20001195 Ver 10_401 Application_20100218

Mum ®?Awl
00 ?i°?5 vi
February 15, 2010
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
401 Wetland Unit r-n
165 p ( -L5 Lg
1650 Mail Service Road k L.r? v
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
FEB l ? 2010
DENR Re: Section 401 Water Quality Certification WE ?STORWA BRAN
Charlotte Douglas International Airport
CDIA Taxiway D
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
To Whom It May Concern:
HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas (HDR), on behalf of our client, the Charlotte-Douglas
International Airport (CDIA), (Agent Authorization Form, attached), is requesting a Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for the proposed CDIA Taxiway D project.
CDIA proposes to construct a taxiway on the east side of Runway 18L-36R to allow airplanes that are
based on that side of the airfield to taxi. to their takeoff position without crossing an active taxiway. The
new taxiway will minimize the risk of accidents and help reduce departure delays. Once the taxiway is
constructed, the existing museum hanger will lie within the required Object Free Area (OFA) and will
become an obstruction to the proposed taxiway. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) defines
the OFA as an area free of any objects that are above the taxiway centerline. The hanger will be moved
approximately 200 feet to stay out of the OFA. Impacts to jurisdictional waters will be authorized under
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) Nationwide Permit 14 having impacts less.than 1/10 acre
or 150 linear feet with no impacts to jurisdictional wetlands:
A pedestrian survey for jurisdictional waters of the U.S. was conducted on January 19th and 26th, 2010
within the CDIA's property (parcel ID: 11522102). Jurisdictional waters were delineated and identified
according to the methodology described in the USACE 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual and recent
USACE Rapanos guidance. HDR identified on-site jurisdictional features as two stream channels or
Relatively Permanent Waters (RPWs), one emergent wetland, and a scrub shrub/open water wetland.
(Figure 4).. Table 1.1 summarizes the jurisdictional features and proposed impacts within the CDIA
property. A request for verification of the features was forwarded to the USACE on February 5, 2010. .
440 S Church Street Phone: [phone]
HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas Suite 1000 Fax: [phone]
Charlotte, NC 28202-1919 www.hdrinc.com '
Table 1.1 Jurisdictional Waters Summary and Impact Summary

DWQ
USACF.
Length Area
Area
ID

Score -

? Score Classification -

(linear feet) (square

i
feet) - `t

(acres) Impacts
°
_
Stream A -
28
36 RPW with
206
-
-
148.5
upstream o Wetland AA Perennial Flow
Stream A - 31 45 RPW with 708 - - -
downstream o Wetland AA Seasonal Flow
RPW With
Stream B 21 32
Seasonal Flow 176 - -
Stream Total: 1,090 Total Impacts: 148.5
Wetland AA Emergent Wetland - 11,478.5 0.26 -
Wetland BB Scrub Shrub/Open Water - 81,146.34 1.86 -
Open Water/Wetland Total: - 2.12 -
The original proposed fill slopes and drainage system have been shifted to minimize and avoid major
impacts to jurisidctional waters. The original plans included approximately 675 square feet of fill
impacts to Wetland BB and approximately 181 linear feet (If) of fill impacts to Stream A. The revised
plan accounts for 148.5 If of impact to Stream A, 126.5 if of fill from grading activities and 22 if of fill
from the proposed rip rap apron.
Correspondence (dated February 8, 2010) was sent to State Historic Preservation Office requesting
information on any cultural resources that may be impacted by the proposed construction. To date, no
response has been received.
HDR has reviewed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protected species list and consulted the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Elemental Occurrence database and GIS layer for
Mecklenburg County. An on-site protected species habitat survey was preformed in conjunction with
the jurisdictional waters survey. The proposed project area is highly disturbed with a dense population
of invasive species, notably kudzu (Pueraria montana var. lobata). As a result, no habitat for protected
species was evident. HDR has requested comment from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
regarding these findings (February 8, 2010): At this time no response has been received.
We are hereby requesting a Section 401 Water Quality Certification and written authorization to
construct this project under a Water Quality Certification No. 3687. Enclosed herein are:
? Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
? Agent Authorization Form
I Jurisdictional features were flagged in the field and recorded using a GPS receiver.
HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas
? Amended Record of Decision for Proposed New Parallel Runway, Runway Extension and
Associated Work for Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
? Project Location (Figure 1)
? USGS Topographic Charlotte West Quadrangle (Figure 2)
? NRCS Soils (Figure 3)
? Delineated Waters (Figure 4)
? Stream Impact Plan Drawing (Figure S)
? Wetland Determination Data Sheets
? Jurisdictional Determination Form
? USACE Stream Quality Assessment Forms
? NCDWQ Stream Identification Forms
? Representative Photographs
Thank you in advance for your assistance. If you have any questions or require additional information
after your review of the enclosed information, please contact me at [phone].
Respectfully,
Eric Mularski
Environmental Scientist
Cc. Mr. T. Jerry Orr, Aviation Department - Charlotte-Douglas International Airport
Mr. Ronald Geiger, Water Resources Manager - HDR
Ms. Andrea Hughes Cook, Environmental Scientist - HDR
HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas
R ??oo - iIAS y I
O0F_ W A606E,

Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification PCN Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing & pit in
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
El Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 14 or General Permit (GP) number: -
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ? Yes ® No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ? Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
? Yes ® No For the record only for Corps Permit:

® Yes ? No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ? Yes ® No
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below. ? Yes ? No
1h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: CDIA Taxiway D
2b. County: Mecklenburg
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Charlotte FEB 1 u 2010
2d. Subdivision name:
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: WETUINDSANDSTMWAIFAWW-h
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: Charlotte-Douglas International Airport
3b. Deed Book and Page No. Deed Book: 115 Page No: 22
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
3d. Street address: 4108 Minuteman Way
3e. City, state, zip: Charlotte, NC 28208
3f. Telephone no.: 704-359-4000
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address:
Page 1 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ? Other, specify:
4b. Name: Mr. T. Jerry Orr
4c. Business name
(if applicable): Charlotte-Mecklenburg International Airport, Aviation Department
4d. Street address: 5501 Josh Birmingham Parkway
4e. City, state, zip: Charlotte, NC 28208
4f. Telephone no.: 704-359-4000
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address: [e-mail]
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: Eric Mularski
5b. Business name
(if applicable): HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas
5c. Street address: 440 South Church Street, Suite 1000
5d. City, state, zip: Charlotte, NC 28202-1919
5e. Telephone no.: 704-973-6878
5f. Fax no.: 704-338-6760
5g. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 2 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): (a portion of) 11522102
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 35.244 Longitude: - 80.933
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1 c. Property size: 502.2 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to Unnamed tributaries to Taggart Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: DWQ Class C (Taggart Creek)
2c. River basin: Catawba
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The site is surrounded by the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport. The general land use in the vicinity of the proposed
project area is mostly commercial transportation with some areas of open space.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
2.12 acres
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
1,090 linear feet
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of this project is to construct a taxiway on east side of Runway 18L-36R at the Charlotte-Douglas
International Airport. Constructing the taxiway will allow airplanes that are based on that side of the airfield to taxi to their
takeoff position without crossing an active taxiway, therefore minimizing the risk of an accident and minimizing delays.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The project will consist of constructing a taxiway in order to account for increased takeoff traffic volume and safer
operating conditions. The exisiting museum hanger currently lies within the Object Free Area (OFA) and will become an
obstruction to the proposed taxiway. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) defines the OFA as an area free of any
objects that are above the taxiway centerline. The hanger will be moved approximately 200 feet to stay out of the OFA. It
is anticipated that normal grading equipment will be used and may include, but not limited to, scrapers, motor graders,
trackhoes/backhoes, compaction equipment, dump trucks, and asphalt paving equipment for paving the taxiway.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past? ® Yes ? No ? Unknown
Comments: Summitted a verification request to the Corps on
February 5, 2010
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
? Preliminary ? Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company: HDR Engineering
Name (if known): Eric Mularsk & Andrea Cook Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
A wriiten verification from the Corps has not been received.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ? Yes ? No ® Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
Page 3 of 11
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ® Yes ? No
6b. If yes, explain.
The extension of the taxiway to the south is planned, however its construction is not intended to impact jurisdictional
streams or wetlands.
Page 4 of 11
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
? Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ? Buffers
? Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary T
W1 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W4 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W5 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W6 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ - non-404, width (linear
Temporary (T) (INT)? other) (feet) feet)
S1 ®P ? T Fill (Grading) UT to Taggart ? PER ® Corps 3 126
5
Creek ® INT ® DWQ .
S2 ®P ? T Fill (Rip Rap) UT to Taggart
Creek ? PER
® INT ® Corps
® DWQ 3 22
S3 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S4 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S5 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S6 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 148.5
3i. Comments:
Page 5 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number - (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ?P?T
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or purpose (acres)
number of pond
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1
P2
511 Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ? No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, the n complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
? Neuse
? Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number - Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
Temporary T impact required..
B1 ?P?T -
?Yes
? No
B2 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B3 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 6 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The original fill slopes and drainage system have been shifted to minimize and avoid major impacts to jurisidictional waters.
The original plans included approximately 675 square feet of fill impacts to Wetland BB and approximately 181 linear feet of fill
impacts to Stream A. In the revised plans, Stream A is the only jurisdictional feature that will be permanently impacted (148.5
If).
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Construction activities will be confined within the construction limits. Sediment and erosion control will be installed to protect
the nearby jurisdictional waters.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State? ? Yes ® No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps

2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project? ? Mitigation bank

El Payment to in-lieu fee program
? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ? warm ? cool ?cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 7 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.

Zone 6c.
Reason for impact 6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier 6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 8 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ? Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
? Yes ? No
Comments:
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 9.7%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ? Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: Project is exempt from local regulations
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
? Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ? DWQ Stormwater Program
? DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? Mecklenburg County, NC
® Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? NSW
? USMP
apply (check all that apply): ? Water Supply Watershed
? Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ® No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties

4a.
Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ? HQW
? ORW
(check all that apply): ? Session Law 2006-246
? Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? ? Yes ? No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ? Yes ? No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ? Yes ? No
Page 9 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ® Yes ? No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ® Yes ? No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.)
® Yes
? No
Comments: see attached Amended Record of Decision For Proposed New Parallel
Runway, Runway Extenstion And Associated Work (dated August 2, 2006)
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ? Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
No other airfield improvements in this area are anticipated.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
This project does not involve wastewater discharges.
Page 10 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ? Yes ® No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ® Yes ? No
impacts?
El Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
® Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
USFWS - North Carolina's Threatened and Endangered Species counties list http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/es.html
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) GIS coverage and database search
Pedestrian survey
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
Essentail Fish Habitat is not applicable in the piedmont region of North Carolina.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ? Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
NC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)Nationa Register listed propoerties GIS coverage and database search.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ? Yes ® No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? Located in FEMA Flood Zone X, confirmed by
designated 100-year floodplain GIS converage and North Carolina's floodplain mapping program website
http://www.ncfloodmaps.com
Eric Mularski 2/8/2010
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name App icant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
Page 11 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT NO. NA PLAN NO. NA PARCEL ID: (a portion of 11522102
STREET ADDRESS: 4108 Minuteman Way, Charlotte, NC 28208
Please print:
Property Owner: City of Charlotte; P.O.C. Aviation Director: T.J. Orr
The undersigned, registered property owners of the above noted property, do hereby authorize
Eric Mularski
(Contractor / Agent)
of HDR Engineering
(Name of consulting firm)
to act on my behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance and acceptance of
this permit or certification and any and all standard and special conditions attached.
Property Owner's Address (if different than property above):
Charlotte Douglas International Airport, Avaition Department
5501 Josh Birmingham Parkway
Charlotte, NC 28208
Telephone: [phone]
I hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate to the
best of our knowledge.
?n?
Authorized Sig ate re
Date: I - 9 - t C)
fezwb?
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
AMENDED
RECORD OF DECISION
For
PROPOSED NEW PARALLEL RUNWAY, RUNWAY EXTENSION
AND ASSOCIATED WORK
Charlotte Douglas International Airport (CLT),
Charlotte, North Carolina
August 2, 2006
This document is prepared pursuant to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order
1050. "Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures", and FAA Order 5050.413,
"National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport
Actions".
After careful and thorough consideration of the facts contained herein and following .
consideration of the views of those Federal agencies having jurisdiction by law or special
expertise with respect to the environmental impacts described, the undersigned finds that
the proposed Federal action is consistent with existing national environmental policies
and objectives as set forth in Section 101(a) of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969.
Carolyn Blum
Regional Administrator
Southern Region
Federal Aviation Administration
This decision is made pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as
amended 49 U.S.C. 40101, and the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as
amended, 49 U.S.C. 47101. It constitutes a final order of the Administrator subject to
review by the Courts of Appeals of the United States in accordance with the provisions of
49 U.S.C Section 46110.
For further information contact Mr. Scott Seritt, Manager, Airports District Office,
Southern Region Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College
Park, GA 30337-2747.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) signed a Record of Decision (ROD) for a
proposed third parallel runway and associated projects at Charlotte Douglas International
Airport (CLT) on April 27, 2000. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
fully assessed multiple locations for a third parallel runway and associated construction
including a parallel taxiway, various navigational aides, relocation of West Blvd,
Wallace-Neel Road, and Old Dowd Road, and construction of terminal and landside
projects. Among the alternatives considered for the location of the third runway,
following are those relevant to this decision:
a. The preferred alternative of a 9,000 foot independent IFR runway parallel to
and with a lateral separation of 3,700 feet from the western runway that would provide
minimal taxi time for aircraft, but would require an FAA waiver of the standard 4,300
feet lateral separation for triple-independent approach operations, and
b. An alternative that meets FAA Airport Design Standards of a 4,300-foot lateral
separation that would fall within the land acquisition footprint of the original preferred
alternative, east of I485 and would require no waivers for operation (Alternative 5).
The April 2000 ROD approved the construction and operation of the preferred
alternative, a 9,000-foot runway that would be located 3,700 feet west of Runway 18R-
36L that was expected to fulfill the purpose and need to accommodate departures and
arrivals of all aircraft types, as well as facilitate triple-independent approach operations in
all weather conditions. The preferred alternative was chosen because it offered increased
efficiency over the other alternatives studied and provided the least amount of taxi time
for aircraft operating at CLT.
Implementation of the FEIS preferred alternative required that the FAA grant a waiver to
allow a minimum lateral separation closer than the FAA Airport Design Standards
allowed. The preferred alternative identified in. the FEIS assumed the use of Precision
Runway Monitoring (PRM) to permit the waiver allowing triple-independent approach
operations at a 3,700-foot separation. Currently, procedures associated with the PRM
technology do not permit reduction in runway separation criteria below 4,300 feet for
triple-independent approach operations.
Shortly after the ROD was signed, the Airport Sponsor initiated implementation of the
Noise Compatibility Program and property acquisition program for 'the proposed new
runway. Since that time 1,500 acres have been acquired and partially cleared. All of the
properties required for construction of the runway have been purchased and the structures
removed. The planned construction by the State of North Carolina of I-485 has been
completed and preliminary design shows that the concerns addressed in the FEIS about
Alternative 5 meeting all FAA Airport Design Standards with respect to the location of
the highway have been alleviated.
During the land acquisition process, the FAA revised air traffic procedures due to the
potential safety concerns that may arise during a triple-independent approach operation.
With the lack of a PRM_ and approved procedures at CLT, the FAA determined that a
waiver for reduced lateral separations for triple-independent approach operations would
no longer be an option, and the FAA Airport Design Standards require a minimum of
4300 feet lateral separation. Therefore, the FEIS preferred alternative selected for the
location of the new runway would no longer meet the purpose and need of providing
facilities to handle acceptable levels of aircraft delay and sufficient peak-period arrival
capacity under instrument (IFR) conditions with triple-independent approach operations..
Since the need for additional capacity (and reduced delays) with triple-independent
approach operations capability still remains, the FAA, along with the recommendation of
the Airport Sponsor, therefore, has selected Alternative 5 as the new preferred alternative,
the construction of the parallel runway at a 4,300-foot separation. Of all of the parallel
runway alternatives evaluated in the FEIS, this is the only alternative that now meets the
purpose and need for additional capacity under the existing criteria. Significantly, this
preferred alternative meets the current FAA Airport Design Standards that will allow
triple-independent approach operations. The parallel runway identified in Alternative 5
in the FEIS would be located 600 feet west of the original preferred alternative, 4,300
feet to the west of the existing Runway 18R/36L.
Because of the desire of the FAA and the Airport Sponsor to select another alternative for
construction, the FAA needed assurances that the selection of Alternative 5 would not
create substantial changes resulting in new environmental concerns not previously
considered in the FEIS. Therefore, the FAA conducted a Written Reevaluation of the
FEIS to determine whether a new EIS or supplement was necessary. The FAA also
carefully reviewed the information provided by the City of Charlotte as well as
information contained in FAA files to ensure that the Findings in the FEIS remain valid
both generally, and with specific regard to analysis of Alternative 5.
In addition to analyzing the impacts of the most likely categories: noise and land use
compatibility, wetlands, and water quality, the FAA reevaluated all other environmental
impact categories listed in FAA Order 1050.1E, Appendix A. The FAA considered
whether Alternative 5 was fully analyzed in the original FEIS and confirmed that no
change to the airport or its environs had occurred.
The air quality environmental impact category was found to have regulatory advances
since the FEIS. However, even though there have been changes in the air quality status
of Mecklenburg County and in the regulatory provisions of the Clean Air Act and NEPA,
these regulatory changes would not invalidate the conclusions presented in the air quality
assessment prepared for Altemative.5 in the FEIS. The current operating conditions at
CLT remain consistent with the forecasted operating conditions that formed the basis of
the air quality analysis for the FEIS.
All practicable means to avoid or minimize harm to the environment have been
considered. It has been determined that no substantial changes have occurred to any of
the other environmental impact categories and no substantial regulatory changes have
been implemented that would require additional analysis. No additional properties are
required to be purchased for construction of the runway at a 4,300-foot separation.
Based on the review in the written reevaluation and in conformity with FAA Order
5050.4B, paragraph 9(v), and FAA Order 1050.1E paragraph 515, the FAA has
documented and has concluded that:
a. The proposed action conforms to plans and projects for which the prior
FEIS has been filed and there are no substantial changes in the proposed
action that are relevant to environmental concerns;
b. Data and analyses contained in the previously approved FEIS are still
valid and there are no significant new circumstances or information
relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or
its impacts; and
c. Pertinent conditions and all requirements of the prior approval have, or
will be, met in the current action.
The evaluation determined that environmental effects created as a result of selecting
Alternative 5 as the preferred alternative from those projected in the FEIS would not
create any significant environmental impacts not previously considered in the FEIS. The
Written Reevaluation has concluded that no changes have occurred that would create the
need for a supplemental EIS or raise questions or concerns regarding Alternate 5 now
being considered as the preferred alternative.
FEDERAL FINDINGS
This Amended ROD verifies that the rationale for approving the Proposed Action is still
valid, and that all conditions of the previous ROD (evaluated in the Written
Reevaluation) determine the basis for the final FAA determination that Alternative 5 is
the FAA's preferred alternative. All appropriate findings required by executive order,
regulation, or law and all mitigation measures as outlined in the previous ROD become a
part of this Amended ROD by reference. Construction of the new preferred alternative
(Alternative 5) would not result in any additional significant adverse environmental
impacts different than those disclosed and approved in the FEIS and ROD. The Federal
Findings as stated in the previous ROD are incorporated in to this Amended ROD by
reference.
Approval of this Amended ROD completes FAA's review of the FEIS and Written
Reevaluation. The FAA therefore, selects the location of the proposed new parallel
runway (with a 4300-foot lateral separation), along with the other proposed development
(Alternative 5) addressed in the previous ROD, which provides improved capacity and air
traffic efficiency to meet the existing and forecast demand at Charlotte Douglas
International Airport.
Linc Intan 1
We tport 73 -
7
?J3
I
- 27` - 143'
21
0
isi lr I I 1
7
` F • • •
20
Gastonia
i 29
7 ®\ I?_?
A
'[Airpoi
r
0
11 ,?
Lake Wylie
i 557 - `?
v
ti
0
/? 1611
yll-? Y
X121 521 -3n a
1 inch = 5 miles
Miles --- ? .
0 2.5 5 10 -
xI
?r
i07i
Asa
Project Location
I` ` Figure 1
ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions-
Charlotte - Douglas International Airport I Taxiway D I Request for Section 401 Water Quality Certification
-? Charlotte West USGS Quadrangle
Figure 2
ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions-
Charlotte - Douglas International Airport I Taxiway D I Request for Section 401 Water Quality Certification
NRCS Soils
CeB2 - Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded
CeD2 - Cecil sandy clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
CeB - Cecil-Urban land complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes
u
Ur - Urban land

r CeB2
CeB2
.. ? ) wY f ?::s v,
CDIA Property
y if- , _ F,
k r:r

Ur

1 inch = 1,000 feet
Feet
0 500 1,000 2,000

-? NKt:S Sobs for Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Figure 3
ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions-
Charlotte - Douglas International Airport I Taxiway D I Request for Section 401 Water Quality Certification
C
O O
• Oft 11 h d a > C
F , i L a? n. a m a
t
m
t
.
00
OWE
C m r'
.?? 1U-,
r y r
m
m
CO U) J,
Li a8 ,
?.
o 'f
t +.¢
lb (0
C, G _
r` - 1 '?' q? • ` M ° Li
IM 0
l ? t 'E' y ,
• °
r Vow ` L -
w
- o z
0
D
Ro
n I
1 (01
w
W Z
2 ?
s Z o?? o? `" ? e
W
Z® W
o g J = ? ? ? ? ? ? rii
m
N # n o ®® O
o
m
Q
! ? J
4
LLJ
U
N
= z?
n
Nal N I^°,
m o Qz
-z
-zM< g
S2zpe1
Q- N
> NZ
W ? Yo`?
m W -C -C
J wa= c?
cZ3 ?Lw
Q LZ
CL
I kI
I *I
I M
I N
Asa

e?

E?
s°
c5 s`

S
I Mvo :'ON 1NRld M33H3 SM I
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Parcel ID: 11522102 Date: 01/26/10
Applicant/Owner: Charlotte Douglas International Airport County: Mecklenburg
Investi ator s : Eric Mularski State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: AA
If needed, explain on reverse.) I
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 Andropogon glomeratus herb FACW+ Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9
2 Andropogon virginicus herb FAC- 10
3 Platanus occidentalis shrub FACW- 11
4 Solidago sp. herb 12
5 13
6 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
67%
Remarks:
Emergent hydrophytic vegetation is dominant
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
X Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
X Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits (on leaves)
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 1-8 (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: surface (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: surface (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Strong wetland hydrology indicators are p resent.
CDIA_TaxiwayD_Wetland Data Forms Page 1 of 2 2/5/2010
crvl c
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): CeD2 - Cecil sandy cla y loam, 8 to 15 % slopes Drainage Class well drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic T is Kanha ludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No

Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
1-4 A 7.5 YR 5/6 sand silt
4-12+ 5 YR 4/1 7.5 YR 2/1 sand silt
2.5 YR 4/8
Histosol X Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List (Inclusions)
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Indicators of hydric soil are present.
WFTI ANr1 nl=TFRMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Ye No (Circle)
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Data point was representative of an emergent headwater wetland.
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92
CDIA_TaxiwayD_Wetland Data Forms Page 2 of 2 215/2010
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Parcel ID: 11522102 Date: 01/26/10
Applicant/Owner: Charlotte Douglas International Airport County: Mecklenburg
Investigator(s): Eric Mularski State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? es No Community ID: wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: BB
If needed, explain on reverse.) I
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
1 Salix nigra Stratum
tree/shrub Indicator
OBL Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9
2 Sambucus canadensis shrub FACW+ 10
3 Alnus serrulata herb FACW+ 11
4 Andropogon glomeratus herb FACW+ 12
5 Andropogon virginicus herb FAC- 13
6 Platanus occidentalis shrub FACW- 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
83%
Remarks:
Hydric veeetation is dominant.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
X Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
X Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: _
X Sediment Deposits (on leaves)
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0-54 (in.) _
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: surface (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: surface (in.) X FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Strong wetland hydrology indicators are p resent.
CDIA_TaxiwayD_Wetland Data Forms Page 1 of 2 2/5/2010
enn e
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): CeD2 - Cecil sandy cla y loam, 8 to 15 % slopes Drainage Class well drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic T is Kanha ludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No

Profile Descri tion:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-2 A 10YR 4/4 N/A N/A silty clay loam
2-15+ B 2.5Y 511 10YR 5/6 Many/Distinct clay loam
Histosol X Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List (Inclusions)
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Indicators of hydric soils are present.
uUGTI Akin n1=T1=RMINOTI0N
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (Circle)
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Data Qoint is representative of scrub/shrub wetland. This system is direct) connected with an open
water system.
L
Approved by HUUSAGL 2192
CDIA_TaxiwayD_Wetland Data Forms Page 2 of 2 2/5/2010
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Parcel ID: 11522102 Date: 01/26/10
Applicant/Owner: Charlotte Douglas International Airport County: Mecklenburg
Investigator(s): Eric Mularski State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: UPl
If needed, explain on reverse.) I
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant S ecies
1 Pueraria montana var. lobata Stratum Indicator
vine Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9
2 Liquidambar styraciua shrub FAC+ 10
3 Rubus spp. shrub 11
4 Andropogon virginicus herb FAC- 12
5 Fescue spp. herb 13
6 Lonicera japonica vine FAC- 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
33%
Remarks:
Less than 50% of the dominant
plant species are FAC or wetter.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
_
Drift Lines
Field Observations: _
_ Sediment Deposits (on leaves)
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) _
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 (in.) _
FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
F-o indicators of wetland hydrology are present
CDIA_TaxiwayD_Wetland Data Forms Page 1 of 2 2/5/2010
C/111 a
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): CeD2 - Cecil sandy cla y loam, 8 to 15 % slopes Drainage Class well drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic T is Kanha ludults Confirm Mapped Type? es No

Profile Descri tion:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-12+ A 10YR 4/4 N/A N/A sand clay loam
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List (Inclusions)
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No indicators of hydric soils are present.
00-ri wan n1-TCD11AlAIATIMI
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (Circle)
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Data point is representative of a non-jurisdictional upland area.
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92
CDIA_TaxiwayD_Wetland Data Forms Page 2 of 2 2/5/2010
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: CDIA Parcel: 11522102 - Streams A & B. Wetlands AA & BB
State: North Carolina County/parish/borough: Mecklenburg City: Charlotte
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.244° Pick List, Long. -80.933° Pick List.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Taggart Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Sugar Creek
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Catawba - 03050103020
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
[] Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc... ) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
® Office (Desk) Determination. Date: January 2010
® Field Determination. Date(s): 1/26/2010
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
? Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): r
TNWs, including territorial seas
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 1,098.64 linear feet: varies width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: 2.12 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable) :3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section III. F.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick List
Drainage area: Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5:
Tributary stream order, if known:
' Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/%cover:
? Other. Explain: Rip Rap.
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of Clow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
? Bed and banks
? OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
El Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
High Tide Line indicated by: ?
? oil or scum line along shore objects
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
? physical markings/characteristics
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
ine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply)
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? survey to available datum;
? physical markings;
? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Lio. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
? Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): feet.
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TN W?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
? TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Our onsite visit indicated that Stream A is perennial downstream of Wetland AA according to current
ACOE and NCDWQ guidance.
Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally: Our site visit that Stream A (upstream of Wetland AA) and Stream B have intermittent flow.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: 1,089.64 linear feet varies width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWs8 that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
® Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW: RPW Stream A flows directly into and through Wetland AA and Wetland BB providing
a distinct biological and hydrological connection.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 2.12 acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters .9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
? Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
? Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
? Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):10
? which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
? from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
? which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
Other factors. Explain:
'See Footnote # 3.
' To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
? Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
? If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
? Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
? Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
? Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
? Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
? Corps navigable waters' study:
Q U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
? USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
E U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Charlotte West 24K Quadrangle.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Mecklenburg County.
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: NWI GIS Data.
? State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
? FEMA/FIRM maps:
? 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Z Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): Mecklenburg County Ortho Imagery.
or ? Other (Name & Date):Site photos taken during delineation.
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
? Applicable/supporting case law:
Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
0 Other information (please specify):Field delineation.
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # SA (up) (indicate on attached I
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Q
1. Applicant's Name:-Charlotte-Douglas International Airport 2. Evaluator's Name: Eric Mularski
3. Date of Evaluation: 1/26/2010 4. Time of Evaluation: 9:30 AM
5. Name of Stream: UT to Taugart Creek (Stream A) upstream 6. River Basin: Catawba
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 21.7 acres 8. Stream Order: 1st
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 205.89 linear feet 10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Site Coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees 12. Subdivision name (if
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.244 Longitude (ex. -77.55.66.11): -80.933
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other: Field survey
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
(See attached man)
14. Proposed Channel Work (if any):
15. Recent Weather Conditions: sunnv. 40°s
16. Site conditions at time of visit:-sunny, windy 40°s
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known:
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluatic
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO
21. Estimated Watershed Land Use: -% Residential
-Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
_ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
in point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: acres
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
% Commercial % Industrial _% Agricultural
_% Forested 15-% Cleared / Logged 85 % Other (Airport)
22. Bankfull Width: 2-3' 23. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 24'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of
100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 36 Comments:
Intermittent stream upstream of Wetland AA Has perennial characteristics downstream of Wetland AA
Evaluator's Signature Date 1/26/2010
This channel evaluation m is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Stream A (upstream Wetland AA

r Presence of.flow,/persistent pools, in stream
0 5
0 - 4
0 - 5
no flow or saturation = 0; strong' flow max oints)
Evidenceof past human alteration
0
6
0 5
0 - 5
1
.2 alteration = 0; no alterationmax oints
extensive -
3 Riparian zone p- 6 0-4 0_5
1
no buffer = 0; conk uous, wide buffer = max points)
4 ,,; Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges; 0 - 5 0-4 0; 4 2

'
extensive dischar yes = 0; no disch es;= max points). . .
Groundwater, discharge
0-3 x
0-4
0
4
2
5 no _discharge 0; springs, see s'wetlands; ete_° max. ints x . ,
,, t )
4-L -
a? t , -_, x-•
4s ?'' ,'.Presence of adjacent,floodplam'r.? .

' s

..
0- ??a ti ` 2
0 1
oints)
no floo lain- 0;-extensive :fl lam. - max.
>-Entrenchment/floodplalnccess? 1 r ??
0 ?'" t 0?-2 1
dee 1 entrenched = 0; fr uenf flooding °`max' ints)

g Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0'=4
0,-2
3
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max oints - -
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5., 0-4 0- 3 2
extensive channel izati on ?'0; natural meander = max oints)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size &,diversity of channel bed substrate 0-4 0-5 2
(fine; homogenous ='0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
12 (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5 3
1' (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 1
(no dsible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0 '5
0-4
0-5
4
" 15 (substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0 -3
0-6
2
16 (no riffles/ripples les or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)

? 17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
2
E- little or no habitat = 0; frequent,, varied habitats = max points)
Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5 1
18 no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
Substrate embeddedness 0= 4 0-4 1
19 (deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
Presence of stream invertebrates 0-4 0-5 0-5 0
20 (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
C7 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
21
Q (no evidence = 0; common, numerous Lypes = max oints)

22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
es = max oints
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous
Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 1
23 (no evidence - 0: abundant evidence max points)
r
Total Points Possible dr f e a sy,
100f
100'
? 00
., 1
3
! t
TOTAL SCORE.'(adso enter on first page?h?????
n ; = s
'
.'
36
.
.
.
I_ -
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
-USACE AID# -- u DWQ # Site # SA (downstream) (attached maps
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
M AQP
1. Applicant's Name: Charlotte-Douglas International Airport 2. Evaluator's Name: Eric Mularski
3. Date of Evaluation: 1/26/2010 4. Time of Evaluation: 9:30 AM
5. Name of Stream: UT to Taggart Creek (Stream A) downstream 6. River Basin: Catawba
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 21.7 acres 8. Stream Order: 1 st
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 707.59 linear feet 10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Site Coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.244 Longitude (ex. -77.55.66.11): -80.933
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other: Field surveY
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
(See attached map)
14. Proposed Channel Work (if any):
15. Recent Weather Conditions: sunnv. 40°s
16. Site conditions at time of visit:-sunny, windy 40°s
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known:
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluatic
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO
21. Estimated Watershed Land Use: % Residential
22. Bankfull Width: 4-12'
23. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 24'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (> 10%)
25. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of
100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 45 Comments:
Perennial stream downstream of Wetland AA.
-Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
n point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: acres
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
_% Commercial % Industrial _% Agricultural
_% Forested 15-% Cleared / Logged 85 % Other (Airport)
Evaluator's Signature ? me- , Y Date 1/26/2010
This channel evaluation rm is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Stream A (downstreamWetland AA)
ECO?RE QN PO1lN AG
on
3

'
Presence offlow /persistent pooisin stream

0 - 5

0 - 4

0 - 5

3
1 no flow or saturation = 0; strong -flow = max ' points)
Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 1
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration= max points)

3 Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
1
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
Evidence of nutrient or-chemical discharges ,
g
0 = 5
0 - 4
0 4
2
es = max points
extensive discharges = 0; no dischar

5 Groundwater discharge
3
?
0 -4
?
{4
3
no dischar e = 0; s rin , seeps; wetlands, etc. max rots . :
t
4

6 Presence ofadjacenf floodplain:; ?,: ?
4
°
0 4 ? F

s
2
4
3
> a nafl' lain=0; extensivefl 7a?n "max points) t ,
>
:; h?. ;; x
?
-?; EntrenchmentEfloodplain access-':.
- ?F.. ?0; 0-2 3
°-max points)
dee l .entrenched = 0; f7e uentfloodin

g Presence of adjacent wetlands a.
0=6
0-4
Q-2
3
(no wetlands = O; large adacent wetlands max rots) .
9 Channel sinuosity:; 0" - 5 0-4 0- 3 2
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander= max ints
10 Sediment input 0=-5 -4 0- 4 2
extensive de sition= 0; little or no sediment = max ints E
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate 0-5 2
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse 'sizes- max points)
r 12 Evidence of channel incision orwidening, 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
t
, (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
H
13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0--5
3
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion; stable banks= max points)
Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0 -'5 2
u
4. 14 no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
F
Impact by agriculture or livestock production ,
0 - 5
0 - 4
0 - 5
4
15 (substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 2
16 (no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max oints)
of 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 2
F (little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
GQ Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5 1
18 (no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddeduess -
A
TA,

- 4

- 4

1
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
Presence of stream invertebrates 0- 4 0- 5 0- 5 0
20 (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 2
C. (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max oints)
a'

22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
O, no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
90
Evidence of wildlife use

0-6

0-5

0-5

1
23 (no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)

Total Points Possible
100 1
X100 v tom:.,
100

TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 45
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # SB (indicate on attached man) j
13 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name:-Charlotte-Douglas International Airport 2. Evaluator's Name: Eric Mularski
3. Date of Evaluation: 1/26/2010 4. Time of Evaluation: 9:30 AM
5. Name of Stream: UT to Taggart Creek (Stream B) 6. River Basin: Catawba
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 17.1 acres 8. Stream Order: 1st
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 176.16 linear feet 10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Site Coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees 12. Subdivision name (if any
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.244 Longitude (ex. -77.55.66.11): -80.933
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other: Field survey.
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
(See attached man)
14. Proposed Channel Work (if any):
15. Recent Weather Conditions: sunnv. 40°s
16. Site conditions at time of visit: sunny, windy 40°s
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: acres
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated Watershed Land Use: _% Residential _% Commercial % Industrial _% Agricultural
_% Forested 15-% Cleared / Logged 85 % Other (Airport)
22. Bankfull Width: 2-3' 23. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 2-3'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (> 10%)
25. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of
100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 33 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Ms Date 1/26/2010
This channel evaluation fortended 'toe used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Stream B

R I Presence of flow / persistent pools in'strearn 0 -5 0
- 4 0- 5 2
(no flow or saturation = 0;? strop flow =' max o ints) ,
.
2 Evidence of past human alteration.
0'
-6
0-
5'
0-
5
1
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max rots)
3` Riparian zone
0
- 6
0 -
4
0 -
5
1
(no buffer ? 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges .
0
- 5
0 -
4 i
y
0 -
:4
1
4 extensive discharges = O; no -discharges = max .. rots
! Groundwater discharge ;.
0 -3 . ,.
0-
4
0-
4
1
no discharge =..O, springs , seeps, wetlands, etc.. = max points)

? Presence of adjacent floodplain ,
- _
'
' r .r z

1
Y
lainniaX
rots)
(no flood lain- 0; extensive flood
Entrenchment Efloodplain access
4 S r Q"? ?? 2. r. 2
deep 1 entr enched = 0; fre uent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent'wetlands
0
- 6
0-
4
0-
2
1
(no wetlands =0; large adjacent wetlands = max ints ,.
9 Channel sinuosity ,
' 0 -5 0- 4 0- 3 1
O;natural meander = max points)
(extensive channelization =
10 Sediment input 0 -5 0- 4 0- 4 2
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
Size & diversity of channel be&substrate 0- 4 0- 5 1
11 fine, homo enous = 0;large, diverse sizes'=coax- points
Evidence of channel Incision orwidening 0 -5 0- 4 0- 5 3
I2 (deeply incised = O;'stable bed & banks = max points)

i
<?- Presence of major'bank failures
0
-5
0-
5
0-
5 '
3
-
.
i 13 severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max rots
Root depth and density on banks 0 -3 0- 4 0- 5 2
E, 14 (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points) -
Impact by agriculture or livestock production <. 0 -5 0- 4 0- 5 4
15 substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
.IV, Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes `
0
-3
0-
5
0-
6
1
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)

17 Habitat complexity
0
-6
0-
6
0-
6
2
. (little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
Canopy coverage over streambed 0 -5 0- 5 0- 5 1
18 (no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
Substrate embeddedness * 0- 4 0- 4 2
19 (deeply embedded = O; loose structure = max) k ua ,
Presence of stream invertebrates 0 -4 0- 5 0- 5 0
20 (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

C7 Presence of amphibians
0
-4
0-
4
0-
4
0
Q 2l (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
-?

O

22 Presence of fish
0
-4
0-
4
0-
4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
p Evidence of wildlife use
0
-6
0-
5
0-
5
1
23 (no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max oints

x ; , • Total Points Possible ?t.'=., .? =100 IOLt l " 100_.:,

TOTAL SCORE, (also enter on first page) 33
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 1/26/2010 Project: CDIA Parcel: 11522102 Latitude: 35.244
Evaluator: Eric Mularski Site: Stream A upstream WAA Longitude: -80.933
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent 28 County: Mecklenburg
if? 19 or perennial if? 30 e.g. Quad Name: Charlotte West
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 15.5 Absen Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No =(_O?
Yes = 3
man-maae ancnes are not rated; see discussions in manual
R Hvrlrnlnnv (.qi ihtntal = R )I
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - dry or growing season 0 1 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 R 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) O5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Bioloov (Subtotal = 6 5 1
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21b. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
"° ?? °? iv?.ua VII UIC ?JICJCIII.C UI UFJ1411U FAdIlLb, ILL-IT] L`J Tocuses on [ne presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 1/26/2010 Project: CDIA Parcel: 11522102 Latitude: 35.244
Evaluator: Eric Mularski Site: Stream A downstream WAA Longitude: -80.933
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent 31 County: Mecklenburg
if? 19 or perennial if? 30 e.g. Quad Name: Charlotte West
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 16.5 A Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No :(?O
Yes = 3
rvmn-rnaue unurres are not ratea; see aiscussions in manual
R Hvdrnlnnv (SuhtntA = 7
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 1 2
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 11-0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Bioloov (Subtotal = 7 N
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21b. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1
5
29 b Wetland plants in streambed .
FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
-? ???? • • •? FI-1- UP 1011U Nrcr rta, uenr /y rucuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 1/26/2010 Project: CDIA Parcel: 11522102 Latitude: 35.244
Evaluator: Eric Mularski Site: Stream B Longitude: -80.933
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent 21 County: Mecklenburg
e.g. Quad Name: Charlotte West
if > 19 or perennial if 2! 30
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 12 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0. 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No ?ZU-N J
Yes = 3
- Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal = 5 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 1 {?2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 4 1
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 b. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
nems zu ana z i rocus on the presence or upiana plants, item 29 tocuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
l .R

r
?i? .Z trf r Eh.
r
4sFS rw.'hs
i?
s'
Faq
ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions- Site Photographs
- Douglas International Airport I Taxiway D I Section 401 Water
Stream A (upstream of Wetland AA) - RPW with seasonal flow
Stream B - RPW with seasonal flow
40 ;A 40
!' ?! +7AA? ?'b 4`s A_? U ? 8„?? I? f •1J r`tF ?? ? '.j
'14
Y s?' ? tii?1? ?,F .!"Pw?' ?. ??. } ? ? i ?V',?k #''?r. b? 1' L `?.1\1??{,' t-
J?
Y*?
'
it
t? r 41 ,` t y t` 1 :t4
IN
? w;!Jaw f , • ;,.
rr
7 .Iris "r ?? <n..r}<
I„y?1?1J ?E?,}; ?y?/ ?y'T?? ?`? ?t ?',? •-Y min
. I N
Wetland AA - emergent
a ?it rts? r, L
?,r f t
...,s fJ1'fYr. _ _ 5 T
LAI
'4
44
Stream A downstream of Wetland AA - RPW with perennial flow
ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions' Site Photographs
Charlotte - Douglas Intemational Airport I Taxiway D I Section 401 Water Quality Certification

i'
E

1 r6 ,..ICI- 1
l ' 1

k
L F/
I
A
-,tot
r•?

a.
AMR,
*.

4
? s4- - ? .
fi?.1 K 4X. .? - ,x'•`71., ?. ? ±. off t y•
..
? ? 1 ??
?
Wetland BB - shrub shrub

x:

Wetland BB - open water

ONE COMPANY I Many Solurions?- Site Photographs
Charlotte - Douglas Intemational Airport I Taxiway D I Section 401 Water Quality Certification