** From Hobbs, Upchurch and Associates, P.A.
Assumed 6% annual growth, after construction
1994
1

II. ALTERNATIVES:
Five reasonable alternatives were developed and evaluated for extending the airport's
3700 foot paved runway to the needed 5500 foot paved runway length.
The reasonable alternatives for extending the runway (5-23) include:
Alternative A: Extending runway 5-23 to the northeast.

Alternative B: Extending runway 5-23 to the southwest.
Alternative C: Extending runway 5-23 on both ends.
Alternative D: Phased construction with Phase I extension to 5000 feet and
Phase II extension to 5500 feet in a preferred direction as
identified by Alternatives A, B, or C.
Alternative E: "No-Build".
I
Alternative A - Extend the existing 3700 foot runway by 1800 feet (5500 total feet)
toward the northeast: The majority of this extension can be constructed on land
owned by the airport and partly at a less expensive land acquisition cost than other
property surrounding the airport. However, initial environmental surveys revealed
1 more than 85% of the land would be in wetland areas. Extensive wetland mitigation,
along with an extensive amount of costly fill material, would be needed to extend the
runway to the northeast; the costs would far outweigh the savings from land
acquisition.
Alternative B - Extend the existing runway 1800 feet (5500 total feet) toward the
t southwest: This extension would be constructed almost entirely on acquired land
considered to be the most expensive property surrounding the airport. Minor
amounts of material would be wasted, but the existing grade is favorable for a runway
extension. The only wetlands concern would be the drainage ditch surrounding the
current runway. Approximately 40 acres of easements would be needed for the new
approach (mostly for tree topping).
Alternative C - Extend the runway on both ends to a total of 5500 feet: The same
i major environmental and construction cost concerns exist for any expansion to the
northeast.
r Alternative D - (Phased construction) Phase I would extend the existing 3700 foot

runway 1300 feet to the southwest for a total of 5000 feet. Phase II would add an
additional 500 feet to the southwest to reach the ultimate total runway length of 5500
feet: As stated previously, expansion to the southwest is much more favorable than
expansion to the northeast. This alternative would cost less due to a less extensive
initial runway expansion. The additional 500 feet can be added when funds and/or
need arise. Land and easements, however, should be acquired for the 5500 foot
extension.
i Alternative D (illustrated in Figure 2) is the "preferred alternative", and will be
explored further in this document.
Alternative E - A "No-Build" alternative would preserve the surrounding natural
environment in the short term, but would not meet the needs of Columbus County,
which is anxious to grow and attract industry to the county.
Several other related projects would be necessary to meet Federal Aviation
administration criteria for the runway extension, including:
1. Widening the runway to 100 feet.
' 2. Providing turnarounds to the extension.
3. Ultimately providing a full parallel taxiway.

i?

1

6

mm mm m m r= on M aximm m M-tiM m m- m
Z
O
D
m
U)
0
z
N
m
0
O
z
D
D
0
0
n
C7
C
0
?n
(A
0
0
i
w
D
0
0
M
z
z C7
o O
X C
'a
-
0
0
° -1 a
V)
o o0
C
-< c ;Q
s
RO Zm ?
-0 DN
0
m 0

.1
aX? _
C) F
mo I.
o 11 I
0 r
o
X
0 n I l I
c? m I
I , .
i
I
00 ( I DO
D W
? I
OO0 I 0 ;o m
a r*i
° a
10;o I m
z o° o
0
0 oml I
z °
I m I
1 ?i c I
z
I z I 1
I I
c I
I/ I I I 0
0
0
0
V)
I: I M
/I S I =
x x z
;u m I C x I
IDZ I
"? G7 x
M L4 1 I 1
o X
I 1 x I
• x i
i{ I I I ? ~ J
{ I x x
{{ I m
t x
i ?
I? x O I
I
I 1 I
l x?
I
I xm I
I p;o I X
Z0
D x
D
-C
• 10o I I 0
I O x I /
t 1 -c 1
l 0* Z/
l I o? I x I ( •
' I x I ?i
i x 1 h
I I I ? I ? ? ?
i X I ?i
I I I ?
X
I I
x I
I I I
x'2 ? ? ?
X
1• .I i. ? F
?
I 1 F??t•?I e
?I?' E ?? ?? ? ?' ?
? I I t I? ?' ?? 1 F'' I
I, .
i
?u
0
0
r?

m w= m m = m = m w r= r= = = m m

I III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT:
Figures 3 and 4 present a vicinity map of the Columbus County Airport and an aerial
photograph (for the preferred alternative), respectively.
The planned runway extension would incorporate the land acquisition of mostly
farmland to the southwest. No concentrated residential areas are in the immediate
vicinity of the runway extension.
Land uses adjacent to the Columbus County Airport vary, but
? generally conform well
with airport development. Except for the Town of Brunswick (population 250±) 400
r feet to the north of the airport, the remaining land which may be impacted by the
airport is either airport property, the Department of Corrections property, farmland
or rural residential.
Two churches are within two nautical miles and two churches are within 2.2 nautical
miles of the southwest approach, while there are nine churches within two nautical
miles of the northeast approach. The Town of Brunswick and portions of south
Whiteville are within two nautical miles of the northeast approach.
The North Carolina Department of Corrections facilities and the Department of
Transportation facilities are located 3000 feet to the west of the runway along State
Road 1170. The Columbus County fairgrounds are directly across the street from
these facilities.
North and east of the airport, beginning as close as 9000 feet, is a large protected
wetland called White Marsh.
Most of the above mentioned facilities are shown in Figure 3, Vicinity Map. The
map also indicates generalized land uses in the vicinity of the airport. Figure 4 is a
1990 U.S. Department of Agriculture aerial photo of the site.
There are no other known places of public assembly in the immediate vicinity of the
airport approaches. Two churches to the southwest and two churches to the
r northeast along the Town of Brunswick, are within the approach paths, but only the
two churches with 2.2 miles of the southwest approach will experience new impacts
due to the proposed runway extension.
' As part of the early planning process coordination was initiated with various federal
and state agencies to identify potential environmental impacts associated with the
proposed runway extension (see Appendix II).
L?

F?

t

?? ` '?. - a' / [ Y. wwn, mq -_ ._ - -arm - -ee- -•y--'?` "Y•?u. -
55
7 40
F ?1, ° • a Trailer Pa -t
shies Ch S- w-
-Tr
.0, AV
\.\ ? /-f?/ a? COQ / •. ? •?? •• {{? ?`..'' .' ? -. - 50 .. -?-'i'-
" •? o f .h
'-j Gem t7la?
130
• i_
CUK
I-tk
• °? ' Richardso s
- r V __ - -
0 "M Wan
15
dl 00 • ?' ' ?' '60 - '? -e4 br
son
85 - ? . • +/"' o ,?. _ -?-- ice- -±.--
'Cem
°. .,
Dutton
•
r • O iV• ••• O G-w-
•1 •- k • \ \ ?• ? ??? ? may.
"11 6 ° 110 \• ??. `0"t
07
50 -
ra , ? ?P' crD
75 -
60
I ° o
Cps ` 1166 -- l /,
,C1lJN
t / AI T 1171 • ! /
1168? a ;
Igo
•°'?`? ' too FIGURE 3
Il7 VICINITY MAP
°'•? ??/= ?` of the
?a COLUMBUS
° \ Q COUNTY AIRPORT
/ ,? • * \ ' - USGS S1//4 IIIDTSVIII.E 15' QUADRANGLE
t• , ? 94078-C8-TV-024 1087 Scale 1" = 2000•
-,' -- • • ' ° 1162 DMA 5252 1 SW-SERIES V842

Cl

-- s
VO . ..I _
,.

- a
^a?
c,
Tq
J
M S TN S 'P _ y j ;
(
•
x'tl }
d ky Y 1 ?
? \ ?y? ? ??
\ n
f
'V

1

??! ? ? ..?? 9?, A. ' ??• ? ?.??
. •. ;??„ ? qtr f ? ? ( "11{
' ?^ ? "` ?, sue`;', F
? ? ?'' '? ? ^'? j ,.
4 ? {4
l
AfiC
P

a ? ' .'$. Pry ,c ? ` ? *;.? Y v'?cs„ ?1 #?
? Y`"

4.'
! ? ,?'". 1
? Y ?' ¢
i??r

,` ??'?'t.. ?,.? A '?? .i?.t s. ,
f-sj. ??.yy 'a
y ? ,? ?y/y ?
Y
? ?.:,tt
q,4 -A
r
?

4
. $ ? y r _.• „ Y ? ?
? s
i
:"k P
( ?
_.r .... r. is

a
? x r
` 'L,Y } 6? •? '? f 5w ? , > ??jG.} ? «r
{. ,. a `.vf
i d/r"• ? ?'l y _??r

J ,?`p??i j*'^ "?? • ? ?

yy
a,?/,

r
,
k ' ay;
t4 7, tl?j l
V
}
4
4 r ,,, { ., .. . ? ? y{ ?•?? ? r ? ?jl 'mo'w
4 ai ?.'.? ? ?•?r
,, 3 ???-? ??_ sir , ??? ?,i.:` e?•"
s = = m = r m m m m = = = m m m = w
J
I IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES:
In accordance with FAA Order 5050.4A "Airport Environmental Handbook", there
20 items must be discussed relating to potential environmental impacts of proposed
airport projects. Much information contained in this section of the Environmental
Assessment for the Columbus County Airport runway extension is based on
coordination with many agencies and governmental units. A list of federal, state and
local agencies or governments contacted is included in Appendix I. Responses from
the various agencies during initial project scoping and coordination activities from
April through November, 1992, are contained in Appendix II.
Fl
LJ
1

1
f]
1

r

11

1 1. Noise:
The runway extension project, which will bring the total runway length to
5,500 feet, is the only proposed projects which will impact noise levels. Design
Group B-II aircraft will continue to use the Airport with standard facilities.
Typical aircraft of the design group include the Cessna Citation, Beech King
Air, Gulfstream I, and smaller aircraft, which currently use the Airport.
Anticipated overall adjusted aircraft operations are expected to total
approximately 45,000 annually by the Year 2010, with jet aircraft accounting
for approximately 100 adjusted operations annually.
The FAA Akport Environmental Handboo Order 5050.4A, Charter 5,
Paragraph 47,e,(1),(a) states:
"No noise analysis is needed for proposals involving Design Group I
and II airplanes on utility (reference AC 150/53004B) or transport
(reference AC 150/5300-12)1 type airports where forecast operations in
the period covered by the environmental assessment do not exceed
90,000 annual adjusted propeller operations or 700 annual adjusted jet
operations ("adjusted" as defined in Report No. FAA-AS-75-1,
Development Noise Exposure Contours for General Aviation
Aimorts) ."
These levels of adjusted operations result in cumulative noise levels not
exceeding 60 Ldn (Day/Night Level) more than 5,500 feet from start of take
off roll or 65 on the runway itself. Therefore, no further noise analysis is
required
r 2. Compatible Land Use:
' The compatibility of existing and planned land uses in the vicinity of an
airport is usually associated with the extent of noise impacts related to the
airport. In this context, since the noise analysis described above concludes the
development will not generate significant noise, a similar conclusion may
usually be drawn with respect to compatible land use. Further, the proposed
projects will not disrupt communities or force businesses or residences to
relocate. The land surrounding the Airport is rural in nature, and used
primarily as farmland.
Zoning does not currently exist in the vicinity of the Airport, but officials are
currently discussing a County Zoning Ordinance, which would protect the
Airport. Short of this Zoning Ordinance, the County has obtained easements
'(Note that AC 1503004B and AC 150/530012 Lave been combined into AC 150/5300.13, Airport Iks¢n on 9990).
1 12
1

l
p
and fee simple properties in the approaches to protect the Airport and to he
ensure its compatibility with the community. Figure 4 is an air photograph of
the Airport and its near environment, which shows the majority of the
surrounding land is used for agriculture.
3. Social Impacts:
Extension of the runway from 3,700 feet to 5,000 feet, and ultimately 5,500
feet, and other associated airport development projects proposed will not
involve relocation of any residence or business, alter any roadways, or divide
or disrupt any established communities. It will not disrupt orderly, planned
development; nor will it create any appreciable change in employment at the
Airport or community.
4. Induced Socioeconomic Impacts:
The runway extension and associated work will not cause induced or
secondary impacts within the Airport's immediate surrounding area. No
relationship has been developed that relates the Airport with any development
activities within the community, shifts in population movement and growth, or
public service demands within the near-Airport environment, subsequently,
Airport-induced socioeconomic activities are not an issue.
5. Air Quality:
An assessment of air quality impact from the volume of aircraft emissions by
aircraft type predicted to use the Columbus County Airport is not necessary
in accordance with FAA Order 5050.4A, "Airport Environmental Handbook,"
Chapter 5, Paragraph 47,e(5),(c),1,(b). The Airport is classified as general
aviation as opposed to commercial service, and maximum forecasts of
approximately 45,000 operations in the 20 year scenario. A level of 180,000
(100,000-N.C. regulations) total operations is required before an air quality
analysis must be performed.
6. - Water Quality:
Water quality will be considered with respect to groundwater quality, storm
' water runoff and quality, and water supply. A preliminary erosion control
plan shows a minimum of six sedimentation/detention basins will be required.
6.1 Groundwater Quality: The groundwater table in the project area was
found to be approximately 30' below the surface. Since the site is
located on mostly sandy loam and silty loam soil types, and since it is
1 13
1

located near the White Marsh Swamp area, the water table was found
to go at least 400' below the surface. In fact, a recent well survey
report found that 660 gallons per minute could be pumped out at a
depth of 330, where water quality was found to be excellent.
Water quality at the 30' to 100' level, however, was found to be fair to
poor. The County is working to improve water quality of those
residents with shallow wells by providing a County-wide water system
within the next ten years. Since current airport operations have not
affected water quality from the deeper wells, the runway extension is
not expected to adversely affect groundwater quality.
' 6.2 Storm Water Runoff and uali : Creeks and the swamp in the
project vicinity will receive leachate from the paving materials, as well
as minor runoff effects from fuel, oil and lubricants. The quantity of
surface runoff will increase, but proper sedimentary and erosion
control measures are expected to minimize negative effects. The North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Water Quality Section, and the Division of Land Resources, expressed
concerns over the quality of stormwater runoff to the creeks in the
vicinity of the Airport. The preliminary erosion control plan shows
that a minimum of six sedimentation/detention basins will be required
(see Figure 5 for preliminary erosion control plan).
Final construction plans, therefore, must contain an erosion and
sedimentation control plan, an absolute requirement from the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
Through its Land Quality Section, DEHNR is responsible for reviewing
plans and issuing permits for all Public Works construction projects.
A primary requirement for the issuance of a permit is that the
proposed project minimize to the maximum extent possible the deposit
' of sediment or the production of erosion on any land adjacent to, or
downstream, of the proposed project site. As noted above, six or more
sedimentation/detention basins will be required to satisfy State of
North Carolina requirements. These basins will be located on airport
property and maintained by the Columbus County Airport. Other
measures, such as a system of ditches and diversions, rip rap check
' dams and the establishment of permanent groundcover will be
implemented and recommended for permanent use. Since erosion and
sedimentation will be minimized to the maximum extent possible in
accordance with the laws of the State of North Carolina, adverse
impacts of airport construction will be minimal.

14

1

A
', \\ `\ 1 ?\ \ \ \\ ` 11 f r
EXISTING F? l 1 1 \\ /
105
70,
90
85 - I /
_ J
PROPOSED
"fell
s
K
I o 1
ze?

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1

I I

PRELIMINARY EROSION
CONTROL PLAN
105._ COLUMBUS
/l I I I COUNTY AIRPORT

`I
? J
`,?1
\ O
FIGURE 5
-Co
i ! r ? IW
I ? I I / 1
Scale 1" = 500'

6.3 Water Supply: Water supplies will not be effected by the proposed
project. Local residential water supplies come from a well system using
groundwater. As noted earlier, the project will not affect groundwater
quality. Surface water runoff will eventually reach White Marsh
Swamp. The system to be incorporated in the final design will ensure
' the quality of water reaching White Marsh Swamp will not be adversely
effected.
1 7. Department of Transportation Act Section 4(f):
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act concerns lands used as
public parks, recreation areas, wildlife or waterfowl refuges, or historical sites
of national significance.
There are no known Section 4(f) lands near the site.
8. Historic. Archaeological and Cultural Resources:
The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office requested an historical
and archaeological survey be conducted at the proposed site location. The
following is a summary of conclusions and recommendations from historical
and archaeological reports:
' 8.1 Historical: An historical structure survey for the proposed runway
extension indicated that virtually all residential and
commercial/industrial material found in the vicinity were less than 50
years old, and none of the properties were listed in the National
Register of Historic Places.
The report entitled Architectural Resources SurveyRRgport for the
Columbus County Airport Runway Extension, prepared by Mary Reeb
' from Historic Preservation Services, is presented in Appendix IV. The
report discusses the physical setting, architectural and historic
backgrounds, the survey methodology, proper inventory and evaluations
and potential effects on the properties.
8.2 Archaeological: Only one archaeological site was recorded during the
1 survey for the runway extension. While the site contained a projectile
point and other artifacts, the site was extremely disturbed and did not
appear eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.
No additional archaeological work was recommended in the report.
The archaeological report entitled Archaeological Survey of Proposed
Runway Expansion, Columbus County Airport, North Carolina,
1 16

prepared by Loretta Lautzenheiser, principle investigator for Coastal
Carolina Research, is presented in Appendix V. The report discusses
the physical setting, prehistoric and historic background, survey
methodology, site descriptions, summary and conclusions and
recommendations.
9. Biotic Communities (Including Flora. Fauna):
The existing airport property has been cleared of all forest cover. This area
has been impacted to varying degrees by past construction, grading, drainage
and airport maintenance activities. The least disturbed plant communities
remaining on site are mesic to wet pine flatwoods (no overstory) at the
southwest end of the existing runway, two small grass-sedge bogs to support
pitcher plants (Sarracenia flava), and other herbaceous species typical of
Coastal Plain flatwoods and savannahs. No rare or protected species were
found (refer to next section).
Most of the 63+/- acres to be purchased for the airport expansion are within
two cleared fields. The remainder is cut over mesic and swamp hardwoods
(approximately two acres). No impacts are expected to the above vegetation
other than selective removal of hardwoods that violate Federal airspace
requirements.
10. Endaneered/Threatened Species of Flora, Fauna and Fish:
The Endangered Species Act requires any action involving the expenditure of
Federal funds will not jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or
threatened species or adversely modify their critical habitat. While the runway
extension project will receive State funds, Columbus County intends to adhere
to the Endangered Species Act. In order to determine the likelihood of
endangered and threatened species, the North Carolina Wildlife Resource
Commission, North Carolina Division of Parks. and Recreation, the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources and the
United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service were
contacted for a list of potential species which could be located within the
project area. The species with the highest potential for habitats within the
project area were: Chaffseed (Schwalbea americana), Michaux's sumac (Rhus
michauxii), Rough-leaved loose strife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia), Pondberry
(Lindera melissaefolium), Colloey's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi), Canby's
dropwort (Oxypolis canbyi), American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) and
' the Red Cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides vorealis). State listed species were
included in this survey. The survey was conducted by Dr. J.H. Carter, III,
consulting biologist, and his results are included in Appendix VI. The survey
indicates no State or Federally protected animal or plant species were found
17

in the study area. In addition the following species' habitats will not be
impacted: Pondberry, Canby's dropwort, American alligator and the Red
' Cockaded Woodpecker. Habitat for the other species is marginal at best, and
as noted above, no specimens were found.
11. Wetlands:
Wetlands are defined as those areas inundated by water with sufficient
frequency and duration to support vegetation tolerant of saturated soil
conditions. Specific hydrologic, soil, and vegetative criteria are used by the
United States Army Corps of Engineers to establish wetlands boundary and
i their jurisdictions. The United State Army Corps of Engineers, the United
State Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the North Carolina Department
r of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental
Management have all stressed the importance of protecting wetlands. The
biological report found in Appendix VI contains an approved wetlands map
(by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and identifies wetland areas in the
project site.
All agencies mentioned above will require impacts to wetlands be minimized
to the maximum extent possible. In accordance with the recommendations of
our consulting Biologist, • the project will impact approximately four acres of
jurisdictional wetlands. We propose to create on-site wetlands at a 1:1 ratio
by excavating high ground adjacent to existing wetlands to dust below the
seasonal high water table. Topsoil from wetlands to be filled will be spread
over the excavated area, and native vegetation will be transplanted to the
mitigation site. Additional planting will be made as necessary, and successive
wetland establish will be monitored as required by the Division of
Environmental Management.
' Wetlands on site are non-forested, and much of the wetland area has been
impacted by past airport construction and maintenance activities. Wetlands
to be acquired are currently cut over and will not be impacted by this project
other than by selected removal of trees violating Federal airspace
requirements. Trees will be removed from wetlands with hand tools and
cables.
12. Floodplains:
Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, directs Federal agencies to
take action to reduce the action of flood loss, to minimize the impacts of
floods on human safety, health and welfare and to restore and preserve the
nature and beneficial values served by floodplains. Floodplains are defined
18
1

' as "the low land in relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters
including flood-prone areas of off-shore islands, including at a minimum, that
area subject to a 1% or greater chance of flooding in any given year", such as
areas which may be inundated by a 100 year flood.
' The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in cooperation with
Federal, State and local governments, has developed Flood Insurance Rate
Maps and Flood Hazard Boundary Maps showing approximate boundaries of
the 100 year flood. As shown in Figure 6, Map No. 370305 0006A, from
Columbus County, North Carolina, indicates a portion of the Camp Branch
is contained in Zone A. Zone A is defined as "areas where no base flood
elevations are determined." The Camp Branch is the northern boundary of
the existing Columbus County Airport property.

1

0
In accordance with Executive Order 5050.4A, a determination of significance
must be made if there are encroachments to a floodplain. Significant
floodplain encroachments will require a special notice for a public hearing and
possibly an environmental impact statement. If no significant encroachments
are found within the floodplain areas, no further analysis and no special
floodplain findings are necessary.'
According to Executive Order No. 5050.4A, the definition of significant
encroachment to a floodplain involves:
a. A considerable probability of loss of human life.
b. Likely future damage associated with the encroachment that could be
substantial in cost or extent, including interruption of services on or
loss of a vital transportation facility.
C. A notable adverse impact on natural and beneficial floodplain values.

Encroachments to the floodplain due to construction of the runway extension
will not be significant according to the above definition. Construction plans
will show that flood waters will not be significantly altered. In fact,
construction of the runway extension will take place at the opposite end of the
runway from the floodplain area. Airport construction will not cause loss of
human life due to flooding and/or endanger transportation or any other
facilities.
1seeFxecutive Order 5050.4A, Chapter 5, Paragraph 47.12.6.1-
19

o ?
TOWN OF BRUNSWICK
AREA NOT INCLUDED)

t!?
EXISTING RUNWAY
W/ EXPANSION TO
5500'
roE\
..... ..... A?ZONE A

/-ZONE A

41
4
?G
HARRELSONVILLE

\l,'
FIGURE 6
FLOODPLAIN MAP
of the
COLUMBUS
COUNTY AIRPORT
COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMBER Scsle 1" = 2000'
370305 0008 A 1978
U.S. DEPT. OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

' Finally, no notable adverse impacts on the natural and beneficial floodplain
value are anticipated due to construction of the runway extension.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has indicated Columbus County is
responsible for jurisdiction with regard to floodplain management. Therefore,
Columbus County must approve or disapprove encroachments into the
floodplain for this project. No encroachment into the floodplain is anticipated
as shown. In addition, the completed engineering design will not cause more
' flooding in the area, nor will any structural habitat that is currently occupied
be subject to flooding due to construction of the runway extension. Proper
stormwater control measures, along with site grading for construction of the
' runway extension, will alleviate any flood hazard problems associated with the
floodplain in Camp Branch. Further coordination will be through the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and Columbus County before permitting and
' construction.
' 13. Coastal Zone Management:
The Columbus County Airport is located approximately 36 miles west of the
' coastal area of North Carolina but is considered outside the zone of influence
of Coastal Zone Management. Additionally, no comments were received
dealing with coastal zone management during the initial intergovernmental
' review of the proposed action. Therefore, no further action is necessary.
14. Coastal Barriers:
' See Section 13 previous. No further action is necessary.
15. Wild and Scenic Rivers:
The Airport is not located adjacent to any designated wild/scenic river, nor is
the proposed development expected to impact any designated wild/scenic river.
No comments regarding wild/scenic rivers were received during the initial
intergovernmental review process and no further action is necessary.
' 16. Farmland:
The United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, was
contacted with regard to prime/unique farmlands and statewide important
farmlands in the project area. Form AD-1006 was supplied to the U.S.
' Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
Farmland impacts were considered during initial planning stages, and airport
' activities have been coordinated with the Soil Conservation Service. The
1 21

1
1

1

r

1
17.
18.
19.
20.
proposed site location is located in a highly rural area of the County. The
property is undeveloped and maintained as a field once used for farming.
However, the Soil Conservation Service considers it suitable for cultivation as
farmland regardless of present utilization patterns.
Upon review of the Farmland Conversion Rating Form AD-1006, the site had
a total score of 99.4. The critical point total used by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture is 260. Since the score was 160.6 points below the critical score,
no further action is necessary with regard to farmland on this site. The score
sheet, along with the criteria used for the score sheet, is included in Appendix
VII. The score sheet was sent to the Soil Conservation Service, and no reply
was received.
Energupply and Natural Resources:
Construction of the runway extension does not necessitate a demand for
materials which are in short supply, the need for unusual or sparse natural
resources, or expectation of significant increase in aviation fuel consumption.
Therefore, foreseeable energy-related impacts are not expected.
Light Emissions:
Planned lighting includes medium intensity runway lighting for the runway
extension, threshold lights and medium intensity taxiway lights for the taxiway.
All new lighting will be installed in areas which are uninhabited within 1,000
feet or more; therefore, no impact is anticipated.
Solid Waste Impact:
The project relates only to airfield development and does not include any
direct relationship to solid waste collection, control or disposal other than
minimal issues associated with construction itself. There are no known
sanitary landfills within 10,000 feet of the Airport, so no further analysis is
necessary.
Construction Impact:
Although construction impacts are temporary and of lesser magnitude than
the runway extension's long-term impacts, several issues must be addressed in
this subsection: Impacts on flora and fauna from construction, air pollution
from construction, and noise from construction.
1. Impacts on Flora and Fauna from Construction: It has been shown the
probable area of impact is only the construction area itself.
22

1
G

1

1

1
Undoubtedly, animals which inhabit the construction area will be
dislodged and permanently lost. Most airport construction projects of
similar size and estimated noise potential find indigenous plants and
animals quickly adjust to changes imposed by humans.
2. Air Pollution from Construction: Construction equipment used during
implementation of various projects is not expected to produce any
pollution problems as it will be a short term duration. Contractors will
adhere to all state and local laws regarding open burning regulations
and restrictions. Construction specifications will include the provisions
stated in the FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-10. Preventative
practices, such as off-site disposal, sodding and anti-dust soil
dampening, will be instituted if a problem develops.
3. Noise from Construction: Construction noise from paving equipment
and the clearing during site preparation is generally inoffensive to
surrounding areas unless the equipment is imprudently used. No
blasting is expected to be required. Construction equipment will make
noise like that of numerous farm implements used in the surrounding
fields. The rural location of the project area make the construction
noise even less likely to disturb residential areas. Thus, the effects of
airport construction noise should be unnoticeable, and no noise control
program will be necessary.
The Contractor will be discouraged from. using open burning to clear sites of
small vegetative growth. State of North Carolina standards and the most rigid
federal and local laws or regulations pertaining to open burning will be
followed. Any debris from the clearing operations will be disposed of in
accordance with the most restrictive of local, state, and federal regulations.
If the debris from clearing cannot be disposed of in any other satisfactory
manner, the Contractor will be required to burn it on airport property, in
accordance with the most restrictive of federal, state, or local laws/ordinances.
Contractors will also be required to maintain their equipment in satisfactory
condition to minimize air pollution from exhaust emissions.
21. Environmental Consequences - Other Considerations:
This environmental assessment addresses potential affects imposed on the
nearby environment from implementation of various development projects
scheduled for the Columbus County Airport. The chosen alternative, a 1,800
foot extension to the southwest and parallel taxiway are the primary airport
items evaluated for specific environmental impacts.
r The means to mitigate adverse environmental impacts are included in the
1 23

1

r

1

impacts section and are important in judging the significance of an impact.
This assessment supports the finding that the proposed action will include all
possible steps to minimize any adverse effects.
There proposed action poses no apparent conflicts with the objectives of
federal, regional, state, and local land use plans, policies, programs, and
controls for the area concerned. The proposal is consistent with adopted
plans, goals, policies, or controls for the area in which the Airport is located.
There are no known inconsistencies of the proposed action with any approved
state or local plan and laws.
There is sufficient acreage to provide a suitable habitat for wildlife which may
be removed from the areas to be graded for the runway extension and related
projects. Although several endangered/threatened species were suspected to
be in the area, surveys by biologists indicated no potential species are in the
project site.
Remaining environmental impacts addressed in the FAA Airport Environment
Handbook that are subject to an assessment are either not applicable or are
expected to occur within limits enforced upon by the appropriate regulatory
agency.
24

IL?

1
1

APPENDIX I
Mailing List

' CONTACT LIST FOR COLUMBUS COUNTY
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Ms. L.K. Mike Gantt, Supervisor
United States Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
' Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Heinz Mueller
Acting Chief, NEPA Review Staff
U.S. EPA Region 4
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, GA 30365
' Ms. Chrys Baggett
N.C. State Clearinghouse
Department of Administration
116 W. Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27611
Mr. Roy Lowe, County Manager
Columbus County Office
111 Washington Street
Whiteville, NC 28472
Mr. Bruce Matthews
N.C. Department of Transportation
Division of Aviation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Mr. Jeff Richter
Regulatory Branch
Department of the Army
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890

Mr. Kenneth B. Old
Flood Plain Management Services Branch
Department of the Army
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Mr. Willie Spruill
State Conservationist
United States Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
P.O. Box 756
Fairmont, North Carolina 28340

1
1

1

11

1

rl

1

1

APPENDIX II
Scoping Letter and Responses

Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P.A.
Consulting Engineers
Post Office Box 1737 • Southern Pines, NC 28388
March 18, 1992
IJ
Mr. Roy W. Lowe, County Manager
Administrative Office
111 Washington Street
Whiteville, North Carolina 28472
Re: Environmental Impact of the Proposed Runway Extension
Columbus County Airport
Columbus County, North Carolina
I Dear Mr. Lowe:
Columbus County, in conjunction with the North Carolina Department of Transportation,
Division of Aviation, proposes to construct an extension to the existing 3700 foot runway
at the Columbus County Airport. The Columbus County Airport is located near the Town
of Brunswick, approximately four miles south of Whiteville, North Carolina (see Figure 1).
The airport is located near the center of Columbus County. The airport facilities consist
of a paved 3700 foot runway (5-23 runway alignment), 75 feet in width. An Environmental
Assessment is being prepared to evaluate alternatives and to recommend a preferred
alternative for this project.
The purpose of this letter is to solicit comments and initiate coordination of the proposed
project. The project will consist of an extension of the current 3700 foot runway to an
initial length of 5000 feet and an ultimate length of 5500 feet. In addition, the runway
width will ultimately be expanded from the current 75 foot width to the proposed 100 foot
width (see Figure 2). Various alternatives for this expansion will be investigated and
evaluated. The no-build alternative and improvement of existing facilities will also be
evaluated.
The project area is located entirely in Columbus County. Land use surrounding the
proposed runway extension is primarily farmland or rural residential. It is not anticipated
that any relocation of residents and/or businesses will be required (see Figure 3).
Preliminary background research for archaeological and historical resources has begun.
Cultural resource surveys are also presently being conducted to identify and evaluate any
290 S.W. Broad Street Telephone [phone]- Fax [phone]

1

Mr. Roy W. Lowe
March 18, 1992
Page 2 . .
potentially significant resources. All research in these areas is in full compliance with
appropriate state regulations.
Freshwater wetlands may be encountered by the proposed runway extension along the
' northeast end of the runway. Floodplain land will be impacted throughout the project
area. Any required mitigation and all best alternative designs will follow State and Federal
regulations and guidelines.
Federally-listed and state-listed endangered species of plants or animals are believed likely
to be in the proposed construction area. Of the threatened and endangered species which
may possibly occur in the project area, the most likely to be found is:
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
j Waccamau silverside (Menidia extensa) - T
Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi) - E
Michaux's poison-sumac (Rhus michauxii).- E
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia) - E
Canby's dropwort ( olis canbvii) - E
Waccamaw killifish (Fundulus waccamensis) - SR
Savannah shore mussel (Carunculina pi la) - SR
Waccamaw spike (Elliptio waccamawensis) - SR
Waccamaw lance pearly mussel (Elli do sp.) - SR
Pee Dee lotic crayfish (Procambarus lenidodac , lus) - SR
Resinous thoroughwort (Eupatorium resinosum) - E
Sarvis holly (Ilex amelanchier) - SR
Carolina grass-of-parnassus (Parnassia caroliniana) - E
Spring-flowering goldenrod (Solidaeo verna) - E
Wireleaf dropseed (Sporobolus teretifolius) - T
Rafinesque's big-eared bat (Plecotus rafinesquii) - SR
Harper's fringe-rush (Fimbris , lis prepusilla) - SR
Pineland plantain (Plantago sparsiflora) - E
Yellow fringeless orchid (Platanthera Integra) - T
Plymouth gentian (Sabatia kennedyana) - T
E: Endangered
T: Threatened SR: Significantly Rare

1
1
Mr. Roy W. Lowe
March 18, 1992
Page 3
The construction area will be reviewed in the field to verify the presence or absence of
any Federally- or State-listed threatened or endangered species.
Please note
that no informal interagency scoping meeting will take place for this project.
This letter, therefore, constitutes solicitation for scoping comments related to this project.
In order that we may fully evaluate the impacts of the proposed project, responses in
writing concerning any anticipated beneficial or adverse impacts of the project relating to
the interest of your or your agency are requested. For our consultants to stay on schedule
and for your comments to be included in their draft report, please respond no later than
April 24, 1992.
Sincerely,
HOBBS, UPCH RCH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
U`
Kenneth . Justice, E.I.T.
Project Manager
KMJ/tgb

1

u
u

1
l
r

Environmental Consequences
[l
1

11

G
G
i
The following categories did not receive a response during
the initial intergovernmental review:
1. Noise
2. Compatible Land Use
3. Social Impacts
4. Induced Socioeconomic Impacts
5. Air Quality
7. Department of Transportation Action Section 4(f)
13. Coastal Zone Manageemnt
14. Coastal Barriers
15. Wild and Scenic Rivers
17. Energy Supply and Natural Resources
18. Lighting Emmissions
19. Solid Waste Impacts
20. Construction Impacts

1

1

6. Water Quality
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural R4 es
Division of Environmental Management . '.l
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 y
James G. Martin, Governor George T. Everett, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary April 9, 1992 Director
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John DorneW-T)
From: Eric Galamb - ?'
Subject: Columbus County Airport Runway Extensions: .
Columbus County
EHNR # 92-0729, DEM WQ # 5173
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental Management requests that
the following topics be discussed in the EA/EIS/Scoping documents:
A. Will deicing agents be used? If so, where will the deicing agents be applied
and will they be treated?
B. Please identify the borrow locations.
C. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The stream
classifications should be current.
D. Identify the linear feet of stream channelization/relocations.
E. Number of stream crossings.
F. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to be employed.
G. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? If so, identify the responsible
party for maintenance.
H. Wetland Impacts
i) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and delineating jurisdictional
wetlands.
ii) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
I
Klt,l( NAL (rfl( CS
Wiccilk• I'amic\'IIIC \i(x)rc,\illc RAIC101 \X!.101111go \\'dnnna;un \\'in.tnnsalcm
;It.l 2iIo20S I) So Ii-11 7111 tt- 16911 919'i71 -171A1 91');'?)4(,A1?! 40 31): ;`7cX7
Pollution Prevention. Pal's
I'l t B.,\ 216 IL\lciglt. North ( molim, 2'N2( 0? , .1 1c1\h- c '+I + - E.; :-Ill i

iii) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
iv) Mitigation measures to compensate for habitat losses.
v) Wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
vi) Total impacts of wetland impacts.
vii) List the 401 Water Quality General Certification numbers to cover the
project.
Please be aware that written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project.
columbap.sco
cc: Eric Galamb
1

11

?l? L?
i STATF RECEIVED MAY - 7 1992
A . o
/ Uraw,?"State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor John N. Morris
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
I
May 5, 1992
Mr. Kenneth M. Justice, E.I.T.
Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates
P. O. Box 1737
Southern Pines, NC 28388
Dear Mr. Justice:
I am responding to your March 18, 1992 letter requesting
scoping comments on the proposed extension to the existing 3,700
foot runway at the Columbus County Airport.
We have no comments on this project at this time.
In the future, if you need scoping comments on a proposed
project from State government, just send 10 copies of your
request to Ms. Chrys Baggett, State Clearinghouse, 116 West Jones
St., Raleigh, NC 27603-8003. She will circulate among different
agencies and you will receive their comments through her within
about 45 days.
Sincerely yours,
"""tuff" !/ ?r/•i: r? ?•'
John D. Sutherland, Chief
Water Resources Planning Section
JDS/bb

P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611.7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer•::.:-
_XF'.?
C-
State of North Carolina
Deparrnent"ofEnvirori?nent, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS Charles H. Gardner
W1111am W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Project Number: County: Co/u1,6u.S
Project Name:
Geodetic Survey
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
A\ Reviewer Date
-Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If*any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Departmbnt of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
?., For more-information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
/- 2 - 92
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Aflirmadve Action Employer
State of North Carolina
Reviewing Office: I 1
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources - W - . -?-j`---
jec
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW -PROJECT COMMENTS Pro ? t Number: Due Date a^ 6 7a?
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same
Normal Process
Regional Office. T.-
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment
facilities, sewer system extensions, & sewer Application 90 days before begin construction or award of
construction contracts On-site inspection. Post •application 30 days
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90.120 days
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to
discharging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply (N/A)
time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
t - 30 days
C1 Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary
(N/A)
7 days
Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued
prior to the installation of a well. (15 days)
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 days
Dredge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 (jays)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 days
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H.06 N/A ,p?(1717,? t90 days)
?
Any open burning associated with subject proposa l' ee ,?
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520.

Demolition or renovations of structures containing ;- . --r
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A 60 days
NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal N/A r-_ '? v
^
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
?'
I L
919.733.0820. `? (90 days)

Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 20.0800. ?3\,'
i
,
f
r
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An ierib' t edimentatio
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect.) at least 30
20 days
days before beginning activity. A fee of $30 for the first acre and $20.00 for each additional acre or art must accompany the plan (30 days)
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: (30 days)

F On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
o Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond (60 days)
must be received before the permit can be issued.
North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days (N/A)
? Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils On-site inspection 'by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more
than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections 1 day
(N/A)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned."

El 90.120 da; s
Oil Refininc Facilities N/A (N/A)
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans. 30 days
Dam Sate:. Permit inspect construction. certify construction is according to EHNR approv
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And (60 days)
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces-
sary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of $200.00 must ac-
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion
a ;1, u,-, Continued on revers:;
i

i
f
t
i

F ^rocess
ime
(statutory time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
File surety bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to Slate of N.C. 10 days
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon (NIA)
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. (NIA)
State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include 1520 days
descriptions 8 drawings of structure 8 proof of ownership (NIA)
of riparian property.
60 days
401 Water Quality Certification NIA (130 days)
55 days
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development $250.00 fee must accompany application (150 days)
22 days
CAMA Permit for MINOR development $50.00 fee must accompany application (25 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Abandonment of any wells, if required, must be in accordance with Title 15A, Subchapter 2C.0100.
Notification of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (USTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
45 days
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H.1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required. (NIA)
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority):
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office ? Fayetteville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Asheville, NC 28801 Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone] [phone]
? Mooresville Regional Office ? Raleigh Regional Office
919 North Main Street, P.O. Bo
Mooresville, NC 28115 x 950 3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone] [phone]
? Washington Regional Office ? Wilmington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Washington, NC 27889 Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone] [phone]
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
8025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
[phone]

1

8. Historic, Architectural and
Cultural Resources
t
?d ?S7g1?q
y
i
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources

James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
April 10, 1992
Kenneth M. Justice
Hobbs, Upchurch and Associates, P.A.
P.O. Box 1737 .
Southern Pines, 'N . C . 28388
Division of,.A?chives and History
rlf:iaW S. M? ce&., Director
d
f J

Re:. Proposed Runway Extension:for Columbus
County Airport, ER 92-8032 CfQ Z't-"adev -0127
Dear Mr. Justice:
1
Thank you for your letter of March 18,-1992, eoncerning'the above project.
11

We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of-no structures
of historical or architectural:importance located-within-the planning
area. 'However, since a-comprehensive historical architeetural,?inventory
of Columbus-County has never been conducted,,there maybe structures of
which we are unaware located within the,pianning area.
We look forward-to receipt of the survey reports describing historic
architectural-structures and archaeological sites located within.the area
of potential effect.
The above comments are made pursuant. to Section .106 of. the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and-the-Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's-Regulations for Compliance with Section 106., codified at
36. CFR Part 800.

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration.. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
otate Clearinghouse
109 EastJones Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

1
i

9. Biotic Communities (Including Flora, Fauna)
(See Following Section)
r

r
1-1

11

[l
1

R E,DIVED 5 1992
I?714'Q? o ?--
?/ J?? /??'• 07 7s.z °
77
?? ?1 K?' ? our ? ?i?or
...$/-P? ?--e /c/' ?d Q"--Q ?Ll?? / `r?i?Oxp Co11!/-P/S^q /C ?
y ? y
?.avJ?r /?Z A
lire ??l LL c,?-Q /L o ?-ts O .?rcrLv . i-v c
er a-
; d!i r Cam/ 6 `7 .
?C// /?!-(/J -

r-

1
1

`.ahiteville, N. C.
April 6; -1992
TO: Don Robbins, Staff Forester p
FROM: Bob Houseman, District Forester
SUBJECT: Proposed runway extension at the Columbus
I County Airport
Careful review of the proposed runway extension at the
Columbus County Airport indicates that no negative
impact will be experienced upon woodland property
adjoining the southwestern end of existing runway. The
proposed extension is needed to make this airport
?.? compatible with corporate business needs and should
also enhance our fire control needs..
All in all, we view this proposal as a positive move
towards meeting the future needs of the people of
Columbus County, and our agency will share the benefit
of a longer runw ay.
BH/bb

1

10. Endangered/Threatened Species of
Flora, Fauna and Fish

r
I]

. VEp APR 2 0 1992
i
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Recreation
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor Dr. Philip K. McKnelly
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
April 15, 1992
Mr. Kenneth M. Justice, E.I.T.
Hobbs, Upchurch, & Associates, P.A.
P. O. Box 1737
Southern Pines, NC 28388
SUBJECT: Environmental Impact of Proposed Runway Extension
Columbus County Airport, Columbus County
Dear Mr. Justice:
The Natural Heritage Program has a record of Venus flytrap (Dionaea
muscipula), a state Candidate-Special Concern and federal Candidate
species, near the proposed project. This species should be added
to your list of theatened and endangered species that may possibly
occur in the project area.
Columbus County is known to be a biologically rich area, although
there has been no systematic county inventory. We therefore
recommend that the area of the proposed project be surveyed by
qualified biologists, during the growing season, for the rare
species that may occur there. As you noted in your letter,
wetlands and floodplain land may be impacted by the proposed
project, so mitigation and best management practices should be
followed throughout the project.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed project.
Sincerely,

Ann W. Kelly
Natural Heritage Program
t
r
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
SENT OF T
United States Department of the Interior
p
V
7 31
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Mq -r -?OAe Rnleigil Field Oflice
RCH 3
Posl 01'11(-e Box :3:372(3
Raleigh, No i i C: i-olina 27636-3726
April 15, 1992
Mr. Kenneth M. Justice
Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P.A.
I P.O. Box 1737
Southern Pines, NC 28388
Subject: Columbus County Airport Proposed Runway Extension
TAXI
MKIN
AMMCA

Dear Mr. Justice:
This responds to your letter of March 18, 1992, requesting comments on the
proposed project. These comments are provided in accordance with provisions
of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661 et seq.) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
The enclosed pages identify the Federally-listed endangered (E) and/or
threatened (T) and/or species proposed for listing as endangered (PE) or
threatened (PT) which may occur in the proposed project corridor. If the
proposed project will be removing pines greater than or equal to 30 years of
age in pine or pine/hardwood habitat, surveys should be conducted for active
red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees in appropriate habitat within a 1/2
mile radius of project boundaries. If red-cockaded woodpeckers are observed
within the project area or active cavity trees found, the project has the
potential to adversely affect the red-cockaded woodpecker and you should
contact this office for further information.
The U.S. Fish and-Wildlife Service (Service) is particularly concerned about
potential impacts of the proposed project upon palustrine forested and
scrub-shrub wetlands in the study area. Therefore, special care should be
exercised in the design and construction of all structures that would impact
wetlands. A photocopy of the appropriate section of the National Wetlands
Inventory Map for the study area is enclosed as a general reference,
although additional wetland areas are likely to be present in addition to
*_h-s3 shoo-in c:n tha man.
In general, forested wetlands are of significant value to resident and
migratory wildlife as sites for feeding, cover, migration, nesting and
juvenile rearing. In addition, forested wetlands perform essential water
quality functions such as pollution and sediment removal; serve as flood
water retention sites; and contribute useable nutrients to the aquatic food
web. A detailed description of this habitat type and its value to fish and
wildlife is found in the Service's publication entitled Riparian Ecosystems:
Their Ecology and Status (Brinson, M.M., B.L. Smith, R.C. Plantico and J.S.
Barclay. 1981. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-81/17. 15 pp.).
The values of palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands have become better understood
in recent years and are described in the Service publication: "The Ecology
of Southeastern Shrub
Profile." (Sharitz, R.R Bogs (Pocosins) and Carolina Bays: A
. and J.W. Gibbons. 1982. U.S. Fish an Community
d Wildlife
Service FWS/OBS-82-04. 93 pp.). The dense vegetation of palustrine
scrub-shrub wetlands serves as resting, feeding, nesting and sometimes
critical refuge habitat for such diverse fauna as black bear, raccoon,
11
American woodcock, pine barrens treefrog, as well as a variety of passerine
songbirds, rodents, and several reptilian species. Seasonally available
water frequently serves as breeding and larval habitat for an unusually wide
variety of amphibians.
The Service's review of any environmental document would be greatly
facilitated if it contained the following information:
1) A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within existing
and required additional right-of-way and any areas, such as borrow
areas, which may be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed
improvements.
2) Acreage of branches, creeks, streams, rivers or wetlands to be
filled. Wetlands affected by the proposed project should be mapped
in accordance with the Federal Manual for Identifying and
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.
3) Linear feet of any water courses relocated.
4) Acreage of upland habitats, by cover type, which would be
eliminated,.
5) Techniques which will be employed for designing and constructing
any relocated stream channels or for creating replacement wetlands.
6) Mitigation measures which will be employed to avoid, eliminate,
reduce or compensate for habitat value losses associated with any
of the proposed improvements.
7) Assessments of the expected secondary and cumulative impacts of the
1 proposed project on fish and wildlife resources.
.I
The Service recommends that all unavoidable wetland impacts be mitigated
fully in accordance with the Service's Mitigation Policy (Federal Register
46(15): 7644-7663), January 23, 1981). Pending field confirmation, the
wetlands that would be impacted by the proposed project are classified as
Resource Category 2 habitat. The Service's mitigation goal for Category 2
is no net loss of in-kind habitat value. After wetland impacts have been
avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practical, any compensatory
mitigation plan developed for this project should include the following:
o Detailed descriptions of the proposed mitigation sites, including aerial
photos with the location and boundaries of these areas clearly marked.
o Reasons why these sites were selected.
o Descriptions of all wetland restoration or creation techniques (e.g.,
ditch plugging, removal of fill, grading), if any, which will be
necessary to restore or create hydrologic conditions equivalent to those
in the wetlands impacted by this project.
o Complete list of preferred and alternative species proposed for
planting.
o Acceptable survival rate for planted specimens.
o Monitoring timeframes and techniques which will be employed.
o Contingency plans for additional action should initial attempts be
unsuccessful.
1
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments to you and encourage
your consideration of them.
Sincerely yours,
l?
L.K. Mike Gantt
Supervisor
I Enclosures
1

11
11
I

-PFOIC-- 6?6, -
_ - PUBH x"?
P A
.?
?,? PFOIC PFOIC
PuBFX
PFO A
PFOIN
FOIA`
PA83Hh`. -=-? ' f PF04A
PUSH
I
Pual
BRI(i J,
• f
Pli
PFOIAV I PFOI/4A
(s, PFOIAPUt3Kx _
PUBNxJ Ic r
-PFOI
1 z X?j? PfOIA -
P(1BHh- ,.?._??-?-?- . : - ' '?•' Hartr,?sonvfl;? :? i _,/PI
„---? : ' Croaaroads
PFO?A
2F' c?PF01A ".ter UgH 1i6:• ?.-?_ - ._, _ ?1• • ? - . -
VFO lc--
:PFOIA _ Pss3
01
47
QOOO.FFET - 'OQ .?0
1
1
1
1
U
1

1

9 6192
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission C
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Division of Planning and Assesssment FROM: Dennis L. Stewart, Manager Z?L. 1-fY
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: April'23, 1992
SUBJECT: Review of Proposed Runway Extension, Columbus County
Airport, Columbus County, North Carolina. Project No.
92-0729.
Professional staff biologists with the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the proposed
project and are familiar with habitat values associated with the
project area. An on-site investigation was conducted on 14 April
1992 for the purpose of further assessing construction impacts on
wildlife, fisheries, and wetland resources. Our comments are
provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
Columbus County, in association with the N.C. Department of
Transportation, is proposing to expand the runway of the
Columbus County Airport from the current length of 3,700 feet to
5,000 feet, with an ultimate length of 5,500 feet. The runway
will also be widened from the current 75 feet to 100 feet.
Presently, Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P.A., consulting
Engineers, Southern Pines, N.C., have begun an evaluation/review
of any potential resources that may be impacted by this proposed
project.
In accordance with our review of the proposed project, we
provide the following comments:
1. The applicant should have submitted a map delineating
all wetlands on the project site. We request the
applicant contact the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers for
assistance in identifying all wetlands on the proposed
site. In our review of the project site, it seems
obvious that some areas do appear to be wetlands and
will require the deposition of fill material to
construct the runway extension. The applicant must

fl

C
Memo
Page 2
April 23, 1992
coordinate with the Corps before we can make a
recommendation for permit approval or denial. In the
event that wetland resources are identified, a concise
mitigation plan to reduce overall impacts, as well as
high resolution maps of these wetlands, should be
submitted by the applicant in future correspondence.
2. A concise survey of all Endangered (E), Threatened
(T), or Significantly Rare species likely to occur on
the project site should be undertaken by the
applicant. Summary information of all species found
(whether or not E or T) should be submitted in order
that a thorough review by our staff can be conducted.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
proposed project.
DLS/lp
cc: Keith Ashley, District 4 Fisheries Biologist
Thomas M. Padgett, District 4 Wildlife Biologist
Steve A. Pozzanghera, Piedmont Region Habitat Biologist
Kenneth M. Justice, E.I.T., Project Manager

11. Wetlands
I

H

I-
i

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
1 Regulatory Branch
May 7, 1992
Wetland Determination, Action ID No. 199202002
Mr. Rhone Sasser
Chairman Columbus County Airport Authority
Post Office Box 632
Whiteville, North Carolina 28472
Dear Mr. Sasser:
On April 29, 1992, Mr. Kenneth Justice with Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates
met with Ms. Jean Benton of my staff on your property on located off S.R.
1181, adjacent to Camp Branch, near Brunswick, Columbus County, North
Carolina, to determine the presence of wetlands subject to our regulatory
jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Mr. Justice met with Ms. Benton to discuss the proposed expansion of the
existing runway.
Issuance of Department of the Army authorization must precede any
placement of excavated or fill material within any wetlands on your property.
Unauthorized activity would be a violation of Federal law. Before you
undertake any work, we strongly suggest that the wetlands be surveyed and
platted on a property map. Such mapping would help you avoid any
unintentional disturbance of wetlands on the site and would assist your
' planning and be essential to any application for a permit which you might
submit. Surveyed wetland lines, shown on property maps, must be field
verified and confirmed in writing by our staff to be acceptable.
Enclosed are copies of 2 Wetland Determination Forms, providing specific
information obtained at stations on your property. The data on these forms
support the delineation of wetlands on your site as set forth by the criteria
in the 1987 "'Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual".
Questions or comments may be addressed to Ms. Benton, Regulatory Branch,
' Wilmington Field office, telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
1

-2-
Copies Furnished (with enclosure):

U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Region IV
Wetlands Regulatory Unit
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Mr. Ren,,:Justice, E.I.T.
Hobb Upchurch & Associates, P.A.
P t office Box 1737
outhern Pines, North Carolina 28388
Mr. Jack Duffell
Columbus County Airport
Post Office Box 800
Whi.teville, North Carolina 28472

n

r WETLAND/UPLAND DETERMINATION FORM
Applicant Name and Address: Mc _\Q.?,,,e c? -may o
completed : y aq - 9G w county:
Date Determinatio
Location: CND y S
' Nearest Waterway:

1

Herbaceous species (including vines)
1 . tJ c%?C? C?oS.v, et c ?.- ???
2 . C..% nr?c?r.?a r. ?c ec e? - F AC.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Shrubs f3 to 20 ft. talZZ
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

vegetation? _Yes2! No_ Basis:?50` a??C-?'a?- ???`c?\ `-•`,? cc
SOIL (non-sandy):
Series identified: h' dr+S On hydric soils 21st? Yesi/No
Matrix color and texture just below A horizon: \,CI%\l R C;nM
Mottle colors just below A horizon (If applicable):
'5jt f) 5?nA 45, k,
' Hydric soil? Yes zNo,_ Basis:
1
1
DOMINANT VEGETATION (with indicator status):
Trees> >5 inch dbh and >20 ft. tall)
1 .-.•
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
saplings (0.4 to <5 inch dbh and
<20 ft. tall)
1 . ReA. IcAC
2. S.aae)t c3S.t,.+
3. \ L%1law
4.
Bryophytes:
SOIL (sandy):
Series identified: On hydric soils list' Yes_No
Surface horizon thickness and color:
Subsurface thickness and color:
Spodic horizon depth and thickness (if applicable):
Hydric soil? Yes No_ Basis:
HYDROLOGY:
Inundated? Yes No_,G Depth of Water:__ a
Saturated soils? Yes,/1Po_ Depth to saturation/water table: o-?a
Wetland hydrology? Yes_,::Zff0'_ Basis (if Yes): Drift lines Oxidized
' rh.izospheres Sulphide odor within 12 inches Drainage patterns_Surface
scouring Water stained trunks_Soi1 survey data_.LExplasnJ.'
Ath -
1
1
IJ
Regional indicators of soil saturation? YesId No_(If Yes, Which Ones?)
M% tAs„ •.t r\%!.r etics?r.erG?
Summary on hydrology: ulpilnn_1d
WETLAND DETERMINATION: WETLAND_ 11-UPLAND_
BASIS FOR DETERMINATION:)9A'X P\E-11 Oxg-C, n
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HW BELOW HW_ADJACENTISOLATED_
AUTHORITY: Section 10_Section 404_%,:=5'ection 101404 None
re,,crr
DETERMINED

1
1
1

Date Detorgunar10
Location: A1?11?
Nearest Waterway:

DOMINANT VEGETATION (with indicator status):
,es> >5 inch dbh and >20 ft. tall)
1. W:k\ow- GQL
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Sanlinas (0.4 to <5 inch dbli and
<20 ft. tall)
1.
2.
4.
Bryophytes: SQL s?-.csS
gydrophytic vegetation? Yestt o
_ A
Herbaceous Species (including vines)
1. \l t(+O.,r.:o_ - e'\.c.,l... ?eeV%- dbl..
2 . tV e?'tJe
3 . CL•.<w.w.o e. ?e e n - FACvrI
4.
5.
6.
7.
Shrubs f3 to 20 ft. ta111
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
SOIL (non-sandy):
Series identified: A Ak &\* On hydric soils list? Yes_v_'_'O
Matrix color and texture just below A horizon: \ Nk'R_N1`!%
Mottle colors just below A horizon (if applicable):
8pdric soil? Yes_4,zNo Basis:
Ste.\.e
SOIL (sandy):
Series Identified: On hydric soils list? Yes No
Surface horizon thickness and color:
Subsurface thickness and color:
Spodle horizon depth and thickness (if applicable):
Hydric soil? Yes No_ Basis:
1

1
1
1
HYDROLOGY:
Inundated? Yes ?No,_,_ Depth of Water: Q3
Saturated soils? Yes_.,,.,Ab Depth to saturation/water table:
Wetland hydrology? Yes_,:Jr Basis (if Yes): Drift lines Oxidized
rhi.zospheres Sulphide odor within 12 inches- Drainage patterns_Surface
scouring Water stained trunks Soi1 survey data_[Explainl
Other
Regional indicators of soil saturation? Yes ? No (If Yes, Which Ones?)
Summary on hydrology: u1eAAa vl Hgd.rnXn j--mss
WETLAND DETERMINATION: WETLAND_--UPLAND
BASIS FOR DETERMINATION: BW1 1.1- I, rea n
CT
y'.C;,

JURISDICTION: ABOVE HW __1e9fLOW HW ADJACENT ISOLATED-
AUTHORITY: Section 10 Section 404_%,:::5'ect1on 10/404 None_
DETERMINED
Basss:7 50°?o T: AC. C?aL ? N??:c?.a.,` ?:.5? nc
i
1
1
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO August 26, 1992
' Regulatory Branch
Action ID. 199202002
' Mr. Rhone Sasser
Chairman, Columbus County Airport Authority
Post Office Box 632
Whiteville, North Carolina 28472
Dear Mr. Sasser:
Reference is made to the survey plat dated August 24, 1992, for the
Columbus County airport property, located off S.R. 1181, adjacent to and above
the headwaters of Camp Branch, Brunswick, Columbus County, North Carolina.
The survey plat accurately reflects the limits of wetlands on the property in
accordance with criteria set forth in the 1987 "U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual". Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination of the limits of wetlands may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed three years from the date of this
l) letter.
'.l Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, prior Department of the
Army approval is required for the discharge of dredged or fill material in
waters of the United States, including wetlands.
If you have questions, please contact Ms. Jean Benton at [phone].
' Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
' Chief, Regulatory Branch
Copies Furnished.
' U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Region IV
Wetlands Regulatory Unit
' 345 Courtland Street, NE.
/Mr. tlanta, Georgia 30365
Ken Justice
' Hobbs, Upchurch, & Associates, P.A.
Post Office Box 1131
Southern Pines, North Carolina 28388

1
1

r
L

1
1

1

1
12. Floodplains

l

?- i, •r . ., .f
;i
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
March 25, 1992

' Flood Plain Management
Services Branch
REFERENCE: Environmental Impact of the Proposed Runway Extension
' Columbus County Airport
Columbus County, North Carolina
Mr.
Kenneth M. Justice, E.I.T.
Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P.A.
Post Office Box 1737
Southern Pines, North Carolina 28388
Dear Mr. Justice:
This is in response to your March 18, 1992, request for a flood-hazard
analysis of the proposed Columbus County Airport Runway Extension and
the receipt of your check for $55 to cover the cost of providing this
information. The site is located near the intersection of S.R. 1170 and
S.R. 1181 running parallel to Camp Branch.
Detailed flood plain information is not available for this site. Based
on the Columbus County Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel 150 dated June 3, 1991,
1 and inspection of the Whiteville, North Carolina quad sheet, the extension
to 5,000 feet would be in Zone X, which is outside the 500-year flood plain.
The extension to 5,500 feet with runway widened to 100 feet and parallel
taxiway would require construction in Zone A, which is within the 100-year
flood plain. Portions of the taxiway may require fill in the channel of
Camp Branch. A detailed flood plain analysis of the 5,500-foot extension on
Camp Branch should be made to ensure conformance with North Carolina General
' Statutes and Columbus County Ordinance(s) on flood plain modifications.
The proposed project wetland and other environmental impacts will be
' addressed in a separate letter.
We appreciate the opportunity to furnish this data. If we can be of
further assistance, please do not hesitate to call on us.
Sincerely,
,4 -.'9' 01
K. B. Old, Jr., P.E.
Chief, Flood Plain Management
Services Branch

1
1

1
1
1

i)

1
1

1

i
16. Farmland

1
a,. sort „?
a? -
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
' Division of Soil and Water Conservation
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
' James G. Martin, Governor David W. Sides
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
March 27, 1992
' Mr. Kenneth M. Justice
Project Manager
Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P.A.
P. O. Box 1737
' Southern Pines, N.C. 28388
Dear Mr. Justice:
' The proposed extension for the Columbus County Airport will
involve conversion of prime farmland. The Environmental
Assessment should include an estimate of the number of acres to
be effected. Soils information is available through the Columbus
Soil and Water Conservation District [phone].
A wetland evaluation should be included in the Environmental
Assessment. There may be potential to create a wet savanna that
could accommodate some of the endangered plant species mentioned
as part of the mitigation process-.
Sincerely, -
David W. Sides
Director
DWS/DH/tl
cc: Melba McGee
1
r
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 2701.7687 'litlephonc 919.733 2302
An Equal Oplwrtunity Affirmative Action Employer
t.E L4 2 3 1992
4405 Bland Road, Suite 205
s?°t United States soil
Department of Conservation - Raleigh, NC 27609
Agriculture Service Telephone: [phone]
11,
1 March 20, 1992
' Mr. Kenneth Justice, E.I.T
Hobbs, Upchurch and Associates
P.O. Box 1737
1 Southern Pines, NC 28388
Dear Mr. Justice:
Mr. Jones asked me to respond to your letter requesting comments concerning
the presence of important farmlands on the proposed airport runway site in
Columbus County, North Carolina. The site does have prime and state important
farmlands. If these sites are selected, a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating
(AD-1006) will need to be completed for the site. Please complete the upper
portion of the AD-1006 and include the acreage involved in the conversion. I
am including four AD-1006s for your use. In addition, the site should be
located on a soils map. Soils maps can be obtained by contacting the Soil
Conservation Service field office in Columbus counties.
Please feel free to contact me at [phone] if you have any questions.
Betty F. McQuaid, Ph.D.
Assistant State Soil Scientist-Interpretations
LJ

1
1
O The Soil Conservation Service
is an agency of the
Department of Agriculture

r
1

1 Environmental Consequences
¦ Other Considerations

1

1
1

1
1
HORACE B. WHITLEY
Mayor

?'1trF^ ??nt3 .._ C 9%92
clly of &)Aileoilfe
317 S. Madison Street
P.O. Box 607
Whiteville, North Carolina 28472
[phone]
April 3, 1992
1
Mr. Kenneth M. Justice
Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P.A.
P. 0. Box 1737
Southern Pines, NC 28388
Dear Mr. Justice:
Thank you for your letter of Ma rch 18, 1992 concerning proposed
improvements under consideration for the Columbus County Airport. I, as Mayor
of Whiteville, along with the member s of the Whiteville City Council
wholeheartedly endorse this project. We believe the improvements proposed
will mean much to the future of our community.
We fully realize that environme ntal and other issues have to be dealt
with, but see no reason why this cannot be done and at the same time comply
with State and Federal Regulations.
We believe the economic impact these improvements will have on our
community will far outweigh any loss or damage sustained in other areas.
l
Si
ncere
y,

Horace B. Whitley
Mayor ,j
'
HBW/sdr

1
t

r
1
r
r
E RHONE SASSER
(:ru?r f .ec?d??r . ?I h? ei
r
1
r
r
1
R CEiVE0 ; 1 0 1902
UNITED
CAROLINA
BANCSHARES
April 8, 1992
Mr. Kenneth M. Justice, E.I.T.
Project Manager
Hobbs, Upchurch and Associates, P.A.
Post Office Box 1737
Southern Pines, NC 28388
Re: Environmental Impact of the Proposed Runway
Extension
Columbus County Airport
Columbus County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Justice:
The proposed runway extension and improvements to
the Columbus County Airport are vital to the future of
Columbus County and surrounding area. Existing
facilities are obviously inadequate to accommodate planes
used by existing and potential industries and businesses
located in the area. Further, it is my opinion that the
runway extension and related improvements will have a
negligible, if any, adverse impact on the environment.
Consider the following:
The airport is well located away from dense
residential housing or other congested areas. By nature
of the typical use of the facility, neither noise nor
traffic congestion will be a problem.
The facility has been in place for many years and
additional property which might be paved or otherwise
used for the runway extension or related improvements is
not now covered with permanent vegetation. The property
is either being cultivated as farmland or kept mowed for
clearance purposes. Therefore, no permanent vegetation
would be moved.
r

Mr. Kenneth M. Justice
Page 2
April 8, 1992
As Chairman of the Columbus County Airport
Authority, and a businessman who uses the airport on a
regular basis, I strongly endorse the proposed
improvements. They will serve a necessary purpose for
the people of this area without having an adverse impact
to the area's environment.
Sincere
E. Rhone Sasser
ERS:jwf
I

11

1
C

1

I1
1

1

I
1
E

1

1
1
APPENDIX III
Water Quality Report
1

11z22i93 14:31 $ 9122750014 GROSCH IRRIGRTIO P.02

Grosch Drilling and Exploration
DIVISION OF
Grosch Irrigation Co., Jnc.
Well Drilling and Complete Mstallatiuns
I , S."Im Creok, Nctbtask1, 68663. 7eiephone 308/77.3.22*61
I I Albinn. NClungko 6HW1.0... Telophono 400/A7i,-6,137
I I O'Neill. Nebraska 68763. ......... .. .Ta6•phvnt• 402; 33(3 180.'1
I i [•trrtt„t1t. NvInaska 6.40M lelephc)ne. 40;# /727.4NOW
LI Mason City. ILnnlc 67064_.
X I DvUin. Gcorg:a 31021.. Trivplic,u: 217/41'241"1
Trt,
r'tnn
012!27
5 M
1:3
_..._-•- - ry
c
.
.
November 22, 1993
Hobbag Upchurch & Associates
Y.U. Box 1737
Southern Pines, N.C. 28388
Attnt Chuck Cowherd
Rot Whiteville Well No. 7.
Dear Sir,
in drilling the test hole 50 ft. deeper we encountered
beneath the rock additional sand layers. The best being
from 305-330 ft.. After 330 ft. there was little for-
mation to warrent screening. The finished depth being
350 ft.. While drilling, the driller had discolored a
man's well which indicates connecting aquifers with a
good permability. This also brings up a question of a
source of contamination.
In drawing water samples the area from 320-310 ft. pump-
ed from 127 ft. static water level, 6,3' 1.56 yield per/-
V
ft. draw down. The water sample after 12 hrs. was still '
t,&bid. The area from 255-245 ft. pumped from 131 ft.
water level 63' = 1.47 yield per ft. draw down. Both
areas were pumped at 100 gallons per minute,.The question
G
:ERs
• 11/22/93 1432 a 9122750014
Grosch Drilling and Exploration
DIVISION OF
Grosch Irrigation Co., Inc.
Well Drilling and Complete lnstallatiorls
l I Silver C ivek, Nrau,)•.ka 69663-..,, ._ .,- ., _„ - 'l r•lal)Lu?u• 30K/713 ".o l
r Alblon, Nalwve lia 411?/375 0437
I O'Neill. Ncbraska 64763 1 ele0ione 402/3:54.140`.-
: I Fooneonl, Nebraska (,8112l'r_ Ji4i,phrme 4112/727 487)!1
I : ? Mason City, 1111no1s G16(r1_.._ I eMryhnrm 2l7/4K?•M471)
I 1 1)ublilt, Gcorgin 31021 Idt- phola. 91M1L7;, M13
GROSCH IRRIGATIO P.03
%
WELL DRILLING
PUMPS - MOTORS'
Wage 2
is not if the yield can be expected to increase but if
the lower strata of water can be cleared up or blended
with other water to acheive acceptable quality.
A revised estimate on quality would be in the $00 GPh2
range.
w" Enclosed revised soil sample log & screen settings for
approval.
Respectfully,

Fred Alexander

XCt File

1
1
t

M
z
1-1
Z M
^
? (9
I.. Z
0
cr co
QC?°
V
o
cc
O
A
?;3
?lOi5
N HEj
ai N TTGGs?P
11/22/93 14:33 a 91227500I4 GROSCH IRRIGATIO p,95
0
6
a
¦
z
Ift
1c;
? M °
00
a¢
14z W
z
?z v
N
OC?°
W ?5 V
rcr.
V G
z F
N 3

a P

h ? o y
v `
v y
?
0 a

?. N Ll 'o A ct6 ?. V ~ A
LL a ? o h a ? 7 r .. ` is
14

z
O1
?
u
o Q
v N
U

g a
?
•
V
y d ? Q z ? a ?

?

°" 04Z
r d 40)
o a V

?

, t-

t4 f

b / L
r
t
C,
`
(
D
d

e
zi
W

WeU Log Data
GROUND ?...-
CASING O.D.
I.F:VE1,
CASINO 1.1).
LIST FORMATIONS BELOW
/6x,41 /L/
av? 7
G ?r
1
V Z7
? a87
t
101,4
Sketch in any special conslrucUon notes such as pits,
aani(ary seah. clay fill, apeeial base, etc.
D STATIC W. L.
?0?2dl ll?e ?' S
PRINT NO.
r H l.. t, 3

RONALD W. COBLE
Hydrogeologist
1

1
1
F

1
fl
5;300 North Hilts Drive
13e1eigh. NC 27612
[phone]
August 18, 1-994
Mr. Kip McClary
City of Whitoville
P.O. Box 607
Whltaville, NC 28472
Dear Kip:
I am faxing the preliminary report "The effects of pumping
Whiteville City Well 7 on nearby wells" to you along with this
letter.
I am sending the report by fax so that you will have a chance to
read it before well No. 7 is pumped and numerous water-level
measurements are made next week. The sections,"Possible effects
of pumping Well No. 7 on nearby wells," and,"Plan for further
study," explain what I am looking for during the test scheduled
to start on August 23.
I am scheduled to arrive in Wh,iteville in the afternoon of
Monday August 22, and I plan to remain in the area until at
least mid day August 24.
I am looking forward to seeing you and analyzing 'the test
results.
Call me if you have any questions or comments about the report
or plan.'
Attachment: Preliminary report
Sincerely yours,
Ronald W.Coble
1

PRELIMINARY REPORT"
THE EFFECTS OF PUMPING WHITEVILLE CITY WELL 7
ON NEARBY WELLS

August 17, 1994

Ronald W. Coble
.Hydr?gco?.ogi?t

PACE 4
-- -- -- -- ..+ a a? v a a- n a a•.n u J K HLL I u ti t a u --J1 a/ U 7 H4 3 7
-2-
CONTENTS
page
Introduction ............................................
:i
Purpose ....
Scope ... • ... ............
3
Data collection _ _
Study results
Aquifers ........... 4
Hydraulic-head relations -
Possible .of fects of pumping Well No. 7 on nearby wells .. 8
Plan for further- study . ,
............... 10
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1. Sketch showing movement of water through the
ground-water system 7
2. Graph showing actual and potential water-level
changes during a 24=-hour test................ 9
1
i
1
1
1
1
TABLES
Table 1. Hydrogeologic units ...........................
5
2. Water=level data ..
PACE 5

1

1
t
1
-3-
INTRODUCTION
The City of Whiteville constructed and tested a
water-supply well (Well No. 7) in late 1993 and early 1994.
During drilling and development of the test well at the site of
Well No. 7, one neighbor noted that water from his private well
was cloudy (blue-gray) one single tiro, and that this cloudiness
was not noticed again. In early February 1994, the City received
complaints from three well owners near well 7 that their wells
were going dry; these complaints came five days before the first
24-hour production test.
In response to the complaints about private wells going
dry, the city connected five homes to the public water system.
The second 24-hour production test was begun on July 7,
1994 and ended at 4;30 am. July 8. On July 18, one well owner
contacted the city saying that his well and a neighbor's well
had gone dry.
The City is concerned that many more complaints will be
r
eceived from additional private well owner's who will request
free
onnections to the public water-supply system'and possibly
free c
water also.
The City contacted Ronald W. Coble in late July 1994 and
asked him to investigate the problem and determine, if possible,
whether the construction of Well No. 7 and withdrawal of water
from the well could have adversely.affected the nearby private
wells and whether these private wells might be affected when
Well No. 7 is put into production.
The requested investigation began on August 3, 1994 with a
visit to the otfices of Hobbs and. Upchurch and Associ.ates, P.A.
in Southern Pines and a visit to Whitaville. The preliminary
field work took place August 3 to 5, 1994.
Purpose
The purpose of this preliminary report is to summarlae
existing information and that collected during this
investigatifln; to describe the geology and h dra vole
area; to describe what effect the construction and testing ofe
Well No. .1 May have.had on nearby private wells; and to present
a plan to complete this investigation.
Scope
Fieldwork for this investigation was conducted during
August 3-5, 1994. The area of-field investigation was at the
southern edge of Whitevillo, and generally within 0.5 miles of
Well No. 7. Geologic and hydrogeologic information is
presented for Cretaceous-aged and younger units depths of 500
feet of land surface. Hydrologic considerations extend to 1.5
PAGE G
1
-4-
miles from the well site.
DATA COLLECTION
Data used in this investigation comes
(1) Data on file with Hobb3, Upchurch and Associates, whichesY
consists mainly of driller's and geophysical logs and test data
for Well No. 72 (2) water-level and well-depth data from five
wells near Well No. 7 which were collected by K. McClary, (3)
published geologic and hydrogeologic reports and a USGS
topographic map, and (4) new data collected during August 5-8,
1994 at wells in the vicinity of Well No. 7.
New data includes:
1• An additional observation well established at Calton
Thompson's residence. This well is an unused water-supply well;
it is 59.feet deep and is similar in depth and water level as
most of the other private wells in the general vicinity of Well
No. 7.
2. Water-level data was obt
little wined from the following wells.
Sellers
Smith ars
Harrelson
McPherson
Thompson
Well No. 7
STUDY RESULTS
Land-surface altitude in the area near Well No.
from 100 to 104 feet above mean sea leVB1 7 ranges
from the Whi-teville Ouadrange USGS topographic )map.determined
Aquifers
Three distinct aquifers or aquifer zones are used in the
Whiteville-area. Aquifers are the
can yield usable amounts of wAter toewollaorgsprings;umajorthat
l
aquifer units are separated by confining units which are beds of
relatively impermeable material that restrict the movement of
water.
The shallowest of the three aquifers extends to a depth of
about HO feet and is tapped by most of the privately owned wells
in the area.
An intermediate zone is approximately lop to 125
and is tapped by only one known well in the immediate area,deep
the McPherson well.
c'HGE 7
-5-
The deepest zone extends from around 200 foot below
land surfeco to about 350 feet or deeper. This zone is tapped
by Well No. 7 which has 77 feet of screen in the interval 211 to
330 feet below land surface.
Hydrogeologic units (aquifers and confining beds) in the
Whiteviiie area are defined in the U.S. Su in
Open-File Report 87-690 and are listed Inetablec1. Thevestimated
depths and thickness from the report closely match the layers
identified in the borehole geophysical log produced from the
test hole drilled at the Well No. 7 site.
________________Table-1? HYbROGEOLOGIC^UNITS_ __ __ ___
Hydrogeologic unit Altitude of Depth to - - _
ess
of top to Thi (ckfenet)
(
--------------------...___-------feet) (feet)
surficial aquifer _-•------------- -----------------
+104 0 64
Peedee confining +40
unit 64 20
?j Peedee aquifer +20
84 120
Black Creek confining -100
unit 204 20
Black Creek aquifer -120
224 130-
upper Cape.-Fear -250 354
confining unit. 50
upper Cape Fear aquifer, -300
` _--
,_- •--------__ 404
* -
Land-surfACe-alfiitude 13 104 ft •--^-----_-
above MSL
According to the estimated hydrogeolo
thicknesses listed in table 1 Bic unit depths and
s the Privates (60
feet deepjln the study area ob
tain groundewaternfromethe lower
part of the.surficial aquifer. The intermediate-depth well
(McPherson well, 125 feet deep) is screened in sands in the
Peedee Aquifer. Well No.•T (335 -feet deep) is screened
throughout'6early the entire thickness of the Black Creek
aquifer, and Calton Thompson's deep well
feat deep) obtains water from the sands inrtherupd to be 2of
Blank Creek aquifer. _ Per part of the
r]
11

-6-
Hydraulic-Head Relations
Comparison of the hydraulic head in an aquifer over a
large area or in various aquifers in a small area is used to
determine the potential for ground water to move both
horizontally and vertically through the ground-water system.
Ground-water has the potential to move from areas or zones of
high hydraulic head to areas or zones with lower head.
Hydraulic head is determined by converting measured water-level
values to a common datum, usually mean sea level.
The natural undisturbed picture of how ground water moves
through aquifers and confining units is shown in figure 1.
Ground-water moves both horizontally and vertically from
recharge areas to discharge areas. Rain that infiltrates the
land surface moves downward to recharge the ground-water system,
and the the major amount of the ground water generally moves
horizontally to discharge to surface stream3. A smaller
component of the ground water moves vertically from the
shallower aquifers in recharge areas downward into the deeper
aquifers through which it moves horizontally and then upward
into discharge areas. The study area fits this general picture.
The entire upland area between SouXes Swamp and White Marsh is
the.rscharge area and the swamp and marsh and lower reaches of
their tributaries are discharge areas. Ground water is always.
discharging from the ground-water. system, and the system'is
'sometimes recharged usually by rainfall during the nongrowing
season. Ground-water discharge is identified by declining
ground-water levels, and the recharge events are noted when the
water levels rise. Manmade ground-water discharge, withdrawal
of water from wells, results.in water-level declines also.*The
amount of decline and the distance to which it can be measured
depends on the amount of water withdrawn and numerous aquifer
and confining-bed hydraulic characteristics.
Throughout the study area, hydraulic head at the base of
the surficial aquifer is approximately 70 to 75 feet msl(table
2). Head in the Peedee aquifer is 45 feet msl, and that in the
Black Creek aquifer (Well No. 7) is 41 feet msl.
The potential for vertical ground-water movement in the
study area,. and certainly what it actually is, is downward
because head in the surficial.aquifer is about 28 feat higher
than head 1n.-the Peedee aquifer which, in turn, is about 4 feet
higher than head in the Black Creek aquifer. The resistance to
vertical ground-water flow througtr'the cnnfining beds is
evidenced by the differences in head in these three aquifers.

11
. . .vu . n wnv o mt-'.Lt I GH 2

-7-
ID: 9197878437
?+Reah
ar

^'% ''?' "'--^?, ° r • o
011charge
ar
ea

Water-lable divid 'n '? '?
wcter - !.abl
,•
; ?'?? '
'
e ^
>
»

GROUND- WA
TER SYSTEM

~Ffow flne
? ? ?
e - ?? ?
FIgure 1 Movement of water through the
groundd-water s
t
ys
em.
Table 2. WATER-LEVEL DATA
(W/!, water level; BMP, below
meaaiuring point; BLS, below land
-
surface; LS, land sur face; Alt
---- Altitude. All values
-----
------------- ,
in feet)

.
?
Well -
---------------
Date WW/L
9Mp --
---- -----
W/L LS
---------
Aquifer
--------- bLSp
--- Alt
Alt
Little 3389-----3Z--------
.54 ------?---_
70.45 103 ----------
surf.
Sellers 8-5-94 31.65 30.80
74
20
.
105 surf.
Smithers 8-5-94 29.91 29.06
75
94
.
105 surf.
Harrelson 8-5-94 29.50 2$.10
73
90

Thonfpson.
8-5-94 3 .
102 surf.
3.72 34:32
71
68

McPherson
8-4-94 56
00 .
106 surf.

Well No
7 .
54.70
45.30 100
Peepee
.
------ 8-3_94 64.55
s
75
41
25
----- -------- ---- --------
?_
- .
1 Od ?
Cro?k
- _
--
PACE 10

POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF PUMPING WELL No.7 ON NEARBY WELLS
When a well is pumped, removal of water fron the well bore
results in a drop in hydraulic head in the well; as water inthe
surrounding aquifer moves horizontally to the well to furnish a
continuous supply of water to the pump, the lowered head is
transmited throughout the aquifer. This lowering of head in
the pumped aquifer increases the difference in head between that
in the pumped aquifer and head in the adjacent aquifers, which
can result in an increase in flow through the confining bed
which lies between the aquffers. If this increase in flow is
significant, head in the adjacent aquifer may be lowered which
can be detected by a decline in water levels in wells in the
adjacent aquifer. The objective of the next phase of this study
is to determine if this has happened in the vicinity of Well No.
7.
Water-level changes in Well No. 7 during the 24-hour test
and recovery period of July 7 to 9, 1994 is shown in figure 2.
When the well was pumped at 660 gallons per minute, the water
level in the well dropped from 62 feet to 168 feet feet in the
first 15 minutes; by the end of the 24-hour period, the water
level had stabilized at 188 feet. The pump was turned off and
the water level quickly recovered in a manner nearly a mirror
image of the drawdown during the pumping period.
If the lowering of head in the Black Creek aquifer during
the 24-hour test affected the head in the surficial aquifer and
thus lowered water levels in wells tapping that aquifer, water-
level changes in the Peedee and surficial aquifers would have
been something like that shown in figure 2. Because of
renintanoo to flow through the confining beds, water level
changes in the Peedee would have been less than those in the
Black Creek. Changes in water levels in the surficial aquifer
` would be less than those in the Peedee.
Pumping Well No. 7 might have caused lowering of water
levels in the surficial aquifer. If it did, it might have
resulted in-loss of prime in some wells equipped with
centrifugal pumps and which also had initial water levels around
30 feet below land surface. If the water levels in the
surficial,aquifer were lowered as a result of pumping Well No.
7, water levels in the Peedee aquifer would have been lowered
also; thfs-would have been detected in the McPherson well. If
water levels in the several, surficial aquifer wells and the
McPherson well can be measured during a pumping interval similar
to the July 24-hour test, the lowering or non-lowering of water
levels in the surficial and Peedee aquifers can be documented.
1
c-r?,c 1 1

t
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
r
t
t-Aul-: 12
-9-
0
40
s0 ..
V
It
d
J0
L 120
3e
180
?aurficial.aquifer
-. r r 1? r b r 4?
- v r r ? .? r ?? V. r r ?? r ? - ?. ?? r? .r V ? r
rr^"? Peedee aquifer
pump on
Black Creek aquifer
La --- j / pump off
2000
8 18 24 32 40 48
Time (hours)
Figure 2.-- Actual and potential water-level changes during a
24-hour test.
1 -10-
PLAN FOR FURTHER STUDY
The next phase of this study will be a repeat of the July
24-hour test of well No. 7 with accompanying measurements of
water levels in the one well in the Peedee aquifer and the
several wells in the surficial aquifer.
The 24-hour test of Well No. 7 is scheduled to begin
morning of Tuesday, August 23
The
ll in the
.
we
will be pumped at
of about 850 gallons per minute. The water lev
l i a rate
e
n Well
will be measured periodically from just before the
um
i No. 7
p
p
s
turned on for up to 24 hours after the pump is turned off
morning of August 24
W
t
on the
.
a
er levels also will be measured i
following observation wells:- n the
Little well
Sellers well
Smithers well
Harrelson well
Thompson well
McPherson well
Daily measurements will be made in the observation wells
beginnin
on
b
g
or a
out August 18. Meaurements will be made
them five times a day beginnin
A in
g
ugust 22 and may continue
that schedule until August 310 depending on th
' on
e results.
of
test before and up to the 313t. the
Teat data will be analyzed during the first 48 hours of the
test. If results are conclusive at that time, the test can be
terminated and Well No. 7 might be put on its planned production
schedule.

1

q fir

e4

A

APPENDIX IV
Architectural Report
r
1

t
1
1
t
1
f

r
1
Architectural Resources Survey
Report
Columbus County Airport Runway Extension
HUA No.: CC 9201
Mary L. Reeb
?I
Prepared for the Division of Aviatiod, North Carolina Department of Transportation
By Hobbs, Upchurch and Associates, P. A.
Southern Pines, NC
December 1992
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
l
1
f
l
Table of Contents
Item Page
List of Maps 3
List of Figures 4
Management Summary 5
Introduction 10
Physical Environment 1.2
Architectural and Historical Background 16
Methodology 19
Property Inventory and Evaluations 20
Potential Effects on Properties 20
Bibliography 21
Appendix 22
2
List of Maps
Item Page _
Project Map 1 APE and Environment 8
Project Map 2 Airport Runway 9
3

List of Fieures
1
1
1
1
M
1
1
1
1
1
I
Item Page -
-Figure 1 Airport Waiting Facility 11

Fib 2 House on Oscar Peterson Road 14
Figure 3 Barn, Oscar Peterson Road 14
Figure 4 NC DOT Office Building 15
Figure 5 NC DOT Transportation Facility 15
4

I Management Summary
Project Summary
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Aviation, in
conjunction with Columbus County, North Carolina, proposes to construct an extension to
the existing 3,700 foot runway at the Columbus County Airport near the town of
Brunswick, approximately four miles south of Whiteville, North Carolina (see Project Map
1). The airport facilities are located near the center of Columbus County and consist of a
paved 3,700 foot runway (5-23 runway alignment), 75 feet in width. The project sponsor
is the Federal Aviation Administration through the North Carolina Department of
Transportation. The Pri me Consultant is Hobbs, Upchurch and Associates, P. A. of
Southern Pines, NC.
State Clearinghouse Number: 92-1300000729
Purpose of the Project:
The proposed project will consist of an extension of the current 3,700 foot runway
to an initial length of 5,000 feet and an ultimate length of 5,500 feet. In addition, the

I runway width will ultimately be expanded from the current 75 foot width to the proposed
100 foot width (see Project Map 2). Various alternatives for this expansion will be
J investigated and evaluated, including the no-build and improve-existing alternatives.
The project area in located entirely in Columbus County. Land use surrounding the
proposed runway extension is primarily farmland or rural residential. It is not anticipated
that any relocation of residents and/or businesses will be required.
"o!'' Purpose of this Report:
The purpose of this report is to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (1966) and the Regulations of Compliance of the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. This law requires that Federal agencies
consider the effects of their actions on historic properties and seek comments from an
independent reviewing agency, the Advisory Council on 'Historic Preservation, to avoid

5
1

i
ifi
f
id
i
A
on,
cat
program
or
ent
ons.
unnecessary harm to historic properties from Federal act
assistance, and protection of historic properties, Section 106 requires that the effects of an
ffect
If th
i
d
d
hi
i
i
b
'
d
i
,
verse e
ere
s an a
c propert
e assesse
.
s propose
on on
stor
es
agency
act
consultation is needed to avoid, reduce, or mitigate that harm (Advisory Council on
r Historic Preservation, Section 106, Step-by-Step, October 1986).
Methodology .
In the course of this study, an intensive-level survey was conducted within the area
of potential effect (APE, see Project Map 1). It included vertical site file review in the North
Carolina Division of Archives and History, photo documentation, field analysis, and
document identification and research. There were no potentially eligible properties within
reach of effects flowing from the above-referenced project. Hence, no effects that would
alter a property's historic environment and integrity (e. g. audible, visible, or atmospheric
effects or changes to a property's character or use) were found.
No comprehensive survey of Columbus County had ever been undertaken, but a
reconnaissance survey of properties in the county had been done in 1985 by Davyd Foard
Hood and records of this work were on file in the Division of Archives and History. A
number of potentially eligible residential and commercial buildings were identified within
the town of Whiteville along an axis of streets radiating north and south of the Courthouse
Square (the Pinckney Street/Washington Street axis). The town of Whiteville is
approximately four miles from the site.
1 Only one property documented in this survey, a property deemed not eligible for
the National Register, was found in the vicinity of the airport, the Pentecostal Fire Baptized
Holiness Campground 0.5 miles south of SR 1167 near South Whiteville approximately
two miles from the airport site. This property is a cluster of pedestrian mid-20th century
buildings.
Finally, two properties identified prior to this survey in the general vicinity had
been placed on the North Carolina Study List, the Columbus County Courthouse in
Whiteville (1914, NC Study-Listed in 1979) and the David George House, two miles north
of Whiteville on US 701 (ca. 1835, NC Study-Listed in 1983). Neither of these properties
have been listed in the National Register.
Because virtually all of the residential and commercial/industrial material found in
the APE was less than 50 years old, it was not necessary to document the any of the
buildings photographically. Some contiguous structures were photographed, however, and
will become part of the architectural. record of the region. This report was prepared as per
the Guidelines for the Preparation of Reports of Historic Structures Surveys and
6

Evaluations Submitted to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (August,
1989).
Description of the Area of Potential Effect:
The area of potential effect was determined to include all land within the roadways
' surrounding the airport property, an area of approximately 2,000 acres. The boundaries of
this area extend from the intersection of SR 1170 and NC 130 in Brunswick, along
Harrelsonville Road (SR 1171) south and west of the airport to Harrelsonville Crossroads
at the intersection of SR 1171 and Pleasant Plains Road (SR 1164). The boundaries then
extend north along SR 1164 to its intersection with SR 1170 west of the airport, enclosing
the 2,000 acre parcel (see Project Map 1).
Th
i
t f
iliti
li
ti
l
i
hi
thi
l
d
d f
i
h
e a
rpor
e en
ac
es
re
y w
t
n
s parce
are screene
an
rom t
e
r
surroundings by buffers of agricultural land and woodlots. Only two clusters of
development could conceivably be adversely impacted by the runway extension. The first is
a grouping of farm residences, trailers, and outbuildings along the local roadway called
"Oscar Peterson Road" immediately south of the airport (see Figures 2 and 3, page 14),
and a street of small ca. 1960 residences along Parker Road west of the airport. There are
no National Register-eligible properties in either of these clusters, and it is likely that the
airport antedates most of this development.
Summary of Results:
No listed or eligible properties were found in the project area

Summary of Potential Effects:
Because no properties listed or eligible for the National Register were identified, no
potential effects were noted and were thus moot.
1
1
1

1
7
ru
J ° u
GJ ° ?\
°
?``? o ? ? o•
?M
g
w (? $ 2.O ? ? (7
00 •_
o
i t '•. .
it
I
,s ,$}I$ }1r'i
}} y` i If$} }I} I
'}?}I}}?}}$}}I ?$$f$ti
'}f' APE
Project Map 1 APE and Environment ?};?}I }I}, } $? $' $ 4,$fY
C-J I' $'$ $If'}?I ?I'I 'iI'},li} I it I. I'''I I'tg $I±k}I' hl I #?-?I$?.
.L.l4 ?.?Ii ?.1,pia, If.+f. it I ?.?.?.,

1
1
t
U
Y
1
1
1
1
Project Map 2

V
J?
0
?02
?O
r
WZ V. I ,,''
?A 1 I 1 ?I?
x 4.,
=WOO , 1 . a.
1 1
111`4r '4'
r N w ,
X11
/
. r

z

/ m
J
W
r
i
3

+ I I I
1 1 ?
K
. f ? 1 I Z
x
? I 1 •i
I I x I I
1 I
I 1
1 4/ I t x 1 I 1
1? 1
,1 1
11 1 I x 1
Z I I x I 3p I ' '
?O I
x I (r I
/
I r I gZ I
L" r
to a x w `
1 I D &? I
1
o I
W x I I
3
1. n x I
x I
1 Z I I 1
I x ? 1
? t I 1 1 ?.
t x 1 I
I x I?ZI /
nW
1 1 x I?rl
1 Z< I /
I x WTI
x
I Os
W I I sl
a
1 I
O I I
0. D
1 I Z t
t. I=
J ' 10 V) o I 0
VI
Ia?P?
Airport Runway
S} I & I Bo
n. to
Rg 1 I
?? I 0 1
0.. r I I I
0
Q•

F i per„ ?

J

?
?

W
(L
pt
s
fJ " a
Y NNZ
L.t? _
?U
}Q -
J w
? ?N t... N
li D 00-
0.0
3 a?
U
Q

Introduction
This project, the Columbus County Airport Runway Extension Project, (HUA No.
CC 9201, State Clearinghouse Number 92-E-00000729) is located in central Columbus
County North Carolina, 2,000 feet southwest of Brunswick and four miles south of
Whiteville, the seat of Columbus County. The airport parcel is found within an area of land
of approximately 2,000 acres in extent containing two small clusters of residential parcels
and/or farmlots, most of which appear to have occurred after the airport was built.
The airport facilities include a paved 3,700 foot runway (5-23 alignment), 75 feet in
width. The project will initially consist of an extension of the runway length some 1,300
feet, and eventual extension of an additional 500 feet to a total length of 5,500 feet. The
eventual width of the runway will eventually be 100 feet. Various alternatives for this
expansion are being investigated, including the no-build and improve-existing alternatives.
Determination of the area of potential effect (APE) was made in the field after a
preliminary examination of USGS maps of the project area, cross-referenced with existing
maps and other records on file in the North Carolina Division of Archives and History to
pinpoint known historic structures likely to be within reach of effects of this project. No
historic architectural resources were on record as occurring in the APE of this project, nor
were any found in the field.
Personnel and Contract Specification:
SWnsoring Agency: NC Department of Transportation, Division of Aviation, acting for
the Federal Aviation Administration.
Prime Consultant: Hobbs, Upchurch and Associates P. A. 290 S. W. Broad Street
Southern.Pines, NC 28388.
Sub-Consultant and Principal Investigator: Mary L. Reeb, Ph.D., Historic Preservation
Services, 608 Laurel Hill Road, Chapel Hill, NC 27514.
Date of Survey: 2 December 1992.
The Project requirements are specified in the Guidelines, for the Preparation of Reports of
Historic Structures Surveys and Evaluations Submitted to the North Carolina State Historic
10
11

Preservation Office (August, 1989). Contract specifications and scope of work are
contained in the Appendix of this document.

1
A
1
1
1
Figure 1 Airport Waiting Facility

11

Physical Environment
' Geography and Natural Resources
The region surrounding the Columbus County Airport is known as the Southern
' portion of the Coastal Plain of North Carolina, a sector of the state approximately 100 to
140 miles wide and zero-to-500 feet above sea level between the Tidewater flats and the
Piedmont region above the fall line of the state's river systems. The Coastal Plain sector
accounts for approximately 45% of the state's geography. The project area lies within the
' three drainage systems of the Lumber, Waccamaw, and Cape Fear Rivers, primarily within
the drainage basin of the Lumber River.l
Columbus County contains a land area of 939 square miles bordering the South
' Carolina line between Pender and Robeson Counties and was represented to be, at the time
of settlement "shackled by swamp, bay, and pocosin, mischievously interfering with
transportation and settlement.' 12 It is, today, largely an agricultural county whose products
feature tobacco, peanuts, pecans, cotton, soybeans, sweet potatoes, and livestock,
especially poultry. In addition, a lumber and paper industry make use of the local stands of
i? pine forest that were used in earlier years in the naval stores industry of the 18th and 19th
century, helping to produce North Carolina's principal exports through 1870.3
The soil underlayment consists of the Cretaceous system throughout, with
overlying Pee Dee and Black Creek formations of dark-gray to green glauconitic sands,
clays, and locally thin impure limestone beds. The surface rocks consist of mixed mica
gneisses and shists with lesser amounts of hornblende gness and grantic rocks. The
vegetation features swamp forests of gum and cypress, pine flatwoods, or savannas, of
scattered pine stands and ground cover grasses and herbs. Trees in these savannas include
pond and longleaf pine almost exclusively, and shrubs, including gallberry, wax myrtle,
and sweet bay. The county also contains the ground indentations found elsewhere in the
' state known as pocosins or "swamps on a hill" for the higher elevations found near the
center of their. elliptical and ridged edges. The most common types of pocosins found in
1 North Carolina Atlas: Portrait of a Changing State, ed. by James W. Clay, Douglas M. Orr, Jr., and
Alfred W. Stuart (Chapel Hill: UNC Press, 1975) p. 16.
'- Bill Sharpe, A New Geograplq of North Carolina, Vol. Il (Raleigh: Sharpe Publishing Company, 1958)
p. 737.
3 Sharpe, Op. Cit., p. 741.
12

1
13
1
1

I

1
1
Columbus County are the Angola Bays and Holly Shelters, versus the "Carolina Bays" of
other regions.4
The most significant geographical features in the county are the 140 acre Green
Swamp and Lake Waccamaw, sometimes called "the largest natural lake betNveen New
York and Florida,"5 a body of water of some 9,000 acres formed by the confluence of four
feeder creeks, First, Second, and Third Little Creeks, and Big Creek, and artesian springs.
Economic activity around this lake includes an extensive recreational component.
The largest town near the airport is Whiteville (1980 population 5,640) , four miles
to the north, the county seat of Columbus County. Whiteville contains a large tobacco
market with its attendant warehouses, and light industry. Nearest the airport is Brunswick,
once a company town of 600 people formed around a 1925 lumber mill and village, a
branch of the Jackson Brothers Lumber Company from Salisbury, Maryland. The lumber
mill closed in 1932 and the Jackson Brothers' commissary was sold, becoming the
"Brunswick Supply Company," which still exists though the village itself is much smaller
(240 people in 1977).6
Immediately north of the airport are a North Carolina Department of Transportation
facility and the Columbus County Fairgrounds, large properties with assemblages of /
utilitarian buildings and sheds (see Figures 4 and 5, page 15). The remaining landscape
contains groups of residential buildings, trailers and single story houses for the most part,
dating from the mid-twentieth century. There are no fast food establishments and other
small-scale commercial development in the immediate area, except within the village limits
of Brunswick. The airport property itself is bordered by cropland.
4 Atlas, Op. Cit., pp. 116, 130-131.
5 Columbus County, North Carolina: Recollections and Records, ed. by Ann Courtney Ward Little
(Whiteville: Columbus County Commissioners, 1980) p. viii.
6 Little, Op. Cit., p. 63.

1
1

1

1-1
1

1
D
Figure 3 Barn, Oscar Peterson Road
14
Figure 22 House on Oscar Peterson Road

1
1
1

0

15
Fi ug_re 5 NC DOT Transportation Facility
i
Fi ure 4 NC DOT Office Building

1

1
Architectural and Historical Background: Context
The region now known as Columbus County was first settled in the 18th century
when English and Welsh settlers began to move north of the Brunswicktown port area at
the mouth of the Cape Fear towards its headwaters. The county was formed as a separate
entity in 1808 from the larger Bath County, then subdivided into eight townships in 1868.
The largest 18th century landowners were John Swann, who was granted 500 acres
in 1730 "on the west side of Wickmaw Swamp adjoining the lands of Joseph Waters," 7
("Swann's Point") and Roger Haynes, who received a land grant on White Marsh in 1735,
and passed on 1,000 acres of his property on the Cape Fear and 640 acres west of White
Marsh to his daughter and son-in-law, John and Margaret Haynes Burgwin. Their
property, Marsh Castle Plantation, was built on the site of Whiteville, and was owned,
eventually,by James B. White, after whom both the marsh and the town were named.8
The region was the site of one Revolutionary War campaign but eventually became
"Truce Land" because its swamps between Whiteville and the South Carolina boarder
provided hide-a-ways for military renegades and other criminals. Whiteville was laid out on
land donated by White in 1810, on which the first (of three) courthouses was built.
Timber was always part of the Columbus County economy, at one time producing
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
"ton timber" or structural timber for shipbuilding in lengths of 50 feet by 24" in girth."9
The timber planters in the region replaced the Waccamaw Indians, Siouan-speaking tribes
that roamed the swamplands and had once inhabited a village on Lake Waccamaw, whose
abandoned remains were assumed, even in 1734, to be old, antedating the arrival of whites
by fifty years. By the Civil War, much of the region had been cleared for farming, and the
1850 census put the white population at 4,257, with 1,503 slaves.10
After the War, tenancy became commonplace, farming cotton and corn. At the
instigation of Joseph A. Brown of Chadbourn in Columbus County, a campaign was
mounted to entice Midwesterners to the county to produce strawberries, eventually making
Chadbourn the "strawberry capital... [and] putting Columbus on the map." The
7 Little, Op. Cit., p. 1.
8 Little, Op. Cit., p 14.
9 Sharpe, Op. Cit., p. 739.
10 Nd1.
16

1
A
A
A

A
1
overwhelming crop of choice today is tobacco, which was introduced to the region in
1896, particularly the more popular brightleaf tobacco, the production of which was
commonplace in Columbus County, unlike elsewhere in North Carolina, because the
County came late to the crop and farmers were thus less committed to the production of
burley tobacco, an older form. 11
Whiteville has been prosperous in its history. The collection of mid-to-late 19th and
early 20th century houses, Italianate, Classical Revival, and other such forms found along
the Pinckney/Washington Street axis give testimony to the existence of a merchant or
managerial class. One of the earliest buildings is the Nicholas-Sledge Cottage on Pinckney
Street (ca. 1845, CB--), a one-story, board-and-batten cottage with two end chimneys
with stepped shoulders and free-standing stacks. Its two front doors are double-leaved, and
it features sheathed siding beneath the porch roof and paneled wainscot., a fairly elaborate
building, given its history as a tenant house. 12
Another early building is the Reuben Brown House (ca. 1830-35, home of the first
schoolmaster). The house features a flush-sheathed interior porch, paneled doors, simple
late Federal-style mantels, interior plaster, and wood ceilings. The exterior features a plain
cornice with simple doric architraves, plain frieze, and 6/6 sash. The house is now being
used as the local Fine Arts Center.
Another early house is the Dr. N. M. Culbreth House (ca. 1900) on Washington
Street. It is a two-story, double pile Italianate farmhouse with bracketing and a single-story
rear ell, a transomed entry with sidelights, a central chimney, and hipped roof. It is said to
have been the residence of a series of school principals.
Other later buildings include several built for members of a single family. The
Simms-Eli Memory House on Washington Street is a one-story, Lrshaped cottage with
turned porch members and an advancing right wing with a pedimented roof and bullseye
window. It features a two-pile main block, a three-window bay with paneled siding, and a
raking roof with bracketed cornice. The Thomas Simms Memory House is an asymmetrical
two-story building with an advancing wing, hipped-roof side wing, turned porch columns,
returns, a balcony, shutters, and a single-story porch with railings.
Other well-preserved buildings include a house on Madison Street at its intersection
with Lewis, a two-to-three-story Colonial Revival building with a large single-story wrap
porch with a pedimented entry over a second-story porch element. The house features a
bracketed cornice, arched pedimented windows, multiple dormers and window bays, and a
11 Sharpe, Op. Cit., p. 741.
12 David Foard Hood, Field notes, 1985 reconnaissance survey of Whiteville and Columbus County.
17

1 porch gazebo. The house also features a stained-glass transom. The old Byrne House on
yrnFrench Street features a three-bay single-story aspect with a pedimented entry with
sidelights and 9/6 sash. The Coleman-Burns on Pinckney Street is a Queen Anne-style
house, locally interpreted, with elaborate shingle siding.
There are no such houses in the vicinity of the airport. This collection of buildings
occur within the chief market town of the region, and the airport, in the midst of
agricultural surroundings, was obviously built to avoid pockets of development in this
i relatively under populated county.
A
1

I?J
?l
1
18

1
Methodology
I This study consisted of an intensive-level survey within the entire APE, including
vertical site file review in the North Carolina Division of Archives and History survey,
National Register, and Study List files, photo documentation, field analysis, map study,
and document identification and research. As there were no listed or potentially eligible
properties within the APE, little additional work to identify local residents or resources was
necessary.
No comprehensive survey of Columbus County had ever been undertaken, but a
reconnaissance survey of properties in the county had been done in 1985 by Davyd Foard
Hood, and records of this work were examined. While a number of potentially eligible
properties were identified in Whiteville, this town is four miles from the site and the project
would have no effect on these properties.
' The background research consisted of examining published sources relative to
Columbus County history and geography available in various libraries, notably the North
' Carolina Collection of the Louis Round Wilson Historical Library at the University of
North Carolina in Chapel Hill. While there is no wealth of information on Columbus
County; enough was identified to satisfy to requirements of this project, in which no listed
or eligible properties were found, and the parameters of which include a simple expansion
of existing facilities, effects from which occur today in the normal course of daily airport
use. These effects are not be likely to increase inordinately as a result of this project.
1
1
1
1
19

1
A
1

A
A

A
1
1
1
Property Inventories and Evaluations
No National Register-listed or -eligible properties were identified in the course of
this survey.
Potential Effects on Properties
Because there are no listed or eligible historic architectural resources within reach of
this project, no effects are noted.
20

1
1
1
1
1
A
1
1
1
1
1
l_J

Bibliography
Clay, James W., Orr, Douglas M., and Stuart, Alfred W., Editors. North Carolina Atlas:
Portrait of a Changing State (Chapel Hill: UNC Press, 1975).
Hood, Davyd Foard. Field notes and photographs, Columbus County. 1985.
Little, Ann Courtney Ward, Editor. Columbus County, NC. Reccollections and
Records (Whiteville: Columbus County Commissioners, 1980)
North Carolina Historic Sites Study List. NC Division of Historic Preservation files,
Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Sharpe, Bill. A New Geography of North Carolina, Vol. II (Raleigh:Sharpe Publishing
Co., 1958).
21

k?
J

G

i
1
i
A
A
A
1
1
Appendix
Scope of Work
22
1
Mary L. Reeb
Historic Preservation Services -
608 Laurel Hill Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
[phone]
Kenneth M. Justice, P.E.
Hobbs, Upchurch and Associates, PA
P O Box 1737
Southern Pines, NC 28388 5 November 1992
Dear Mr. Justice,
Enclosed please find my proposal for the architectural resources survey of the
runway extension of the Columbus County Airport.
The scope of work for architectural resource surveys involves the preparation of
a full dress report with photographs and maps on the order of the report I prepared for
the Lee County Airport. My proposal below takes this scope of work into account. One
copy of the final report will be in your office by December 30 or earlier. If this is not
satisfactory, please let me know.
Please let me know if you need further information.
Sincerely,
Mary L. Reeb
Architectural Historian; HPS
Enclosure

PROPOSAL

Professional time:
Travel: 350
il
24
@$
m
es
.
Overhead @ 12%
TOTAL

o
Phot
graphic expenses are included. in the overhead figure. This is a lump sum contract,
payable upon submission of the final report.

Respectfully submitted,
Mary L. Reeb

Executed (signed):
Date

?Ij

LJ

1
1

t
J

LI

APPENDIX V
Archaeological Report
J

I
t
ARCHAEOLOGICAL; SURVEY OF
PROPOSED RUNWAY EXPANSION
COLUMBUS COUNTY AIRPORT
NORTH CAROLINA
ER-92-8032
PREPARED FOR
HOBBS, UPCHURCH AND ASSOCIATES
SOUTHERN PINES, NORTH CAROLINA
LORETTA LAUTZENHEISER
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

APRIL 1993
r
COASTAL CAROLINA RESEARCH, INC.
310 EAST BAKER STREET
TARBORO, NORTH CAROLINA 27886
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
i
1
l
l
r
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY i
INTRODUCTION 1
PHYSICAL SETTING 4
Physiography 4
Geology 4
Soils 4
Carolina Bays 5
Hydrology 5
Vegetation 5
Climate 6
PREHISTORIC BACKGROUND 7
PaleoIndian Period 7
Archaic Period g
Woodland Period g
HISTORIC BACKGROUND 11
Early Explorations 11
Early Settlement 11
Antebellum Period 12
PREVIOUS RESEARCH 13
METHODS 15
RESULTS OF THE SURVEY 16
RECOMMENDATIONS 19
REFERENCES CITED 20
APPENDIX A 24
Artifacts Recovered From Survey
APPENDIX B 25
Scope of Work

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF
PROPOSED RUNWAY EXPANSION
COLUMBUS COUNTY AIRPORT
NORTH CAROLINA

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Coastal Carolina Research, Inc., conducted an archaeological survey of the
proposed runway expansion at the Columbus County Airport, Whiteville, North Carolina..
The survey was conducted for Hobbs, Upchurch and Associates, in compliance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, codified as 36 CFR Part
800, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) guidelines and procedures (e.g.
Order 5050.4A). The scope of the investigations was consistent with the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the
report conforms to the Guidelines for the Preparation of Reports of Archaeological
Surveys and Evaluations issued by the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO).
The purpose of the survey was to determine if the project area contains
archaeological resources which are on, or potentially eligible for inclusion in , the National
Register of Historic Places. Is such properties were located, the report would define what
measures, if any, would be needed to mitigate adverse impacts upon the resource.
The project area is located south of Whiteville in Columbus County. The majority
of the study area was at the southwest end of the current runway. This area was
approximately 61 acres.
The survey was conducted on February 4, 1993, and required two person-days to
complete. The survey area was either under cultivation or was fallow fields. Surface
visibility was excellent allowing surface survey. The single site was tested with shovel
tests and a 1- x 1-meter excavation unit. Additional shovel tests were randomly placed in
the survey area to serve as stratigraphic tests.
During the survey, one archeological site was recorded. This site, 31CB79,
contained a Woodland triangular projectile point, quartz debitage and two steatite sherds.
The sherds indicate utilization of the site during the Late Archaic or Early Woodland
periods, while the small projectile point indicates use during the Late Woodland or
Protohistoric periods. The shovel tests and excavation unit indicated that the soil was
depleted, with a shallow mottled plow- or grading-zone above a clayey sand subsoil. The
site does not appear eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. No
additional archaeological work is recommended in the study area.
r

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF
PROPOSED RUNWAY EXPANSION
COLUMBUS COUNTY AIRPORT
NORTH CAROLINA
ER-92-8032
INTRODUCTION
Coastal Carolina Research, Inc., conducted an archaeological survey of the
proposed runway expansion at the Columbus County Airport, Whiteville, North Carolina
(Figure 1). The survey was conducted for Hobbs, Upchurch and Associates, in
compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, codified
as 36 CFR Part 800, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) guidelines and
procedures (e.g. Order 5050.4A). The scope of the investigations was consistent with the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic
Preservation and the report conforms to the Guidelines for the Preparation of Reports of
Archaeological Surveys and Evaluations issued by the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO).
The purpose of the survey was to determine if the project area contains
archaeological resources which are on, or potentially eligible for inclusion in, the National
Register of Historic Places. Is such properties were located, the report would define what
measures, if any, would be needed to mitigate adverse impacts upon the resource.
The project area is located south of Whiteville in Columbus County. The majority
of the study area was at the southwest end of the current runway (Figure 2). This area
was approximately 61 acres.
The survey was conducted on February 4, 1993, and required two person-days to
complete. Loretta Lautzenheiser served as Principal Investigator, assisted in the field and
lab by Rob Jones. Lithic analysis and graphics were prepared by Jane Eastman.
Background research was conducted at the Office of State Archaeology in
Raleigh, the Columbus County Library, and the library at Coastal Carolina Research in
Tarboro.

1
I
1
1
1
1
r
y
r
/ Richardson Millpond
Brunswick
Sg'1??0
COLUMBUS
COUNTY
? AIRPORT
f
.S mile
scale

0

Figure 1: Location of Survey Area.
y
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
Y
r
0 1 f
0
I
'ol
I 10,1
i ca
COD
? 1 0
1 I ( ? I r
1 ?1 I 1
? I ?I I
I ?1 I
1 1 1
1 ?
I ?lol
. \ ' I h
\?? ? I I 1
1 1
L].
I
N
I, I,I ?O
? O
/ 11
vi
N
b
N
w
0
s~
O
U
N
a?
w

PHYSICAL SETTING
I Physiography
Columbus County is located in the Coastal Plain physiographic region, the emerged
portion of the Atlantic Plain. The Coastal Plain experienced many alterations of land and
sea, with accompanying accumulation of sediments. Inland toward the older land, the
gradient gradually steepens and tributary streams increase in number and size. The
Coastal Plain consists of Pleistocene terraces, which generally correlate in age with glacial
invasions (Fenneman 1938).
The scarps which separate the terraces average 2.5 degrees in slope and 4.6 to 6
meters in height (Maddry 1979). The project area is located on the Sunderland Terrace,
just west of the Surry Scarp. This terrace slopes southeastward from an elevation of
approximately 150 feet to 100 feet AMSL. Because the terrace is a nearly level plain, run
off is slow and fairly large areas of poorly drained soils occur on the interbed flats
(Goldston et al. 1959).
The area is characterized by broad, nearly level to gently sloping uplands. These
uplands are dissected by intermittent streams (Spruill 1990)
Gem
The majority of the project area is underlain by the Pee Dee formation, the uppermost
unit of Cretaceous age in North Carolina (NCGS 1988:101). It is predominantly dark-
green to gray, micaceous, fine-grained sandstone, which is usually muddy and slightly
calcareous. Shell is interspersed as trace amounts, with some lenses. Patches of sandy
molluscan-mold limestone are found in the upper part (NCGS 1985). Irregular
concretions of calcium carbonate occur, and dark marine clays are interstratified with sand
beds.
Soils
In general the soils in the western part of the county are well-drained and moderately
well-drained near the drainages. In the interstream divides, however, they are mostly
poorly drained to very poorly drained (Spruill 1990:2).
The majority of the survey area is mapped as Norfolk loamy fine sand. This well-
drained soil is found on convex ridges and smooth side slopes of uplands. Norfolk soils
were formed in loamy marine sediments, and are found on uplands with slopes ranging
from 0 to 6 percent. Along the drainages are found areas of Lynchburg fine sandy loam
and Rains fine sandy loam, both are poorly drained soils. The small survey area at the
north end of the airport is mapped as Muckalee sandy loam. This poorly drained soil is
4

frequently flooded, with a seasonal high water table at 0.5 to 115 feet below the surface
(Spruill 1990).
Carolina Bavs
Carolina Bays are common within the project area. These bays are shallow elliptical
depressions found on the Coastal Plains of North and South Carolina. Originally called
bay swamps for the bay trees which grew in them, the bays are still the subject of much
debate. Although they were once thought to be found in isolated groups and confined
to the Carolinas, large scale aerial photography in the late 1930s revealed that at least half
a million bays occur in a band from Maryland to Georgia. The greatest concentration is
along the North Carolina-South Carolina border (Savage 1982). The bays are oriented
along a northwest to southeast axis.
Most of the bays have a rim of sand which rarely completely surrounds the bay. The
rim is usually more noticeable on the southeast side. The soils in the bays are different
from those surrounding the bay, the interiors being filled with dark, poorly drained loams
and sandy loams. Some of the bays have outflow channels or wet weather drains (Savage
1982). Many of the bays have been drained and cultivated, but the wetter ones still
' support marsh or hardwood bottoms.
Investigators of the bays have proposed several explanations for their formation. Initial
theories included the possibility of a major meteor strike, although research has failed to
prove or disprove this theory. Other possibilities include relic lakes formed by retreating
sea water, or the presence of artesian springs at a time of higher ground water. In both of
these theories, the rim around the bays would have been formed by wave and wind action.
It has been determined, however, that the sand of the bay rims shows no stratification,
which would be the case if they were wind-blown (Savage 1982).
While there is no agreement
on the manner in which the bays were formed, most
researchers agree that they were probably formed during the Middle Wisconsin and during
the late-glacial/early Holocene transition (Delcourt and Delcourt 1985). Pollen cores from
Rockyhock Bay and Singletary Lake in North Carolina have been used to determine
vegetational cover and, by inference, climatic changes in coastal North Carolina.
Hvr_ologv
The project area is drained by Camp Branch, a rank two stream which is north of the
airport. The branch is a tributary of White Marsh, a headwater stream of the Waccamaw
River. White Marsh is an extensive swamp, one of many in Columbus County.
Vegetation
The Southeastern Evergreen Forest Region is essentially coextensive with the Coastal
Plain physiographic region. The most prominent feature is the preponderance of
5
t
evergreen trees. The longleaf pine forests of the sandy uplands dominate the landscape of
much of the Coastal Plain. This forest is an edophic climax modified and stabilized by
recurring fires to the point that it is considered a fire subclimax (Braun 1950).
The vegetation of the region consists of a variety of very different forest communities:
coniferous, mixed coniferous and hardwood, deciduous hardwood, and mixed deciduous
and broad-leaved evergreen hardwoods. These communities are interrupted by swamps,
bogs and prairies. The bays, or shrub-bogs, have a floristic composition which is part of
the Subtropical Evergreen Forest rather than the Deciduous Forest formation (Braun
1950).
Climate
The past environment of the North Carolina Coastal Plain has been partially
reconstructed from analysis of pollens recovered from Carolina Bays. During the Late
Wisconsin Full-glacial interval (23,000 to 16,500 B.P.) the southern limit of the full-glacial
boreal forest was at about 34 degrees N latitude, or around Cape Fear. Between 34 and
37 degrees N latitude, Jack pine dominated the pollen,record (Delcourt and Delcourt
1985). Vegetational response to the late-glacial climatic amelioration occurred as early as
16,500 B.P. at sites near or just north of the southern full-glacial limit. An expansion in
spruce and fir indicates the persistence of cool climatic conditions and probable increased
precipitation during the summer growing season. During the early Holecene interval
(12,500 to 8,500 B.P.), a change from boreal to temperate plant communities began,
but modern floristic regions became defined at 34 degrees N latitude in the middle to late
Holocene (Delcourt and Delcourt 1985).
Coastal Plain forests shifted from oak and hickory forests to southern pine forests by
5,000 B.P. This Southeastern Evergreen Forest remained intact on interriverine uplands
over the last glacial/interglacial cycle. During the Late-Holocene interval (4,000 B.P. to
the present) the Carolina Bays filled in with peat, forming pocosin wetlands, and coastal
swamps expanded due to rising sea levels (Delcourt and Delcourt 1985).
More recent work along the Black River in Sampson County has utilized tree rings
from bald cypress trees. These trees are at least 1700 years old and have been identified
as the oldest trees in eastern North America (Stahle et al. 1988). The growth rings
provided information which allowed reconstruction of the rainfall trends over the past
1700 years. The data indicate that several long droughts occurred during the Medieval
Warm Epoch (A.D. 1000 to 1300), with relatively wetter conditions during the beginning
of the Little Ice Age (approximately A.D. 1300 to 1600). During the later stages of the
Little Ice Age (1650-1750), early summers appeared to have become drier. In addition to
these broad trends, the rainfall pattern has oscillated between wet and dry regimes which
last about 30 years each (Stahle et al. 1988).

N 6
1
I PREHISTORIC BACKGROUND
Paleo-Indian Period
Prehistoric occupation of North Carolina dates to the Paleo-Indian Period, which is
thought to have begun about 12,000 B.C. Evidence of occupation during this period is
generally sparse. The temporal marker for this period is the fluted projectile point, usually
recovered as surface finds.
The most important excavated North Carolina site yielding Paleo-Indian components is
the Hardaway site, located on the west bank of the Yadkin River in Stanly County. This
site is unusual in that it contains stratified deposits including Paleo-Indian materials.
investigations at the Hardaway site form the basis of the Paleo-Indian and Early Archaic
sequences defined by Coe (1964) for the Piedmont and which are generally valid for the
Coastal Plain as well.
The classic fluted Clovis projectile point was not recovered from the Hardaway site,
but it is thought to be contemporary with the Hardaway phase (Ward 1983), the earliest
occupation at the site dating to at least 8000 BC. The Hardaway and Hardaway-Dalton
projectile point types are broad, thin blades with concave bases. The Hardaway-Dalton
type has a deeply concave base and shallow side-notches (Coe 1964).
The subsistence pattern during this time is assumed to have been a hunting and
gathering lifestyle. Recent work at the Hardaway site has focused on attempts to retrieve
subsistence data to obtain a more complete view of Paleo-Indian lifeways (Ward 1983).
Investigations at other Paleo-Indian sites in the Southeast have demonstrated a uniformity
of tool types for the period. Work at the Adams site in western Kentucky, a single-
component Paleo-Indian site, has compiled a complete sequence of Clovis point
manufacture. Tools for bone and wood working and a variety of scraping, cutting,
chopping, shredding and planing tools were present (Sanders 1988).
Paleo-Indian sites with stratified deposits have not been identified from the Coastal
Plain. Phelps (1983) reports one site, 31Pt3, located on an older Tar River levee,
which has a possible buried Paleo-Indian stratum. The zone, buried 1.1 meters below
surface, is overlain by Woodland occupation zones.
A projectile point type, transitional between the Paleo-Indian and Archaic periods, has
been proposed by Phelps (1976) for the Coastal Plain. These points have ground bases
with extreme basal thinning rather than flutes and are notched for a slightly "eared" effect.
Phelps suggests that the rudimentary corner-notches and small size of the points indicate
changing ideas of production. Since most of these points are of quartz or quartzite,
however, it is also possible that the style reflects adaptation to locally available material.
1
1 7

I Archaic Period
The Archaic Period (8000-1000 BC) was apparently a time of climatic change. A shift
from boreal forests to northern hardwoods occurred around the time of the Early Archaic
Period (8000-5000 BC). In the early Holocene, a cool, moist climate prompted the
expansion of species-rich Mixed Hardwood Forest in the Eastern United States. During
this Hypsithermal, the Oak-Chestnut Forest became dominant in the central and southern
Appalachians, oak and hickory were replaced by southern pine on the Coastal Plain, and
the Oak-Hickory-Southern Pine Forest covered the Piedmont (Delcourt and Delcourt
1981, 1985). These changes were probably accompanied by an increase in population, as
seen in the greater number of sites with Archaic components (Phelps 1983).
The Early Archaic Palmer phase is typified by a small corner-notched blade with a
straight, ground base and pronounced serrations. The use of hafted end scrapers
increased during this period (Coe 1964, Davis and Daniel 1990).
During the Kirk phase the points increased in size and basal grinding declined. A
broad-stemmed, deeply serrated point gradually replaced the earlier corner-notched style.
It is generally thought that in the Archaic Period there was a continuation of the hunting
and gathering lifestyle, with a possible seasonal round of movement between base camps
and hunting camps. The depth of the Kirk midden at the Hardaway site indicates a long-
term occupation (Coe 1964).
The Middle Archaic Stanly phase appears to have developed out of the preceding
phases (Coe 1964, Phelps 1983). The major difference in the artifact assemblage seems
to be the appearance of polished stone atlatl weights.
The Morrow Mountain and Guilford phases appear during the Middle Archaic period
(5000-3000 BC). These phases have been referred to by Coe (1964) as the western
intrusive horizons. The Morrow Mountain projectile point type is a relatively small point
with short, tapering stems. The Guilford phase, with no apparent cultural antecedents in
the region, is characterized by long, lanceolate points and chipped stone axes.
The terminal Archaic is the Savannah River phase (3000- 1000 BC). During this
period there is evidence of larger sites containing steatite bowls, human burials, and
prepared hearths, which suggests a more settled lifestyle (Ward 1983). The Savannah
River projectile point is a large, heavy, triangular blade with a broad stem (Coe 1964).
Woodland Period
!?. The Early Woodland Period (1000 BC-300 BC) is marked by the introduction of the
bow and arrow and the beginnings of ceramic manufacture. In the Early Woodland
Period, regional differences begin to be noticed. The Early Woodland and its transition
from the Archaic Period is the least known of the prehistoric periods from the Coastal
Plain (Phelps 1983).
I?
N 8

The earliest ceramics are noted during the terminal Archaic Period and are probably
dated around 2500-2000 BC (Phelps 1983). They are fiber tempered wares which are
reported from the south Coastal Plain, generally below the Neuse River drainage. The
reported specimens are all Stallings Plain and do not include the decorated types. The
ware is reported from at least 3 8 sites, all but a few in the area below the Neuse River
(Phelps 1983).
The Early Woodland ceramic type in the south Coastal Plain is a coarse sand tempered
ware termed New River. Surface finishes include cord-marked, net-impressed, and fabric-
impressed wares (Loftfield 1976). The large Roanoke Triangular projectile points are also
a part of the artifact assemblage (Phelps 1983).
The Middle Woodland (300 BC-AD 800) is called the Cape Fear phase in the south
Coastal Plain (South 1976). The ceramics are tempered with sand and pebbles and are
generally fabric-impressed or cord-marked on the surface.
South (1976) also defined a clay tempered ware, Hanover, which is associated with the
Middle Woodland period. The clay temper generally appeared to be crushed sherds.
South defined two surface finishes, cord-marked and fabric-impressed. Loftfield (1976)
has also defined a clay tempered ware for the south Coastal Plain, Carteret, and reports a
minority of smoothed types. Because of the priority of South's typology, the term
Hanover is used in this report to refer to clay tempered wares.
The burial pattern for the Middle Woodland period is usually a flexed or semi-flexed
inhumation or a cremation. In the south Coastal Plain and Sand Hills regions, there is a
rather extensive distribution of low sand burial mounds, but there is very little information
pertaining to these mounds other than excavations of the McLean Mound in Cumberland
County by Howard MacCord in 1961 (MacCord 1966) and of the Red Springs Mound in
Robeson County by Bennie Keel (Keel 1970). Both noted little evidence of burial goods
in the mounds. Keel made no temporal assignment, but MacCord suggests a Middle
Woodland placement.
More recent investigations of sand burial mounds in South Carolina (Trinkley 1989)
indicated that the low mounds were covering secondary burials. The cultural affiliation of
these mounds has not been defined.
An early description of these low sand mounds concerns four mounds recorded in
Duplin County by I A. Holmes during his 1883 geologic study of coastal North Carolina
(Holmes 1916). The mounds ranged from 22 to 35 feet in diameter and stood only two or
three feet above the ground surface. They were located on slightly elevated places in
areas of sandy soil. Holmes opened two of the mounds and tested the other two and
determined that all contained skeletal material. A few ceramic sherds were recovered but
no implements. Holmes also indicated the presence of additional mounds in Sampson,
Robeson, Cumberland and Wake counties.
11

A sand burial mound investigated in Sampson County (Hackbarth and Hackbarth
1981) was described as a low circular mound 15 m in diameter and approximately 70 cm
high. The mound contained intact stratigraphy, and bone preservation was good. The
mound is located on an upland plain 125 meters from a rank one stream.
The Late Woodland (AD 800-1650) is the last prehistoric period in the Coastal Plain,
and the archaeological assemblages of this period can usually be related to ethnohistoric
information.
The Neuse River drainage has been proposed as a boundary for prehistoric coastal
populations. In the tidewater areas of the coastal plain, the region north of the Neuse
River is generally characterized by the presence of archaeological remains identified with
the Algonkian peoples. The area south of the Neuse is generally thought to have been the
territory of Siouan-speaking groups (Phelps 1983). Fiber tempered ceramics and sand
burial mounds, both southern traits, are rare north of the Neuse River.
In the south Coastal Plain the inhabitants appear to have been Siouan (Phelps 1983,
South 1976). Swanton (1946) indicated that the south Coastal Plain was the territory of
the Cape Fear Indians, who may have been part of the Waccamaw tribe. South's Oak
k? Island phase is probably associated with these Indians.
The Oak Island ceramics are shell tempered, although in all of the sherds collected by
South in his study the shell had leached out. Loftfield (1976) has also identified a
shell tempered ware from the south Coastal Plain, which he terms White Oak. South's
specimens were mostly smooth with a small number of net-impressed sherds present.
Loftfield also reported cord-marked, fabric-impressed and thong-impressed sherds.
Again, due to South's priority, the term Oak Island has been used to refer to shell
tempered ceramics.
Currently the Oak Island phase is best known for the coast proper. There is little data
for the interior (Phelps 1983), and no meaningful statements can be made for this phase in
the interior south Coastal Plain.

10 .

HISTORIC BACKGROUND
Early Exploration
At the time of the first European explorations of North Carolina, the original
inhabitants of the south Coastal Plain were apparently Siouan speaking peoples (Swanton
1946). The earliest known explorer to the south coastal area of North Carolina was
Giovanni Verrazano, a Florentine sailor sent out by Francis I of France. Verrazano landed
at about 34 degrees latitude, a few miles above Cape Fear, where his ships anchored
¦, offshore and his men went ashore to be greeted by friendly natives (Lee 1965).
In 1662 William Hilton of the Massachusetts Bay Colony sailed for Cape Fear, as
Cape Lookout was then known. The party sailed past Cape Lookout and landed at Cape
San Romano (current Cape Fear). Hilton, not then realizing his mistake, assumed that he
was at Cape Fear, and it has born that name since (Lee 1965).
Early Settlement
+ By 1705 settlers were establishing themselves in the Lower Cape Fear, and a unit
of government, Archdale County, was formed. Archdale was later divided into smaller
counties, and these counties were themselves divided. Columbus County was formed in
1808 out of Brunswick and Bladen counties of the former Archdale Precinct. The county
is bounded by the Lumber River on the west and the Waccamaw River on the southeast.
The final boundaries of the county were not established until 1915, however, there being
confusion about the exact boundaries especially through the swamps (Corbitt 1950)
Not much is known about the area which became Columbus County in the early
1700s. The area was thought to be sparsely settled until about the mid-century. One early
visitor to the county was William Bartram, son of the noted botanist, John Bartram of
Philadelphia. Bartram traveled through the south in 1734 collecting botanical specimens.
While visiting in New Hanover County, he expressed a desire to see Lake Waccamaw,
which he had heard much about (Brown 1946:12).
Bartram, with his party, traveled through dense swamp lands to the lake which he
described as "the pleasantest place I ever saw in my life. It is at least 18 miles around,
surrounded with exceeding good land, as oak of all sorts, hickory and fine cypress
swamps." (Brown 1946:12). He also spoke of the Indian mounds near the Lake.
Colonial records in 1764 indicate that roads were authorized from Belfont (at
Elizabethtown) to Marsh Castle (now Whiteville) and south to Waccamaw, and from
Marsh Castle to Drowning Creek (Fair Bluff). Marsh Castle was the plantation home of
General Hugh Waddell, who also owned Belfont at the present site of Elizabethtown.
Marsh Castle and the surrounding lands passed to James B. White, Columbus County's
first senator, and the man for whom Whiteville is named (Brown 1946).
11

According to the papers of General Joseph Graham, a Revolutionary soldier, two
skirmishes were fought in Columbus County. One battle was fought at Brown Marsh.
Later, the Colonial Army, under the command of General Greene, camped near the battle
scene. Graham wrote of a second battle, probably near Seven Creeks near the South
Carolina line. After this battle, the army march to Marsh Castle and camped at White
Marsh. Many of Francis Marion's men were from Bladen and Brunswick counties, which
at that time also contained the area which became Columbus County (Brown 1946:13).
AnteBellum Period
In the post-Revolutionary period a group of French settlers, escaping from a slave
uprising in Haiti, arrived on the upper waters of the Waccamaw River. They settled on
the Great Green Swamp a short distance from the Lake. In this settlement, known as
Crusoe, they constructed houses with stick chimneys. However, they retained the French
influence in their construction, and the chimneys were coated with white mud or plaster
which was polished and smoothed until it resembled marble. Isolated from the rest of the
county by the vast swamps which surrounded them, the people of Crusoe Island moved
about using dugout canoes which they carved from cypress logs (Roger 1946:77).
v?
r
1
l
12

PREVIOUS RESEARCH
At the time of an archaeological survey conducted prior to the relocation of US 74
from Hallsboro to Bolton in Columbus County ((Hammond 1980), only 33 archaeological
sites had been recorded in Columbus County. A listing of these sites was contained in the
report, and the author noted that the information available for the sites indicated a general
lack of knowledge about the archaeological resources of the county.
The limited information, however, did indicate that prehistoric sites from the
PaleoIndian through the Woodland periods were represented. No historic sites were
' included in the recorded sites.
One site, 31CB26, contained trade beads, indicating an historic period Native
American site. One site, 31CB5, contained a notation that eight mounds were present.
Two sites reported fiber tempered ceramic sherds, and one site contained steatite sherds.
Both occurrences suggest Late Archaic to Early Woodland occupations (Hammond
1980).
During the survey of the proposed relocation of US 74, only three archaeological
sites were recorded from the 18 mile corridor. All of the sites contained Woodland
components, and one contained a late colonial component. Much of the project corridor
was located in swamps or recently drained swamps. All three of the recorded sites were
located at elevations above 70 feet AMSL (Hammond 1980).
The survey of a 42 acre tract in the western part of the county resulted in the
recording of two small sites. One site contained Hanover ceramic sherds which indicated
occupation during the Middle Woodland period. The second site was a scatter of
twentieth century artifacts. Neither site contained intact deposits (Loftfield 1987).
The survey of areas of proposed developments at Lake Waccamaw State Park
resulted in the recording of 35 archaeological sites (Myers 1983). The survey covered an
area of 285 acres, and the resulting sites represent a ratio of one site per eight acres. As
over half of the survey area was unsurveyed due to swamps and bogs, the ratio of sites per
acre is even higher. The number of sites may be high due to the location of the survey
universe at a large bay lake.
The proposed developments were along the southern and southeastern shores of
the Carolina Bay lake. Recent studies of Carolina Bays (Lautzenheiser 1989x, 1989b)
suggest intensive occupation on the southern and southeastern rims of Carolina Bays.
Sixteen of the recorded sites contained prehistoric ceramics. Only six diagnostic
projectile points were recovered, however. Two of the points were apparent Middle
Archaic Morrow Mountain types while four were small triangular points. These four
indicated occupation during the Woodland period (Myers 1983). This information,
eiq 13

coupled with the ceramic artifacts suggest a more intensive occupation during the
Woodland period.
All of the recorded historic sites could be dated to the twentieth century (Myers
1983). This is in contrast to survey results in other areas of the inner Coastal Plain in
which historic sites found on the bay rims consistently dated to the eighteenth century
(Lautzenheiser 1989a, 1989b). Myers (1983) suggests that the area was not exploited
until the twentieth century when timbering equipment capable of dealing with the swamp
resources was developed.
Evidence of early historic occupation of the county is contained in the examination
of dugout canoes from the Crusoe Island area (Pittman 1970) Crusoe Island is a small,
flat sandy plain surrounded by extensive swamps, giving it its Island name. The
community is located near the banks of the Waccamaw River, downstream from its origin
in Lake Waccamaw.
According to local tradition, the community was founded by persons of French
extraction. Some residents of the community retain the tradition of constructing dugout
canoes of cypress logs. At least 20 of the craft were observed by Pittman.
Ci
14

I METHODS
The site files at the Office of State Archaeology were examined, and all previously
recorded sites in the project area were noted on the project maps. The information on the
site forms was also noted. Additional research was conducted at the North Carolina State
Library of the Division of Archives and History, the Columbus County Library,
Edgecombe County Memorial Library, the Interlibrary Loan Network, and the library at
Coastal Carolina Research, Inc., in Tarboro.
The project area is located south of Wluteville in Columbus County. The majority
of the study area, approximately 61 acres, was at the southwest end of the current
runway, while a small portion was located at the north end of the runway.
The majority of the survey area was a fallow field with visibility ranging from 50 to
80 percent. The entire study area was covered by pedestrian survey walked at intervals
approximately 15 feet apart. In areas of reduced visibility, shovel tests were utilized.
Shovel tests were usually 30 x 30 cm and were excavated into the subsoil or sterile soil.
Fill from the tests was screened through 0.25-inch mesh screen.
Shovel tests in the small areas at the north end of the runway indicated that the
area had been filled during the construction of the existing runway. The in place soils in
this area are all very poorly drained.
The archaeological site was defined b the recovery of three if
by art acts in reasonable
association. Evaluation followed the criteria of eligibility for the National Register of
Historic Places. These criteria require that the quality of significance in American history,
architecture, culture and archaeology should be present in sites that possess integrity of
location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association, and that the
sites:
A. are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of our history; or
1 B. are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
C. embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or
that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack
individual distinction; or
I t D. have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history (NPS 1986).
In assessing the significance of the resource, the integrity of the resource was
considered. Also considered was the degree of redundancy contained in the resource.
Ir
1 4 15

In general, sites which lack sub-plow zone artifact-bearing deposits, which have
low density artifact distribution, contain evidence of deep plowing, lack spatial integrity,
lack artifact concentrations, or exhibit signs of earth-disturbing activities, do not appear to
be good candidates for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Sites which
contain concentrations of artifacts, which contain large ceramic sherds especially those
with fresh breaks, which appear to have spatial integrity, or which contain evidence of
intact deposits are recommended for additional evaluation to determine if they are eligible
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.
All artifacts were cleaned and labeled with an accession number provided by the
Office of State Archaeology. At the completion of the project, all artifacts will be
submitted to the Office of State Archaeology for curation.
RESULTS OF THE SURVEY
During the archaeological survey one site, 31CB79, was recorded. This site was
located on the southeast slope of a ridge of Norfolk loamy fine sand (Figure 3). The site
covered a small area, only about 27 x 17 meters. The location was on the lower toe of the
slope near a channelized drainage (Figure 4).
All of the visible artifacts were recovered, and included a Clarksville triangular
projectile point of vein quartz (Figure 5): A utilized flake, 30 flakes, and 5 shatter
fragments were also recovered. All but one of these were of vein quartz. Two steatite
sherds were also recovered. The Clarksville point indicates occupation during the Late
Woodland period, while the steatite sherds suggest a Late Archaic to Early Woodland
occupation..
A 1 x 1 meter test unit was placed in the area where the steatite sherds had been
recovered. This test contained an upper zone of a very mottled mix of tan sand, orange
clayey sand, and charcoal. This zone extended to a depth of only 11 cm and overlay the
subsoil of yellow orange clayey sand. The test, as well as a shovel test, indicated that the
soils in this area had been deflated, possibly be grading. There was evidence of burn zone
on the surface, and this is possibly the location where field debris was burned. A shovel
test outside the site area indicated that the plow zone was of uniform color and much
deeper than in the site area.
The site appears to be confined to the surface and does not appear to be eligible
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. No additional archaeological
work is recommended.
I
16
IN
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
N
1
a? on •1
x
" k ??? X111
o o 'a
o i ? col
bf)
1 I .U I ) Q:
I V I •? 1 I O 44
U
1 ? ?I O y
tell o 1
?, yQQ
?? 1 l O l 1
al 1 '
? ?I 1 1
1 y? j U
w ap I •? I o l cn
\ n ' 1 1
ty ?
a
1
Cy
t?
N
?y? N ..fir
/ 80
Ca4'.r 1' O
lr 1 1 `1 ? k
U
'o^
w
a
O?
M?
U
M
0
1"+
0
U
O
a
M
a?
1~
gh
w
1

I?
I?
II
I?
II
A
II
11
11
11
1 ti.
a'
0 inches
(1 centimeters
Figure 5. Artifacts from Site 31CB79, Clarksville Projectile Point (top), Steatite Sherds
(bottom).
1,
1. 16uil , T. V VG1 V1GW ul irivjv%,l ruva.
1
'?II
RECOMMENDATIONS
During the course of the archaeological survey of the proposed expansion of the
' Columbus County Airport, one archaeological site, 13CB79, was recorded. This site
appears to have been extensively disturbed and appears confined to the surface. The site
does not appear to retain significant information and does not appear eligible for inclusion
I in the National Register of Historic Places. No additional archaeological work is
recommended for this site.
11
11
11
I

REFERENCES CITED
Braun, E. Lucy
1950 Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. Blakiston Co., Philadelphia.
' Brown, Mrs. J. A.
1946 Some Early History of Columbus County. In Columbus County. North
Carolina. James A. Rogers, Editor, The News Reporter, Y&teville,
North Carolina.
Coe, Joffre
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the
American Philosophical Society, N.S. 54(5), Philadelphia.
Corbitt, David
1955 The Formation of the North Carolina Counties 1663-1943. Division of
Archives and History, Raleigh.
Davis, R. P. Stephen, and Randolph Daniel
1990 The Classification of Projectile Points in Existing Archaeological
Collections from North Carolina. MS on file, Research Laboratories of
Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Delcourt, Hazel, and Paul Delcourt
1981 Vegetation Maps for Eastern North America: 40,000 YP B.P. to the
Present. Geobotany II. Edited by Robert C. Roman, Plenum Press, New
York, pp. 123-165.
1985 Quaternary Palynology and Vegetational History of the Southeastern
United States. Pollen Records of Late-Quaternary North American
Sediments. V.M. Bryant Jr. and R.G. Holloway editors, American
Association of Stratigraphic Palynologist Foundation, pp. 1-37.
Eastman, Jane
1991 Prehistoric Ceramics of North Carolina: A Quick Tour of the Published
Literature. MS on file, Coastal Carolina Research, Inc., Tarboro.
Fenneman, Nevin
1938 Physiography of the Eastern United States. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Goldston, E. F., Dwight Kaster, and J. A. King
1959 Soil Survey of Duplin Coup North Carolina. USDA/SCS.

24

Hackbarth, Mark, and Dale Fournier-Hackbarth
1981 Prehistoric Settlement in Sampson County, North Carolina. MS on file,
Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh.
' Holmes, J. A.
1916 Indian Mounds of the Cape Fear. Reprinted in Southern Indian Studies.
18:48-55.
I i Hammond, Michael
1980 An Archaeological Survey and Site Evaluation, Proposed Relocation
of US 74. MS on file, Archaeological Research Consultants, Inc.,
Chapel Hill.
Keel, Bennie
1970 Excavations at the Red Springs Mound RM, Robeson County 1971.
Southern Indian Studies 22:17-23.
Lautzenheiser, Loretta
1989 Archaeological Survey of US 64 Relocation, Tarboro to Parmele,
Edgecombe, Martin, and Pitt Counties, North Carolina. MS on file,
Coastal Carolina Research, Inc., Tarboro.
Lautzenheiser, Loretta, Jane Eastman, and Jody Carter
1990 Archaeological Sample Survey of Proposed US 17 Bypass, New Bern,
Craven County, North Carolina. MS on file, Coastal Carolina Research,
Inc., Tarboro.
Loftfield, Thomas
1976 " A Briefe and True Report. An Archaeological Interpretation of the
Southern North Carolina Coast. Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
1987 An Archaeological/Historical Reconnaissance of a Borrow Pit Tract
in Columbus County, North Carolina. MS. on file, University of North
Carolina, Wilmington.
MacCord, Howard
1966 The McLean Mound, Cumberland County, North Carolina. In Southern
Indian Studies. 18:345.
Maddry, John
1979 Geologic History of Coastal Plain Steams, Eastern Pitt County, North
Carolina. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, East Carolina University, Greenville.

25
r?
' Myers, Robin
1983 Archaeological Resource Survey and Evaluation Within Proposed
Development Areas at Lake Waccamaw State Park. MS on file,
Resource Analysts, Inc., Bloomington.
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS)
1985 Geologic Map of North Carolina. Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development, Raleigh.
1988 Preliminary Explanatory Text for the 1985 Geologic Map of North
Carolina. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development,
Raleigh.
Phelps, David
1976 Archaeological Survey of the Swift Creek Watershed. In An
Environmental Assessment and Impact Analysis of the Swift Creek
Watershed. Chapter 9, William F. Freeman Assoc., High Point.
1983 Archaeology of the North Carolina Coast and Coastal Plain: Problems
and Hypotheses. In The Prehistory of North Carolina, Edited by
Mark Mathis and Jeffrey Crow. North Carolina Division of Archives
and History, Raleigh.
Pittman, Robert
1970 Dugout Canoe Tradition in the Southeastern Woodlands. MA Thesis,
i State University of New York, Binghamton.
Powell, William
1989 North Carolina Through Four Centuries. University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill.
Rogers, James, Editor
1946 Columbus Coun North Carolina. The News Reporter, Whiteville.
Sanders, Thomas
1988 The Adams Site: A PaleoIndian Manufacturing and Habitation Site in
Christian County, Kentucky. In PaleoIndian and Archaic Research in
Kentucky, Edited by Charles Hockensmith, David Pollack, and Thomas
Sanders. Kentucky Heritage Council.
Savage, Henry
1982 The Mysterious Carolina ftss. University of South Carolina Press,
Columbia.

c 26

Sharpe, Bill
1961 A New Geography of North Carolina. Sharpe Publishing Co., Raleigh.
South Stanley
1976 An Archaeological Survey of Southeastern Coastal North Carolina.
In The Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology Notebook. 7:1-55.
Spruill, Willie
1990 Soil Survey of Columbus Coun North Carolina. USDA/SCS.
Stahle, D.W., M.K. Cleaveland, and J. G. Hehr
1988 North Carolina Climate Changes Reconstructed from Tree Rings: A.D.
372 to 1985. Science. 240:1517-1519.
Swanton, John
1946
r1m,

J
The Indians of the Southeastern United States. reissued 1987, Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington.
Trinkley, Michael
1989 An Archaeological Overview of the South Carolina Woodland Period:
It' the Same Old Riddle. Studies in South Carolina Archaeology. Edited
by Albert Goodyear and Glen Hanson, South Carolina Institute of
Archaeology and Anthropology, Columbia.
Ward, Trawick
1983 A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A Study of
Change. In the Prehistory of North Carolina. Edited by Mark A. Mathis
and Jeffrey J. Crow. North Carolina Division of Archives and History,
Raleigh.
27

r

APPENDIX A
ARTIFACTS RECOVERED FROM SURVEY OF
COLUMBUS COUNTY AIRPORT
Site 31Cb79 Acc. # 93015
1 Clarksville triangular pp/k, vein quartz
2 steatite sherds
1 used flake, vein quartz
30 interior flakes, 29 vein quartz, 1 quartzite
5 shatter fragments, vein quartz
1 fractured cobble, quartzite
I'l
1

1
1
L
1

1
1
PROPOSAL TO PERFORM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES
COASTAL CAROLINA RESEARCH. INC.
PROJECT: Archaeological Survey of Proposed Improvements to
the Columbus County Airport, North Carolina.
DATE: November 3. 1992
INTRODUCTION
Coastal Carolina. Research. Inc. proposes to perform the
following archaeological services for Hobbs, Upchurch and
Assoc. in compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation's Regulations for compliance with
Section 106, codified as 36 CFR Part 800, and the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) guidelines and procedures (e.g.
Order 5050.4A). The scope of investigations will be
consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and
Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation and will
conform.to Guidelines for the Preparation of Reports of
Archaeological Surveys and Evaluations issued by the North
Carolina State Historic Preservation Office.
The purpose of the survey is to determine if
archaeological resources which are on, or potentially
eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places are
located within the project area. If such properties are
found to be present, the report will define what measures
will be needed to mitigate any adverse impacts upon the
resource. The survey will assess the potential significance
of any archaeological sites recorded during the survey. The
level of effort in the survey will generally be sufficient to
decide if a site is not potentially eligible for inclusion in
the National Register of Historic Places. However, if
complex,, or deeply buried sites are located, it may not be
possible to determine their eligibility without extensive
subsurface testing. Such testing is not included in the
current proposal.
The project area is located in Columbus County, near the
town of Whiteville. The study area is confined to the area
of the proposed runway extension and covers approximately
18-20 acres.
This study will consist of a Phase I Intensive Survey.
BACKGROUND RESEARCH
A background review of the area will be conducted and
the results will be included in the final report. The site
L

r
files at the Office of State Archaeology will be examined,
and all previously recorded sites in the project area will be
noted on the project maps. The information on the site forms
will also be recorded. All archaeological reports from the
county will be consulted as will regional studies.
Additional research specific to the project area will be
conducted at:
North Carolina State Library of the Division of
Archives and History,
Columbus County Library,
Edgecombe County Memorial Library.
t
k
t
L
N
I
lib
wor
,
rary
oan
e
n
er
The library at Coastal Carolina Research. Inc.
In addition, knowledgeable individuals will be sought
r out for local information.
This phase will include consultation with the staff of
the Office of State Archaeology.
The size of the background report will be commensurate
with the size of the project, but will include an
environmental setting for the project area, including those
environmental aspects which could have influenced human
settlement. Research will be conducted into previously
proposed prehistoric and historic settlement patterns for the
region. Historic research will include ethnohistoric
observations of the early explorers. The early settlement of
the region and known areas of settlement will be noted. The
early industry of the region, such as water powered
industries, will be noted, if possible.
FIELDWORK
The majority of the survey area has been plowed and
_ surface survey should be possible. In those areas where
sites are located, or where visibility is restricted,
shovel tests will be located.
Shovel tests are usually 30 x 30 cm and are
_ excavated into the subsoil or st erile soil. Occasionally
larger t ests will be utilized. Fill from the tests will be
screened through 0.25-inch mesh screen. In the event that
the soil cannot be screened, the fill will be hand and trowel
sorted.
In those areas with surface visibility above 30-40
percent, surface survey will be the survey method of choice.
l
1
LJ
Survey intervals in open fields will depend on the crop
present. In general the interval will be 15-20 feet. with
the survey interval defined by the crop rows. Even in areas
with reduced visibility, tree-falls, erosional ditches, roads
and cutbanks and kidworks will be sought out and examined to
supplement or substitute for shovel tests.
An archaeological site will be defined by the recovery
of three artifacts in reasonable association. Historic sites
are also defined by the presence of surface or subsurface
structural remains. Diagnostic isolated finds are given a
site number for management purposes. On occasion, an
isolated find will be defined as a site, particularly in
those instances where the find is recovered from an area of
low visibility or heavy erosion and in an area where the
presence of a site would be expected.
When an archaeological site is identified, the
approximate horizontal and vertical extent of the site, as
well as the internal configuration of the site will be
defined. If a site extends outside the corridor, an attempt
will be made to define the actual boundaries. No survey will
be conducted outside the corridor, however, without the
express consent of the landowner.
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
A management summary will be submitted to Hobbs.
Upchurch and Assoc. within ten working days following the
completion of fieldwork. The summary will discuss the
results of the fieldwork and present a preliminary assessment
of the identified archaeological sites.
SITE ASSESSMENT
All sites recorded will be given a permanent site number
obtained from the Office of State Archaeology. This site
number will be used in the management summary and in the
final report.
Sites will be evaluated following the criteria of
eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places.
These criteria require that the quality of significance in
American history, architecture, culture and archaeology
should be present in sites that possess integrity of
location. design, setting, materials. workmanship, feeling
and association, and that the sites:
A. are associated with events that have made a
significant contribution to the broad patterns of our
history; or
B. are associated with the lives of persons significant
in our past: or
11
1
1
I C. embody the distinctive characteristics of a type,
period, or method of construction or that represent the work
of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that
represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose
components may lack individual distinction; or
D. have yielded. or may be likely to yield. information
important in prehistory or history (NPS 1986).
In assessing the significance of the resource, the
integrity of the resource will be considered. Also
considered will the degree of redundancy contained in the
resource. Evaluations of the local and regional significance
will be guided by the Statewide plan for archaeological
research in the state of North Carolina. As the plan does
not cover all site types or classes of sites, conversations
with the SHPO will be conducted to gain information for use
in evaluating a site.
Historic cemeteries are generally considered eligible
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places
only if they derive their primary significance from graves of
persons of transcendent importance. from age, from
distinctive design features, or from association with
historic events. Historic cemeteries are recorded as sites
under guidelines issued by the Office of State Archaeology.
Although they are generally not considered eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places,
cemeteries are covered by state law: GS 70. Article 3 and
GS 65, and must be considered under those statutes.
In general. sites which lack sub-plow zone artifact-
bearing deposits, which have low density artifact
distribution, contain evidence of deep plowing, lack spatial
integrity, lack artifact concentrations, or exhibit signs of
earth-disturbing activities, do not appear to be good
candidates for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places. Sites which contain concentrations of artifacts.
which contain large ceramic sherds especially those with
fresh breaks, which appear to have spatial integrity, or
which contain evidence of intact deposits are recommended for
additional evaluation to determine if they are eligible for
_ inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.
ANALYSIS
At the completion of the fieldwork, the recovered
artifacts will be analvzed. This information will be
included in the final report.
E
1

1
1
1
All artifacts will be cleaned and labeled with an
accession number provided by the Office of State Archaeology.
At the completion of the project, all artifacts will be
curated at the Office of State Archaeology or another
appropriate repository.
Prehistoric lithic artifacts will be defined using Coe
(1964) as the primary authority on typology and temporal
placement. Lithic raw material will also be determined.
Fire cracked rocks and unmodified cobbles will be noted. but
generally not retained for curation. Prehistoric ceramics
will be defined as to type and temporal placement using
the appropriate typologies. The regional typologies and
listing of references will be those detailed in Eastman
(1991). Clay impressions of surface treatments will be
taken where possible to determine the twist and size of
cordage and weaves of fabric.
Historic artifacts will be analyzed using standard
source books and typologies. Ceramics and glassware will be
typed and temporally assigned where possible. Where
collection size warrants, an assessment of status will be
attempted. Brick debris will be sampled but not intensively
collected. Recent artifacts will be noted but generally not
collected. Metal items will be cleaned and kept dry.
FINAL REPORT
A final report will be prepared which will detail the
results of the field survey, and the assessments of the sites
recorded. This report will also contain the background
report and management summary. The report will be prepared
following the guidelines prepared by the Office of State
Archaeology.
The state site forms will be completed and submitted
to the Office of State Archaeology at the same time that the
draft report is submitted to Hobbs, Upchurch and Assoc.
Seven copies of the final report will be submitted
within 30 days of receiving draft comments.
OTHER CONDITIONS
1. No work will begin without a mutually acceptable, fully
executed contract. This proposal will form the basis of the
sub-consultant contract.
2. Hobbs, Upchurch and Assoc. will provide a right of entry
letter to the archaeologist prior to starting field work.
3. Hobbs, Upchurch and Assoc. will provide accurate mapping
of the study area to the archaeologist.
?J

4. Compensation. Invoices for the percentage of work
completed will be submitted monthly to Hobbs, Upchurch and
Assoc.. A maximum of 10% retainage may be withheld until the
acceptance of the final report by the SHPO.
5. Any land owned or controlled by the Federal or State
government is subject to their respective Archaeological
Resources Protection Acts (ARPA) and will require permits
prior to the survey. Federal Permits can require 90 days to
obtain. Time involved in obtaining these permits is not
included in the budget proposal, and could affect any
proposed schedule.
6. Schedule. The schedule will depend upon the receipt of
maps, contracts and permission to proceed.
I REFERENCES CITED
Coe, Joffre L.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont.
Transactions of the American Philosophical
Society, N.S. 54 (5), Philadelphia.
Eastman. Jane M., compiler
1991 Prehistoric Ceramics of North Carolina: A
Quick Tour of the Published Literature.
Coastal Carolina Research, Inc., Tarboro.
1
1
1
l
1

1
APPENDIX VI
Biological/Wetlands Report

.i

F
Li
I1
L
DR. J.H. CARTER III & ASSOCIATES
' Environmental Consultants
P.O. Box 891 . Southern Pines, N.C. 28388
[phone]
February 9, 1993
Mr. Ken Justice
Hobbs, Upchurch and Associates
P.O. Box 1737
Southern Pines, N.C. 28388
Dear Mr. Justice:
On 1 June 1992, I conducted an endangered species reconnaissance in conjuction
with a wetlands delineation at the Columbus County Airport, located approximately 2 miles
southwest of Brunswick, off SR 1181. The site was searched on foot for the following
species: chaffseed ( Schwalbea americana ), Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) , rough-
leaved loosestrife ( Lysimachia asperulaefolia ), pondberry (Lindera melissaefolium
Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi ), Canby's dropwort (Oxypolis canbyi), American
alligator (Alligator mississippiensis ), and red-cockaded woodpecker ( Picoides borealis ).
State listed species were included in the survey.
The Columbus County Airport Authority proposes to extend the existing
runway to the southwest, and construct a parallel taxiway to the north of the existing
runway. Both actions will impact jurisdictional wetlands. The airport property is currently
cleared of all forest cover, and much of it has been altered by past grading and repeated
mowing. The runway extension will impact a cleared agricultural field on property to be
purchased, and previously cleared wetlands and uplands. Both of the latter areas contained
a mixture of weedy and native species, and the wetlands also contain a small population of
trumpets ( Sarracenia flava ), a showy insectivorous species that has no formal legal status.
The taxiway will impact previously cleared uplands and wetlands, that have a
mixture of native and weedy species. Bracken fern ( Pteridium aquilinum ) is dominate over
much of this area.
No species listed as threatened or endangered, or proposed for such listing, by the
State or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were found. In addition, habitat for the
following species will not be impacted: pondberry, Canby's dropwort, American alligator,
and red-cockaded woodpecker. Habitat for the other species is marginal at best, and as
noted above, no specimens were found.

Endangered Species Surveys . Environmental Assessments . Land Management . Wetlands Mapping and Permitting

This project will impact 4 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. The Airport Authority
propose to create wetlands onsite at a 1:1 ratio by excavating high ground adjacent to
existing wetlands to just below the seasonal high water table. Topsoil from wetlands to be
filled will be spread over the excavated area, and native vegetation will be transplanted to
the mitigation site. Additional planting will be made as necessary, and success of wetland
establishment will be monitored as required by the Division of Environmental
Management.
Please call me with any questions.

Si rel ,
D . J.H. Carter III
Consulting Biologist

t

AUG-23-54 TUE 15:55
.?? ?vStCA-
P.01
9. Biotic Communities (Including Flora, Fauna):
The existing airport property has been cleared of all forest cover. This area has been
impacted to varying degrees by past construction, grading, drainage, and airport maintenance
activities. The least disturbed plant communities that remain onsite are mesic to wet ? --
flatwoods (no overstory) at the southwest end of the existing runway. woma grass sedge bogs
here support pitcher plants (Sarracenia flava) and other herbaceous species typical of Coastal
Plain flatwoods and savannas. No rare or protected species were found. (ref.)
Most of the 63(Ken check this number) acres to be purchased for the airport expansion is
within 2 cleared fields. The remainder is cut-over mesic and swamp hardwoods (_ acres??).
No impacts are expected to the above vegetation other that selective removal of hardwoods that
violate federal airspace requirements.
1 11.

Wetlands
(def. `87 manual)
Wetlands onsite are all notforested, and much of the wetland area has been impacted by
past airport construction and maintenance activities. Wetlands to be acquired are currently cut-
over, and will not be impacted by this project other than by selective removal of trees that violate
federal airspace requirements. Removal of trees from wetlands will be with hand tools and cables.

I
a
11

1j

APPENDIX VII
Farmland Forms

11

ti, , '.' ? : 1. t ? .i Jt fj 6 i ;? ? Y i/)!, ? a s .? i 1 : i•4 r ? t urhs??!6 ? ! by ? ti ! ntsj? ? ? r •:
t? ? } Irt 4 1 ? ,t: i
Hobbs, Upchurch,& Associates, P.A,
Consulting Engineers
' Post Office Box 1737 . Southern Pines = NC 28388
February, 24, 1993
Mr. Willie Spruill
Area Soil Resource Specialist
Columbus County Soil Conservation Service
P.O. Box 756
Fairmont, NC 28340
RE: Columbus County Airport Farmland Conversion Impact Rating
HUA No. CC9201
Dear Mr. Spruill:
Please find enclosed the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form AD-1006 far the above
referenced project. I have completed Parts VI and VII as required. In order to complete
the Farmland section of the environmental assessment, we would need a response from your
office based on Form AD-1006. Please return any comments as soon as possible so that we
can complete the environmental assessment.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely,
H BBS, UPCHURCH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Kenneth . Justice, P.E.
Enclosure
KMJ
/r)p/feb24

290 S.W. Broad Street Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]

U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Date Of Land Evaluation Request
Name Of Project Federal Agency Involved
Proposed Land Use County And State
Airport
PARTxl l {To (ie. comp/etecY by('SCS) Date Reque t ReEe'ved toys ? r gt?? ? j - 5
``Doest a site" ontal.n; til er` ique,; tat p
ewideror;local 'm ortantlarmladn .?' k'?kx`, Ye ` Nb s Acres Irri "t v? Avera der ze rs? t.
i:-'z'` Ifo??i??FP??b?, . , e-?s ?'•. :,??x; X17 sad„:±??.?vy, trr ?? :x t{,?7r: ??z?? ? _,? ?":r 'R ;, ;x ,? ;;? ? rh::-,'?`>?'?: "?'s-?• ,?, _ ?, 4T-'? ?,r
Y m
s not?a?
oo r7ot
(
d
t
h
r
y c
cpmp
a;
e a
tion?
arts o t
CJ p h : f " f? :,
lsh "R&
Mafor Gr ifs ''r r S Fa?mabie Lan { Govt utlsdi AAotin 0f r 1

1,
ti „? a t.tn ?• ?w s 1 e, (n a riqoa- r sd+ ?. PA'.
y?f a ;dr'}$ i, ?3r7?j f f y ;. i to t p` r ?;a? y
' ?
? Acres ? ?
Name Of Land EVatu2tlo ?Systerri?Used Name
.Lo Ite Assessniefii-,§y 'rr1 Date Landi;Eyaluation,Retutne8''$?;SC- S r -

PART I I I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Site Rating
Site A Site B Site C Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 61 - 1;
B Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly _
C Total Acres In Site
T
fi
'
'
? 6
;{
PAR
o eand
Evaiua2toniriforfiat
o
r+' 4
2
t
,
A,z 4ta?,? Framenigtie 1=ai inland N
t. 0
?f ;>
?
B `Total Acle?Stateyvlder oti Local_lmportant Farmland,
^
-
?1'erCentagt O# ,armland nCourify Or Local Govt.Unrt To Be Converted: ? ... ? , ?
Q: _ Percent "6f Farm1and Jn.Govt Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Valtie -; r '' i
PART V (To b'e e^omprle?ed b $C Land Evaluation ?Cri erion
e
f?
in
l3lative Valu
F?
O
land `Fo Be Converted (Scale ofi(1 to 100Poinis) 33l-'
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Maximum
mite Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b) Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use 15
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use 10
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed 3
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 0
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area 10
6. Distance To Urban Support Services 10
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average 0
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland 0
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services 5
10. On-Farm Investments _ 8
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 0
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use 5
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 66
'ART VI I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100 33.4
Total Site Asse$sment (From Part Vl abode or a local
i
-
160
66
s
te assess.
rent) 1 i I
--'AL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260 99.4 i

it Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
te Selected: fnatp Of CPlprtinn I V., rl r\.,- 11
Rea->>r. Fo.: _ ?ction:
rs"'i;c` c,7 revr?ncB.tide)
1:orn, AD-1006 +: 'IC 3;'j
.STEPS IN THE PROCESSING THE FARMLAND AND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORM
Step 1 - Federal agencies involved in proposed projects that may convert farmland, as defined in the Farmland Protection
Policy Act (FPPA) to nonagricuitural uses, will initially complete Parts I and III of the form.
I Step 2 - Originator will send copies A, B and C together with maps indicating locations of site(s), to the Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) local field office and retain copy D for their files. (Note: SCS has a field office in most counties in the U.S. The
field office is usually located in the county seat. A list of field office locations are available from the SCS State Conservationist
in each state).
Step 3 - SCS will, within 45 calendar days after receipt of form, make a determination as to whether the site(s) of the pro-
posed project contains prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland.
Step 4 - In cases where farmland covered by the FPPA will be converted by the proposed project, SCS field offices will com-
plete Parts II, IV and V of the form.
Step 5 - SCS will return copy A and B of the form to the Federal agency involved in the project. (Copy C will be retained for
SCS records).
Step 6 - The Federal agency involved in the proposed project will complete Parts VI and VII of the form.
Step 7 - The Federal agency involved in the proposed project will make a determination as to whether the proposed conver-
sion is consistent with the FPPA and the agency's internal policies.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORM
Part I: In completing the "County And State" questions list all the local governments that are responsible
for local land controls where site(s) are to be evaluated.
Part III: In completing item B (Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly), include tiie following:
1. Acres not being directly converted but that would no longer be capable of being farmed after the conver-
sion, because ilie conversion would restrict access to them.
2. Acres planned to receive services from an infrastructure project as indicated in the project justification
(e.g. highways, utilities) that will cause a direct conversion.
Part V€: Do not complete Part Vl if a local site assessment is used.
Assign the maximum points for each site assessment criterion as shown in §658.5(b) of CFR. In cases of
corridor-type projects such as transportation, powerline and flood control, criteria #5 and #6 will not apply
and will be weighed 'zero, however, criterion #8 will be .weighed a maximum of 25 points, and criterion
#11 a maximum of 25 points.
individual Federal agencies at the national level, may assign relative weights among the 12 site assessment
criteria other than those shown in the FPPA rule. In all cases where .other weights are assigned, relative adjust-
ments must be made to maintain the maximum total weight points at 160.
In rating alternative sites, Federal agencies shall consider each of the criteria and assign points within the
limits established in the FPPA rule. Sites most suitable for protection under these criteria will receive the
highest total scores, and sites least suitable, the lowest scores.
Part VII: In computing the "Total Site Assessment Points", where a State or local site assessment is used
and the total maximum number of points is other than 160, adjust the site assessment points to a base of 160.
Example: if the Site Assessment maximum is 200 points; and alternative, Site "A" is rated 180 points:
Total points assigned Site A = ISO x 160 = 144 points for Site "A."
Maximum points possible 200
uur' r.' r a_ NOB k? Nub ?l\ JVuB ,
s 4 *rs,c3 ^r?f?` NOB LY?1 y y WaB \ \ rr i L?aB !?t ?O
arr r G a SOUth NOA
Whitevil lej?+ waa, ; ,
,?,d ti , WaB H ?
B t ty ''Y t.Y '?V 2 -?u
Via g ?(> ti;;. - ^?
NuB
?t W.• C'?I`ja f•'? y .?" 'l01" , b f.? r NoB Y?
NoB
r GoA r ` NoA' / ?; r
No, , A 130 'WaBr` ` NoB ?. GoA #
WaB Co WaB ?A . ?K ,' e,t•. WaB GO Y y ??' LY 'F LY
Co g' r No6 V • w c
U bf A +WaB r ti iS
NoA
u; _ Ra ¢ s+e`' ."' •iv1'i? :a GoA 3 a?^ •?' Wae .., ? ? .'
No61 ?; ? ? Au8• i, .., ?• ,f_ `
Jr ? _? ? NoA ?y'4" C'?++A
t Nub f ,?
AQ6
P° No8 ^yL r;, r FO ??:. ' " ?.FO ,, ' Wa s,, s ;,. LY ?7" •
yxl- ' No6 r v fy `' Bn8
?.s.., r a k9 oA , `
,jGO
Nog. :`r' s e 4 :•f 1 , a ? ?.,• 9 : a•? ' t
No6 Wa6 WaB *d. .NoA t` A.A 't NuB
?aB
f •
No6 LYa Y1a6 t?bB. WaB
No
Q ° •ty f
NoB ' A o j.r

• ¢
?Y: Tom'- 0
.? ?
A S(y
W ?
NoB
f'
iB
No NuB Lc WaB r
NoA
N

loa r », ,? ' ZY NoB,,
NeW GoA ? NoA 108 , r!r
{ Q1 r Au8

NoA
Hope
NoB ,
No
'
'

`?
oA •
No8 f
Ly 1. G
D ?•
J
G ;,• r•
• C C AuB >i
?
J r
Y
r St
...
•
Ra S a
GoA Go GoA ...
?. ;
No6 ky... J
?' G? ' Au8 :po
r
*
NoB No6
- . {
N
e d g
/ St a Ud
o L. ae
a ?k Y ',Y ' "?. WaB Au oP

?Y G
A
LY
cy;;.
Fo .
Y o
No6 r, yNoA F,
°d
Ly No6
? a:
AuB
GoA NoA NoB '
'

•
0
41
Ly

?
Wa8
i
C

+

'
No6 WaB N NoA NoA I

_
' y
T '
WaB'
oB Ra
..
WaB LY NoB GoA
NoB NoB

No No8. ?
Ly y WaB
r NoA
LY ?, NoB Fo

NoB
ci
No6

L NoA

J!y
N

N ' M

V
Ly• ,
a
NoB
NoB !
oB No6
!. r
Wa8
Re NoB _ No8 Fo

8 A A ?
GoA
Ly Ly o
,Y R
-

H
09 NoB
z
+ NoA , ; Q o
2
GoA t
a o
D '
0 Ly •LY NoB '
'No6 » c-
No6 NoB No
$t .,
NoB NoB Ft° r NoA
IV Kit-
:;

1
U¢
w0
z!2
uVO?
[O ZO
?u U
uxi O
? O
2
?O
o)
IOU=~
:Z¢ UZ
(VSO
zU
Z j
O)
? =UO
U
O
?Q
Z

O
Z
Z
7
O
U
N
mm
f
J
U
1

Fj
?N
a=
2<
¢Z
?< N
U
D
z N
J
Q
U
0 Z
a w
Z0
Q W
J
J N
Q
Z J
O
Om
1-2
LU N
Z
O
U
0
Z
W
0
W
J
J_
O
N

C 9 + ..
Z_ o
O
LL
N
O a $ -

m s

? d 1 O +

N
w
_
< 8 c
L6
is
c E E $ $ a
E j f c • a i 2 ° $ ,

?
E? = ? Y =
e a E
'
? £ _
i
8 2 ? S'
S b E <a
5
} ?? x_? s s r o a a= o a ?= s: g a s

x k
t
N
W -'

a
a
a
w F -
J ? i F 3 E W u ]
: - .
J •+
' 3 ? ?§ N$ E= W t D g
- !
g
S ? S o a: O
¢ °
G ?¢ a
$ ?
S ?
" e' i
'E b y a
T
?
2 ^. Q a = e
E a
U 8
a j g
.
s f
° £ _
~ _ Y S z ?
`
3 3 3 . a
0
u i
$ m
Y ° ¢ J n
.

- - - >°8 - tae

2 E E - « E
?
-
E
? w ? _ _ c E e E i ? + g
E -
? E e v ? S + ? E e

4 ?.
?F?
4 `
E?•
E
_r `
=
s +
E
E c
" ??.
± ± -
+
N =
V
Ec
E
` -
=•.E c
c c
e' - - °c o.5r = .5 L
•"o° f ` e - o"•o°
=c
m
0 uVU O
Y
7 ZZi L
?
+_ <(
0m
VU w . ... ?.
. . I3 2Z
CC ¢¢ N
» 333
-Z`±
- ??? OmOb °°UUU uW
< ?•
D °U°° III (m
» mm
222
N
+
. J?? ¢6O ¢¢
22
f
t
L

f

s

t

l

r
1

1
APPENDIX VIII
Resume of Preparers
t
t
KENNETH M. JUSTICE, P.E., Project Planning/Environmental
Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P.A.
A graduate of North Carolina State University with an M.S. in Civil Engineering and
Villanova University with a B.S. in Civil Engineering. While attending North Carolina State
University, Mr. Justice majored in transportation and was a teaching assistant for the
undergraduate transportation classes.
Mr. Justice has four years of airport and aviation related training and design experience.
Representative experience includes site selection, environmental assessment, and master plan
for the proposed receiver airport in Lee County, North Carolina; WakeSouth Regional
Airport Federal Regulation Master Plan, Holly springs, North Carolina; Master Plan update,
Environmental Assessment for runway and taxiway expansions; and design and construction
management of apron expansion for Columbus County Airport, Whiteville, North Carolina;
design, plans, specifications and construction management for fueling systems, airport
fencing, terminal building, one-half mile airport access road, parking apron, NDB and a
Rules and Regulations document for Siler City Airport, North Carolina; Master Plan update
and Environmental Assessment for improvements to the Laurmburg-Maxton Airport,
Scotland County, North Carolina; a parking apron for Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry
Point, North Carolina; and preparation of an airport industrial park plan for Elizabethtown
Airport, North Carolina.
Additional related projects include parking and traffic designs for RDU International
Airport, preparation of proposal for Global Transpark, Laurinburg-Maxton Airport.
FRED M. HOBBS, P.E., Project Manager
Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P.A.
Mr. Hobbs, has invested his entire career in the planning, design, and construction
management of airports and aviation facilities. A graduate of North Carolina State
University with a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering, Mr. Hobbs, began his
career with Talbert, Cox & Associates in Wilmington, North Carolina in 1975. During his
tenure with the firm, he became registered as a Professional Engineer in North Carolina and
served as Project Manager on a wide range of airport and aviation assignments. These
projects included all aspects of aviation planning from site selection and feasibility studies
through master planning and environmental assessments including construction plans and
construction management for expansions of air carrier as well as new construction of general
aviation facilities.
In 1982, Mr. Hobbs founded the predecessor organization of Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates
and since that time has directed the growth of the firm to its current ninety-one person size.
The firm provides a full f civil engineering services through four operating divisions. These
include Environmental, Transportation, site Planning and Municipal. Since founding the
firm, the company has been involved in general aviation airport development with new

facilities at Siler city and Elizabethtown, expansion of existing facilities at Columbus County,
and the planning and funding coordination for the WakeSouth Regional Airport, a regional
I reliever to Raleigh-Durham.
Mr. Hobbs' over nineteen years of experience well qualifies him to serve as Project Manager,
both in terms of the number and complexity of projects for which he has been responsible
as well as his ongoing relationship with the State, Federal and local funding agencies. In
addition to Mr. Hobbs' professional qualifications, he is also a licensed pilot.
DR. T. H. CARTER III. Project Environmental Coordinator
Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P.A.
Dr. Carter is a graduate of North Carolina State University with PhD. and M.S. in Zoology
and minor in Ecology, as well as a graduate of the University of North Carolina at
Wilmington with a B.S. in Biology. Dr. Carter is a recognized expert in the areas of ecology
and management of longleaf pine communities, Endangered Species Act (including Section
7 consultations), endangered species surveys, red-cockaded woodpecker surveys, cavity and
colony activity assessment, censuring and monitoring of populations, capture and banding
of nestlings and adults, habitat management, installation of cavity restrictors, construction
of artificial cavities, foraging habitat analysis, and management plan preparation.
Certified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as a wetlands delineator, Dr. Carter has been
responsible for numerous investigations, studies, papers and publications dealing exclusively
with the red-cockaded woodpecker in the Sandhills area of North Carolina including re-
cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat analysis for office park near Pinehurst, North
Carolina (MCM Partners, Inc.); red-cockaded woodpecker survey, foraging habitat analyses
and assessment for widening of U.S. Highway 15-501, near Southern Pines, North Carolina
(NCDOT); red-cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat analysis at the 300 acre Talamore
development site near southern Pines, North Carolina (Peter Savin Properties, Inc.):
inventory of red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees for Pinehurst National Golf Course,
Pinehurst, North Carolina; and red-cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat analysis, biological
assessment and management plan for Bent Creek development, Pinehurst, North Carolina
(U.S. Shelter).
LORETTA E. LAUTZENHEISER
Coastal Carolina Research (WBE/DBE Certified)
A graduate of the University of Tennessee with an M.A, and B.S. (Magna Cum Laude) in
Anthropology.
Ms. Lautzenheiser specialized in historic archaeology and meets the Secretary of Interior's
standards for prehistoric archaeology. She has prepared numerous papers on historic
archaeology while with CCR and during her previous employment with NCDOT.
?I
r

Pertinent examples of her previous work include archaeological survey of U.S. 64 relocation,
Tarboro to Parmele: Edgecombe, Martin and Pitt Counties, North Carolina (NCDOT);
archaeological survey of Murfreesboro Bypass, Hertford-Northampton Counties, North
Carolina (NCDOT); archaeological sample survey of the proposed U.S. 17 New Bern
Bypass, New Bern, North Carolina (NCDOT); archaeological survey of proposed relocation
of U.S. 1 from south of Sanford to south of Vass, Moore and Lee Counties, North Carolina
(NCDOT); and Neuse River Bridge Replacement, Craven County, North Carolina
(NCDOT).
MARY L. REEB
Historic Preservation Services (WBE Certified)
A graduate of Case Western University with a Ph.D. in American Studies, University of
I Wisconsin with an M.A. and B.S. in English.
Ms. Reeb has over 16 years of experience as an Historical Structures Preservation
consultant, including ten years as a private preservation consultant, two years as an executive
director of the Chapel Hill Preservation Society, and two years as the Regional Preservation
Officer for the Ohio Historical Society.
Represented experience includes successful National Register nominations (no rejections)
of 520 properties, including nine historic districts and multi-resource areas and 40 - 50
individual structures; Section 106 reviews, five North Carolina highway projects since April,
1989; comprehensive survey of historic resources, Star County, Ohio; complete surveys of
Carroll, Harrison, and Tuscarawas Counties, Ohio; principal investigator for architectural
resources of two neighborhoods in Chapel Hill, North Carolina; preservation aspects
Louisville, Ohio, comprehensive plan; preservation related education programs for east
central Ohio; and principal investigator for the National Park Service Survey and Planning
Grant for the City of Cleveland Heights, Ohio.
11

1
1
r

r
1

1

I
1

APPENDIX IX
Public Hearing Transcript
DR. J.H. CARTER III & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Environmental Consultants
P.O. Box 891 • Southern Pines, N.C. 28388
[phone] • Fax [phone]
19 January 1999
Mr. John Dorney
w...
NCDENR- Division of Water Quality
Wetlands/ 401 Unit O
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607 WE7UAfVpS GRROJf,
`?'?rER W1Alliy SEC
Dear John:
I am responding to your letter of 6 January 1999 concerning the Mitigation Plan for the
Columbus County Airport (DWQ# 960975). We are in the process of finalizing the revisions to the
Mitigation Plan and should have the revision to you in 2-3 weeks.
Therefore, we request that DWQ keep our project file active.
Sincerely,
D . J.H. Carter III
Environmental Consultant
Cc: Fred Hobbs, HUA :,...._:. ., .,
Tom Goodwin, HUA
Endangered Species Surveys • Environmental Assessments 9 Land Management • Wetlands Mapping and Permitting
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
NC ENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
January 6, 1999
Dr. Jay Carter
J.H. Carter and Associates
PO Box 891
Southern Pines, NC 28388
Dear Mr. Carter:
Re: Mitigation Plan for the Columbus Co. Airport
Columbus County
DWQ # 960975
On October 1, 1998 the Division of Water Quality sent a letter stating your project
was on hold since we needed another revised mitigation plan. To date, we have not
received the above mentioned information regarding this project.
If we do not hear anything from you within two weeks of the date of this letter, we
will be forced to withdraw the project.
If you have any questions, please contact John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Sin ly,
Joh Do
cc: Wilmington DWQ Regional Office
Wilmington District Office Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office Corps of Engineers
John Dorney
Central Files
Wetlands/401 Unit 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality

James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director NORNCDENR
TH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
October 1, 1998
Dr. Jay Carter
J.H. Carter and Associates
P.O. Box 891
Southern Pines NC 28388
Dear Jay:
Subject: Modified Mitigation Plan for the Columbus Co. Airport
DWQ No. 960975
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) issued a 401 Water Quality Certification to Columbus County for the airport
expansion off SR 1181. A condition of that approval was for DWQ to receive and approve a wetland mitigation plan to
offset the 4.76 acres of wetlands impacted. Your office submitted a conceptual mitigation plan on September 16, 1996. The
draft mitigation plan was received on October 15, 1997. A revised mitigation plan was submitted on September 16,1998 as
a response to our March 2, 1998 review. DWQ staff has the following comments on the plan:
A reference wetland site should be identified and plotted on a map. Vegetation and groundwater elevation
monitoring are needed in the reference site for comparison to the mitigation site.
The proposed hydrology success criterion is not acceptable. Instead the site's hydrology should be at a
groundwater elevation within a certain tolerance of the reference wetland's hydrology. DWQ suggest that
the groundwater in the restored area should be within +/- one inch provided that the hydrograph for both
areas have a similar shape.
Annual reports should have a plot of the groundwater elevation.
All ditches should be completely filled to prevent "french drain" effects and inadvertent removal of ditch
hydrology.
Groundwater wells should be on tmnsects within the reference and site wetlands. At least one well should be
at the target elevation of 84 feet. We recommend that wells should be spaced no farther apart than the one-
foot elevation change.
Please provide a diagram of the outflow device that will be used to regulate water levels.
Vegetation sampling should not be near the well in order to minimize impacts from well data collection.
The mitigation area will need a conservation easement stating that these wetlands are to satisfy compensatory
mitigation requirements and no development is allowed on them. This easement will need to be recorded
with 60 days of the site being deemed successful.
Another revised mitigation plan will be needed. Please resubmit as soon as possible since the end of the construction
window is nearing. Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. Eric Galamb at [phone].
Cc: Ron Ferrell, DWQ
Michael Hosey, Wilmington COE
Mr. Dempsey Herring
Columbus County
111 Washington Street
Whiteville, NC 28472
ja mey
Supervisor
Environmental Sciences Branch 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
AD Equal OwortuII1n' Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper

----------
?o
00
5V
O Eric
t A Water 1
. _°"° 4401
J.H. CARTER III & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Environmental Consultants
P.O. Box 891 • Southern Pines, N.C. 28388
[phone] • Fax [phone]
Letter of Transmittal
Attn: Galamb
Re: Revised Columbus Co. Airport W
Mitigation Plan
WE ARE SENDING YOU
X Attached
Copy of letter
Prints
Reports Maps
Plans Data
Photos
COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION
1 09-16-98 Letter of response to letter dated 2 March 98
1 09-16-98 Wetlands Mitigation Plan for Columbus County Airport (revised)
1 Soils map
1 09-98 Water Budget (not included in cc to Goodwin, HUA)

THESE ARE TRANSMITTED
X For approval
For your use
X As requested
X For review and comment
REMARKS: Please look these over and
Approved as noted
Approved as submitted
Returned for corrections
For your information
COPY TO: Tom Goodwin, HUA
SIGNED:
If enclosures are not noted, please contact us immediately
Endangered Species Surveys • Environmental Assessments • Land Management 9 Wetlands Mapping and Permitting
DR. J.H. CARTER III & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Environmental Consultants
Q P.O. Box 891 • Southern Pines, N.C. 28388
[phone] * Fax [phone]
SEp , 16 September 1998
N., W vision of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd
Raleigh, NC 27607
Dear Eric:
I am responding to the letter dated 2 March 1998 concerning the Columbus County Airport
Wetlands Mitigation Plan (dated 10 October 1997). A revised Mitigation Plan is enclosed. Responses
to your questions are listed below:
1: Soils on the proposed mitigation site are Rains and Grifton fine sandy loams. Both series are
hydric soils. A soil map is enclosed.
2: Noted in revised Mitigation Plan.
3: Noted in revised Mitigation Plan.
4: This issue was addressed in the first Mitigation Plan.
5: The electronic monitoring wells will record water levels daily and be downloaded every 3-4
months. The hydrology success criteria will be saturation within 12 inches of the soil surface)
for at least 14 consecutive days during the growing season (16 March - 12 November).
6: Hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation are already present on site. Mitigation success will be
defined by restoration of wetland hydrology as described in #5 above.
7: The impacted wetlands for which mitigation is proposed were vegetated with shrubs, saplings
and herbs (no trees). The mitigation site will be vegetated with similar vegetation. This was
discussed during a DWQ site visit on 28 October 1996 and DWQ agreed that this mitigation
was acceptable.
8: A water budget is enclosed. The water budget indicates that adequate water will be retained
onsite to meet the wetland hydrology parameter.
Endangered Species Surveys • Environmental Assessments • Land Management 9 Wetlands Mapping and Permitting
9: The Mitigation Plan states that a minimum of 4.76 acres will be restored to jurisdictional
wetland status or a 1:1 mitigation ratio. The actual area we will be attempting to restore will be
8.6 acres in size or a 1.8:1 mitigation ratio, with enhancement of 2.34 acres of hydrologicaly
degraded (jurisdictional) wetlands.
I look forward to meeting with you in Raleigh on 24 September (10:00 AM) to discuss any
other DWQ concerns.
Sincerely
.`
Dr. J.H. Carter III
Environmental Consultant
Cc: Tom Goodwin, HUA
WETLANDS MITIGATION PLAN
FOR
COLUMBUS COUNTY AIRPORT
Prepared By:
Dr. J.H. Carter III
Dr. J.H. Carter III & Associates, Inc.
Environmental Consultants
P.O. Box 891
Southern Pines, North Carolina 28388
Submitted 10 October 1997
Revised 16 September 1998
Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P.A.
Consulting Engineers
P.O. Box 1737
Southern Pines, North Carolina 28388
WETLANDS MITIGATION PLAN
FOR
COLUMBUS COUNTY AIRPORT
INTRODUCTION
Recent and proposed improvements at the Columbus County Airport caused or will cause
unavoidable permanent modification of 4.76 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. This plan was
prepared pursuant to requirements in Army Corps of Engineers Permit No. 26 (Action ID No.
199202002) and North Carolina Water Quality Certification 2671 (DWQ Project #960975).
When fully implemented this plan will mitigate for lost wetland functions caused by airport
improvements.
PROJECT SITE
The Columbus County Airport is located 1.14 miles southwest of Brunswick off State
Road 1181 (Figure 1). The airport property contains 246.9 acres and consists of a single runway
5500 feet long, a small terminal building, hangers and support buildings. A parallel taxiway is
proposed. Most of the unpaved airport grounds are vegetated with manicured grasses and low
brushy thickets. Vegetation is kept to less than 6 feet in height in order to comply with Federal
Aviation Administration clear zone regulations.
MITIGATION PLAN
Columbus County Airport will attempt to restore wetland hydrology to approximately 8.6
acres of former wetlands in order to mitigate for the loss of 4.76 acres of jurisdictional wetlands
(Figure 2). The filled wetlands consisted of herbaceous and shrub wetlands dominated by
species such as sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), swamp
blackgum (Nyssa biflora), bitter gallberry (Ilex glabra), waxmyrtle (Myrica cerifera), titi
(Cyrilla racemiflora), sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea),
netted chain-fern (Woodwardia areolata), beakrushes (Rhynchospora spp.) and soft rush (Juncus
•` S
t
?1 '••f ,'\ ( ffi v
4-4
L7 I ? a U
fist c I?.' 1 l! >, . a,
?--? t , 1. ?. (' • \ o0
3 oe .; o al? -
Q w O W
O W
Z ^_ 0 U.
effusus). All of the filled wetlands had been ditched in the past and had varying degrees of
hydrologic modification.
The restoration area is located in the southwest portion of the airport property adjacent to
the runway. A narrow band of jurisdictional wetland (2.34 acres) occurs there (Figure 2). Some
of the wetland is dominated by herbaceous species, especially beakrushes, panic grasses
(Dicanthelium spp.), meadow beauties (Rhexia spp.), southern waxy sedge (Carex glaucescens),
honeycomb-head (Balduina uniflora), Coastal Plain thorough-wort (Eupatorium recurvans),
yellow pitcher-plant (Sarracenia f ava) and woolly sunbonnets (Chaptalia tomenstosa). Another
portion is dominated by low shrubs such as black willow (Salix nigra), Virginia willow (Itea
virginica), red maple and tag alder (Alnus serrulata), with a ground cover of netted chain-fern,
Virginia chain-fern (Woodwardia virginica), royal fern (Osmunda regalis), Camphor-weed
(Pluchea sp.), false-nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), climbing hempweed (Mikania scandens) and
Joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium sp.).
The restoration area is vegetated with saplings, shrubs and herbaceous vegetation
including sweet gum, blackgum, red maple, loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), waxmyrtle, bitter
gallberry, blueberries (Vacinium spp.), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifloia), broom-sedge
(Andropogon virginicus) and bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum). Ditching in the past has
adversely impacted the hydrology of the restoration site and adjacent areas and continues to do
so. A significant area appears to have been impounded in the past (organic cross-bedding in
sandy sediments). We propose to restore wetland hydrology in this area on at least 4.76 acres,
and potentially as much as 8.6 acres, while enhancing wetlands hydrology on 2.34 acres of
jurisdictional wetland. Soils on the proposed mitigation site are Rains and Grifton fine sandy
loams. Both series are hydric soils.
The mitigation will be accomplished as follows. Restoration work will begin during the
fall of 1998 or when the mitigation plan is approved; whichever is later.
1. Ditches currently draining the restoration area will be filled from adjacent spoil banks ?// (Figure 2). Original topography will be restored to the extent possible. & "/,12°
2. The large drainage ditch paralleling the southern edge of the runway will be diverted into the
existing wetland (Figure 2). A sediment trap will be placed just above the entrance point to
the wetland.
3. A low earthen berm will be placed just south of the point where the existing wetland drains vZ
u'
under the runway (Figure 2). The berm will be built to the 84 foot contour and will have an
outflow device to regulate water levels. The purpose of this berm is to impede the flow of
water out of the existing wetland and restoration area. This feature will work best during the
non-growing season.
4. Hydrophytic vegetation as described above is already established throughout the restoration
site. As a result, no plantings are proposed. If during the 5 year monitoring period the
Division of Water Quality determines that plantings are necessary, the issue will be
addressed at that time. All of the restoration area is within the airport clear zone which will
limit the establishment of trees (note: the impacted wetlands were not forested).
5. A series of monitoring wells will be established in the restoration area, existing (enhanced)
wetland, reference wetland and on the adjacent upland (Figure 2). The restoration site wells
will be placed at a ratio of approximately 1 well per 3.0 acres. Single monitoring wells will we o>._
be placed in the existing (enhanced) wetland, reference wetland and on the adjacent upland.
The electronic monitoring wells will record water levels daily and be downloaded every 3-4
months.
6. t each well site, vegetation will be characterized by species, prevalence and percent cover
?Y?each year during the 5 year monitoring period (3.1 x 3.1 m plots centered on well). A soil
sample will be taken at the time of well installation and each year thereafter and examined
for hydric soil and wetland hydrology characteristics. Vegetation monitoring will occur in

71/99
late fall before leaf drop. ?^
,6
7. A reference wetland will be e s ed on the property for comparative purposes ands/
monitored as described above. /
8. An annual report will be submitted to the Division of Water Quality by 31 January of each
year during the 5 year monitoring period (unless success is documented in fewer years). An
as-built report will be submitted to DWQ after the restoration site is prepared.
9. The mitigation project will be considered successful when wetlands hydrology has been
enhanced or restored on sufficient acres to mitigate for lost water quality values. The
hydrology success criteria will be saturation within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least
`' 14 consecutive days during the growing season (16 March - 12 November).
So It\cc9601\WE
....:......en .,.. - -1? 107 [8:17 SME I"2WJW'
O

n
m
N
Tom

z
p.
H

r O
C,
0
C
C? mm
N ?-•

c 181
=>
03?
r O

a

m
V

•
crn
\. O
?C)o
0 -P. \

II
• .00 r
00
-P 0 T
/
O T?\

t l '1t
D z
C?

v
_
........_

0;
?p

n C
n

.

0

U)

>00

`
z
tv,

:.
0
D / O?rrnnN
I r .•I
00
-4
z
v m
;
N
5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0

WATER BUDGET
WETLANDS MITIGATION PLAN
I FOR
COLUMBUS COUNTY AIRPORT
AUGUST 1998

PREPARED BY
HOBBS, UPCHURCH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
290 S.W. BROAD STREET
SOUTHERN PINES, NORTH CAROLINA
' ". Tl ,
N MM Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P.A.
Consulting Engineers
4917 Waters Edge Drive • Suite 110 • Raleigh, NC 27606
September 1, 1998
Dr. J.H. Carter III
Dr. J.H. Carter III & Associates, Inc.
Post Office Box 891
Southern Pines, North Carolina 28388
Re: Water Budget
Columbus County Airport
Dear Dr. Carter:
Enclosed is a copy of the water budget that you requested. Please review it and let me know if
you need any additional information. If you have any questions, please let me know.
Very truly yours,
HOBBS, UPCHURCH AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Thomas K. GooVn, R
aleigh Division Manager
CC9603
Raleigh, NC • Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] • e-mail: [e-mail]
Southern Pines 9 Myrtle Beach 9 Kill Devil Hills

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Restoration Area 1
Purpose 1
Drainage Area 1
Soils 1
Precipitation 1
Procedure 2
Table 1 3
Table 2 4
Results 5
Appendix
A USGS Map
B Columbus County Soils Map
C Temperature and Precipitation Data
D Precipitation Calculations
E Surface Runoff Calculations
F Infiltration Calculations
G Evapotranspiration Calculations
H Water Balance Calculations
I Stage-Storage Calculations
J References

INTRODUCTION
The Columbus County Airport, located approximately 1.14 miles southwest of the
Town of Brunswick, recently constructed a parallel taxiway. As a result of this
construction, 4.76 acres of adjacent jurisdictional wetlands were or will be modified. The
Columbus County Airport set into action a Wetlands Mitigation Plan pursuant to
requirements in Army Corps of Engineers Permit No. 26 (Action ID No. 199202002) and
North Carolina Water Quality Certification 2671 (DWQ Project # 960975). The plan
attempts to restore approximately 4.76 acres of former wetlands.
RESTORATION AREA
The restoration area is located in the southwest portion of the airport property
next to the runway. This area has a narrow band of jurisdictional wetland (2.34 acres).
The plan proposes to restore 4.76 acres of wetlands with potentially as high as 10 acres.
Wetland hydrology will be enhanced on 2.34 acres. The area will be restored by filling
in ditches that had been draining the restored, diverting ditch paralleling the runway into
area, and placing berms to impede the flow water out of the area.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to provide a water balance or water budget for the
restoration area on this site.
DRAINAGE AREA
The airport property currently occupies 246.9 acres and consists of 5500 feet long
runway, terminal building, hangers, support buildings and the new taxiway. Vegetation
is kept to less than 6 feet in height. The drainage area to the restoration area is
approximately 78 acres. (See Appendix A)
SOILS
The soils in the area of the restoration site are primarily Grifton fine sandy loam
and Rains fine sandy loam. These soils are poorly drained and make up a hydrologic
group of D. The contributing drainage area has mostly Norfolk loamy fine sand soils
with a hydrologic group designation of B. (See Appendix B for soil map)
PRECIPITA ? ON
The precipitation information for this area was taken from the web site of the
Southeast Regional Climate Center for the Whiteville area. This information consisted of
climatological normals (monthly temperatures and percipitation) from 1961 to 1990.
(See Appendix C).

PROCEDURE
The procedure for this water budget is to calculate the amount of water that comes
into and leaves the site. The basic formula for the water budget is as follows:
AS = Inflow - Outflow where AS = change in storage or volume.
The inflow is the amount of water that enters the site. This water can be inflow
associated with the amount of precipitation, stream inflow, surface runoff or ground
water effects. In this budget, the affects of ground water were assumed to be negligible.
Since a stream does not flow through the restoration area, stream flow was also
neglected. Therefore, precipitation and surface runoff from the contributing watershed
equals the inflow.
The outflow is the amount of water that leaves the site. This water can be
associated with the water that leaves the site through an outlet device, infiltration through
the soil, and/or evapotranspiration. In this water budget, the berm at the 84' contour was
assumed to capable of holding all the water in the wetlands. Therefore, infiltration and
evapotranspiration equals the outflow.
The resulting formula is as follows:
AS = Precipitation + Runoff - Infiltration - Evapotranspiration
The individual items above were calculated for each month in the growing season
for Columbus County. These months include March through June. Table 1 reflects these
units and constitute the water budget. (See Appendix D thru G for example calculations).
Once the volume has been calculated for the restoration area, a stage-storage
function is computed to determine the extent of the areas that are wet. A depth of water
and area wet can then be computed. (Table 2). (See Appendix H for stage-storage
computation).
2
*y y 4
.a
H
d
O b
?
N

it
0
-4 ON
%.O N 0'. Cl
?". ? N M M d'

A

0
00 0%
C4
N
?
F7 V
1 M
[
'
fV M ?
?f'
W

" , c 0 0? o ?o
Q
L
? L: h
?
h
v
+ + o.
o
o
o.

o ?
U
> ? O? M M v'
O l- V'1 r+

? G

w Q!
? O? M O? N
3 ooo?

N ?O ?O M

eq ? M ?O 00
p'y a ? ?o?no
o
M
d t
ti

s
Table 2
Month Storage Storage Stage Area Wet Area Wet
ac-ft cf ft. sf. ac.

March 5.14 223898.4 2.2609648 218851.46 5.02
April -0.21 -9147.6 0 0 0
May 4.00 174240 2.0184425 190776.01 4.38
June 5.65 246114 2.3598503 230485.78 5.29
Total 635104.8 3.6239163 387310.72 8.89

RESULTS
At the end of the 4-month study cycle, the wetland restoration area will be
inundated on 8.89 acres. The top stage of water on this site will be approximately 3.62
feet, which confirms the assumption that the only outflow comes through
evapotranspiration and infiltration into the soil. To have adequate wetland hydrology, the
site must maintain wetness over a 14-day period during the growing season. From this
data, it appears that wetland hydrology is sufficient to restore the 4.76 acres modified as a
result of the airport construction.
II IT Tl 11?t ?Q? .?1 ?? U t ,
•

I
?. a.
c
O?
?
1!
11 I'ry
.ti
00
o
P n
O ••
jl
:'?
R
'
p
0 ? O I
r
?
,-e
{
1
e .I

- \ a rN

• O
a I 1
?
?\ 1

./ ' Q rayq. i ? C
f
o

• "¢ $ 0
• e •----?? •e

p
o• / p o
it '9
,•
' ,
eO•
.r

a.
001,
o

e
.Z
4 ? o
? o

1` m a?a o 1-' o?i a? 7W 9 E wWT!!M 0
III
OW.
O Uw ..
W I'`
a
IL
u
a
c
a
t
t
t
e

F� ys• ri r.�
r b,
APES
i 4
1
,
APPENDIX B
,
Columbus County Soil Map
,
rt
t
-
1.
1.;

'Y map was compiled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
won Service, and cooperating agencies. Base maps are from
aerial photography. Coordinate grid ticks and land division corners,
a0proximately positioned,
5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0
1 .5 0
Scale - 1:
COLUMBUS COUNTY. N
r
i
r
�'
APPENDIX C
Temperature and Precipitation Data
.:,u

s
't
W
W
?y
?I
•py
V
I??y1
Vv
.'.y
AVA,J?J
I?
M
P=
r?
r L
i
4?4n
T
. PM4
PO-4
U
M
M
z
WI O
H y
W ?
M?1 b
u
a
A
3
C', OMNMOOOOOOOOW OD
c?oraooooo0000o N
o M
"I
O m a4H w rl Mw w I-11 wM Ow 0
O1 ? 14CD[? V?OU1OO0DMl?O1?-1 l?
rl $ 04 VIM V? u1 lO V? V? N N M O
Ch 4.)
H f, Q
N
U
m $4
r-I N W
(d a --
E R 0 -6 -0!'! 1 U1 0! cl 9' M O 00
O NNll1Mr-I0\l11O00MN V?10 rl
z Ed?'d? 111 10 10 1- L- L- r- W M V W
H
U l?
o ch w
r-I ri
O M M r? 10 O [? [? to 1? N d? M m CD
03 o v00wwU 410O1ODvmr-1- M
-S k U1 to 10 1- CO CO OD OD CD 1- to u1 r
vx ?
g W
zI p1A10010D10NMt?1?lOMN OD
I N.- M01-10 V CD r-ri01?-1 VW 01
t7 0MMIM e40L %D%D%010 10 VIM V
W
?HC
k >1 V. 1-1 t3l H
3 1E NOS LL1a???NU0a1 q
hw?hhavn0 .z0 FC
.?S
y
I +?
I
it 01
v'S..
ti
I?
i?
Iq
1.
a
v
c
c
e
c
e
z
c
W. ,+
PRECIPITATION
Pv = P * Aw Where P = monthly precipitation (inch) (See Appendix Q
12 in/ft Pv = precipitation volume (acre-ft)
Aw = Area of Wetlands ( 84' contour =10.94 acres)
March
Pv = P * Aw 4.41 * 10.94 = 4.02 ac-ft
12 12
April
Pv = P * Aw 3.03 * 10.94 = 2.76 ac-ft
12 12
May
Pv = P * Aw__ = 4.56 * 10.94 = 4.16 ac-ft
12 12
June
Pv = P * Aw _ = 5.08 * 10.94 = 4.63 ac-ft
12 12

y,,

SURFACE RUNOFF
The SCS curve number for Hydrologic group B soils for the Drainage area outside of
wetland area for non cultivated agricultural land, contoured, and fair hydrologic condition
is 59. (McCuen, Table 7-6 pg. 296).
To calculate depth of runoff:
Using SCS Method
S = 1000 - 10 = 1000 - 10 = 6.95 in Where S = Ultimate storage capacity (in)
CN 59
R= (P-0.2*S)2
(P + 0.8*S )
To get Runoff into volume:
R, = R * Area
12 in/ft
March
R= (P-0.2*S)2 = (4.41-0.2*6.95)2
(P + 0.8*S) (4.41 + 0.8*6.95)
R„ = R * Area = 0.91 * 67.06
12 in/ft 12
April
R = (P - 0.2*S )2 = (3.03 - 0.2*6.95) 2
(P + 0.8*S) (3.03 + 0.8*6.95)
R„ = R * Area = 0.31 * 67.06
12 in/ft 12
May
R= (P-0.2*S)2 = (4.56-0.2*6.95)2
(P + 0.8*S) (4.56 + 0.8*6.95)
R„ = R * Area = 0.99 * 67.06
12 in/ft 12
Where R = Runoff (inches)
P = Monthly Precipitation (inches)
Where R„ = Runoff volume (acre-ft)
Area = Drainage area to Wetlands
(78 acres -10.94 acres)
(67.06 acre)
0.91 inches
5.09 acre-ft
0.31 inches
1.73 acre-ft
0.99 inches
5.53 acre-ft
i.
June
R= (P-0.2*S 12 =
(P+0.8*S)
Rv= R * Area =
12 in/ft
(5 08 - 0.2*6.95)2
(5.08 + 0.8*6.95)
1.28 •06
12
= 1.28 inches
= 7.15 acre-ft
APPENDIX E
Infiltration Calculations
i

INFILTRATION
The soils in the wetland restoration area are essentially Hydrologic group D soils. The
SCS curve number for Hydrologic group D soils for the restoration area for forestland,
and fair hydrologic condition is 82. (McCuen, Table 7-6 pg. 296).
To calculate depth of infiltration:
Using SCS Method
S =1000 - 10 = 1000 - 10 = 2.20 in Where S = Ultimate storage capacity (in)
CN 82
Must first calculate depth of runoff:
R= (P-0.2*S )2
(P + 0.8*S )
I=P-R
IV=I*AW
12 Oft
March
R= (P - 0.2*S )2 = (4.41- 0.2*2.20) 2
(P + 0.8*S) (4.41 + 0.8*2.20)
I = P-R 4.41-2.55
I„ = L* AW 1.86 * 10.94
12 in/ft 12
April
R= (P-0.2*S)2 = (3,.03-0.2*2.20)2
(P + 0.8*S) (3.03 + 0.8*2.23)
I = P - R 3.03-1.40
I„ = L* AW 1.63 * 10.94
12 in/ft 12
Where R = Runoff (inches)
P = Monthly Precipitation (inches)
Where I = Infiltration (inches)
Where I, = Infiltration volume (acre-ft)
AW = Area of Wetlands (10.92 acres)
= 2.55 inches
1.86 inches
1.70 acre-ft

1.40 inches
1.63 inches
= 1.49 acre-ft

<t. 'r?
May
R = ?P - 0.2*S )2 = (4.56 - 0.2*2.2012 = 2.69 inches
(P + 0.8*S) (4.56 + 0.8*2.20)
1 = P - R 4.56-2.69 = 1.87 inches
Iv = L* Aw 1.87 * 10.94 = 1.70 acre-ft
12 in/ft 12
June
R = (P - 0.2*S )2 = (5.08 - 0.2*2.20)2 = 3.15 inches
(P + 0.8*S) (5.08 + 0.8*2.20)
I = P - R 5.08-3.15 = 1.93 inches
Iv = L* AW 1.93 * 10.94 = 1.76 acre-ft
12 in/ft 12

? ..
:? ?

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
Using Blaney and Cribble formula (Wannelista, pg. 103) to calculate potential
evapotranspiration
ET = k * p * t Where k = consumptive use coefficient
100 p = % of daytime hours per year
t = mean monthly temperature ( ° F )
from Table 4.14 and 4.15 (Wannelista, pp. 101-102)
k for orchard, deciduous (closely related) = 0.65
p for 35 degree latitude north each month
t from Appendix C
ETW = ET * AW
12 in/ft
March
ET=k*p*t=
100
ETW = ET * Aw =
12 in/ft
April
ET=k*n*t=
101
ETW = ET * AR,_ _
12 in/ft
May
ET -k*p *t=
102
ETW = ET * Ap- _
12 in/ft
where ETW = Evapotranspiration volume (acre-ft)
AW = Wetland Area (10.94 acres)
0.65 * 8.35 * 53.8
100
2.92 * 10.94
12
2.92 in
2.66 ac-ft
0.65 * 8.83 * 61.4
100
3.52 * 10.94
12
0.65 * 9.76 * 69.1
100
4.38 * 10.94
12
3.52 in
3.21 ac-ft
4.38 in
3.99 ac-ft
i
June
ET=k*p *t=
103
ET,,, = ET * AK,_ _
12 in/ft
0.65 * 9.77 * 75.5
100
4.79 * 10.94
12
4.79 in
= 4.37 ac-ft
� 1
•
= APPENDIX H
Water Balance Calculations

.G .i
March
April
May
June
WATER BUDGET
AS = Precipitation + Runoff - Infiltration - Evapotranspiration
AS = 4.41 + 5.09 -1.70 - 2.66
AS = 5.14 ac-ft
OS=2.76+ 1.73-1.49-3.21
AS = -0.21ac-ft
OS=4.16+ 5.53-1.70-3.99
AS = 4.00 ac-ft
AS=4.63+ 7.15-1.76-4.37
AS = 5.65 ac-ft

STAGE-STORAGE
Using the using the average end area method among contours to obtain storage volumes,
a linear regression analysis of the log of stage and storage gives the power curve form to
relate storage to stage. (Malcom 1994)
S= KS Zb Where S = storage (volume)
Z = stage from bottom of wetlands
To solve for Stage
Z=(S)inb
(Z)
To solve for Area
A=KSbZM
II
Stage-Storage Function
HUA No. CC9603 Columbus County Airport
Columbus County, NC
S Z
CONTOUR INCR ACCUM

CONTOUR
AREA
VOLUME
VOLUME
STAGE y
In S x
In Z
Z est
FT FT
SQ C
• U. FT CU FT FT FT
80 0
0
81 74487.6 37244 37244 1 10.525241 0 1
00
82 188614.8 131551 168795 2 12.03644 0.693147181 .
1
99
83 304920 246767 415562 3 12.937388 1.098612289 .
2
99
84 476546.4 390733 806296 4 13.600206 1.386294361 .
4.04
Ks= 36903.00 (From Linear Regression)
b = 2.21

* i t' C
Malcom, H. R, HydroloQV & Urban Water S sty ems, NCSU CE 383 Fall Semester 1994
McCuen, Richard H., Hydrologic Analvsis and DesPrentice-Hall, Inc. 1989
Wanielista, Martin, HydroloQV and Water Quan jdN Control, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
1990
Soil Survey of Columbus County, July 1990
USGS Map, Whiteville,1987

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Ho wes, Secreta ry
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
e
Am L 111M
lc? EHNR
October 10, 1996
Columbus County
DWQ Project # 960975
APPROVAL of. 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Mr. Dempsey Herring
Columbus County
111 Washington Street
Whiteville, NC 28472
Dear Mr. Herring:
You have our approval to place fill material in 4.76 acres of wetlands or waters for the purpose of
runway extension at Columbus County Airport, as you described in your application dated 16 September
1996, FONSI dated 14 June 1996. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered
by General Water Quality Certification Number 2671. This certification allows you to use Nationwide
Permit Number 26 when it is issued by the Corps of Engineers.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application except as
modified below. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new
application. For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification
and any additional conditions listed below. A final mitigation plan must be submitted to DWQ for written
approval within one month of the date of this letter. Stormwater from the existing and new development
shall be directed to sheetflow into existing and mitigated wetlands as much as is feasible. Future expansion of
the airport will require wet detention ponds to manage stormwater. In addition, you should get any other
federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment
and Erosion Control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing.
You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written
petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of
Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions
are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing. `
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water duality under, Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Sincerel , '
ston Howard, Jr. P.E.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
Wilmington DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
Jay Carter, Jay Carter and Associates
960975.1tr
Division of Water Quality • Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
State of Borth Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources 4
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary E N F1
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
March 2, 1998
Mr. Dempsey Herring
Columbus County
111 Washington Street
Whiteville, NC 28472
Dear Mr. Herring:
Subject: Mitigation Plan for the Columbus Co. Airport
DWQ No. 960975
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) issued a 401 Water Quality Certification to Columbus County for the airport
expansion off SR 1181. A condition of that approval was for DWQ to receive and approve a wetland mitigation plan to
offset the 4.76 acres of wetlands impacted. Jay Carter submitted a conceptual mitigation plan on September 16, 1996.
The draft mitigation plan was received on October 15, 1997. Staff from the N.C Wetland Restoration Program
reviewed this plan. DWQ staff have the following comments on the plan:
1. What are the soils on site? Please provide a soil map.
2. Annual and as-built reports should be sent to DWQ. Annual reports should discuss the species density
and survival rates and the groundwater elevations. The as-built report should address ditch plugs/fill,
earthen berms, any water control structures, and groundwater monitoring wells (location and installation
methbds).
3. Vegetation monitoring should occur in the late fall before leaf drop.
4. A reference site should be identified. Vegetation and groundwater elevation monitoring are needed in
the reference site for comparison to the mitigation site.
5. Frequency of well monitoring needs to be stated. The plan should propose the hydrology success
criteria.
6. Success criteria needs to be specified. The information included is not sufficient
7. The restoration site is near the end of the runway. Will the vegetation have to be mowed to no more
than 6 feet in height for safety reasons? If so, the site will not be appropriate as wooded restoration.
8. All mitigation plans should have a water budget. Please discuss the input and exports to the system. Is
_ the berm location the only output source? Has volume of water through system been approximated and
deemed to be enough to satisfy hydrologic conditions across the proposed site?
9. How much restoration is going to be done? The range is from 4.76 acres to 10 acres. 'there needs to be
a specific amount in the plan.
Please provide another draft mitigation report. DWQ appolizes for the tardy review. Should you have any questions,
please contact Mr. Eric Galamb at [phone].
S' ce
J n R. Dorney
B logical Su s
Cc: Ron Ferrell, DWQ
Michael Hosey, Wilmington COE
Jay Carter, Jay Carter and Associates
Environmental Sciences Branch • 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
Title:
Comments: Columbus Co. Airport
Date Rec'd 401: 10/15/97
Date Recd NCWRP: 10/17/97

Location: 1.14 miles SW of Brunswick (SR 1181), Columbus CouIILy
Impacts: 4.76 acres of wet flat type (?) wetlands
Proposed mitigation: 4.76-10.0 acres of restoration, enhancement
Actual mitigation: Proposing at least 4.76 acres up to 10 acres (?) with 2.34 acres of
wetland enhancement
Other comments:
I . What are the soils on site? Need a map
2. Need as-built reports which address ditch plugs/fill, earthen berms, any water
control structures, and groundwater monitoring wells.
3. Need more info on vegetation on restoration site
4. Reference site should be identified and needs wells for comparison
5. Frequency of well monitoring needs to be stated (weekly, monthly ??)
6. Success criteria needs to be specified, the information included is not
sufficient.
7. The restoration site is near the new runway, will the vegetation have to be
mowed to no more than 6 feet? If so, the site will not be appropriate.
8. All mitigation plans should have a water budget. Inputs to system come from
what? Is berm location only output? Has volume of water through system
been approximated and deemed to be enough to satisfy hydrologic conditions
across the proposed site?
9. How much restoration is going to be done? The range is from 4.76 acres to 10
acres. There needs to be a specific amount in the plan.
10. In general, this plan needs substantial beefing up of all the above information,
we cannot comment on the feasibility of the plan until the above info is
offered.
Plan reviewed by: Mac and Jeff
DR. J.H. CARTER III & ASSOCIATES
Environmental Consultants
P.O. Box 891 • Southern Pines, N.C. 28388
( 910) 695-1043 Phone
U? 1 y [phone] Fax
FNV/RnN?,F?T 1997.
Letter Of Transmittal
_ Copy of letter
_ Prints
Job # a
a d v
FRe
.L/"R'epo
rts
zaps
_ Plans _ Data
_ Photos _
r4a?'cuS ;0jn i
COPY TO ^?? ?? • SIGNED
M r)
If enclosures are not noted, pleases contact us immediately.
OCT 1'7 1997
NC WETLANDS
_ RESTORATION
Gentlemen: WE ARE,SENDING YOU
Attached
THESE ARE NSMITTED
or approval -Approved as noted
_ F your use -Approved as submitted
quested _ Returned for corrections
or review and comment _ For your information

WETLANDS MITIGATION PLAN
FOR
COLUMBUS COUNTY AIRPORT

0,40"
Prepared By:
Dr. J.H. Carter III
Dr. J.H. Carter III & Associates, Inc.
Environmental Consultants
P.O. Box 891
Southern Pines, North Carolina 28388
Submitted 10 October 1997
Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P.A.
Consulting Engineers
P.O. Box 1737
Southern Pines, North Carolina 28388
WETLANDS MITIGATION PLAN
FOR
COLUMBUS COUNTY AIRPORT
INTRODUCTION
Recent and proposed improvements at the Columbus County Airport caused or will cause
unavoidable permanent modification of 4.76 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. This plan was
prepared pursuant to requirements in Army Corps of Engineers Permit No. 26 (Action ID No.
199202002) and North Carolina Water Quality Certification 2671 (DWQ Project #960975).
When fully implemented this plan will mitigate for lost wetland functions caused by airport
improvements.
PROJECT SITE
The Columbus County Airport is located 1.14 miles southwest of Brunswick, off State
Road 1181 (Figure 1). The airport property contains 246.9 acres, and consists of a single runway
5500 feet long, a small terminal building, hangers and support buildings. A parallel taxiway is
proposed. Most of the unpaved airport grounds are vegetated with manicured grasses and low
bushy thickets. Vegetation is kept to less than 6 feet in height in order to comply with Federal
Aviation Administration clear zone regulations.
MITIGATION PLAN
Columbus County Airport will attempt to restore approximately 10.0 acres of former
wetlands in order to mitigate for the loss of 4.76 acres of jurisdictional wetlands (Figure 2). The
filled wetlands consisted of herbaceous and shrub wetlands dominated by species such as sweet
gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), swamp blackgum (Nyssa biflora),
bitter gallberry (Ilex glabra), waxmyrtle (Myrica cerifera), titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), sweetbay
(Magnolia virginiana), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), netted chain-fern (Woodwardia
t'#•t f TT f #I T#I:a T '"TIT T, ITi? }I ?`,.? ??... ``? ?,\
I I I ??T I ?# ? 1? •'?' ( ? t
00
CC;
'?.?'? I• ,sue •?
r - - t
H r-I
0 $4
0 41
;D cis 0 t, a 0 4-J
O? l1 irt• _a. a {•d
¢0
y , ' ,a '? ' • a -rq z
E?
LLI
LU C: 94
Wool
LuV! 3 . I Q F' t l- ?. (' 1 \ \,y •o -? $ ,l? ago
!!!"'??? "" Of
3 ?. ?. n O o 0 ILI oa
G (7 O1 n O W
? o
Z mLL
areolata), beakrushes (Rhynchospora spp.) and soft rush (Juncus effusus). All of the filled
wetlands had been ditched in the past and had varying degrees of hydrologic modification.
The restoration area is located in the southwest portion of the airport property adjacent to
the runway. A narrow band of jurisdictional wetland (2.34 acres) occurs there (Figure 2). Some
of the wetland is dominated by herbaceous species, especially beakrushes, panic grasses
(Dicanthelium spp.), meadow beauties (Rhexia spp.), southern waxy sedge (Carex glaucescens),
honeycomb-head (Balduina uniflora), Coastal Plain thorough-wort (Eupatorium recurvans),
yellow pitcher-plant (Sarracenia flava) and woolly sunbonnets (Chaptalia tomenstosa). Another
portion is dominated by low shrubs such as black willow (Salix nigra), Virginia willow (Itea
virginica), red maple and tag alder (Alnus serrulata), with a ground cover of netted chain-fern,
Virginia chain-fern (Woodwardia virginica), royal fern (Osmunda regalis), Camphor-weed
(Pluchea sp.), false-nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), climbing hempweed (Mikania scandens) and
Joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium sp.).
The restoration area is vegetated with saplings, shrubs and herbaceous vegetation
including sweet gum, blackgum, red maple, loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), waxmyrtle, bitter
gallberry, blueberries (Vaciinium spp.), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifloia), broom-sedge
(Andropogon virginicus) and bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum). Ditching in the past has
adversely impacted the hydrology of the restoration site and adjacent areas, and continues to do
so. A significant area appears to have been impounded in the past (organic cross-bedding in
sandy sediments). We propose to restore the hydrology in this area in at least 4.76 acres and
potentially as much as 10.0 acres, while enhancing wetlands hydrology on 2.34 acres.
This will be accomplished as follows. Restoration work will begin during the fall of
1997 or when the mitigation plan is approved; whichever is later.
1. Ditches currently draining the restoration area will be filled from adjacent spoil banks
(Figure 2). Original topography will be restored to the extent possible.
2. The large drainage ditch paralleling the southern edge of the runway will be diverted into the
existing wetland (Figure 2). A sediment trap will be placed just above the entrance point to
the wetland.
3. A low earthen berm will be placed just south of the point where the existing wetland drains
under the runway (Figure 2). The berm will be built to the 84 foot contour and will have an
outflow device to regulate water levels. The purpose of this berm is to impede the flow of
water out of the existing wetland and restoration area. This feature will work best during the
non-growing season.
4. Hydrophytic vegetation as described above is already established throughout the restoration
site. As a result, no plantings are proposed. If during the 5 year monitoring period the
Division of Water Quality determines that plantings are necessary, the issue will be
addressed at that time. All of the restoration area is within the airport clear zone which will
limit the establishment of trees.
5. A series of monitoring wells will be established in the restoration area, existing wetland and
on adjacent uplands (Figure 2). The restoration site wells will be placed at the ratio of
approximately 1 well per 1.5 acres. Three to 4 wells will be placed in the existing wetland
and 1 well will be placed on the adjacent upland.
6. At each well site vegetation will be characterized by species, prevalence and percent cover
each year during the 5 year monitoring period (3.1 x 3.1 in plots centered on well). A soil
sample will be taken at the time of well installation and each year thereafter, and examined
for hydric soil and wetland hydrology characteristics.
7. A reference wetland will be established on the property for comparative purposes and
monitored as described above.
8. An annual report will be submitted to the Division of Water Quality by 31 January of each
year during the 5 year monitoring period.
9. The mitigation project will be considered successful when wetlands hydrology has been
enhanced or restored on sufficient acres to mitigate for lost water quality values.
SCI H:\CC9602\WETLAND2.DWG EDITED BY. TFW 09/29/97 09:13 SCALE: 1"=200.OD'
E F]
oN ?.
0
c
o 050
9, 123"
NCO
r mr1
0
9
a)
Nc i n
.
Z' ?
v
to ? rn ? ? `°

o
CD
0 ?
°ob
z
o
z r^
0$
A ?.
>;D
O? 4b
V O
cn

a
..
y
o
o

-00 O .T
. 00 L
Z ?
n?
?
D
? oo n
O0
p
..
mC
tn? , Z
_

;

Om0
?
U)

ng-i0

ODOO
Z
-?U)

O
c n,
I ? M,zm ?OX? C)
?
-i
z 0 --?
.
b, m
o 1
m
X

0 ?Az ;a
. 9f
C'Ji'i'i 4 BT*31110`11 ` NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETINGS
Ncn SPONSORED BY
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF EiWIRONIVIENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
SUBJECT: Two public meetings have been scheduled to receive public
comments concerning the direct, secondary, and cumulative
water quality impacts associated with the Chip Mill Operations in
North Carolina.
MEETING PROCESS: The meetings will be conducted in the following manner:
1. Public Comment - Comments, statements, data and other
information may be submitted in writing prior to or during
the meetings or may be presented oraiiy at the meetings.
Persons desiring to speak will indicate this intent at the
time of registration at the meetings. So that all persons
desiring to speak may do so, lengthy statements may be
limited at the discretion of the meeting officer. Oral
presentations which exceed three minutes must be
accompanied by three (3) written copies which will be filed
with the meeting clerk at the time of registration.
2. Cross examination of persons presenting testimony will
not be allowed; however, the meeting officer may ask
questions for clarification.
3. The meetings record will remain open for the submission
of written comments until 30 days following the
conclusion of the February 12 meeting.
DATES AND LOCATIONS: February 10, 1998, at 7:00 pm in the Ground Floor Hearing
Room
Archdale Building
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina
February 12, 1998, at 7:00 pm in the Moore Hall Auditorium
Western Piedmont Community College
1001 Burkmont Ave. .
Morganton, North Carolina
INFORMATION: Questions concerning the proposed meeting and written
comments should be directed to:
Mr. Bill Flournoy
N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
P. 0. Box 29535, Raleigh, N.C., 27626
?r 919/715-4191 _
?nn
??f?Vl `f
Date
Henry L aster, bcp* Secretary
P- - a
RECEIVED
`MSE 191996
16 September 1996 ENV1R0NME1V q SC1ENCfs
Mr. Eric Galamb
N. C. Division of Water Quality
DHENR
4401 Reedy Creek Rd
Raleigh, NC 27607
Dear Eric:
This letter is in regards to the Water Quality Certification (file #10741) for the runway
extension to the Columbus County Airport. Specifically, we are addressing your concerns on
mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. I mistakenly told you the Corps of Engineers
had issued a 404 permit for this project. Actually, Mr. Michael Hosey had verbally indicted that
the Corps would not require mitigation for the project due to the low quality wetlands (in his
opinion) being impacted. Permitting of this project is urgently needed, so your help in timely
review will be much appreciated.
The project will impact (fill) 4.76 acres of altered, mostly non-forested wetlands. We
propose to mitigate this impact with a combination of wetlands creation and restoration. The
County prefers to conduct mitigation activities onsite. Preliminary review shows approximately
11.4 acres of predominantly forested wetlands whose hydrology is being negatively impacted by
drainage ditches. Perhaps 2 to 3 times that amount is potentially present, but all areas of the new
acquisition have not been fully evaluated. Another 17 acres (approximate) is available for
wetlands creation. The latter site is currently a ditched, cultivated field, with Norfolk loamy fine
sand soil.
We propose to restore wetlands hydrology to 7 acres (3.5 impacted acres x 2). More than
7 acres will be treated to assure that the goal is met. Treatment will consist of completely filling
all drainage ditches within the proposed restoration area except those on property lines.
Monitoring wells will be established at a density of 3-5 wells per acre, and checked quarterly for 3
years. Annual reports will be submitted to the NC Division of Water Quality.
We also propose to create 3.8 acres (1.25 impacted acres x 3) of jurisdictional wetlands by
filling existing ditches in the fields, grading the site to, or just below, the seasonal high water
table, and planting the site with appropriate wetland species. Additional acres will be treated to
ensure the goal is met. Some of the site will have to be maintained as a shrub wetland in order to
meet obstacle free zone requirements. Species to be planted will be submitted for your approval,
but probably will be swamp black gum (Nyssa biflora) and bald cypress (Taxodium distichum).
One-tenth hectare monitoring plots will be established in the creation site and in a nearby
representative wetland forest. These plots will be checked yearly in mid-August to mid-
September for species composition, hydrology, and major soil nutrients. Annual reports will be
submitted to the NC Division of Water Quality.
el-
We believe the conceptual plan outlined above will more than compensate for water
quality impacts due to new construction at the Columbus County Airport. Please call or fax your
comments as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
D ? 7. .Carter III
Consulting Biologist
cc: Michael Hosey, COE
Hobbs, Upchurch and Associates
Mr. Dempsey Herring
O
E•
L
1- 3
to
O4
we �

q?.
P
`r
?? vry' a
6
w

j A,
f!

.b
t ?
964975
DEM ID: WQ #5173 CORPS ACTION ID: 199202002
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #1) :
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PEMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). SEVEN
(7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
(SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNER'S NAME: County of Columbus. Dempsey Herring
2. MAILING ADDRRESS: 111 Washington Street
SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY: Whiteville STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 28472
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE): Columbus County Airport, P.O. Box 800, Whiteville. N.C. 28472
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME): 910-646-3054 (WORK): 910-642-5700
4. IF APPLICABLE : AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL, ADDRESS,
PHONE NUMBER: Dr. J.H. Carter III, Dr. J.H. Carter and Associates. Inc., Environmental
Consultants P.O. Box 891, Southem Pines N.C. 28388
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS TOPOGRAPHIC
MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Columbus NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Brunswick (near Whiteville)
.0-
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD.
NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.): 1.14 miles SW of Brunswick. Columbus County. N.C. at southern
terminus of State Road 1181.
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Camp Branch
RIVER BASIN: Waccamaw/Pee Dee
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW), WATER
SUPPLY (WS-I OR WSII)? YES [ ] NO [ X ] IF YES, EXPLAIN: N/A
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC) ? YES [ ] NO [ X ]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
N/A
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [ X ] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION): N/A
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [ X ] NO [ ] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.S. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION): The completion of the parallel taxiway on the west side of the runway is anticipated
in approximately 5 years. The taxiway will impact additional jurisdictional wetlands (non-forested).
The exact acreage of impact is undetermined at this time.
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: 155.38 (existing) + 103.15 (new)
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE: Approx-
imately 130 acres
2
r
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY.:
FILLING: 4.76 EXCAVATION: 0
FLOODING: 0 OTHER: 0
DRAINAGE: 0 TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 4.76
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFTER: FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours):
WIDTH AFTER:
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE:
FT AFTER:
FT
FT
FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM : (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) N/A
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION:
PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER: N/A
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND? N/A
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA? N/A
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 81/2"x 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY): Grading and filling to provide level, stable platform for use as airport runway and taxiway.
Equipment will include bulldozers, backhoes, motor graders, and dump trucks.
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Extension of existing airport runway, construction of
turn-around at SW runway terminus, and partial construction of parallel taxiway.
3
r
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS): The Columbus County Airport is a pre-existing facility. Runwavs must be oriented
on a SW to NE axis. Extension of runway in either direction will impact iurisdictional wetlands.
Proposed extension to SW has the least impact. Parallel taxiway is needed for safety, and cannot
be constructed without impacting wetlands.
15, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
(USFWS) AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENCY
ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR
PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL HABITAT
IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT. DATE
CONTACTED: 18 March 1992 (ATTACH RESPONSES
FROM THESE AGENCIES.)
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC
PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED
PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED: 17 October 1994 (response date)
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE OF
PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES[ X ] • NO [ ] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT?
YES[ X ] NO [
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARING HOUSE?
YES[ X ] NO [
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR OF STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone]
4

18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21, 26,
29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE PROPERTY
MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS 50 FEET OR 1
INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
c. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED. N/A
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Forested and agricultural fields
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL? N/A
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A-401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
T>7 , ? ?)
/ G NT'S SIGNATURE
Zr-
DATE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18G.))
5
_ • Hill] 1700 ''?. 4 1741 ? J . '? 724 2.2

Mt T.1p1 C11.1
720 6 s
1722 173
1726
11
-
1 02 ! 1
f
9
1703 9170
'k 1727 2,1 , 1726 1
51'
_ PAS r 1001
Sandy 1713
Plains
e
17

1719 P 17
CIL
1730
1.3
W 1716

e

(\ 1700
1722 V /.\ u
1728 "
n
737 .m
,710 .( 1713 1770
b - >> \? RUnion Chapel
q a?
1719
N 1710
? t
J
1700 / 1722
/•2 6
y+
j
1709
c ? S
\M1
'
I q 1779 1710
-
1002
1729 1001
r
d
1735
1749 710 •
0
1585
'D
•7
1]13 1
P

'? '
1 '.9 J+
1 1.0
I]s0 1001 'O 1730
'? WANANISH
N .5 N 1740 STATION
N 1736 <
W
.
15!9 \
1716 lake 4
,7
7s i 1713 .? .9
:;:.,.
1735
.^
BUS.
1 701 1700 ` 1712 15 1714
$ rn.;
..
1.3 _?<. •..'FAP j7
'{ .5 9
•?
iv V
FAP B 1714 1 1714 m 1736 '4 214
g
s
WCE WACCAMAW';`3 q
BYP.
77qq FAP .1 ,I
1351 701
' 101 "
1715 tl; 6 1734
1
2 tZ
r; POP. 924
z4 s:
.
1515 Halisboro
Artesia -0

i'
942
'

/ `•tS: 2
Pinel
a9 HITEVILLE 1914 !s 6 l.x

FAP 1956
IL41 1736

-
.
.
4
1
5
//
9
POP.
,
:: <
:
? ?• 776 ,,
,
.:
:y
•`;' 1001
3
913 1907 J
1901
:'
\
1585 p .
191+
1 .1 902
1 ! LAKE WACCAMAW
1.
B
Red Bug N
ii.
14q {

• 1
1912 1913
7
190 3
\
\
1450 .9 Pine 1.og F'?•:
1
•.•, _ 0 511
q -+1 '
1001
\ \
\
1944
! BYP. ^
701 BUS, v `
n <
+ 1959
9
1906
B ye ? .\
?
\
1737
1 701
1434 1
0
1914 ?

?
teal

1910

J
1

v _
\

,
vllle
9 te
6
O
D
f F,

1911

908 1
/

1\ \
?.
1428
lr\
1429
3/J 1 909 J

7 F a AS
f ??
FA 1914
O1 ?
_ _
,y
fF`S F!1 h' 9
191+
' ,< N BRUNSWICK
ran Haney Hill 7914 1 2 a
1428 a
•4 <. 4P •'/ POP. 206
1913
.3
14_7 M ? 19166 3
1431 1185118 17 ?' 4 1958
q 18 ® 1177
;5°
5 a
' 1001 '
1 71.
1 .3
1430
pN 170
1
J I
130
PAS 004 j
1.1 1 11
+ '9
o
1176
3 a
1168
N e
ti. S _
U ? 4
1001 a• 1334
u FAS
-1171
t
.9 1336
.7 1167 ?
2'2 40 i9 Nartehonville
H

S FAS ?' W
1368
4
'a a + q. 1.2 PAS .4
Itbb F'1S
4
<+
\O FAS 1333 1102 1163 1157 ? 1923 15 1•d
1162
1335 :Y /2 h Pleasant
q 7164 f?6 An
336 '
iodl Ch. Qr O Pl
in 001
IS 111 'L 1934
.m

1925
a
6
F,IS 7161 Ch.
j
15 F•FS v
1332 1163 1162 ?
ArP p '1s
IJ \b V 20 9S /N
auerda 7157
7 1162 'N
\
•?t1 r„
r
9N
7
N
9
25 1179 1157 7N
1 905 1924 1930 M
.6
3
1.0 1001 2.0 Crusoe Island

FAS 73]4
3
130
6
1373 e•lebanorl Ch. 'a
1326
.+'
1160
? 1.6
1927
?
? 9:±: .9 1137
2 a 762 1319 rv1141 F?`r ! !3 1159 1923
.? 3 1 92 1N ' u. u 1.5

.71319 q 10
a q
i 6 /
1930

1929
? 1323 fl`S 1141 1161 N ?N
11 n s7 - '0
q
\6 ° N$kulkem
io y

m I
' .4
?
0
1
322
? ?>
rv 4
1321 `P )
I .
Bear .
1928
71 ,y/
'fi
er
„ 18
C
rv 1158 1? Q6r
4? 1928
s
7 1320 1.4 p c
N 1925 F•IS S27
1928

Ward ,
1159 1928 old Doak .? e' !
1928
y G 1150
F
4S
7
i
.
77 1141
1680 1177
1
7 P ?4
.
s n \S
701 ro O
ey
1158
o
g O 2?
h
?P 1006 u
1111
'm 1178
o• 1156 111
5 /O w
3
55 .7 •?? 1150 +aaM?P
7
t• 59
11
14 1006 1.2
FA'
1931
7ch 1005
1117
/ I1 1 7 rv \
r
1.1 1.0 M1
o 1147
u+ N 1932 .
??pp{\,
L\
I
Mill F, 113
1141 1132 19 33 ;
I\
1
3 m
1151
1150 p
Brame 70 F
• ,}O 1006 .?
1147
6
1}.
q5
9
N 3117
q 114
1005
S
? 905 Fr

11=2 4.7
1
M1\ N 1145 Mollie j 1117
1153 " .2 .2 1116
4 1116
} b / Nakina
1946 _
SIMMONS
BAY
1173 g
Qr 1
1006
y
_
143 1141
m 0

.?
AS
F N r
5 S
t
7111
, :1 ° 1113 Nakina
v? 1932
Iron Hill 15 ;;
1145 - 1117
3 eM
117 1116 II16 \0 s b
_
11 .11 _ 7143 Bethel y 100 1113 ,_ N 1115 \ 10]4 1
-41- -d11
••1• --mom ... -.?
Dutton f/ -ALI
$?. :i ,? • `- •• •i 100
°`?i'?•'•• by ?^. -vim.
rte. ? ( -•1 • • 1R, ?,` ? ? ? \? / / ' ?? '•? .Bruin is ; -n- ?` ? _?- _
!n - \ •-?- =????/ run •ck' •.ti.. ,??` ?. ?'- _ .?
!11E •? ?^?\?-, ' ••, °`'??- -rem
67
i -
69
U 75
60
--,
GOON T 1 7 ?? ?\.' j ?s°
100
68,
1
,00
o ?• ,v
117 l 100 f ~o-.
85 p C
°•.
101
i
y I ?O 1
fl J °• o
foo
1 6 .
_ 60
)80000 FEET 709 710 42' 30" 712 (NAKINA)
S
s Geological Survey
rolina Department of * SCALE 1:24 00
iunity Development MH. cN 1 .5 0
111 MILES
North Carolina Geodetic Survey 1000 0 1000 2000 30M 4000 5000
thuds from aerial photographs e+A• SET
i 5 0 KILOMETERS
Map edited 1987 176 MILS 23 MILS - -
North Carolina coordinate 1000 0 METERS
CONTOUR INTERVAL 5
NATIONAL c?ooErLC vERnca. np
rcator grid, zone 17 UrM GRm AND 1987 MAGNEnc WORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER of St T THIS MAP CONF IES WITH NA71ONAL MAP
erican Datum 1983, FOR SALE BY U. S. GEOLOGI
-auth and DENVER. COLORADO 80225. OR RES'
-ter ticks A FOLDER DESCRIBING TOPOGRAPFUC MAPS AND Sy
'nark buildings are shown

LEGEND
r: IMPACTED WETLANDS
(3.21 AC.)
® WETLANDS NOT IMPACTED

Ir
3.21 AC. IMPACTED

- t ?
SCALE: 1" = 200'
COLUMBUS COUNTY AIRPORT
WERAIDS PERMIT
AREA "A"
\ t i e r I r., t
I i
\ ? 1 r ; , ? i tl I
?':?• X10 i , rr ? ?\ ?'' _
t ,
?8S
11 11 v , nnc

--- --
-----
----
------- -
05 =_____ ___ --- ----- _ - - - ---
ING
WET-
NOS-
-

105

€_ _
100 - - -- - 100

rTu

95
=-=-
-
_-_
_
-
-- 95

P-
90 I

90

85 - - 85

80
8
o

V+UU
Z+00
4+00
COLUMBUS COUNTY AIRPORT
WET MDS PERMIT
CROSS-SECTION "A-A"
JUI Y 1 Qor,

LEGEND
•...•: IMPACTED .WETLANDS
" (1.55 AC.)
® WETLANDS NOT IMPACTED
ctl --
.90 \ -
I ? ? 1
! I
I ?
i
I -? ? I I
'4'T i T/ 1
/ / '
0.62 AC. IMPACTED
i i I \
,60
' 0.93 AC. IMPACTED
PARALLEL
TAXIWAY
I I

I -

RUNWAY
SCALE: 1" = 200'
COLUMBUS COUNTY AIRPORT
WETLANDS PERMIT
AREA "B"
JULY 1996

t
r

27
W s
,

- -
100 - -- - =
_ = __= 100

95 95

FILL IMPAG rING

90 90

F T

I -A-11

GRA
;;
85
--
_
--

y.. 85

.

-
80 -=- ?? 80

CUT

-
75 - -
75

0+00 2+00 4+00
COLUMBUS COUNTY AIRPORT
WETLANDS PERMIT
CROSS-SECTION "B-B"
JULY 1996

--
_-- _ _-- =
95 - _ 95

90 90

? --__ -_ - --
85 -- :. _ 85
R

,.

t `
T
80 • 80
)

1.

- -
-
75 - 75
-- -

70 70

H E

0+00 2+00 4+00
COLUMBUS COUNTY AIRPORT
WETLANDS PERMIT
CROSS-SECTION "C-C"
JULY 1996
? ?C' ??cFL
oti 2T? jl9.9
Fs
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dorney
Water Quality Planning Section
Division of Water Quality
FROM: Keith W. Ashley, District 4 Fisheries Biologist li ' _
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
DATE: September 26, 1996
SUBJECT: Comments Concerning 401 Water Quality Certification (file #10741) for the
Proposed Columbus County Airport Runway Extension, Whiteville, Columbus
County, North Carolina. (Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
Project No. 95-0159).
This correspondence is in response to Dr. J.H Carter's III letter of September 16, 1995 to
Mr. Eric Galamb of the N. C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) requesting additional comments
about our concerns regarding the proposed mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional wetlands
associated with the Columbus County Airport Runway Extension project. Project sponsors have
applied for 401 water quality certification and have requested a speedy review of the proposed
mitigation to prevent loss of Federal fimding. However, our concerns regarding the proposed
mitigation have still not been satisfactorily resolved.
In his letter, Dr. Carter states that "the project will impact (fill) 4.76 acres of altered,
mostly non-forested wetlands" and proposes to mitigate these losses through a combination of on-
site "wetlands creation and restoration". He also states that "a preliminary review shows
approximately 11.4 acres of predominantly forested wetlands whose hydrology is being negatively
impacted by drainage ditches" and, `perhaps 2 to 3 times that amount is potentially present, but
all areas of the new acquisition have not been fully evaluated. "Another 17 acres (approximate)
are available for wetlands creation".
While the NCWRC feels that the planning process for the proposed project has attempted
to avoid or minimise adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources to the greatest extent possible,
the mitigation proposal for mitigating the 4.76 acres of adverse impacts associated with the
project does not provide sufficient information for a determination regarding the extent of adverse
impacts, if any, on wildlife, fisheries, and wetland resources at the proposed runway extension
site. Our ability to evaluate project impacts and provide beneficial recommendations when
Columbus County Airport Extension 2 September 26, 1996
reviewing project environmental documents will be enhanced if consultants, project sponsors, or
permit applicants provide the following information:
1. Complete descriptions of wildlife, fisheries, and wetland resources within, adjacent
to, or utilizing the proposed mitigation site including a listing of species designated
as federally or state endangered, threatened, or special concern. When practicable,
potential borrow areas to be used for project construction should be included in
the inventories.
2. A project map identifying total wetland acreage available for mitigation as well as
total acreage restored at the proposed mitigation site. Wetland acreages should
include all project related areas that may undergo hydrologic change as a result of
ditching, other drainage, or filling to restore wetland values at the proposed
mitigation site.
3. Description of any streams or wetlands affected at the proposed wetlands
restoration site. The need for channelizing or relocating portions of streams
crossed and the extent of such activities should also be noted.
4. A detailed description of wetland vegetation to be planted at the mitigation site(s)
including species, quantities, and qrid spacing.
5. The proposed mitigation plan should include a program to monitor and measure
wetland parameters at the site, before and after all mitigation activities, for a
period of at least 5 years. Wetland values at the mitigation site must match
reference conditions for the monitored parameters at the end of the 5 year period.
While not wanting project sponsors to lose Federal funding while waiting for project
consultants to address the above issues, we do feel the proposed mitigation plan is inadequate and
that our concerns regarding it need to be addressed. We would therefore recommend issuance of
water quality certification for the proposed project provided an acceptable mitigation plan is
submitted to the DWQ prior to initiation of any construction activity at the proposed runway
extension site.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this mitigation proposal. If we
can provide further assistance, please contact District 4 Fisheries Biologist Keith W. Ashley at
910-866-4250.
cc: Bennett Wynne, Fishery Management Coordinator
Tom Padgett, District 4 Wildlife Biologist
Eric Galamb, N.C. Division of Water Quality
----
DEM ID: WQ #5173 CORPS ACTION ID: 199202002
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #1) :
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PEMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET).. SEVEN
(7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
(SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNER'S NAME: County of Columbus. Dempsey Herring
2. MAILING ADDRRESS: 111 Washington Street
SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY: Whiteville STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 28472
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE): Columbus County Airport. P.O. Box 800, Whiteville N.C. 28472
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME): 910-646-3054 (WORK): 910-642-5700
4. IF APPLICABLE : AGENTS NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL, ADDRESS,
PHONE NUMBER: Dr. J.H. Carter III. Dr. J.H. Carter and Associates Inc Environmental
Consultants. P.O. Box 891. Southern Pines. N.C. 28388
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS TOPOGRAPHIC
MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Columbus - NEAREST TOWN OR CITY:. Brunswick (near Whiteville)
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD.
NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.): 1.14 miles SW of Brunswick. Columbus County N.C. at southern
terminus of State Road 1181.
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Camp Branch
RIVER BASIN: Waccamaw/Pee Dee
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW), WATER
SUPPLY (WS-I OR WSII)? YES [ ] NO [ X ] IF YES, EXPLAIN: N/A
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC) ? YES [ ] NO [ X ]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
N/A
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [ X ] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION): N/A
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [ X ] NO [ ] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.S. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION): The completion of the parallel taxiway on the west side of the runway is anticipated
in approximately 5 years. The taxiway will impact additional jurisdictional wetlands (non-forested)
The exact acreage of impact is undetermined at this time.
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: 155.38 (existing) + 103.15 (new)
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE: Approx-
imately 130 acres
2
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: 4.76 EXCAVATION: 0
FLOODING: 0 OTHER: 0
DRAINAGE: 0 TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 4.76
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFTER:
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): FT
FT
WIDTH AFTER: FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE:
FT AFTER:
FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM : (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) N/A
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION:
PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER: N/A
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND? N/A
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA? N/A
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" x 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY): Grading and filling to provide level, stable platform for use as airport runway and taxiway.
Equipment will include bulldozers, backhoes, motor graders, and dump trucks.
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Extension of existina airport runway, construction of
turn-around at SW runway terminus, and partial construction of parallel taxiway.
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS): The Columbus County Aimort is a ore-existing facility. Runways must be oriented
on a SW to NE axis. Extension of runway in either direction will impact jurisdictional wetlands
Proposed extension to SW has the least impact. Parallel taxiway is needed for safety, and cannot
be constructed without impacting wetlands.
15, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
(USFWS) AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENCY
ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR
PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL HABITAT
IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT. DATE
CONTACTED: 18 March 1992 (ATTACH RESPONSES
FROM THESE AGENCIES.)
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC
PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED
PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED: 17 October 1994 (response date)
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE OF
PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES[ X ] • - NO [ J (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT?
YES[ X ] NO [
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARING HOUSE?
YES[ X ] NO [
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR OF STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone]
4
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21, 26,
29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE PROPERTY
MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS 50 FEET OR 1
INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
c. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED. N/A
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Forested and agricultural fields
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL? N/A
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
A ENT'S SIGNATURE
DAT
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18G.))
5
?a
Ises •a
.1
1.1 •J
1349 f
)O I
)
3i a
• 1.0
s
q' .
F?17?3 ?
> ?'J
$afldy 1001 171]
aka X747
1700
POP. 206 1915
"'9 -.3
r
1
3 q
1958
171 •/ 1 S 1001
1730
X14
1710
1719
1730 - >
p IA union Chapel
;
1710
1722 J
,1

IS P
6 S
0
`M1
X )e 0?p
1739 1740
1729 1001
t,B
17]5
1713 1710 ?a

0
P

+ 1.
'
N WANANISH
1750 1001
O 1730 5
N 1778 7740 STATION
?
1713 1_718 9

.

1735 + Lk.
.7 ' 74

??.^•,:^•,.i...
..
^.
1700 ` 1712 m ?
1.5 1714
.
1.1 ?
r
..
.+. •?• F .
Win. 1.7
?. A
e 1714,1 1714 Qt 1736
k::
8 .5
211
FAP .1
3 1 1
1
; t'
1 LAKE W ACCAMAW::y q
POP
6 B ;
n
7715 , 6 1734
1.2 . 924
2.4:1
?b FAP iil " v
- i as
lA

1914 Halbhoro
1.2
!
1956
Artesia
1912 0
1NHITEVILLE p S A
FAP .p INA 1736
POP. 4.193
1913 !/ ?• 19 7 /J 1001 '2 'd' t?•!?\ I \ .
it
1914 h 1., ., Red
BIW
•e 11002
!s
' LAKE WACCAMAW
1
1912 993 9 1907 4
9 q J \
1944 ?q 1911
Y ^ 1001 \
1904 1908 B09Ue \ \?
1914
1001
19,0
908 1
? 19D 4 1 99
_
Fry J C
AS
'? m ._ _. _'-
q F
1914
UNSWICK 1914
Honey Hill 1914 •12 N
1430 1FOpe
1770 ? ` '' 1101 1
I '
. p
1,ee
'?y 130
100. p
F'1 FAS 1 1166
•

'y
1 a
I16e
1334
1176

M1 0
iJ 9
r ?
N FA$
1171
?
1
1336
a .71767 T., 40 ^. Harrehon9ille '? w
rn
1368 n v - •?_
s
•4 1.2 FAS
.t
?
.4 F
•15 2
1166
1y
?+ ,a
FAS 1321 I 7163
1157 Y
1923
1.5
'3 y J6
w 11a
3 3 o ?Iba '? b
r
?
, A,7 o Pleaianl Js ifi ry 1924 1001
? 164 Antioch
' F
.6 I FA
• Plain 1925
S Ch.
J
fu ?
1162
II6_
J Arp i q?
C1 f"tf'
>
N 6
` ?
rd 1157 O 1925 (
1162 a
'9
1325 1179 1157 w 7f 905 1924
1 10 < at r
` ?!

FAS 17]4
3
/
130 7.0
1323 a Lebanon Ch.
N d T 1.6
.? .9 1157 1160
.6
, N 19251 1927
1141
262 1319 C,2 1139 '0 3 7f
71319 q q 10 i 1926
1323 Fry 1141 1761
a l2 1157 G
'
? .0 ti skwk.ln
r
h %
? c I6 Bea
0

a
4 :
1

?
N tine
1925

F,rS ,

FA
a
Q
.
y A 1150 Ward 6
1139 1928 Old Dock .? e' !,?•
f
r?
6 .7 'lT
i
.
11110 1177 ?? ?i?i r
• S 1.7 m /
701
11158
:?
e
o

1141

? 1006 1

1756 f,
mP
•
'm 1178 I?
h
i?

1.2 1
t
/0 '?N•
.5 -
1130
?'? k
? M1
M1 1006
FrS 1931
1 117
? 117A: 1
1 M1
/ 1.0 M1 f
V r
Mill fly, 1159 1147
1151 1167
1933 1932
154 Brand, j0 1150
f 5 ie b
?
1006
•1$
N Ck 1147 ? .y.
10005 1117

tr
q 114 O _ 905

K
F?

2
._19
1145
11
Mollie
.D
" 17 111
'2 1116 Nokino SIA&IMONS BAY
q
3
1173 .4
1006 MEA
11-3
1 1141 m G
-
tr9 S °. 1113 Nakina '!
\
115a '?
` ?'3 '? -
Iron Hill \
?
4Y 1143
. _ ? 1113 1117 1 I6 111
A 6 10
...? 1932
ti
.
C hoe Island
?F
• ? :.? - ( • •• a :i ?? ' + .? rr. ? y.
' Dutton ?• • ' • / / \ \ ?? .1 •' • FYI. ?• + ?• -ry.
100
?\ X118 ? - ?, ?-?: `? ? ? • • >°?? ? --=`= ?` -
o l 70 1 w.
dk, -01
-60
/ --1 ? (? ti C .COUNT/ • ,,^? ? `U ? • ?!

? p / 1M i
n J
/? Li d?•• p •1?16Z _)
i FEET 7()q
dogical Survey
1 Department of
Development .
CsroH= Geodetic Smveyt
from awW photographs
iedW 1987
i CaroHm coordinate
grid. zone 17
Datum 1983.
A
`ildinne aw ehnum
00
too ?? l I ?` 1 C?/
79
i
710
3i8 MILS ills,
23 MLL•S
UTM GRID AND 1987 MAGNETIC NORTH
DECLINAMON AT CENTER OF SHEET
1ti ?
0
J`
42' 30"
°
Cf
i)
°
I
I 712" (NAKINAI
SW U NW
SCALE 1:24 00
1 .5 0
MILES
1000 0 1000 MM 9000 400 MW
FEET
1 .5 0 KUMEMS
1000 0 METERS
CONTOUR i1V IERVAL 5
NATIONAL GEODETIC vmrACAL DA
THIS MAP COMPLIES WITH NATIONAL MAP
FOR SALE BY U. S. GEOLOGI
DENVER. COLORADO WM. OR RES-.
A FOLDER DESCRMING TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS AND SY
LEGEND
r: IMPACTED WETLANDS
.•:-.'::.: (3.21 AC.)
® WETLANDS NOT IMPACTED

?I
3.21 AC. IMPACTED

/? J I
l / ; 1

/ i
\&-T
- - / ? ` - - - ? 1,
SCALE: 1" = 200'
COLUMBUS COUNTY AIRPORT
WMAIDS PERMIT
AREA W
JULY 1996

---- - - -?3 - - -- --- -

105
105

-
-
--
100 -- - - -€-- XtS _
--l
_
?IDf
---
-
100

- --
95 =--- - --_-_
- -- -- 95
_

90

85 - - - 85

80
8
0

u-ruu
L+uu
4+00
COLUMBUS COUNTY AIRPORT
WETLANDS PERMIT
CROSS-SECTION "A-A"
Ji ll Y 1 ooa

LEGEND
r•: IMPACTED, WETLANDS
(1.55 AC.)
® WETLANDS NOT IMPACTED
0.62 AC. IMPACTED -
f
ass - -
19
? I
1 i
r I I
I r
1 ,
I -

I
I ? t?? 1 t1
RUNWAY
SCALE: 1" = 200'
COLUMBUS COUNTY AIRPORT
WETLANDS PERMIT
AREA "6"
/0.93 AC. IMPACTED
PARALLEL
I! TAXIWAY
r ' ? 1 r
r !

JULY 1996

EX
)

==
100 _- - - - __ --- 1 00

95
95

r.- WET N o's

90
90

85
55

- -- R• :J: n tip
80 =' t
80

75
75

0+00 2+00 4+00
COLUMBUS COUNTY AIRPORT
WETLANDS PERMIT
CROSS-SECTION "B-B"
JULY 1996

1 0-

C-Y )F F1 L
-- _
_ _: - IMP
95 ---- _
__ 95

90 90

Fit Ilk IMAryri ki

85

t• .t.

` GR DE
80 80

75 - 75
--

- -
70 - - 70

0+00 2+00 4+00
COLUMBUS COUNTY AIRPORT
WEnMDS PERMIT
CROSS-SECTION "C-C"
JULY 1996
R
DR. J.H. CARTER III & ASSOCIATES
Environmental Consultants
P.O. Box 891 . Southern Pines, N.C. 28388
[phone]
February 9, 1993
Mr. Ken Justice
Hobbs, Upchurch and Associates
P.O. Box 1737
Southern Pines, N. C. 28388
Dear Mr. Justice:
On 1 June 1992, I conducted an endangered species reconnaissance in conjuction
with a wetlands delineation at the Columbus County Airport, located approximately 2 miles
southwest of Brunswick, off SR 1181. The site was searched on foot for the following
species: chaffseed (Schwalbea americana ), Michaux's sumac Mus michauxiil , rough-
leaved loosestrife ( Lvsimachia asperulaefolia ), pondberry (Lindera melissaefolium )
Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum coolevi ), Canby's dropwort (Oxypolis canbvi), American
alligator (Alligator mississippiensis ), and red-cockaded woodpecker ( Picoides borealis ).
State listed species were included in the survey.
The Columbus County Airport Authority proposes to extend the existing
runway to the southwest, and construct a parallel taxiway to the north of the existing
runway. Both actions will impact jurisdictional wetlands. The airport property is currently
cleared of all forest cover, and much of it has been altered by past grading and repeated
mowing. The runway extension will impact a cleared agricultural field on property to be
purchased, and previously cleared wetlands and uplands. Both of the latter areas contained
a mixture of weedy and native species, and the wetlands also contain a small population of
trumpets ( Sarracenia flava ), a showy insectivorous species that has no formal legal status.
The taxiway will impact previously cleared uplands and wetlands, that have a
mixture of native and weedy species. Bracken fern ( Pteridium aauilinum ) is dominate over
much of this area.
No species listed as threatened or endangered, or proposed for such listing, by the
State or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were found. In addition, habitat for the
following species will not be impacted: pondberry, Canby's dropwort, American alligator,
and red-cockaded woodpecker. Habitat for the other species is marginal at best, and as
noted above, no specimens were found.
Endangered Species Surveys • Environmental Assessments • Land Management • Wetlands Mapping and Permitting
This project will impact 4 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. The Airport Authority
propose to create wetlands onsite at a 1:1 ratio by excavating high ground adjacent to
existing wetlands to just below the seasonal high water table. Topsoil from wetlands to be
filled will be spread over the excavated area, and native vegetation will be transplanted to
the mitigation site. Additional planting will be made as necessary, and success of wetland
establishment will be monitored as required by the Division of Environmental
Management.
Please call me with any questions.
S7.J.H. el ,
D Carter III
Consulting Biologist
h
0
s
s '
? h
W S
r _

W, ANDJUPLAND DETERMINATION FORM % AP licaat Name and Address:
a cj?? -2 M12
a 1-
C
Date termination Com eted: le, 114 0 .Z County: 61 ex"
Locations At-on &. L'
Nearest Waterway; C, I"? R.m
DOMINANT VEGETATION (with indicator status):
Try >5 inch dbh and >20 ft. talll
1.
3.
4.
Sanlinen (0.4 to <5 inch dbh and <20
ft,
2. IN r st.? bifla,. d ?-
3. 6r
4.
ju
Herbaceous Species lincluding vines)
1. C)3.1" ...-04ct ? i ",.v ...c ,...cam, - "
2. (," wur?l 1 a y v?o ?w - (oe L
3.
4.
Shrubs Q to 20 ft. tall)
1. AACL , Olio v(
2. MYv: ?? < e r'F?•? Ft* c +
3. <- 1
4. ( /T?
5.
Hydrophytic vegetation? Yes , No_ Basis P- <
SOIL
Series identified: f a <<u r .+ 6:'e --z'L- On hydric soils list? Yes_& No_
(Non-Sandy)
Matrix.color and texture just below A horizon: IYA
Mottle colors just below the A horizon (if applicable):
(Sandy)$
3
Surface horizon thickness and color: U VA I
Subsurface thickness and color:
Spodic horizon and depth and thickness (if applicable):
Hydric soil? Yes_No Basis: SCS Soil Survey for Count and t
Hvdg Soils List for North Carolina
HYDROLOGY:
Inundated? Yes, No Depth of water: -- -
Saturated'soils? YesvNo_ Depth to saturation/water table:
Wetland Hydrology? Yes?No_ Basis (if Yes): Drift lines - Oxidized
rhizopberes.,? Sulfide odor within 12 inches Drainage patterns_12?.,Surface
ecouringQd, Water marks?L Sediment deposits-,FAC-Neutral Test Soil
Survey Data_ (Explain)
Regional indicators of soil saturation?.Yes;No (If Yes, Which Ones?
SumlAary on hydrology: 0
w?a y
WETLAND DETERMINATION: WETLAND g-=-'=' UPLAND
BASIS FOR DETERMINATION: 1,987 Army Corns of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HW,4:!!:?:- BELOW HW_ ADJACENT ISOLATED- F
AUTHORITY: Section 10_ Section 404> Section 10/404 None_
DETERMINED BY: -REGULATORY BRANCH, WILMINGTON COE DISTRICT
13 - i- SA 7s- - /6

: W.-
1 `L?p?UYJrlll?iJ yrrar.s..?•....•-?.- --- ?. -
icalat D1? and dd es 44 Date tisLioi?r•-----
Location:
Neareat Wl?tiirwaY i C
DOMINANT VEGETATION (with indicator status):
Try r>5 inch dbh and >20 ft ta111
1.
2. Oita-
3.
4.
cantinas 10 4 *n <5 inch dbh and <20
ft. *All
1.
2. dyar
3.
4.
_c-
baceo S ecies includ' vi es
Hgr
1. Tc+?+ty, •Q S Ji F/-
2. Elk?l??? c?O?"Ja oBL
3. ,$ali d s?• FA
c
4. C) Sr„ a u wJW NtG.s?l? F f c t :l i'
Shrubs .' tO 20 ft. tall)
1.
2.
3. jtJ d
4.
5.
X4r.
gryQUOVIRIL
Hydrophytic vegetation? Yes.. No_ Baste br < 50$ FAC-oBL National List
h O n Wetlands for North Carolina
of Plant SR2 SOIL On
dric soils list? Yes No_
: u c ku ??'' h Y
Series identified
(Non-Sandy)
MatriX.COlor and texture just below A horizon::
Mottle Colors just below the A horizon (if applicable)
(Sandy)s jG 2-
Surface horizon thickness and color: G
Subsurtace thickness and color: 1 cable):
Spodic horizon and depth and thickness (if app
Hydric soil? Yes?No_ Basis: SCS Soil Survey for County and t
..,;..;,. antis List for North Carolina
HYDROLOGY:
.Inundated? Yes No Depth of water:
Saturated'soils? Yes No_ Depth to sat ration /water table:
Wetland Hydrology? Yes_?LNo_ Basis (if Yes): Drift line OxidizSurface
rhizopheres-V= Sulfide odor within 12 inches Drainage pat
r marks- sediment deposits- FAC-Neutral Test_ Soil
--
Survey Data. (Explain)
otheonal iudicat of soil saturation? Yes?No (If Yes, Which Ones?)
. T. 1 . L : _ _ .L-P, r
Suum4ry on hydrology
WETLAND DETERNINATION:' WETLAND-X._ UPLAND
BASIS FOR DETERMINATION: 1987 Army Corvs of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
M ?
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HW 4 BELOW HW- ADJACENT ISOLATED-
AUTHORITY: Section 10_ Section 40442:L= Section 10/404_ None_
DE CO ST C .
TERU?DiSD 9Y? -RE ULATORY BRANCH W G
?i (T . Ct ?? V 1'
P.Q.?w Pi w? r til .
-fit. rtZ s;07
' TLAND/UPLAND DETERMINATION FORD
icppt Naas and Address s M r. Q ?r? S? r?r C h a i 1 ?-
Date DeteMmatie
Locations an
Nearest Waterway;
DOMINANT VEGETATION (with indicator status):
Treaa (>j inch dbh and >20 ft. tall) Herbaceous Species (including vines)
l . .,. 1 • /} N ?'?7??*la+? ''ff • w?l fir` I 1
2. N arm- 2.. l(r(' ( 4-c-U
3. 3.
4. 4.
sanlinas (0.4 to <S inch dbh and <20
1. C?v?riW
2. 9 d as 6av sty mac. ?c
3. (?v?w?tt sxv?'ri -FAA, L)
4. ,k rl-s cX IM L)
Shrubs (3 to 20 ft. tall)
1.
2.
3.
4.
S.
HydrophytiC vegetation? Yes_ NobC Basis:> orCJ50% FAC-OBL, National List
P1 nt 3vecies that Occur in Wetlands for North Carolina
SOIL
Series identified: M L
(Non-Sandy)
Matrix.eolor and texture just below A
Mottle 0olors just below the A horizon
Surfaas horizon thickness and color:-
Subsurfacs thickness and color:
Spodic horizon and depth and thickness
Hydric soil? Yes-NO-14- Basis: S CS So
Uydrb&i Soils List for North Carolina
On hydric soils list? Yes No
horizon: I
(if applicable): 4444
(if kpplic"able) :
HYDROUM:
Inundated? Yes_ No,)L Depth of water: Al/A
Saturat44'soils? Yes_NoQ? Depth to saturat /water table: >
Wetland Hydrology? Yss___No vC Basis (if Yes): Drift lines- Oxidized
rhizopheres_ Sulfide odor within 12 inches- Drainage patterns Surface
scouring- Water marks,- Sediment deposits_ FAC-Neutral Test_ Soil
Survey Data__ (Explain)
Regional indicators of soil saturation? Yes_No?(If Yes, Which Ones?)
summary on hydrology:
WETLAND DETERMINATION: WETLAND UPLANDV/
BASIS MR DETERMINATION: 1987 Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Mager
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HW BELOW HW_ ADJACENT- ISOLATED
AUTHORITY: Section 10_ Section 404 Section 10/404 None ° -
DETERMINED BY: -REGULATORY BRANCH, WILMINGTON COE DISTRICT
c..-,.44 ti-C, tt'r

fit. RF?Fi?F?
IR96
NHS
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dorney
Water Quality Planning Section
Division of Water Quality
FROM: Keith W. Ashley, District 4 Fisheries Biologist
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
DATE: September 26, 1996
SUBJECT: Comments Concerning 401 Water Quality Certification (file #10741) for the
Proposed Columbus County Airport Runway Extension, Whiteville, Columbus
County, North Carolina. (Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
Project No. 95-0159).
This correspondence is in response to Dr. J.H. Carter's III letter of September 16, 1995 to
Mr. Eric Galamb of the N. C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) requesting additional comments
about our concerns regarding the proposed mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional wetlands
associated with the Columbus County Airport Runway Extension project. Project sponsors have
applied for 401 water quality certification and have requested a speedy review of the proposed
mitigation to prevent loss of Federal funding. However, our concerns regarding the proposed
mitigation have still not been satisfactorily resolved.
In his letter, Dr. Carter states that "the project will impact (fill) 4.76 acres of altered,
mostly non-forested wetlands" and proposes to mitigate these losses through a combination of on-
site "wetlands creation and restoration". He also states that "a preliminary review shows
approximately 11.4 acres of predominantly forested wetlands whose hydrology is being negatively
impacted by drainage ditches" and, `perhaps 2 to 3 times that amount is potentially present, but
all areas of the new acquisition have not been fully evaluated. "Another 17 acres (approximate)
are available for wetlands creation".
While the NCWRC feels that the planning process for the proposed project has attempted
to avoid or minimise adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources to the greatest extent possible,
the mitigation proposal for mitigating the 4.76 acres of adverse impacts associated with the
project does not provide sufficient information for a determination regarding the extent of adverse
impacts, if any, on wildlife, fisheries, and wetland resources at the proposed runway extension
site. Our ability to evaluate project impacts and provide beneficial recommendations when
Columbus County Airport Extension 2 September 26, 1996
reviewing project environmental documents will be enhanced if consultants, project sponsors, or
permit applicants provide the following information:
1. Complete descriptions of wildlife, fisheries, and wetland resources within, adjacent
to, or utilizing the proposed mitigation site including a listing of species designated
as federally or state endangered, threatened, or special concern. When practicable,
potential borrow areas to be used for project construction should be included in
the inventories.
2. A project map identifying total wetland acreage available for mitigation as well as
total acreage restored at the proposed mitigation site. Wetland acreages should
include all project related areas that may undergo hydrologic change as a result of
ditching, other drainage, or filling to restore wetland values at the proposed
mitigation site.
3. Description of any streams or wetlands affected at the proposed wetlands
restoration site. The need for channelizing or relocating portions of streams
crossed and the extent of such activities should also be noted.
4. A detailed description of wetland vegetation to be planted at the mitigation site(s)
including species, quantities, and qrid spacing.
5. The proposed mitigation plan should include a program to monitor and measure
wetland parameters at the site, before and after all mitigation activities, for a
period of at least 5 years. Wetland values at the mitigation site must match
reference conditions for the monitored parameters at the end of the 5 year period.
While not wanting project sponsors to lose Federal funding while waiting for project
consultants to address the above issues, we do feel the proposed mitigation plan is inadequate and
that our concerns regarding it need to be addressed. We would therefore recommend issuance of
water quality certification for the proposed project provided an acceptable mitigation plan is
submitted to the DWQ prior to initiation of any construction activity at the proposed runway
extension site.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this mitigation proposal. If we
can provide further assistance, please contact District 4 Fisheries Biologist Keith W. Ashley at
910-866-4250.
cc: Bennett Wynne, Fishery Management Coordinator
Tom Padgett, District 4 Wildlife Biologist
Eric Galamb, N.C. Division of Water Quality

SEP=17-1996 17:02
P. 02:04
_ --G
DR. J.H. CAR'E'ER III ASSOCIATES, IN
Environmental Consufranu
P.O. Sox 891 . Southern Pines, N.C. 28388 1
[phone] • Fax [phone]
16 September 1996
Mr. Eric Galamb
N. C. Division of Water Quality
D NR. g6
4401 Reedy Creek Rd
Raleigh, NC 27607
OQjJ -J

S t fYY
Dear Eric:
This letter is in regards to the Water Quality Certification (file #10741) for the runway
extension to the Columbus County Airport. Specifically, we are addressing your concerns on
mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional wetlands- T mistakenly told you the Corps of Engineers
had issued a 404 permit for this project. Actually, Mr. Michael Hosey had verbally indicted that
the Carps would not require mitigation for the project due to the low quality wetlands (in his
opinion) being impacted. Permitting of this project is urgently needed, so your help in timely
acquisition have not been fully evaluated. Another 17 acres (approximate) is available for 1
wetlands creation. The latter site is currently a ditched, cultivated field, with orfol?.ll?am l f'?`
c??" -?tvv (,
sand soil. ?
We propose to restore wetlands hydrology to 7 acres (3?5 impacted acres x 2). More than s
7 acres will be treated to assure that the goal is met. Treatment will consist of completely filling
all drainage ditches within the proposed restoration area except those on property lines. ?
Monitoring wells will be established at a density of 3-5 wells per acre, and checked quarterly for` 3'?
years. Annual reports will be submitted to the NC Division of Water Quality. © Y
We also propose to create 3,8 acres (1.25 impacted acres x 3) of jurisdictional wetlands by ?r.
filling existing ditches in the fields, grading the site to, or just below, the seasonal high water v
table, and planting the site with appropriate wetland species, Additional acres will be treated to
ensure the goal is met- Some of the site will have to be maintained as a shrub wetland in order to
meet obstacle free zone requirements. Species to be planted will be submitted for your approval,
but probably will be swamp black gum (Nyssa hiflora) and bald cypress (Taxodium distichum).
One-tenth hectare monitoring plots will be established in the creation site and in a nearby
representative wetland forest. These plots will be checked yearly in mid-August to mid-
September for species composition, hydrology, and major soil nutrients. Annual reports will be
submitted to the NC Division of Water Quality.

review will be much appreciated.
The project will impact (fill) 4.76 acres of altered, mostly non-forested wetlands. We
propose to mitigate this impact with a combination of wetlands creation and restoration. The
County prefers to conduct mitigation activities onsite. Preliminary review shows approximately
11.4 acres of predominantly forested wetlands whose hydrology is being negatively impacted by
drainage ditches. Perhaps 2 to 3 times that amount is potentially present, but all areas of the new
Endangered Species Surveys • Environmental Assessments - Land Management - Wetlands Mapping and Permitting

SEP-17-1996 17 02
P. 03/04
We believe the-conceptual plan outlined above will more than compensate for water
duality impacts due to new construction at the Columbus County Airport. Please call or fax your
comments as soon as possible,
Sincerely64%z-
Dr. ? I-) I H. Carter in
Consulting Biologist
cc: Michael Mosey, COE
Hobbs, Upchurch and Associates
Lee County Airport Authority
Dempsey Herring
TOTAL P.04
SEP-17-19% 17:02 P.A4/n4
SEP-17-1996 15:12
P. 04/11
DEM ID: WQ #5173 CORPS ACTION ID: 199292002
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT *1) :
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PEMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFIGATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). SEVEN
(7) COPIES SHOULD SE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL. MANAGEMENT
(SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNER'S NAME: County of Columbus. Dempsey Herring _
2. MAILING ADDRRESS: 111 Washington Street
SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY: Whiteville STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 28472
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE): ColumUs Quaty Abort- P.O_ Box 501 Whiteville_ N_C. 284472
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME): 910-646-3054 (WORD: 910-642-5700
4. IF APPLICABLE : AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL, ADDRESS,
PHONE NUMBER: Dr. J.H. Carter 111, Dr. J H Carter and Associates Inc Environmental
Consultants P.O. Box 891, Southern Pines N.C. 28388
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS TOPOGRAPHIC
MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Columbus NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Brunswick (near Wniteville)
SEP-1?-1996 15:12
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD
NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.): 1.14 miles SW of Brunswick, Columbus County N.C. at southem
P. 05/11
terminus of State Road 1181.
8. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER:.-__ .. Camp Branch
RIVER BASIN: Waccama?ll'ee
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW), WATER
SUPPLY (WS_I OR WSII)7 YES [ I NO [ X I IF YES, EXPLAIN- NIA
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEG) ? YES [ I NO [ X ]
7C. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
NIA
8a_ HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES [ I NO [ X I IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.Q. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY AQVITIQNAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION : NIA
81). ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [ X I NO [ I IF YES. PROVIDE ACTION I.S. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION): The completion of the parallel taxiway on the west side of the runway i5 anticipated
imp(g,?cll?11Y_?YO?t?iravwill impaotaddiEional jurisdictional wetlands (non-for?stedl_
The exact acreage of impact is undetermined at this time.
8a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: 155.38 (existing) + 103.15 (new)
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE- Anorox
1$0 acres
SEP-17-1996 15:12 P.06i11
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
a_ WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14,18, 21, 26,
28, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE PROPERTY
MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS 50 FEET OR 1
INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT,
c. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED. N/A
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF sURROUNDIN(B PROPERTY? FOrested and agricultural fields
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL? N/A
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
9) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
OWNER'S/ AGENT'S SIGNATURE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LATER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (1 SG))
DATE
5
SEP-17-1996 15:13 P.07/11
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: _ 4.76 EXCAVATION: 0
FLOODING: 0 OTHER: 0
DRAINAGE: 0 TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 4.76
1 Ob. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: NIA FT AFTER:
FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): FT
WIDTH AFTER: FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: FT AFTER; FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT !FROM : (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) NIA
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER: NIA
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND? NIA
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA? NIA
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 81/2" x 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY): Grading and filling to provide level, stable platform for use as airport runway and taxiway.
E will include bulldozers backhoes motor graders, and dum trucks.
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Extension of existing ai ort runway, construction of
turn-around at SW runway terminus, and partial construction of parallel taxiway.
3
SEP-17-1996 15:13
rAs
A
37vv
P. 68/11

9
all ,..i

1770

? ?Ilnty
ar°Pal
a
. sY79 G +
1700 f

i ?
r J 7 } "n
ti td vsp yTia ?a
Lau la_ 771L tb 11141 !3s
`` na3 •a m7 IL.L
a
V r
t.l •0 f
? !L? 1A41 •? im ?
WAWV'a3N
3 17Aa aTATM
n y?,

i
aVx 1
?r•

1>;u 'm
? ,ra.+,r I.1.

.7
IL}a
rrr+, •<1 e
1 701 rr
JL46
V V V. iA
?
Fa
/' ,.3
,yc
!3 INA l 1714 lZlt 1776 }, m
1 ,.,°.. M??.?
.
7K
Ala
- API
?f fo'
'-
.,
E
?? ? a 7S .Y . ?
y
1aC1
'd' ]LLti :r .a .1274 to ?-,'-+ 1?.
LAKE WAGCA++uW 4
7.1 POP. 471 ,?
Is v
1? f t , ^J•' • •i
WHITEVILLE

A is HaAcboro "" A,4,j. .? «?'•• ,?'
191
7 R .Nx ln4 ,? ?: - -^^•.. -'--•. •, ' a
Kw. 4.146 ?
' •
-?_: i 4
y;F'
.
J ,
a .?!?
O ?f:?/•'i. e+ $ 19.16
jJ21 ,'• Yv
1 `1
?.
e o taq= /.7
Rid Bvd Y \•
LAKE WACCAMAW
1..4 •
1}sa a 1M Ina t.`?r,•. :.
v arr:
?+
n? ?° v
? 1071 ,•.
?'?
?
1677 701 .
ti
ISM i° - lIIa7 g
sL
aDl! \ `?
,
701 Iola
•a `, ^`

•P .ti r? i 1

'
LUX lw !-9m

7
>y
y W ... --

-
dl ° IE1 ti' t
PO `j ORVNaWIC?IC
•? 4? 'r la4
.. 19:51
Ha11aT MITI reLS.. 1 S~ T+
Iot
S
1
?` T" ?
y
??
X711 1
Mt
1931 1
r ??6
,
_ ? a 5 °? 1171 v L
HIM
n is ? rso a?
__ 166.1
1 l7q
`? a Lv43 ,F Ei
It
D 'r
taQt i, LSP/ 116\ A •?
° +45
II N
t li
.v u5a w
1 r7 ? •r_ A ': IIa11i1100va1?
I R L7 F43
.v
{ a
a
41
ireo
1
1145 f
•,1i43 1103
AS 138M
?a ,3i7`14' to
/fir i 9 UM ?' tP?h AAKa? Ch e7 Plaln I' rr ~ 17! e. 'm

s ?b 1s i Ch s
+r '
MP $
7
1
7
it 11,
tT -

H, 7 Z].43
•9 r<
N ? •?,
7
S
rev '+_ 1137
J 1 Ifl ~ i a ? ,,r Ivfa
( 1076 ?
144 v y' I? 2
t7o
v Owme lik"
?. FLvb.wo 0.
nw to
T
. - 9 ? 113.7
114
1
v
} ' Lgu IJI7L y
.
I
P
l]1P
141
19uT .a e
Q c •1 a
i r .7
,?
•? rsr ,161
1 ??
• L7• 1'Y'- Cr tea,
A 11
,'O L
V Ua„
r

1 1
I
3PA 1 n r 1473 r^- Z
9 Um ys
a w Dark ,? ,+ ?,ya
wo Ward 17P9 3.1
yr ?
77 Lim 1.7 b C /-%#
/
i ttj a

a nil
175
r _ __"+
11
1
4
1514 ., PS
N
133E t? -..
1m

+
+
.
IOU Ins
L
10
r i? JL41
J1lf* 1 Nm
?y M1
?"_
='+~
V
-
1917
?f 117 P
a >;r
'
JY
y MarCr ?0f• 1139 b P P
Ps 'IS IL+L .4 ? ?
9 14D1
1t43
-
Y
• o
Millie 1 rX ,14A
L'a 1177 •{
u:.a f
simpintisBA Y
k ,(tea
/ff / -
t 1117 1141 ..
7 •1DDa
F 9 ~: I / '
/ J
~?l Iran n%
11
L4
U
0 •
`
~
11 y 1UL
v .
1L14
• 7
^ti
•tr'''- /

1 -.4 ,.
LM 'a 111! .
r

?f
?P
•u?
30dogkml Survey
line Depadment of
pity DmWpment
rth cardim Geodetic smVey
ids imm aerial phowgm"
Wap edad 19187
Nth Carouniat coordme
!or grid. zone 37
an Dates 1983.
th and
MW ticks
6indmark buildings are shown
R inNl fi1?lA IfWpa whotm
f
MN
i1$ 11? '1
231 MRCS
UTH GRID AND 191!7 uUMMC NORM
DOMINATION AT CE FM OF S"MT
42' UU"

,r -
;?i
-
e
f
fIVAIPM)
6= U NW
SCALE 1:24 00
? S D
MILES
1000 0 1000 2900 am 1Epp 6000
FEET
S S if K METERS
1000 0 MfiTEAS
OMMIM II+ii'F.RVA,1" 5
NAFlOW GEOW C VE87ICAL DA
THIS MO COMM WM NAUONAL MAP
FOR SALE BY U. S. MMO01
DENVER. COLORADO SMS. OR US-
A FOLDER PESCRMING TOPOGRAPIBC MAPS AND SY
SEP-17-1996 15:14 P.09/11
SEP-17-1996 15:15
a

P. 10/11
LEGEND
IMPACTED WMIMOS
R' • y(3.21 AC.)
WETLANDS NOT IMPACTED
f ? 1
.3 .21 AC. IMPACTED
• ti 1
• ? t

,
r
1 r
?
y I I
!
,
Ss
j +
l ?
Y l
? f ? ?_ .

f
ko

SCALE: 1 " - 200,
COLUMBUS COUNTY AIRPORT
WET DS PERMIT
AREA "A"
JULY 1996
S'EP-17-1996 15:15
105
100
95 - -- ,.- - . -- - _ _
P. 11/11
105
100
95
85
80
0+00 2+00 4+00
COLUMBUS COUNTY AIRPORT
WMAIDS PERMIT
CROSS-SECTION "A-A"
JULY 1996
TOTAL P.11
SEP-17-1996 15:30
P. 01/06
Y R ,

R AW

100
- 100

95
95

90
90

85 mr 4.

85

80
80

75
75

u+uu 2+00 4+00
COLUMBUS COUNTY AIRPORT
WMMDS PERMIT
CROSS-SECTION "B-8"
JULY 1996
SEP-17-1996 15:30
P. 02/06

A In

T,----
95 --- - Y . _ 95
...
-

90

85
Fa
w: +{

85

i. ai1?IM•.!.

KIST
IN GR DE

80 - G
Y? ?,'1•
r •'y

75 = .?. 75
- _.

70 70

0+00 2+00 4+00 I
COLUMBUS COUNTY AIRPORT
WML- f S PERMIT
CROSS--SECTION "C-C"
?_ JULY 1996
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs ? Project located in 7th floor library
Project Review Form
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
-O?'3 c7 L J
I
tic,
r

This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
?Asheville ?All R/O Areas ?Soil and Water ?Marine Fisheries
? Fayetteville XI Air ? Coastal Management ? Water Planning

? ?Nater ? Water Resources ? Environmental Health
Mooresville ?Groundwater fe ?S olid Waste Management
i
dr
Raleigh Band Quality Engineer t
rest Resources ?Radiation Protection
Washin
ton ? Recreational Consultant n
d Resources ? David Foster
g ? Coastal Management Consultant Parks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
Wilmington
? Others
wironinerrtal Manegem&t
? Winston-Salem PWS ' Swliart
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
?Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
PS-104
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs

COLUMBUS COUNTY AIRPORT
WHITEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
Q?
RUNWAY EXTENSION
STATE AID TO AIRPORTS PROGRAM
Administrative Action
Finding Of No Significant Impact
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Aviation
Submitted Pursuant to the Provisions of

The National Environmental Policy Act
and
Approved:
b(-? L/
Requirements of the State Aid to Airports Program
Richard W. Barkes Airport Development Engineer Date

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page Number
1. Project Description and Need: 1-3
Vicinity Map 2
Airport Layout Plan 3
11. Alternatives 4
Alternative A: 4
Alternative B: 4
Alternative C: 4
Alternative D: 4
Alternative E: 4
Ill. Environmental Consequences 5-11
Noise 5-6
Compatible Land Use 6
Social Impacts 6
Induced Socioeconomic Impacts 7
Air Quality 7
Water Quality 7
Department of Transportation Act Section 4(f) 7-8
Cultural Resources 8
Biotic Communities 8
Endangered and Threatened Species 8
Wetlands 8-9
Flood plain 9
Coastal Zones 9
Coastal Barriers 9
Wild and Scenic Rivers 9
Prime and Unique Farmland 10
Energy Supply 10
Light Emissions 10
Solid Waste Impacts 10
Woodlands 10 -11
Construction Impacts 11
Potential Hazardous Material Sites 11
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations 11-12
Appendix: Review Agency Coorspondance

Columbus County Airport
Columbus County, North Carolina
Extension of Runway 13 - 31
Environmental Summary for a Finding Of No Significant Impact
Preliminary Notes:
This environmental document is to be reviewed under the guidelines set forth
under the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act. The projects proposed
for development at this airport will require that the State participate under the
State Aid to Airports Program and local government units will participate in
the funding of this project. There will not be any federal funding associated
with the projects described in this document.
Under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, no funds may
be dispersed until the funding agency has reviewed the potential
environmental impacts of the project and has concluded that the impacts, if
any are acceptable. In the scope of this project the Columbus County Airport
was required to develop an Environmental Assessment (EA) meeting the
provisions of both state and federal environmental regulations. After the EA
was circulated and reviewed by both federal and state agencies, the
comments and concerns were addressed and it has been determined that the
environmental impacts are negligible. As a result of this documentation a
Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate and acceptable in
this matter.
I - Project Purpose and Need
The Columbus County Airport is located just outside of the Town of
Brunswick in Columbus County, North Carolina. The Map on page 2 depicts
the location. The airport consist of a 3700' by 75' runway in a 5/23
alignment.
Columbus County's economic growth is impeded in one aspect by the lack of
an airport able to manage corporate aircraft. One way to enhance Columbus
County's ability to attract industries and improve economic growth is to
upgrade the airport to accommodate corporate aircraft. The small corporate
jets and light twin engine aircraft that currently attempt to utilize the airport
are doing so at a reduced operational margin in efficiency and safety. The
proposed project will allow the majority of aircraft wanting to use the airport to
do so at much enhanced safety and operational levels.

Not to scale
Pireway
•
_ J
FIGURE I
LOCATION MAP
COLUMBUS COUNTY AIRPORT

0
-4 r-
rri
C:
> '0
'
C: C
m z z z o z?nz
D
m ? DC - DC z c
n -
. 0
z cDi?? ? OC nN V?z
-4 7z
r
CD c z z m -o
m ' zo c? c? ?N o
0

O :E

< D
D
?Lj

z
z z
m °
L4

D w
S NO z ? v'NO
O j CVr°w
u, o
Q D
< O S N i4 O

O *;m
L z

?C N
`z

C7
-?
S
P
S
Z
A
r 0
N

0 -? O cn

03
C
C SP.
O ?O
Z7 ::
N
O
U X 00 y°?
M
S
0 ? ? 0

j
n
X ZZM
?
<
O m ? Z
? ; 77
O
m
tn ?
t
zs ?c cC z < cn Q ? _ o
GJ?

Z C-
0 O

N
0
-
O
ca
-TI
o
O
0 C
CA c
'°

O ?
C ro
CN
?? m Ff
?10 aN
?
rn

oz?
?a(M/,)
O m m
• ? O I\ I
CD r-
C)
ro n 1 \ I
M I
I \
I
I

i
•u
0
0
I ?I
11
I ? I
i
10? I r
z VO ° r.
to O o
0 S Ln I
0
I m
I_ ?5 °
I z
1 I .
1 I °
T
I / I I O
O
c (A
I? I M
/I S I =
I X ?I z
Ism x I
z N
C X V
IDZ I
I ?W I x I I
M
Z -4
00
I o X M
®®
z
I x I r
x'
Z
1 I x
x ,
z
-)E• x /
m
I I ? I
I
X
I
I xm
` .'D I
l I o X
0 I
• Z 0 x -DC I
z
Oo
I O x I ;v
O z/
c I ;,o
1 0? I x I I
• i X I RT
I rR
I R T
R T }
I x I T
' R r R
I x I R
I I T r
I
I x I
I I
I }
x 2 ? T} T T
X
:0 I R }
i. •I I• T} T
I T
1' } I R T
} _ T ,(N -1
ITT } TT RR R I 0??
' I RI R I r J ,i m
?, } } R } } 1T RR C M
R
?j RR' T }R R } } ..} ? C7
(-n r
? Tlr T I T T R r •I RR11 °o_ ?
t I• t r R? R } P r D
m

C
Z
=C
x

II - Altematives
The basic alternative proposed in the previously circulated EA was to extend
the Runway from 3700' to 5500'. There were five alternatives considered
and a brief description of each alternative follows.
Altemative A:
This alternative expands Runway 5/23 to the northeast. This option would
expand the existing 3700' runway by 1800'. This option was determined not
to be viable due to extensive potential wetlands impacts. The EA discusses
that potentially 85% of the land involved on this end is wetlands, in addition
the amount of fill need would substantially increase the overall construction
costs. Therefore this alternative was removed from consideration.
Alternative B:
Again, this alternative considers a 1800' extension of Runway 5123 differing
only in that this extension is to the southwest. This alternative would require
the acquisitions of additional property but the lesser construction cost and
potential wetlands impacts makes this alternative more favorable than
alternative A
Altemative C:
This alternative examined the extension of the runway by a combination of
going off both ends. The same concerns expressed in alternative A are
present for this alternative and therefore not consider favorable.
Altemative D:
This alternative proposes to extend the runway to the southwest t initially to
5000' and then in a subsequent phase add an additional 500' if warranted at
a future date. This alternative actually becomes the preferred alternative due
to the reduced cost when compared to alternative b and still not any
significant environmental concerns.
Altemative E:
The "no build" alternative was examined and rejected because it did not meet
the potential economic and population growth nor the current safety concerns
and therefore was determined unacceptable.
4
I.. ._ r
Ill. - Environmental Consequences
The impacts of the proposed action on the human and natural environments
have been studied in accordance with the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) Airport Environmental Handbook (Order 5050.4A). No significant
impacts are anticipated, therefore prompting this FONSI as being appropriate
for the proposed projects.
Noise
To determine the 65 Ldn contour for the alternative, the FAA-developed
Integrated Noise Model (INM), Version 4.11 was used. Worst case
assumptions were made to indicate the maximum possible noise impacts.
The Airport Environmental Handbook (FAA Order 5050.4A) states that if
threshold levels of 90,000 annual adjusted propeller operations or 700
annual adjusted jet operations are not exceeded then no further noise
analysis is necessary. The forecasted operations for this airport do not
exceed these threshold limits. As a result of this noise analysis method, no
significant noise impact is anticipated for this proposed extension. The INM
is the accepted modeling tool for noise exposure at airports
The effects of aircraft noise on residents is a complex matter to quantify. In
the past twenty years, since aircraft noise began causing impacts on
communities, many different methods and efforts have been made to
determine the effects of noise, and to develop ways of describing exposure
and potential impacts. Environmental regulations and guidelines tend to use
cumulative measurements to assess airport noises. This form of
measurement concept is based on the effect of noise on people is
logarithmic, and further assumes that nighttime noise are more intrusive than
daytime noises. This cumulative noise analysis assigns nighttime noise
events greater weighting than daytime events. This methodology of Day -
Night average sound level or Ldn was specifically developed for considering
environmental noise sources. This method of measurement also provides a
means for determining how much noise an airport produces over and above
background noises.
A noise impact occurs when human activity is exposed to noise levels in
excess of those appropriate for that activity. To guide the impact
identification procedure the Department of Transportation Noise Abatement
Policy states that "in assessing community reaction to aircraft noise, the
following interpretation of Ldn value is used."
5

Less than 65 Ldn - essentially no complaints expected, noise may
interfere with community activity.
65 to 75 Ldn - Individuals may complain; group action possible;
Greater than 75 Ldn - Repeated vigorous complaints expected; group
action probable
The noise analysis performed for the proposed Columbus County Airport and
presented in the EA indicates that there are no existing or planned noise
sensitive areas within the current or projected 65 Ldn area that will not be
acquired as apart of this airport project. Therefore no further analysis is
necessary and it may be assumed that there will be no significant noise
impacts.
Compatible Land Use
No significant impacts on nearby existing or proposed land uses are
anticipated. The compatible land use issue becomes significant if there is a
related significant noise impact. Since there is not a significant noise impact
it may also be concluded in this case that there will not be a significant
compatible land use impact beyond those that already exist. The EA
contained a detailed description of compatible land uses and existing
conditions at the airport.
Social Impacts
The principal social impacts are those associated with the relocation of, or
disruption of the surrounding community caused by the project. This project
does not involve the relocation of any residences or businesses, divide or
disrupt established communities, disrupt orderly or planned development, or
create any negative appreciable change in employment. Should any
relocation be necessary, (none are anticipated), the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 will be
followed. Therefore no significant impacts are anticipated.
6

Induced Socioeconomic Impacts
This category is primarily concerned with induced or secondary impacts on
the surrounding communities. Induced impacts are usually not considered
significant unless there are significant impacts in other categories especially
noise, land use or direct social impacts. Based on the previous discussions
there are not any anticipated impacts that will require further analysis in this
area.
Air Quality
Columbus County Airport is forecast to have fewer than 180,000 operations
annually through the year 2010. Therefore, in accordance with FAA Order
5050.4A, no air quality analysis is required. Also, the airport is forecasted to
have fewer than 100,000 aircraft operations annually or 45 peak hour
operations. In accordance with Section .0804 of the North Carolina
Administrative Code 15, Subchapter 2D, Air Pollution Control Requirements,
no permit is required for the improvements at the Columbus County Airport. It
therefore can be concluded that there will not be any air quality impacts that
will require further analysis.
Water Quality
The projected construction is unlikely to have a significant impact on water
resources and water quality near the airport. Wetlands issues will be
discussed in the wetlands section. Minimization of water resource impacts
can best be achieved by initially reducing stream impacts where practicable
and using approved erosion-sediment control measures. Construction
techniques will be utilized to minimize any potential negative effects on the
wetlands in the area. Mitigation of potential impacts will be addressed by
utilizing best management practices. All permits will be acquired prior to
construction. Site visits by the Army Corps. of Engineers and the State
Division of Environmental Management concur that the impacts to the site will
be minimal and not significant. An extensive discussion of this topic was
presented in the previously circulated EA and it can be concluded that the
potential impacts on water quality are minimal and no further discussion is
necessary.
Department of Transportation Act, Section 4(f)
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act prohibits approval of any
project that requires use of any public park; recreation area; wildlife or
7
r
waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance; or historic site of
national, state, or local significance unless no practicable and feasible
alternative exists. None of these public resources are located within the area
of impact; therefore, no Section 4(f) involvement will occur.
Cultural Resources
No historic sites listed in the National Register of Historic Places will be
impacted by the proposed action. Potential impacts on historic, architectural,
archaeological, and cultural resources have been assessed in accordance
with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Archeological and
Historic Preservation Act of 1974. The North Carolina Department of Cultural
Resources did not recommend any additional work to be performed and the
documentation was included in the EA for this proposed project.
Biotic Communities
As discussed in the EA, a Biological Assessment was performed in the
process of developing the EA for this site. The EA concluded that removal of
habitat will not result in a significant long term loss to the area of plant
communities and wildlife displacement. This conclusion is concurred with by
the review agencies and it may be assumed that there will not be any
significant impact on biotic communities.
Endangered and Threatened Species
No federal or state protected species have been found in the proposed area
of impact. Based on consultations with the Natural Heritage Program and the
US Fish and Wildlife Service a field reconnaissance was conducted of the
proposed area of impact. Based on correspondence received from the US
Fish and Wildlife Service there will not be any impacts on endangered and
threatened species, no further analysis is necessary at this time.
Wetlands
A representative from the Army Corps. Of Engineers reviewed the report
prepared by Dr. J. H. Carter presented in the appendix section of the EA.
The Corps. of Engineers accepted the wetlands delineation map that
indicated the proposed project would impact jurisdictional wetlands. The
Corps. indicated that as construction plans are developed they will enter into
the minimization and mitigation process.
8
The North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Division of Environment Management and North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission had concerns about the wetlands and based on a
meeting with representatives of the two departments the concerns have been
addressedr)(The Airport agrees to address all wetlands impacts both for the
runway and future taxiway in, one permit, and phase the construction to
maximize wetlands utilization and minimize impacts. Documentation of this
meeting is included in the appendix section of this document.
Flood plains
No flood plains or flood ways exist in the area of the proposed project
therefore no significant impacts exist. This conclusion was documented in
the EA previously circulated.
Coastal Zones
North Carolina has a federally approved Coastal Management Program
(CMP), prepared in accordance with the North Carolina Coastal Area
Management Act. The Airport is approximately 36 mile west of the Coastal
Zone area of influence, therefore no further action is required. .
Coastal Barriers
The Coastal Barriers Resources Act of 1982 (PL 97-348) prohibits or restricts
federal funding of projects within the Coastal Barrier Resources System. No
coastal barriers in this system are located within the limits of the study area
for this project.
Wild and Scenic Rivers
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (PL 90-542, as amended) protects certain
rivers deemed to have "outstanding remarkable scenic, recreational,
geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or other similar values." In
addition, the North Carolina Parks and Recreation Department protects state
Natural and Scenic rivers. The proposed project is not located adjacent to
any designated river, nor is there any anticipated impact on any classified
river. Therefore the proposed project will not have any significant impact on
this topic
9

Prime and Unique Farmlands
Farmland can be classified as either prime, unique, statewide and locally
important, or urban land. The US Department of Agricultural, Farmland
Conversion Rating Form AD-1006 was used to determine the impacts to local
farmland. The form rated the area of impact at 99.4, with the critical point of
concern being 260. Therefore it can be concluded that there are not any
significant impacts on this topic.
Energy Supply
Based on definitions given in FAA Order 5050.4A, the proposed action will
not have significant demands on energy supply or natural resources. No
major changes in stationary facilities at the airport -will occur that would
increase energy demands. In addition, no changes in flight times or ground
vehicle patterns will affect energy supply. The project construction will not
require any unusual natural materials in short supply and thus no significant
impacts are anticipated.
Light Emissions
Because the proposed action remains on airport property that will be greater
than 1000' from any residence, no adverse effects will occur due to lighting.
The necessary lighting for the extended runway and taxiway will be similar to
the types already in operation.
Solid Waste Impact
No solid waste collection, control, or disposal will be necessary other than
actual construction of the runway extension and taxiway. Construction
materials will be handled and disposed of in accordance with local and state
regulations. Based on coordination with local, state, and federal officials, no
additional bird hazard will occur due to the runway extension and there are
not any known landfills within 10,000' of the airport. Therefore, no further
analysis is needed and there will not be any significant impact associated
with this topic.
Woodlands
Based on the information discussed in detail to the previously circulated EA
there will not be any significant impact on woodland areas. All the projects
addressed in the EA will make every effort to salvage, to the extent
10

practicable, all merchantable timber within the area of impact prior to
construction. It is standard practice with all Division of Aviation projects, to
salvage to the extent practicable, prior to construction all merchantable
timber. This policy helps the Division recover some cost associated with any
of our construction projects. In addition every effort will be made during the
construction process to protect the remaining woodlands. All necessary
permits will be obtained and followed during the construction process.
Construction Impacts
Any construction impacts will be temporary and will be minimized through
adherence to local, state, and federal guidelines and Best Management
Practices (BMPs). These impacts could include noise from construction
equipment, air pollution, and erosion into water resources. The contractor
will be discouraged from using open burning to clear the site. Because
construction will occur on property surrounded by mostly undeveloped land,
the temporary noise impacts will be limited and will not require a noise
control program. All applicable guidelines, permits, and regulations will be
followed during construction. Adherence to these requirements will minimize
any temporary construction impacts. Construction specifications will adhere
to the FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-10, Standards for Specifying
Construction of Airports.
Potential Hazardous Material Sites
No hazardous material sites will be affected by the proposed action. As
discussed in the EA, the two hazardous waste sites on the airport are to be
cleaned up by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers within the next two years.
Therefore no significant impacts are anticipated.
IV. - Conclusions and Recommendations
The Environmental Assessment and follow up documentation addresses all
of the specific environmental impacts anticipated by the construction and
subsequent use of the proposed projects. The proposed actions are
consistent with the federal, state, and local plans, policies, and goals that
have been adopted and proposed for the airport and surrounding area.
There are not any anticipated controversies related to environmental issues
and all necessary permits are expected to be obtained without incident. The
planning of this project took into account potential adverse environmental
impacts and made great efforts to minimize these impacts.
11
a
Based on the lack of any interest received from the public hearing
opportunity, no new issues were raised that significantly impact the proposed
airport construction.
In summary, the Environmental Assessment and supplementary
documentation has shown that this project can be completed with no known
significant impact to the environment. All permits and any additional
measures that may be necessary for this project will be completed prior to
any construction activities being commenced.
After careful review of the Environmental Assessment, comments from the
coordination process, responses to the comments, and final concurrence to
the responses, the undersigned has found that the proposed project is
consistent with the existing objectives of the national and state environmental
policies. The objectives set forth in the National Environmental Policy Act will
not significantly affect the quality of human environment or otherwise include
any significant condition requiring further consultation with any federal, state,
or local review agencies with the following exceptions which shall be made a
condition of the environmental approval of this project:
1. The Columbus County Airport Authority or its appointed
representative shall obtain any federal, state, or local permits (such as a
burning, NPDES construction permit, sedimentation and erosion control
permit, 401 or Nationwide permit, etc.,) prior to the construction of this
project.
2. Wetland mitigation that might prove necessary shall be developed
and implemented prior to, or during the construction phase of this project.
The mitigation will address the recommendations from DEM and NCWRC.
Therefore it is the undersigned recommendation that the proposed project be
given a Finding Of No Significant Impact under the provision set forth by the
National Environmental Policy Act.
LI/
b,
Date
Richdrd W. Barkes
Airport Development Engineer
Division of Aviation
North Carolina Department of Transportation
12
Appendix: Review Agency Coorspondance
0
1 1-24-1995 12 : 45PH FPD HOBBS. UPCHUPC'H/A SOC 910 592 02S

State of .North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of E=nvironmental Management
James 3, Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan 8, Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.F., Director
November 21, 1995
Mr. Marcus Jones
Hobbs, Upchurch and Associates
290 S.W. Broad Street
P.O. Box 1737
Southern Pines IBC 28388
}dear Mr. Jones:
RECEIVED v.r, y 2 4 4 1995
A meeting was held on November 9, 1995 to discuss concerns
that the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) had
concerning the Coluz-zibus County Airport Expansion. Your meeting
minutes accurately reflect the concerns and the solutions that we
agreed to. Therefore, providin; that satisfactory answers to the
comments on the EA and the solutions presented in the November
13, 1995 minutes, DEM probably will agree to a FGNSI.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at (919)
733-1786.
Sincerely,
ti:!L ?-CCU-•--/
Eric Galamb
EaViron,mental Specialist_
cc: Melba McGee
Keith Ashley, WRC
colap.com
Post-ito Fax Note 7671 Date///,--4 gs- # oo,

Co./Dept. 2--> Co. l7 z.4
Phone # Phone #
Fax # %/i? - --7 j Fax #
P. 1

P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh. North Carolina 27626-0535 Teiephone 919-733-7015 FAX 919-733-?a4?

NOV 1 4 1995
Project Team Communication
R.C. Laps. of .i -?r:spu.lation E
Hobbs Upchurch Columbus County AiM!E ?1 Division -'gyi e"3, 1995 CC9201
& Associates, P.A. Subject Date Job Number
290 sw Broad St. Environmental Assessment Eric Galamb and Keith Ashley_
P.O. Box 1737 To
Southern Pines, NC 28388 Response to Wetlands Comments
910 692-5616
Fax [phone]
Conununication No.
Distribution
Rick Barkes, NCDOT Division of Aviation
Dempsey Herring, Columbus County
file
Marcus A. Jones
Fro/mj
Signature
This communication summarizes our meeting Thursday, November 9, 1995 regarding the
wetlands located on the Columbus County Airport.
1. We decided the Environmental Assessment should be for both the proposed runway
extension and the proposed parallel taxiway. In addition, the permit and any subsequent
mitigation needs to be for all the proposed construction. Therefore, all impacted wetlands due
to the runway extension and the parallel taxiway will be addressed up front in one permit.
2. I discussed the probable time line for the two projects. The runway extension will be
constructed next year. However, the parallel taxiway is at least five years from construction.
This will allow for the use of the natural wetlands to be impacted by the taxiway for at least
five more years.
3. In addition to the five year future for the taxiway, we agreed to a three phased
construction which divides the taxiway into a west, middle and east section. The east section
has by far the greatest potential wetland impact, approximately 9 acres. The middle section
will impact approximately 2 acres, and the west will not impact any wetlands not already
G 45. impacted by the construction of the turn-around-taxiway during the construction of the
runway extension. Obviously, the east section will be the last built again allowing for the use
of natural wetlands for the longest amount of time possible. Also due to the cost of mitigation
for the east section, it will probably be determined the cost is not practical and this section will
not be constructed.
Thank you and please call if you have any questions.
MAJ/om.4
R
Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P.A.
Consulting Engineers
290 S.W. Broad Street • Post Office Box 1737 • Southern Pines, NC 28388
October 13, 1995
Mr. Eric Galamb
Wetland Specialist
Department of Environmental Management
P. O. Box 29535
Raleigh, N. C. 27626-0535
OCT J 7 1995
N.C. Clrt_:. „ : ,..., ration
Division cf Aviation
Re: REPONSE TO D.E.M. COMMENTS ON THE COLUMBUS COUNTY
AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, PROJECT NO. 95-0159
HUA No. CC9201
Dear Mr. Galamb:
We apologize for the delay in addressing your comments on the above mentioned project;
the funding for the project has just recently become available. The project's
Environmental Assessment has become active again as a result. In response to the
comments, we have the following additional information:
1. We have enclosed an updated copy of the wetlands map of the runway extension site.
The site was revisited by our biologist, Dr. Jay Carter to survey the wetlands beyond the
airport boundary lines. These new areas are included on the enclosed wetlands map which
has been reviewed and signed by the Corps of Engineers. The 4 ac mentioned in the draft
EA is the amount. of wetlands the extension of the runway will impact; 4 ac is a very
conservative estimate. With the information from the latest wetlands map dated 9/29/95,
only approximately 2.8 ac will be impacted (note copy of wetlands map with impact
highlighted). Please note, the exact acreage of the impact on wetlands will be determined
,from the grading plan during the design phase of the project. Only the exact impact from
the design phase will be used for the wetlands permit process. Also note, the runway
extension is the only consideration for this Environmental Assessment; the parallel taxiway
will be considered at a later date if funding becomes available and necessary
environmental measures will be pursued and/or repeated at that time. A third
consideration to note, all of the wetlands impacted will be by fill or cut due to the
earthwork necessary to grade the runway extension. Due to the wetland impact, we will
grade the runway extension and the parallel taxiway for minimum impact on the wetlands.
The slopes used will be as steep as the FAA Advisory Circular, AC 150/5300-13 will
allow and still produce a safe operating platform for the aircraft.
Southern Pines, NC Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
Winston-Salem, NC Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
I
Mr. Galamb
October 13, 1995
Page 2
2. The list below is the missing disscussions responding to your April 9, 1992 scoping
letter.
A. Will deicing agetrts be used? No.
B. Please identify borrow locations. A more accurate location will be available
after the grading plan has been complete. However preliminary the the plan's
completion, we can assure that the borrow locations will be on the airport property
and will not impact wetlands.
C. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. There are no
impacted streams.
D. Identify the linear feet of stream charn7elizatiol7/relocatiolls. There are no
impacted streams.
E. Number of stream crossings. None
E Identify the Stormwater controls (permanent and temporwy) to be employed.
The temporary stormwater controls used during construction of the runway
extension will be in accordance with the erosion control permit to be submitted
prior to construction. The permanent controls will consist of a continuation of the
existing grass swale sized to the applicable design storm. Another permanent
control will be a closed drainage structure to remove stormwater from the center
of the turn around taxiway located at the end of the extension; it will be similar to
the existing turn around taxiway.
Mr. Galamb
October 13, 1995
Page 3
Thank you for your comments on the above mentioned project. We hope this letter
responds adequately to your concerns and will allow for your concurrence with the
Columbus County Airport Environmental Assessment. We would appreciate your written
response to this letter and will incorporate it as with your original comments and this letter
to the final EA document. Again, thank you and please do not hesitate to call if you have
any further questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
HOBBS, UPCHURCH AND ASSOCIATES, P. A.
Marcus A. Jones, E. I. T.
Project Manager
MAJ\maj
Enclosures
cc: Rick Barkes, NCDOT Division of Aviation

Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, PA
Cons
ul>~ing Engineers
290 S.W. Broad Street • Post Office Box 1737 • Southern Pines, NC 28388
October 13, 1995
Mr. Keith W. Ashley
District 4 Fisheries Biologist
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188
Y
OCT . 1995
N.C. urN.. .,,oon
..
Division of aviation
Re: RESPONSE TO N.C.W.R.C. COMMENTS ON THE COLUMBUS COUNTY
AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, PROJECT NO. 95-0159
HUA No. CC9201
Dear Mr. Ashley:
We apologize for the delay in addressing your cormrnents on the above mentioned project; the
funding for the project has just recently become available. The project's Environmental
Assessment has become active again as a result. Thank you for discussing in detail over the
phone on February 16; 1995 your review letter dated September 15, 1995 regarding the above
referenced project. I have enclosed a memo record of this conversation for your benefit. As
stated in the letter and confirmed during our conversation, you feel the following two points must
be addressed prior to your concurrence with this Environmental Assessment:
1. The report mentioned 4 ac of wetlands to be impacted by the project; you need to
know the exact location of these Four acres on the wetlands map and what type of impact
on the wetlands the project will have.
2. N.C.W.R.C. recommends all wetland impacts be mitigated on a 2:1 basis and not 1:1
as stated in the draft EA.
In. response to the first point, we have enclosed an updated copy of the wetlands map of the
runway extension. site. The site was revisited by our biologist, Dr. Jay Carter to survey the
wetlands beyond the airport boundary lines. These new areas are included on the enclosed
wetlands map which has been reviewed and signed by the Corps of Engineers. The 4 ac
mentioned in the draft EA is the amount of wetlands the extension of the runway will impact; 4 ac
is a very conservative estimate. With the information from the latest wetlands map dated 9/29/95,
only approximately 2.8 ac will be impacted (note copy of wetlands map with impact highlighted).
Please note, the exact acreage of the impact on wetlands will be determined from the grading plan
during the design phase of the project. Only the exact impact from the design phase will be used
for the wetlands permit process. Also note, the runway extension is the only consideration for
this Environmental Assessment; the parallel taxiway will be consider at a later date if funding
Southern Pines, NC Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
Winston-Salem, NC Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
Myrtle Beach, SC Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]

Mr. Ashley
October 13, 1995
Page 2
becomes available and necessary environmental measures will be pursued and/or repeated at that
time. A third consideration to note, all of the wetlands impacted will be by impacted by fill or cut
due to the earthwork necessary to grade the runway extension. Due to the wetland impact, we
will grade the runway extension and the parallel taxiway for minimum impact on the wetlands.
The slopes used will be as steep as the FAA Advisory Circular, AC 150/5300-13 will allow and
still produce a safe operating platform for the aircraft.
In response to the second point, we will certainly mitigate any wetlands impacted at the ratio
required by the appropriate permit. The wetlands permits will be applied for under each separate
project. Therefore, approximately 2.8 ac (construction plans will produce the exact acreage) will
be covered in the application for the runway extension.
Thank you for your comments on the above mentioned project. We hope this letter responds
adequately to your concerns and will allow for your concurrence with the Columbus County
Airport Environmental Assessment. We would appreciate your written response to this letter and
will incorporate it as with your original comments and this letter to the final EA document.
Again, thank you and please do not hesitate to call if you have any further questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
HOBBS, UPCHURCH AND ASSOCIATES, P. A.
Marcus A. Jones, E. 1. T.
Airport Project Engineer
MAAashley.doc
Enclosures
cc: Rick Barkes, NCDOT Division of Aviation
MEMORANDUM
I plioned Mr. Ashley today to find out what I needed to do to get his concurrence on the
Columbus County Airport EA when we resubmit the revision to the state clearinghouse. He said
there are two main points that need to be addressed in the revision..
1. The exact location and amount of wetlands impacted by the Runway Extension. Also note
that the impaction type is fill.
2. Note that NCWRC requires a 2:1 mitigation ratio not 1:1 ratio and that we will comply with
the required ratio.
Before resubmitting the revision to the clearinghouse, I need to speak with Eric Galamb and find
out his requirements for concurrence. He will be in Monday, February 20, 1995.
Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P.A. Site Dewlopment / Transportation
Y
m
ti
C
D
f*1 I i
rti
I
G
1V \

+, . .
t
.1
.i
, rr
t.
• h
f ?e ? 0
? ` . , can
` D
n1
1 ` ? L
r
%r X
r'
r,
L

}.
r
r
r
d? ?