20130732 Ver 1_Individual_20130717

C L e a r W a t e r 20 1 3 0 13 2
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
www.cwenv.com
July 11, 2013
Ms. Amanda Fuemmeler
US Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801 -2638
Ms. Karen Higgins '
NC Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center '
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699
RE: Norfolk Southern Railway Company Intermodal Facility (1W
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Ms. Fuemmeler and Ms. Higgins,
The attached Individual Permit application is being submitted on behalf of Norfolk Southern
Railway Company, which is seeking a permit for impacts associated with development of an
Intermodal Facility in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, as described in the permit
application form and attached narrative. This application is for an after - the -fact permit.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 828 -698 -9800 if you have any questions regarding the
attached permit application and supplemental information. A copy of this application has been
sent to Mr. Bryan Tompkins of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for review. A copy of this
application has also been submitted to the N.C. Division of Water Quality, Mooresville Regional
Office.
Sincerely,
RRCl ent Rid PPW. S
P rincipal
Copy Furnished:
NC Division of Water Quality; Mooresville Regional Office — Alan Johnson
US Fish and Wildlife Service — Bryan Tompkins
=-, � W
JUL 1 7 2013
224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Hendersonville, NC 28792
828 - 698 -9800 Tel
828 -698 -9003 Fax

Corps Submittal Cover Sheet
Please provide the following info:
1. Project Name: Norfolk Southern Railway Company Intermodal Facility
2. Name of Lessee /Applicant: Norfolk Southern Railway Company; Attn: Jack
McClain
3. Name of Consultant/Agent: ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
*Agent authorization needs to be attached.
4. Related/previous Action ID numbers(s): 200632531
5. Site Address: Charlotte- Douglas International Airport — 5710 West Boulevard
6. Subdivision Name: n/a
7. City: Charlotte
8. County: Mecklenburg
9. Lat: 35.190995N Long: - 80.961299W (Decimal Degrees Please)
10. Quadrangle Name: Charlotte West
11. Waterway: UT Beaverdam Creek, UT Paw Creek, and UT Coffey Creek
12. Watershed: Nolichucky 06010108
13. Requested Action:
X Individual Permit #_
General Permit #
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Pre - Application Request
The following information will be completed by the Corps office:
Prepare File Folder
Authorization:
AID:
Assign number in ORM
Section 10 Section 404
Project Description/Nature of Activity/Project Purpose:
Begin Date
Site/Waters Name:
Keywords:
D
r,, J!_ 17 2013

F-1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-0003
33 CFR 325. The proponent Nency is CECWr•CO -R.
EXPIRES: 28 FEBRUARY 2013
Public reporting for this collection of Information Is estimated to average 11 hours per response, Including the bme for reviewing Instructions, searching
existing date sources, gathering and maintaining the date needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding
this burden estimate or any other aspect of the collection of information, Including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense,
Washington Headquarters, Executive Services and Communications Directorate, information Management Division and to the Office of Management and
Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710.0003). Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shah be
subfect to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of Information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. Please DO NOT
RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of
the proposed activity
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act. Section 10, 33 LISC 403; Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act. Section 103, 33 USC 1413; Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rude 33 CFR 320 -332 Principal Purpose* Information provided on
this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit Routine Uses: This IMonnation may be shared with the Department of Justice and other
federal, stale. and local government agencies, and the public and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by Federal law. Submission
of requested information is voluntary, however, If information Is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit be Issued. Dne set
of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed actift must be attached to lids application (see
sample drawings Bndlor instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having Jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. An application
that is not completed In full will be returned.
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATIDN ND.
2. FIELD OFFICE CDDE
3. DATE RECEIVED
4. DATE APPLICATIDN CDMPLETE
(ITEMS BELOW 1'0 BE FILLED BYAPPUCANI)
5 APPLICANTS NAME
B. AUTHORIZED AGENTS NAME AND TITLE (agent is not required)
First - Jack Middle - Last - McLain
First - R Middle - Clement Last - Riddle
Company - Norfolk Southern Railway Company
Company- ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
E-mail Address - [e-mail]
E -mail Address - clementi✓cwenv.c0m
B. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS'
9. AGENTS ADDRESS:
Address- 1200 Peachtree Street NE
Address- 224 South Grove Street, Suite F
City - Atlanta State - GA Zip-30309 Country - USA
City - Hendersonville State - NC Zip - 28792 Country -USA
7. APPLICANTS PHONE NO%. WAREA CODE
10. AGENTS PHONE NOs. W/AREA CODE
a. Residence b. Business C. Fax
a. Residence b. Business c. Fox
404- 529. 1331 404- 529 -1371
828.698 -9800
STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
11. 1 hereby authorize, to od in my behalf es m agent in the processing or this application and to furnish, upon request,
supplemental Information in support at this pert plicadon
C-
DF ATE
ATURE CANT
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PRDJECT NAME DR TITLE (are Instructions)
Norfolk Southern Railway Company Charlotte Intermodal Facility (IMF) Culven extension and stream impacts
1S. NAME OF WATF-RBODY, IF KNOWN (If applicable)
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (Uapplhcable)
UTs to Beaverdum, Coffey, and Ticer Creeks
Address West Blvd
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Latitude: -N 35,19806 Longitude: -W - 80.96528 (see attach)
CRY - Charlotte State- NC Zip• 28219
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS. IF KNOWN (see instructions)
State Tex Parcel ID 14113125, 11310104, 11309119 Municipally City of Charlotte
Section - Township - Range -
emu rUKM 44145, UGT ZUU PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE Page 1 of 3

17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
The Charlotte IMF is located on the west side of the Charlotte Douglas International Airport WLT) and immediately north of West
Boulevard. The Charlotte IMF includes areas north of West Boulevard and continues to the esisting railroad tracks on the north end of the
airport. (See figures I and 2.)
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features$
Sec attached narrative.
19. Project Purpose (Describe The reason or purpose of the project, see inslructlons)
See attached nanativc.
USE BLOCKS 20.23 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL. MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
See attached narrative.
21. Types) of Material Being Discharged and the Atnount of Each Type In Cubic Yards:
Type Type Type
Amount in Cubic Yards Amount In Cubic Yards Amount In Cubic Yards
Culvert in 1,807 linear feet of stream Clean fill appro.simately 3,300 cubic yards See attached narrative
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Dther Waters Filed (see instructions)
Arses 0.00
or
Linear Feet 1,807 linear feet of stream
23. Description of Avoidance. Minkrdzatlon, and Compensation (see Instructions)
See attached narrative.
ENG FORM 4345, OCT 2012 Page 2 013

24. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? OYes Do IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
All work discussed in the permit application has been completed.
25. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc, Whose Property Adjoins the Walerbody III mae than Can baeniered hoe. pease AUM 4 appletnaMI IN)
a Address- Jack Christine, Charlotte Douglas International Airport, Post Office Box 19066
CRY - Charlotte State - NC Zip - 28219
b Address-
CRY - State - Zip -
c. Address -
City - Stale - Zip -
d. Address -
City - Slate - Zlp -
e. Address -
CRY - Stale - Zip -
26. List of Other Certificates or Approiralsr0enlals received from other Federal, Slate, or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL, IDENTIFICATION DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
NC DWQ 401 concurrently pending
NC EEP mitigation May 14, 2013
NCDLR Sediment and erosion see attached narrative
City of Charlotte Storm -water LDX- 2013 -00022 June 4, 2013
' Would Include but is not restricted to Zoning, building, and flood plain perrnits
27. Application is hereby made for permit or penrdts to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that this Rtforrriatlon In this applkcittian Is
co'nPIBJP and accurate. I further certify that I possess the aulhodly to undertake fie work described herein as the duly authorized agent of the
appl'
7 -041
1 '4( --f /-,.— - MAW 7 6 A 4
3
T E OF AP LICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
e Application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorised agent Hthe statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.0 Section 1001 provides that: Vdtwever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the united States
kno Wngly and Wilfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or dtsgulses a material fed or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing some to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or entry, shag be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both
ENG FORM 4345, Ocr m2 Page 3 of 3

CLearWaLer
Department of the Anny
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Attn: Scott McLendon, Chief Regulatory Division
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402 -1890
-and-
NC Division of Water Quality
Attn: Karen Higgins
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650
The current lessee of the property identified below hereby authorizes Clearwater
Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CEC) to act on its behalf as its agent during the
processing of permits to impact Wetlands and Waters of the US that are regulated by the
Clean Water Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act for the purpose of providing
supplemental information needed for pennit processing at the request of the Department
of the Anny Corps of Engineers or the North Carolina Division of Water Quality.
Property Owner of Record: City of Charlotte
Property Owner Address: 600 East Fourth Street, Charlotte. NC 28202
Lessee: Norfolk Southern Railway Company, Attn: Jack McLain
Assistant Chief Engineer Design
Lessee Address: 1200 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone Number: 404 -529 -1331
Property Location: 5610 West Blvd. Charlotte N.C. 28217
c
Lessee Signature:
Date:
2f4 South Grove Street, Suite F
Hendersonville, NC 28792
Phone: [phone]
+xrxvw.cwenv.com

ENG FORM 4345 ATTACHMENT:
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT NORFOLK
SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
This attachment includes additional narrative to complete the enumerated sections of the
application and supplemental information for agency decision - making for this application.
15. Locations of Project
Lat/Long of Culvert Extension 1
35.22934N -80.96921W
Lat/Long of Culvert Extension 2
35.23017N - 80.96516W
Lat/Long of Culvert Extension 3
35.22699N - 80.94144W
Lat/Long of Center of Filled Area 4
35.19806N - 80.96528W
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
Norfolk Southern Railway Company (Norfolk Southern) proposes to construct, own, and operate a
new intermodal facility (IMF) known as the Charlotte Douglas Airport Intermodal Facility
(Charlotte IMF) to increase freight transportation capacity in the Charlotte, North Carolina region
and to meet current and future demands for freight transportation to and from locations served by
the Norfolk Southern railroad network. An IMF is a facility where freight is transferred from one
transportation mode to another — in this case, between trains and trucks — to efficiently deliver
freight over long distances. Intermodal transportation provides for domestic and worldwide freight
to be transported in sealed containers or trailers directly from shippers to warehouses, retail stores,
plants, and other businesses. Intermodal trains provide the "long- haul" while trucks provide the
local delivery and pick -up ( "short- haul ").
To meet operational requirements, the primary components needed for the IMF are:
■ Double lead to connect the facility to the Norfolk Southern main track.
■ A 13,977' running track parallel to the main track.
■ A 9,426' switching track parallel to the main track.
• A 4,806 set -off track for through- trains to set -off and pick up rail cars destined for the
facility.
• Three pad tracks totaling 13,225' for transferring trailers and containers from rail cars
to trucks.
■ Seven storage tracks providing 21,065' of storage.
• Engine track for storage of rail cars.
■ Paved areas for approximately 1,353 trailer parking spaces.
• Several small administration, maintenance, and operations buildings located on the
support yard pad necessary for transportation operations, security, and maintenance;
and

■ Equipment maintenance pad with spill control, stormwater management features and
related facilities.
In April 2012, Norfolk Southern began construction of the Charlotte IMF on property leased from
Charlotte Douglas International Airport ( "CLT") under Department of the Army Section 404
Permit Number 2006 -32521 -360, issued to CLT originally on March 27, 2007 and modified and
reissued on June 15, 2009, for the expansion of the airport (the "Airport Permit "). The permit
authorizes the placement of fill into 22,559 linear feet of streams, 1.148 acres of wetlands, and
7.522 acres of ponds. When construction of the Charlotte IMF commenced, Norfolk Southern
believed that all waters of the United States that would be impacted by the project were included in
the impact area of the Airport Permit. (See Figure 3.) In March 2013, Norfolk Southern
discovered that approximately 1807 linear feet of tributaries within the project boundaries were
not included in the impact area of the Airport Permit. Norfolk Southern reported this discrepancy
immediately to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality ( "DWQ ") of the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources and to the Ashville Field Office of the
Wilmington District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( "USACOE" or "Corps. "), and met in
person with representatives of these agencies very soon thereafter. This permit application is
being submitted for the areas within the project boundaries of the Charlotte IMF that include
approximately 1807 feet of tributaries, including: 1) approximately 1561 linear feet of tributaries
of Beaverdam Creek at the southern end of the Charlotte IMF; 2) an area at the northwestern end of
the Charlotte IMF that contains 207 feet of culvert extensions on unnamed tributaries of Ticer
Creek; and 3) an area at the northeastern end of the Charlotte IMF that contains a 39 foot culvert
extension on an unnamed tributary of Coffey Creek. (See Figure 4.) The areas that contain the
newly discovered impacts are referred to herein collectively as the Permitted Area. The Permitted
Area is an integral and inseparable part of the Charlotte IMF. The southern part of the Permitted
Area will contain the south end of the craneway used to transfer containers from trucks to trains
and vice versa. It will also contain the southern part of the loading and unloading tracks. In the
northern parts of the Permitted Area, the culvert extensions were installed for the purpose of
building side tracks to provide an interface between the Norfolk Southern mainline and the
Charlotte IMF and to provide critical rail -based structures for operation of the IMF, including
storage tracks, switching tracks, and a parallel running track.
19. Project Purpose
The primary purpose of the Charlotte IMF is to meet interstate rail transportation demand,
including demand for rail/truck intermodal transportation in the Charlotte region. The Charlotte
IMF will take advantage of the flexibility of using trucks for more localized pickups and deliveries
and the efficiency and environmental benefits of trains for long haul moves. Construction of the
Charlotte IMF at CLT will enhance Charlotte's existing mix of air, truck, logistics and distribution
facilities. The location of the Charlotte IMF at the CLT minimizes the impact of the project by
utilizing existing infrastructure for nearby existing transportation facilities. The primary truck
access for the Charlotte IMF will be a new 1 -485 interchange less than a mile away via a section of
West Boulevard, which has was relocated as part of a CLT runway construction project. Each
shipment handled at the Charlotte IMF will mean one less long- distance truck traveling on
highways in North Carolina and other states, as with similar Norfolk Southern intermodal facilities
in other southeastern regions. Construction of the Charlotte IMF began on or around April 16,
2012 and is expected-to be completed in December 2013. It has been designed to accommodate
2

current needs for additional IMF capacity and to allow expansion as additional capacity becomes
necessary in the future.
Norfolk Southern currently operates a Charlotte intermodal facility approximately one mile
northeast of downtown Charlotte. The existing facility currently is constrained by physical and
operational limitations. In addition, area roadway congestion hampers efficient ingress and egress
to the facility. The new IMF will address the additional demand for intermodal capacity into the
foreseeable future. The Permitted Area is an integral and necessary part of the Charlotte IMF
without which the project cannot be completed. The discharges of fill in the southern part of the
Permitted Area were part of the land clearing and leveling required for construction of the
Charlotte IMF. This area will contain the south end of the craneway used to transfer containers
from trucks to trains and vice versa and the southern part of the loading and unloading tracks, both
of which are critical components of the Charlotte IMF. The culvert extensions within the
Permitted Area were installed for the purpose of building side tracks to allow temporary storage of
rail cars to be loaded and unloaded at the IMF and for switch tracks and a parallel running track.
The project cannot be operated without these integral components.
20. Reasons for Discharge
The Airport Permit was intended to cover all areas that would be affected by CLT's construction as
well as construction of the IMF. However, when construction of the Charlotte IMF began, it was
determined that the Permitted Area was not within the area of the Airport Permit, but Norfolk
Southern was not aware of this omission. This inadvertent omission is believed to have resulted, at
least in part, by the relocation of West Boulevard to its existing alignment to the south of its
original location and the fact that the area between the old alignment and the new alignment was
not included in the area covered by the Airport Permit because of an oversight. Likewise, the three
culvert extensions in the northern part of the Permitted Area were constructed in the belief they
were within the scope of the Airport Permit, which addressed the fill of Waters of the United States
in the vicinity of the culverts.
21. Types of Material Discharged and Amount of Earth in Cubic Yards
Type of fill: 1,807 linear feet of culvert and approximately 3,500 cubic yards of clean fill
material. Primarily native soils from Charlotte IMF site and adjacent CLT projects.
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled
The impacts permitted in the Airport Permit include impacts associated with development within
the Permitted Area of the IMF include fill deposited in unnamed tributaries to Beaverdam Creek,
unnamed tributaries to Ticer Creek, and unnamed tributary to Coffey Creek. There are
approximately 1,807 linear feet of impacted stream, as follows (Figure 4):
Impact
Linear Feet
Culvert Extension 1
57
Culvert Extension 2
150
Culvert Extension 3
39
Tributaries
1,561
Total
1,807

23. Description of Avoidance, Minimization and Compensation.
Avoidance and Minimization of Environmental Impacts - The location of the Charlotte IMF,
within an area already impacted by substantial existing and planned airport construction and
expansion, minimizes impacts on the natural environment, including wildlife. The existing airport
facilities have reduced the desirability of the area for wildlife because of noise, human presence
and other effects. Placing the IMF within the already affected area will therefore minimize and
avoid additional impacts from the construction and operation of the IMF in another, less impacted
area. Given the purposes of the IMF - which must accommodate interstate freight rail, including
trains of up to 9,000 feet in length, loading and unloading machinery, and locations for cargo
trailers - the options for further minimization and avoidance while meeting the project purpose and
need are limited. In addition, to meet the purpose and need for the project, the location of the IMF
must be in close proximity to existing Norfolk Southern mainline tracks.
Compensation - Norfolk Southern proposes to compensate for impacts in the Permitted Area by
payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), which is an "in -lieu
fee" mitigation program established by the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (NCDENR), in accordance with the ACOE/EPA rules regarding Compensatory
Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources. 73 Fed. Reg. 19594 (April 10, 2008.) ( "2008
Mitigation Rule. ") By letter dated May 14, 2013, the EEP conditionally approved Norfolk
Southern's participation in the EEP program, which would allow Norfolk Southern to pay the EEP
in mitigation for impacts to 1,807 feet of stream impacts in the Permitted Area. (See Attachment
1.) The Mitigation will be performed in accordance with the NCDENR's Ecosystem
Enhancement Program In -Lieu Fee Instrument dated July 28, 2010, which was approved in
accordance with the 2008 Mitigation Rule. Final approval of participation in the EEP program by
Norfolk Southern for this project is conditioned upon approval of this application by ACOE and
other applicable permitting agencies. The required amount of mitigation is also subject to agency
approval.
24. Work Completed
The 1,807 feet of streams in the Permitted Area, as described in Section 22, above, have been filled
in the construction of the Charlotte IMF. In addition, the stream, wetland and open water impacts
described in paragraph 18 that were originally permitted by the Airport Permit have been filled.
The inadvertent omission of the stream impacts in the Permitted Area is believed to have resulted,
at least in part, by the relocation of West Boulevard to its existing alignment to the south of its
original location and the fact that the area between the old alignment and the new alignment was
not included in the area covered by the Airport Permit because of an oversight. Likewise, the three
culvert extensions in the northern part of the Permitted Area were constructed in the belief they
were within the scope of the Airport Permit, which addressed the fill of Waters of the United States
in the vicinity of the culverts.
4

25. Names and Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners.
The adjoining property owners and their addresses are as follows:
Charlotte Douglas International Airport
Attn: Jack Christine, City of Charlotte, N.C.
PO Box 19066
Charlotte, NC 28219
26. Denials or Approvals from Other Agencies
Simultaneously with this application, application is made to the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) for the North Carolina 401 Water Quality Certification, pursuant to Section 401(a)
of the Federal Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1341(a). As a condition of the 401 Certification,
Norfolk Southern received approval on June 4, 2013 for Intermodal Water Quality BMP
Treatment Plan LDX- 2013 -00022 for the Permitted Area from the City of Charlotte. A copy of
this approval is being sent to DWQ. The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
is an "in -lieu fee" mitigation program established by the North Carolina Department of
Environmental and Natural Resources, in accordance with the ACOE/EPA rules regarding
Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources. 73 Fed. Reg. 19594. (April 10, 2008.)
By letter dated May 14, 2013, the EEP conditionally approved Norfolk Southern's participation in
the EEP program, which would allow Norfolk Southern to pay the EEP in mitigation for impacts to
1,807 feet of stream impacts in the Permitted Area. (See Attachment 1.) Final approval of
participation in the EEP program by Norfolk Southern for this project is conditioned upon
approval of this application by ACOE and other applicable permitting agencies. The required
amount of mitigation is also subject to agency approval.
27. See permit application Eng. Form 4345
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
This document supplements the information required by the foregoing "Application for
Department of the Army Permit," ENG Form 4345, including information for use in determining
how the proposed action satisfies applicable Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines for Specification of
Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material, 40 C.F.R. Part 230, to the extent the Guidelines criteria
are not addressed in the text of Form 4345.
1. Alternatives Analysis for Charlotte IMF. including the Permitted Area
NS considered four alternatives to siting the Charlotte IMF at the CLT site: 1) no- action; 2)
expansion of existing intermodal facility downtown Charlotte, N.C., at 1803 North Brevard Street;
3) alternative location; and 4) proposed project at the CLT location. They are described as follows:
a) No Action

Norfolk Southern has experienced an increasing demand for intermodal shipments in the Charlotte
area and projects that this demand will grow to approximately 250,000 truck -to -train movements
annually by 2019. The existing Norfolk Southern intermodal facility, located approximately one
mile northeast of downtown Charlotte, has an efficient capacity of approximately 120,000 annual
units, which has been frequently exceeded in the 12 years since planning for the current project
began. The consequence of exceeding the current capacity is that service to customers has not
been efficient or cost - effective and has required the use of four off -site trailer parking lots to
supplement the capacity of the existing facility, which has resulted in truck traffic in the area.
Under the no- action alternative, Norfolk Southern would not be able to sufficiently increase its
capacity to handle intermodal shipments to meet demand and thus would not be able to realize the
increase in efficiency provided by the IMF. While the no- action alternative would cause minimal
to no impacts to wetlands, streams and other waters, the benefits of the project would not be
achieved.
b) Expand Existing IMF
The existing Norfolk Southern intermodal facility in downtown Charlotte, N.C., at 1803 North
Brevard Street is surrounded on the west by a railroad yard needed to support other,
non - intermodal rail traffic in the Charlotte area, and on the other three sides by residential and
commercial development. In order to construct the Expand Existing alternative, Norfolk
Southern would need to purchase and demolish several surrounding commercial and residential
properties, which would cause substantial impacts to residential and commercial uses and would
be unnecessarily costly, if available. Initial review of necessary demolition, construction, access
and land availability indicated that significant feasibility and cost - effectiveness issues exist for the
expansion of the existing facility. Because of the physical constraints, impacts and cost, this
alternative was determined to not be the preferred alternative.
c) Alternative Location
Norfolk Southern considered alternative locations for developing an intermodal facility along the
existing rail line to eliminate environmental impacts associated with constructing the new
Charlotte IMF. To meet the purpose and need of the IMF, alternative locations must be located in
close proximity to the existing mainline, have suitable space to accommodate trains of up to 9,000
feet in length, have room for associated truck and trailer movement and parking, be proximate to
highways and other infrastructure, all while minimizing the impact of the operation of the IMF.
No alternate locations exist along the existing line that offer the benefits of the location of the
Charlotte IMF site with the comparative lack of environmental and social impacts from locating on
the CLT property. The Charlotte IMF site utilizes an area on CLT property between airport
runways which does not involve condemnation of private properties, the displacement of homes or
businesses or zoning changes. The proximity to airport operations with the existing noise and
human presence associated with airline operations also means impacts to wildlife and human
habitation will be less than for alternative locations in the Charlotte area. It has therefore been
determined that there are no feasible alternative locations.
d) Proposed Facility
2

Construction of the Charlotte IMF will enhance Charlotte's existing mix of air, truck, logistics, and
distribution facilities and is consistent with continued growth in the area and with regional
economic goals. Charlotte is one of the United States' fastest growing metropolitan areas and the
CLT is one of the busiest airports in the country. Norfolk Southern has determined that providing
additional intermodal capacity in other geographic areas would not meet its operational needs and
thus could not satisfy the purpose and need of the action. Increased intermodal capacity is needed
in the Charlotte region, a market that cannot be fully served by intermodal facilities in other
regions. The advantages of the proposed location included the following:
Increased overall transportation efficiency - An intermodal train can carry the equivalent of
several hundred truckloads of freight.' A ton of freight transported by rail travels an average of 469
miles on one gallon of fuel, while a ton of freight transported by a truck requires approximately
four times as much fuel to travel the same distance.Z In addition to providing an efficient freight
transportation alternative to long -haul trucks, the proposed Charlotte IMF will provide
supplemental benefits by of reducing highway congestion and vehicle miles traveled, improving
highway safety, and providing energy - efficient and environmentally - friendly freight
transportation.
Efficient Rail Access - NS's double track mainline through Charlotte passes immediately adjacent
to the CLT, which enables the Charlotte IMF to be built next to the mainline by utilizing only
Norfolk Southern and CLT property, and to be designed so as to minimize effects on other
mainline trains. By using "wye" tracks, triangular shaped arrangements of railway tracks with a
switch (point) at each corner from both directions, the mainline can be linked to the proposed IMF
with minimal disruption of existing rail traffic, enabling trains carrying containers to be efficiently
diverted into the IMF for offloading onto trucks.
Efficient Highway Access - The proposed IMF will be sited within one mile of the new I -485
interchange via a newly built section of West Boulevard that was relocated in connection with a
CLT runway construction project. This proximity to the interchange provides efficient access for
trucks to and from the IMF and consequently helps minimize the impacts of traffic on local roads,
limits emissions, decreases fuel consumption and increase overall efficiency.
Compatible Land Use - The proposed IMF will be located entirely on CLT property to be leased by
NS; no other properties will be affected, except for the modifications to Norfolk Southern tracks
for ingress and egress to the IMF. The site will be surrounded on three sides by the CLT runways
and taxiways and on the fourth by West Boulevard and will not present significant visual
disruption to local residents. Moreover, by siting the IMF in proximity to airport runways, impacts
to residents and wildlife from additional noise will be minimal.
Availability of Additional Property for Expansion - The proposed IMF site next to the CLT
contains sufficient property to meet projected Charlotte region intermodal needs for the
foreseeable future.
'American Association of Railroads, "Rail Intenmodal Keeps America Moving"
hgps:// www. aar .org(keyissues /DocumentsBackS ound- Papers /Rail- intermodal.pdf.
2American Association of Railroads, "Freight Rail, Moving More Goods on Less Fuel."
hgp: / /freightrailworks.org /fuel /.
7

Proximity to the CLT and existing industrial users - The proposed IMF will be close to existing
industrial warehousing in the vicinity of the CLT, offering customers additional options for cargo
shipments by truck, rail and air. The additional options provide transportation efficiencies that
will minimize impacts on roads, human habitation, air emissions and fuel consumption.
Avoidance and Minimization of Environmental Impacts - Locating the Charlotte IMF within an
area already impacted by substantial existing and planned airport construction and expansion
minimizes impacts on the natural environment, including wildlife. The existing airport facilities
have reduced the desirability of the area for wildlife because of noise, human presence and other
effects. Placing the IMF within the already affected area will therefore minimize and avoid
additional impacts from the construction and operation of the IMF in another, less impacted area.
Given the purposes of the IMF, which must be a certain length and width for efficient operations,
the options for further minimization and avoidance without undue expense and impacts to
efficiency are limited.
For the reasons set forth above, given the overall scope and cost of the proposed project., the
proposed facility is believed to be the best practicable alternative for the Charlotte IMF.
2. Current Characteristics and Conditions of Charlotte IMF and Permitted Area
The site of the Charlotte IMF, including the Permitted Area, is currently cleared and graded for
construction and the footings and foundations of certain structures have been installed or are
currently being installed. The Charlotte IMF site is permitted for construction storm water
discharges under North Carolina General Permit No. NCG- 010000, and contains best
management practices for storm water and sedimentation control. When construction is
completed, the site will contain: 1) structures for the IMF, 2) paved access, and 3) vegetated areas.
The project site is located within the Piedmont physiographic region of North Carolina and more
specifically the Southern Outer Piedmont Ecoregion. Soils are characterized by deep saprolite and
mostly red, clayey subsoils. Soil series present on the site include Cecil, Cecil -Urban Land
complex, Helena, Mecklenburg, Pacolet, and Vance. A soils map and legend have been attached
for review. (See Figure 5.)
The impacted streams are first order tributaries of Beaverdam, Coffey and Ticer Creeks, which are
in the Catawba River basin (HUC Codes 03050101 and 03050103) and flow ultimately into the
Catawba River or Lake Wylie. Like all other North Carolina waters, Beaverdam, Coffey and Ticer
Creeks, are on the North Carolina list of impaired streams (303(d) List) for mercury, but are not
listed for other impairments.
3. Federal Environmental Impact Statement and Categorical Exclusion Document.
As discussied in the Application for Department of the Army Permit, except for the Permitted Area,
the Charl6tte IMF' is within the area permitted under the Airport Permit (Permit Number
2006 -32521 -360) that was originally issued to CLT for the expansion of the airport and was
_modified al ld reissued July 2009. The Airport Permit permitted impacts to 22,559 linear feet of
streams, 048 a6reg 6f wetlands, and 7.522 acres of ponds. Construction of the Charlotte IMF was
8

intendW to be covered by the Airport Permit. Compliance with the National Environmental Policy
Act, of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. section 4321, et seq., for the Airport Permit was pursuant to a
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) by the Federal Aviation Administration in 1999 for
a proposed, new parallel runway, runway extensions and associated work. A discussion within the
cumulative impacts section of the EIS described the construction of an intermodal facility and
associated impacts. Following the 1999 FEIS, the FAA modified Air Traffic Control procedures
related to minimum spacing distances between parallel runways forcing a reevaluation of the
proposed federal action. In 2006, the FAA approved a written re- evaluation of the FEIS. In the
2006 Written Re- evaluation, the proposed IMF was shown entirely on airport-owned land (or land
the airport was in the process of obtaining following the 1999 FEIS) in between the existing
runway 18R/36L and the new fourth runway. Following the 2006 written re- evaluation, the City of
Charlotte — through its Aviation Department — and Norfolk Southern, reached a preliminary
agreement to build an IMF in the vicinity of the CLT to replace Norfolk Southern's existing facility
near downtown Charlotte. On September 25, 2008, the Federal Highway Administration issued a
Categorical Exclusion document for the Charlotte IMF, which evaluated the need for the proposed
IMF, the alternatives for the project and detailed the anticipated environmental impacts. (See
Attachment 2.)
4. Potential Impacts to Physical and Chemical Characteristics of the Aquatic
Ecosystem.
The fill material placed in the identified jurisdictional streams in the Permitted Area consists of
primarily native soil from the Charlotte IMF and other locations on adjacent CLT property and
culverts and French drains. Construction activities were conducted pursuant to Clean Water Act
NPDES Permit No. NCG 010000 (storm water general permit) and included required best
management practices (`BMPs ") for the project. Consistent with the permit and BMPs,
construction may have caused a minimal increase in suspended particulates increased turbidity
downstream. Any increase in turbidity is anticipated to be temporary in that proper sediment and
erosion control measures during and after construction have been and will continue to be
implemented. The discharge of fill material in the Permitted Area and the remainder of the
Charlotte IMF is not likely to cause an increase in pollutants within the aquatic ecosystem. The
discharge of fill material may have temporarily modified water circulation patterns, velocity and
flow, but physical characteristics of the aquatic ecosystem will be stabilized when construction is
completed to minimize long term impacts on baseflow. A Stormwater Prevention Plan is in place
as required by the General Stormwater Permit and, as a condition of the 401 Certification, Norfolk
Southern has submitted and received approval for a Storm Water Treatment Plan for the Permitted
Area from the City of Charlotte. (The applicant will be concurrently applying for a Water Quality
Certification from the NC Division of Water Quality.) Because the project is located inland and
away from tidally influenced waters and wetlands, no changes to the salinity of on -site or adjacent
waters is expected.
5. Potential Impacts on Biological Characteristics of the Aquatic Ecosystem.
Endangered Species: Surveys for federally protected species were conducted as part of the FEIS.
The reviewed area,-encompassed the Charlotte IMF and the Permitted Area. The US Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) concurred in their letter dated December 4, 1998 that the project will-not
affect endangered of'threatened species or their habitats. Norfolk Southern contractor C1earWater
w

Environmental C' &i'sultants, Inc. ( "ClearWater ") conducted a survey within the proposed project
area during the floNSering season (September 16 and 21, 2005) for listed species known to occur in' .
Mecklenburg County'(Helianthus schweinitzii). A copy of the subsequent report was forwarded to
the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and FWS in October of 2005. In a letter dated October
27, 2005, the FWS agreed that the proposed project would not adversely affect species listed as
threatened or endangered (See Attachment 3). C1earWater conducted an additional survey in
September of 2006 along the third runway and Wallace Neel Road areas prior to construction. A
copy of the survey results was submitted to the FWS and the Corps in October of 2006. (See
Attachment 4). The surveys referred to above, and the FWS approval, encompass the Permitted
Area.
Wildlife. Activities related to the CLT and surrounding roads limit the amount of wildlife
utilizing the area. The minimal loss of forested areas will result in the loss of some wildlife habitat.
To the extent wildlife is affected, the effects will be limited to species requiring forest and
scrub /shrub habitat. Noise pollution, denuded vegetation, and human activity make this area less
desirable for resident and migrant wildlife. While a loss of wildlife habitat for stream- dependent
species may have resulted from construction of the project, the proposed mitigation will
compensate for any minor loss of habitat. The loss of aquatic organisms in the filled streams
includes primarily small fish and amphibians, macroinvertebrates, and aquatic and streamside
vegetation. These losses will be replaced by mitigation, as discussed above and in the application
form for this Department of the Army Permit.
6. Potential Impacts on Special Aquatic Sites.
There are no wetlands or other special aquatic sites located within the Permitted Area for this
permit application. Streams within the Charlotte IMF footprint include unnamed tributaries to
Beaverdam Creek, unnamed tributaries to Ticer Creek, and unnamed tributary to Coffey Creek. In
the Permitted Area, approximately 1,807 linear feet of stream were impacted.
7. Potential Effects on Human Use Characteristics.
Construction of the Charlotte IMF, including the Permitted Area will have no material effect on
public water supply, recreational and commercial fisheries, or waterborne recreation in or near the
Charlotte IMF site. There are no known significant recreational or commercial fishing sites or
waterborne recreation areas within the Charlotte IMF footprint or in the vicinity of the site, and
any impacts on water quality should not affect downstream commercial or recreational
opportunities. Water quality in and downstream of the affected streams will be addressed during
construction with a sediment and erosion control plan for construction activities under the North
Carolina Storm Water General Permit for the Charlotte IMF construction site, including the
Permitted Area. For post - construction activities, water quality will be protected by
implementation of a Storm Water Treatment Plan to be approved by the City of Charlotte (as
delegated by the State of North Carolina) in connection with the required North Carolina Water
Quality Certification. The stormwater treatment plan for the permitted area was approved June 4,
2013. Aesthetically, the Charlotte IMF is consistent with adjacent uses by CLT for runways and
aviation - related functions, and should have no significant impact to the visual distinctiveness,
diversity or compositional harmony of the area. Moreover, the impacts to waters should have no
impact on the aesthetic values to the neighboring property owners.
10

8. Evaluation of Fill Material
Soil used as fill material at the Charlotte IMF site and in the Permitted Area was taken from the site
itself and consists primarily of native soils. In the Permitted Area, certain lengths of the impacted
streams contain, in addition to soil, culverts and French drains composed of stone, concrete, plastic
pipe and fabric, all of which was new material designed to be used for the purpose and believed to
be reasonably free of contaminants. Overall, the fill used at the Charlotte IMF and in the Permitted
Area was of a nature that Norfolk Southern is reasonably assured that the discharged material is
not a carrier of contaminants.
9. Actions to Minimize Adverse Effects
As described in the analysis of alternatives, locating the Charlotte IMF within an area already
impacted by substantial existing and planned airport construction and expansion minimizes
impacts on the natural environment, including wildlife by avoiding additional impacts from the
construction and operation of the IMF in another, less impacted area. Given the purposes of the
IMF, which must be a certain length and width for efficient operations, the options for further
minimization and avoidance without undue expense and impacts to efficiency are limited. The
Storm Water Treatment Plan for the completed facility has been designed to minimize impacts to
water quality and off -site impacts to waters.
10. Cultural and Historic Resources
A survey for cultural and historic resources was conducted as a part of the FEIS. As a result of the
survey and pursuant to 36 CFR 800.6(b)(1), CLT entered into a MOA with the NC State Historic
Preservation Office and the Federal Aviation Administration on January 6, 2000. The MOA has
been included for review (See Attachment 5). This survey encompassed the Permitted Area.
11

Figures 1 and 2
Directions /Location Map
USGS Topographic Map — Charlotte West Quadrangle

74
Qw
Norfolk Southern Intermodal Facility
a
0
•
E
T�
Wilkinson Blvd
01w
'4
c
if
im
E •��� Ra
d f�
Jwl
14
e Rd
as
L ake
Wylie
Am-
0
a
Rd
LI
w�tki j
�/wd R d
■ -a+- ..-4
Ago
� S
■
Disturbed Area
.... Int'i Airport
160
v`
Legend 160
Disturbed Area Sh oP
tin R d w
Jrawn by RLN 04.01.13, Project# 703
Mecklenburg County,
North Carolina
CLearWater
224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792
/''a
'1 •�d
�1
0100
0
W•st
tD
1
'0410
r0
4
Re N
E
0 0.25 0.5 1
Miles
Site Vicinity
Figure 1
or
�b
Us
L ake
Wylie
Am-
0
a
Rd
LI
w�tki j
�/wd R d
■ -a+- ..-4
Ago
� S
■
Disturbed Area
.... Int'i Airport
160
v`
Legend 160
Disturbed Area Sh oP
tin R d w
Jrawn by RLN 04.01.13, Project# 703
Mecklenburg County,
North Carolina
CLearWater
224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792
/''a
'1 •�d
�1
0100
0
W•st
tD
1
'0410
r0
4
Re N
E
0 0.25 0.5 1
Miles
Site Vicinity
Figure 1

Norfolk Southern Intermodal Facility

Figure 3
Airport Permit Impact Map, Department of the Army Section 404 Permit No. 2006 - 32521 -360

'II
j I zelTe.el.sX)
I ten u I
I r`
1
I IL 15 ' 1 •`. IK 6
1 7b lF 19 deli
1
-
810LF f
0U
sn LF •
MI6 18U
9plF t0 mV
NU
9151E f t0 WETIAN
a pl AC (21
i
I /
1 Ill
1 lI
Ii
1
1�
II
11
' Ir
I II
1
I I�
1
11
111
Pt POND
I n x1 u a,roAClo
t8t LF 120
111
11 II It
11 �••
1 I 11 WI II8 Yt U
1 19301E 19 22ILF t
4,
11 {1 Vf 118
1 l4 roOIF IN)
t\ 1 {•
it POND Ut U
I2314ACS VOLFz
1
11
� 4 52 118
'1 994 LF 22 ,
J' �,•
Rt U
235 U 291
at WETLAND
a101•f r
420 is "• � ` 11
W{f
~• lY 2042E OS
••• alp I a101(8(
1P MT11
11
IT POND
—10M r `F
IR U U-1 D
+
WAS
16V 1
U •
"' lw
X0./ s . 61 1
11 1 ~
r
•
I ' Am
n :�
OAI 00, L
1 9F 1410 0990 0.
0. 0088
'� 'e'1•w 31w o43e
IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
2 J ,.,6 ��������� STREAM CHANNEL (IIS)
TOTALS 3.200 0.990 0.842 11.1X16 0,420
POND FEATURES JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
IMPACTED BY PROJECT (ACRES) PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS)
ID TOTAL AYOX1EO UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
133, , -� --- STREAM CHANNEL (UI)
1 'T a 1szl iszt
a 3c e.lee 3., oa I TYPICAL FEATURE CALLOUT
PI
JURISDK:TIDNA� FEATURE TYPE
2.
ARFJL ID Z IIS OR CATEGORY
.' 1
`I
14
OT21 AC 167
4nLF MI u
STREAM
TOTAL
11
Mt 16
9291E
p2 Nt U
I LF 1311
#
I
AREA
EVALUATION
LENGTH
LINEAR OISTANCES (K)
LINEARdSTANCE9(N)
BLUE LINE
1
f)
OU
FORM
6
I{ t 113
• 3LF (32
PFIOJECT IMPACTS
1
I IL27 LF 1231 �.
Li MS
N115
0 0.170
j
,1
280U Y21 ; 541E (31)
%plog
6
8
MHM_,
111
(1
JI WETLAND
1
I
II
&409
AC (12)
11
-
xt 6
0.
0.849 0
I
1
I1
II
201E 127)
1
4
,1
J, FOND
324/2010
1611
Ns
�
1'
2048 AC (6)
461E
F
2
11
ti
20
IF
2195
JI
1011E
11
3
1
2
ll
1 '•
1
zu u
IIS
l
ae ti
009 LF {•�
, 1
45
1
%A
-1 1`1311i
0012 AC (7)
2i
I!
F1 U
962 LF (34)
,f
WA
B
5
2D 82F
1 l
1910
--
300
WA
fl
I1
I ,1
4
1K
O
11
II
II
3146
,1
IMermXlenl
I�
,�
4
?Y U
� I,
273 U (A51
1,
11
311
IMermYlenl
4
6
is
230
"LF(I
5
230
2X 85
Intermittent
10
1 / 8
1,334 LF 1441
ti DI
UI
1
AI P8 Al U 123 LF
611E 41 ;93US41)
(N
_ roU13W
BI U
MIF
1
8
2Z
EI 113
zIaLF. 1z
� %"
I E1 U
WA
I I. 92EI 4z
T
8
IN
376
OX
II
WA
13
1,8
4,
to U
1,326
D
0
p v TT
a16AC I
•
J
D
1
STREAM FEATURES
REM
PAGE
JURISDIC NAL
STREAM
TOTAL
IMPORTANT STREAMS (n) 6(115)
UNIMPORTANT (UO
USGS
#
INDEX
AREA
EVALUATION
LENGTH
LINEAR OISTANCES (K)
LINEARdSTANCE9(N)
BLUE LINE
_1.3&1
— 1.521
1.521
0.1
FORM
6
30
AVOIDED
PFIOJECT IMPACTS
AVOIDED
PROJECT
0 0.170
5
8
_P1
T1
%plog
6
8
MHM_,
0 2.045
PIIOJECTaPROJECT= TOTAL
1
IMPACTS
0232
0.-'2 0
2B
_
No 10
0.
0.849 0
1
4
(Tian B. N
19
324/2010
1611
Perennial
2
4.5
ti
20
L
2195
Intermillem
3
1
2
1
2C
45
%A
5
4,5
2i
844
WA
B
5
2D 82F
22
1910
300
WA
7
4
1K
17
3,218
3146
72
IMermXlenl
B
4
10
311
311
IMermYlenl
9
6
is
230
230
Intermittent
10
1 / 8
1 1M
393
321
]2
WA
11
8
2Z
16
556
WA
12
8
IN
376
OX
WA
13
1,8
IL
1,326
7%
540
WA
14
15
1P
369
380
369
IMmmiaem
15
5
1R
39
N/A
18
5
1U
167
1
167
NIA
17
7
1W
138
136
N/A
18
7
1X
18
4a4
484
PerennW
19
6
Wl
930
866
61
930
Inlerm -M
20
6
X1
15
181
101
N/A
21
8
Y1
227
227lMermit-
22
8
S2
13
694
631
63
694
Int t1nt
23
8
U1
463
N/A
24
6.8
V1
700
]00
700
N/A
25
6.8
V2
14
345
34
N/A
26
8
11
9
2,127
2046
E1
2127
Imerm4lenl
27
8
K1
20
20
20
N/A
28
8
Lt
260
260
260
In1e Mm
29
8.9
R1
12
235
235
N/A
30
8
M1
10
1,101
629
629
472
N/A
31
8,9
N1
11
t
264
254
104
1
32
a
0
5
5
WA
9
"'
H
40
40
N/A
34
10
F1
8
1829
1217
I
552
In1e,m11ent N/A
35
11
251
68
68
In1elmDeM
36
11
2R1
231
231
InlermilleM
37
11
2U
I'M
1541
236
Intermh-
38
13
DI
126
126
WA
39
13
CI
]0
]O
lN—ktenl
40
13
B1
49
49
WA
/1
I
A
6.7
1.444
74
SIT
951
493
N/A
12
13
E1
530
77
133
2101
320
WA
0.1
11,11
2W
892
882
Intermillant
N
11, 14
2X
1864
664
901
900
300
lntennXlem
45
11
2Y
330
57
57
2l3
WA
46
1314
to
4
1,220
453
503
264
lmetmtent -WA
47
13
1H
5
589
418
171
N/A
48
15
Ca C
2
386
277
109
Perennial
49
15
2K(Cdby Creek)
1.592
1592
Perennial
50
15
2L
1
1 2%
1295
Irllerminent
51
14,15
2H83D
3
1,468
2ta
1250
IMe�m'n1e�f
52
14,15
3E
94
94
WA
53
15
1D
5,7
SI7
Imemlinen,
54
IS
1E Ca11e Cre
1,602
1368
274
274
Perennial
55
1
1
513
513
WA
56
15
1G
45
45
WA
57
15
1H
63
63
WA
p
1215
20-2P-2N
3.352
2216
3352
Perennial
59
10
609
679
1
130
IMermXien,
A
•i •
TOTALS 46187 22260 15705 2258 5964
WETLAND FEATURES
1111
PAGE
JURISDICTIONAL
PONDSIZEACREAA S
If
INDEX
AREA
1
5
1T
1.384
2
6
36 -�-
_1.3&1
— 1.521
1.521
0.1
3
6
30
0.188
0.1
4
6
0 0.170
5
8
_P1
T1
%plog
6
8
MHM_,
0 2.045
_
7
1
_
IJ1
0232
0.-'2 0
oil
1 11 �_
01.113 F
a BA NYCreaN I
IA92 LF (19) `
TOTALS 4.172 3.024 1.148 0.927 0.000 0,221
POND FEATURES
REM
PAGE
JURISDICTIONAL
PONDSIZEACREAA S
If
INDEX
AREA
TOTAL I AVOIDED I IMPACTED
1
5
1T
1.384
2
6
36 -�-
_1.3&1
— 1.521
1.521
0.1
3
6
30
0.188
0.1
4
6
0 0.170
5
8
_P1
T1
0 2.214
6
8
J7
0 2.045
_
7
1
_
IJ1
0232
0.-'2 0
1
_
No 10
0.
0.849 0
r
ti
TOTALS 8.803 1.081 7.522 II
ni FU4 s4LF 43 �eilsDi M6i lJl FORD PROPOSED PROJECT
�OWNl
1 �. � ♦ N9ID �___ I \\ \\ O NEW IMPACTS
1 • 114 ie s I
p �� '1istl AC Is BtFB m 6 � i 9 r r - w \� NEW RUNWAY and TAXIWAY PROJECT
-- aL
asli 9E 6
r
soli : • •• S - REVISED RUNWAY CONSTRUCTION LIMITS
r
R
'� UNWAY 18C/36C EXi. AND ANCILARV TAMS
' 146 ., • '' a ME 614 45,E L _ _ ANCILLARY TAXIWAY EXTENSION
IE(Cw1WGaalO Ps WETLAND FEATURES
I,e4z LF s4) I OLD DOWD ROAD REALIGNMENT
IMPORTANT FEATURES IMPACTED BY PROJECT _ y l IMPACTED BY PROJECT (ACRES) _
-__ — L. _ _ 1 WALLACE HEEL ROAD REALIGNMENT
Iworoe ®mwrs:T wr Ac
1
- -,
s o1 A ozzl ozzl WEST BLVD. REALIGNMENT
TOIAl9 14 2>0 119 t t0. TOTALS / 26 6.26 p IN e.%1 TOTALS 1522 0500 4617 2.90D 1.522 SB LF (2)
LENGTH, OR AREA TABLE ITEM #
2009 AIRPORT MODIFICATION
DESIGNED BY: x REVISION DESCRIPTION DATE
PROJECT ENG.: 1 JANUARY 17,2D07 ARMY CORPS LETTER EXHIBIT 1117/'2007 FIGURE
404/401 PERMIT APPLICATION
PROJECT NO.: p JANUARY 17, 2007 ARMY CORPS LETTER EXHIBIT CORRECTIONS ,726/2007
^— DRAWN BY: NEA 3 JANUARY 31, 2007 MEETING REVISIONS 1131/2007 /w
Charlotte•{J♦7UgIa.S SIB: CHECKED BY: q APRIL 8, 2009 PERMIT MODIFICATIONS 4108/2008 3
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT .. \7 79770_ CDIAAddiOonelSBrvicesTasklmap _tlOCSVnxdlRBVi85tl_04082009 ,• _ �, DATE ISSUED: MAY 2006 5 MARCH 24, 21110 LETTER MODIFICATIONS
UI FEATURES IMPACTED BY PROJECT RIFt I-
3
324/2010

Figure 4
Permitted Area Impact Map 2013

m ODOM
1A
ka
�4
01,000 2,000
Feet
i:.
f Oft

aR
•

0
f
M:.,
Impain150

f.,
Impact #3
39 LF
4W
'# "% got fi*
•
IL
to
r0[&'
& 0 4, &'
'Ok
W-M-404M.,
00,8002
C'MCMD
veff'so

Figure 5
Soils Map

Norfolk Southern Intermodal Facility

Attachment 1
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources' Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Conditional Acceptance Letter

V-1 n
ii are
PROGRAM
May 14, 2013
Jack McLain
Norfolk Southern Railway Company
1200 Peachtree St, NE
Atlanta, GA 30309
Project: Norfolk Southern Intermodal Facility
Expiration of Acceptance: November 14, 2013
County: Mecklenburg
This is a conditional acceptance. The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(NCEEP) is willing to accept payment for compensatory mitigation for impacts associated with the above referenced project as
indicated in the table below. Please note that this decision does not assure that participation in the NCEEP will be approved by the
permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts. It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact these agencies to determine
if payment to the NCEEP will be approved. You must also comply with all other state, federal or local government permits,
regulations or authorizations associated with the Qrogosed activity including SL 2009 -337: An Act to Promote the Use of
ComQensatoryMitigation Banks as amended by
S.L. 2011 -343.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not received a copy of the
issued 404 Permit/401 Certification/CAMA permit within this time frame, this acceptance will expire. It is the applicant's
responsibility to send copies of the permits to NCEEP. Once NCEEP receives a copy of the permit(s) an invoice will be issued based
on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the In-
Lieu Fee to be paid to NCEEP by an applicant is calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed at www.nceep.net.
Based on the information supplied by you in your request to use the NCEEP, the impacts that may require compensatory mitigation are
summarized in the following table. The amount of mitigation required and assigned to NCEEP for this impact is determined by
pe itting agencies and may exceed the impact amounts shown below.
River I CU I Stream (feet) Wetlands (acres) Buffer I I Buffer II
Basin Locatio I (Sq. Ft.) (Sq. Ft.)
*The Catawba 03 Expanded Service Area will be utilized for this impact.
Upon receipt of payment, EEP will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. The mitigation will be performed in
accordance with the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources' Ecosystem Enhancement Program In -Lieu Fee
Instrument dated July 28, 2010.
Thank you for your interest in the NCEEP. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at
(919) 707 -8915.
Sincerely,
JameU Stanfill
Asset Management Supervisor
cc: Karen Higgins, NCDWQ Wedands/401 Unit
Amanda Jones, USACE - Asheville
Alan Johnson, NCDWQ- Mooresville
Rebekah Newton, agent
File LT-WA
R: brikg... 'E ... Prot�ctr,�t� our Stag own
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 / 919 -919 -707 -8976 / www.nceep.net
Cold
Cool
Warm
I Riparian
I Non-Riparian J
Coastal Marsh
Impact
Catawba
03050101
0
0
1,768
0
0
0
0
0
Impact
Catawba
03050103*
0
0
39
0
0
0
0
0
*The Catawba 03 Expanded Service Area will be utilized for this impact.
Upon receipt of payment, EEP will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. The mitigation will be performed in
accordance with the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources' Ecosystem Enhancement Program In -Lieu Fee
Instrument dated July 28, 2010.
Thank you for your interest in the NCEEP. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at
(919) 707 -8915.
Sincerely,
JameU Stanfill
Asset Management Supervisor
cc: Karen Higgins, NCDWQ Wedands/401 Unit
Amanda Jones, USACE - Asheville
Alan Johnson, NCDWQ- Mooresville
Rebekah Newton, agent
File LT-WA
R: brikg... 'E ... Prot�ctr,�t� our Stag own
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 / 919 -919 -707 -8976 / www.nceep.net

Attachment 2
FWHA Categorical Exclusion, September 25, 2008

_.k
Norfolk Southern lntermodal
Facility at Charlotte Douglas
International Airport
Categorical Exclusion Document
Prepared for: Norfolk Southern
Submitted to: FHWA
September 25, 2008
Y
a

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ....................................................................... ..............................2
1.1
Background .................................................. ............................... ........................................ ..............................2
1.2
General Description
......................... ....................................................................................... ..............................2
1.3
Project Purpose .............................
............................................ ............................... ....... ..............................2
1.4
Existing Conditions ..............
........... ..................... ............................... ................................... ..............................3
2.0 ALTERNATIVES ....................................................................................................... ..............................3
2.1 No-Build ................................................................................................................................... ..............................3
2.2 Expand Existing ...................................................................................................................... ..............................4
2.3 New Facilky ....................................................................................................................... ..............................4
3.0 ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .................................................................. ..............................4
3.1 Air Quality ........ ...............................,...................,...............................................,.......... ..............................5
3.2 Archaeology/Hlstory Architecture ................................................................................................... ..............................5
3.3 Section 4( 0 ............................................................................................................................ ..............................6
3.4 Biotic Communities ................. ............................................................................................ ..............................6
3.5 Coastal Zone Management and Coastal Barriers .............................................................. ............................... ...6
3.6 Construction ................. .... ........................................... ............................... ....... .. ..6
3.7 Endangered and Threatened Species .................................................... ............................... . ... ..............................7
3.8 Energy Supply and Natural Resources ......................................................................................... ..............................7
3.9 FannlW ......................................................................................................................................... ..............................7
3.10 Floodptaina .................................................................................................................................. ..............................7
3.11 Induced Socioeconomic .............................................................................................................. ..............................7
3.12 Light Emissions ....... ............................................................................................................... ..............................8
3.13 Noise and Compatible Land Use ............................................................................................ ..............................8
3.14 Social .............. ...................................................................................................................... ..............................8
3.15 Solid/Hazardous Waste ............................................................................................................... ..............................8
3.16 Surface Transportation ........................................ . ........... ............. ................................................................................. 9
3.17 Water Quality ................................................................................................................................. ..............................9
3.18 Weftids ....................................................................................................................................... .............................10
3.19 Wild and Sonic Rivers ............................................................................................................... .............................10
3.20 ■/�IIn��diiirrel1ctt a.n.'dy1 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................... .............................10
4.0 Comma .......................................... N .........................................................................................
�
FIGURES APPENDICES
FIGURE 1: PROJECT LOCATION
FIGURE 2: RELATION TO EXISTING INTERMODAL
FACILITY
FIGURE 3: CO HOT SPOT ANALYSIS LOCATION
APPENDIX A: Am QUALITY
APPENDIX B: ARCHAEOLOGY/HISTORY ARCHITECTURE
APPENDIX C: ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES
APPENDIX D: FARMLAND
FIGURE 4: ARCHAEOLOGY /HISTORY ARCHITECTURE APPENDIX E: SOLOMAZARDOUS WASTE
SITES APPENDIX F: SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
FIGURE 5: HAZMAT SITES APPENDIX G: WATER QUALITYIWETLANDS
FIGURE 6: ROAD PROJECTS RELATED TO RUNWAY
PROJECT
FIGURE 7: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF SITE
Charlotte /Douglas International A rpol Intermodal Facility - CATEX Document 1Wyslmlte

1.0 NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
1.1 Background
In 1995, Norfolk Southern (NS) began to discuss the need to expand capability for rail/truck intermodal transportation
in the Charlotte region Since the existing NS facility near downtown Charlotte was at or new capacity and was
unable to expand because it was geographically constrained, discussion began with the Charlotte Douglas
International Airport (CLT) on potential alternatives. In 1997, a proposed intermodal facility was included in
Charlofte/Douglas Master Plan Study Update and the airport layout plan.
In the late 1990's, CLT began the expansion of their facilities, which included an additional runway and several other
projects. In 1999, the FAA completed a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for various improvement
projects at CLT; including a fourth runway and several re- aligned or new roadways. A discussion within the
cumulative impacts section mentioned the construction of an intermodal facility. Following the 1999 FEIS, the FAA
modified Air Traffic Control procedures related to minimum spacing distances between parallel runways forcing a re-
evaluation of the proposed federal action. In 2006, the FAA approved a written re- evaluation of the FEIS. In the
2006 Written Re- evalualion, the proposed IMF was shown entirely on airport -owned land (or land the airport was in
the process of obtaining following the 1999 FEIS) in between the existing runway 1811361. and the new fourth
runway. Following the 2006 written re- evaluation, the City of Charlotte, through its Aviation Department, and NS
reached a tentative agreement to build an IMF in the vicinity of the CLT to replace NS's existing facility near
downtown Charlotte.
1.2 General Description
Additional intermodal capacity is necessary to serve the projected Charlotte area market demand. To this end, NS
and the City of Charlotte through its Aviation Department are proposing the development of a new intermodal facility
(IMF) adjacent to CLT on City property to be leased to NS (Rgure 1: Project Location). The IMF will have an initial
capacity of roughly 250,000 annual lifts with room for future expansion. The property at NS's existing facility would
then be made available for purchase by the City for other possible development. Current planning indicates the
proposed IMF in the approximate location defined in the 2006 Written Re- evaluation, between the existing runway
18R/36L and the new fourth runway. The facility would connect to NS tracks located just north of existing airport
property. It is important to note that the proposed location for the IMF is in approximately the same location as the
fourth runway shown in the 1999 FEIS. Since the runway location was amended in 2006 (moved further to the west
because of the FAA minimum spacing distance), the IMF location was initially reviewed environmentally in the 1999
FEIS.
The IMF will be a point of transfer for shipping containers and trailers between highway and rail modes of
transportation. Addigonaly, it wiH take advantage of the flexibility of trucks for local pickups and deliveries and the
efficiency and environmental benefits of trains for long haul moves. Widespread public and private sector support
exists for this project. Governmental and business leaders have recognized that by providing efficient and
economical capacity for current and prospective shippers, the proposed IMF will play an important role in securing
the region's status as a leading distribution center.
1.3 Project Purpose
The primary purpose of the project is to expand the capability for rallAruck intermodal transportation in the Charlotte
region. In order to meet the primary purpose, NS and the City of Charlotte identified the following needs:
Expand Regional Rail Intermodal Transportation Capacity
NS operates a Charlotte intermodal facility approximately one mile northeast of downtown Charlotte. The existing
facility is currently over capacity and its urban location severely limits its ability to handle future intermodal demand.
CharlotlelDouglas International Airpori Intermodal Facility - CATEX Document
.wSymalw

In addition, area roadway congestion hampers efficient ingress and egress to the facility, and rail/highway conflicts
and safety concerns are a common local issue.
Support Growth Consistent with tong Range Plans
Construction of the IMF will enhance Charlotte's existing mix of air, truck, logistics and distribution facilities and allow
continued area growth Charlotte is one of the United State's fastest growing metropolitan areas and the CLT is one
of the busiest airports in the country. An IMF and related development on and around the CLT has been anticipated
since at least 1995. Its development is consistent with regional economic goals and is projected to generate
approximately $7.6 billion in regional economic impact by 2024 per a study commissioned by the Charlotte Regional
Partnership.
Provide Highway Access to the Planned lntermodal Facility
The primary IMF truck access is by a planned new 1.485 interchange less than a mile away via a section of West
Boulevard that is being relocated as part of a CLT runway construction project. The proposed IMF will eliminate truck
traffic at the existing facility near downtown, including truck trips associated with the need to utilize satellite parking
lots. More importantly, every shipment handled at the IMF will mean one less long- distance truck traveling on
highways in North Carolina and other states, just as similar NS intermodal facilities in other southeastern cities
equates to fewer long distance trucks on Charlotte's highways.
1.4 Existing Conditions
NS currently operates an intermodal facility approximately one mile northeast of downtown Charlotte (Figure 2:
Relation to Existing Intermodal Facility). Between 1998 and 2007, NS's intermodal business at that location
increased by 74 %. In 2007, the facility handled 116,908 container "lifts" (truck4o -train transfers), very near its
efficient capacity of approximately 120,000 annual lifts. In fact, the 120,000 capacity was exceeded at the facility in
2004, 2005, and 2006. Four off -site "satellite" trailer parking lots are utilized to handle the existing volume, with the
consequence of increased area road congestion and emissions.
The CLT is a publicly -owned air carrier and air cargo facility operated by the City of Charlotte Aviation Department.
In 2006, CLT had just roughly 30 million passengers pass through their gates and over 170,000 tons of cargo. The
CLT expansion project began in 2007, including the site clearing and construction of the fourth runway, which is
anticipated to be completed by January 2010. Additionally, several roads are being re- aligned or constructed
adjacent to the new runway with completion in 2008.2009. All of the properties required for the construction of the
new runway have been purchased and the structures removed. Additionally, between the 1999 FEIS and the 2006
Written Re- evaluation, properties required for the construction of 1-485 in the vicinity of the airport were purchased
and the structures were removed. Therefore, from the western edge of the 18PJ36L runway to 1.485 all properties
were acquired, the structures removed, and the site is currently under construction for the airport expansion project.
A current photograph of the airport expansion project is located in Figure 7. The figure shows the proposed IMF site
as cleared and re- graded, with only dirt remaining.
2.0 ALTERNATIVES
NS considered three aftematives relative to its intermodal capacity needs in the Charlotte Metropolitan Statistical
Area; a no- build, expand existing intermodal facility, and the CLT alternative, They are described as follows;
21 No -Build
NS projects a demand for intermodal shipments in the Charlotte area of approximately 250,000 truck- to-hain
movements annually by 2019. NS's existing Charlotte intemnodal facility, located approximately one mile northeast of
downtown Charlotte, has an efficient capacity of roughly 120,000 annual units. Although traffic dropped somewhat in
2007, for the previous three years the facility has handled in excess of the 120,000 units. The consequence is that
service to customers has not been efficient or cost - effective. Furthermore, four off site "satellite" trailer parking lots
CharbitetDouglas International Airport tntermodal Facility - CATEX Document ystem�

need to be utilized to supplement the capacity of the existing facility, contributing to area street congestion and
emissions.
The No -Budd alternative would effectively provide no additional capacity. Therefore, the No -Build alternative within
the Charlotte market was determined to not meet the purpose and need of the undertaking
2.2 Expand Existing
The existing NS intermodal facility is surrounded on the west by a railroad yard needed to support other, non -
intermodal rail traffic in the Charlotte area and on the other three sides by residential and commercial development.
Furthermore, truck access to the facility is on surface streets not designed for heavy truck volumes. In order to
construct the Expand Existing alternative, NS would need to purchase and demolish several surrounding commercial
and residential properties at a substantial cost to the surrounding community, Because of the physical constraints
around the facility and area street congestion issues, it was determined that no feasible or cost - effective alternative
exists to expand the existing facility. Expansion at the existing facility is not a viable option and does not meet the
purpose and need.
2.3 New Facility
Over ten years ago the City of Charlotte, through its Aviation Department, proposed to NS that a new IMF be built in
the vicinity of the CLT to replace NS's existing facility. It was determined by NS that providing additional intermodal
capacity in other geographic areas was not nearly as desirable as providing increased intermodal capacity within the
Charlotte region, a market that is favorable for NS but which NS cannot fully serve with other intermodal facilities. NS
determined the CLT area to be most attractive for the following reasons;
• Efficient Rail Access - NS's double track mainline through Charlotte passes immediately adjacent to the
CLT. Purpose built set -off and pick -up tracks can be built next to the mainline utilizing only NS and City
property and designed to minimize any effect on other mainline trains (and on nearby at -grade highway
crossings). "Wye" tracks, a triangular shaped arrangement of railway tracks with a switch (point) at each
corner from both directions, will link the mainline to the proposed IMF.
• Efficient Highway Access - The proposed IMF will be within one mile of a planned new 1 -4135 interchange
via a new section of West Boulevard being built in connection with a CLT runway construction project.
• Compatible Land Use - The proposed iMF will be located entirely on CLT property to be leased by NS; no
other properties will be affected. The she will be surrounded on three sides by the CLT runways and
taxiways and on the fourth by West Boulevard. The proposed IMF will be virtually "invisible" to local
residents.
• Sufficient Property Available - The proposed IMF site next to the CLT consists of enough property to meet
projected Charlotte region intermodal volumes for the foreseeable future.
• Proximity to the CLT and existing industrial users - The proposed IMF will be dose to existing industrial
warehousing exists in vicinity of the CLT, offering the potential for users to have options between truck, rail
and air cargo movements in close proximity may be attractive and efficient for shippers.
3.0 ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The site for the proposed IMF is located entirely within CLT property that was purchased between 1997 and 2006 for
the airport expansion. The site is currently under construction and all environmental features have been removed.
Two environmental reviews for the site, the 1999 FEIS and the 2006 Written Re -evaluation, addressed the
anticipated environmental impacts and fisted any necessary mitigation for a fourth runway expansion. It is important
to note that the proposed location for the IMF is in approximately the same location as the fourth runway shown in the
1999 FEIS. The following anticipated environmental impacts focus on the proposed IMF; however, where necessary
the impacts and mitigation from the airport expansion are referenced.
Charlotte /Douglas International Airporl Intermodal Facility - CATEX Document _ �1CIll�U�ten��

3.1 Air Quality
The relocation and widening of West Boulevard and the construction of the new interchange at 1 -485 and the
relocated West Boulevard are on the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 2009 -2015
Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). The TIP for Fiscal Years 2007 -2013 is a direct subset of the 2030 Long
Range Transportation Plans (LRTP) for the Mecklenburg -Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and is
consistent with 23 CFR Pad 450 Subpart C. It has been demonstrated in the Conformity Determination Report that
the LRTP conforms to the provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and the Safe Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: a Legacy for Users - 2005 (SAFETEA -LU) approved by the USDOT on August
10, 2005. The LRTP also conforms to the purpose of the SIP in accordance with 40 CFR Pan 93 and no further
regional emissions analysis is required for this project.
However, a micro -scale carbon monoxido (CO) "hot spot" analysis was performed for the additional intermodal
related traffic not included in the TIP to show that the additional traffic will not result in an exceedance of the State
and Federal ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide concentration (Figure 3: CO Hot Spot Analysis
Location). The MOBILE 6.0 (Mobile Sources Emissions Program, USEPA) and CAL30HC Version 2.0 (Line
Source/Intersection Dispersion Model, USEPA) programs were used in this analysis. The guidance contained in the
NCDENR Division of Air Quality's Guidelines for Evaluating the Air Quality Impacts of Transportation Facidles
(NCDENR, 2006e) and the USEPA's Guidelines for Modeling Carbon Monoxide from Roadway intersections (1992)
were used in this analysis. The analysis was run for the opening year 2010, 2015, and design year 2030. The
analysis showed that the additional traffic volume would result in carbon monoxide emissions of 2.6 parts per million
(ppm) for one -hour concentration and 1.2 ppm for eight -hour concentration. The levels are below the State and
Federal standards of 35.0 ppm and 9 ppm respectively. The project is not expected to create an adverse micro -scale
effect on air quality The air quality analysis summary is located In Appendix A.
In addition, an analysis of temporary air quality impacts related to construction of the proposed facility was completed
(Appendix A). The analysis showed that the annual net emissions caused by construction and implementation of
the Norfolk Southern Intermodal Facility would not equal or exceed the relevant de minimis thresholds for NOx, VOC,
or CO. Therefore, the project would not have the potential to cause significant adverse air quality impacts, and the
project is presumed to conform under the Code of Federal Regulations Title 40 Part 93.158, Presumption of SIP
Conformity for Federal Actions. Further, there is no requirement to conduct dispersion analysis to compare project-
related emissions to the NAAQS due to the de minimis emissions estimated for the Proposed Project. Therefore, the
project is assumed to comply with the guidelines presented to FAA Order 1050.1 E Appendix A, Section 2, Air Quality.
Consequently, the Proposed Project complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act as stated in the Clean Air Act
Title 1, Section 176(c)(1). No further analysis or reporting would be required under the provisions of the CAA or
under NEPA guidelines.
3.2 Archaeology/Hletory Architecture
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended,
implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106,
codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their
undertakings (federally- funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable
opportunity to comment on such undertakings.
Previous cultural resources surveys identified several sites near the current boundary of the proposed IMF (Figure 4:
Archaeology /History Architecture Sites). These include two historic architecture sites, the Paul Brown Farmstead
and Samuel Brown Farmstead, and two archaeological sites, the Ertel Site and the Freeman House. The
conclusions and recommendations for these sites are described below.
ir' .)tte.3n0ugl3s International Airport Intermodal Facility • CATEX Document t11r1lJ��y�lr �r� `

Paul Brown Farmstead
The Paul Brown Farmstead was originally determined eligible for the NRHP in a September 2, 1998 letter from the
SHPO. However, after significant loss of integrity to the resource, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
determined The Paul Brown Farmstead was no longer eligible for listing in the NRHP in a letter dated February 9,
1999 (1999 FEIS Volume 3 of 3, Appendix F).
Freeman House
The Freeman House was originally recommended as a potentially eligible historic structure in the Phase I completed
by E &A, LLC in January 1998. In a letter dated September 2, 1998, the SHPO detenmined the house was not eligible
for the NRHP (FEIS Volume 3 of 3, Appendix F). The August 11, 1999 MOA between the NC Dept. of Cultural
Resources and Charlotte Douglas International Airport determined that "prior to any disturbance of lands immediately
surrounding the Freeman House (MK1363), the Airport will conduct an archaeological surrey to enable the FAA and
SHPO to determine the presence of archaeological features potentially eligible for the NRHP" (1999 FEIS Volume 3
of 3, Appendix F).
Ertel Site
The Ertel Site was recommended for a Phase II survey in a January 1998 Phase I by E &A, LLC due to potential
eligibility for inclusion on the NRHP, The August 11, 1999 MOA between the NC Dept. of Cultural Resources and the
Charlotte Douglas International Airport states that "the FAA shall ensure that the Airport prepares and implements an
archaeological data recovery plan for the Ertel Site" (FEIS Volume 3 of 3, Appendix F). An Archaeological data
recovery plan was completed by The Schiele Museum of Natural History in June 2007 for the Ertel Site. The site was
determined to have little potential for increasing our understanding of prehistoric native technology and therefore is
not eligible for inclusion to the NRHP. No further work is recommended (Appendix B).
Samuel Brown Farmstead
In a May 16, 2007 letter the SHPO concurred that the Samuel Brown Farm is no longer eligible for the NRHP
because of a loss of integrity (Appendix B). In the process of preparing the Categorical Exclusion document, the
Samuel Brown Farmstead was determined to be outside of the IMF site.
U Section 4(f)
The proposed project will not require right -of -way acquisition or easement from any land protected under section 4(f
of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 303). Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966 protects the
use of publicly owned parks, recreation areas, wildlifelwatedowl refuges, and historic properties from USDOT
actions, There are no section 4(f) resources located in the project study area; therefore, no further coordination is
necessary.
3.4 Biotic Communities
Since the proposed IMF is located entirely within the area environmentally reviewed during the 1999 FEIS and 2006
Written Re- evaluation, ail environmental clearance has taken place. No further coordination is necessary.
U Coastal Zone Management and Coastal Barriers
The proposed project is not in a coastal zone management area, nor is Mecklenburg County a Coastal Zone
Management county. Therefore, coastal zone management does not apply. No coastal barriers or any areas subject
to the Coastal Barriers Resources Act of 1982 or the Coastal Barriers Improvement Act of 1990 are located in the
vicinity of the proposed project.
3.6 Construction
The 1999 FEIS and 2006 tMitten Re-evaluation listed construction impacts related to; operation of existing facilities
during construction, soil hater quality, air quality, construction related noise, solidthazardous waste, sov
and quality of ,;%trucfiori 0,3ru ^ls, surface transportation, and socioeconomic impacts. The conclusion in bk.,,`,
ch;wnit; I'l ' d,irport Intermodal Facility - CATEX Document

documents stated that thc• construction impacts will be short -term and temporary in nature and no significant impacts
are expected. Construction on the fourth runway and associated roadways began in 2007, which encompassas the
IMF.
Once the IMF is cleared for construction it is anticipated there will be temporary construction impacts due to fugitive
dust, borrow pits, and traffic noise. For all construction projects, Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be used to
minimize harm to the environment. Potential construction impacts would be reduced through the implementation of
an erosion and sedimentation control plan. No significant construction impacts are anticipated.
3.7 Endangered and Threatened Species
In compliance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, agencies overseeing federally funded projects
are required to obtain information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concerning any species listed, or
proposed to be listed, which may be present in the area of the proposed development. The impact of the project on
any such species must be evaluated and appropriate measure to avoid or compensate for these impacts must be
enacted.
Following the 1999 FEIS and prior to the completion of the 2006 Written Re- evaluation, surveys were conducted
within the airport to identify the presence of the Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), a threatened and
endangered species. The October 6, 2005 survey (Appendix C) found no presence and since clearance of the site
began in 2007, for construction of the fourth runway and associated roadways, no impacts are anticipated No
further coordination is necessary.
3.8 Energy Supply and Natural Resources
The proposed facility would likely require electricity and natural gas to provide air conditioning, heating, and light.
The 2006 Written tie - evaluation documented that the CLT used less than 0.01 percent of Duke Power Companies
electric power capacity. The operation of the proposed facility would represent an even smaller percentage of Duke
Power's electrical capacity and therefore not be significant.
3.9 Farmland
In accordance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981 all federally funded projects must obtain
information concerning prime or unique farmlands. For the 1999 FEIS, a farmland determination request was made
to the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) and they concluded in a November 4, 1997 letter (Appendix
D), that a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating was not required, and therefore, the Act did not apply. There have
been no changes since 1999 that would warrant additional analysis.
3.10 Flood plains
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps the CLT does not lie within a floodplain.
Therefore, the proposed project would not directly after any floodways in the region and no new floodplains would be
created as a result of the project.
3.11 Induced Socioeconomic
The proposed IMF will be located entirely on CLT property to be leased by NS; no properties will be affected.
Furthermore, the IMF will be close to existing industrial warehousing in vicinity of the CLT. This would offer the
potential for users to have options between truck, rail and air cargo movements in close proximity that may be
attractive and efficient for shippers. The 1999 FEIS and 2006 Written Re- evaluation concluded that the new
compatible development that will occur within the airport environs will eventually contribute more in property taxes
than would be lost due to the residential and business acquisitions creating no negative socioeconomic impacts,
Overall, the anticipated development associated with the operation of the IMF will have a positive socioeconomic
impact related to increases in property taxes Ni significant impacts are anticipated.
Charlotte /Douglas International A,.,,. )r' h•, `al Facility- CATEX Document

3,12 Light Emissions
The proposed IMF is located between two airport runways and any light emissions would likely be unsubstantial.
Furthermore, the tracks will be located below the grade of the westernmost runway providing additional light buffering
by blocking line -of- sight. Additionally, any lighting associated with the trains or trucks would have little or no impact
on any residential areas.
3,13 Noise and Compatible hand Use
Following the 2006 Written Re- evaluation, noise contours were updated 10 reflect current conditions (2006), as well
as those connttions anticipated for 2011 with the addition of the proposed runway. Approximately 43 housing units
are within the 65 DNL noise contour for 2006 existing conditions, The owners of those housing units were offered
participation in previous or current CLT mitigation programs (either acquisition or sound insulation). Therefore, these
43 housing units are considered mitigated.
The nearest residential community to the proposed IMF (north of the airport where the IMF tracks would meet the
existing NS tracks and south of the airport where the truck and train parking would occur) are approximately 4,000
feet. Additionally, the location of the IMF would be between two airport runways and any noise generated would be
unsubstantial. Furthermore, the tracks will be located below the grade of the westernmost runway providing
additional noise buffering by blocking line -of- sight. No housing units or other noise sensitive receptors are located
adjacent to the proposed IMF. Therefore, 0 is unlikely that significant noise impacts would result from this operation.
Temporary noise impacts due to construction activity is possible, but unlikely due to the distance between the
construction site and the nearest residential land uses
3.14 Social
All of the oft- airport property necessary tot the airport expansion was purchased by the City of Charlotte Aviation
Department and the relocation of the residential properties and businesses has been completed as a result of the
previous project environmentally reviewed by the 1999 FEIS. Therefore, no impacts related to the acquisition and
relocation of residences, farms, and businesses would occur with development of the IMF.
3.15 SolidlHazardous Wade
A review of the available solidthazardous waste databases within North Carolina was completed in early May 2008
by TranSystems Corporation (Appendix E). Figure 5 shows the Nations of the solid/hazardous waste sites. The
results are as follows:
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) contains four databases, one each for
hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities (TSD); large quantity generators (LOG); small quantity
generators (SOG); and facilities subject to corrective actions (CA). The TSD database tracks information related to
facilities such as landfills, incinerators, and treatment systems. A large quantity generator is a facility that generates
more than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste per month, or is subject to other applicable RCRA requirements. A
small quantity generator is a facility that generates between 100 and 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste per month,
or is subject to other applicable RCRA requirements. A conditionally exempt small quantity generator (CESQG)
generates less than 100 kilograms of waste per month. A corrective action facility is a facility that has conducted or
is conducting a corrective action under RCRA.
Four RCRA facilities were identified adjacent to the IMF site. Three of the sites had no reported issues. The fourth
site, Anilox Roll Co, Inc. at 4840 Wallace Neel Road (Facility ID NCD981865587 and NCD11968813), was listed in a
report to the North Carolina General Assembly on the Inactive Hazardous Sites Program prepared by the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Waste Management. The report indicated that
this site has been listed as an inactive hazardous waste site since at least 2002 and that soils contaminated with metals
were a concern. Soil sampling to test for metals is recommended either prior to or concurrent with any proposed
Charlotte/Douglas International Airport Ini,ml;oda, Fa %`!X,� - CATEX Document J""' Ipalt�

i construction or excavation activities that may occur on or near this site. The site is not located within the IMF, so no
further work is necessary.
The North Carolina Division of Waste Management underground storage tank (UST) databases were searched for the
project area by county, zip code and street address The databases searched include- registered tanks database, facility
database, state trust fund database and the regional UST database. This search determined that there are currently no
USTs located within or near the immediate vicinity of the IMF site. No further work is necessary.
3.16 Surface Transportation
The construction of the additional runway requires the relocation of three area roads, Old Dowd Road, Wallace Neel
Road, and West Boulevard (Figure 6: Road Projects Related to Runway Project). All three road relocations were
considered in the 1999 FEIS and the 2006 Written Re- evaluation. Construction began in Spring 2007 with
anticipated completion in Summer 2008 on Old Dowd and Wallace Neel. Additionally, the airport will relocate West
Boulevard (NC 160) to the south of the present road to accommodate runway construction, extend the roadway to 1-
485 and Garrison Road, and provide access to the planned iMF. Phase 1 includes the construction of two lanes from
1.485 and Garrison Road to Byrum Drive along with a four lane section from Byrum Drive to the current West
Boulevard at Horseshoe Lane. Construction began in Summer 2007 with anticipated completion in Summer 2008.
Phase 2 will be the construction of a four lane section of road south of the existing Byrum Drive; however, no funding
is currently established for this project.
A Traffic Impact. Study was completed in May 2008 by STWRalph Whitehead Associates to evaluate traffic
operations for the proposed West Boulevard with and without the IMF (Appendix F). The study addresses traffic
operations of the surrounding road system based on five scenarios: existing conditions (2008), 2010 background1no-
build conditions, 2010 project build conditions, 2020 baclkgroundtno -build conditions, and 2020 project build
conditions. Increases in truck and automobile traffic due to the IMF would occur primarily between the IMF and the I-
485/West Boulevard interchange. Al full build -out sometime beyond 2020, the iMF is anticipated to generate
approximately 2,532 vehicle trips within a 24 -hour period. In the 2020 project build scenario, the IMF will contribute
2.00/a additional traffic in the AM peak period and 3.8% additional traffic in the PM peak period. The study indicates
that the 1-485 interchange and the proposed West Boulevard traffic operations will not be substantially degraded with
the additional traffic; however, it indicates that the 1.485 ramp intersections and the IMF entrance intersection will be
operating at poor levels of service regardless of the additional IMF traffic. Because of this, some improvements may
be needed at these intersections according to NCDOT policy on mitigating traffic Impacts of new development.
Those improvements, 9 required, are expected to be limited to signalizing the I.485/West Boulevard ramp
Intersections and providing additional turn lanes at the 1.485 ramp/West Boulevard intersections along with the IMF
entrance/West Boulevard intersection. Based on the information contained within the traffic study, as summarized
above, traffic impacts as a result of the IMF are not significant,
3.17 Water Quality
Since the proposed IMF is located entirely within the area environmentally reviewed during the 1999 FEIS and 2006
Written Re- evaluation, all environmental clearance has taken place. The previous information and coordination
related to water quality is summarized as follows.
The 1999 FEIS and 2006 Written Re- evaluation disclosed that the airport expansion could result in both short and
long term water quality impacts. In order to reduce impacts during site preparation and runway construction, proper
sedimentation and erosion controls would be designed. Further water quality mitigation included a Spill Prevention
Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, and a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to minimize groundwater contamination. Additionally, the City of
Charlotte Aviation Department submitted a 401 Water Quality Certification Application on May 26, 2006 to the
USACE and the North Carolina Department of Water Quality for the potential impacts and the proposed mitigation
plans. On March 1, 2007 the North Carolina Department of Water Quality issued at 401 Water Quality Certification
(No. 3581) (Appendix G) for the proposed impacts and the mitigation plan. On March 20, 2007 the USACE provided
• Charlotte /Douglas International Airport Intermodal Facility - CATEX Document

a Section 404 individual permit (Appendix G) to place fill in approximately 16,312 linear feet of street channel, 0.432
acre of wetlands, and 4.631 acres of open water associated with the CLT expansion.
In the 2006 Written Re- evaluation three detention ponds (listed as: Potential Stormwater Management Areas) were
shown entirely within or adjacent to the proposed IMF. Therefore, these detention ponds have been located
elsewhere. The addition of impervious surfaces due to the development of the proposed IMF could increase
sormwater volumes and runoff rates. Furthermore, the necessary parking for the facility could lead to the potential
for oil and fuel spillage and possible groundwater contamination. A Storm Water Management Plan for the area
including the new runway, taxiway, and Wallace Neel Road relocation, was approved by the NC Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality on March 22, 2007 (Appendix G). No further action
is necessary.
3.18 Wetlands
Since the proposed IMF is located entirely within the area environmentally reviewed during the 1999 HIS and 2006
Written Re- evaluation, all environmental clearance has taken place. The previous information and coordination
related to wetlands is summarized as follows.
A Wetland Delineation Report was prepared by Environmental and Archaeology, LLC in November 1997 which
identified wetlands and other jurisdictional waters within the project study area A 401 Water Quality Certification
Application was submitted on May 26, 2006, to the USACE and the North Carolina Department of Water Quality for
the potential impacts and the proposed mitigation plans. On March 1, 2007 the North Carolina Department of Water
Quality issued at 401 Water Quality Certification (No. 3581) (Appendix G) for the proposed impacts and the
mitigation plan. On March 20, 2007 the USACE provided a Section 404 individual permit to place fill in approximately
16,312 linear feet of street channel, 0.432 acre of wetlands, and 4.631 acres of open water associated with the CLT
expansion (Appendix G). No further action is necessary.
3,19 Wild and Scenic Rivers
No wild and scenic rivers, as designated by the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, are located in
the vicinity of the Chadofte/Douglas International Airport. Therefore, the proposed site would not impact any wild and
scenic rivers.
9.20 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts
The IMF site was environmentally reviewed in 1999 and 2006 for the airport expansion; therefore, the only potential
impacts of the IMF are related to traffic since the site was re- graded prior to the start of this Categorical Exclusion.
The Surface Transportation section stated that traffic impacts as a result of the IMF are not significant. However, a
determination of the indirect and/or cumulative impacts of the IMF traffic along with the surrounding roadway projects
is warranted, The following is a list of the roadway projects planned or currently under construction in the vicinity of
the IMF site.
1.4851Gardson Roadfuture AC 160 inteac
The construction of 1 -485, west of the airport, connecting 1 -85 and 1 -77 was completed in October 2004. As a pars of
that project, a diamond interchange was constructed and graded at Garrison Road just south and west of the existing
airport; however, pavement was not laid. Plans to pave the interchange will coincide with the construction of West
Boulevard.
Construction of West Boulevard M 160)
The airport is in the process of relocating West Boulevard (NC 160) to the south of the present road to accommodate
runway construction. The roadway will extend to 1.485 at the partially constructed Garrison Road interchange and
— CharlottelDougtas International Airport Intermodal Facility CA1 !-X .),ocun.ent M ,stams
i
.mod

provide continuous link between Billy Graham Parkway and 1 -485 south of the airport Phase 1 includes the
construction of two lanes from 1 -485 and Garrison Road to Byrum Drive along with a four lane section from Byrum
Drive to the current West Boulevard at Horseshoe Lane. Phase 1 will provide access to the proposed Intermodal
Facility. Construction began in Summer 2007 with anticipated completion in Summer 2008. Phase 2 will be the
construction of a four lane section of road south of the existing Byrum Drive, once funding is established.
Construction of the Gaston East -West Connector
The North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) are
studying ways to improve east -west travel between Gaston County and Mecklenburg County from 1 -85 west of
Gastonia east to 1485INC 160. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is anticipated to be completed by late
2009 with a Final EIS and ROD by late 2010. The project is approximately 21 to 24 miles (depending on the final
route chosen) and will tie into the future West Boulevard interchange with 1.485. All planning and environmental
studies are funded; however, right -of -way acquisition and construction is currently not funded.
Based upon the minimal addition of truck and vehicular traffic related to the IMF, the collective effect does not have a
detrimental effect on these roadway projects or the area surrounding CLT. Therefore, the IMF's traffic contribution is
not significant. Furthermore, by removing traffic from NS's existing intermodal facility near downtown Chadofte, the
project will create a Net Benefit by significantly improving that area.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact by expanding regional rail intermodal transportation
capacity, supporting growth consistent with long range plans, providing highway access to the planned IMF facility as
stated in the project purpose. Additionally, the project will create an increase in economic development around CLT.
It is considered a Federal "Categorical Excluslon° due to its limited scope and environmental consequences.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulations, No significant changes in land
use are anticipated. No residential or business relocations are anticipated. The project will not disproportionately
impact any minority or low- income populations. There is to be no adverse effects on public facilities or services
anticipated, nor is the project expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
Furthermore, there will be no adverse effects on air quality, noise, construction impacts, and light emissions. There
are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, biotic communities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of National,
state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project. The IMF will not impact the adjacent roadway improvements
which are planned or currently under construction. The project is not in a designated flood hazard zone or coastal
management zone and no impacts are anticipated to any waterways. There are no significant historic resources and
no mitigation required for identified hazardous sites.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental effects will result from
implementation of the project.
Charlotte/Douglas International Airport Intermodal Facility - CATEX Document

i % ••� f �� �. � 11 t -
fn:ernwhm Site North'
City of CA9►ro,to
Tr�
arlotte'Dou�las
t�ternatio& AI`s 0 rt1
SWO
future Weal Blvd �� Figure 1
Project Location
- ��
Chadolte Intermodal
"7 Facility
Wake
11 _ —•— Future West Blvd
Alrporl Runways
i Railroad
Roads
0 0.25 0.5 1
Milo proposed Runway

'� Charlotte Douglas
`I
1nterrat rtalyAirport
Future Intermodal Facility,
If Q.5 1 2
Mile
r
°y
Existing Intermodal Facility
Charlotte
Figure 2
Relation to Existlng
Intwmodal Facility
Chartatte Intermodal
Facility
IMFsite
Future West Blvd
Airport Rwiways
Proposed Runway
Railroad
Roads

i
1
C ' -A
J p
�a1k¢rsFB1r'I4a / • •'
- l..�Char
Intem
I I
j DIKie River
- A\
0 D
• D r
lotte Douglas -��� Q i
ationai Airport , Q p
Rd
Figure s
CO Not Spot
"'• - _.. AnMyeb Location
Proposed CO Hot Spot Analysis Site�l,._.� Chw Wte tntermodal
lMermodal Ra - - - - Facility
Road 6Yr'�
- IMF site
futumWestBlvd Future West Blvd
Airport Runways
Proposed Runway
-�— +- Railroad
y ` 0 026 05 Roads
oads

IV
1
VOWS
Ertel site ii,
r •r/ '( CDI
_OIXIS OW Rd
­4
use
Lr
OD
A.
r
Votte -Douglas%
1 0,0, Ve
niflonal Airporta,
� 1. ; .' ' .
som4el Brown ° ..i. ,:,. Jy " - , Figure 4
": ', *'W
Archaeology/History
low
'44 s Architecture Sibs
I e Charlotte Intermodal
Facility
OVUM
History /Arch sites
IMFske
FUION West Blvd Future West Blvd
rr
Airport Runways
Railroad
0 0.25 0.5
Miles —Proposed Runway

CD - r
- QO \
1 weik�6
cam ©o
Charbtte'Douglas Q S
Internatio athmirport• - -
Dixie River Rd ` • _ ( 1
.:�tt3t0d Figure 5
Ow . t J HAZMAT Sites
�01 Charlotte Intermodal
Facility
HAZMA7 Sites
®IMFsite
tinoie wort el+
� Future West Blvd
Airport Runways
-a-- -� Railroad
—Roads
i • 0 0.25 0.5 Proposed y
Miles p sed Ruma

Figure 6: Road Projects Related to Runway Project
Old Dowd RdMallace Neel Rd,
Relocation and Construction -
Underway The IlArd Parallel Runway Project
The new road is funded primarily
through Federal Aviation Administration
grant dollars and airport funds No % - ,; .`.t. _ f
public lax dollars are being used to fund
the road relocation or the runway.
Completion Date: Summer 2008 1
4
(A) The relocated Old Dowd Rd will
connect to the current Old Dowd Rd.
north of Runway 18R and extend west
towards 1485.
Ity
01;
f1 %: 1
(13) Wallace Neel Rd, will pick-up Old
Dowd Rd. at Walker's Ferry Rd. and
continue south, traveling parallel and
between 1-485 and the new parallel
runway. The road will (C) connect to
West Blvd. on the south end of the kti
awpoll
(D) Walker's Ferry Rd. and Dixie River
Rd will be accessible from the new road Source: Charlotte Douglas Intemational Airport webske
via overpasses already in place,
West Blvd. Relocation and Construction - Underway
(E) West Blvd. Phase 1: The construction of two lanes from 1-485 at Garrison Rd. and extend to Byrum Dr. will begin
in Summer 2007.
(F) Additionally, a new four lane section of road wM be constructed from Byrum Dr. just west of its intersection with
Yorkmont Rd. to the current West Blvd. at Horseshoe Ln.
(G) The new east log and west log of West Blvd. will be connected by the existing Byrum Dr.
The list phase of the West Blvd. relocation will be in place prior to the completion of the runway so citizens can
access The new Wallace Neel Rd and connect to the east side of the city. Completion is anticipated for Summer
2008.
(H) West Blvd. Phase 0: A new four lane section of road will be constructed south of the current Byrum Dr. once
funding is in place.

APPENDix A
AIR QUALITY
1
Chadotlo/Douglas International Ahporl Intetmodal Facky - CATEX Document � , ►� r,�•

Appendix A: Air Duality Summary
The relocation and widening of West Blvd, (project U -3411) and the construction of the new interchange at IA85 and
the relocated West Blvd. (project R- 2248H) are on the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 2009-
2015 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). The TIP for Fiscal Years 2007 -2013 is a direct subset of the 2030
Long Range Transportation Plans (LRTP) for the Mecklenburg -Union Metropolitan Planning Organi2ation (MPO) and
is consistent with 23 CFR Pad 450 Subpart C. 11 has been demonstrated in the Conformity Determination Report that
the LRTP conforms to the provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and the Safe Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: a Legacy for Users - 2005 (SAFETEA -LU) approved by the USDOT on August
10, 2005. The LRTP also conforms to the purpose of the S)P in accordance with 40 CFR Part 93 and no further
regional emissions analysis is required for this project.
However, a micro -scale carbon monoxide (CO) 'hot spot" analysis was performed for the additional inlermodal
related traffic not included in the TiP to show that the additional traffic will not result in an exceodance of the State
and Federal ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide concentration. The MOBILE 6.0 (Mobile Sources
Emissions Program, USEPA) and CAL30FIC Version 2.0 (Line Source/intersection Dispersion Model, USEPA)
programs were used in this analysis. The guidance contained in the NCDENR Division of Air Quality's GuideJines for
Evaluating the Air Quality Impacts of Transportation Facilities (NCDENR, 20069) and the USEPA's Guidelines for
Modeling Carbon Monoxide from Roadway Intersectiars (1992) were used In this analysis. The analysis was run for
the opening year 2010, 2015, and design year 2030. The analysis showed that the additional traffic volume would
result in carbon monoxide emissions of 2.6 parts per million (ppm) for one -hour concentration and 1.2 ppm for efght-
hour concentration. The levels are below the State and Federal standards of 35.0 ppm and 9 ppm respectively. The
project is not expected to create an adverse micro-scale effect on air quality
In addition to the criteria air pollutants for which there are NAAOS, USEPA ado regulates air toxics. Most air toxics
originate from human -made sources, including on -road mobile sources, nonroad mobile sources (e.g., airplanes),
area sources (e.g., dry cleaners) and stationary sources (e.g., factories or refineries). Mobile Source Air Toxlcs
(MSATs) are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the CAA (FHWA, 2006). The MSATs are compounds emitted
from highway vehicles and non -road equipment. Some toxic compounds are present in fuel and are emitted to the
air when the fuel evaporates or passes through the engine unburned. Other toxics are emitted from the incomplete
combustion of fuels or as secondary combustion products. Metal air toxics also result from engine wear or from
impurities in oil or gasoline. The USEPA is the lead federal agency for administering the CAA and has certain
responsibilities regarding the health effects of MSATs. The USEPA issued a Final Rule on Controlling Emissions of
Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources, 66 FR 17229 (March 29, 2001). This rule was iissued under the
!4 authority In Section 202 of the CAA. In its rule, USEPA examined the impacts of existing and newly promulpted
mobile source control programs, including its reformulated gasoline (RFG) program, its national low emission vehicle
(NLEV) standards, its Tier 2 motor vehicle emissions standards and gasoline sulfur control requirements, and its
proposed heavy duty engine and vehicle standards and on- highway diesel fuel sulfur control requirements. Between
2000 and 2020, FHWA estimates that even with a 64 percent increase in VMT, these programs will reduce on
highway emissions of benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3- butadiene, and acetaidehyde by 57 percent to 65 percent, and will
reduce on- highway diesel particulate matter emissions by 87 percent, as shown on the following graph.

VMT
(trllUUnsrynat �
G
CFI 4*141 Vi J
�. nu•yy x 1 95-1
r »lraq w 1 ez+�
1 >Ert AflM 17!"1
A! I4 Pl ow 0
U.S. Annual Vehicle Mlles Trove led (VMT) vs.
Mobile Source Ali Toxlcs 6als6ions, 2000 -2020 Emissions
Itomiyearl
20U,000
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
1 00.000
N,,n, F�1 ur1•ImMmo4lN000r :oA Fin o►onflm lnl lwlro9.n71a97dL#"ULV11. ik N.TBEplopolt1onal eat to l owl o%V9*nM01 •
1wlJtnnolatt, AlsoUA- AwllowAVPAnfo .V90nalo >ontoatftolfoaLmalslp VMTMpIwAyOf ellet1fe20W.TAI.MVbl,2tnt20n0.
1wtAy $sA7lumOfomn.Al91or•.h,At•Id 94'%' IPM •OE*&.teew0mMODIL8E.Q.p.nonlo0t act aatof01.1..rInAl•..ltan a69Wbl(
Caton of" 567 Item aaof teats 7.olraAl ;Naw oult"DOlbcls r:• cutoff wl at ION" Glom
As a result, USEPA concluded that no further motor vehicle emissions standards or fuel standards were necessary to
further control MSATs The agency is preparing another rule under authority of CAA Section 202(1) that will address
these issues and could make adjushrlents to the full 21 and the primary six MSATs.
MSAT Health Effects
Unavailable Information for Project Specific MSAT impact Analysis
' This air toxics analysts includes a basic analysis of the likely MSAT emission impacts of this project. However,
available technical tools do not enable us to predict the project- speclic health impacts of the emission changes
associated with the alternatives. Due to these limitations, the following discussion is included in accordance with the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEO) regulations (40 CFR 150222(bb regarding incomplete or unavailable
inlonTetion:
InfoamVen fhal is Unavailable or Incomplete: Evaluating the environmental and health impacts from MSATs on a
proposed highway project would involve several key elements, including emissions modeling, dispersion modeling in
order to estimate ambient concentrations resulting from the estimated emissions, exposure modeling in order to
estimate human exposure to the estimated corlcentratt m, and then final determination of health impacts based on
the estimated exposure. Each of these steps is encumbered by technical shortcomings or uncertain science that
prevents a more complete determination of the MSAT health impacts of this project
Emissions: The USEPA tools to estimate MSAT emissions from motor vehicles are not sensitive to key variables
determining emissions of MSATs in the context of highway projects. While MOBILE 62 is used to predict emissions
at a regional level, it has limited applicability at the project level. MOBILE 6.2 is a Irip -based model-emission factors
are projected based on a typical trip of 7.5 miles, and on average speeds for this typical trip. This means that
MOBILE 6.2 does not have the ability to predict emission factors for a specific vehicle operating condition at a
specific location at a specific tune Because of this limitation, MOBILE 6,2 can only approximate the operating
speeds and levels of congestion likely to be present on the largest -scale projects, and cannot adequately capture
emissions effects of smaller projects. For particulate matter, the model results are not sensitive to average trip speed,
although the other MSAT emission rates do change with changes in trip speed Also, the emissions rates used in
MOBILE 62 for both particulate matter and MSATs are based on a limited number of tests of mostly older- technology

vehicles. Lastly, in its discussions of PM under the conformity rule, USEPA has identified problems with MOBILE6.2
as an obstacle to quantitative analysis. These deficiencies compromise the capability of MOBILE 6.2 to estimate
MSAT emissions. MOBILE6.2 is an adequate tool for projecting emissions trends, and performing relative analyses
between alternatives for very large projects, but it is not sensitive enough to capture the effects of travel changes tied
to smaller projects or to predict emissions near specific roadside locations.
Dispersion: The tools to predict how MSATs disperse are also limited The USEPA's current regulatory models,
CALINE3 and CAL30HC, were developed and validated more than a decade ago for the purpose of predicting
episodic concentrations of carbon monoxide to determine compliance with the NAAOS. The performance of
dispersion models is more accurate for prodicting maximum concentrations that can occur at some time at some
location within a geographic area This limitation makes it difficult to predict accurate exposure patterns at specific
times at specific highway project locations across an urban area to assess potential heafth risk. The NCHRP is
conducting research on best practices in applying models and other technical methods in the analysis of MSATs
This work also will focus on identifying appropriate methods of documenting and communicating MSAT impacts in
the NEPA process and to the general public. Along i0th these general limitations of dispersion models, FHWA is
also faced with a lack of monitoring data in most areas for use in establishing project - specific MSAT background
concentrations.
Exposure Levels and Health Effects. Finally, even if emission levels and concentrations of MSATs could be
accurately predicted, shortcomings in current techniques for exposure assessment and risk analysis preclude us from
reaching meaningful conclusions about project - specific health impacts. Exposure assessments are difficult because it
is difficult to accurately calculate annual concentrations of MSATs near roadways, and to determine the portion of a
year that people are actually exposed to those concentrations at a specific location. These difficulties are magnified
for 70•year cancer assessments, particularly because unsupportable assumptions would have to be made regarding
changes in travel patterns and vehicle technology (which affects emissions rates) over a 70 -year period. There are
also considerable uncertainties associated with the existing estimates of toxicity of the various MSATs, because of
factors such as low -dose extrapolation and translation of occupational exposure data to the general population.
Because of these shortcomings, any calculated difference in health impacts between alternatives Is likely to be much
smaller than the uncertainties associated with calculating the impacts. Consequerdly, the results of such
assessments would not be useful to decision makers, who would need to weigh this information against other project
1 impacts that are better suited for quantitative analysis.
Summary of Existing Credible Scientific Evidence Relevant to Evaluating the Impacts of MSA Ts:
Research into the heath impacts of MSATs is ongoing. For different emission types, there are a variety of studies
1 that show that some either are statistically associated with adverse health outcomes through epidemiological studies
(frequently based on emissions levels found in occupational settings) or that animals demonstrate adverse health
outcomes when exposed to large doses. Exposure to toxics has been a focus of a number of USEPA efforts. Most
notably, the agency conducted the National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) In 1996 to evaluate modeled estimates of
human exposure applicable to the county level. While not intended for use as a measure of or benchmark for local
exposure, the modeled estimates in the NATA database best illustrate the levels of various toxics when aggregated
to a national or State level. USEPA Is in the process of assessing the risks of various kinds of exposures to these
pollutants. USEPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is a database of human health effects that may result
from exposure to various substances found In the environment. The IRIS database is located at
h1tpJ /www.epa.gov/1ris. The following toxicity information for the six prioritized MSATs was taken from the IRIS
database Weight of Evidence Characterization summaries. This information is taken verbatim from USEPA's IRIS
database and represents the Agency's most current evaluations of the potential hazards and toxicology of these
chemicals or mixtures.
• Benzene is characterized as a known human carcinogen.
• The potential carcinogenicity of acrolein cannot be determined because the existing data are inadequate for
an assessment of human carcinogenic potential for either the oral or inhalation route of exposure.
I

• formaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen, based on limited evidence in humans, and sufficient
evidence in anima.
• 1,3- butadiene is characterized as carcinogenic to humans by inhalation.
• Acetaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen based on increased incidence of nasal tumors In male and
female rats and laryngeal tumors in male and female hamsters after inhalation exposure.
• Diesel exhaust (DE) is likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation from environmental exposures.
-� Diesel exhaust as reviewed In this document is the combination of diesel particulate matter and diesel
_ exhaust organic gases.
• Diesel exhaust also represents chronic respiratory effects, possibly the primary noncancer hazard from
MSATs. Prolonged exposures may impair pulmonary function and could produce symptoms, such as cough,
N ? phlegm, and chronic bronchitis. Exposure relationships have not been developed from these studies.
There have been other studies that address MSAT health impacts in proximity to roadways. The Health Effects
�) Institute, a non - profit organization funded by USEPA, FHWA, and industry, has undertaken a major series of studies
to research near - roadway MSAT hot spots, the health implications of the entire mix of mobile source pollutants, and
other topics. The final summary of the series is not expected for several years. Some recent studies have reported
that proximity to roadways is related to adverse health outcomes -- particularly respiratory problems'. Much of this
research is not specific to MSATs, instead surveying the full spectrum of both criteria and other pollutants. The
—) FHWA cannot evaluate the validity of these studies, but more importantly, thoy do not provide information that would
be useful to alleviate the uncertainties listed above and enable us to perform a more comprehensive evaluation of the
health impacts specific to this project
} Relevance of Unavailable or Incomplete Information to Evaluating Reasonably Foreseeable Significant Adverse
Impacts on the Environment, and Evaluation of impacts based upon theoretical approaches or research methods
generally accepted in the scientific community: Because of the uncertainties outlined above, a quantitative
assessment of the effects of air toxic emissions impacts on human health cannot be made at the project level. While
available tools do allow us to reasonably predict relative emissions changes between alternatives for larger projects,
the amount of MSAT emissions from each of the project alternatives and MSAT concentrations or exposures created
by each of the project alternatives cannot be predicted with enough accuracy to be useful in estimating health
impacts. (As noted above, the current emissions model is not capable of serving as a meaningful emissions analysis
} tool for smaller projects.) Therefore, the relevance of the unavailable or Incomplete information is that it Is not
possible to make a determination of whether any of the alternatives would have "significant adverse Impacts on the
human environment."
In this document, FHWA has provided a qualitative analysis of MSAT emissions relative to the proposed project and
has acknowledged that the preferred alignment may result in increased exposure to MSAT emissions in certain
lopations, although the concentrations and duration of exposures are uncertain, and because of this uncertainty, the
health effects from these emissions cannot be estimated.
The potential MSAT emissions increase would be offset somewhat by lower MSAT emission rates due to increased
speeds as a result of capacity and operational Improvements. According to USEPA's MOBILE6 emissions model,
emissions of all of the priority MSATs, except for diesel particulate matter, decrease as speed increases. The extent
to which these speed- related emissions decreases will offset VMT- related emissions increases cannot be reliably
projected due to the inherent deficiencies of technical models
' Soulh Coast Air Qualit y Management District, Multiple Air Toxic Exposure Study -II (2000), Highway Health Hazards, The Sierra Club (2004)
summerizmg 24 Studies an the relationship between health and air quality); NEPA's Uncertainty in the Federal Legal Scheme Controlling Air
1 PollUtion from A9ofor Vehicles, Environmental Law Institute, 35 ELR 10273 (2005) with health studies cited therein

AIR QUALITY TECHNICAL REPORT
FOR THE PROPOSED NORFOLK SOUTHERN
INTERMODAL FACILITY AT
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT
September 2008
Prepared by:
Landrum & Brown, Incorporated
11279 Cornell Park Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45242

( /
i
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
NORFOLK SOUTHERN INTERMODAL FACILITY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SEC. TION Page
I. Background ............................................ ..............................I
y 1I. Assessment Procedures ........................... ............................... 3
III. Summary of Findings .............................. ............................... 5
Attachment i Technical Data for Construction and Computer Modeling
Input and Output Files
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
Page
1. Emissions Inventory for the Intermodal Facility .......................... 6
Air Quality Technical Report page i
September 2008

CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
NORFOLK SOUTHERN INTERMODAL FACILITY
1.0 BACKGROUND
The Proposed Project is the construction and implementation of an Intermodal
freight facility that will combine the use of rail and truck operations. The Proposed
1 Project includes construction of a railroad spur leading from the Norfolk Southern
Railroad line north of the Charlotte Douglas International Airport (CLT or Airport),
to an area on the southwest side of the Airport. Development at the site will
include tracks and a large staging lot to transfer freight containers (including
trailers) between transportation modes, Also included in the proposal is the
? construction of new buildings that will support operation of the facility. The
construction is expected to occur over two construction seasons following approval
of the environmental review. The Proposed Project would cause temporary
emissions from construction and a net increase In annual emissions due to the
operation of freight locomotives on the rail line, heavy -duty freight trucks,
employee vehicles, and boilers to heat the facility buildings.
The Proposed Project includes approximately the following construction tasks,
• Excavation of 1.6 million cubic yards of earth to prepare the site;
• Construction of a 2,600 -foot asphalt roadway to allow entrance to the
proposed facility;
• Install a total of 92,430 linear feet of railroad track;
1 • Application of 4.1 million square feet of concrete and asphalt, including
-heavy -duty asphalt to support heavy freight containers;
• Prepare a space for chassis storage using approximately 222,000 square feet
of stone gravel;
• Construction of four single -level buildings totaling approximately 11,000
square feet; and,
• Install boilers for heat in the proposed buildings.
1.1 Mecklenburg County Air Quality Status
The Airport is located within Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has designated the county as
"nonattainment" for the Federal eight -hour ozone standard. The Federal standards
are referred to as the National Ambient' Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and were
established under the Clean Air Act, including the 1990 Amendments, (CAA) to
define the maximum healthful concentrations of the criteria pollutants2 in the
ambient air, namely, carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (S02), nitrogen dioxide
1 Ambient air is defined as the freely moving air of the outdoor environment In areas where the
2 general public has access.
Collectively, the pollutants CO, NO2, S02, PM101 PM2 5, ozone, and lead are referred to as the
%criteria" pollutants because the quality of the air, with regard to these pollutants, is regulated
relative to numerical criteria, or standards.
Air Quality Technical Report Page 1
September 2008

CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
AIA,DVn1►r S011TNERN INTERMODAL FACILITY
(NO2), coarse particulate matter (PMI0)3 fine particulate matter (PM2,5), and lead.
Mecklenburg County has exceeded the Federal standard for CO levels in the past
but monitoring sites have not recorded a violation since 1986. As such, in 1995,
Mecklenburg County was officially designated as attainment for CO and the county
now operates under a maintenance plan to •control emissions and maintain healthful
levels of CO. At the time of this report, the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for
North Carolina includes the CO maintenance strategies for Mecklenburg County.
Mecklenburg County is in attainment for all other criteria pollutants.
The CAA thresholds of potential significance commonly referred to as the de
minimis thresholds, applicable for rederal actions undertaken in Mecklenburg
County are 100 tons per year for net emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), 100 tons
per year for volatile organic compounds (VOC), and 100 tons per year for CO
emissions.
1.2 Transportation Conformity Applicability
Transportation conformity applies when the proposed project includes Federal
transit or highway modifications that are not already included in the Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) or Transportation Plan (TP). The Proposed Norfolk
Southern Intermodal Facility is included on the TI p.4 Therefore, Transportation
Conformity does not apply.
1.3 Indirect Source Review Applicability
North Carolina has a regulatory program for Indirect Source Review (ISR) under
both the state, 15A North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 2D .0800 and 2Q
.0600, and local programs, Mecklenburg County Air Pollution Control Ordinance
(MCAPCO) Section 1.5600 and 2.0800. The two programs are essentially identical
and require permitting, and in some cases air quality analyses, for certain types of
} indirect "Transportation Facilities ". Facilities that are subject to these programs are
Airports and Parking Facilities. However, the Proposed Project is not included in
either of these categories since it does not conduct aircraft operations nor does it
include a vehicle parking area larger than 1,500 parking spaces. The Proposed
Project will involve transfer of freight containers to and from rail cars, and
temporary storage of the freight containers prior to subsequent transportation by
either truck or rail. In addition, assessment of potential air emissions from the
Proposed Project demonstrates that they would not equal or exceed the relevant
thresholds for NO,, VOCs, or CO (see Section 3.0).
Particulate matter emissions are categorized by size. Coarse particles are defined as having a
diameter of 10 micrometers or less and are referred to as PMio; fine particles are defined as
having a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less and are referred to as PM2.5.
Mecklenburg -Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO). 2009 -2015 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program "TIP ". ID# U -5011 Charlotte Douglas International Airport.
Construct Freight Intermodal Facility and ID# U -5013 Norfolk Southern Intermodal System.
Approved May 21, 2008.
Air Quality Technical Report Page 2
September 2008

CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Ai -aan. Ar Cno►rr mrom INTERMODAL FACILITY
,2*0, ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES
An emission inventory was prepared to disclose the annual net emissions caused by
sources affected by the Proposed Project. Construction emissions are expected to
be' the only additional emissions during the project's first year. During the second
year of the project, construction will be completed and implementation of the
freight facility will begin. The following year, net emissions caused by the Proposed
Project will be comprised entirely of emissions caused by the operation of the
intermodal facility.
2.1 Construction Emissions
Final engineering for the Proposed Project is not complete. Therefore, the analysis
of construction emissions was based on estimates of the type and quantity of
construction equipment likely to be involved in the project. The use of equipment
anticipated to be necessary for the construction of the Proposed Project were based
on phased airport construction projects of similar size and scope that were
successfully reviewed in previous recent airport environmental documents, As
such, the following steps were evaluated for the inventory of emissions caused by
equipment required to complete the construction tasks for the Proposed Project:
• Develop the list of construction equipment and materials necessary for each
construction task for input into the computer spreadsheet for calculations;
• Develop the assumptions required to complete the calculations necessary to
compute the total construction emissions; and
• Develop the calculations to compute total construction emissions for each
task.
The total operating hours for each unit of equipment required for each individual
construction task were calculated using a Microsoft® EXCEL 2003 spreadsheet. The
information was then transferred to the National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM).5
To provide a reasonable representation of emissions likely to occur from
construction, the calculation of emissions using NMIM assumed the use of nonroad
diesel equipment compliant to the Federal Tier 1 and Tier 2 emission standards
applicable in 2005.6 The emissions for all the individual construction tasks were
added together to determine the total construction emissions attributable to the
Proposed Project on an annual basis.
2.2 Motor Vehicles (Trucks and Employee Cars)
Emissions from motor vehicles were estimated using the FAA Emissions and
Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS Version 5.0.2) computer program. The EDMS
computer program is the FAA - required and USEPA- approved model for estimating
emissions and calculating pollutant concentrations from airport- specific sources.
The model is also approved for predicting emissions from motor vehicles on
5 USEPA, NNIN2005, 2005.
b USEPA, 40 CFR Part 89, July i, 2007.
Air Quality Technical Report Page 3
September 2008

CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
} NORFOLK SOUTHERN INTERMODAL FACILITY
roadways and in parking lots, as well as predicting emissions from stationary
sources such as heating plants (boilers).
Emissions from motor vehicles were calculated relative to the use of the facility
entrance roadway, two parking areas for employees, and one staging lot for freight.
The intermodai facility would require the use of heavy -duty yard or "hostler" trucks
to move freight containers. These trucks would operate exclusively in the staging
lot and would not operate along the entrance roadway or travel off the intermodal
freight facility. The facility will require the use of heavy -duty semi - tractor trailer
trucks to transport the freight containers.
Calculations of vehicle emissions on roadways includes the assumption that the
Intermodal facility will use heavy -duty diesel trucks, and employee cars would be of
all types, fuels, and ages (based on the national average). Both cars and trucks on
the roadway were assumed to travel at an average speed of 35 miles per hour.
Emissions on roadways were further based on the annual traffic count on the
roadway, the vehicle type and fuel type, and the roadway length.
} Emissions from vehicles in the parking areas and in the staging lot are based on the
distance traveled by motor vehicles in these areas, the average speed of the
vehicles, and the estimated idle time in these areas. The distance traveled by the
vehicles was determined measuring the distance from the entrance of the lot to the
farthest possible parking or staging space. The average speed of vehicles inside
the parking or staging areas was assumed to be 10 miles per hour; idle time was
i estimated to be 10 minutes for the hostler trucks, 1.5 minutes for cars, and 10
minutes for semi - tractor trailer trucks.
2.3 Boilers
Emissions from boilers used for building heating were estimated using the EDMS
stationary source emissions function. There are four single -level buildings proposed
for the facility. The emissions from boilers include a heating system for each of the
four buildings, fueled by natural gas, each with a heating capacity of less than
100 million BTU' per hour. The annual fuel throughput for the boilers was
estimated at the maximum potential, defined as operation of the boilers every hour
of the year at maximum capacity with respect to the size of the interior space of
the facilities. Because of the small size of the proposed boilers, the Proposed
Project would not be subject to the requirements of a Title V permit.
2.4 Locomotives
The emissions from locomotive operations were calculated using a Microsoft@
EXCEL 2003 spreadsheet and pursuant to USEPA- approved methodology.
The analysis included the assumption that the proposed facility would use switch,
BTU refers to British thermal units.
Air Quality Technical Repot t Page 4
September 2008

CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
�• NORFOLK SOUTHERN INTERMODAL FACILITY
large six -axle locomotives, Fuel consumption information was obtained from The
Bureau of Transportation8.
Factors for locomotive emissions are given by USEPA in grams per gallon of fuel
burned. At full capacity, it was estimated that there will be 84 locomotive -hours
per day, seven days a week. The number of annual locomotive hours was
multiplied by an approximate on -site speed, in miles per hour (mph), to determine
the total mileage at the facility. The resulting value was multiplied by an estimated
fuel consumption rate giving the approximate annual fuel consumption in gallons at
the facility. Finally, the approximate fuel consumption of the locomotives was
multiplied to the emission factors for locomotives. 9
3.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The results of the emission inventories for the Proposed Project are given In
Table 1, Emission Inventory for the tntermodal Facility.
The emissions estimated for each phase of the Proposed Project represent the
annual net emissions because emissions from the No Action Alternative are
assumed to be zero. Thus, the potential annual emission impacts, or net emissions,
would be the emissions caused by the Proposed Project. However, the Proposed
Action does include the closure of the existing Norfolk Southern intermodal facility.
The data in Table 1 does not consider the closure of the existing facility. Therefore,
the cumulative impact on air emissions in the area due to the Proposed Action
would potentially be less than shown in Table 1.
The assessment revealed the following findings:
• The Airport is located in an area that is in nonattainment for eight -hour
ozone and maintenance for CO.
• The Proposed Project will cause an increase in the emissions of criteria and
precursor pollutants.
• The Proposed Project is subject to the CAA General Conformity Rule relative
to emissions of NOx, VOC, and CO.
• The net increase in emissions of the ozone precursor pollutants and direct
and precursor - pollutant emissions relating to CO are not projected to equal or
exceed the relevant de minimis thresholds applicable under the General
Conformity Rule.
Bureau of Transportation, Class I Rail Freight Fuel Consumption and Travel, accessed on
September 16, 2008 at htto:// www .bts.gov /oubNcatiort�lnational transportation
stptIs1'cs/2004 /html /table 04 17.html
USEPA, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Pail 92, Control of Air Pollution from Locomotives
and Locomotive Engines, June 30, 2008.
Air Quality Technical Report Page 5
Septembe► 2008

CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
NORFOLK SOUTHERN INTERMODAL FACILITY
Table i
EMISSION INVENTORY FOR THE INTERMODAL FACILITY
Charlotte/ Douglas International Airport
Note: No emissions would be expected during the first year of the project relative to locomotives;
only the temporary emissions from construction would be expected.
PM2 s emissions were assumed to be equal to the PMIO emissions total for each construction
task.
An emission factor for SOx has not been designated by USEPA for locomotive operation.
Total emissions may not sum exactly due to rounding.
Sources: FAA, EDMS Version 5.0.2, 2007.
\ USEPA, NMIM200S, 2005. _ 4
Landrum & Brown analysis, 2008.
The analysis showed that the annual net emissions caused by construction and
implementation of the proposed Norfolk Southern Intermodal Facility would not
equal or exceed the relevant de minimis thresholds for NO,, VOC, or CO.
Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have the potential to cause significant
adverse air quality impacts, and the Proposed Project is presumed to conform under
the Code of Federal Regulations Title 40 Part 93.158, Criteria for Determining
Conformity of General Federal Actions. Further, there is no requirement to conduct
dispersion analysis to compare project- related emissions to the NAAQS due to the
de minimis emissions estimated for the Proposed Project.10 Therefore, the project
is assumed to comply with the guidelines presented in FAA Order 1050.1E Appendix
A, Section 2, Air Quality. Consequently, the Proposed Project complies with the
provisions of the Clean Air Act as stated in the Clean Air Act Title 1, Section
176(c)(1). No further analysis or reporting would be required under the provisions
of the CAA or under NEPA guidelines.
10 FAA, Air Quality Procedures for Civilian Airports and Ah Force Bases, April 1997, quoted from
Section 2.5.1, NAAQS Assessment, "If the action Is In a nonattainment or maintenance area and
exempt or presumed to conform under conformity requirements, it Is assumed that a NAAQS
assessment is not required for an airport or air base action since It Is unlikely the action's pollutant
concentrations would exceed the NAAQS."
Air Quality Technical Report Page 6
September 2008
TOTAL PROIECT EMISSIONS
(tons per year)
{4',E,r rFtt�� �����;%�,� 1(J , WS l�
� �
�(.?.Tj�YY U..r{y2�t
,�yG ,.[ •.jti�,�
"��.�p�,� {�
ST���t�,�`.�.P��������'��''i
��
Net Annual
==Mao=
Construction Emissions
jt 7T,,-
,4�.�!��:'_'....�
":
Implementation
Construction
1 ihi.1.�1�f�j4.:�:, /l�?':!7-
��•��Imphmentation
�r u'a�
�`4 �.'n :ati tidy ..1
iti�l�!Sr����`1��1
j,:i.�l4. .1��1.4�
{?: JS.�
��1.
+..��..:.yi
Emissions
Note: No emissions would be expected during the first year of the project relative to locomotives;
only the temporary emissions from construction would be expected.
PM2 s emissions were assumed to be equal to the PMIO emissions total for each construction
task.
An emission factor for SOx has not been designated by USEPA for locomotive operation.
Total emissions may not sum exactly due to rounding.
Sources: FAA, EDMS Version 5.0.2, 2007.
\ USEPA, NMIM200S, 2005. _ 4
Landrum & Brown analysis, 2008.
The analysis showed that the annual net emissions caused by construction and
implementation of the proposed Norfolk Southern Intermodal Facility would not
equal or exceed the relevant de minimis thresholds for NO,, VOC, or CO.
Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have the potential to cause significant
adverse air quality impacts, and the Proposed Project is presumed to conform under
the Code of Federal Regulations Title 40 Part 93.158, Criteria for Determining
Conformity of General Federal Actions. Further, there is no requirement to conduct
dispersion analysis to compare project- related emissions to the NAAQS due to the
de minimis emissions estimated for the Proposed Project.10 Therefore, the project
is assumed to comply with the guidelines presented in FAA Order 1050.1E Appendix
A, Section 2, Air Quality. Consequently, the Proposed Project complies with the
provisions of the Clean Air Act as stated in the Clean Air Act Title 1, Section
176(c)(1). No further analysis or reporting would be required under the provisions
of the CAA or under NEPA guidelines.
10 FAA, Air Quality Procedures for Civilian Airports and Ah Force Bases, April 1997, quoted from
Section 2.5.1, NAAQS Assessment, "If the action Is In a nonattainment or maintenance area and
exempt or presumed to conform under conformity requirements, it Is assumed that a NAAQS
assessment is not required for an airport or air base action since It Is unlikely the action's pollutant
concentrations would exceed the NAAQS."
Air Quality Technical Report Page 6
September 2008

CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
1 NORFOLK SOUTHERN INTERMODAL FACILITY
1
Attachment 1
Technical Data for Construction and Computer
Modeling Input and Output Files
Air Quality Technical Report
September 2008
NMIM FLEET INFORMATION FILES
EDMS INPUT AND OUTPUT
Page 7

CLT - Buildings (onRoad Fleet).txt
class,2005, number of vehicles,annual mileage
HDDBS,2005,000,000000
HDDBT,2005,000,000000
HDDv2b,2005,000,000000
HDDv3,2005,000,000000
HDDV4,2005,000,000000
HDDV5,2005,000,000000
HDDv6,2005,000,000000
HDDV7,2005,001,000576
HDDV8a,2005,001,015550
HDDv8b,2005,000,000000
HDGB,2005,000,000000
HDGv2b,2005,001,010308
HDGV3,200S,000,000000
j HDGV4,2005,000,000000
HDGV5,2005,000,000000
HDGV6,2005,000,000000
HDGv7,2005,000,000000
HDGV8a,2005,000,000000
HDGV8b,2005,000,000000
LDDT12,2005,000,000000
LDDT34,2005,000,000000
LDDV,2005,000,000000
LDGT1,2005,000,000000
LDGT2,2005,000,000000
LDGT3,2005,000,000000
LDGT4,2005,000,000000
LDGV,2005,000,000000
MC,2005,000,000000
)
Page 1

I
CLI - Buildings (NonRoad Fleet).txt
SCC, Hpmax, ModelYear, TechType, Population, Hours /Year
Tan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, jun, ]ul, Aug, sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2270002009, 011, 2005, ALL, 1, 455
DEFAULT
2270002015, 100, 2005, ALL, 1, 106
DEFAULT
2270002030, 300, 2005, ALL, 1, 688
DEFAULT
2270002036, 175, 2005, ALL, 1, 565
DEFAULT
2270002036, 600, 2005, ALL, 1, 170
DEFAULT
2270002042, 100, 2005, ALL, 1, 4
DEFAULT
2270002045, 300, 2005, ALL, 1, 140
DEFAULT
2270002048, 175, 2005, ALL, 1, 448
DEFAULT
2270002051, 750, 2005, ALL, 1, 363
DEFAULT
2270002060, 175, 2005, ALL, 1, 569
DEFAULT
2270002066, 075, 2005, ALL, 1, 224
DEFAULT
2270002069, 175, 2005, ALL, 1, 245
DEFAULT
2270002081, 175, 2005, ALL, 1, 70
DEFAULT
2270006005, 025, 2005, ALL, 1, 220
DEFAULT
2270006025, 040, 2005, ALL, 1, 9
DEFAULT
Page 1

CLT - Chassis storage (OnRoad Fleet).txt
class,2005, number of vehicles,annual mileage
HDDBS,2005,000,000000
HDDBT,2005,000,000000
HDDv2b,2005,000,000000
HDDV3,2005,000,000000
HDDv4,2005,000,000000
` HDDV5,2005,000,000000
HDDV6,2005,000,000000
HDDV7,2005,000,000000
HDDv8a,2005,001,042465
HDDv8b,2005,000,000000
HDGB,2005,000,000000
MGM 2005,000,000000
HDGA , fi05 , 000 , 000000
HDGV4,2005,000,000000
HDGVS,2005,000,000000
HDGV6,2005,000,000000
HDGV7,2005,000,000000
HDGv8a,2005,000,000000
HDGv8b,2005,000,000000
LDDT12,2005,000,000000
LDDT34,2005,000,000000
LDDV,2005,000,000000
LDGT1,2005,000,000000
LDGT2,2005,000,000000
j LDGT3,2005,000,000000
LDGT4,2005,000,000000
LDGV,2005,000,000000
MC,2005,000,000000
Page 1

}
cLT - chassis storage (NonROad Fleet).txt
scc, Hpmax, Model Year, TechType, Population, Hours /Year
Tan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, 7u1, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2270002036, 600, 2005, ALL, 1, 348
DEFAULT
Page ]

1 CLT - Earthwork (OnRoad F1eet).txt
class,2005, number of vehicles,annual mileage
HDDBS,2005,000,000000
HDDBT,2005,000,000000
HDDv2b,2005,000,000000
HDDV3,2005,000,000000
HDDv4,2005,000,000000
HDDVS,2005,000,000000
HDDV6,2005,000,000000
HDDV7,2005,000,000000
HDDV8a,2005,001,638000
HDDv8b,2005,000,000000
HDGB,2005,000,000000
HDGv2b,2005,000,000000
HDGv3,2005,000,000000
HDGV4,2005,000,000000
HDGV5,2005,000,000000
HDGV6,2005,000,000000
HDGV7,2005,000,000000
HDGV8a,2005,000,000000
HDGv8b,2005,000,000000
LDDT12,2005,000,000000
LDDT34,2005,000,000000
LDDV,2005,000,000000
LOGT1,200S,000,000000
LDGT2,200S,000,000000
LDGT3,2005,000,000000
LDGT4,2005,000 000000
LDGV,2005,000,b00000
MC,2005,000,000000
1
1
Page 1

CLT - Earthwork (NonROad Fleet).tXt
$CC, Hpmax, ModelYear, Tecunyp , population, Hours /YearDec
jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May,
2270002036, 600, 2005, ALL, 1, 5223
DEFAULT
Page 1

CLT - Parking Lot Construction (onROad Fleet).txt
class,2005, number of vehicles,annual mileage
HDDBS,2005,000,000000
HDDBT,2005,000,000000
HDDv2b,2005,000,000000
HDDV3,2005,000,000000
HDDV4,2005,000,000000
HDDV5,2005,000,000000
HDDV6,2005,000,000000
HDDV7,200S,001,963558
HDDV8a,2005,001,741185
HDDV8b,2005,000,000000
HDGB,2005,000,000000
HDGV2b,2005,001,282146
HDGV3,2005,000,000000
HDGV4,2005,000,000000
HDGV5,2005,000,000000
HDGV6,2005,000,000000
HDGV7,2005,000,000000
HDGv8a,2005,000,000000
HDGV8b,2005,000,000000
LDDT12,2005,000,000000
LDDT34,2005,000,000000
LDDV,2005,000,000000
LDGT1,2005,000,000000
LDGT2,2005,000,000000
LDGT3,2005,000,000000
D v 5500,000
L 0 66000
MC,2005,000,000000
Page 1

CLT - Parking Lot Construction (NonRoad Fleet).txt
SCC, Hpmax, ModelYear, Tec Type, Population, Hours /Year
Tan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Tun, 761, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2270002003, 100, 2005, ALL, 1, 8504
DEFAULT
2270002009, 011, 2005, ALL, 1, 1995
DEFAULT
2270002015, 100, 2005, ALL, 1, 17007
DEFAULT
2270002021, 040, 2005, ALL, 1, 8504
DEFAULT
2270002030, 300, 2005, ALL, 1, 236
DEFAULT
2270002036, 600, 2005, ALL, 1, 139
DEFAULT
2270002048, 175, 2005, ALL, 1, 4245
DEFAULT
2270002081, 175, 2005, ALL, 1, 2005
DEFAULT
2270002081, 600, 2005, ALL, 1, 8504
DEFAULT
2270006015, 040, 2005, ALL, 1, 124
} DEFAULT
I
1
Page 1

CO - Railroad construction (onROad Fleet).txt
class,2005, number of vehicles,annual mileage
HDDBS,2005,000,000000
HODBT,2005,000,000000
HDDv2b,2005,000,000000
HDDV3,2005,000,000000
HDDV4,2005,000,000000
HDDV5,2005,000,000000
HDDV6,2005,000,000000
HDDV7,2005,001,4078124
HDDv8a,2005,001,373832
HDDv8b,2005,000,000000
HDGB,2005,000,000000
HDGV2b,2005,001,893192
HDGV4,2005,000,000000
HDGVS,2005,000,000000
HDGv6,2005,000,000000
HDGv7,2005,000,000000
HDGV8a,2005,000,000000
HDGV8b,2005,000,000000
LDDT12,2005,000,000000
LDDT34,2005,000,000000
LDDV,2005,000,000000
LDGT1,2005,000,000000
LDGT2,2005,000,000000
S LDGT3,2005,000,000000
LDGT4 2005,000 000000
LDGV,505,600,b00000
mC,2005,000,000000
Page 1

CLT - Railroad construction
5CC, Hpmax, ModelYear, TechType, Population,
Tan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, ]un, JU1, Aug, Sep,
2270002009, 011, 2005, ALL, 1, 8364
DEFAULT
2270002042, 100, 2005, ALL, 1, 1942
DEFAULT
2270002048, 175, 2005, ALL, 1, 3355
DEFAULT
2270002066, 075, 2005, ALL, 1, 34955
DEFAULT
2270002081, 175, 2005, ALL, 1, 2300
DEFAULT
2270006005, 025, 2005, ALL, 1, 308
DEFAULT
2270006025, 040, 2005, ALL, 1, 308
DEFAULT
2270006035, 040, 2005, ALL, 1, 116518
DEFAULT
Page 1
(NonRoad Fleet).txt
Hours /Year
Oct, Nov, Dec

CLT - Reinforced asphalt (onROad Fleet).txt
class,2005, number of vehicles,annual mileage
HDDBS,2005,000,000000
HDDBT,2005,000,000000
HDDv2b,2005,000,000000
HDDV3,2005,000,000000
HDDV4,2005,000,000000
I HDDV5,2005,000,000000
HDDV6,2005,000,000000
HDDV7,2005,001,006562
HDDV8a,2005,001,022546
HDDV8b,2005,000,000000
HDGB,2005,000,000000
HDGv2b,2005,001,014506
HDGV3,2005,000,000000
HDGV4,2005,000,000000
HDGV5,200S,000,000000
HDGV6,2005,000,000000
HDGV7,2005,000,000000
HDGv8a,2005,000,000000
HDGV8b,2005,000,000000
LDDT12,200S,000,000000
LDDT34,200S,000,000000
LDDV,2005,000,000000
LDGT1,200S,000,000000
LDGT2,2005,000,000000
LDGT3,2005,000,000000
LDGT4,200S,000,000000
LDGV,200S,000,000000
MC,2005,000,000000
1
}
1
1
)
Page 1

CLT - Reinforced Asphalt (NonRoad Fleet).txt
SCC, Hpmax, ModelYear, TechType, Population, Hours /Year
Jan, Feb, mar, Apr, May, Jun, JU1, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2270002003, 100, 2005, ALL, 1, 116
DEFAULT
2270002009, 011, 2005, ALL, 1, 529
DEFAULT
2270002015, 100, 2005, ALL, 1, 232
DEFAULT
2270002021, 040, 2005, ALL, 1, 116
DEFAULT
2270002030, 300, 2005, ALL, 1, 43
DEFAULT
2270002036, 600, 2005, ALL, 1, 50
DEFAULT
2270002048, 175, 2005, ALL, 1, 767
DEFAULT
2270002081, 175, 2005, ALL, 1, 433
DEFAULT
2270002081, 600, 2005, ALL, 1, 116
DEFAULT
2270006015, 040, 2005, ALL, 1, 22
DEFAULT
Page 1

CLT - Roadway construction (OnRoad Fleet).txt
C1ass,2005, number of vehicles,annual mileage
HDDB5,2005,000,000000
HDDBT,2005,000,000000
HDDv2b,2005,000,000000
HDDV3,2005,000,000000
HDDV4,2005,000,000000
HDDVS,2005,000,000000
HDDV6,2005,000,000000
HDDV7,2005,001,001822
HDDv8a,2005,001,003447
j HDDv8b,2005,000,000000
HDGB,2005,000,000000
HDGv2b2005,001,002111
HDGV3,505,000,000000
1 HDGV4,2005,000,000000
HDGV5,2005,000,000000
HDGV6,2005,000,000000
} HDGV7,200S,000,000000
HDGV8a,2005,000,000000
HDGV8b,2005,000,000000
LDDT12,2005,000,000000
` LDDT34,2005,000,000000
LDDV,200S,000,000000
LDGT1,200S,000,000000
LDGT2,2005,000,000000
LDGT3,2005,000,000000
LDGT4,2005,000,000000
LDGV,2005,000,000000
j
K,2005,000,000000
I
Page 1

CL7 - Roadway Construction (NonRoad Fleet).txt
SCC, Hpmax, ModelYear, TechType, Population, Hours /Year
Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, 7u1, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2270002003, 100, 2005, ALL, 1, 16
DEFAULT
2270002009, 011, 2005, ALL, 1, 78
DEFAULT
2270002015, 100, 2005, ALL, 1, 32
DEFAULT
2270002021, 040, 2005, ALL, 1, 16
DEFAULT
1 2270002030, 300, 2005, ALL, 1, 10
DEFAULT
2270002036, 600, 2005, ALL, 1, 6
DEFAULT
2270002048, 175, 2005, ALL, 1, 203
DEFAULT
2270002081, 175, 2005, ALL, 1, 141
DEFAULT
2270002081, 600, 2005, ALL, 1, 16
DEFAULT
2270006015, 040, 2005, ALL, 1, 5
DEFAULT
i
1
Page 1

EDMS 5.0.2
EDMS 5.0.2 Model Inputs for CLT - Intermodal Facility Study
Page I of 7
Study Created. Mon Sep 15 09:30 ;63 2008
Report Dale. Tue Sep 16 16:09 49 2008
Study Pathname P 1CL MLT Emissions Inventory Sept 20081AOtlmplenwnlatlon%CL T - Intermodal FacihtytCl7 - Intermodal Facility edrn
Study Setup
Unit System. English
Dispersion Modeling. Dispersion is not enabled for this study
Analysis Years- 2008
Scenarios
Scenario Name. Description: Add a description
Baseline Aircraft Times in Mode Basis Performence•Based
Taxi Tima Modeling: User-spedned Taxi Times
FOA3 Sullur- "ulfete Conversion Rate 01900000 %
Airports
3101.00 feet
Airport Name
Chadotte/Douglas Intl
WTA Code:
CLT
ICAO Code.
KCLT
FAA Code:
50.65'F
Counlry.
US
Stele•
North Caroline
CRY
charlotte
Airport Description
(herlolte/Dougles iml
Latitude:
35214'
Longitude.
•80.943'
Northing:
3898777.97
Easting:
505176.39
UTM Zone:
17
Elevation:
748.00 feet
PM Modeling Methodology.
FOA3e (Sulfur4o-Sulfate Conversiun Rate = 5.0%, Fuel St fiur Content = 0.088 %)
Scenario - Airport: Baseline, Charlotte /Douglas Intl
Weather Began", Chatioaemouplas hu
Mixing Height.
3101.00 feet
Temperature:
01.00'F
Dally High
71.35'F
Temperature:
D* LOW
50.65'F
Temperature.
Preeerae:
28.24 Inches of Hg
Sea Love-
pressure-
30.06 inches of Hg
Relative Humldpy:
60.41
Wind Speed:
6.33 tarots
Wind Direction.
OAO'
Calling:
99999.99 feet
Visibility:
50.09 moss
The user has used annual averages
Base Elevation:
740.00 feel
Date Range-
Thursday, January 01, 2004 to Ftiday, December 31, 2004
Soorce Data File
Location:
Upper Ali Data
File Location:
Quarter - Hourly Operational Profiles Baseline, Charlotte/Douglas Intl
Name: DEFAULT
Quarter -Hour Weight Quarter -Hour Weight Quarter-Hour Wekiht Quener -Hour Weight
file:/ /P:\('LT \CLT Emissions Inventory Sept 2008\AQ \implementation \CLT - Intermodal ... 9/16/2008

EDMS 5.0.2 Page 2 of 7
12.00am in 12.14 1.000000 6
6 .00am to 6 Main 1.000000 1p2m.00pm to 12 14 1.000000 6
61)0pm to 6:14pm 1.000000
to 12,29 1000000 6
6:153m to 6.298m 1000000 Vm15pn i to 12.29 1000000 6
6 15p to 6.29pm 1.000000
aml5em t
12.30am to 12A4 1000000 6
6 30am to SA4am 1.000000 12.30pm to 12A4 1,000000 6
6:30pm to 6.44pm 1000000
am p
pm
e45am In 1159 1000000 8:46am to 6.59am 1000000 pm.46pm to 59 1 000000 6 45p to 6:69pm 1.00001)0
1:00am to 1. Nam 1000000 7.00am to 7.14am I ODWO0 1 OOpm to 1 14ptn 1.00D000 7:00pm to 7:14pm 1000000
1:15am to I'29am 1.000000 7 15am to 7 29am 1.000000 1 t6pm to 1:29pm 1,000000 7:15pm to 7:29pm 1000000
130am to 1:44am 1.000000 7:308m to 7:44am 1000000 1.30pm to 1.44pm 1000000 7:30pm to 7A4pm 1000000
1.468m to 1:59am 1.000000 7:45am to 7:59am 1.1100000 1:46pm to 1:69pm 1.000000 7:45pm to 7.59pm 1.000000
2.00am to 2:14am 1.000000 8:001am to 8:14sm 1.000000 2.00pm to 2:14pm 1.000000 8:00pm to 8:14pm 1.000000
2:15am to 2 29am 10)0000 6:1Sam to 8.299 m 1000000 2:15pm to 2.29pm 1.000000 815pm to 8:29pm 1.000000
2 30am to 2:44am 1.000000 8-30am to 8:449m 1000000 2:30pm to 2:44pm 1.000000 8:30pm to 8.44pm 1.0000DO
2:45am to 2:59am 1.000000 8.45nm to 8:59am 1000000 2.45pm to 2.59pm 1.000000 8:45pm to 8:59pm 1.000000
3'00am to 3:14am 1.000010 9 :00am to 9.14am 1.000000 3:00pm to 3:14pm 1.000000 9:00pm to 9:14pm 1.000000
31Sam to 3:29am 1000000 9:16am to 9:29am 1000000 3.15pm to 3.29pm 1.000000 9:15pm to 9:28pm 1.000000
3:30am to 3A4am 1.000000 9 30sm to 9.44am 1.000000 3:30pm to 3A4pm 1.000000 9:30pm to 9:44pm 1.000000
3.45am to 3:599m 1.100000 9.45em to 9:59am 1.000000 3A5pm to 3 69pm 1.000000 9:45pm to 9.59pm 1.000000
4:00am to 4:14am 1.000000 10.008m to 1000000 4:OOpm to 4 14pm 10011000 10:00prn to 1.000000
10,14am 10:14pm
4.15am to 429am 1.010000 10:15am to 1.000000 4:15pm to 4 :29pm 1.000000 10-16pm to 1000000
10.29am 10:29pm
4 :30am to 4.44am 1.000000 102Oam to 1000000 4.30pm to 4.44pm 1.000000 10.30pm to 1.000000
10:44am 10A4pm
4:45am to 4:59am 1.000000 10.45em to 1000000 4:45pm to 4.59pm 1.00101101 10A6pm to 1.000000
10.598m 10-.59pm
6:00am to 5.14am 1.000000 I I: 08m to 1.000000 5:00pm to 5:14pm 1.000000 111 kopm to 1.000000
5:15am to 5:29em 1.000000 if: 1aamm to 1.000000 5:15pm to 5:29pm I.00OOOD 11:2 to 1'00M
5:30am t0 5:44am 1.000000 11.30am to 1.000000 5:30pm to 5A4pm 1.000000 11:90pm to 1.100000
11A4am 11 :44pm
5:45am to 5:59am 1.000000 IIA6am to 1.000000 5:45pm to 5:69pm 1.000(100 11:45pm to 1100000
11.59am 119pm
Daily Operational Profiles sasefine, CherloaelDouglas Hdt
Name:DEFAULT
Day Welglu Day Weight
Monday 1.000000 Friday 1.000000
Tuesday 1.000[%10 Saturday 1.000000 i
Wednesday 1.000000 Sunday 11100000
Thursday t.oll0000
Monthly Operational Profiles Baseline. 0tertwlaroougtas Intl
I Name: DEFAULT
Month Weight Month Weight
January 1.000000 July 1.000000
February 1.000000 August 1.000000
J March 1.000000 September 1.000000
April 1.000000 October 1.000000
May 1.000000 November 11100000
June 1.001000 ___.,___............�.r- December
.. +....1.000000 r.�.__�_ __...r._.._...�..
Aircraft Baseline, CharlollefDouglas Intl
Default Taxi Out Time, 19 000000 mm
Default Text In Time, 7 000000 min
file: / /P: \CLT \CL•'1' Hmissions Inventory Sept 2008V\Q\1mp1ementation \C1,T - ]nterniodal ... 9/16/2008
Daily Operational Profiles sasefine, CherloaelDouglas Hdt
Name:DEFAULT
Day Welglu Day Weight
Monday 1.000000 Friday 1.000000
Tuesday 1.000[%10 Saturday 1.000000 i
Wednesday 1.000000 Sunday 11100000
Thursday t.oll0000
Monthly Operational Profiles Baseline. 0tertwlaroougtas Intl
I Name: DEFAULT
Month Weight Month Weight
January 1.000000 July 1.000000
February 1.000000 August 1.000000
J March 1.000000 September 1.000000
April 1.000000 October 1.000000
May 1.000000 November 11100000
June 1.001000 ___.,___............�.r- December
.. +....1.000000 r.�.__�_ __...r._.._...�..
Aircraft Baseline, CharlollefDouglas Intl
Default Taxi Out Time, 19 000000 mm
Default Text In Time, 7 000000 min
file: / /P: \CLT \CL•'1' Hmissions Inventory Sept 2008V\Q\1mp1ementation \C1,T - ]nterniodal ... 9/16/2008
Monthly Operational Profiles Baseline. 0tertwlaroougtas Intl
I Name: DEFAULT
Month Weight Month Weight
January 1.000000 July 1.000000
February 1.000000 August 1.000000
J March 1.000000 September 1.000000
April 1.000000 October 1.000000
May 1.000000 November 11100000
June 1.001000 ___.,___............�.r- December
.. +....1.000000 r.�.__�_ __...r._.._...�..
Aircraft Baseline, CharlollefDouglas Intl
Default Taxi Out Time, 19 000000 mm
Default Text In Time, 7 000000 min
file: / /P: \CLT \CL•'1' Hmissions Inventory Sept 2008V\Q\1mp1ementation \C1,T - ]nterniodal ... 9/16/2008
file: / /P: \CLT \CL•'1' Hmissions Inventory Sept 2008V\Q\1mp1ementation \C1,T - ]nterniodal ... 9/16/2008

EDMS 5.0.2 Pagc 3 of 7
1 YWIL User, Schedut@? SchedylgfffiCn11111t,
2008 No (None)
} Year: Number of Vehicles per
�,0
2006 Year.
8.5595
GSE Population
DEFAULT
Operational profile:
Basoline, CherlOttelDouglas Intl
} None.
DEFAULT
profile:
VOC wv9h).
Parking Facilities
DEFAULT
Pro81e
Baseline, ChariottofDouglab Intl
Parking Facility Name
Vehicle Type
Default Fleet Wx (all types, fuels & ages)
Employee Parking
Fuel
Gasoline
PM-" (Owl).
Manufoclured Year
2008
Average Speed
10 mph
Average Distance
1800.00 feet
Hostler Twelve Fuel:
I
Traveled:
j Nhamdeclured Year.
2008
Average Idle Time,
1,50 mms
Average Distance
Number of Levels:
1
Tneveled:
Release Neigh
4 92 feel
10.00 mms
Level Spacing
9.84 feel
`
Elevation.
748.00 feet
Level Spacing
9.64 feet
Pant
X (feel)
Y (Met)
1
0.00
000
i 1
2
1082.88
0.00
1082.88
3
1082.88
1840.42
1840.42
4
0.00
1840.42
} Year: Number of Vehicles per
�,0
2006 Year.
8.5595
CAMdermomy
DEFAULT
Operational profile:
Daily Operational
DEFAULT
profile:
VOC wv9h).
Monthly Operational
DEFAULT
Pro81e
0.7423
The user has NOT edited 1h0 Waiving
endeeion factors:
00 (pMeh).
8.5595
THC (g/veh):
0.8515
NMHC (9111veh).
0.8075
VOC wv9h).
0.8025
NOX Wall):
0.7423
SOX (91veh):
0.0041
PM -10 (gAreh):
0.0173
PM-" (Owl).
0.0113
Perking Facility Name., Vehicle Typo:
(lase 8b Heavy Duty Vehicles ()-80.000 bs GVWR)
Hostler Twelve Fuel:
Olesel
j Nhamdeclured Year.
2008
Average Speed
10 mph
Average Distance
32808.00 feet
Tneveled:
Average Idle Time:
10.00 mms
Number of Levels:
1
Release Height
4.92 feet
Level Spacing
9.64 feet
Elevation:
748.00 feel
Point:
X (feet)
Y (1001)
i 1
0.00
0.00
2
1082.88
0.00
3
1082.88
1840.42
1 4
0.00
154042
liiea /h:1('1.1�('L1' Emissions Inventory Sept 20M1AQVn1}iIcmentation'tCLT. Intermodal .. 9/16/2008

EDMS 5.0.2
Page 4 of 7
Year Number of Vehicles per
14735
' 2008 Year.
39244
Guarler- Hourly
DEFAULT
Operational profile:
3.8683
Deily Operational
DEFAULI
1 profile,
02705
Monthly Operational
DEFAULT
Profile:
0.1905
The user has NOT edited the following emission factors.
CO (gNeh).
4.2243
THC (gNeh).
39244
NMHC (gNeh)
3.7441
VOC (gfveh).
3.8683
NOX (gNeh):
266533
SOX (gNoh):
02705
PM-10 (gNeh):
0.4099
PM -25 (giveh)
0.1905
Parking Facility Name Vehicle Type.
Class 1lh Heavy Duty Vehicles ( >6000 Mc GVWR)
Semi - Trucks Fuel.
Diesel
Manufactured Year.
2005
Average Speed
10 mph
'
Average Distance
3375.00 feel
Traveled:
SOX (gNeh): 0.0302
Average Idle Tkne
10.00 miss
Number of Levels:
1
2008
Release HeIghl:
4.92 feet
Queder -Houi1Y DEFAULT
Level Spacing
9.84 feet
Elevation:
748 00 feet
prords:
point
X (feet)
Y (feet)
1
0.00
0.00
2
1082.88
0.00
3
1082.68
1840A2
4
0.00
1640.42
Yost
Number of Vehicles per 1.64250 *006
2008
Year:
Queder -Houi1Y DEFAULT
Operational prorde.
Dally Operational DEFAULT
prords:
M DEFAULT
The user has NOT edited the 1011owbrg emission factors
1
CO (glv01111)• 5.0222
THC (9Nehk 0.8127
NMHC (gNeh): 0.5845
VOC (gNeh): 0.6039
?
Nox (gNeh)• 5.981
SOX (gNeh): 0.0302
PM -10 (g/veh): 0.1751
-25 (gNeh) 0.1419 `..... �._..._�..��.�...... .�,w.
�. ...,. _........__..
Roadways
__. ,PM
Baseline, Chulotteftuglas Intl
Roadway Name
Vehicle Type. Delault Fleet Mix (all types, fuel 8 ages)
Cars
Fuel Gasoline
Manufactured Year 2008
Q
I
file: / /P: \C'I,T \CI,T Emissions Inventory Sept 2008 \AQ \1mp1emcntation \CLT - Intuniodal 9/16/2009

EDMS 5.0.2
Page 5 of 7
Average Speed:
35 mph
Roadway Length:
127 miles
Release Might
DEFAULT
Width
65.62 feel
Point
X (feet) Y (feel) Elevation IfccO
1
0.00 0.00 227 99
2
328.08 0.00 22799
r Year
Traffic Volume
205860
2008
Ouarier -Hoary
DEFAULT
Operational profile
Daily Operational
DEFAULT
profile:
.�
MordhlyOperational
DEFAULT
Prorile
CO (Wfveh).
2.0647
THC Wwh)
0.3482
NMHC (glob):
The user has NOT edited the following emrssion factors:
CO (9tveh).
10.724
THC (g/veh):
0.852
NMHC (90vroh).
0 809
VOC (g/vah):
0.802
NOX (g/veh):
1.398
1 Stationery Sources
SOX (ghreh)
OA112
PM -10 (given):
00472
Stationary Category
PM-25 (gNsh)
0.0307
Roadway New:
Vehicle Type:
Class 8b Heavy Duty Vehicles 060,000 Ms. GVWR)
Trucks
Fuel:
Diesel
Manufactured Year
2005
jAverage
Speed.
35 mph
Roadway Length:
1.27 miles
Release Height:
Width:
86.62 feet
Point:
X (feet) Y (reel) Elevation (koQ
1
0.00 0.00 227.99
2
326.08 0.00 227.09
fileWPAC1.TICLT Emissions Inventory Scpi 2008 \AQ \implementation \CL7' - Intermodal .., 9/16/2008
Traffic Vokime:
1.842594006
T008
� ale:
DEFAULT
DeflyOperedonal
DEFAULT
profile:
.�
l Operational
DEFAULT
The user has NOT edited On following amleston factors:
CO (Wfveh).
2.0647
THC Wwh)
0.3482
NMHC (glob):
0.3322
VOC W"111).
0.3432
NOX (glveh)
5.5382
SOX (91veh):
0.0431
PM -10 (g/veh):
0.2539
PW25 (gNeh).
0.2035
1 Stationery Sources
Baseline. CharlottelDouglas Ing
Stationary Source Name
Stationary Category
Bofier/Space Healer
HVAC
Stationery Type
Natrvel Gas, Well Fired Boller, 000 Million STUfhi, Uncontrolled
fileWPAC1.TICLT Emissions Inventory Scpi 2008 \AQ \implementation \CL7' - Intermodal .., 9/16/2008

HDMS 5.0.2 Page 6 of 7
TINS stationary source Is modeled as a point
Elevation.
746 OU feel
Release Height
65.62 feel
Gas Velocity
15.00 m/s
Temperature.
400.00 `F
CO El
1.30001(g11000 mA3
THC El ;
01600Kg11000 m ^3
NOx El.
1.60001(g11000 mA3
S02 El
0.0100K911000 m ^3
PM -10 EI
0.1200K911000 MA
CO Pollution Control Factor .
0.00%
TOC Pollutinn Control Factor
0.00%
NOx Pollution Control Factor.
000%
S02 Pollution Control factor
0.00%
PM -10 Pollution Control Factor:
0.00%
Point
X (feel)
1
0.00
Year. Hours Operated per
MR
7.g2
A
Year.
Quarter- Hourly
DEFAULT
Operational profile:
Daily Operational
DEFAULT
profile'
Moalhly Oporational
DEFAULT
Profile-
The user has NOT edited the emission factors
Y (1001)
0.00
Training Fires
Baseline. Charlo wOonglas In6
None.
Gates
Baseline. CherblleMoaplas Intl
None.
Taxiways
Baselne, ChanatelDougwe I ng
None.
Runways
Borodino, charlottalDouglas Intl
Nave.
Taxipaths
Baseline, CharbtteNouglas Intl
None.
Configurations
Nona.
Baeetlne. ChaddtelDougles Ing
Buildings
Baseline, c hadoneroovgtas Intl
None.
Discrete Cartesian Receptors
Baseline, Cha lonemouglas Intl
None.
Discrete Polar Receptors
Baseline, charblte/Douglas mtl
Cartesian Receptor Networks
Baseline, Chadotte/DougWil Intl
None.
Polar Receptor Networks
None.
. Baseline, ChadolWDouglas Intl
User- Created Aircraft Baseline. ChadotlelDouglas Intl
None.
file: / /P: \('L,T \('LT F,missions Inventory Sept 2008\AQ \Implementation \C1.T - Interfnodal ... 9/16/2008

1
I
8
EDMS 5.0.2
Page 7 of 7
Usor- Created GSE Basellno, Charlotto/Douglas Intl
None.
User - Created APU Baseline, Charlotte /Douglas Intl
None
file: / /P. \CLTICL'I' 1 missions Inventory Sept 2009 \AQ \Iml)lernentation \CL'I' - Intermodal ... 9/16/2009

CLT - Intermodal Facility
Date Generated. 09/16/08
Page 1 of t
Emissions Inventory Summary
1
(Short TonsNear)
Baseline - Charlotte /Douglas Intl 2008
Cate o
CO THC NMHC VOC NOx
SO-x.-
PM -10
PM -2.5
Aircraft
N/A NIA NIA N/A NIA
N/A
NIA
NIA
GSE
N/A NIA NIA NIA N/A
NIA
N/A
NIA
APUs
NIA N/A NIA N/A NIA
N/A
NIA
NIA
Parking Facilities
10.650 1 366 1.302 1 338 11430
0.060
0.328
0.263
Roadways
7 838 1 046 0.997 1 020 13 137
0.102
0.597
0.477
Stationary Sources
0.069 0.010 0.008 0.005 0.085
0.001
0.006
0.006
Treining Fires
NIA NIA N/A WA NIA
NIA
NIA
N/A
Grand Total
18.557 2 422 2.307 2.363 24 652
0.163
0.931
0.746
1
}
)
1
EDMS 5.0.2 Emissions Inventory Repori

1
APPENDIX B
1
ARCHAEOLOGY /HISTORY ARCHITECTURE
}
1
1
,1
. Chadoue1Dougles Inlematlonnl Aitpod Irdermodal Fecddy- CREX Document tMS04ir

}
1
ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA RECOVERY AT
31 MK811 AND 31 MK814 FOR THE CHARLOTTE-
DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT,
MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Submitted by:
J. Alan May, Ph.D.
Curator of Anthropology
Schiele Museum of Natural History
Gastonia, North C'amlina
With Contributions from:
January W. Porter & Jeremy A Vanier
!~or:
Charlotte - Douglas International Aiq)ort (CDIA)
Charlotte, North Carolina
June 2007
The S
Museum ol'Uatural Ilisfory

)
)
1
CON'1'Ltl\"1'S
i
CONTENTS.....................................................................................................................
...............................
FIGURPS..................................................... ...............................
»........ l
........................
MANAGEMENT SUA9MARV..,...... ......... ............................... .. .
......................
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................
..............................3
ARCHAEOLOGICAL DEFINITIONS AND METHODS .................................................
..............................5
ARCIIAFOLOGICAL AND HIST'ORIC'AL OVFRVIEW ...............................................
.........'............•.......7
....... q
PA 1.0- INrAAN (10,000 - 8,00011.0.)
... .............
. 1 000 B C) .
AttCHAI( {8,000 .. .............
.10 '
Fwrly Archair ..... .
Middle Archaic .......... .......
12
hale Archaic
............
WOODLANI)(1,000 B.C. - A.U. 1700) .................. ...............................
.12
Laity Woodland.....
13
...,,.......,
Middle Woodland .............. .................. .... ......... .
„'; 13 I
Lase Woodland ............... ..........
14 1•
LAIR pRl's111S1'ORI(- I'ARLY liISTORIC
r
.......... .. 15 �.
Mecklenburg G,unly ... ........ ......
........
».16
I NVMTICATIONS ................................................
...•.....•....•..•.........
PRV,VIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL
IDKNTIFYIN(; ARCHAF.0)A)GICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS ..................................
................I........ „...16
PRRLIMINARY SITt LucArION MODI 1 ...... I...... .... . .
7
FIELD $ rrr- DEF1NITION ........ . . .. ..... .. ...
;..:..,.,.,...,,... ..;.......
FieldMethods .......... ...... ............. . ... . . ................. .. ... ........ . ... ............
18
Lab Methods ................
;
SURVEYRESUI. Ts ............................................................................................................ ........... ».................I9 �.
Site 17eSp iptions . .........
1
31MK81I ........ ............................... ..... ............................... ' .................
.
, ...... ... ........ ...23
31MK814..... ...............................
�
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDAT IONS ...................... » ................. ..........................
. .......... »... »............27
............... ».............27
ACKNOWl.p DGEMENTS ........................... .. ..........».....»....»...........»....... ...
................
».. ............... 28
REFERENCVScrrED .................................................. » ...............................................................
....... .................... .35
APPENDIXA: INVF.NTORY .......................... » ................. . ........... » .................
».» ... . ...... .
»43
APPENDIX A: STAFF CURRICULUM VITAE »............» ..........................................
............................
FIGURES 4
Figure 1. Charlotte - Douglass International Airport project vicinity map ....................•.•••••
Point traditions ............... ..........................8
Figure 2. Southeastern projectile ............•.....
Figure 3. Planview map
for site 31 MK8 I I ............................................. .............................20
Figure 4. Monitoring of -plow zone stripping along tmnsect lines at 31MK81 l .................... 21
in along transect limes at 31 MK 811 ......... ............................... 22
Figure S. Plow zone stripping g 24
Figure 6. Planview map for site 31 MK 814 ............... •......
.................... ...............................
Figure 7. Plow zone stripping along transect lines at 31MK814, initial testing ...................... 25
stripping g
Figure B. Plow zone in aloe transect lines at 31MK814, initial testing ...................25
Figure 9. Plow zone stripping along transect lines at 31MK814, extended grid testing .........26
H

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
This study records and describes the methods and results of the data recovery project for
two prehistoric Irthre scatter sites identified in the area of the proposed runway expansion
project for the Charlotte- Douglas international Airport, Mecklenburg County, North
C:aroliva The project areas consist of two prehistoric archaeological sites. 31MK811 and
31MK814, that were identified during the Phase t archaeological survey completed 1101 the
airport from 1995 to 1997 (Clifford 1998). The Wyrm Site (31MK81 1) and the Ertel Site
(31 MK814) were recommended for further data recovery 1'or the determination of eligibility
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (Clifford 1998). The field notes and
artifacts from the Phase. I survey conducted between 1995 and 1998 are unavailable at this
tinic for review. The sites were suggested to be short -term reuse sites and not representative
of settlement locations. The North Carolina Division of Archives and History clearinghouse
number for the sites is 96 -E- 0000.0362 and the Environmental Review number is ER 98-
8723
After each site was relocated, a pedestrian reconnaissance survey of both sites was
conducted to locate any artifacts present on the ground surface. Following this, an arbitrary
datum point was created at each site and a grid established to aid in the process of systematic I
shovel testing. The grids for both sites were oriented on a north -south compass heading, with
the grid extending several meters south and west of the datum point. Shovel tests, which
were at least 30cm in diameter, were conducted in tern -meter intervals throughout each site to
locate any artifacts beneath the ground surface. Upon completion of shovel tests, several 2.5-
meter wide strips to rernove the plow zone, ranging in depth from 30cm to 41 cm and from 10
to 30 meters long, were excavated by a track loader at each site. There were a total of 43
shovel tests at site 31 MK81 1, wide 12 positive and 31 negative results Site 3 I W814
consisted of an initial grid that was extended for a total of 38 shovel tests, with 6 positive and
30 negative results. In reference to shovel tests, positive refers to tests with lithic artifacts.
Archaeological site files at the Office of State Archaeology for Mecklenburg County were
examined on May 25, 2007 for the presence of sites in the project vicinity. A total of 10
previously recorded sites were identified within one kilometer of the project areas during the
literature review phase of the project: 31MK812, 31MK815, 31MK816, 31MK817,
31MK837, 31MK843, 3IMK846, 31 MK847, 31MK849, and 31MK851 (John Mintz
personal communication). A number of ridge tops, ridge toe slopes and first order tributaries
adjacent to the project are high probability areas for site locations.
During the data recovery no previously unrecorded prehistoric archaeological sites were
identified. Additionally, the two sites analyzed in this study will be impacted directly by the
current project because they are located in the vicinity of the future ninway expansion at the
Charlotte - Douglas International Airport and no further action is recommended. Shovel
testing and plow Zonc stripping in the vicinity of the two sites revealed no additional
artifacts, midden, or features.
Based on survey results including reconnaissance surveys, shovel tests, and stripping, the
Wynn Site (31 MK811) and the l51cl. Site (31 MK814) have little potential for increasing our
understanding of prehistoric native technology including stone tool manufacture. Thesc sites
are not potentially eligible for inclusion to the National Register of Historic Places because of

the absence of middens or features and becanse of the disturbance from earlier land
modification and crusion Therefore, no further work is recommended for these sites.

INTRODUCTION
This study was designed to record and describe the methods and results of the data
recovery project for two prehistoric lithic scatters identified in the aica of the proposed
runway expansion project for the Charlotte - Douglas International Airport, Mecklenburg
County, North (Arolina. The project areas consist of two prehistoric archaeological sites:
31MK811 and 31MK814, that were identified during the Phase I archaeological survey
completed fa the airport from 1995 to 1997 (Clifford 1998). The Wynn Site (31MK811)
and the Ertel Site (31MK814) were recommended for further data recovery for the
determination of eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (MOA).
The sites were suggested to be short -term reuse sites and not representative of settlement
locations. The North Carolina Division of Archives and History clearinghouse number for
the sites is 96 -E -0000 -0362 and the l ;nvironmental Review number is ER 98 -8723.
A review of the appropriate USGS 7.5' topographic map, Charlotte West, NC (1993), was
conducted prior to the initiation of the project (see Figure 1). The project area consists of
0.82 acres (0.33 ha) for site 3 I MK811, and 0.70 acres (0.28 ha) for site 31 MK814, with total
area coverage of 6,100 square meters. The two sites were identified with UTM coordinates:
31MK8I I (Zone 17, Northing' 3997600/ Fasting- 502840) and 31MK814 (Zone 17, N-
3897160/13-503440). A number of residential and commercial buildings along with
agricultural activity have occupied this area since the middle of the last century. The traffic
arteries of Old Dowd Rd., Wallace Neel Rd., and interstate 485 surround the project areas.
A data recovery for the project areas, situated in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina,
was conducted between May 9, and May 17, 2007. Background research including
examining available topographic data of the area as well as reviewing the distribution of
known sites in the vicinity was used in addition to guidance from airport staff. Field notes
and artifacts recovered from a prior survey, completed in the summer of 1998 were, however,
unavailable. As such, a strategy of systematic pedestrian survey transects, shovel tests, and
plow zone stripping were employed to completely examine the area surrounding the
Charlotte- Douglas International Airport runway expansion project.
JenniterMatthcws, Airport Planning Assistant and Jack Christine, Airport Planner,
Charlotte, North Carolina provided project development maps, general survey maps, and
helpful suggestions during the fieldwork speeding data recovery. Additionally, Mike
Arnold, Norman Hubert, Ken Emory, and Wilbert Nichols assisted with heavy equipment
operation and site clearing. They worked quickly to clear the sites and strip the plow zone.
The Principal investigator for the project was Dr. J. Alan May, ('orator of Anthropology at
the Schiele Museum of Natural History located in Gastonia, North Carolina. Data recovery
and lab analysis was completed by January W. Porter and Jeremy Vanier with additional
field assistance from Melissa Roddick and Debra Withers.

�gL r
To
ri
AI
VIP
VM
� %/rS� �`•,�.,� ri �• lug ',.• I ,r .� t• I ��
is
i 1 4i,•J; , !` ''viii �,''1J1.1 � „ .,
i�ri.\ 11 , I •, ti ' ` '�•riiC • J , /. r .� /i i5 .Its i 1, �
1. il� '' +� r \'.1 ` � ').i '' ►.
figural Cho dolle- Coup la ss Inlematmnal M poil project vipnly map
4

Aichaeologieal Definitions and Melhods
Archaeology is the study of the human last and is usually based ou the analysis of !hc
material remains of human societies. Many ot'the methods and techniques used cau be
applied as easily to the study of cultures that ceased to exist thousands of years ago as our
own recent past. The study of archaeological materials remains is often aided by the use of
written records (where available), mfotmation concerning topographic location, and past
environmental conditions The kind of questions that can be answered with archaeological
data depends on many factors, for example, degt'ec: of preservation and impact of 1110(lern
farming and land clearing practices.
The initial objective of archaeology is the construction of a sequence of events or a
cultural chronology (when and where). With this information, efforts can be made to
reconstruct the structure of past lifeways (who and how) with the ultimate goal of
understanding the processes of human decision making and behavior (why).
This is all that matters in archaeology: objects and contexts. All else rs secondary"
(Thomas 1979:14). To approach the goals and objectives outlined above it is necessary to i
have objects of the past recovered or understood in their cultural context. 'This makes the
location and preservation of cultural resources the primary goal of archaeology because all
else stands on this requirement.
The gathering of the data necessary to approach these archaeological goals and objectives '
involves a nested, sequential investigation and decision making process. A survey is usually I
the first step in this process. This survey includes an inspection of the area tinder l
investigation and a review of the local prehistory and history. This step provides either
evidence of artifacts visible oil the surface and /or an indication that the possibility for the
Presence of cultural material exists. This survey procedure is accomplished in a variety of
ways and may result in finding no evidence of archaeological materials in areas under
consideration.
Then, arc two types of archaeological survey: reconnaissance survey and intensive survey.
A reconnaissance survey involves the examination of all or part of an area in sufficient detail i
to allow the archaeologist to make general statements about the types and distributions of
prehistoric resources in the designated area. An intensive survey includes a more systematic
examination of the project area, providing snore detail with regards to the variability and
distribution of prehistoric artifacts.
A reconnaissance survey usually involves an examination of an area, or portion of an area,
in sufficient detail to give the archaeologist a qualitative understanding of the topography,
stream drainage systems, soil types, degree of cultivation and erosion, as well as modern land
use practices in the project area. This will provide general information on possible site
locations and facilitate estimating the potential for artifact visibility. This type of survey
includes a review of published and unpublished prehistoric and historic information, relevant
to the survey area. These two major sources of information will then be used to make
general statements about the types and distributions of prehistoric and historic resources in
the designated area
A data recovery project, referred to as a Phase III investigation, enhances the detail of the
reconnaissance survey by utilizing such methods as shovel testing, plow zone stripping, and
large block excavation thereby allowing the archaeologist 10 collect artifacts front specific

locations (features and midden) throughout the site. In nsinK these methods. the data
recovery phase can provide more specific data regarding prehistoric inter and intea site
Patterns and prior occupation within the project area Data collected fion) the intensive
sw•vey can often be used to draw conclusions pertaining to tool use. site filnction, and
temporal habitation
If cultural materials arc located of the archaeologist finds evidence that indicates these
materials sbould be present and enay be buried, the next step involves the excavation of small
areas to determine the nature .out structure of the cultural material. For example:, if
prehistoric chipped stone artifacts and projectile points are located it) an area that has been
under cultivation, this type of limited excavation will provide information on whether
undisturbed portions of trio site are preserved below the plow zone. In an area of recent
alluviation, this procedure may reveal archaeological materials that are not visible on the
surface because they have been buried (and therefore are oficn protected) by recent
tloodplain sediments.
Based on the survey data, testing results, excavation data, and mview of the local and
regional archaeological and historical literature a decision can then be made as to the
significance pee of a site or group of sites. Archaeological significance is determined aftei
consulting with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and 36 CFR800 and applying
the National Register criteria to properties that may be affected by the undertaking and have
not been previously evaluated for National Register eligibility. However, according to
36('FR 800, the passage of titne or changing perceptions of significance may justify the
reevaluation of properties that were previously determined to be eligible or ineligible.
To assess the impact, it may be determined that there will be no effect on the property or a
determination of adverse impact will be the result. A project is considered to have an
adverse impact when the undertaking will: dbninish the integrity of the site location; cause
physical destruction; isolate the property from or alter the property setting; introduce visual,
audible, or atmospheric elements that are out of character with the property; or result in the
neglect of a property contributing to its deterioration or destruction. Once a determination of
significance has been made, then adequate planning for the protection of the site area can be
undertaken. This plan takes into account current and future land use plans and the role of a
particular site in an overall state research design. There are several means of dealing with the
negative impact of an undertaking, such as excavation, avoidance, or protection of the site. if
the site is important to an ongoing research program in an area where land disturbing
activities are scheduled, an excavation plan will be designed based on the testing results, and
the perennial companions of research: time and money.
'The goal of this study is to define the boundaries and significance of two previously
recorded archaeological sites (31MK81 I and 31 MKS 14) within the proposed Charlotte,
North Carolina, Charlotte- Douglas International Airport runway expansion project and to
assist in the inventory, evaluation, and protection of prehistoric and historic cultural
resources located therein. In addition, it is critical to understand the factors controlling
prehistoric and historic land use, selection of habitation sites, the time depth of human
occupation in the area, and the type and variability of the artifacts that could be expected to
occur. The following steps were taken to gather this information.

First, it is necessary to determine whether or not archaeological ou historicnl sites Eire
located within the project area. This was accomplished by consulting with the Office of Statc
Archaeology and the state site files. The inspection of these files for the area sui rounding the
proposed Charlotte- Douglas International Airport runway expansion project revealed that a
total of 10 previously recorded sites were identified within one kilometer of the project areas:
31MK812, 31MK815, 31MK816, 31MK817, 31MK837, 31MK843, 31MK846, 31MK847,
31 MK849, and 31 MK851 None of these sites are deemed significant as defined by the
criteria for inclusion to the National Register of Historic Places (Clifford 1998).
Next, archaeologists working in the area were consulted. Work is currently being
conducted by the author. As part of the Carolina Piedmont Archaeology Project, i have been
conducting site survey in Gaston County and recently began surveying along the South Fork
Catawba River in Gaston and Lincoln Counties (May 1989). V. Ann Tippitt (1988) has
recently concluded a survey for the Soil Conservation Service in three watersheds in portions
of Oaston, Lincoln, and (;atawba Counties to identify archaeologically sensitive areas in
these watersheds. Research currently being conducted by David Moore in McDowell and
Burke Counties on the upper reaches of the Catawba River may provide important data for
understanding patterns and developments within the current project area. Continuing
exploration of the upper Yadkin River valley by J. Ned Woodall at Wake Forest University
may also provide valuable data eonc:eming the Late Woodland occupation of the North
Carolina Piedmont.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
The following is a review of the prehistoric and historic archaeological phases that might
be expected to occur in the central and western Piedmont of North Carolina. The cultural
sequence of the southeastern United States is incorporated, when applicable, to provide a
context with which to place archaeological resources identified within the southern North
Carolina Piedmont. The prediction of site locations and die nature of archaeological
materials that might be expected to occur within the project area are based on this
information.
The cultural sequence for the Piedmont is derived from the chronologically sensitive
artifact typology worked out by Coe (1964), Figure 2. This artifact chronology is based on
excavation at stratified sites carried out between 1937 and 1985. More recently, regional
survey data, excavation of single component sites and work conducted at stratified sites
(Chapman 1975; Claggett and Cable 1982; May 1985,1987; Tippitt and Marquardt 1984)
have provided not only confirmation of this sequence but also further information on artifact
variation, subsistence patterns, spatial relationships of activity areas within occupation sites,
and other aspects of human behavior. While stratified sites contain valuable chronological
information on die cultural sequence of an area, factors determining the topographic location
of occupation and special activity sites through time provided by survey data are critical to
our understanding of changes in strategies of resource exploitation and settlement patterns
within different environments.

All 12000 Bt 12000 9000
PALEO•INDIAN
+ PERIOD
11000
10000
ao+a
9000
wROAiur
Yn01 OJllrpr �MpOliq+Mlo rA1M
9000 0000.6000
7900 fARly ARCHAIC
PkRIOD
7600
7000
9800
IORKIRplpso
�*aqo Sam
n..raa 6200
uaa e�D
6000 600 4000
4
MIDDU ARCHAIC
1 PERIOD
1 4MR�M
MO MMCr
�� f IpMp/Yrl�plw�
i 4000
3000 7000.1000
LATE ARCHAIC
KIM
apv.r
2000
1000 1000600
ervain FIRM MYp 6006.C. 6c'W�IAND
! 0 PERIOD
e1M
A.D. 600 600.1600
A 600 LATE WOODLAND
` app 1000 Pam
I 1400
Vona 1A00
loos HIS
I
HreTOwe
PERIOD
1110 w «�
' IfZ6
' wlaow
IY10011�
Figure 2. Southeastern projectile point traditions (after Raniard 1983)
E.9

Paleo - Indian (10,000 - 8,000 B.C.)
The cat Best known evidence ror the occupation of Noah Caroline by prehistoric groups is
during the Paleo- Indian period. Dating from 12,000 to 10,000 B.C., the Paleo- Indian period
coincides with the end of die Late Glacial as the elimale was becoming warmer and
vegetation in this area was shifting from hemlock, pine, and northern hardwood forest to the
1 modern oak- hickory forest (Delcourt and Delcourt 1981). This per iod is usually identified by
the prescncc of distinctive flitted stone points, Clovis and Hardaway, which are generally
accepted as the earliest evidence for human occupation of the Noah American Continent
(Griffin 1967, 1979; Smith 1986). This time period has traditionally been associated with the
hunting of extinct forms of giaul bison, and for years was known mainly from the excavation
of big game "kill sites" in the Plains aid Southwest (rrison 1978; Wormington 1975).
However, recent work on the Paleo - Indian occupation of die castcrn woodlands has
expanded our view of settlement - subsistence patterns. The vast majority of flirted points
doctunented in the eastern woodlands are isolated points found usually in disturbed contexts.
A number of distribution studies (Mason 1962; Williams and Stoltman 1965; Michic 1977;
Rolingson 1964; Perkinson 1971, 1973; Charles 1983) provide information on the location of
1 these early occupations within the major river drainages. While Michie's study (1977) and
1'erkin.Son's work (19711, 1973) illustrate a larger number of fluted points located in the
Carolina coastal plain, recent work conducted in South Carolina (Charles 1983) may present
a different picture. According to Charles (personal communication), when factors such as
the differences in land area, fanning practice., and modern occupation patterns acre taken into
account the relative mmber of fluted points in the Piedmont and in the Coastal Plain are
J almost identical
in addition to the information Isom these distribution studies, excavations conducted at
sites such as Shoop, Williamson, Quad, Bull Brook, Deberl and Holcombe Beach, and
Duchess Quarry Cave (McCary 1951; Whitthoft 1952; Soday 1954; MacDonald 1968;
Fitting et at. 1966; Byers 1954; Wilmsen 1970; Cleland 1%5; and Funk 1977) have revealtxl
evidence of intrasite patterning, more varied tool kits, and exploitation of barren - ground
caribou and white -tail deer. Ilnequivocal evidence of Paleo- Indian occupations in
association with Pleistocene megafauna in the southeast is lacking (Smith 1986). While the
Paleo- Indian tool kits in the west and east are similar, recent evaluation of existing evidence
suggests differences in hunting strategies (Goodyear 1979; Smith 1986).
Although Paleo-hxlian sites in the Piedmont are usually known only by isolated surface
finds, the Hardaway site, 31 ST4, in the Uwharric Mountains contains the oldest materials
from a well documented context, dating between 10,000 and 8,000 B.C. (Coe 1964:120).
} Clovis points have been recovered from the Hardaway site, but these have not been
recovered from clear stratigraphic context This site has been important in understanding the
temporal relationship between Hardaway blades, Hardaway side - notched points, and Palmer
points. The Hardaway site also produced large side scarpers associated with Hardaway
points and smaller, well trade end scarpers in a Palmer context (Ward 1983:63). in absence
of well preserved floral and faana remains necessary for subsistence analysis, it is generally
assumed that Paleo- Indian groups lived in small, migratory bands that hunted and gathered
wild resources that were available seasonally (Ward 1083:64).

Archaic (8,000 - 1,000 R,C -)
The seven thousand years included within the, Archaic period contains evidence of
variable 1-ales of cultural change which can be defined only in general terms. i lowever, there
are continuities in subsistence technologies, settlement patterns, and perhaps social
organization that appear to characterize this lung period (Ford and Willey 1941). The
Archaic has generally been viewed as a period of adaptation to Holocene environments and
the development of regional specialization as aboriginal groups expanded into and became
familiar with new envuonnrents and their resources (Caldwell 1958) In the archaeological
record, this regional specialization can be seen in the increased diversity of tool forms The
Archaic has been subdivided into Early Archaic (8,000 - 6,000 BC:.), Middle Archaic (6,000 -
3,00011C.), and Late Archaic (3,000 - 1,00013C.), while there are no distinct boundaries,
each of these subdivisions is marked by technological changes in the stone tool industry and
possibly reflects changes to hunting- collecting strategies that in turn developed into efficient
regional exploitative systems.
Early Archaic
As noted by several authors, recent analyses indicates that distinctions between Paleo-
Indian and Early Archaic are difficult and are better understood as a continuum rather than
discrete coots (Smith 1986; '1'ippitt and Marquardt 1984; Ward 1983).
Harly Archaic hiface types include Kirk corner- notch, St. Albans, and LeCroy These
bifece forms indicate a morphological trend toward side and comer - notching, triangular
blade forms, and reduction of basal grinding. Basal grinding is common along lower Intend
and basal margins on Clovis, Hardaway, and Palmer types. Bifurcate points, St. Albans and
LeCroy are early fornis evidencing a trend toward stemmed points (Broyles 1971; Chapman
1976). Many of the Party Archaic points have serrated edges and represent reshahtened
knife forms that are side or corner - notched.
FArly Archaic sites are found in many of the same environmental settings as l aleo- Indian
sites; especially along major river drainages. However, because this period marks a
transition in changing environmental variables marking the onset of Holocene climatic
conditions and the establishment of modern biotic communities. The continuation of
hunting- gathering and the development of mobility strategies for efficient exploitation of
seasonally available resources led Early Archaic populations into the upland riverine areas of
the Piedmont.
While a number of Early Archaic sites have been recorded in the two county areas, there
are few such sites recorded in the project area. Kirk mid LeCroy points have been recovered
from a variety of topographic settings (Baker 1985; May 1985; McCabe, Hargrove, and
Cross 1978) in the county. hariy Archaic materials were recovered during a survey
associated with the US Highway 321 Highway Project (McCabe, Hargrove, and Cross 1978),
and have been observed in private collections from central and Southern Gaston County.
Middle Archaic
The Middle Archaic coincides with the establishment of modern plant communities and
sea level adjustments. Although a technological continuum can he seen in the tool forms
from the late Early Archaic to the Middle Archaic, there are important changes in the non -
projectile point tool class that reflects changes in resource exploitation and economic
10

organization. The beginning of the Middle Archaw has hcen characterized by a slti(i m
hafting IcchnIque,- favoring stemmed tether than side- notched firm.. in addition to stemmed
point forms, (and perhaps more importantly) ground and polished stone tools become
important components of the asscrublage Characterizations of Middle Archaic economic
organization (Caldwell 1958; Cleland 1976) have placed emphasis on regional patterns of
resource utilization. "broad spectrum" or °diffuse° economies.
This period is also characterized by an increase in the number of sites, madden
accumulation, occupation of a wide variety of environments, and stabilization of residential
patterns. Goodyear (1979), Chapman (1975), and Gardncr (1974) have documented a
decrease in tltc use of high quality crypto- crystalline materials for stone manufacture. These
changes arc of particular interest because they coincide with a possible climatic shift to drier
conditions termed Hypsitherinal of Clirnatic 013timum. Current archaeological
interpretations of Middle Archaic period artifacts, site types, and residential patterns take into
consideration climatic changes and the resulting changes in plant and animal comniunities
The Middle Archaic occupation in the Piedmont is represented by the Stanly, Morrow
Mountain, and Guilford phases. As with any attempt to break a continuum into segments, the
distinction between the end of the Early Archaic and the beginning of the Middle Archaic
remains somewhat arbitrary. This distinction is usually based on the appearance of ground
and polished stone tools as well as stemmed rather than corner or side- notched bifaces.
Stanly points often exhibit basal notching of the Bifurcate but the removal of the shoulder
area of points to curate the stm, is more in the manner of the later stemmed points, for
example, Savannah River Stemmed (Goodyear et al 1979). it should be pointed out that Coe
(1964) notes many morphological similarities between Kirk Stemmed and Stanly points at
the Doerschuk site, and Chapman (1979:32 -33) has documented Kirk Stemmed points
stratigraphically overlying Bifurcate points; in turn, the Bifurcate points overlie Kirk Corncr-
notched points. The same situation is recorded in the Maryland Archaic (Weslei 1983:22; �
Vitetli 1975). A date of 5960t90 B.C. was obtained from a feature in the Bifureate/late Kirk
Stemmed level at 31 CH29 (Claggett and Cable 1982: Appendix 4). A thermoluminescence
date of 6500±660 B.C. was obtained from 31 CH29 in the LeCroy, late Kirk, and Stanly
occupation. There are no radiocarbon dates for Stanly at either Hardaway or Doerseli uk.
Chapman has reported two dates for Stanly components in eastern Tennessee: Icehouse
Bottom, 5848 ±214 B.C: and the Patrick site 5860±175 B.C. Bout Stanly and Kirk stemmed
are tart in the western part of the Carolina Piedmont (DePratter 1975; Goodyear et al 1979;
Kelly 1972).
The Morrow Mountain type biface was first defined by Coe (1964) and was based on
examples recovered from 'Lone IX of the Doerschuk site. Coe (1964) described two varieties
of this contracting stemmed point, Morrow Mountain 1 and 11. While Morrow types I and 11 i
were stratigraphically separated at Doerschuk, there was no stratigraphic difference at Gaston
or Hardaway because the Middle Archaic component was contained within the plow zone
(Coe 1964). Chapman (1976) has also reported a Morrow Mountain component at the
Icehouse Bottom site and a date of 50451245 B.0
The Guilford phase was also defined by Coe (1964) from Lone V] at Doerschuk, and
South's work (1959) at the Gaston site. The Guilford biface has a lanceolate blade form, with
small stems or shoulders and a diamond - shaped cross - section. Guilford bifaccs arc common

surface finds in the CiirOJina Piedmont, but Chaprnau 11977) notes that they arc absent from
eastern Tennessee.
While Stanly points are rare in Gaston and Lincoln Counties, Morrow Mountain I and 11
and Guilford bifaces art; abundant in artifact collections. A numbei of Middle Archaic sites
have been recorded in Gaston County and several sites located during the suivey for the US
I ighway 321 Highway Relocation Project (McCabe, Hargrove, and Cross 1978)
Late Archaic
Archaeological definition of the Late Archaic is much Jess a problem than with the
previously discussed periods due to the technological and chronological integrity of the i,ate
Archaic artifact assemblages, subsistence strategies, and settlement patterns along the
Atlantic Slope. The distinctive Late Archaic manifestation in die Savannah River region is
referred to as die Stallings Island Culture (Claflin 1931; Stoltman 1974) Tlie major
technological attribute shared is the appearance of Savannah River type points, a large
stemmed bifaee (Coe 1964). other artifacts that are diagnostic of the Late Archaic are
stemmed scrapers, winged atlad weights, chipped adzes, cells, soapstone artifacts such as net
sinkers, and soapstone vessels. Late Archaic sites also reveal an increase in fire- cracked rock
and grinding stones.
This period is characterized by the intensive exploitation of riverinc and coastal resources
(Williams 1968). Within these sites hearths, trash pits, and fire - cracked rock are common,
but evidence for structures is rare. As characterized by Caldwell (1958), the I,atc Archaic is
a time of regionalization and increasing cultural complexity, h has been suggested that the
Late Archaic is a trend toward specialization within certain habitats, a time of increasing
sedentism and population growth (Goodyear et al. 1979) Late Archaic sites do contain a
larger number of tool types than earlier sites and more non - portable artifacts, such as
grinding stones, larger middens, and evidence of more diverse plant use.
Woodland (1,000 B.C. — A.D. 1700)
Traditionally, the Woodland has been defined by the appearance of dime attributes:
pottery, horticulture, and burial mounds (Griffin 1964, 1967; Willey 1966). The Woodland
is commonly divided into three sections; Early, Middle, and Late. The Early and Middle
Woodland are coincidental with two midwestern cultural divisions, Adena and Hopewell
(Griffin 1964; Dragoo 1976). The three -part division of the Woodland in the Piedmont is
based on the stratigraphic association of ceramic surface treatments, temper materials, and
hafted biface forms. This period is characterized by a pattern of widespread use of pottery,
ceremonialism, and a growing dependence on horticulture. A detailed sequence of ceramic
types has been established for the Piedmont by Coe (1952, 1964).
Early Woodland
The earliest known ceramics from the Piedmont appear at least by the third century B.C.
with the Badin Series in the 1lwharrie Mountains and Vincent Series in the Roanoke
drainage. These c:eiamics series are sand- tempered wares with fabric of cord- marked
surfaces and often found in association with large, roughly made triangular (Yadkin or
Roanoke) projectile points (Coe 1964). These vessels are medium to large sized containers
for storage and cooking.
12

in otlhe► areas, such as the Carolina Coastal Plain, ►esearchers (Phelps 1975, 1980, South
1976; l.ofifield 1976) have recognized a transition from fiber and soapstone tempered
ceramics to crushed quartz tempered cord - marked wares. The evidence for this type of
transition m the Piedmont has not been discovered. 'Therefore, based on the nature of Radin
Series ceramics, Coe assumed that potte►y making techniquess were well developed before
their introduction into the Piedmont (1964:27) A migration of Kellog Focus groups out of
eastern Tennessee has been proposed to explain the appearance of fabric - marked ceramics in
the Piedmont 'Phis may be the case, however it is also possible that further research in the
western part of the state and the Piedmont will suggest alternative explanation, for example
in situ development.
Description~ of the barly Woodland in the Appalachian Mountain region are provided by
Keel (1976) and Purrington (1983). Excavation at the Warren Wilson site (31BN29)
revealed a layer stratigraphically separated above the Savannah River Component (Keel
1976), Swamranoa ceramics are sand or quartz tempered with cord - marked or fabric -
impressed surfaces. However, other attributes of the Swatuianoa phase are not significantly
different from the preceding Savannah River Component.
Middle Woodland
,]'he definition and descriptions on the Middle Woodland in the Piedmont arc
problematical. The Middle Woodland in the Piedmont is currently a ceramic typological
construct that is based on development 01 introductions of new decorative techniques or
features (Claggct► and Cable 1982; May and Pace n.d.).
The Yadkin Series continued a tradition of cord marking and fabric- impressing; however,
crushed quartz replaced sand as a tempering material. Also, possibly during this period,
attributes such as check stamping and clay tempering were introduced from the south (Coe
1964; Claggett and Cable 1982; Anderson 1985).
Stratigraphic and morphological trends are also seen in other cultural elements such as a
trend of decreasing projectile point size, hinting at the possible introduction of die bow and
arrow (Coe 1(XA, Oliver 1981; Tippitt and Daniel 1997)
Late Woodland
Regional differences in ceramic wares increased after approximately A.D. 1000. These
ceramic wares, Uwharrie, Dan River, Caraway, and Hillsborough developed out of the
indigenous groups and do not represent any major changes in style and methods of
manufacturing.
A generalized Woodland subsistence pattern of hunting and gathering appears to
characterize this region until late prehistoric times (Coe 1964; Ward 1983; Woodall 1976;
Newkirk 1978; Barnette 1978; May and Pace n.d.). Recent excavations conducted by May,
Pace, and i,evy (May 1987) at 31GS55 have revealed several medium to small sized pits
filled with charred corn cobs, a large number of post molds, and trash pits associated with
Late Woodland occupation. Two radiocarbon dates from charcoal derived from features
were obtained from this site: 520 ±70 b.p. (lowercase indicates uncorrected date), c. A,D.
1430, and 600 ±70 b.p., c. A.D. 1350 (May 1987).
11

bate Prehistoric -Early Historic
Between A. D, 1000 and 1 100 in many areas in the Southeast there is good evidence for
the growth anid spread of a distinctive cultural expression (Griffin 1952, 1967; Caldwell
1958). The Mississippian traditions are defined by the intensive cultivation and storage of
maize, small triangulai arrow points, shell tempered ceramics, pyiamidal mounds, territorial
expansion and a complex social and political organization. There is evidence for laiger
populations, and habitation sites are usually located on the floodplain soils suitable. for hoe
agriculture (Smith 1975)
it is generally thought that this tradition developed in the central Mississippi River valley
and was then introduced to other areas by migration or diffusion, producing a number of
regionalized variations. These regional variants contain a number of Mississippian tradition
attributes as well as chaiacteristic elements of the indigenous culture Therefore, some of the
"classic" Mississippiau traits may not apply to these regional variants.
As one of the regional variants of tlui; tradition, Griffin (1967) defined the South
Appalachian Mississippian. Ferguson (1971) provides a comprehensive synthesis ofthe
South Appalachian Mississippian. Work continues on the materials from several of these
religious - political centers: Rembert and Mulberry in South Carolina and Town Crock in
North Carolina.
The Town Creek mound complex (31M03) and other South Appalachian Mississippian
sites are located along the Pee Dee River and othei Piedmont streams. According to Coe
(1952), this Pee Dee focus or culture is the remains of a group of Muskogean speakers who
invaded the area from the south. It has been suggested (Coe 1952) that the Pee Dee culture
moved north into the southent North Carolina Piedmont around A.D. 1550 The occupation
of the temple mound probably lasted only a century, and had little or no impact on the
indigenous groups living in the area, although there appears to have been some displacement
of the Uwharric groups (Ward 1983).
While Town Creek stands as important site, it must be remembered that it is a unique site
and that the majority of the late prehistoric or early historic groups continued to live basically
a late Woodland adaptive strategy (Coe 1952,1964; Woodall and Claggett 1974; May
1987). Located on terraces and floodplains along major rivers, Uwharric or other occupation
sites provide good evidence of agriculture: (Coe 1952) bused on cultigens such as maize.
There is also the likelihood of the use of semi- domesticated plants such as pigweed,
sunflower, and goomfoot; it is also evident that these groups continued to do intensive
hunting and gathering (Smith 1986).
European explorers such as Juan Pardo in 1566 and 1567 (DePratter et al. 1983), i.ederer
in 1670, and John Lawson in 1701 (Griffin 1 967) provided eyewitness accounts that suggest
that many of the late prehistoric and protohistoric groups in the southwestern Piedmont were
related to the complex chiefdoms in Georgia and South Carolina.
Even though the northern and southern groups shared many technological and ecological
adaptations, the religious and political organizations were more highly developed in the south
(Hudson 1970). It has been pointed out that one indication of the contrast might be seen in
the distribution of aboriginal mounds in the Piedmont (McCabe, Hargrove, and Cross 1978).
Burial and temple mounds that are expressions of relatively complex social organization are
14

mute common in the rnuuntains of western North Carolina Yet, these mounds arc tare in the
western piedmont and very rare in the northeastern Piedmont.
Aftei Ilse early explorations of the Spanish and the English, the flow of Europeans to the
west increased in the eat ly 1700's, bt inging smallpox and increasing the internal stress and
warfare among Indian groups. Catawba populations were devastated. Theit numbers,
estimated at 4,600 in 1682, had dwindled to approximately 1,000 by 1761 (Swanton
1946:104 -105) and offered no resistance to the early German and Scots•Irish settlers from
Pennsylvania (Sharpe 1961:1161-1162). 'The Catawba were often allied with the Fnglish
colonial government against the French, but later side! with the colonists against the
C'hcrokec and the British (McCabe, Hargrove, and Urow 1978). With the increase in settlers
following the end of die American Revolution, the Catawba were gradually forced from their
homelands and were finally given a reservation along the Catawba River near Rock dill,
South Carolina (Swanton 1946; Hudson 1970).
These early luropean colonists did not set up pemtanent settlements and did not acquire
title to the land Because early arrivals often squatted on land for years before establishing a
claim, the identity of the first permanent settlers has not been unquestionably established
(McCabe, Hargrove, and Cross 1978). The Majority of these settlers were Germano from the
Pennsylvania Dutch country and Scots -Irish immigrants.
Mecklenburg County
In 1762 Mecklenburg County was formed from a part of Anson County and was soon
red»ced in size with annexations to other counties (Alexander 1902, Corbitt 1975 :147). The
county is located in the western Piedmont and Appalachian physiographic regions with high
rolling uplands and both narrow and broad stream valleys. Elevations range from 600 feet
(183 metiers) to 700 feet (213 meters) within the current environs. Mecklenburg County is
bounded by the Catawba Rivej toward the west, South Carolina to the south, Cabarrus and
lredell Counties to the north, and Union County to the east
Much of the county ib underlain by igneous tbrmations of granite., diorite, and gabbro
Formations of metavolcantc strata toward the east contain rhyolitc, an important raw material
of prehistoric tool manufacture.
Presently, most of the county is urban, residential, or under development with the
remainder forested or in agriculture. The plantation agricultural system never developed in
Mecklenburg County, and records indicate that only a few people owned more than 1,000
acres (640 ha) with cotton as the leading cash crop (US Census Records 1850).
Spanish explorers visited nearby areas during the 16th century (DePratter. Hudson, and
Smith 1983) while the British explorer and traveler John Lawson visited in 1701, but it was
not until die 1759s drat Europeans came to stay, The first Euro - American settlers came fiotn
Germany, Pennsylvania (of Scots -Irish descent), and a few English migrants traveled south
through the Shenandoah Valley via the Great Wagon Road (Sharpe 1961.1206).
A steady steam of migrants moved into the area during the 1750's and 60's. 7iie
population of Mecklenburg County apparently brew quickly in the years after settlement, t
This is seen in the Mouzon map of) 775 where several roads are depicted crossing the area of
Mecklenburg County The Price- Strothet map showing the same area provides greater detail.
IS
.i
1;

houses, tuills, and other structures, anothci indicf,tion of populattun giuwth. Many of the
new residents were farmers, but there were alsl) millers, tanners, sawyers, blacksmiths,
furniture makers, and other skilled specialists Rapidly moving streams and rivers, for
example Clarke Creek, McAlpine Creek, Sugar Creek, Reedy Creek, Rocky River, and the
Catawba River, encouraged mdusti ial development (Alexander 1902)
After the Civil War, the economy of Mecklenburg County increasingly tuned from
agriculture to industry. 11-01, was a much- needed commodity in the county; therefore mining
and othct extractive industries became impxntant in the 10th century. Small farms, a
characteristic of the western Piedmont region, have largely disappeared from the area today
PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS
A Phase t survey was conducted on the property for the proposed Charlotte - Douglas
International Airport expansion project between 1995 and 1997, with a final report
submission in June of 1998. The report was submitted to Landrum & Brown through the
contract services of Environment and Archaeology, LLC and Keruron Environmental
Services. Survey consisted of hand excavated shovel test twits and surface surveys aligned
in transacts as the primary sampling method. The high probability areas were tested at
transec;t intervals of 15 meters, while the moderate probability areas were tested at 30 meter
intervals; low probability areas were walked over and inspected on the surface. The
proposed project area covered approximately 1,900 acres of agricultural, residential,
commercial and light industrial land located along the western edge of the existing airport
facilities in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (Clifford 1998). The Wynn site
(31 MK811) and the Ertel site (31 MK814) were identified during this survey and
recommended for further data recovery for the determination of eligibility for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places (MOA). The sites were suggested to be short -term reuse
sites and not representative of settlemchit locations. The report was submitted to the North
Carolina Office of State Archaeology and Division of Archives and History. The field notes
and artifacts from the project are unavailable at this time for review.
IDENTIFYING, ARCHAEOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
Preliminary Site Location Model
While a number of archaeological investigations have been conducted in the Piedmont
region of North Carolina, these have been restricted to relatively small geographical areas.
klowever, these studies do provide some data for the prediction of probable site locations and
the temporal components that might he expected.
According to May (1985, 1987, 1989) and Baker and Hall (1985, 1986), larger (and later)
archaeological sites are located on first and second terraces adjacent to second, third, and
fourth order streams withm the project vicinity. Archaeological sites located in modern,
active floodplains may be deeply buried under recent sediments. In these situations it is also
possible that floods have redeposited archaeological materials.
This preliminary model also predicts higher site density where second and higher order
streams converge. In addition, terraces, slopes of less than twenty degrees, and ridges
overlooking; stream confluences are preferred landforms for occupation in these areas.
Saddles between drainages and ridge toes are preferred landforms in areas of first and second
16

order strcanhs Sites in these areas are also likely to he located within 100 meters of the first
or(lei streams and ever closer to higher order streams. This model also predicts that, based
cm correlations between stream valley size, stream rank, site size, and period of occupation,
the larger later time period sites are expected to be located in valleys with larger floodplains.
'these larger stream valleys also have the potential to contain sites with preserved, stratified
deposits.
In summary, it is possible to preliminarily designate archaeological sensitive areas as: I )
terraces adjacent to higher order stream confluences; 2) te]Yaces and ridge toes with slopes of
less than twenty degrees, and ridge tops overlooking stream confluences; and 3) ridge toes
adjacent to first and second order streams
Field Site Definition
An archaeological site is any locus on the landscape where humans modified their
physical environment or r esourem in such a way that the etfcct of that modification is readily
apparent. Because of recent agricultural and land clearing activities, environmental
modifications such as mounds, if present at all, are difficult to identify I lowever, lithic
debris, pottery sherds, and occasionally faunal remains arc readily identified where surface
visibility is not severely limited. Field conditions were such that a variety of landscapes as
well as land patterns were encountered. lack of visibility was probably the greatest bias
against site identification, and can only be partly compensated with close interval systematic
shovel test transacts. Therefore, all recovered artifact loci were numbered, collected, and
noted for inclusion into the statewide site file inventory.
In areas where visibility was less than 50% of the ground sur face, any evidence or human
activity, i. e. artifacts, features, foundations, etc., recovered from shovel tests or by visual
inspection constitutes a site. Subsequent shovel testing in the vicinity of an artifact find is
used to delimit the horizontal extent of any artifact concentration.
Field Methods
Following the completion of background mi earch, with the exception of field notes and
artifacts recovered from the project area during a previous survey, each site was located and
recorded using UTM coordinates found on site forms at the State Office of Archaeology in
Raleigh, NC. After each site was located, a pedestrian reconnaissance survey of both sites
was conducted to locate any artifacts present on die ground surface Following this, an
arbitrary datum point was selected at each site and a grid established to aid in the process of
systematic shovel testing. The grids for both sites were oriented on a north -south compass
heading, with the grid extending several meters south and west of the datum point. Shovel
tests, which were at least 30cm in diameter, were conducted in ten -meter intervals throughout
each site to locate any artifacts beneath the ground surface. Upon completion of shovel tests,
several 2.5 -meter wide strips to remove the plow zone, ranging in depth from 30cm to 41cm
and from 10 to 30 meters long, were excavated by a track loader at each site. Stripping
orientation remained consistent with north -south compass headings. The subsoil bases of the
strips were then flat - shoveled to uncover any archaeological features or artifacts that may
have been buried Throughout this process, all discovered artifacts were collected, and
labeled according to their provenience, level, date collected, and collector.
17

Lab Methods
After the artifacts were collected and labeled in the field, they were taken to the lab at the
Schiele Muscum of Natural Ilistory in Gastonia, North Carolina for further analysis.
Primarily, ail artifacts were cleaned and allowed to dry. Following this, drey were analyzed
and inventoried based on their provenience, level, count, material, date recovered, collector,
and other distinguishing characteristics. Geologic rocks were recorded by raw material type,
weighed, and discarded. Modern trash, such as glass and brick, was also noted and
discarded lithic core fragments and shatter were classified as such, including raw material
type, and were then inventoried; core fragments were weighed. Flake debitage was analyzed
and classified according to raw material type, type of flake (primary, secondary, or interior),
morphology type, and in terms of any retouch evidence. )''lake debitage are defined by the
manufacturing stage according to the North Carolina office of State Archaeology guidelines:
Primary Flake: those whose dorsal surfaces are entirely covered with cortex.
Secondary Flake: those with at least a trace of cortex oil the dorsal surface.
Interior Flake: those that lack cortex and arc derived entirely from the interior of the
core.
The definitions for flake debitage categories in the 1998 site report (Clifford 1998:38 -39)
were used to correlate the debitage types which are defined as complete flake, proximal
flake, and distal flake and is based on lithic procurement morphology:
Complete )Make (cl), those debitage artifacts that possess a single interior surface
(positive percussion features), a point of applied force such as an intact platform
and/or bulb of percussion, and intact margins. s;
Proximal Flake (pf) Fragment: those debitage artifacts that possess a single interior
surface and point of applied force, such as a platform and bulb of percussion, but lack
intact margins.
Distal ):lake (df) Fragment: any debitage artifact that possesses a single interior
surface, but lacks a point of applied force and intact margins.
All lithic flakes are categorized in this report with both types of identification.
SURVEY RESULTS
During the field reconnaissance, two known archaeological lithic scatter sites within the
area of the proposed Charlotte - Douglas International Airport runway expansion project were
surveyed with the goal of recovering any additional artifacts present within the project area.
These two lithic artifact scatter sites are known as the Wynn site (3) MK811) and the Ertel
site (31 MKK 14). All artifacts yielded from each site was collected, inventoried, and
analyzed.
Survey during the summer months involves special considerations that are not factors
during the rest of the year. Insect pests, (mosquitoes, ticks, wasps, yellowjackets, etc.),
copperheads (Agkistrodon conrorrrix contorrrix), and rattlesnakes (Crotaius ada►naneus)
are as much a part of the landscape as are artifact concentratiorxs, pastures, woodlands, and
agricultural fields Additionally, survey lines cut through thickets of briar (Smilax sp.),
18

jewelweed (impatiens capensis), poison ivy (Rhus radicans), privet (Ligustrun)
japonicam), and ragweed (Ambrosia !ri/(la). Old -field succession was also encountered
within and adjacent to project boundaries The predominant colony species in these old
fields are red cedai (Juniperus virginiana) and Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana)
During the survey period temperatures during the day ranged from the lower 70's ( >2I'
C) to the mid 80's ( >27° C) Fahrenheit. During the days of daw recovery conditions were
ideal, warn, bright sunshine, and a few clouds; a»d these conditions were not detrimental to
artifact concentrations of feature identification. Shovel testing was made difficult by dry soil
conditions in the mostly sunny areas of 31 MK81 I and 31 MK814, additionally, much of the
surface artru of 31MK814 had been previously disturbed with demolition debris and
equipment storage, sec Figure... below. Areas of ridge toe slopes (where these sites were
located) were generally dries and more difficult to shovel test than tloodplain sandy loans
within the Paw Creek drainage.
The site locations arc represented entirely by the Cecil (C'eB2) soils complex These soils
occur on side slopes and uplands and the upper 10 inches (25 cm) is a yellowish rod to red
sandy clay loam and strongly acid. The undej lying material extends to a depth of about 70
inches (175 cm). It is a dark reddish friable clay loam in the upper part; rite middle part is
yellowish -brown, friable clay loam; and the lower portion is red and yellow saprolite that
crushes to loam and is massive, friable, and Strongly acidic (Soil Survey of Mecklenburg
County). The Munsell soil colors recorded in the field include IOYR 4/6, 10YR 7/8 and SYR
4/6 and were only recorded from site 31MK81 I. All artifacts were identified and recovered
in these eroded soils.
Site Descriptions
lMUI I
The Wynn site (31 MK811) is located in all area of secondary growth and is bounded by
Old Dowd Rd. to the north, Wallace Neel Rd. to the cast, and interstate 485 to the southwest,
Figure 3. Field survey was conducted at 31 M K811 from May 9 through May 14, 2007. The
site is situated on an upland ridge top overlooking the headwaters of an unnamed tributary of
Lake Wylie. 7'Ite elevation for the site was 220 meters and approximately 122 meters north
of the unnamed stream. Plowing and erosional processes have previously impacted the site
(Clifford 1998) In addition, the area where the site is located was previously used for
residential development. Prior to beginning the survey of 31MK81 I the site was
mechanically cleared with archaeological monitoring by heavy equipment operators from
Charlotte- Douglas International Airport.
After the site was cleared, it was relocated and recorded onto a plan -view map, and on the
ground by utilizing the UTM coordinates from the site form at the Stale Office of
Archaeology in R.alcigh, NC and a UPS unit provided by the airport. Following this, a
pedestrian reconnaissance survey was conduced throughout the area within and surrounding
31MK811. The surface reconnaissance of the site yielded several artifacts including- 9 vein
quartz core fragments, 18 pieces of vein quartz shatter, 20 vein quartz interior flakes (3
proximal, 17 distal), 5 vein quartz secondary flakes (1 proximal, 4 distal), 7 rhyolite interior
flakes (4 complete, I proximal, I distal), 4 flow banded tityolite interior flakes (i proximal, 3
distal), 2 rhyolite secondary flakes (dis(al), I vein quartz pre -form, 1 fragment of clear bottle
N

31 MK
)10
Figure 3 Planview Map to r 31 MM1 t
$11
J.."sM ¢01
m call M'Rtm w % "m
no pogo,
•ROw�pora�ea w�aan� wax
20
N
{
• Urld .0p
• Shovel Teats
Road
Modmr" ShdPq�y
Meters

glass, I bonc fragment, and 333.89 of geologic lock The 133.8g of geologic rock consisted
of 19 pieces of vent gllallz, 1 piece of schist, I piece of gravel, and i piece of roof slate.
following the completion of the surface reconnaissance, an arbitrary datum point
designated as 200N1200E was established and a grid was created. The grid covered 0.82
acres (0.33 Ira), and was divided into ten meter transects. Shovel tests were conducted on the
grid in ten -meter intervals south and west of the datum point. A total of 43 shovel tests were
completed at site 3) MK811, with 12 positive and 31 negative for lithic artifacts. In
Completing these shovel tests several artifacts were recovered itrcluding- I vein quartz corn
fragment, 2 vein quartz interior flakes (distal), 9 interior rhyolitc flakes (3 complete, I
proximal, 5 distal), 2 interior flow banded rhyolitc flakes ( I distal, I complete), I rhyolite
secondary flake (complete), I i pieces of vein quartz shatter, and 1 Morrow Mountain [t
rhyolite prx►jectilc point. The geologic rode consisted of vein quartz, quartzite, and friable
rock, which was collected, weighed, inventoried and discarded along with the modern brick
fragment and several fragments of amber, clear, and light green modern glass. I .,ollowing the
shovel tests, seven 2.5 -meter wide strips were machine excavated at 31 MK811, Figures 4 and
5. Four of the stripped areas wore 30 meters long, and three weir 20 meters long. No
features or artifacts were recovered from any of the plow zone stripping.
Figure 4. Monitoring of plow zone stripping along transect lines at 31MK8I I (view toward
the south).
21

Figure 5. Plow zone stripping along transect lines at 31 MK8 I I (view is toward the south).
Temporal Association
The biface recovered at the Wynn Site (31 MK8( 1) is classified as a Morrow Mountain
type II projectile point, and is associated with the prehistone middle Archaic Period (6,000-
) 3,000 B.C.). Additionally, no }prehistoric pottery was recovered from the site area. The
absence of greater quantities of lithic debitage and pottery snakes interpretation difficult, but
isolated artifact finds located in other environments, ridge slopes and upland ridge tops, have
} been interpreted as limited activity sites.
Recommendations
Based on survey results including reconnaissance surveys, shovel tests, and stripping,
31MK8I 1 has little potential for increasing our understanding of prehistoric native
technology including stone tool manufacture. 7`his site is not potentially eligible for
inclusion to the National Register of Historic Places because of the absence of mrddens or
features and because of the disturbance ftotu carliet land modification and erosion.
Therefore, no further work is recommended for this site.
22

31MK814
This site rasidcb in an area of secondary growth 650 meters west of Wallace Neel Rd,
Figure 6. Field survey was conducted at the Ertel site (31MK814) from May 15 through
May 17, 2007. The site is situated on au eroded upland rrdgetop, near the headwaters of
Little Paw C'►eek (the headwaters at this location have been artificially ponded). The
elevation for the site was 223 meters, and the site was located approximately 366 nntcrs cast
of the headwaters of Little Paw Creek.
Agricultural activities and erosional processes have previously impacted the site. The site
was also previously used for industrial purposes. Prior to beginning the survey of 31 MK 814
the site was cleared by Charlotte- Douglas international Airport. Aftcr the site was cleared,
the center wa4 located and recorded onto a plan -view map, and on the ground by utilizing the
1JTM coordinates from the site form at the State Office of Archaeolofry in Raleigh, NC, and a
GPS unit provided by airport personnel. Following this, a pedestrian reconnaissance survey
was conduced throughout the area within and surrounding 31MK814 'The surface
reconnaissance of the site yielded 3 vein quart,/. core fragments, 6 vein quartz interior flakes
(3 proximal, 3 distal), 4 pieces of vein quartz shatter, and 3 fragments of vein quartz geologic
rock weighing 76g.
After a surface reconnaissance survey was completed, an arbitrary datum point designated
as 100N /100F was established and a grid was created The total area shovel tested was 0.70
acres (0.28 ha) and was divided into ten meter transects.
The initial grid covered .44 acres (.18 ha), and was divided into ten meter transects.
Shovel tests were conducted on the grid in ten -meter intervals south and west of the datum
point. A total of 23 shovel tests were completed at site 31MK814 during this stage of data
recovery, with only 1 positive and 22 negative for lithic artifacts. From these initial shovel
tests, on May 15, 2007, few artifacts were recovered including: 1 rhyohte secondary flake
(distal), and 1 mica (schist) fragment that were discarded. Following these shovel tests, five
2.5 -meter wide strips were machine excavated at 31MK814, Figures 7 and 8. Three of the
stripped areas were 30 meters long, and two were 20 meters long. No features or artifacts
were recovered from any of the plow zone stripping.
On May 17, 2007, the grid was extended 40 meters south due to die amount of disturbance
in the area of previous testing from industrial activities. An area of 20 meters south, between
the original grid area and extended portion that was shovel tested was not tested due to
erosion and modem trash debris. This extended grid covered .25 acres (0.10 ha) and was
divided into ten meter transects. Shovel tests were conducted on the grid in ten -meter
intervals south and west of the datum point. A total of 15 shovel tests were completed at site
31MK814 during this stage of data recovery, with 5 positive and 10 negative for lithic
artifacts. In completing these shove) tests several artifacts were recovered including; I vein
quartz interior flake (distal), and 8 pieces of vein quartz shatter. The geologic rock consisted
of vein quartz, quartzite, and metaquartzite, which was collected, weighed, inventoried and
discarded. Following these shovel tests, five 2.5 -mete► wide strips were machine excavated
at 31 MK814 (see Figure 9). Three of the stripped areas were 20 meters Fong, and two were
10 meters long. No features or artifacts weir. recovered from any of the plow zone stripping.
23

J
i
1
31MK814
� � 0oso 0000 Jww N
. ro as +0m mr00
a000�a��0�ow0�oaw
4A� vD Oil 1�w • Ulm
' • Shawl T.sts
0�'n » boo n n bA
—= UAlohod0el SbippinD
Alp •�,, >a� s — ReO�
0 12.5 2b 50 75 _,•j�
Figure 6 Plainview Map fot 3iMM4
24

1'
Figure T Plow zone stripping along transeet lines at 31MK814, initial testing (view is
toward the southwest).
Figure R. Plow zone stripping along transect lines at 31 MK814, initial testing (view is
toward the south) Note the cement column in the background.
25

Figure 9. Plow 7one stripping along transect lines at 31 MKS 14, extended grid testing (view
is toward the south).
Temporal Association
I Because of the lack of temporally diagnostic artifacts recovered at the Ertel Site
(31 MK814) such as stone tools, or prehistoric pottery, temporal association cannot be
determined. No prehistoric or historic pottery fragments were recovered from the site area.
The absence of a greater diversity of lithic debitagc and pottery makes interpretation difficult,
but the small lithic assemblage with its preponderance of interior flakes and shatter in other
} areas of the piedmont have been inteipreted as short term habitation sites or hunting cramps.
Recommendations
Based on survey results including reconnaissance surveys, shovel tests, and stripping,
31MK814 has little potential for increasing our understanding of prehistoric native
technology including stone tool manufacture. This site is not eligible for inclusion to the
National Register of Historic Places because of the absence of middens or features and
because of the disturbance from earlier land modification and erosion Therefore, no rutther
work is recommended for this site.
26

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
'Phis study records and describes the methods and results of the data recovery project tot
two prehistoric lithic scatter sites identified in the area of the ptopused runway expansion
project for the Charlotte - Douglas International Airport, Mecklenburg C'ounty, North
C'arolina. The project areas consist of two prehistoric archaeological sites: 31 MK81 I and
31MK814, that were identified during the Phase 1 archaeological survey completed For the
airport 1rorn 1995 to 1997 (Clifford 1998) The Wynn Sitc (31 MK811) and the Grtcl Site
(31MK814) were recommended for further data recovery for the detcr'ininatwn of eligibility
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (Clifford 1998) The field notes and
artifacts from the Phase 1 survey conducted between 1995 and 1998 are unavailable at this
time for review. The sites were suggested to be short -term reuse riles and not representative
of settlement locations. The North Carolina Division of Archives and History clearinghouse
number for the sites is 96-F -0000 -0362 and the Environmental Review number is ER 98-
8723.
A review of the appropriate USGS 7 5' topographic map, Charlotte West, NC (1993), was
conducted prior to the initiation of the project (see Figure 1). The project area consists of
0.82 acres (0.33 he) for site 31 MK81 1, and 0.70 acres (0.28 ha) for site 31 MK814, with total
area coverage of 6,100 square meters The two sites were identified with UTM coordinates:
31MK81 I (Zoire 17, Northing: 3997000/ Easting: 502840) and 31MK814 (Zone 17, N-
3897160/E- 503440). A number of residential and commercial buildings along with
agricultural activity have occupied this area since the middle of the last century. The traffic
arteries of Old Dowd Rd., Wallace Neel Rd.. and Interstate 485 surround the project areas.
Topographic relief within the project area is greater toward the west where the Paw Creek
bottomland opens into the Catawba River valley also to the west. Both sites are located in
the upland physiographic region: 31MK811 is located on a gentle ridge toe slope and
31 MK814 is located on an upland flat. Throughout the vicinity of the surveyed sites, ridge
toes and toe slopes extend to within five meters of Paw Creek or its fust order tributaries,
Figure 1.
Shovel testing and plow zone stripping at these sites revealed no artifacts, midden, or
features. There were a total of 43 shovel tests at site 31MK8i 1, with 12 positive and 31
negative. Site 31 MK814 consisted of an initial grid that was extended for a total of 38 shovel
tests, with 6 positive and 30 negative. In reference to shovel tests. positive refers to tests
with lithic artifacts. Based upon artifact analysis and shovel test results, no further cultural
resource work is recommended for these sites, they are not eligible for inclusion to the
National Register of Historic Places, and construction should be allowed to proceed.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We acknowledge a number of individuals that assisted with the rapid completion of
Ibis project. Jennifer Matthews, Airport Planning Assistant and Jack Christine, Airport
Planner, Charlotte, North Carolina provided project development maps, general survey maps,
and helpful suggestions during the fieldwork speeding data recovery. Additionally, Mike
Arnold, Norman Hubert, Ken Emory, and Wilbert Nichols assisted with heavy equipment
operation and site clearing. They worked quickly to clear the sites and strip the plow zone.
27

R)kFERENC'ES CITED
Alexander, J. B
1902 The Ilistory of Mecklenbuig County Observer Printing House, Charlotte, NC
Anderson, David G.
1985 Middle Woodland Societies on the Lowei South Atlantic Coast: A view froiu (}corgia
and South Carolina. Early Gcorgia 130 & 2).
Baker, Charles M.
1980 Archaeological investigation of two prehistoric lithic sites in Chatham County, North
Carolina. Report on file, Office of State Archaeology, Division of Archives and
History, Raleigh.
Baker, Charles M. and Linda G. Hall
1985 An archaeological evaluation of three proposed alternate sites for the Gastonia
Municipal Airport. Report on file, Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh, Notch
Carolina.
1986 Archaeological survey of the proposed Hardin landfill, Uaston County, North Carolina.
Report on file, Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh, North Carolina
Baker, Charles M.
1980 Archaeological investigation of two prehistoric lithic sites in Chatham County, North
Carolina. Report on file, Office of State Archaeology, Division of Archives and
History, Raleigh.
Baker, Charles M. and Linda G. Hall
1985 An archaeological evaluation of three proposed alternate sites for the Gastonia
Municipal Airport. Report on file, Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
1986 Archaeological survey of the proposed Hardin landfill, Gaston County, North Carolina.
Report on file, Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Barnard, Frank K.
1983 How to find and Identify Arrowheads and Other Indian Artifacts. Frank K. Barnard,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Barnette, Karen
1978 Woodland subsistence - settlement patterns in the Great Bend Alta, Yadkin River valley,
North Carolina. Unpublished Masters thesis, Department of Anthropology, Wake
Forest University.
Broyles, Bettye J.
1971 Second preliminary report: the St. Albans site, Kanawha County, West Virginia. West
Virginia Geological and 1kiNgmic Survey. Report of Archaeological Investigations, 3.
Byers, Douglas S.
1954 Bull Brook- a fluted point site in Ipswich, Massachusetts. AttRerican Antigg y 19:343-
351.
28

Caldwell, Joseph R
1958 Trend and tradition in the prehistory of the eastern Ihrited States. American
Atuhropological Association Wnjon No. 88.
Chapman, Jefferson
1978 The Rose Island Sitc and the bifurcate point tradition. University of Tennessee
DeRartment of Anthropology, Report of Investigations 14
Charles, 'Pommy
1983 The Paleo - Indian point distribution in South Carolina: An Update. Paper presented at
the 40th Annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Columbia, South Carolina.
Claflin, William 11.
1931 The Stallings Island Mound, Columbia County, Georgia Papers of the Peabody
Museum of American Archeology and Ethnology. Harvard Universit , 14(1)
Clag ett, Stephen R. and John S. Cable, assemblers
1982 The Haw River Sites: archaeological investigations at to stratified sites in the North
Carolina Piedmont, 3 volumes. Commonwealth Associates, Jackson Michigan.
Cleland, Charles E. ;
1965 Barren ground caribou (RaaaPifer arcticus) from ari Carly man site rrr southeastern
Michigan. American Antiquity 30(3):350 -351. I
1976 The focal- diliusc model: an evolutionary perspective on the prehistoric cultural
adaptations of the eastern United States. Mid- 4ontinental Jouttiral of Archaeologv 1(1).
Clifford, Laura
1998 Phase 1 Cultural Resource Report Proposed Charlotte- Douglas Airport Expansion
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County North Carolina. Report on file, Office of State I
Archaeology, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Coe, Joffre L. !
s
1952 The cultural sequence of the Carolina piedmont. In geology of Eastern United I
States, edited by James B. Griffin, pp. 301 -311. The University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transasajons of the &perican
PhilosoRbical Society 54.
1995 Town Creek Indian Mound A NativgAmetican Lacy. University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill.
Corbitt, David L.
1950 Mr. Formation of the North Carolina 4:ounties 1663 -1943. North Carolina Division of
Archives and History, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Delcouri, Paul A. and Hazel R. Delcotrt I
1981 Vegetation maps of Eastern North America: 40,000 years BP to the present. In
G qQbotany 11, edited by R.C. Romans, pp. 123 -165. Plenum Publishing Corp.
i
DePratter, Chester, Charles Hudson, and Marvin T. Smith
1983 The Route of Juan Pardo's Fixpeditions in the Interior Southeast, 1566 -1568. The
Florida Historical Uuartcriy 62:125 -158.
29

Dragoo, Don W
1976 Some aspects of eastern North American prehislory a review, 1970. Arnetican
Antiquity 41:3-27,
Ferguson, Leland G.
1971 South Appalachian Mississippian. P10). dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of North Carolina. University Microfilm, Ann Arbor.
Fit(ing, James L. ,logy DeVisseher, and Edward J. Wahla
1966 The Paleo- Indian uccupatiorr of the Holcomb Beach site. The lhuversityof Michigan
Museum of Anthropology Anthropological Papers, 27
I -ord, lames A. and Gordon R. Willey
1941 An Interpretation of the Prehistory of the Eastern United States. A— merican
Anthropologist 43:325 -363,
Frison, George C.
1978 Prehistoric Hunters of the Hitch Plains. Academic Press, New York.
Funk, Robert F..
1977 Early cultures in the Hudson drainage basin. In "Amerinds and their
paleoenvironments in northeastern North America," edited by Walter S. Newman and
Bert Salwen, pp. 137 -159. Annpals of the New York Acadepry of Sciences, Volume
288.
Gardner, William M
1974 The Flint Run complex: pattern and process during the Paleo - Indian to Early Arc)aic.
In "The Flint Run Paleo - Indian complex: a preliminary report, 1971 -73 seasons," edited
by William M. Gardner, pp. 5-47. Catholic University of America, Department of
Anthropology, Occasional Paper Number 1.
Goodyear, Albert C.
1974 The Brand Site: a techno- functional study of a Dalton site in northeast Adtansas.
Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series Number 7.
Goodyear, Albert C., Neal W. Ackerly, and John H. douse.
1979 An archaeological survey of the Laurens to Anderson connector route in the South
Carolina Piedmont. Institute ol'Archpaeologyand nthropology, University of South
(Carolina. Occasional Pavers No 4.
Griffin, James B.
1952 Culture periods in eastern United States archeology. In mbeology of Eastern United
ales, edited by James B. Griffin, pp. 325 -364. The University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
1964 The northeast woodland area. In Prehistoric Man in the Now World, edited by Jesse D.
Jennings and Edward Norbeck, pp. 223 -258. The University of Chicago Press.
1967 Eastern North American Archeology: A Summary. agigig 156:175 -191.
1987 Eastern United States. In Chronologies in New World Archaeology, edited by R.E.
Taylor and C.W. Mcighan, pp 51 -70. Academic Press, Ncw York.
30

Hudson, Char Ics
1976 The Soudleastern Indians. University ofTerntessee Press, Knoxville.
K cel, Bennie C.
1976 Cherokee Archeology. a study of thy. Appalachian summit. University of Tennessee
Press, Knoxville.
Lawson, John
1967 A New Voygc to Carolina, edited by l lugh 'Talmadge Lefler. University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
I.olifieW, 'Thomas C.
1976 "A briefc and tape report.., "; an archaeological interpretation of the Southern North
Carolina Coast. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology. University of North
Carolina, University Microfilm, Ann Arbor.
Mason, Ronald J.
1962 The Palco- Indian tradition in eastern North America Current Anthropology 3:227 -278.
1 May, J. Alan
1985 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of Selected Portions of fusion County North
Carolina. Report on file, Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh, North Carolina.
1987 Archaeological Investigations in the North Carolina Piedmont: The Culture History of
Crowders Creek Site, 31 GS55. Paper presented at the 47th Annual Southeastern
Archaeological Conference, Charleston, South Carolina.
1989 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of Selected Portions of the South Fork Catawba
River Watershed: Gaston and Lincoln Counties, North Carolina. Report on file, Office
of State Archaeology, Raleigh, North Carolina.
May, 3. Alan and Robert A. Pace
n.d. Archaeological Investigations at the C:rowders Creek Site, 31GS55, Gaston, County,
North Carolina. Report on file, Schiele Museum of Natural History, Gastonia, NC
McCabe, J.T., Thomas Hargrove and Jerry L. Cross.
1978 U.S. 321: A Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Survey of the Proposed U.S. 321
Relocation, Gaston, Lincoln, and Davidson Counties, North Carolina. Report on file,
Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh, North Carolina.
McCary, Hen C
1951 A workshop site of early man in Dinwiddic County, Virginia. American Antiquity
17:9 -17.
Michie, James L.
1977 The late Pleistocene human occupation in South Carolina Unpublished undergraduate
honor's thesis. Department of Anthropology, University of South Carolina.
Newkirk, Judith A.
1978 The Parker site: a Woodland site in Davidson County, North Carolina. Unpublished
Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Wake Forest University
01

J Oliver, Billy L.
1981 The Piedinow Tradition• a refinement of the Stivannah River Stemmed Point type
Unpublished Masters thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Pcrkinson, P. H
1971 North Carolina Fluted Projectile Points -- Survey Report, Number One. Southern Indian
S dies 23.
1973 North Carolina Fluted frojec:tile Points-- Suivey Report Number Two. Southern Indian
Lies 25.
Punington, Burton l..
1983 Ancient mountaineers; an overview of the prehistoric archaeology of North Carolina's
western mountain region. In The Prehistory ol'North Carolina: an archaeological
svmIMium, edited by Mark Mathis and Jeffery Crow. North Carolina Division of
Archives and History, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Rolingson, Martha A.
I WA Palw- Indian culture in Kentucky. University of Kentucky Studies in Anthropology
Numbe r2
Separk, Joseph H.
1949 Gastonia and Gaston County, North Carolina, 1846 -1949 Joseph 1-1. Separk, Gastonia
North Carolina.
Sharpe, Bill
1961 A New Geography of North Carolina (Vol. 3). Sharpe Publishing Company, Raleigh,
North Carolina.
Smith, Bruce
1975 Middle Mississippian exploitation of aniinal populations. Anthropological Pavers.
Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan 57.
1986 The archaeology of the eastern United States: from Dalton to DeSoto, 10,500- 50013P.
In Advances in World Archaeollo Volume 5. Academic Press, New York.
Soday, Frank
1954 The Quad site, a Paleo- Indian village in northern Alabama. The 'Tenwessee
Archaeologist 10(l): 1-20,
South, Stanley
1959 A study of the prehistory of the Roanoke Rapids basin. Unpublished Masters thesis,
Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
1976 An archaeological survey of southeastern coastal North Carolina. University of South
Carolina, the institute of Archeology and AntitroNlogy Notebook 8:1 -55
Swanton, John
1946 The Indians of the southeastern United States. Bureau of American Ethnolo&y Bulletin
h!UMber 137.
Thomas, David M.
1979 Archaeol9W Holt Rinehart and Winston, New Yoit,
32

Tippitt, V. Ann
1988 nllluial Resource Overview of the Indian, Howards, and Beaver Darn Caccks
Watershed. Report on file, Offic e of State Archaeology, Raleigh, North Carolina,
Tippitt, V. Ann and 1. Randolf Daniel Jr.
1987 Lithic artifacts from the Fredricks, Wall, and Mitchum sites In Tlie Siouan Project:
Seasons 1 and II Edited by Roy Dickens Jr., H Trawick Ward, and R.P. Stephen Davis
Jr. Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of Noah Carolina, it!lono era h
Scrics 1.
Tippitt, V. Ann and William H Marquardt
1984 Archaeological and geological investigations at two piednnout sites on the Savannah
River, Russellhglmrs, Archaeological Services, Atlanta.
Vitelli, Karen D.
1975 Report on the excavation at UMBC site 18- Be -71. Archaeological Society of
Mayland, Miscellaneous Pa rs to.
Ward, H. Trawick
1983 A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A study of change. In The
Prehistory of North Carolina: an archaeological symposium, edited by Mark Mathis and
Jeffrey Crow. North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.
_ Wester, Kit W
1983 Typology and sequence in the Maryland Archaic. Southeastern Archaeology 2:21 -29
} Williams, Stephen
1968 The Waring Papers. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 8
Williams, Stephen and James B. Stoltinan
1965 An outline of southeastern United States prehistory with particular emphasis on the
Paleo - Indian era. In The Ouatcrnary History of the United States. edited H.E. Wright
Jr. and David G. Frey, pp. 669 -683. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Wilmsen, F,dwin N.
1970 Lithic analysis and cultural inference: a Paleo-Indian case. Arizona State Museum,
Apthmpoloogical PA -Reis Number 16.
Woodall, J. Ned
1976 An archaeological reconnaissance of the Great Alamance Creek water supply project
region. Museum of Man. Wake Forest University, Publications in Archaeology 4.
Wotulall, J. Ned and Stephen R. Claggett
1974 An archaeological survey of the Great Bend area, Yadkin River valley, North Carolina
Report on file, Archaeology Laboratories, Museum of Man, Wakc Forest 1 niversity.
Wormington, Marie H.
1957 Ancient man in North America. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver.
33

} County and Local Records
Charlotte, North Carolina. Mecklenburg County Registei of Mersa Conveyance,
Mecklenburg County Deeds, and Mecklenburg County corporate Records
Soil Survey of Mecklenburg, County (1980)
.l
1
34
i
i

N
APPENDIX A: INVENTORV
t.

SITE: 31M Ul l
PROVEN.
LEVEL
MATERIAL DALE
COLLECTOR COMME NTS
CI,
WGT.
Surface A
NA
Lrduc
9 -May -07
N JP
Van Quartz' Com Frags
2
457 Sg
Surface A
NA
Lithic
9 -May -07
N, JP
Van Quarw Shatter
NA
Surface A
N A
Lithic
9- 'Nay -07
N, JP
Van Quartz' Secondary Flakes (distal)
2
NA
Stufoce A
NA
Lithic
9- N1ay -07
IV. 1P
Vein Quarts' Jareno: Flakes (distal)
3
VA
Surface A
NA
Lthtc
9- May -07
JV,1P
Rbvohtm Secondary Flake (distal)
t
NA
Surface A
NA
Lithic
9- May -07
N, JP
RhyoHW Interior Flakes (2 complete. 1 proximal, I dnstaD
4
NA
Surface A
KA
Lithic
9 -May -07
IV JP
Vein Quattzi Gcol Rock
?
45 2g
Surface B
NA
Uthtc
9- Ma3-07
J4. JP
Vem Quartz Core Frags
4
249 7g
Surface B
NA
Lithic
5-May-07
N, JP
Vem Quartz' Shaper
8
NA
Surface B
NA
Ltthic
94(ay -07
N. JP
Ven Qum' Inteior Flakes (2 proximal, 6 distal)
8
NA
Staface 8
KA
Lt11nc
9 -Mayo?
1V, IP
Floc Banded Rhyoft/ Interior Flakes (ditta!)
2
NA
Surface B
KA
Lithe
9 -May -07
N 11,
Rbyo%t Interior Flakes (1 complete, 1 data!)
2
NA
Surface B
NA
I.Rhnc
9 -May-0
N, JP
Vein QwffW Pre -form
1
KA
Surface B
NA
Lithic
9 -may-0-
N JP
Vem Qtz Schist, Slate, and Gravel, Geol Rock/ Discard
21
288 6e
200N.200E
STP
KA
10- May O!
AM
No Artifacts
NA
NA
190N200E
STP
Litho
10•May -07
1P
Granrte- Gravel /Ged RocWDiscard
I
63g
19ON/200E
STP
Glass
10- May -07
JP
Bogle/ Amber- Modem / Body Sherd/ Mcatd
NA
ISON 1200E
STP
NA
10- May-07
N
No Artifacts
NA
NA
170N200E
S77
NA
10 -May -07
Aft
No 4rtifaas
NA
NA
160UME
STP
Lidue
10- May -07
IF
Vein Quarto Shaper
2
KA
160N,200E
STP
Lithic
W- May-01
JP
Riiyotite' Interior Flake (distal)
1
NA
16ON100E
STP
Lnthic
I 0-May -07
IP
Q t ite Frags: Geol. Rock/ Discard
5
28 If
I50N1200E
STP
NA
10 -May -07
N
No Amfects
NA
KA
26ON/190E
STP
NA
1044* -07
AM
No Arufacts
NA
NA
36

PROVEN.
LEVEL
MATERIAL DATE
COLLECTOR COMMENTS
CT.
WCT.
I90N,190E
STP
LRMc
10 -May O,
1P
VemQuaru Frg IGeol Rock, Dlsctrd
1
21g
18CNI190E
STP
Ltthic
:O- May -07
AM
Rhyohtc Proltrnk Point' Mo--ow Mtn II
I
NA
170N'190E
STP
composite
I i - May -117
1P DR'
Brick Rag , Modem
1
54, g
16ON /190E
STP
WA
11- May -07
A-kf
NoAmiacts
NA
NA
150111 190E
STP
NA
11- May-O
AM
No Artifacts
NA
NA
20ON1190E
STP
Ltthic
10•May -07
1\'
Vern Qtrs'W Gee] Rock Dlscatd
20.2g
19ON•ISOE
STP
Glass
10- May -07
AN.
Bottlel Clear' Modem' Body Sherds' Ducard
2
NA
1 sox/ I80E
STP
NA
10- May -07
IP
No Anitba%
NA
NA
I ?ON /:80E
STF
NA
1 I- May-07
AM
No Arhtacrs
NA
NA
160N/180E
STP
Ltthtc
11 -May -0"
1P, DW
Fnabie Geologic Rock
I
I $;
I50N /180E
STP
Glass
I I -May -0"
AM
Flat; WmdowJ Ligh' Greea /Modem
I
NA
200N.170E
STP
Lnhic
10 -May-07
Ip
Row- Bardod Rhychtc interior Flake (complete)
1
V A
20ON /170E
STP
Liduc
10 -Nay -07
IF
Vein Quarto Sbataer
3
NA
20ON/170E
STP
Lrduc
10-Maw
7P
Vein Qaarr/ httmior Flake (distal)
I
NA
200N /I70E
STP
Litirc
10-May -07
7P
Vein Quartz Frogs -' Geol Rock/ Discard
6
11.98
19ON• 170E
STP
Lrthtc
10- May -07
IF
Rb.yolitel Secondary Flake (complete)
1
NA
19ON /170E
S7P
Lnh:c
10 -May -07
JP
"biz, Imencr flake (distal)
I
NA
190N ,170E
STP
Uthtc
10 -May -07
IF
Vein Quartz & Friable Rocfv Geol Rock/ Discard
2
?8.98
180NII70E
STP
NA
10-May-07
!V
No Afifacts
NA
NA
17ON!170E
STP
Lithic
I I- May -07
JP. DR/
Gravel and Friable Rode Gaol Rook, Discud
2
29.18
170N!170E
STP
Glass
l 1 -Ma"7
7P, DW
Botde/ Amber/ Body Sherds' Modern
18
NA
j7

PROVEN.
LEVEL
MATERIAL DATE
COLLECTOR COM161ENTS
CT.
WGT.
160>`! 170E
STP
\A
11- May -0'
AM
No Artifacts
N A
NA
ISONI17OF
STP
NA
I I- Atav -0?
JP, DW
No Antfacts
NA
KA
200N ,1160E
STP
NA
10- May -07
J%,
No A ufzctb
NA
NA
190N. 160E
STP
NA
10 -Ma} -07
IV
NeArtifacts
NA
NA
ISON1,160E
STP
Lithic
1 I -May -07
JP, DW
Rhyolitt! lummor Flakes (I complete, 1 pro)oriari
2
NA
180Ni 160E
STP
Lithic
11- May -O7
JP, DW
Vein Quartz and Fnabk Rock, Geol Rock/ Discard
21
29 6g
18ON:160E SC
Surface
Liduc
4-may-01
JP
Rhyol od Secondary Flake (distal)
I
NA
ISON1160ESC
Surface
Lithic
:4- May -07
IP
Rhyolroa bftrior lake(cmWktc)
NA
INN' 160E SC
Surface
Lithic
14- May -07
JP
Flow Banded Rbyolite/ Interior Flakes f 1 proximal 1 dwal)
2
NA
ISON460E SC
Surface
fame]
144bfay-07
1P
Bone Frag=v Friable
1
NA
I SON116OF SC
Surface
Lithic
14 -May r/
JP
Gravel! Gaol Rodu' Discard
1
6 4g
1 0N.!160E
STP
NA
I1- Piay -0?
AVt
No Amiacrs
NA
NA
16ON460E
STP
Liduc
I I - May -07
JP. DW
Vein Quartz, Shatter
I
NA
160%V 160E
STP
Litbte
I I -Mey -07
JP, D%V
Vein Quartz and Friable Rode/ Gent Rode Discard
1
2448
I50N!i6OE
STP
NA
II- May -07
AM
NoArufaets
NA
NA
20O1v 150E
STP
Lttluc
I O-May-07
IV
Vein Quartz• Geol. Rock' Discard
1
99
I"N1150E
STP
Lithic
l0-Mav-O?
JP
Rhyolix! Interior Flakes (1 complete, 3 distal)
4
NA
19ON /150E
SIP
Glas
10- May-07
JP
Flat! Windom-, Light Green & BorW Clear, Body - Discard
2
NA
ISM150E
STP
L.itbic
I I -May-07
AM
Vem Quartz/ Shatter
I
NA
i80N1150E
STP
Lithic
11 -Mey -07
AM
Rhyohtellnu:swr Flake (complete)
I
NA
180,91150E
STP
Lithic
I I -May -07
AM
2 -Vem Quartz & I Aou Quartz/ Geol Rode Diwwd
3
612S
180,9,150E SC
Surface
Lithe
WMay -07
AM
Vein Quay¢ Cove Flag
1
418.-
ISON /150E SC.
Swface
Lubic
14-MW-q7
A I
Vein Qawtr., hatner Flakes (disw)
5
NA
36

PROVEN.
LEVEL
MATERIAL DATE
COLLECTOR COMMENTS
CT.
WGT.
ISONASOE SC
Surfacer
Lithic
14 -May -0,
AM
Van Quartz: Secondary Flake (proxirrml)
I
NA
ISON1150E SC
Surface
Glass
14- May -07
AM
Bottic Frogl Clear! Bo& Sherd
I
NA
170Nt 150E
STP
Lithic
i i - May -07
JP, D1t
Gravel Fr , Fnable Rock, l£ V Qtz , Gehl Rock' Diseerd
3
7598
16ONr 150E
STP
Lithic
I I - stay -07
IP, DW
Vein Quartz' Shaner
2
NA
.60MISOE
STP
Uthic
I l -May -01
JP DW
Vein Quartz' Geo) Rocki Discard
4
4 7g
15010150E
STP
Lrthic
11 -May -O 7
JP, DW
Vein Quartz, Quartzite Friable, Geol Rock/ Discard
3
4195
2M/140E
STP
NA
I 1 -May -07
AM
No Artifacts
NA
NA
190N ,140E
STP
l.tthic
1: - May -07
Ip
Vem Quartz' Shorter
1
NA
ISON /140E
STP
NA
11- May -0:
AM
NoAY.:faas
NA
NA
170MI140E
STP
Lithrc
l i - May -W
1P, DW
Vem Qusi Shona
I
NA
PON 1140E
STP
Lithrc
11- May -07
JP, DW
Vein Quartz lntenor Flake (distal)
I
NA
170Ni 140E
STP
Lithic
11- May -07
IP DW
Flow- Banded Rhyalite, interior Flake (distal)
I
NA
170NA40E SC
Surface
Lithic
14 -May -07
AM
Veir. Quartz Core Frogs
2
277 I g
170N, 140E SC
Surface
Litbw
14 -Mey -07
AM
Vein Quartz; Shatter
3
NA
170N /140E SC
Surface
Lithic
14-Mq.07
AM
Vein Qmnsi Interior Flakes (I proximal, 3 distal)
4
NA
170N/140E SC
Surface
Lrtbic
14 -May-07
AM
Vein Quart Secondary Flakes (distal)
2
NA
160%1140E
STP
NA
1144ay -07
AM
No Artifact
NA
NA
170N/I33E
STP
Lithic
11-May-07
AM
Vem Quanv Core Frag
1
27 3g
170Ni130E
STP
NA
It-May-07
IF
No Artifacts
NA
NA
39

SITE:31M T4
PROVEN.
LEVEL
MATERIAL DATE
COLLECTOR COM-NENTS
CT.
WGT.
Surface
NA
Lilhtc
16 -May -07
1P. AM, 1V
Vein Quartz' Core Frags
3
326.98
Surface
VA
Litbrc
.6- May -0?
JP, AM, JV
Vem Quartz- )arbor Flakes,'-; groxmr£1, ? distal)
6
NA
Surface
NA
Llthtc
.6 -May -07
1P, A1y A'
Vem Quartz) Sbatter
4
KA
Surface
NA
Lithic
16 -May -07
IP. AM r%
Vem Quartz Frans Geol Rockr Discard
3
76g
IOON;1OOE
STP
NA
15- May-07
N
No Arnfacts
NA
NA
90N1100E
STP
NA
I5- May -0;
1V
No Artifacts
NA
NA
80Nr100E
STP
NA
15- May -07
JV
No Arts °acts-
NA
NA
1 OONNOE
STP
Ube
I S-May -07
AM
Mica Scl:et Fragment' Goof Rock' Mscard
1
341
9ON190E
STP
NA
15448y -G?
AM
No Amfws
NA
NA
80N/90E
STP
NA
IS -mays
ANI
No Artifacts
NA
NA
ION/90E
STY
KA
I S -Aiay 0^
AM
No Artifacts
NA
NA
60N190E
STP
NA
15- May -O?
1V
No Artilkc'.s
NA
NA
10GN/80E
S7Y
NA
15 -May -07
AM
No Artifacts
NA
NA
90141180E
STP
NA
15- May -07
1V
Ko Amfacts
VA
NA
804/80E
STP
KA
15- May -07
X
No Artifacts
NA
NA
70N/80E
STP
NA
15- May -07
JV
No Artifacts
KA
NA
60K/80E
STP
NA
15- Niny -07
I%.
'NO Amfeou
NA
NA
40MME
STP
NA
17-114q.07
JV
NoArubwas
NA
VA
40

PROVEN.
LEVEL
MATERIAL DATE
COLLECTOR COMMENTS
CT.
wGT.
30N'SOE
STP
KA
17 -May -07
AM
No AmfkM
NA
NA
IOONr'OE
STP
N.4
15- may -0'•
TV
No Artifacts
NA
NA
90N/70E
STP
NA
15-May-07
AM
No Azdfacts
NA
NA
80K/70E
STP
NA
15- May -07
AM
No Artifacts
VA
NA
70N IOE
STP
VA
t 5 Ma; -07
N
No A fictS
NA
AA
60W70E
STP
NA
15 -May-07
All
No Arhfacts
NA
NA
40MIOE
STP
Lahti
17- May -05
JP, MR
vem Quard Shaw
1
NA
40 \/70E
STP
Lithic
17- M.ay -05
JP, Mil
Vein Quartz/ Owl Rock, Discard
I
128
30NPOE
STP
NA
17- May -07
AM
No Ar facts
NA
NA
20MIOE
STP
uduc
17- May -05
TP MR
QwmrewW.%vletaquvWftCj of Rock/D'aeard
2
1082g
1OOWE
STP
NA
15- May -07
A.v1
No Attifttcts
NA
KA
9Wi60E
STP
NA
I3-May-01
AM
No Artifacts
NA
NA
SON160E
STP
NA
15- May -07
IV
No Attifacts
NA
NA
70N /60E
STP
NA
15- May -07
AM
No Artifacts
KA
NA
60N 160E
STP
Litlnc
15 -Ma} -07
AM
Rlgrolite/ Secondary Flake (dtVA
1
NA
40W60E
STIR
NA
17 -Mq -07
JV
No Artifacts
KA
NA
30N160E
STP
Litho
17 -Mar -07
JV
Vein Qtat1:/ Shatter
2
NA
30NME
STP
Liddc
l7 -M"-07
JV
vein Qw¢r Oval. Ro4c/ Discard
1
928
41

PROVEN.
LEVEL
14ATEPJAL DATE
COLLECTOR CODfMEN s
C'.
WGT.
20N /60E
STP
NA
17-May-07
JP, .kfR
Vem Quartz end Quartzite Frags.' Geol hock( Discard
2
96g
40N150E
STP
NA
17- May -07
JV
No Artifacts
NA
NA
30?�/50E
STP
Lithic
17- May -07
AM
Vem Quartz Shatter
2
NA
30V!50E
m
Lithic
17- 1k,ay -07
AM
Vem Quartz, Gcol Rode Discard
2
3.2g
20NISOE
STP
Ullic
17 -May -07
JP. MR
Vem Quartz Frasi Geol Rock' Dtscard
I
74g
30N /40E
STP
Lidw
17-may-07
AM
Veer QUM. Sharer
1
NA
2ON/40E
S': P
Ube
] 7 -May -07
AM
Vem Quartz, Shatter
2
NA
20N /40E
STP
Lithic
17- >ta5&-07
AM
Vein Quartz' Interior Flake (desk
NA
30N/30E
STP
Lithic
17 _-Mav -07
TV
Vem Quartz) Geol Rock/ Discard
4
506S
20M30E
STP
NA
17,%1* 4)r,-
!V
No AMficts
NA
NA
42

APPENDIX B: STAFF CURRICULUM VITAE
43

JANUARY
403 kidgeway Drive
aeimnni, W 26012
(EDUCATION
Ph: (704)825 -4St8
Cell: (704) 995 -5715
Inman; .ipoitei 33 @L:tiroliiia.n .coni
2007 Ivilvied Master's Piograin Through the Univeisily of Lcrccstcr in England -
Degiee in Archaeology and Huritage
1999 -BA Anthrap ology with a concenhation in Archaeology / Geology inmoi
Appalachian Statc University
Boone, NC 28608
1995- Highschool Diploma
Ashbrook High school
Gastonia, NC 28056
'F.AR(;H Xc TEACHING INTERESTS
Landscape Archaeology
Southeastern U.S. Archaeology
Historic Archaeology
Public Archaeology
Cer.+mic Technology
African American Archaeology
HONORS /AWARDS
REPORTS
1997 -1999 Chancellor's/ Dcan's List, Appalachian Slate University
1997.1999 Lambda Alpha Anthropology Ilonors Society
1998 Natiatal Dean's List Book
2006 -An Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the Kcichin Building Property I.ocitted in
Winnsboro, South Carolina (38FA59). Subrniticd to the Fairfield County Museum,
Winnsboro, SC. Copies available from SCiAA and SHPO of South Carolina.
FIELD & ANALY'E'1CAL EXPERIENCE
Independent Archaeological Consultant: November 2005 - November 2006
Winnsboro, SC
Duties: Worked on an historic homestead site in Winnsboro, SC. A position as file project
director working with an iM1S grant. Completing a Phase I survey of the property. Analysis
and report were filed upon completion of the project, which will allow for further
interpretation of the property that is cunently being used as the Fairfield County Museum.
Archaeologist/ Curatorial Assistant: Aprr120U5- Decembe) 2005
York County Culture & Heritage Museums, York, SC
Duties: A position within the curatorial act:tor of llte organization. Dutics included the
analyzing of artifacts, tescarch, curation and management of the collections. involvement
with the cultural resoutees available from Historic Hrallmisville in McC'onnells, SC and
working to utilize that information for inimprcttng an accurate representation of the historic
site
44

Archaeology Laboratory Technician. October 2000 -May 2001
TIT (iarrow & Associates, Wiliam, NC
Duties. A position working in a lab environment dealing with the washing, soiling,
organi7.ing, and uualiun of archaeological ai'lilacls Maintaining computer clatabascs for
van ious sites and administrative duties were also included as daily tusks
Cultural Resource Specialist 11: January 2000 -May 2000
Michael ilakei Jr., Inc., C181lestun, WV
Duties: An nichaeological position with a full- service consulting company providing cultural
resource, geophysit,al, GIS, environmental, and Willed wivices throughout the U S. MaJor
duties included the writing and processing of official reports and documents, cataloging,
consulting with the public, and research through an archaeological context, I'ield and
laboratory work were also performed
Registrar /Collections Manager: June 1999- September 1999
U.S Space & Rocket Center, Hunlhville, AL
Duties: A position in the museum depar lmernt of the U.S. Space R Rocket Center working
with the archives find collections Primary respwrsibililies included the systematic
organization and cataloging of all collections, collection rnanagernenl (in lViation to exhibit
preparation), research, and legal relations between institutions in regard to loans and
accessions
Archaeology Project Field Supervisor: May 1998- August 1998
Boyle Foundation, Dallas, NC
Duties: Historical archaeology pnnject at the location of an historical homestead in Dallas,
North Carolina working under the supervision of 1)r Alan May The duties consisted of
maintaining progress throughout the project and supervising the fieldwork The fieldwork
responsibilities included: digging test units, transit work, survey, mapping, photography,
cataloging, lab analysis (processing materials and data), and research.
Internship/ Archaeology and Museum Techniques: March 1998 -May 1998
Caldwell County Heritage Museum, Lenoir, NC
Duties: internship through the Caldwell County Heritage Museum with the goal of
organizing archaeological collections and designing an exhibit in the muuseinnn, The focus ul
the exhibit emphasized the methods of stone and cordage technology.
Archaeological Field School, Student: June 1997 -July 1997
Department of Anthropology, Appalachian Slate University
Ditties: Conducted archaeological excavations at die I liwasser. island site, Tennessee and the.
Applett c site, North Carolina.
Archaeology Lab Assistant: May 1997 - August 1997
Schiele Museum of Natural History, Gastonia, NC
Dudes: The analyzing and processing (cleaning, preparation, packing, and moving) of
adifects from various sites in North Carolina, Participation in archaeological survey work
including shovel testing techniques; museum work dealing with exhibit design skills,
photography and also computer cataloging of collections.
Contract Archaeology: May 1996 - August 1990
Kennon Environmental Services, Charlotte, NC
ilhities: A project at the Charlotte Douglas Airport for completing an overall hihovel testing
survey. Recovering artifacts in the area that the airport had acquired for runway expansion.
Analyzing the artifacts and data to find any possible significance for implications of historic
and / or prehistoric sites.
Museum Assistant: August 1994 -May 1995
Schiele Museum of Natural History, Gnstonin, NC
Duties: The systematic cataloging ul' inuscuin collection materials in various forms.
interacting with the different depauhncuts of the museum and learning different tasks
including: processes of an exhibit, photography, public education skills, curatron, and
45

SKILLS
photographic plocessrng
Volunteer: 1989 -1994
Schiele Museum of Namral History, Gastonia, NC
Duties- Working with the Curato of Archaeology to identify, analyze and ciliate the
archaeological collections Fieldwork was often performed
Administiativc Office Skills
Grant Writing
Computer Background. MS t)I)ice (Excel, Wod)
Windows 95 -00, Windows MF &. Windows XP
Rc- Discovery (C:ollcctione Sollware)
DRAKE (Tax Return/ Accounting Software)
Peachtree (Accounting Sollware)
Curation Techniques -
Basic theory, principles and techniques of black and white and color photography
(Including dark room and dry- mounting)
Creative artistic skills ( drawing, watercolors, paintnig,
Spanish skills (Minimal)
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Guest Lecturer: June 2006 -Clear Creek Elementary School, NC- Presented information about
the field of archaeology, Native Americans, and careers in anthropology to 100 fourth
graders
Guest Lecturer: January 2007- Behnunt Rotary Club, NC- Presented information about tlx:
field of archaeology and the importance of cultural heritage management for town planning
Guest Lecturer: March 2007- Hchnont Historical Society, NC- Presented a program on the
archaeology in Gaston County, the arc lure ologiwil resources in the Catawba Valley region,
and the importance of cultural resource recovery or new development and construction sites,
especially along the Catawba and South Fork Rivers.
PROFESSIONAL. MEMBERSHIP
North Carolina Amhaeologiel Society (NCAS), (.'ouucil of South Carolina Profeasionol
Archaeologists (COSCAPA), Archaeological Society of South Carolina, inc. (ASSC),
Southemlern Archaeological Conference (SPAC), Coe Foundation for Archaeological
Research (CFAR), Upstate South Carolina Archaeological Research Group (USCARG)
PROFESSIONAL COMMITTEES
Casson County Historic Preservation Commission (Advisor)
The Belmont Historical Society, Inc (Advisor)
REFERENCES
Di. Alan May Schiele Museurn of Natural History, Gastonia, NC (704) 866 -6917
Dr Ann Tippitl Schiele Museum of Natural History, Oastonia, NC (704) 866 -6902
Dr. Cheryl Claasscn Appalachimr State University, Boone, NC (828) 262 -2295
Mr Paul Webb TRC Gannw Associates, Durham, NC (919) 530 -8446
46

Jeremy A. Vanier
1307 Cicek I rail ltd.
Indian Trail, NC 2807U
va 'er insn.cum
EDUCATION
`+ tinivemity of South Carolina, Columbia, SC
oladuaic Student, Anthropology, August 2007
University ul'Notth Carolina at Charlotte, Chat luitc, NC
A.A., Anthropology, May 2007
Canisius college, Ruffelo, NY
Dual Major, Anthrolwlogy/Sociology atul HisIoiy, 1997.2001
IJESF RCH EXPI✓RIENC>+
2007 Charlotte Douglas Intenuitional Airport Runway Expansion Project
Field Archaeologist
• Uata collection
• Laboratory analysis
• Inventory
• Contributed to site relwn
2006 Schiele Museum of Natural Ihstory internship- Gastoma, NC
• ContinwAl excavation at 310830
• Preparctl and analyzed soil samples by way of floatation
• Cleaned and inventoried archaeological material
• Led archaeological Public education programs
• Helped maintain and catalog faunal col IwAi6n
2006 University of North Carolina at C'luirlotte field school - Charlotte, NC
• Set up and excavated several units at La Fai Site (31GS30)
• Prepared detailed maps and notes referencing excavation
2000 Crew Canyon Archaeological Institute field school- Curtcz CO
• Cleaned and cataloged artifacts
• Utilized proper grid techniques and excavated Shields Puchlo site
HQNORS AND AWARllS
Ontstanding Senior in Anthropology
University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 2007
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
Phi Alplm Thda (National History HOW Society)
SF.AC (South Eastern Archaeology Conference)
CFAR (The Coe Foundation for Arduteological Research)
REFERENCES,
Dr. Alan May Schiele Museum of Natural History, Oasionni, NC [phone]
Di. Katherine Metzo UNC Charlotte, Charlotte, NC (704) 687 -4077
Dr. Gregory Starrett LNC Charlotte, Charlotte, NC [phone]
47

ta�
1 • „•, i �yinr�'�a
�t��yrrr • �
Notch Carolina Deparlment of Cultural Reti(1111•ces,
State Hisloric: Psesetvation Offit'c
Ih ..111 .m101,( \.Annn•v u,�
h' n �• t l 1 ;r. 1. •ulna ,
I I hI d• 1 I uua , I, Ln•
1 Il1'lla 1 11'a(t na1 /111• �I•It'111
/ ;M-.1t 16, 20111,
1. 1.OlI
AN 1:1111111 I•)irt•Crvls
t ;I(arluurJl)ous;la, Intl rnatusllal lirpclrt
I I (1 Bt l\ 19066
RI Third Parallel Ktjmva) Mcill(nalldtlln it AgIteslticnt (onct -ruing prop mu.” clr14•I1111.11 c hyllllr 1, .I III,
N-mional Regise(;1 of Ill,loltt: 1)1;ICCI, ( 11- ACIlllle /I)o1Il la\ [Ill cniallona, ,1n•hr'll, \IrtI,I, .11,u1I, ( 111.11.
FR IM -806 and Cl 106 (1362
1
Put I.Mr.Olt.
I'h:u11 Iuu Irtl 1n+lr Iv11cs Ill .111x11 17, 211117, 1 onrernnlg tltr above project
I'll plllpuat'S )I Compltallce \vlth St•cIlon 106 o The Nottnllal I Ilmo •It PIC�vi- vallem \C1, \vc (.ullt III 'h:►I :il(
(o1!(ra•uir plopert11 is nu lollge1 chl;Ihle I'm the Naunnal Rcgislci of I Iistoro( flat e\ lice au,e 111 ,t is aa. I d
m rvp it e:
I M K 18:4) Samuel lin owl, 1`31`111• Iclt:atr•d at the end of I 'at m Lant !4 nu N of ( ca' rl\rtn Rd , \\ I II 1 ►n:l 1(11
Ina <eurdance uvith the A'iemorslndum of kV
reement {A OA) between the• Iredelal clvlalton ,1dnlnn,tt;ultl,► .met
1 tout oftitc, wall' agemi, had a comtlliunem to "Implement tnea-utres to munnvrc potelllial u1111"IcI\ 111 till Or,
ltil hard 1.Ouerti Huust[Mh 1 373];' locared nn (lit- weal aide of NC 100 (Sttele Cr-1, R,Md) al lilt µInc drill
tvitit il( 11811. Pleaw 11rt)vtde delailetl Information About the steata Iake11 to tmhletucnl tilt. \I( ),1 sol\utattlln
We would al\o hl(e further inforolllttlotl regatd►ng the Asbury (-louse [NIK 19'11, I(x•au'cl al OMI \X111,111 ^Im
Boulevard at Scars Rd. Does you, agency havc documentary photograpiv. of ehc• propcln' bdorc n. ttulrnl
\ alidalized c onditton=
kVu I(I(11, forward to tout resllonsr.
The above conmunta are made pur:uanl it) Scholl 106 of the National I Itstouc 11tewlI :uuln \(I and III(
'\dvlsory (;uunc)l ton I lisloric Plescrt aunty's Itcl;ulsuions li >r ('otnplianrc with 5ccuon II)(� c to(It1irJ .0 �(1 t I It
Pal 1 III( I
I aumull Alrtilillg Adahe(r 1 '
A11kUNeRTpAIItIN 1.1' 11'nuul,u,ll Ilvl,•h V 14' \MIS :n•a.11n.ar,hd,fl V
I(J.'MORAT10N U,\ 111n,na ?Ina: Hllrryh �l 01 160 4n1aa11m14. lbkq•A t' _1M
it 1111E \h 44 WNW, 11a1•.y1. \I Ih1+ 11adho,(, 1 du., ItAwA %. ` -'0 ", ifi

I I►anl, ti'(lu fill. yow C00))CtatUltl +uu1 cl ►nsiduati(m. If you have clueAunu, ulucct lilt tf; d-Ir : bm t (I -111111i nl
lnitnl I Itcnr,: (�Icdhtll 1:arle�, OlvurinmemaI revtm coorcltnsu it, m 4 19 7 13 4763, cxt '''16 In .11, Itutfit
�(mmmiticariron comcctntnf; tht�- molt", l)Ica" Ctte tilt' above teliurnrd ttackln}; nun)h�l
tilmeclrly. �1 yl 11A11111 ��J
i �J�l'I•'I' tid11CIbCCI�
1 1
�1
rc McL Ba16rs/ N(aD( )'T /1)( M
IAA, :Atlanta
A(;1 11)
Dau ftlurtill,111.('

}
i
1
)
i
APPENDIX C
ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES
Chadolle/Douglas International Airport Intennodal Facility — CATEX Document
Tram

CLEARWATER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Threatened and Endangered Species Assessment
For
Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthus schweininfl)
Charlotte/Douglas International Airport
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
USAGE Action ID 200531167
October 6, 2005
1.o INTRODUCTION
The following report includes methods used and results for a threatened and
endangered (T&B) species survey and habitat assessment for Schweinitz's Sunflower
(Helianthm schweinitM) for the relocation of West Boulevard, the relocation of Old
Dowd Road, and the extension of Runway 18R/36L for Charlotte/Douglas International
Airport. The location of Charlotte/Douglas International Airport and the specific
project site is shown on the attached figures 1 -3. Completion of this survey was
1 directed by and complies with three current state and federal regulations: the Federal
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 - 1543), North Carolina Endangered
Species Act (N.C.G.S. Sect. 113 article 25), and North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979 (N.C.G.S. Sect. 19b 106: 202.12- 22).This study was
completed at the request of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, letter dated 3
September 2003.
2.0 Schweinitz's Sunflower
Fedetally listed as endangered, this species is found within prairie remnants, woods
edge, utility line easements, and road right -of -ways. Areas with clay soils and high
gravel content are preferred. Some form of disturbance such as fire is necessary to
maintain open habitat for this species. This species is commonly associated with
other disturbed area species such as, winged sumac, goldenrod, blackberry, red -bud,
scrub oaks, wild grapes, and broom sedge. The plant is a perennial with a tuberous
root system. It has one to several hairy and scabrous stems that are up to ten feet
tall. Leaves are opposite or the uppermost alternate, lanceolate, hairy, scabrous, 3 -6
inches long and K -1 inch wide. Flowers are yellow discs with a greenish yellow or
yellow center. Flowering occurs September through October.,
224 South Grove Street. Sugo f
HendemorMH9. North Co►otlno 28792
Phone: [phone]D Fax: 828-M-9003
www.cwenvucom

3.0 SURVEY AND FINDINGS
On September 16, 2005 staff from ClearWater Bnvironmcntal Consultants, Inc. visited
the Latta Nature Center now Charlotte, NC for the purpose of viewing Schwoinitz's
Sunflower in bloom and its associated habitat (Pictures attached).
A protected species survey was conducted within the project area (Figure 2) on the
afternoon of September 16, 2005 and the entire day of September 21, 2005. This
survey was conducted within suitable open habitat to determine the potential for
occurrences of Schweinitz's Sunflower
The Sunflower study consisted of a pedestrian survey. During the field survey, transect
walks were conducted across the suitable open and disturbed habitat (picturos attached).
Potential flora and fauna were identified to the taxonomic unit level necessary to
determine if the observed specimen was a protected species. A plant list for the survey
site is included in Section 4.0 below. Plants were identified to the lowest taxonomic
level readily discernible in the field during the time of survey. No Schweinitz's
Sunflower was observed.
4.0 PLANT LIST
Tree
Acer rubrum
Alblzla /ulibrlssln
Cercis canadensls
Olospyrus Virginia
Elaeognus angustifolis
Jumpers vlrginlana
Lagerstroemia indice
Liquldamber styrsciflua
Llrlodendran tullpifera
Oxydendron arboreum
Pinus taeda
Pinus virginiana
Populus delfoides
Robinle psuedocaccie
Quercus albs
Quercus falceta
Quercus phellos
Shrub
Baccharls hallmffolie
Ligustrum sinense
Pinus taeds
Pinus Wiginlens
Rhus copellinum
Rosa multiflors
Rubus spp;
Sassafras aibidum
red maple
mimosa
redbud
persimmon
Russian olive
eastern red cedar
crepe myrtle
sweetgurn
yellow poplar
sourwood
loblolly pine
Virginia pine
Cottonwood
black locust
white oak
soutt rn red oak
willow oak
groundsel
privet
loblolly pine
Virginia pine
winged sumac
rose
blackberry
sassafras

Herb
Alopecurus sp,
Ambrosia sp.
Andropogon virglnlcus
Ascleple sp.
Bldens aristose
Daucus carots
Eupetorium capllllfollum
Eupatorlum perfoliatum
Hellanthus strorubens
Hellanthus strumosus
Juncus effusus
Lespedeze sp.
Lonicere japonica
Panicum sp.
Paspllum ditelatum
Phytolacce americans
Puerarle lobate
Rubus sp.
Smilax sp.
Solldago sp.
Toxicdendron radicans
%Ads sp.
5.0 CONCLUSION
foxiall
ragweed
broomsedge
Milkweed
Tickseed Sunflower
queen anne's lace
dog fennel
common boneset
eppalachlan sunflower
woodland sunflower
soft rush
bushclover
Japanese honeysuckle
panicum
deliis grass
pokeweed
kudzu
blackberry
greenbrier
golden rod
poison Ivy
grape
Disturbed areas and suitable habitat on -site were systematically surveyed, Based) on
that survey as above described, Schweinitz's Sunflower does not exist on the subject
Property.
Although no federally listed threatened and endangered species were identified
during these surveys, because of the transitory nature of some of the listed threatened
and endangered species and the particular flowaffmiting periods of some plants, it is
possible that endangered species populations and locations may change over time.
Therefore, any potential findings at a later date should be fully investigated and
coordinated with appropriate agencies to prevent potential adverse impacts.

;Fw
I
3ram

_ I
r� "�
a I r I ,. , 1 � •� I, rj ,
1t
'r
( y' 1 rX •l•
`.i 1 f 1lI' ,5�\.li n`hTl� (�,,�. 'ti�rylfj.,' �' ]•` `} 11 ;, 'G C.
I�' +;� 1 , }'� l�r ,' f.,�J <<� ,� �,l4�� ` 1 I l `r ` -' ds ' �` (¢1i ",,� `' "•� �� ,t, \c \`
i
+ ` '( � t i4 1�.= 1t1�s� ■tI� tt t i � I' )t �,�� � r{,t>\
I i• t I I. l`1�` \�t��,l``II}��t�y'c�/ I' � ��. t.i 'f"1����. �r�w�l���l�
\
,'•, I I 1 r -�?' �ill"4.� +tom\ ,. I1 .� �r�y �� E •C .il ti.
a
`wl
c Jlt �, ft � i 1 .t 1't�r ?'�'ri V,•'llrj� �, j'iJ fc� �/J �n�Fc �'� �r�j��j�IliJ�r R l!I •�'l
J
'(,
t ". I X11 V ii" \ ii i. �x� Ic .�jZ. , � :i ��- 1 \ /�i,��►1 �����rLy~��, < .s�ll`f
i l S
r�a�y� I J P - \+ i }�2 , \ ,.�,t �. � 11£a� f�• t r' r -( :f r , 'x / iJ
,n
t
t � t
(r R � c.��.+ t(', L r t , t,�, J, li 1 .f r i
a4rt ayri I/ '`J Ji ` 'tC�. o .k., t t 4}i, ti_IL�; `. '� �� i - .
IV14 1 f r i
•,1�I ::.J� -.
1. ,J��t�� i�.l:..ts % >�.`1 \1)' I� r 1. I `7 , `•t
Er � � L I. • C'�'J r ,{ i ( 1 `'l l ��i� 1 l��
;rig Iii' ;� -�C „7G rl�. If �(,��k:
1111 �i�ii�' \!• . +irri llm '. �.. 'if'�� /�.. � �(l :l41 v. , /. .�: K:''r�t!` 1, i,: •.S' �,�.._ � r. i r ,'(���• ��: 1�, :�

/,r f
1 ~
•r
0
1
)7:lj
='-'�
1
�PyW i
POW rem
LEND
�*A = PROJEOTDOUNDARY
t4 PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS)
P •� • • • • IMPORT CHAIN ERI�IITIENT
STREAM UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STRUM CHANNEL (Ui)
� ® PONDS
WETLANDS
• LF LINEAR FEET
II ':
1� 1
M-4u
MIT 1
0
1
4F'_�

..e.. F`A: v;, r
;�_. , u•
� ' , >:
r h•.�i' IF' ..
.'':
•� �
� ,. i t •r t � �� �v l R�
�� � + . �% t.��� n � V '�''
.! i �
•r 1
� � i,
,r
+'� y•�
. k, .I
.. � � � � �
�l�! .-!�! Ala _ IIr
�_�1 l.'.-1!1�:!!.1C� r..' �1. .�!�i�,il�:
..�r��
.�
� � f art
r
tit^ '., +
t � - :l
t�����
If y
•
• _ �. ..
i'." .. .. .' :.

�
`
�
• �
" i
.
_
�
�
�
i
'. � �, ,
i';
i
j � '
'"
�y :'d
�
�
.. �.
.. � i
_
�
�
,
. �
,I
I , I
,
i
i�

1
�
—.
_, — - -.
�;, -�� �
rl
\\
k� , .
�.f'r ..
1
` ��
,
...1
o �
".
..
-
l
�,l
�.
el. \ 1 r rP.
v_ I.
,?�
.
.�
�
1..
�
�;
r
(
1 . � 1'
'I
', 1 1� � t
I
�\\`\ �
,
� ,�
..�I
1
,� 11.,
� -
..
I
1 � - ��
;; .. 1:I. ,
\ ill 1 1 .
'`
11 � r!
I , I . `: 1 . .
'
.
.. 1\
" ��� t , i
ti �
������ ti�
�
h�
� �
�
�
1
�
� �,
I
,
/
�..,I 1
J.
11 11
�
�1
, �
�.
1 .� 1
, II
'
�t,
l
�� ��
.,1,.
-, .I`
C 11
����.
ail
� 1 � �
�;
I ��
I t
{ , �.:
� ,
,..�
�,�
�jl
l�
I �
�1: � � �
,,
1 � '
,
� `1:
'� _ �
\fit ` .I . I 1
I L.
��,tii�;
� �
�:
! �
` �
i�
,,.
�� 1, � ;
I _.1
�.. \
1 t,. ?
�11 ` 1 ICI I
�7��1f51d�si�i
,:, ��
r)'% f � I l
_ l _
,"
.
� �, 1\ � :1
� .
r
I'
�
4 y
�
I ' t r ,., ,
�lP. %iiY�er �'
' .
- --
—.
.. �
—
..
1
�
1
�;, -�� �
r
� �: 1�; + ��.
IN
.
�,l
�.
el. \ 1 r rP.
v_ I.
�
� ,I �'.
'� f 1 I � � i
.�,,.>
'.
(
1 . � 1'
'I
', 1 1� � t
,1. �
,
.\ �
..�I
�
�_ � �
�
,-
/
;; .. 1:I. ,
\ ill 1 1 .
'`
11 � r!
I , I . `: 1 . .
'
.
.. 1\
" ��� t , i
ti �
,
, \1 �� l
-
. .
,...
�
:. �. III ,i �� /�
� \
\
`( - ` '�
\ �
ills
1 �
�� Il
11 11
1' S
, �
.II
,�1 1 1 1..
� '� \II l
1 .� 1
, II
'
�t,
l
�� ��
.,1,.
�.
c �, �
I
� 1 i�
I t
�, � � � I
_
,,
; ,
,
rl ( f ; .,1
'� _ �
\fit ` .I . I 1
I L.
��,tii�;
� �
�:
! �
` �
i�
,,.
�� 1, � ;
I _.1
�.. \
1 t,. ?
�11 ` 1 ICI I
�7��1f51d�si�i
r)'% f � I l
_ l _

APPENDIX D
FARMLAND
} �CharlollelDouglas Inlernallonal Aimorl Intcrmodal Facilely - CATEX Documcrd
1

UNITED STATES NATURAL 600 WEST INNES STREET ;
DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES SALISBURY, NORTH CAROLINA
AGRICULTURE CONSERVATION 281444143
SERVICE
November 4, 1997
Ms. J. Suzanne Kleymeyer
Landrum & Brown
11279 Cornell Park Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45242
1 Re: Expansion of Charlotte /Douglas International Airport
�} Dear Ms. Kleymeyer:
It is my understanding that the project area is within the city
limits of Charlotte and probably already zoned for urban uses. If
this is the case then an Farmland Conversion Impact Rating (AD-
1006 form) is not required.
- Attached is all the material that you sent. If there are any
questions, please contact me at (704) 637 -2400.
Sincerely, �
W. E. Woody
Soil Resour a Specialist
cc: Tom Wetmore, Jr. w/o attachments
Matt Kinane w/o attachments
Milton Cortez w/o attachments
■
1

i
APPENDIX E
SOLIDMAZARDOUS WASTE
I
Cla+rlollclDouoRs International Airport Intermodal Facili{y - CATEX Document
1

Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System ( RCRIS)
RCRIS contains four databases, one each foi hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities (TSD); large
quantity generators (LOG); small quantity generators (SOG); and facilities subject to corrective actions (CA). The TSD
database tracks information related to facilities such as landfills, incinerators, and treatment systems. A large quantity
generator is a facility that generates more than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste per month, or is subject to other
applicable RCRA requirements. A small quantity generator is a facility that generates between 100 and 1,000
kilograms of hazardous waste per month, or is subject to other applicable RCRA requirements. A conditionally
exempt small quantity generator (CESOG) generates less than 100 kilograms of waste per month A corrective action
facility is a facility that has conducted or is conducting a corrective action under RCRA. Four RCRA facilities were
identified within the immediate vicinity of the study area.
Site Western Waterproofing Co, Inc.
Address 9606 Dixie River Road
Operational Status CESOG•adive
Facility ID I NCD982076077
This facilHy is located on Dixie River Road near the southern boundary of the study area. There are no violations
listed for this facility. Due to the relative distance, crossgradlent location and no reported releases or violations, this
IwMty is not considered a recognized environmental condition (REC) in connection with the study area.
Site Cate Yarborough Motor Spoils Direction south
Address 9617 Dixie River Road Operational Status unspecifred•unknown
—51i _ Charlotte NC FaDk ID NC�163594
facility is located on Dixie River Road near the southern boundary a Ilia study area. Due to the relative distance
and crossgradienl location, this facility is not considered an REC in connection with the study area, however if the study
area extends to the south within the vicinity of this site, then further investigation in the form of a state agency file review
will be warranted.
Site CC Air. Inc. D'aectim east
Address 7519 Warren Road Operational Status CESOGadive
Charlotte NC I Facility ID NCD0000018424
This facility is located on Warren Road near the eastern boundary of the study area. Due to the relative distance and
no reported violations, this facility is nol considered an REC in connection with the study area.
Site Anllox Roll Co, Inc. D'ueclion east
Adit" 4640 Wallace Neal Road Operational Status unWdkdo*wvm
Charlotte, NC Faddy lD NCD981865587 and
NCD11OW13
This facility is located on Wallace Neal Road near the eastern boundary of the study area. A review of the Report to
the North Carolina General Assembly on the Inactive Hazardous Sites Program prepared by the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Waste Management Indicated that this site has been
fisted as an inactive hazardous waste she since at least 2002. The report Indcated that soil contaminated with metals
were a concern. Soil sampling to test for metals is recommended either prior to or concurrent with any proposed
construction or excavation activities that may occur on or near this site.
Underground Storage Tanks
The North Carolina Division of Waste Management underground storage lank (UST) databases were searched for the
project area by county, zip code and street address. The databases searched include- registered tanks databaso, facility
database, state trust find database and the regional UST database. This search determined that there are currently no
USTs located within or near the immediate vicinity of hie study area.

En%rro-.,Aapper.1�lapr-iint)ne--
0"6 coca"
Legend
"-Novo"
Sqm^md
TbKk mbafts
AW WHIMIOM
rbnrdas
bnpwbvd W~ boays
wwalaw &team
Page I of.)
bttp:,11134.67.99.122,lenvirolpmt%tap.aV'.)znyNiapURL---xl=-809692982030071%26)1--35.215559479724501*26Xr---80.95161160-. 48/2008

i
- En, - ra appei -:,,lap 1-m :tin¢ - - - 2 of 3 -
hhjh"a�3
Wen �o
�/ Map Sc.aeu
r/ Streets
/ aailmads
Q water SWies
Aw OdS
.iew1 8D ,4.6.
0 A-P&N Rw+wy'
1_J uaamark
Areas
PM*-,
r.mami ..
f..nm
rs..Rero.+wsaA•
e
R.Geilp Aron
S..•a C.mao.
■Aa/c..." G.R
CARGO
u.1K «a
astir.
NnaAl.mu
weirsoryu
■ L -Al ► «b
Y.S. CountiG
t+on -u s Laid
6ttp_!/134.67.99122/envim;VI L%UP.asp7mYMePURL=xlm -80. 9692982050071ei e26yt= 35?15559479^,245eio26xr -- 80.95161160... 4/8/2008

1
EnviroMapper: Map Printing Page 1 of ?.
hltp://l;14,67.99. 122/ enviio/ pnntMap .asli ?myMel)U1tL- .xl = -8l) 97 44572568 083 %26yl =35.2... 4/8/2008

I
)
)
}
1
I
)
EPA I Fnvirotucts Warehouse I F11
3
FRS
Page 1 of 2
htLp' /jo;+tiput- ep.I qov /envuo / I'll _gl1elY d11+1+s1+_Dioq+am I'm fill Y
La ,,,t up(Ii1(gI py Tue%d,ay. Am '101, 200b
Facility Registry System (FRS)
You ase here EPA Home Env rof' FRS 1 +epwt
. Natne;
WESTERlX WATERPRQOFING.Cp INC
Locotion Wren:
9609 DIXIE RIVER RD
Sttpplamental AdAtess;
I
Supk1 Ig�n�n ate
nvirenmental
Clt . N me:
CHARLOTTE
statF,K11it
e
NC
Cqunl Name.:
MECKLENBURG
ZIP /Ppstat Code;
28208
EPA. R ior,
04
Con. re$sign4{ ,Dltrkt Numjbe r:
09
4,e91sldtly� Ql$St:1�t
(lUC GI2de:
03050101 —�
Federa! fodjt ;
VS Me> {iCO.BRrderIndlotor:
NO
La
Tribal nd ;
NO
tlpud :
35.203287
"huff
- 80.967377
Met,;
DI)RESS MATCHING -HOUSE NUMBER
Pgfere= PREpt DOSCr1 tion;
PLANT ENTRANCE GENERAL
Qups Number:
lee la JQ;
_
F 110004029097
Map this faa'IRy
Environmental Interests
Information
tntormatton
[iFE_1nw1rQnmapW
Data Source
Oast
U{lOted
Supk1 Ig�n�n ate
nvirenmental
System
Syltte �O
Bterest_Ty�g
Date.
Interests;
RCRAINFQ
NC4�$207f�Q7.7
CESQG
ACTIVE
NOTIFICATION
RCRA
11/15/1996
..
Facility Mailing Addresses
http : / /oaspuh.rpa.gov /envir(► /Ciii query dtl.disi) imogram findhty
4/9/2008
I
1�

.j
1
1
i
FPA I F..nvimfads Warehouse I tat
Page 2 of 2
Affillation Type Delivery Point City Name Stato PQSt q XlystAM t~1
cods .stem
aULATORY 9609 DIXIE CHARLOTTE NC 28206 RCRAINFO
NTACT A RIVER RU _ ]�
21LITY MAILING 9609 DIXIE �0- 1ARLOTTE NC � 282088 RCRAINFO
DRESS RIVER RD _
INER 19606 DIXT RIVER CFIAItL01iE NC 213208 [FtCRAINFO
NAICS Codes
No NAICS Codes returned.
SIC Codes
No SIC Codes returned.
Contacts
Organizations
A,Niilation
VMS
nformation
Meiling
Typs
Na" 7e
her
stem _
Ad ic+�ses<
OWNER
B B S AND
ASSOCIATES
RCRAINFO
View
B :1
Alternative Names
No Alternative Names returned.
Query executed on: APR -08 -2008
hung /oaspub,cpa.gov /ujiviro /iii tluciy dtlAsp program facility
4/8/2008
s
i
i

)
I
i
)
1
I
}
1
1
FPA I Envirotacts Warehouse 11-11 page I of 2
live Imp blip / /oaspub np,� qov /t nvuo /N (very_ dtf di;p Inognun foclhly
L N upclatc0 on uasday, Apt d Rlh, l00h.
1 Facility Registry system (FR)
�,u
You )re here, EPA Home bvirptacts FRS Repull
r
FRS
1adL1ty Namg: �CALE YA QROyGN MTR_SPQRTS
Locatio.n.Addlress: 9617 DIXIE RIVER RD
Su .IemerttaJ..P►�dress:
Cjt _NBf:
C14ARLOTfE
StAt4
NC
Count .Ndtrte:
MECKLENBURG
ZIP/PAS.td1. Code:
28208
EPA R ton,
04
Go 2gressfanagl. . j$tcict Number:
09
Le jslativp- Q1stti.Gt Nmmbt r;
HIIC.CQde:
03050101
�tleCal FAciJI�
RCRA1NFO
1
NO
Tribal lend
NO
4DDRESS
35.203294
ton ttudle
-80.967252
19 14:
MATCHING-HOUSE NUMBER
Reference PqJALO - "PLANT
ENTRANCE (GENERAL)
Rums Kumbe ►i
627994098
R 1 jQ;
110004036953
ma this fa
Environmental Interests
hltp: / /oaspub.ei)a.gov /c:nvilo /iii query dil.dist) w 0graw facility
i
4/8/2008 ;
formation
EnvironMental
Date
4etst
UpdAted
P.t�! +�onta�
Env wsmental
Lnformathwnt
em
Yatem xQ
ntsrest Type
Qyree
Onto
Interoks ft
UNSPECIFIED
RCRA1NFO
1
NC0982163594
UNIVERSE
RCRAiNFO
10/13/1997
J1
INACTIVE
hltp: / /oaspub.ei)a.gov /c:nvilo /iii query dil.dist) w 0graw facility
i
4/8/2008 ;

J
i
F.PA I Enviroflcts Waiehousc j FII
Facility Mailing Addresses
Page 2 of 2
NAICS Codes
No NAICS Codes returned,
SIC Codes
No SIC Codes returned.
Contacts
PeliYracY Point
Cily Name
State
NC
Posh
Code
28208
niprm�tion
S ,st in
Affil10190 T.yp9
RCRAINFO
RCRAINFO
FACILITY MAILING
ADDRESS
9617 DIXIE
RIVER RD
CHARLOTTE
REGULATORY
CONTACT
_
9617 DIXIE
RIVER
CHARLOTTE
NC
282013
NAICS Codes
No NAICS Codes returned,
SIC Codes
No SIC Codes returned.
Contacts
Ortoanizations
Affiliation
Narde
fflee
pl>t a
toXlnation
em
Mal�ih9
ddrass
T.YQg
Full Name
REGULATORY
CONTACT
MANAGER NO-
CONTACT -NAME
CRAINFO
View
Ortoanizations
Affiliation
Narde
..URN$
Information
stets
Address
e
er
OWNER
COLE
YARBOROUGN
RCRAINFO
Alternative Names
No Alternative Names returned.
Query executed on: APR -08 -2008
btip . / /oaspub.etia.t;m, /enviro /tii query dtLdisp lwowam facility
4/8/2008

1
E,PA l Envirofacts Wnrchousc l F11
Page I (if 2
wto44 w(p /Joa,puL epo qov /cnvno /In_quo +y (III disP Program FacIIItY
�•� La %I update I on uesJaY, Apid 81h, 20011,
Facility Registry syste. �FR�)
You A i e here. CPA Home tnvROALS I-R$ Report
a•
a
FR5
GLAIR IN.CLpotlo� Adore � 7519 WARREN RD
5u . fomfgial.Addleess:
I
City NAMe;
CHARLOTTE
&4—%e
NC
county Name:
MECKLENBURG
28208
EPA AC 919-0
04
resslonel.Gisfrict Number:
12
Le KlatlVe .District Number:
HUC C.vde:
03050103
FeQtnLdLf�41111
US Mexiro 4order Indictor:
NO
Tjibal Land :
NO
La1~Itw e:
35.212707
4�SLQ 0{1e;
- 80.958154
N1eth4d;
DDRESS MATCHING-HOUSE NUMBER
Reference Point.pwd Non:
PLANT ENTRANCE GENERAL
Dulls. Number:
008053527
9% IStry,IQ:
1 110004053103
l Map this facility
Environmental interests
viroam -ental Last 6-up0 moots
Interest Type Pat's Source updated N0V1rQnMelnt,
Rate ntems
CESQG NOTIFICATION 2/27/1997
ACTIVE RCRA
Facility Mailing Addresses
lttlp .J /uttapulf.ehe.puv /envit�� /lii ttuery dtklisp program facility,
4 /8 /200li
i
1
I
1
I
4
I
Information
Information
System
system TO
RCRAINFO ]NCR00000
1 .842
viroam -ental Last 6-up0 moots
Interest Type Pat's Source updated N0V1rQnMelnt,
Rate ntems
CESQG NOTIFICATION 2/27/1997
ACTIVE RCRA
Facility Mailing Addresses
lttlp .J /uttapulf.ehe.puv /envit�� /lii ttuery dtklisp program facility,
4 /8 /200li
i
1
I
1
I
4
I

1
1
F.I'A I Envirofacts Warehouse I F11
Affiliation Type pelivery PofrLt City Na
-- -
ACILITY MAILING PO BOX 19929 ILI,ARLO'
kDDRESS
,EGULATORY EOBOX_11929 CHARLO
:ONTACT
)WNER 1IF4Y700ROKMONT RD I CHARLO'
Page 2 of 2
State
tNn ation
�� ln
NC 282199929 RCi2AINF0
NC _1282199929 RCRAINF0
NC 128208 IkCRAINFO
NAICS Codes
No NAICS Codes returned.
SIC Codes
No SIC Codes returned.
Contacts
Affiliatiote Type F411 Name Office intbrmation elltng
_ Phone
RE CONTACT DOLE GULATORY ANTHONY 7043598990 RCRAINFO Vlew�
Organizations
Lr illati�c! T e NA:fnQ DUN . N41�lz Iptormatipn.5 sta
M . q dr _.$
OWNER J CCAIR IN RCRAINFO -�
View
Alternative Names
No Alternative Names returned.
Query executed on: APR -08 -2008
lilt)): / /Oilsl)ub epa.Aov /csnvu•o /fii query dtl.d%cp program facility
4/8/2008
,
i
I

J
1
J
EPA i Cnviroiacts Warchouse i RC'RAINFO
Page I of 2
j1 0114111 Y!;111:11 milt l>tlll Ittlhirlt! Ilu I�iuUl {,111_ bill � I {(��T7i< 1��� rt�ltl�'Iffllit; i
l� Resource Conservatia and Recovery Act
(RCRAInfn)
You ale here FP/_ Hpme Enybofacts RCRAL1io Quo Re• ,alts
Ni* -11l V •7N��rr7
r
1
RCRAInk,
Only RCRAInfo facility information was searched to select facilities
Handler ID: Beginning With: NCD981665587
Results are based on data extracted on ]UN -08 -2006
Note: Click on the underlined CORPORATE LINK value for links to that company's
environmental web pages.
Click on the underlined MAPPING INFO value to obtain mapping information for the facility,
. To Dot<tom Of The Page
HANOUR N ME: ANILOX ROLL CO INC HANDIER ID: NCD981865587
STREET: WALLACE NEAL RD FACILITY INFORMATION: View_E&r_ilty. Inforlmption
CITY: CHARLOTTE CORPORATE. LINK: No
STATE: NC COUNTY: MECKLENBURG
ZIP CODE: 28208 MAPPING INFO: MAP
EPA REGION: 4
CONTACT INFORMATION
NAME
STREET
CITY
TATS
ZIP CppfE
pMANE
TYPE OF
QQ.NTACT
LORIE
PO BOX 10955
ITHERS COVE
NC
82739635
7045881809
Public
EDGE
PARK
CODES
333293 LPrInting Machineg and E uipment Manufacturin
323119 H Other Commercial Printing �1
ittip : / /ouspub,cpo.guv /cm�iru /tii mastei.fii retrlevc7fac 5carch4andlo id &fac. vulnc- NC'., 4 /6/2008
4
1
r

1
1
CIIA I Envirofacts Warehouse { RCRAINFO
IGQ Tp To Thg Pacae
Total Number of Facilities Displayed: 1
Page 2 of 2
hitp :Hoispub.el)a.gov /cnviro /fii inastei,fii retrieve ?fac search —handlei i( ac value= Nt;... 4/8/2008
i
i
t
�l
}
1
t

1
l
1
1
1
1
APPENDIX F
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
Chattotte/Douolas Irttemational Airpod Intotmodal facility- CATEX Document
i

1
Intermodal Facility
Traffic Analysis
Charlotte, NC
Prepared for
Charlotte Douglas International Airport
Prepared by
STV /- Ralph Whitehead Associates
aonavlring Enpinee+e
May 5, 2008
STV, Inc.
Engineers ) AreMtects i Plnnnere ! Construct -lon Managers
1000 West Morehead Street - Sulic 200
CMMdate, NC 28208
Office; 704 -3%2 -1865
Fk: 704-372 -3393
wwwAvine.cum
�I
f�

lntermodal nacility Traffic Impact Study
TABLE OF CON FNTS
I. EXECUT1Vr SUMMARY ............................................ ............................... i
11. INTRODUCTION ........................................................... ..............................I
1II. A REA CONDITIONS ..................................................... ..............................1
IV. HISTORICAL GROWTH .............................................. ..............................3
V. APPROVED OFFSITE DEVELOPMENT ................. ...... „.......................4
VI. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ..................................... ..............................4
VII. 'DRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION ............. ..............................4
VIII. CAPACITY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY .............. ..............................5
1
IX. CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS ............................. ..............................7
X. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............ .............................15
X1. CONCLUSION ............................................................... .............................17
I�
1

ERROR: ioerror
OFFENDING COMMAND: image
STACK:
- dicti.onary-
-mark-
- cavelevel-
1.
J
1
1
I

APPENDIX G
WATER QUALITYIWETLANDS
�CharlollefDouglas Intornallonal Alrpon Imermodel Fadihy CATEX Document
i
•1 ,sy *IIC

Michael F. Easloy, Qnvemor
William 0. Ross Jr., Secrelery
North Carolina Department of EnvironftDt and Nannai Reacurod
' "t Alen W. VJI=k, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
March 1, 2007 n fF C E D M
MAR 5 2007
Mr. Jerry Orr
Charlotte - Douglas International Airport
P.O. Box 19066
Aviation Department
Charlotte, NC 28219
Re: Charlotte- Douglas International Airport Hq=8iO4 Mecklenburg County
DWQ d00 -1195, Ver. 5; USACB Action ID. No. 2006-32521-36D
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification — MODIFICATION
Dear M. Orr:
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification N9.3581 iaelred to Mr. Jerry Orr•of Charlotte - Douglas
^) hd nsdamd Ai ymk dated March 1, 2007. This C:erfficaden replaces the Cerdficri = issued to you
on J* 28, 2006. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or 10W plmnita before you go ahead
with you prof Pot inclu ft (but not limited to) Solid Wash:, Sediment and &onion Control, Stonamiater,
y Datn Safety, Namx-d wJwge and Water Supply Watembed ragulaboms.
If we can be of further utt;atance, do not bwk to to contact us.
1 Sinoordy,
Alan W. Klimek, P.B.
AWK/cbW#m
Attaobm enft: Certificate of Completion
co: Beeky Fox, EPA, 1307 Firefly Road, Whittier, NC 28789
U.S. AMW Corps of'Bngineem, Aehevf3e Regulatory Field Office Wibdugfon District, USACOB
Alan Iohtrsm DWQ, Mooresville Regional Office
DLit Mooresville Regional Office
Pot Copy
Central Files ,
R Clement Riddle, Clearwater Environmental CongultenU, Inc., 224 South Grove Street, Suite F.
Hendasonville, NC 28792
i Filename: 001i95Ver5CharletteDouglaslntAfrporftpansion (Met klenburg)t101_YC Mod
C*"
1050 Mar Berke Center, Relebk RA Celotne 2789844
2821 Cmtdree Boulmid, Sub 260, Ribbb, Iforih Comilla '71604
Phone: 9*733.1788 /FAX 619.733•BB8311ntemet om ,fir st9t9 nc LWlnevre<ianrs
An KnnaInrn,rvinnftWAnl.moOro PAM,
i!
I;
I

Charlotte- Douglas International Airport
Page 2 of 6
-March 1, 2007
NORTH CAROLINA 401 WATZR QUALITY CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTMeAnON is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401 Public Laws 92 -500
and 95 -217 of the United Status and subject to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500 to Mr. Jerry Orr of Charlotte - Douglas International Airport to
impact or 01 OA32 acres of 404 /wetland, 13,466 linear feet of perennial and important intermittent stream,
2,866 linear feet of unimportant intermittent stream, and 4.631 acres of open waters (ponds) in the Catawba
River Basin, associated with the construction of Charlotte- Douglys latemational Airport Bxpans'ion Area mite
in Meoklenburg County, North Carolina, pursuant to an application filed on the I" of February, 2007 and
Public Notice issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Bngineers on February 9, 2007, and received by the DWQ
on February 22, 2007.
The application and aupporft documentation provides adequate assurance that the proposed work will
not result in a violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the
State of North Carolina certifies that I its actMtyvnE not violate the applicable portions of Sections 301,
302, 303, 306, 307 of PL 92 -500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in acoordanae with the application, the
supporting documentation, and oonMons hereinafm set forth.
This approval is poly valid for the purpose and deMp sulmilted in the Wheaton mateaWs and as
described in the Pablo Notice. If the project is obanged, prior to notiSeetion a new application for a new
Certification is required. If the property is sold, the now 'owner hme be given a GM of the Certifioaton
and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions of this Ceftoation. Any
new oww must notify the Division and request the Certification be issuad in name. Should wetland
or aftiun fill be requested in fire future, additional colrpearastory mitigation may be required as described
is 15A MAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). If any plan revisions from the approved site plan result in a
change in stream or wedland impact or an increase in impervious suufacxs, the DWQ simll be notified in
wetting and a now application for 401 Certification nay be required. For this approval to be valid,
oomplience with rho conditions listed below is required.
t Conditions of Cerdficatftanc
1. Impacts Approved
The following impact$ are hereby approved as long as all of the other speoiiic and general
conditions of this Certification (or Isolated Wetland Permit) we met. No other impacts are
approved moiu ft inaidwlal impacts:
•
,
Loeatioea a
404 etlanda
OA32 neaten of wadmd
A and Public Notice
a"8110
13 ,464 feat) ofpereaniall and imp alaut
fuotermitteafstream
AME096M and Public Nafto
Stream
2.866 'cant ftet ofGEZorW intend tent stream
A 'catieor amt Public Notice
I Opp Waters
4.631 acne of ponds
A cation asst Public Notice
2. Compensatory Mitigation Using a Mitigation Bank
Mitigation most be provided for the proposed impacts as specified in the table below, We
understand that you intend to purchase credits from the Charlotte Me cklenbwg Stormwater
Services Wetland and Stream Mitigation Bank in Mecklenburg County as described in youi
application to meet this mitigation requirement. This contnWon bas been determined by the

j Charlotte- Douglas Intaruationel Airport
Page 3 of 6
Marct 1, 2007
DWQ to be a suitable method to meet the mitigation requirement. Until the Charlotte -
Mecklenburg Stormwatiw Services Wetland and Stream Mitigation Bank reoeives and oleam,your
check, and proof of payment bas been provided to this Office, no impacts specified in this
Authorization Certificate shall occur. For accounting purposes, tWx Anthoriudon Certilkate
autborizes payment into the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Stormwater Services Wetland and
Stream Mitigation Bank and the North Carolina $cosystam Enhancement Program
(NCNEP) to meet the following compensatory mitigation requirement:
Sediment an&ftdon Control:
3. Brosion and sediment control practices most be in full compliance with all gmcifications
governing the proper design, irudallation and operation and maintenance of such Hest Manageuserd
Practices ill order to protect $whet waters steri aide:
a. The erosion and sediment control measures for the•prek must be designed, installed,
_) operated, and maintained m accordance with the most recant version of the North Carolko
Sediment and ftdon Control Planm%g and Des gn M meal.
b. Tie design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and avoiom control
measures must be saoh that fbey equal, or exceed, His requi remte specified in the moat
recent version of Sue North Canibm Seabiww andBhvgon Conkolllfanx#l. 'Tile devioes•
shag be maintained as ail eonsmiction sites, beirow altos, and waft pile (spoil) projeots,
hubding om t *r -owned or k ned borrow pits associated with the pr qj sot.
o.. For borrow pat sites, the mosion and sediment control measures nrmst be designed, installed,
ape:ided, end cos d in accordance with the most recent version of the North t Garin
&0f4WM, '
d. The reclamation measures and implenimtedon =at om*y with the reclamation in
accordance with the requirements of the Sedimentation Polhitie i Control Act
e. Siitfcieut materials required for dabi]ir ation and/or repair of eromoon cormol measures and
atormwater routing and treataremt shall be on site at all th m.
4. No waste, spA solids, or fill of any kind shag occur in wcdands, waters, or riparian areas beyond
file. footprint of the inupaots depicted in the 4OV40 Mermit Applicadw. AU cenatruotion aaWie%
including the design, installation, operation, and maintenance of sediment and erosion control Best
Management Practices, shall be per%amed so that no violations of state water Quality standards,
statutes, or rules occur;
S. Sethi** and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum
,S extent practicable. If placearout of sodirnent and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is
unavoidable, they shell be removed and the natural grade restored within six months of the date that
the Division of band Resources bas released fire project,
6. Protective Fencing - The outside buffer, wetland or ,water boundary and along The conduction
corridor within these boundaries approved under this authorization shall be clearly marked with
orange warning fencing (or similar high visibility materiel) for the areas that have been approved
Compensatory Mitigation
keouired
River and Sub -basin Number
404IWeO nds
OA32(acros ) ofwetlead
t:atawba/030SO10I
Stroam
23,466 &car feet '•
Catawba/03050101
Sediment an&ftdon Control:
3. Brosion and sediment control practices most be in full compliance with all gmcifications
governing the proper design, irudallation and operation and maintenance of such Hest Manageuserd
Practices ill order to protect $whet waters steri aide:
a. The erosion and sediment control measures for the•prek must be designed, installed,
_) operated, and maintained m accordance with the most recant version of the North Carolko
Sediment and ftdon Control Planm%g and Des gn M meal.
b. Tie design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and avoiom control
measures must be saoh that fbey equal, or exceed, His requi remte specified in the moat
recent version of Sue North Canibm Seabiww andBhvgon Conkolllfanx#l. 'Tile devioes•
shag be maintained as ail eonsmiction sites, beirow altos, and waft pile (spoil) projeots,
hubding om t *r -owned or k ned borrow pits associated with the pr qj sot.
o.. For borrow pat sites, the mosion and sediment control measures nrmst be designed, installed,
ape:ided, end cos d in accordance with the most recent version of the North t Garin
&0f4WM, '
d. The reclamation measures and implenimtedon =at om*y with the reclamation in
accordance with the requirements of the Sedimentation Polhitie i Control Act
e. Siitfcieut materials required for dabi]ir ation and/or repair of eromoon cormol measures and
atormwater routing and treataremt shall be on site at all th m.
4. No waste, spA solids, or fill of any kind shag occur in wcdands, waters, or riparian areas beyond
file. footprint of the inupaots depicted in the 4OV40 Mermit Applicadw. AU cenatruotion aaWie%
including the design, installation, operation, and maintenance of sediment and erosion control Best
Management Practices, shall be per%amed so that no violations of state water Quality standards,
statutes, or rules occur;
S. Sethi** and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum
,S extent practicable. If placearout of sodirnent and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is
unavoidable, they shell be removed and the natural grade restored within six months of the date that
the Division of band Resources bas released fire project,
6. Protective Fencing - The outside buffer, wetland or ,water boundary and along The conduction
corridor within these boundaries approved under this authorization shall be clearly marked with
orange warning fencing (or similar high visibility materiel) for the areas that have been approved

Charlotte - Douglas International Airport
Page 4 of 6
Mwcb 3, 2007
to infringe within the buffer, wotland or water prior to any land disturbing activities to ensure
compliance with 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500;
7. Riparian vegetation should be preserved to the extent possible. Native trees and shrubs indigenous
to your physiographic region should be restored wherever possible along the repaired streambank
to reestablish the riparian zone and to provide long -term erosion control;
De NotifiC;atityns:
y 8. need Notifications - Deed notifications or similar mechanisms smell be placed on all retained
Jurisdictional wed aida, waters and protective buffers in order to assure compliance for future
wetland, water and buffer impact. These mechanisms shall be put in place prior to impacting any
wetlands, waters and/or buffers approved for impact under this Certification Approval and
Authorization Certificate. A sample deed notification can be downloaded from the 401/Wetlands
Unit web site at http : /Wo.wr.state.nc.us/nawalands. The text of the sample deed notification
may be modified as appiopr'iate to suit'to this prajeot;
� ster»gter:
9. Written Stwmwater Mmagement Plan 0%zl Plan Needed)
A final, written sbarmwater r=bgwnmit plan ('including a signed and noWized Operation and
Maintenance Agreement) shall be submitted to the 401 Oversight and BXFM Permitting Unit
(2321 ambtree Blvd., Suite 250. Raleigb, NC. 27604) within 60 dap of the iwance of the 401
Water Queltty CertiBoapon. The stormwater mange rant plane aball be approved in writing by
this Office before the impacts specified in this Certifiaatim oeeru. You have the option of using
the Wpm Review Program for expedited approval ad'these plans. If you PqM0 to use the
! BWM Reyiew PoymM remember to include the appropriate fee with On glen. The dwnwater
maaegement plan must include plans, specifiioadons, and wodtabeefs foz dwaswatter msmagemeat
eg that an appropriate for the Urfim water akwifl atiam and des*W to rMove at leasf
25% 7W aomrding to tbamost recent yerdw of fiueNC DWR SMnW9ter Best Msrtagotmeat
,practices Manual. These faa7dties must be designed to treat the runoff from tbe endm project,
unlew o2 wise explicitly approved by the Division ad'Wo* Quality. Also.bedbm any
1 permanant b1ilaing iB occupied at the subject Bite, the fail to (w Woved by Wo Office) shall
1 be oanbuated and oporad aW, and Sc storomier mmage meat plan (as approved by fids Office)
shalt be implemented. Tire structural stmwmter practew ea approved by this. Offica ae well as
drainage patb>"tae most be maintained in perpetuity. No changes to the slnMMW gtarmwater
practices slush be made widhout written aullrorization tom the Division of.W'ater Qu ft
10. Conslruotbm Etcrmwator Permit NCG010000
Upon the approval of an Brosiw and Sediarentation Control Plain issued by the Wbion of hand
Resources (DLR) or a DLR delegated local erosion and aeditrentation conrti'ol program, an NPDES
General stotmwater permit (NMo 10000) administered by DWQ ie autormtieaRY iamed to the
project. This General Permit allows stormwater to be discbarged during lmd disturbing
oonstruction activities as stipulated by conditions in the permit. ffyonr protect io covered by this
permit fapp?icable to eonatuction projects that disturb we (1) or more acres), f1111 compliance with
permit conditions including the sedimentation control plan, adf- Monitaning, record keeping and
reporting requirements are required. A copy of this permit and monitoring report forms may be
found at jn/Arlo �►rr store r� s4� /srJFOrnr�• 1?oa� ;

Charlotte- Douglas International Airport
Page 5 of 6
Mareb 1, 2007
CAntiML�pgQo ii�n t nce:
11. Mr. Jerry On and Charlotte - Douglas Internatinnal Airport, shall oonduot construction activities in
R manner consistent with State water quality standards (including arty requirements Testlting flrom
compliance with sec 6n 303(4) of the Clean Water Aot) and any other appropriate ret *ements of
State law and federal law.* If the Division detenrdnes that such standards or laws ere r4ibebg met
(iaCloft the failure to arstain a dest atetl or aobiovved use) or that State of federal law is being
violated, or beat ftuibe r condition an necessary ro assure compliance) this Division may reevaluate
and modify this Oettlfimticp to include conditions appropriate to assure coroplioce witb such
standards and requit emots in aecordonoe with 15A NCAC 28.0507(4 Before arodifying the
C Afioatmn, the Divbioh ohaU notL& W. Jerry Orr and/or Charlotte -DougW bumationhI
Airport xW the US Army Ompa of EngWeers, provide public notice in acom'dace vdth•15A
NCAC 2H.0503 and provide opF;bd Yaity fox pStblie Uaring in aeeordanoe aitb 15A NCAC
28,0504. Any now or rev6ed conditions 61all be provided to ft. Jerry On "at Charlotte.
Douglas 1 aWnational Airport in writing, shall be provided to the Unfted States Army Corps of
Ballneers for Taft eve in s3' Permit hood pnearit to Sootion 404 of the Clean Water Aot, and
sbsM also Wane oonditions of the.404 Pe unit for the project;
12. Culvert Installation
Culverts Tequired for this project shall be instafled to such a manner that the original sftIn profiles
an not altered Existing stream dimensions (inohrding-the qW swtipa dnnensioms, ps tern, and
lcn&dinel profile) must be maintained above and below, Wations of each culvert. OAyerts " '
be designed and iaBWM to allow for aquatic life, vw"metat es well as to prevent bead cad* of tine
streams. If am of the eakft pipes an er becoompovhed, the app vpafaie stt+eem gbde ft Ulm w
established oar, if the pipes installed in a perohod =anner, tine pipes aball be removed mad re installed
correctly. '
Culver*) sball not be W&d In such a m tbet wM claw aggradaiitin or erosion of tiro sham
up or dawn ofta a of the oulverl(s} iBath*g dM mn dkposions (Wading Go cross seoft
dimendtvas, pattern and lgaggigadirual pro&) shall be wed above and below loatioans of snob
onl r►mrt. Tls�erufors, you toast provide plans with s&quete•details that indicate tbot 69 eurrent
stability of the street» wdl be maWshmed or eel mw& You must rectdve whOo approval fim this
OMft for tie above, plops before the oulvert(el is installed. CuUw*) mud be.insWed eecorft to
r approved plans.
Placement of culverts and Aar structures in waters, atremk ad vMtbmds•a xtUpkw4 below the
elevation of the streembed by one foot for all culvertswitb a dkMter greaterthan ftbab e, and 20
pesoapt of the Calvert diameter for oulvetts beving a diameter less fbin 48 itacbc% to albs love flow
passsige of water and agwtio life, Design and t.of culvert$ and oft *=Was including
tcnty6my erosion oop of measures sill notce oondaeted in a mom Gat may =Wt fa dis-
egw'b`baaitmt of wetlands or sireaanbeds or bad, Wakooat to or and doom slteann of the
above slruotanes. The sp000nt is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium abort be
maintained if requested in writing by DWQ.
Ilse establishment of native, woody vegetation and otter sofa stream bank stabilization techniques
must be used where practicable instead of rip ray or other bank bardennngmethods. If rip-rap is
necessary, it shall not be placed in the stream bed, unless specifically approved by the Division of
Water Quality.

Charlotte - Douglas latemational Airport
Page 6 of 6
March 1, 2007
Installation of culverts in wetlands must ensure continuity of water movement and be designed
to adequately accommodate high water or flood conditions.
Upon completion of thb project, the Applicant sball oomplete and return the enclosed "Certificate of
Completion" form to notify NCDWQ when all work included in the §401 Certification has been
completed. The responsible party shall complete the attached form and return it to the 401/Wetlaads
Unit of the NC Division of Water Quality upon completion of the project. Please send photographs
upstream and downstream of each culvert site to document correct installation along with the
Ceri$cate of Completionform.
Certificate of Com IaR Lion:
13. Upoq completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Qualify Certification or applioable
Buffer Rules, and any snbsequeat modifications, the applicant is required to return the attached
certificate of oompletion to the 401 /Wetlands Unit, North C"Ua Division of Water Quality,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699 -1650.
Also, this approval to proceed witb your proposed impacts or to conduct impacts to waters as
depicted to your appoleatlen ebaB expire upon expiration of the 404 or CAMA Permit.
If this CorfJfication is unaeooptable to you, you havc ibe right to an adjudicabory hearing upon written
request within sixty (60) days following receipt of this Certif oatica. This request mast be is the form of a
written petition coaftning to C eptw 150B of the North Carolina Oeneasl $tatutlas and IBM whh the
Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Marl Service Ceniar, Raleigh, N.0 , 276994714. if modMoations
.-are made to sa original Certification, you have the right to an atudicaiory. hearing on the modifications
upon written request w1diia sixty (60) days followiogmeipt of the C a tification. UnTen such demands
ammade, this Cofioation aball be final and binding.
This the 1 day. of Marsh 7007
DITMON OF WATER QUALITY
AUm W. . P.B.
AWXkbk/(im
3581

QF ATF�QQQ Michael F. Hassey, 0ovetnor
William 0. Ross Jr., Secretary
fjr North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Rosourocs
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Divblon ol'Water Quality
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
401 Water Quality CeriMeetion
Summery of permitted Impacts and Mitigation Requirements
In adcordance with 15A NCAC 211.0500, Mt. Jerry Orr of Charlotte - Douglas laternationol Airport to impact or fail
0.432 acres of 4041wetlend,13,466 linear feet of perennial and important intermittett stream, 2,866 linear feat of
unimportant intermittent stream, and 4.631 acres of open waters (ponds) in the Catawba River Basin, associated
with the conatritction of Charlotte- Douglas International Airport Expansion Area site in Charlotte, Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina. All activities associated with these authorized impacts must be conducted with the
conditions limed is the attached Permit transmittal letter, THIS CERTIFICATION IS NOT VALID WTTNOU'T
THE ATTACHMLWrS.
COMPENSA'T'ORY MITIGATION REQVTREMENTS, ECOSYSTEM iNHANCEMENT PROGRAM
DWQ PROTECT #: 2000119SVer. S
LOCATION: Charlotte
COUNTY Mecklenburg
BASIN/ SUB BASIN CatawbaIO3050101
As required by ISA NCAC 2H,0500, and the conditions of this Certification, you ate required to cauptr awe for
the above mitigable Impacts through the restoration, cmatlon, enhancement or preservadon of wetlands, surface
waters and riparian bufiina as outlined below prior to conducting any activitles that impact or degrade the waters of
the tattitb.
Alota: Aeraege requirements proposed to be mttfgated through the Ecosystem Bnhaneemont Program must be
rounded to otne-quana acm Wnmm* and linear fbot requirements must be rounded up to the nearest
foot aecordiag to I S 2R.0503(b). l
One ofthe options you have svalha le to,satisfy the comparustory mitigation requirement is through the payment of
a f w to the Wetlands Restoration Fund per NCAC 28.0503. If you cheese this option, please sign this form and
mail the farm along with a copy of your 401 Ca dficadqu or Buitbr Appwval to the Ecosystem Bnlumooment
Prggram tat thb address -below. An huvoioa for dw appropMeto amount of paymard will be not to yon upon recatpt
of this tbnn. PLSA373 NOTE, THE ABOVE IMPACTS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED UNTIL YOU RBCBIVB'
NOTIFICATION THAT YOUR PAYMENT HAS BEEN PROCISSSBD BY THE ECOSYTEM BNHANCM NT
PROGRAM.
Signature Dtlte
HCOSYSTSM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
1652 Map Service CM16
RALEIGH, N.C. 27699 -1652
(919) 733 -3205
Menem; 00) 18SVQ$ CharttMaDougtdidolAlMor111 >tpsmlora(MNWenbwg)401 1C Mad„$EP
Ca
401 Ovemight/8xp�eaa Review Pernsluing link I X77 j%
1650 ldall 8erviee Cattle; Ralelgh, Worm cuolina 27699.1650
2321 Cmbtrex Boolsvord. 6uite 750, Raklgk North Cirollne 276M
Phone [phone] / Fax [phone]
laterner. Mv: / /www.nomelquaw.wg
,',n Equal OpportuniVAMmsativa Action ftmpioyo►— 50%Recycled /IO%Pbst Consumer • •

pWQ Project No.:
1, Applicant:
Certification of +C6wpree one
County:
Project Name:
Date of Issuance of Wetland Permit:
gerflfiente of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, and any
subsequept modifications, the applicant is required to return this certifioate to the 401 OvereightIftpress Permitting Unit,
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1650 Mail Service COW, Raleigh, NC, 27699 -1650, This form may be
returned to DWQ by the applicant, the applicant's authorized agent, or the project engineer. ft is not necessary to send
eartifieatee from all of'them.
Applicant's CeriV3cation
. hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and dtliganw was
used in the observatlou of the ammuotio:a such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial
cos plianco•and intent of the 401 Water Quallty Certification and Buffer Rules, the•approved plus and speolfiewone,
and other srtppmtiagmaterials.
Signature: Date:
Agent's Cer**R&n
L , hereby Mde that, to the bout of my abilities, due care and diligence was
used in the obsernflou of the constnVdan such drat dw construction was observed to be built Mthin subetaWal
ooraplisica acid intent of the 401 Water QuOty Certification and Suffer Riles, the approved plans and epeoii mien,
and other supporting materials.
Sigaattm: Date: _
If'this project was designed by a Certified Professional
1,
LoWscepe ArehiW, Surveyor, etc.) in the State of North dCarro baaion�sed�,� (� �11y'
weeltly,, fall time) the construction of the project, for the Permittee hereby •slate that do the best of my abilities, due Dare
and dlligenbe was used in the•observmtion of the conetractlam such that the eonstruotion was observed to be built within
• Obbstautial compSaoce sad irlent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved platis and
spec>fiiaehons, ehd other supporting materials.
1 Signature. Registratiom No. Date '
9

SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Work Limits
1. All work authorized by this permit must be performed in strict compliance with the attached
plans, which are a part of this permit. Any modification to these plans must be approved by the
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) prior to implementation.
2. Except as authorized by this permit or any 1JSACE approved modification to this permit, no
excavation, fill or mechanized land - clearing activities shall take place at any time in the
construction or maintenance of this project, within waters or wetlands. This permit does not
authorize temporary placement or double handling of excavated or fill material within waters or
wetlands outside the permitted area. This prohibition applies to all borrow and fill activities
connected with this project.
3. Except as specified in the plans attached to this permit, no excavation,'fill or mechanized
land- clearing activities shall take place at any time in the construction or maintenance of this
project, in such a manner as to impair normal flows and circulation patterns within waters or
wetlands or to reduce the reach of waters or wetlands.
Related Laws
4. All mechanized equipment will be regularly inspected and maintained to prevent
contamination of waters and wetlands from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic
materials In the event of a spill of petroleum products or any other l azsrdous waste, the
permittee shall immediately report it to the N.C. Division of Water Quality at (919) 733 -5083,
Ext. 526 or (800) 662 -7956 and provisions of the North Carolina Oil Pollution and Hazardous
Substances Control Act will be followed.
Project Maintenance
5. The permittee shall advise the Corps in writing at least two weeks prior to beginning the
work authorized by this permit and again upon completion of the work authorized by this permit.
6. Unless otherwise authorized by this permit, all fill material placed in waters or wetlands shall
be generated from an upland source and will be clean and free of any pollutants except in trace
quantities. Metal products, organic materials (including debris from land clearing activities), or
unsightly debris will not be used.
7. The permittee shall require its contractors and/or agents to comply with the terms and
conditions of this permit in the construction and maintenance of this project, and shall provide
each of its contractors and/or agents associated with the construction or maintenance of this
project with a copy of this permit. A copy of this permit, including all conditions, shall be
available at the project site during construction and maintenance of this project
i

8. The permittee shall employ all sedimentation and erosion control measures necessary to
prevent an increase in sedimentation or turbidity within waters and wetlands outside the permit
area. This shall include, but is not limited to, the immediate installation of silt fencing or similar
appropriate devices around all areas subject to soil disturbance or the movement of earthen fill,
and the immediate stabilization of all disturbed areas. Additionally, the project must remain in
full compliance with all aspects of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (North
Carolina General Statutes Chapter 113A Article 4).
9. The permittee, upon receipt of a notice of revocation of this permit or upon its expiration
before completion of the work will, without expense to the United States and in such time and
manner as the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative may direct, restore the
water or wetland to its pre - project condition.
Enforcement
10. Violations of these conditions or violations of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or Section
10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act must be reported in writing to the Wilmington District U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers within 24 hours of the permittee's discovery of the violation.
Mitigation
11. The permittee shall mitigate for a portion of unavoidable impacts to stream channels
associated with this project by payment to the City of Charlotte Storm Water Services (CSWS)
Umbrella Mitigation Bank in the amount necessary to perform restoration to 6,686 hear feet of
stream channel-in the Catawba River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03050101). Construction within
jurisdictional areas on the property shall begin gnly after the permittee has made full payment
� with certified check to the CSWS, and the CSWS has made written confirmation to the District
Engineer, that it agrees to accept responsibility'forthe mitigation work required, pursuant with
the Agreement to Establish theiity of Charlotte Umbrella and Wetland Mitigation Bank:, dated
June 16, 2004.
12: You shall mitigate for the remainder of the jurisdictional impacts by making payment to the
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) in the amount accessary to perform
restoration to 0.432 acre of jurisdictional riparian hardwood forest wetlands and 9,626 linear feet
of warm water stream in the Catawba River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03050101). Construction
within jurisdictional areas on the property shall begin only after the permittee has made full
payment with ccrtified check to the NCEEP, and the NCEEP has made written confirmation to
the District Engineer, that it agrees to accept responsibility for the mitigation work required,
pursuant to Paragraph N.D. of tke Memorandum of Understanding between the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District, dated November 4, 1998.
13. The permittee shall coordinate with Mecklenburg County to develop and implement a plan
that mitigates impacts to the 100 -year floodplain of Coffee Creek when impacts to these areas are
reasonably anticipated to occur.
34. Prior to work in waters and wetlands on the site, requirements of the attached Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA) between the FAA and the SHPO should be implemented.

own, Wit 19 1 i C�s
r W, MIA 9 M 0
7t, in �qw !q!
0 -1
RL *A—m- W-6
,�I
�'"
Ma vq
0

•� PROPOSED PROJECTS
3RD PARALLEL RUNWAY
10 r VM RUNWAY 1BRI38L EX'IEN810N
�{ « TAXIWAY ECHO 8 FOXTROT EXT.
/
FM OLD DOWD ROAD REAIMMEW
WALLACE NEEL ROAD RELOCATION j
a7-d WIMT BLVD. M416NMENT I.
Icy PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL
« «.. IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL L OIB)
! e�ere UNIMPORTANT STREAM CHANNEL NII
C 9 PONDS
r+ WETLANDS
LF LJNEAR FEET
0
• ,, y
: r
UQ
l•• •r '� y
0
1 1
J-11 ' « •
so
.M•ti..r�•� r•rF � • • �1
2 iIF: Y`Y ' "''? 7VtR JIENTS 404/401 PERMIT APPLICATION Ff GU E
I mm Avis �� l"ftrl43M+ !. ' ;h p llti8 .IIOIp11t0�AON0a�iClp Pr4N BD NMY IWBE Y■ A

l�
1
i
PROPOSED PROJECT
/.
.! DRI0MWLRUN%AVCDN8TRUCTI0NUdfr6
/
A
'T
5
REVOED RUNWAY CDN9UWVtLON WrS
/
..,.
• ' ' • �. RUNWAY QWAL EM AND AWLARY TAMS
i /
,
• , ANCILLARY TAxwAY EXTENDIDN
OLD DOWD RDAD REALIDNVOn
f
8
9
WALLACE NEEI RDAD RFALMUMENT
: f
• • ' ' 1 WEST BLVD. WAIGNMENt
f f
•�'`�
f
10
11'
1
PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (P8)
f
.... IMPORTANTINTERMITTENT
STREAM
16
CHANNEL rns)
13
14
15
UNIMPORTANT STREAM CHANNEL (Ut)
f�
PON06
r
�`
WETLANDS
tF UNEAR FEET_
1 /
1 i
85 . - -- 1, 2E uI
lea LF
28 (Ticer Breach) PS
1671 LF (1 ) 1�
1
12 118 ` � ♦
2195 LF 2
II
1 �
1KIIS
1L 118 3218 LF 7
1 786 LF 1$ `� 1M IIS
1L1,
lJI // ±a o•/ rw�� /�� 1 w i
t I ♦y / ate, +,,/ `fir
640 LF 13 ; L Xr - _ I
<Z) 12006 IMPROVFiAl'..,('4T" 40el/401 PERMIT APPLICATION FIGURE
ClMdDt ' vou�lor FU&VAE.bYiIAWystm 7MEC:iv,rt -r1 ^I.l4OWI11AM PRB/TlDFLXV Daher• 4

1
PROPOSED PROJECT
ORIGINAL RUNWAY CONSTMUCTION UMITS
REVISED RUNWAY CONSTRUCTION LIMBS
►C.�r,► RUNWAY 18R►fOt Exi, AND ANCILARY TAA►f
ww.•
` ► • AWLMRY TAXIWAY EXTENRION
ti p: i OLD DOM ROAD REALIONMENT
VKLACE NEEL ROAD REAtIONMENT
WEST BLVD. REALIONMR4
MM PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL IPS)
. • • . EdmTANT )NTERMfi►ENT
STREAM CHANNEL PIS)
UNIMPORTANT STREAM CHANNEL (L4)
PONDS
•� WETlAND6
LF LPIEAR FUT
)
)
1 2C
j 1
lerr
7 11,,
2A US
844 LF 46
1'Y WE
0.153
IF lis
968 LF 14
IT POND
1.384 AC 1
f
1R Ut
39LF(15
200611
1 Chelr}DLts•DOUi)Itf FUENAMLJIVI
�M.W�t1Ow�1 U1► t1
)
1
t
t
1 1
1
1
i 2D&2F 118
1 2210 LF 16
TLAND i
AC 1 '. •
•w
� t
•
L
iu its
167 LF 16
1V WETtAND 71
0.983 AC 4
4
IROVEMENTS 404/401 PERMIT APPLICATIOjV FIGURE
11,180! ME81NiOREMILTE .FINURE060Netl1JN10 , PRRAED f>M.•988T BDAl61'1 5

)
}
1
i
i
1
1
I
)
1S UI
IN UI ►i � 230 LF 8 '
376 LF 12 10 WETLAND
0.031 AC (2)
1 ` 3B POND
� 1.621 AC 2)
"'t ••
1 i' ..`t` .'; �� ' `'t t ~'• • A WETLAND
4 e
,, ;•,, , ' ate• � 3 N
0.086 AC 3 e �'
•.rc�,.) :pits !�►y''� s:4 •' ,•. r'��j•,'', qC N
`A' t 0188 AC 3
wj"Whw, mums*
1 ..., a } ! •a ., ,c+- �4! 5:"'{r. beeNxe.�eenr
t'F,� ' • ?,'. i • �k s 1 �i:h1' �� S • • ` : • >. MOO�pe1011Ew1m
� r, � ;• � • # � . e1MIMYNk1;eXLpICM�ApYTAMe
1 :••••r• i'�ha'•`.11�, il ��fvl4t�t \t'•1�I,L'`,': � �II�WriI11GArWgBON
•r.�;�.t , ••''� %• ti•`a1'.�'.�,•.. /'��• ." r OOewwlROAe
�'• ,,y • ~, •�..f •w/ ,,•q '��� �eprweY.eWwMdWe
' 1:(. '��•1' p6 rj� 1•.{ " }' lJ m raw"mdwGM01wulmN'4
rrl
' „ {{vt � Y ew• Yl�p►AM11nhAMeNa�N9
1 P1 POND ' •q� s3
1 mi UI 4 MID AC 4 • Y1 >
181 LF X27 LF 1
a;t�`:r ;, : '' \ 1� ,,►: _+ POTENTIAL
Z 1
� � • STQRMWATE
¢5 MANAGEMONT
W1lI� �� AREA
930 LF 19
V2 YI
'f '„O1 ,•� ►•. + ,taw.
2000 IMPROVEMENTS 404/401 PERMIT APPLICATION FISURE
�118t�0�C•DoL BS
V
FI16W114EIWU�:`. Yet. E;:; eb�atOREBIrtTb- F1018leeeoweetW�(D iplNliDfF6.�07 aCnt¢}•o
j,
I`
I•

1
1
1
I1X PS I
484 LF (18)
Wv
Opp � V,oPo
i
1W IIS
136 LF (17)
1W WETLAND
DA58 AC (6)
PROPOSED PROJECT
oramm ffimmYCONBTRI amLDMTB
REMM RUNWAY CIAM MDTLOM UMM
SIR RUNWAY imeL EXT, AND AIR;FLIRYTm
r i MMLARY TAXIWAY EXTTlNSfON
OLDDOWD RDAD REAURNMm
WAUACE REEL ROAD REALUMMENT
M�pL WEST DWD.REALIti"HT.
9M PERENNIAL 87REAM CHANNEL fP8)
r
.... tMPORTANTINTERAAITTL:Ni
BTREAM CHIITDIEL (BB)
s
UNIMPORTANT 8TREAM CKA."L (W)
• ,. PONDS
` WETLAND£
LF LINEAR FEET
EMENTS 404/401 'PERMIT APPLICATION FIGURE
�Naa�,u.�V - teaLracmoa�.t»,oco ot�a fir.

4 5
6 7
8 1 9
10 11
13j 14 1 16
I'A"Ne Manor
CROW mwwmmwmmwm
KWAVT WMAWAINWAYM
ANI�LMAYVWWAYUWOW
1 OWD"ItmRviamm
wwrommommw
"Wame"amewmaL fps)
Atn nTrr
*W W4MRTANY OMM OWOU PJIJ
tr Law FEET
2- -006 1h,
S2 ILS
01 W-1
0.221
R1 U1
6 LF 9
-'Alt
2127 LF 26 N1 U)
1,042 LF 9I
MI 118
US LF
A 01 Ul
Ll 118 6 LF
250 LF (26
N1 118
254 LF
K1 11
A WETLAND
A. m I p
0.409 AC (12)
il P N
2.046 AC (6)
)VEMENTS4041401 P "'RI II FIGURE
I MOM" Aftalts - Pmm as Cm 6:: , ". - ---. � .1 � 4dj 8
J�,
vi 118
ul Ul
463 LF
01 W-1
0.221
R1 U1
6 LF 9
-'Alt
2127 LF 26 N1 U)
1,042 LF 9I
MI 118
US LF
A 01 Ul
Ll 118 6 LF
250 LF (26
N1 118
254 LF
K1 11
A WETLAND
A. m I p
0.409 AC (12)
il P N
2.046 AC (6)
)VEMENTS4041401 P "'RI II FIGURE
I MOM" Aftalts - Pmm as Cm 6:: , ". - ---. � .1 � 4dj 8
J�,

rr, I r ' I' a S .irl �i I �,��,( It 1,1i�.11 I� >• a
I: r SI 1 rl l j .:Ih t4 Ali", IlI. 1 Slt1 ifr u�.l i1 r
s t ,�
N. I� �fyll l f
• . i ' I �/t } l� l I (f 1, %. �_ r) � l 1! f �^ J� V 1 . .� � � I y - {� . � Y.
y1 m II
l
'r�Y alb •' 11� �, +i ir�l _'>>I�I c� t`� ,l,,j'+L1�`* �\�, �if�� {`f}��7'`S� n�;i!(����jrr'��Irr��f}�.
rifer,
Al
r 1 ♦- I 11 S I. it l }r � I�. f ,i '7 rl, I Ii sl t .
li. I 1 l ir« i I II l } % 11� 1 ! (1 fl�'1'} S l!� ')71j�.� )♦ t -, f �I I
'1 h tiJ l�>_.Si ( I(st�l tll Y� lryr� I ;'i I, ), I�1r�11�1 rf i fal �t it ICJ Jl 'I' -.t.
Cl
I r 1 f
I.�,1f 111 X11 f1,11IIII� �i r l �r fir, { <i tl rrr'f }>` j,li �4))l
I al 7 i�y 11.1.'' I.i ly. t. \� �i S) r ��i( {, -�Lf �-•f r I11' I� 1. 1 I
J 111 1 54 I I t I I
t
111
yt
rly ' t
}
i t
I 1,. , • 1 li t I ". ^t7 t tr Pt rll -" r 3 " I � Il r L�
I

�
/
\
/
\
-N JAL
'
TER
\
/
\
'
Y2
10
11
Hi U1
\
/
40 LF SS
13
14
15
\
F1 118
'
\
/
F1 U1
\
'
\
'
LAND
0.012 AC
\
'
>
\
'
)
/
ow WORM WASOMM
>
/
�
pamot
)
)
(
`~

2RI
2U Ul
236 LF (37)1
2Y Ul
2X Ul
273 LF
2U 116
Menlo
1641 LFI(17J
2V MTLAND
0.140 AC
281 118
fe jpl.
Wmws
op
As i
12006 IMPROVIE-MENTS 404/401
F 2"t MnAM
FIGURE
2RI
,
'
!
'
2Y Ul
2X Ul
273 LF
Menlo
Wmws
12006 IMPROVIE-MENTS 404/401
PERMIT APPLICATION
FIGURE
,
'
!
'

)
1
1.
i
CheHotte�Dpu lal
ana�.ntrb an .r
.1
t
t
t
1
m
HANGARI
2006 IMPROVEMENTS 404/401 PERMIT APPLICATION 11 FIGURE
iut IWIE IINUMYl1� 7rooa MEETIIM RESULTS • 09RE WON 1. "mm Pmmw m.pa I fame t+. {
r �
r
r
IWA PROPOSED PROJECT
0RmwK Rwwn CCIBTRUCTON L%=
r
v.: Favm WWAY CDNeTRLI noN LINTS
j
�
�r1�i."Z RWItlIMYlERh6LElC 'f.ANDANCRARY7M+'a
1
....: MMIARYTAMWAYrXTE11mm
iQ' X+P rG� PS
r
3,352 LF 58
.'SO oEAoowaRaoReALroNMENr
d
VULLACE NEE L RW REALM MUt
1
1
,..�.
li it 1n►i, WEGT BLVD. REALEENMENI
-� �
F=i PER6NNIAt STREAM CHANNEL (PS)
#�i
• • • ► IVIf" NT
E1IREAM CHANNE
UNIMPORTANTEiTRMCHANNEL(IA)
PONDS
w
WETLANDS
:i.
LF LINEAR BEET
2006 IMPROVEMENTS 404/401 PERMIT APPLICATION 11 FIGURE
iut IWIE IINUMYl1� 7rooa MEETIIM RESULTS • 09RE WON 1. "mm Pmmw m.pa I fame t+. {

1 Al PS
61 UI 951 LF. 1)
49 LF 40 `y r`
1 r .,ti:•, 'T fir; �;: �. �;►;�; Al UI
` . 493 LF (4
1 i 210 LF-142 320 LF 42
j 1 i
1 '
i {yi
1
D1 UI
126 LF (�
I ci UI
70 LF (39) if
otO
kbPD$8D PR4WNCT
,' aRtaow.Ra�wAvacNeraucrw�nwnre ��O
[� a�vs�o auNUw►Y omteTRUaRON la+nra „ ` '•
N RUNWAY WWOLUt. NM AN NARY TAN'S
y.. i ANMLMV TAXWAY,WM M = V
fi CLODOWORUDMA WWWr :..,
VKLAW NEEL ROAD PA4WNN1'NT
MW BLVD. REAtomwr
/ frr�r
a� ae�rB,patBttleAb+cw►►+Na.cvey
ipYF tpRTANTBTit�AM1^ CHAtN9EL 1W)
POa0D8
WETLANDS
LF UNEAR PEE4
485:
4 5 '
1 � •
6
8 9
10 11 1
13 14 16 16
1B UI 1 284 LF 46
171 LF (47 )p 1
y lP II8 ,v
418 LF 47)
r ' '
1 ,
y
1
z 1A MW1,220
2006 HPP.,' -' %.'':MENTS 4041401 PERMIT APPLICATION ! 3 FIGURF-
.
�.�16r�D�$�p04�96 Pd6NAIlEi�,�_J4?Yf' '�'aai:?t!f ��A1'6•iq{p1F110N0i11J�Df0 PiRI FE0.20D1 BCAL @1•r ,
1A UI.
1B UI 1 284 LF 46
171 LF (47 )p 1
y lP II8 ,v
418 LF 47)
r ' '
1 ,
y
1
z 1A MW1,220
2006 HPP.,' -' %.'':MENTS 4041401 PERMIT APPLICATION ! 3 FIGURF-
.
�.�16r�D�$�p04�96 Pd6NAIlEi�,�_J4?Yf' '�'aai:?t!f ��A1'6•iq{p1F110N0i11J�Df0 PiRI FE0.20D1 BCAL @1•r ,

2W 118
892 LF (43)1
3F WET D
.410 1
3G WETLAND
goo
VMS
WMAWS
2006 404,1401 PERMIT APPLICATION
|

1
i
a
J
1
1
' � 1
Eel
4 S
Yv e•
� 8 8
2G (Coffey Creek) PS 10 11' 1'2
® 386 LF (48 •
-' 13 14 15 16
2L IIS
. ,"� 1,295 LF 50
J 2K (Gaffey Creek) P5 LA RWo0RE
1,592 LF (40.)
2H 8 3D IIS �
1.468 LF 51 ; 1J1 POND
' 0.232 AC
�•�
IF IIS , A DKIV v- 0 6+FS Ac sD
513 LF 65 �
11 WETIAHD
0.048 AC 13 �� 1D IIS
517 LF 53 e ® m !
_ 40
1H UI -► -- �,i•
QQiG LF 56
� �^� t ' .r •�RDPOiED PNOJECI
�<< � ; auoruteunrAYeaaT�u'Tantn�a
1E (Coffey CreeK) PSr --J``y
1,042 LF 64 AloMWIYtFp1�► .ANOAAD0A1fYTpNb
t �..: ANOA•,ANtlUWAY0 t
,
tw own NOAO1mNNI "m
t � ►, : � antuACEtet��auA;NwtaKt
pROPOS D� WES
w r r WPORTANt Iii,611CT',rcN1
w"m NHAIam QM
Li•@i 1Ai111PORTANT 87RVAM CNAN'NEI,Uq
�8
� WF71ANDs
v U"FW
2006 IMPROVEMENTS 4041401 PERMIT APPLICATI0N FIGURE
Cfie,�ottapo,t{!w Fue, �we�Nwurrat .:�N�enw3n6euue- rw�sa+er� +hnm _ P Fse. :oor ter• 15
N,�wYATwMU U ►► N
r
it
la

0
I
1 n181
»hSi ,Fdn N NOV
Y M DR
.....nn....w.. H�.ww FAIZLAWTOM
AIp tMYTAVftY ExMmMGN
a o Dm RWID RFAU9NMW
a
Ir
1
�IC�
i1lr
Em PERETNSAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS)
®
1 n181
I
»hSi ,Fdn N NOV
Y M DR
.....nn....w.. H�.ww FAIZLAWTOM
AIp tMYTAVftY ExMmMGN
a o Dm RWID RFAU9NMW
WAU ACE NEEL ROAD REALIGNMENT
'►� WEST BLVD. REILLIBNMHNT
Em PERETNSAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS)
®
... WIPMANT INTERMr TENT
`•'
STREAM CHANNEL (AS)
;Tye j
0&646 LIMMI'CIRTANT STREAM CKW*L (UI)
FONDS
WETLANDS-
LF LINEAR FEET
2006 IMPROVEMENTS 404/401
PERMIT APPLICATION
FIGURE
.quw►a�alfa�
'U
YILEILINEiMIIlMY01. lDD1NEFTIN0f�6UU8•VImm low Is11=D
PMi180FR6• LCALEYa
I

Regulatory Division
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS ON ENGINEERS
P.O. HOX 1890
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28402.1890
Action ID No. 2006 - 3252.1 -360
March 20, 2007
Mr. Jerry Orr
Charlotte - Douglas International Airport
Aviation Department
Post Office Box 19066
Charlotte, North Carolina 28219
Dear Mr. Orr:
Enclosed is a Department of the -Army permit to place fill in approximately 16,312
linear feet of stream channel, 0.432 acre of wetlands, and 4.631 acres of open water
associated with the expansion of the Charlotte - Douglas international Airport, in Charlotte,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The Corps is issuing this permit in response to your
written request of February 9, 2007, and the ensuing administtative record.
Any deviation in the authorized work will require modification of this permit. if a
change in the authorized work is necessary, you should promptly submit revised plans to
the Corps showing the proposed changes. You may not undertake the proposed changes
until the Corps notifies you that your permit has been modified.
Carefully read your permit. The general and special conditions are important. Your
failure to comply with these conditions could.result in a violation of Federal law. Certain
significant conditions require that:
a. You must complete construction before December 31, 2022.
b. You must allow representatives from this office to make periodic visits to your
worksite as deemed necessary to assure compliance with permit plans and conditions.
You must notify this office in advance as to when you intend to commence and
complete work.

l�
-2-
You should address all questions regarding this authorization to Amanda Jones,
Asheville Regulatory Field Office, telephone [phone], extension 231.
Sincerely,
f John E. Pulliam, Jr.
(� Colonel, U.S. Army
District Commander
Enclosures
— Copy Furnished with enclosures:
Chief, Source Data Unit
NOAA/Notional Ocean Service
ATTN. Sharon Tear N /CS261
1315 East -West Hwy., Rm 7316
Silver Spring, MD 20910 -3282 '
Copies Furnished with special conditions and plans:
Mr. Ronald J. Mikulak, Chief. Mr. Doug Huggett
US Environmental Protection Agency Division of Coastal Management
Wetlands Regulatory Section North Carolina Department of
1 61 Forsyth Street Environment and Natural Resources
.Atlanta, Georgia 30303 400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Mr. Brian Cole
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mr. David Rackley
160 Zillicoa Street National ]Marine Fisheries Service
Asheville, North Carolina 28801 219 Fort Johnson Road
Charleston, South Carolina 29412 -9110 t
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service Ms Becky Fox
Pivers Island U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516 1349 Firefly Road
Whittier, North Carolina 28789
) C

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
REMVM
Permittee Charlotte - Douglas international Airport MAR 13 2007
Permit No. 2006 - 32521 -360 W ,Y
Issuing Office CESAW -RG -A
NOTE: ' The term "you" and its derivatives, as used in this permit, means the pemmittec or any future transferee. The tern "this
office" refers to the appropriate district or division office of the Corps of Engineers having jurisdiction over the permitted
activity or the appropriate official of that office acting under the authority of the commanding officer.
You are authorized to perform work in accordance with the terms and conditions specified below.
Project Description: To place fill in approximately 16,312 linear feet of stream channel, 0.432 acre of
wetlands, and 4.631 acres of open water associated with the expansion of the Charlotte- Douglas
International Airport.
Project Location: in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
Permit Conditions:
General Conditions:
1•. The time limit for completing the work authorized ends on December 31, 2022 If you find that you need more time
to complete the authorized activity, submit your request for a time extension to this office for consideration at least one north
before the above date is reached.
2. You must maintain the activity authorized by this permit in good condition and in co» fonnance with the terms and
conditions of this permit. You are not relieved of this requirement if you abandon the permitted activity, although you may
make a good faith transfer to a third parry in compliance with General Condition 4 below. Should you wish to cease to maintain
the authorized activity or should you desire to abandon it without a good faith transfer, you must obtain a modification of this
permit from this office, which may require restoration of the area.
3 If you discover any previously unknown historic or archeological remains while accomplishing the activity authorized by
this permit, you must immediately notify dus office of what you have found. We will initiate the Federal and state coordination
required to determine if the remains warrant a recovery effort or if the site is eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places.
ENG FORM 1721, Nov 86 EDITION OF SFP 82 IS 013SOLF17E. (33 CFR 325 (Appendix A))

4 Tf you sell Ilic property associated with this permit, you must obtain the signature of the new owner in the space provided
and forward a copy of the perrnit to this office to validate the transfer of this authorization.
5. If a conditioned water quality certification has been issued for your project, you must comply with the conditions specified
in the certification as special conditions to this permit. For your convenience, a copy of the certification is attached if it
contains such conditions
6. You must allow representatives from this office to inspect the authorized activity at any time deemed necessary to ensure
that it is being or bas been accomplished in accordance with the terms and conditions of your permit,
Special Conditions:
J
SEE ATTACHED SPECIAL CONDITIONS
l Further Information:
1 1. Congressional Autborities: You have been authorized to undertake the activity described above pursuant to:
1 ( ) Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of I899 (33 U.S.C. 40-1).
/ (X) Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
( ) Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1413).
\ 2. Limits of this authorization.
I a. This pcmrit does not obviate the need to obtain other Federal, state, or local authorizations required by law.
b. This permit does not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges.
c. This permit does not authorize any injury to the property or rights of others.
d. This permit does not authorize interference with any existing or proposed Federal project.
3. Limits of Federal Liability. In issuing this permit, the Federal Government does not assunas any liability for the following:
a. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of other permitted or w4vanitted activities or from natural
1 causes.
b. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of current or future activities undertaken by or on behalf
.l of the United States in the public interest.
/ c. Damages to persons, property, or to other permitted or unpermitted activities or shuctures caused by the activity
authorized by this permit.
d. Design or construction deficiencies associated with the permitted work.
2
J
i�

i
) e. Damage claims associated with any future modification, suspension, or revocation of this pennit.
4. Reliance on Applicant's Data: The determination of this office that issuance of this pennit is not contrary to the public
interest was made in reliance on the information you provided.
S. Reevaluation of Permit Decision. This office may reevaluate its decision on this pennit at any time the circumstances
warrant. Circumstances that could require a reevaluation include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. You fail to comply with the terns and conditions of this permit.
b. The information provided by you in support of your permit application proves to have been false, incomplete, or
inaccurate (See 4 above).
c. Significant new information surfaces which this office did not consider in reaching the original public interest decision.
Such a reevaluation may result in a determination that it is appropriate to use the suspension, modification, and revocation
procedures contained in 33 CFR 325.7 or enforcement procedures such as those contained in 33 CFR 326A and 326.5. The
referenced enforcement procedures provide for the issuance of an administrative order requiring you to comply with the terms
and conditions of your permit and for the initiation of legal action where appropriate. You will be required to pay for any
}
corrective measures ordered by this office, and if you fail to comply with such directive, this office may in certain situations
(such as those specified in 33 CFR 209.170) accomplish the corrective measures by contract or otherwise and bill you for the
Coat.
6. Extensions. General condition l establishes a time limit for the completion of the activity authorized by this permit, Unless
there are circumstances requiring either a prompt completion of the authorized activity or a reevaluation of the public interest
decision, the Corps will normally give favorable consideration to a request for an extension of this time limit.
Your signature below, as permittee, indicates that you accept and agree to comply with the terms aria conditions of this permit.
3.12.0-7
(! BAW7,7MVCHAP.LO UGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (DATE)
This permit becomes effective when the Federal official, designated to act for the Secretary of the Army, has signed below.
(UWAICT tot AND JOHN "'UL M, JR, COLONEL Mas)
When the 4tructuM tst rk authored by this permit are still in existence at the tirrre the property is transferred, the terms and
conditions of this permit will continue to be binding on the new owner(s) of the property. To validate the transfer of this permit
and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions, have the transferee sign and date below.
(TRANSFEREE) (DATE)
•U 0 GnYI1RNMENT MINIM OFFICE 19X6.717.425

rw MA
I..sear.
RCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F Easley, Governor
March 22, 2007
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W Klimek, P E., Directa
DWQ Project q EXP 06- 1195v4
Mecklenburg County
Charlotte Douglas international Airport
Attn: Ml, Jerry Orr, Airprn( Director
P.O. Box 19066
Charlotte, NC 28219
Subject Property: Charlotte- Douglas International Airport, 3" t Parallel Runway,l'axiway
and Wallace Neel Road Relocation
APPROVAL OF S'IX)RM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
near Mr. Orr:
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has reviewed the Storm Water Management Plan dated March 15,
2007 (received March l9, 2007) prepared by your engineer, Mr. Patrick E. Turney, P.C. of Talbert and
Bright, Inc. This plan has been approved the DWQ and satisfies the stormwatct conditions required by
the Modification to the Individual Water Quality Certification issued on March 1, 2007.
You are required to meet the following conditions:
1. DWQ considers the Vortechs system and the vacuum truck to be non - approved stormwatel Best
Management Practices (BMPS).
a. Charlotte - Douglas International Airport will be responsible for conducting monitoring
according to recognized protocols (see attached). Similar amnitoring will be required to
evaluate the effectiveness of the vacuum truck.
b. You must submit monitoring reports to both the NCDENR -DWQ Stormwater and
General Permits Unit (as described in Item 61) as well as to the DWQ Express Review
}
Program at the letterhead address).
2. The storm water treatment system consisting of the weekly vacuum truck, Vontechs units, grass~
~wales, grass filter strips. and extended dry detention basins, and the signed and notarized
Operation and Maintenance Agreement, its approved by this Office, and the drainage. patterns
depicted on the plan sheens, must be maintained in perpetuity.
a. In the event that this stormwater treatment system does not provide the total suspended
sediment (minimum 85% TSS) and nutrient removal capabilities as described in the
March 15, 2007 Stormwater management plans submitted and approved by DWQ,
Charlotte - Douglas Inteurational Airport will be required to re- submit a stoutinwater
management plan for re- approval by I)WQ. This may include, but is not limited to,
retrofitting sand fiitet�s) and/or bioretention cells in ogler to treat the stormwater runoff
from the. 3"' Parallel Runway, Taxiway, Wallace Neel Road project.
b. No changes to the structural stornwater practices shall be made without w1 itten
authorizatio4i from the Division of Water Quality. The stormwatct easernenta shall allow
for the ability to maintain the. structures, perform corrective actions, and shall provide
1 401 Wetlands Certlleallon Unil
J
WOW Servke Corder, Raleigh, North Carolata 27609.16.50 t=r 2321 CrRMree ScAdrward, Suite 250, llalel b. Nortli Carolne M04 Pnone- 919.733.17firi / I AX 919.733- 66931 Internet: bi!2: //h2o enrLs"- naus/ncw tlands
An Egtral Oppotturuly /Afi1rrnitlyp ncla i Fmployer wl. Recycledh0% Post Consinim PApet

Charlotte- Douglas International Airport, 30 Runway Stormwater Management Plans
DWQ Prqject No. 06- 1195v4
Page 2 of 2
March 22, 2007
1 protection of the structures from potential alternations by future property ownens of
1 managers.
1 3. The applicant and /or authorised agent shall contact the DWQ Express Review Program in writing
J at the letterhead address within lei) (10) days of the commencement of construction
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act. if you have any questions, please contact C'yndi Knroly at 919.733.9721 or Cynthia Van Der Wiele,
Ph.D. at 919.715.3473.
Sincerely,
J Cyndi Bell Karoly, Program Manager
401 Oversight, Express Review Program
CBK/cvdw
1 Attachments: NCDF?NR Memorandum describing device and protocol with Attachments 1 — S.
1 cc: USACE Asheville Regulatory Field Office
DWQ Mooresville Regional Office
1 Bradley Bennett, DWQ Stormwater Permitting Unit
Ken Pickle, nWQ Stormwater Permitting Unit
Annette Lucas, 401 Oversize ( }nit
File Copy
Central Files
l Patrick R. Turney, P.E., Talbert & Bright, 4944 Parkway Plaza Blvd., Suite 350, Charlotte, NC
l 28217
Ronald E. Geiger, PF., HDR, 128 South Tryon St., Suite 1400, Charlotte, NC 28202 -5004
l Joseph G. Battiata, P.E., Regional Regulatory Manager, 8005 -C Creighton Parkway, Suite 711,
1 Mechanicsville, VA 23111
J
1

Attachment 3
Fish and Wildlife Service Letter dated October 27. 2005
Regarding Endangered Species

United States Department of the )nteriOT
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERv10E
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
October 27, 2005
Ms. Angie Pennock
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801 -5006
Dear Ms. Pennock:
-OP
d 0-
LO 47
0
Subject: Proposed Expansion of Charlotte/Douglas International Airport (Phase 1), Charlotte,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (Action ID 200531167)
This is the report of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of the Interior on the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) public notice of an application for an individual permit
submitted by Charlotte/Douglas International Airport, represented by Mr. R. Clement Riddle of
Clearwater Environmental Consultants, Inc. (Clearwater). Information for this report is based
on a review of the individual permit application, a threatened and endangered species assessment
conducted by ClearWater, and a review of the public notice issued by the Corps. We previously
responded to an information request and a public notice issued by the Corps, on December 4,
1998, and September 3, 2003, respectively. This report is submitted in accordance with the
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661- 667e), and
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 -1543) (Act).
Project Description — As currently proposed, Phase I of the airport expansion project includes
the extension of runway I SR/361, relocation of West Boulevard, and relocation of a portion of
Old Dowd Road within about 60 acres of the 2,500 awes of land owned by Charlotte/Douglas
International Airport. Runway 18R/36L will be extended to a length of 12,000 feet by
constructing a 2,000 -foot southerly extension with parallel and connecting taxiways and
associated lighting. West Boulevard is proposed for relocation around the southerly runway
extension that will result in the closure of Byrum Road, and Old Dowd Road is proposed to be
relocated to the north of its current location. To complete the proposed construction project, the
applicant will impact about 5,978 linear feet 00 of perennial and intermittent streams, 0. 176 acre
of open water /ponds, and 0.652 acre of wetlands.

Endangered Species - Based on the information provided in the endangered species assessment
conducted by C1earWater, we concur that the proposed project will not affect endangered or
threatened species or their habitats. Therefore, we believe the requirements under section 7 of
the Act are fulfilled. However, obligations under section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if
(l) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or
critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in
a manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is
determined that may be affected by the identified action.
Fish and Wildlife Resources - We are concerned about the following issues: (1) the relocation
of Old Dowd Road, (2) the proposed construction of storm -water treatment areas using existing
streams and wetland areas in their design, (3) a mitigation plan that appears to be incomplete and
does not fully compensate for the adverse impacts to streams and wetlands, and (4) the
construction of the taxiway extension within the 100 -year floodplain.
Old Dowd Road Relocation - On page 2 of the application, under "Project Purpose,"
C1earWater stated that the three proposed activities in this phase of the project are essential and
independent of future expansion considerations. However, under the heading 3.4.1 - "Proposed
Federal Action of the Alternatives Analysis" (on page 3 -29), it is stated that "The Sponsors
Proposed Project calls for the relocation of Old Dowd Road to the north of the new third parallel
runway, keeping clear of the Runway 18R Runway Safety Area and Runway Object Free Area to
accommodate the new proposed runway." This indicates that the relocation of Old Dowd Road
is only necessary for future airport expansion and the construction of the new runway (a location
for the construction of the new runway hzs not bon finalized), and is not relevant to the
southerly extension of the existing runway 18R/36L. Therefore, the relocation of Old Dowd
Road should not be included in the current project proposal. This would remove about 0.232
acre of wetland impacts and about 2701f of stream impacts fi+om project consideration.
Storm -water Treatment Area - We are also concerned that the project plans appear to indicate
that storm -water management areas will be constructed within (i.e., on -line) existing streams and
wetlands (though no construction details are provided). We oppose the construction of on -line
structures because they significantly alter both aquatic and terrestrial habitat. The conversion of
streams and wetlands to storm -water treatment area will result in the loss of natural stream and
wetland functions, alter the hydrology, and affect native ecosystem processes within, and
downstream of, the project site. The proposed storm -water management area that occurs to the
southeast of the runway extension appears to impact about 1,863 If of stream, a 0.232 -acre pond,
and a 0.048 -acre wetland within its boundary. We suggest that the applicant construct a separate
storm -water retention areas) that does not impact existing aquatic resources. Sufficient
retention designs should be implemented to allow for the slow discharge of storm water,
attenuating the potential adverse effects of storm -water surges; thermal spikes; and sediment,
nutrient, and chemical discharges. All storm -water outlets should then drain through a vegetated
upland area prior to reaching streams or wetland areas. At no time should storm -water runoff
flow directly into a stream or wetland. We would like to review a detailed plan for the
construction of all storm -water management areas within the project area.

Floodplain Impacts - As proposed, the entire taxiway that will be constructed for the runway
extension will be within the 100 -year floodplain We strongly discourage the in -fill of 100 -year
floodplains. Doing so only increases the potential for flooding to adjacent and downstream
properties and interferes with the natural hydrological process of the waterways. In this case, the
loss of floodplain is accompanied by a considerable increase in impervious surface area, which
further intensifies the problem. We realize that it is impractical to move the taxiway to a
different location. Therefore, we recommend restoring the floodplain in a different location(s) or
excavating a new floodplain. The restoration/excavation activities should be done in previously
disturbed areas to prevent the loss of established, woody riparian areas. We remind you that
Executive Order 11988 provides direction to federal agencies to minimize flood hazards and
protect natural floodplain functions.
Stream and Wetland Impacts - Section 6.0 (Mitigation Plan), on page 16 of the permit
application, states the following: "To compensate for the unavoidable loss of stream habitat,
CLT [Charlotte/Douglas International Airport] will provide for a `no net loss' of jurisdictional
stream habitat and associated functions and values." However, no figures were given to show
how this would be accomplished. Our concerns with the mitigation plan, including the
avoidance and minimization measures addressed in the individual permit application, are as
follows:
Avoidance - Our calculations indicate that about 11,000 If of streams lie within
Phase I of the project area and that about 5,9781f will be impacted (including
those associated with the relocation of Dowd Road). The remaining streams that
have been calculated in the avoidance column on the project plans (39,665 It)
occur well outside the project area (in the western and northern sections of the
property, within the potential Phase 11 project area).
The April 2000 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Record of Decision
(ROD) for the Final Environmental Impact Statement stated concerns about
insufficient avoidance of wetland filling in the West Boulevard area (ROD,
page 54). The FAA stated that justification for filling of the wetlands in this area
would need to be clearly presented in the Section 404 permit application.
However, Section 6. 1, on page 16 of the permit application, states: `Because the
site is covered in long linear stream segments, it would be impossible to avoid all
of these streams while continuing to maintain a rational project design." It is not
clear how the wetlands referred to in the ROD relate to ClearWater's response
regarding stream impacts.
We understand that the options for extending the runway are limited; however, no
avoidance measures were listed in the application to demonstrate the steps that the
applicant has taken to lessen impacts to streams and wetlands in other parts of the
project area (i.e., constructing the storm -water treatment areas so that they are
off -line of streams and wetlands, relocating roads around wetlands, etc.).
Minimization - The minimization section of the application only explains that
measures to control sediment and erosion and best management practices will be
3

implemented to minimize impacts from the project. Because the project plan does
not explain how impacts to streams will occur (i.e., filling, piping, etc.), we are
unable to determine whether additional minimization is possible (e.g., relocating
streams instead of piping, using bridges instead of culverts).
Mitigation - We believe a detailed mitigation package needs to be completed.
Page 17 of the individual permit application lists several mitigation options but
gives no specifics about the amount of mitigation offered or the impacts that will
be mitigated. We would like the opportunity to review a complete mitigation plan
before the permit is issued for this project.
We have concerns about the proposal to use mitigation credits from Charlotte
Stone -water Services Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank. From our work with
the mitigation bank in Charlotte, we understand that the mitigation credits in the
bank are to be used only to compensate impacts from City of Charlotte
infrastructure and improvement projects. This project does not meet that criteria.
Therefore, we do not believe that credits in the Charlotte Mitigation Bank should
be used as compensation for the impacts of this project.
We are very concerned that 5281f of the 5,978 if of impacted streams will not be
mitigated because they have been designated as "unimportant" stream channels.
We are aware that some of the streams within the project site are degraded;
however, we believe the degradation is due, in part, to the past construction and
development of the airport and consequent service roads. We strongly believe
that compensatory mitigation should be calculated for impacts to all aquatic areas,
including the 5281f of stream that has been designated as `unimportant." All
streams should be protected; the collective health and functions of small
headwater streams influence the quality and health of larger streams and rivers.
Many of the impacted streams flow into the Catawba River, and their loss or
disturbance will ultimately impact the quality of the Catawba River. Moreover,
the loss of the wetlands and natural stream functions as a result of this project will
alter the hydrology and will affect native ecosystem processes within, and
downstream of, the proposed project site. Healthy stream and riparian habitats are
critical to the sustainability of all aquatic resources. Wetlands can play a major
ecological role in pollution abatement and erosion control, and wetlands located
in floodplains act as settling basins for sediment -laden runoff and floodwater.
Even in a primarily urban/suburban setting, as in the project area, wetlands and
streams provide habitat for waterfowl, migratory birds, amphibians, and reptiles
and provide spawning and nursery areas for native fish and other aquatic species.
After all avoidance and minimization measures have been exhausted and impacts
to the streams and wetland are considered unavoidable, we propose the
4

mitigation plan for all unavoidable impacts.' We prefer that all direct impacts to
the 0.652 acre of wetlands and 6,128 if of streams be mitigated with the
restoration of comparable on -site streams and wetlands at a minimum ratio of 2:1.
Because FAA requirements severely restrict opportunities for on -site mitigation,
we recommend that an off -site, in -kind mitigation plan be considered to
compensate for project impacts to streams and wetlands. Off -site, in -kind
mitigation and restoration should be figured at the same 2:1 ratio. If an off -site,
in -kind mitigation plan cannot be provided and a buy -in to the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program becomes necessary for mitigation of the stream
and wetland impacts, we recommend that the restoration ratio of 2:1 be used to
calculate the payment amount.
Conclusion - Due to the amount of floodplain impacts, the in -line storm -water management
areas, and lack of a sufficient or detailed mitigation plan, we ask that this permit be held in
abeyance until these items are addressed. We would also like to review a detailed rationale for
the relocation of Old Dowd Road and a more detailed construction plan for controlling and
treating storm -water runoff from the project area both during (i.e., erosion and sediment control,
best management practices, etc.) and after (i.e., storm -water retention ponds, rain gardens, etc.)
project construction.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these continents. If we can be of further assistance or
if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Bryan Tompkins of our staff at
828/258 -3939, Ext. 240. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference
our Log Number 4 -2 -96 -021.
Sin ly,
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
Ms. Becky Fox, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1349 Firefly Road, Whittier, NC 28789
Mr. Ron Linville, Western Piedmont Region Reviewer, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 3855 Idlewild Road, Kernersville, NC 27284 -9180
Mr. Jerry Orr, Airport Manager, Aviation Department, CharlotteJDouglas International Airport,
P.O. Box 19066, Charlotte, NC 28219
'AS previously mentioned, we believe there should be mitigation for all impacts, including the 5281f of
"unimportant" stream channel. We also believe the pond that will be impacted by the relocation of Old Dowd Road
should be calculated as stream impacts (about 1501f) because the pond is an on -line structure (if the relocation of
Old Dowd Road remains a part of this project). Our recommended mitigation package will include this amount.

CLEARWATER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS INC.
Threatened and Endangered Species Assessment
For
Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthus schweinkii)
Charlotte/Douglas International Airport
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
USACE Action ID 200531 167
October 6, 2005
l .0 INTRODUCTION
The following report includes methods used and results for a threatened and
endangered (T&E) species survey and habitat assessment for Schweinitz's Sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzh) for the relocation of West Boulevard, the relocation of Old
Dowd Road, and the extension of Runway 18R/36L for CharlottelDouglas International
Airport. The location of Charlotte/ Douglas International Airport and the specific
project site is shown on the attached figures 1 -3. Completion of this survey was
directed by and complies with three current state and federal regulations: the Federal
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 - 1543), North Carolina Endangered
Species Act (N.C.G.S. Sect. 113 article 25), and North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979 (N.C.G.S. Sect. 19b 106: 202.12- 22).This study was
completed at the request of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, letter dated 3
September 2003.
2.0 Schweinitz's Sunflower
Federally listed as endangered, this species is found within prairie remnants, woods
edge, utility line easements, and road right -of -ways. Areas with clay soils and high
gravel content are preferred. Some form of disturbance such as fire is necessary to
maintain open habitat for this species. This species is commonly associated with
other disturbed area species such as, winged sumac, goldenrod, blackberry, red -bud,
scrub oaks, wild grapes, and broom sedge. The plant is a perennial with a tuberous
root system. It has one to several hairy and scabrous stems that are up to ten feet
tall. Leaves are opposite or the uppermost alternate, lanceolate, hairy, scabrous, 3 -6
inches long and %z -1 inch wide. Flowers are yellow discs with a greenish yellow or
yellow center. Flowering occurs September through October.
224 South Grove Street, State F
Hendersonville. North Coroltno 28792
Phone: [phone] Fox: 828.698 -9()D3
www.c venvcom

3.0 SURVEY AND FINDINGS
On September 16, 2005 staff from C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc visited
the Latta Nature Center near Charlotte, NC for the purpose of viewing Schweinitz's
Sunflower i i bloom and its associated habitat (Pictures attached).
A protected species survey was conducted within the project area (Figure 2) on the
aftemoon of September 16, 2005 and the entire day of September 21, 2005. This
survey was conducted within suitable open habitat to determine the potential for
occun-ences of Schweinitz's Sunflower
The Sunflower study consisted of a pedestrian survey. During the field survey, transect
walks were conducted across the suitable open and disturbed habitat (pictures attached).
Potential flora and fauna were identified to the taxonomic unit level necessary to
determine if the observed specimen was a protected species. A plant list for the survey
site is included in Section 4.0 below. Plants were identified to the lowest taxonomic
level readily discernible in the field during the time of survey. No Schweinitz's
Sunflower was observed.
4.0 PLANT LIST
Tree
Acer rubrum
AWNS Julibrissin
Cercis cenadensis
DioSW= Virginia
Elaeagnus angustifolia
Junorus virginiana
Lagersbmmia indica
Uquidamber styracifiva
Udodendron tulipifera
Oxydendron arboreum
Pinus teeda
Pinus virginiane
Populus deltoides
Robinia psuedocaccia
Quercus albs
Quercus falcata
Quercus phellos
Shrub
Baccharis halimifolie
Ligustrum sinense
Pinus taeda
Pinus virginiana
Rhus copallinum
Rosa multifiora
Rubus spp.
Sassafras albidum
red maple
mimosa
redbud
persimmon
Russian olive
eastern red cedar
crape myrtle
sweetgum
yellow poplar
sourwood
loblolly pine
Virginia pine
Cottonwood
black locust
white oak
southern red oak
willow oak
groundsel
privet
loblolly pine
Virginia pine
winged sumac
rose
blackberry
sassafras

Herb
Alopecurus sp.
Ambrosia sp.
Andropogon virginicus
Asclepia sp.
6idens aristosa
Daucus carota
Eupatorium capillifolium
Eupatorium perfoliatum
Helianthus atrorubens
Helianthus strumosus
Juncus effusus
Lespedeze sp.
Lonicera japonica
Panicum sp.
Paspilum dilatatum
Phytolacca americana
Pueraria lobate
Rubus sp.
Smilax sp.
Solidago sp.
Toxicdendron radicans
Vids; sp.
5.o CONCLUSION
(oxtail
ragweed
broomsedge
Milkweed
Tickseed Sunflower
queen anne's lace
dog fennel
common boneset
appalachian sunflower
woodland sunflower
soft rush
bushclover
Japanese honeysuckle
panicum
dallis grass
pokeweed
kudzu
blackberry
greenbriar
golden rod
poison Ivy
grape
Disturbed areas and suitable habitat on -site were systematically surveyed. Based on
that survey as above described, Schweinitz's Sunflower does not exist on the subject
property.
Although no federally listed threatened and endangered species were identified
during these surveys, because of the transitory nature of some of the listed threatened
and endangered species and the particular flower/fruiting periods of some plants, it is
possible that endangered species populations and locations may change over time.
Therefore, any potential findings at a later date should be fully investigated and
coordinated with appropriate agencies to prevent potential adverse impacts.

�`RLrC F

•v_:.-.o t •[ - -., -7 �3 "y.. x_114. \'."�C�,.�`.:i - �;7�:�'�1 .���`! ... 'y'., �•t
.� C"'111y1 e,.i �l X71 5 r c C �'„• _
tom!'. '''r rCr` I..ii �4.�_� �{r � ! •� _�� rrl YJ. •.1 I,: f.�li' ��' t a� 1•
!�� i�•,�Y"�'��1::;I � "�41_l ~:`i.•' ��r./ ..t "''.�:j• �(l(�2 -' r- •�' •1 •,� � 1,,:
I�I ;I " :!iQ'1 / J f'...— _ ��'•�li �f�l -' � ��`'.• �.r,..- - ?�•
. -..
7ji
. }� r `'
� r .:� �.C�:':�'"• }`I ( ��t`Ct�\` �li �l..l �, �1 ))'� � 17 r � 1 R � � Lei
rte'• —i�� >>`..`'� ` _ � f ' ��= :���r.�1 �':\•`�` =Y � :.�f %l.�i ✓� - `"� r ri
tj�`c'— � I C• �' _• - r ^� \' r•F `• � ` �'�\ ` \i' r• u �,� r / J rJ:
r,...�. � r t�. �. ,��- � 1i 1♦ ._ 1- "r /- v•'�a� `\'a '�l•''�._ }�... .�+ '� ,.,. 'z •- .. �5 •, I r.
IT C\ � ` .r. �,, J.'�It ^�,! ="�J �` 'rllee•`k"� �I�,r"t,�"'Y'�5'„-��I. l�r ,r, `...`2`.--- c�"I'�`�FJ�(�SxJ'� , l`1,�,
� �1 ti : �. ` F�` • ' .i�'U. � � � � ' (� " t J •,([.> i E! it �; � �`�
r i
i 1� i� `� � I ! � `��t�,,tl��ill{� ��� ��y14�� 4� �� loµu•'fs J !
� 1 % _5 , I l.. �� I.,.�4tT)�y <�'1 `1 •�5 r -,'r�� \Q % f,� y.. �� �Ii" .,..
I ` � I . / ` / �j' �'Y/ O.� /� ` ..fA � I KS•Fy •.I� � ��C" `l ,. I
J � 1
•t 4 k �,�
I �5rs�l/ �� \� y• .��, �� r;� 9 fib {1 �3 ��� .�
i — �ptx'j�� >I 1' �� tea, �•^�.[!� V4�, ;+: ac,:
t
!
; 1
1!0., ��
,
( r"
`�': �. `Jl:i��.' !Iii• �. , ��.1}w'�.4✓�'J�J�15�1�. �i'i ,- !���7� u .'7! , \-; e�� � ' ,�{N' r , 4 I` �iy�1
'tl`rC��.�� ��h�4'�'i: -�w (�tti� .^ r �c:V ��� i � � . t,+ r 1 �i �, s,:. << r•'• J5
-MM

�i
1�
d
1�
i
J
CD
1 •.
a
1
is
1
It
1 ,
•~ -• 1 1 IRni�f��l
r. - ------------------ .- --... ,:•::� ��� �• 1•• r 7
IIIPOSEO. � Ir. • . . , � � -
D
nn
gJ,10
oU0
ouI
D�
oil
o�
0
pj
i T
V,
Charlotte- Dopglas
I.111Y111..11 11110.♦
2005 PERMIT 1
LEGEND
11
PROJECT BOUNDARY
PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS
IMPORTANT INTERMME141
STREAM CHANNEL (IIS)
1 v
_i-
UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (UI)
PONDS
�(
WETLANDS
L11
LF
LINEAR FEET
1 ,
•~ -• 1 1 IRni�f��l
r. - ------------------ .- --... ,:•::� ��� �• 1•• r 7
IIIPOSEO. � Ir. • . . , � � -
D
nn
gJ,10
oU0
ouI
D�
oil
o�
0
pj
i T
V,
Charlotte- Dopglas
I.111Y111..11 11110.♦
2005 PERMIT 1
na NAME WETlAOOM006 PSWff I=% FM%L POW I EMM • PAGE M ON 6 M I /.MXD PRIMED AUGt= 2006 WALE V • 2.006
110

1
Cyll
.4 �,1j�^'�� 15.4• .. - �i.:•'
_
�.
1

his
1 \
1�� �•i
�
l
—
-�
,
j
_
,
1
E �
- 1� 1
t
. 1
� -
c
I
�'�
i�• ���
�r
x a
� -
���).
1 i
.` �... � �� ,.
� 1 �
r � � :
,�
�
�•y4
1
i �� �
I �
1
��
., .
�
� �
-
`,��
- ,1,� �
_ _,_fro, ����-
,;�
�
� \_
�
•�` ,
.y •.a �
I .
i'
4 ��
_
�.
� �1 .—
� ��
,�'��
�
'F. �-�
ti
4.
�
-
� i(�.
r \
\y
`�
r
I
11

�•� � ,ice
1�
'Ilk
✓ °
,
S1 '
1. ..
_� � °
, 'r ' �
� � . �.• � �
r

Attachment 4
ClearWatei Environmental Consultants, Inc Third Runway and Wallace Neel Road
Endangered Species Survey
September of 2006

Threalened Anti Endangered Species Assessment
fur
Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthiis sch►tpeininii)
Charlotte /Douglas International Airport
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
USACE Action ID 2006 -32521 -360
September 21, 2006
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following report includes methods used and results for a threatened and
endangered (T&E) species survey and habitat assessment for Schweinitz's Sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzir) for the relocation of Wallace Neal, the relocation of Old
Dowd Road, and the construction of the 3`d Parallel Runway for Charlotte/Douglas
international Airport. The location of Charlotte/Douglas International Airport and
the specific project site is shown on the attached Figure 1. Completion of this survey
was directed by and complies with three current state and federal regulations: the
Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (I 6 USC 1531-1543), North Carolina
Endangered Species Act (N.C.G.S. Sect. 113 article 25), and North Carolina Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979 (N.C.G.S. Sect. 19b 106: 202.12- 22).This
study was completed at the request of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, letter dated
27 July 2006.
2.0 Schweinitz's Sunflower
Federally listed as endangered, this species is found within prairie remnants, woods
edge, utility line easements, and road tight -of -ways (Barden 1997; Schafale and
Weakley 1990; Franklin and Finnegan 2006). Clay soils and high gravel content are
preferred. Some form of disturbance such as fire is necessary to maintain open
habitat for this species. This species is commonly associated with other disturbed
area species such as, winged sumac, goldenrod, blackberry, red -bud, scrub oaks,
wild grapes, and broom sedge. The plant is a perennial with a tuberous root system.
It has one to several hairy and scabrous stems that are up to ten feet tall. Leaves are
opposite or the uppermost alternate, lanceolate, hairy, scabrous, 3 -6 inches long and
1/2-1 inch wide. Flowers are yellow discs with a greenish yellow or yellow center.
Flowering occurs September through October (Radford et al. 1964).

3.0 SURVEY AND FINDINGS
on Septemhcl 20 -21, 2006 staff from CleasWatet F.nvlronnlental Consultants. Inc
visited the Latta Nature Centel new Charlotte. NC fir the purpose of viewint,
Schwelnit% s StlnfloNver In bloom alit) Its associated habitat
A protected species survey was conducted within the project area on the afternoon of
September 20. 2006 and the entire day of September '_ 1. 2006 This survey was
conducted within suitable open habitat to determine the potential loo occulTences of
SchwemllL's Sunflower.
The Sunflower study consisted ol'a pedestrian survey. During the field survey, transect
walks were conducted across the suitable open and disturbed habitat (pictures attached).
Potential flora and fauna were identified to the taxonomic unit level necessary to
determine if the observed specimen was a protected species. A plant list for the survey
site is included in Section 4.0 below. Plants were identified to the lowest taxonomic
level readily discernible in the field during the time of survey (Radford et al. 1964)
No Schweinitz's Sunflower was observed.
4.0 PLANT LIST
Tree
Acer rubrum
Albizia julibrissin
Cerds canadensis
Diospyrus Virginia
Elaeagnus angustifolia
Fagus grandif9ora
Fraxinus Americana
Jugluns nigra
Juniperus virginiana
Lagerstroemia indica
Liquidambar styraciflua
Uriodendron tulipifera
Oxydendron arboreum
Anus taeda
Pinus virginiana
Populus deltoides
Quercus alba
Quercus falcate
Quercus phellos
Robinia psuedocaccia
Tilia Americana
red maple
mimosa
redbud
persimmon
Russian olive
American Beech
American Ash
walnut
eastern red cedar
crape myrtle
sweetgum
yellow poplar
soutwood
loblolly pine
Virginia pine
Cottonwood
white oak
southern red oak
willow oak
black locust
basswood

Shrub
Baccharis halim►folia
Camellia sp
Carya tomenosa
Ligustrum japonica
Ligustrum sinense
Pinus laeda
Pinus virginiana
Rhus copallinum
Rosa multiflore
Rubus spp
Sassafras albidum
Herb
groundsel
flowering camellia
mockernut hickory
privet
privet
loblolly pine
Virginia pine
winged sumac
rose
blackberry
sassafras
Alopecurus sp.
foxtail
Ambrosia sp
ragweed
Andropogon virginicus
broomsedge
Asclepia sp.
Milkweed
Sidens aristosa
Tickseed Sunflower
Crotolaria spectabilis
rattlebox
Daucus carota
queen anne's lace
Eupatorium capillifolium
dog fennel
Eupetorium perfoliatum
common boneset
Juncus effusus
soft rush
Lespedeza sp.
bushclover
Lonicera japonica
Japanese honeysuckle
Mictostegia vimineum
Japanese knotgrass
Panicum sp.
panicum
Paspilum dilatatum
dallis grass
Phytolacca americana
pokeweed
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Pueraria lobata
kudzu
Rubus sp.
blackberry
Rudbeckia hirta
blackeyed susan
Smilax sp.
greenbriar
Solidago sp.
golden rod
Toxicdendron radicans
poison Ivy
Tripsacum dactyloides
gamma grass
Vitis sp.
grape
5.0 CONCLUSION
Disturbed areas and suitable habitat on -site were systematically surveyed. Based on
the survey as above described, it is the opinion of ClearWater Environmental
Consultants, Inc., that Schweinitz's Sunflower does not exist on the subject property.
Although no federally listed threatened and endangered species were identified
during these surveys, because of the transitory nature of some of the listed threatened
and endangered species and the particular flower /fruiting periods of some plants, it is
possible that endangered species populations and locations may change over time.
Therefore. any potential findings at a later date should he fully investigated and
coordinated with appropriate agencies to prevent potential adverse impacts.

RESOURCES C1Tfa,D
Barden. L.S 1907 Historic Prairies in the Piedmont of North and South Carolina.
USA Natural Areas Journal 17: 149 -152
F'ratiklin, M.A., and J.T. Finnegan. 2006. Natural Heritage Program List of Rare
Plant Species of North Carolina. The N.0 Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. Raleigh, N.C. 136 pp.
Radford, A.E.. H.E. Ashles and C.R. Bell 1964. Manual of the Vascular Flora of
the Carolinas. The l;niversity of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, NC.
1183 pp.
Schafale, M.P., and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities
of North Carolina: third approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program Division of Parks and Recreation. North Carolina Dept. of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 325 pp.

L'nitcd States Department of the Interior
piSH ti�r►tt�c Add 010l� ftYiCE
1F4 ziUitO& Stri
Aer111. None UOIIIp 21'01
December 4,1998
Mr. KoDect D Rr1'a�'' Ecologf k
p�tYitocm�t 8 A�1°0logy►. LLC
6948 OL%Wv d Drive, suites 20166 202
Floattrc. Rcotucky 4104=
peu yr. Art+eshcY: Qtalotte.
lote•flotgea ]nemetionel Aipc.
Subject: PtoPotd experoton of Chi
MmUenburg Covmy. North CV06ne
1098 tv Dr. Wd1le Taylor �OR}co o ast�diu1
We receivd a copy o f )var letter of November 3, Wasbiagt n, D.C..
Eafia►tuttzntal Policy and CMpliancc, DepagmeDt oftbc lrttorwr.
act Statemrnh for the t'ttalottaDoudla
odditiontl uttt+rn++hon on the Drtilt Entrirty. No t h Carolina. We are ptotriding dtt following
tntenutional Airport. ,.14Cd abazg County. No•
corttoetttt in aoco^dttna'OVitb the ptovjdons of Simon 7 of dig EndanBc� SPeC1cc Act of 19'73.
er Mended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543 (wal~
vide! the ce7ttlj ofintenavc gwvcye fm My plants within the pro ject arQa,
to Putt lute you ya'o tj.0f wa rind woodind edge IN *911 a otha potvMie)
Tit aum,cr focused on existing with Y
Iubio far SthaeWu
't 9ynQoa�ec (XelloNbur JdnKinlai,� sad OeotEia arts (Asrcr
10o1laans). SurrcYe Were perf°cm°d Ocubu 13.16.1998.
We have rteotde ul' Schwoiats'e sunttoua Ewa uW the MocklettbW Cvuaty project eira In
nu- lctt,-r orDeeeetibo 14. 1995. we tccatntnandcd a GeW:ttrvey to ddortttiao the yresettce or
ahRtna of thte ripecies or its habitat. In our September IQ, 1998. letter, we M OU0,Mded
mod for flelmrrzAw! jrCAw ini 0. Ateo�L'
oddhiunol surveys to coincide o►itb the flowecini P ofthe Fadrzsl epedes of oonceczt ^ere
to yore Icttt ir. nctther Scbwcinitz'o aanGcwa :or;W .The phof COT v Included f
lot:ated in the proposed i9ansion area daft tho in eve ve swvt yr
of characters of.grrer party. We thaolore
o►itb your iattx set► helpNl to dtsanairg ttaporu 'oct Al not olfeet endaet� or
Dow aoncurwith you dctermittiaoon that the propoeod vh
thtcitancd tpecics or theli habiteo. R'c belist<e the regttiremrnzs iz+tdu Section 7 of die filet tat
lultflkd. However, obhgationa tinder Section 7 of tDo� pmt be xPxi�s oricTiitica�1
infurntstion reve4o impecu Gf this ldcatlfied acbvn to tU'

bsbitat in a ma R not pam'iously cowidsrv�, (2) this action i subsequs�nrly in fled in a
n,wo,w Tat wud not cuttstdencd it) 16 review, or (1) J naw sPantS la listed ar critical babitV ig
Jctcrcnined tbat rimy be dfrr -tcd by the identified action
y
We apprcciau the opp to rovide these comments. if we can be Of arty A"im :e or if
otY P
you twee say questions, p!eaao do not bcsitste to ecWact Mt. Maria A. � C°�I Of 01dr
82VJ1 9.3091 kAt.117. In any fatutre t�orrwPondonoe oonccnun: D 7 A
our Log Number d- 2.96.021.
gIOCRC r y'
stiim P. Cole
state svp"turr
cc;
Dc Willie R Taylor, Dimtot, Office of P.nvirq=cntal Policy acrd ComML31ue,
Lt S. Depar=,cot of the Intaior, Interior Building. 1849 C Street, IdW
Waahbl�tM DC 211 =40

Attachment 5
Cultural Resources Memorandum ot' Agreement
January 6. 2000

JAN, -01' 00(FRU
0951
GHAR1,011'E/000GLAS
INT' L AIRFUHT TEL: JU4 359 403U
01/06/2000
09:)l
4fi43C57155
ATLANTA ADO
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Jsmcs H. Hunt Jt, GWCMDr
Only Rey McCain, SCaetrry
August 11, 2999
Thomes M. Roberts
Program Manager
Federal Aviation Administration
Airpprts District Office
1701 Columbia Avenue, Suite 2 -260
College Park, GA 30337.2747
Re! MOA for Charlotte- Douuglas International Airport
Mecklenburg County, ER99.8616
Dear Mr. Roberts:
r uul
PAGE 02
Division of Archives led Hlslory
kNtey J Clow. Qiteclor
Enclosed please find the Memorandum of Agreement for the improvements at Charlotte.
Douglas International Airport. I have signed the agreement and am returning it to you for
signature by the airport's director and submission to the Advisory Council on historic
Preservation.
The Advisory Coutact7's new regulations do not require them to sign the agreement.
However, they must file it with the necessary documentation for it to become effective.
Please provide us with a copy of the fully executed agreement and notify to when it has been
filed.
Thank you for yourrooperacion and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill - Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/7334169.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Crow
State Historic Preservation Officer
Enclosure
CC. Advisory Council
Charlotte/ Mecklenburg HPC
m

r.
CHARLOTTE /DOUGLAS INT' L AIRPORT' T'EL 1U4 359 4UJU PAGE uuj
SAN,•0]'00IFRI) 09 :52 4043071155 ATLANTA ADD
'01/06/ ?000 09:31
Memorandum of Agreement
Between the
Federal Aviation Administration and
North Carolina 5tote Historic Preservation Officer
for the
Charlotte /Douglas International Airport
Mecklenburg County, North County
Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.6(b)(2)
WHEREAS, the Federal Aviation Administration --(FAA)
he Under
FQCfis determined aking)
implementation of development and /or air traffic
resulting from its approval of changes to the Airport layout Plan (ALP) for the
Charlotte /Douglas International Airport, which include the construction of a third
parallel runway, a 2000 -f out runway extension, development of associated ancillary
f a�ilities, and implementation of noise abatement measures and are described in
the Airport's Master Plan and Final Environmental Impost Stotcment may offeCl
historic properties, including both structures and greheological sites, which are
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP): and
WHEREAS, the FAA has consulted with the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
(Council) pursuant to the regulations at 36 CFR Part 800, implementing Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U,S.C. 470(f)); and
WHEREAS, the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, the operator of
Charlotte /Douglas International Airport (Airport), has participated in the process
and has been invited to concur in this Memorandum of Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, the FAA. the Airport, and the SHpO agree that the proposed
undertaking shall be implemented in accordance with the following stipulations in
order to take into account the effect of the undertaking on historic properties,
STIPULATIONS
FAA will ensure thol the following measures are carried out'

CHARl,011V000660 INI L AIKFUKI Itl,• guy " "" FAGE 04
JAN..- 0 Y 00 (FR I) 09;53 ATLANTA ADD
bl /06/ ?000 09;j1 Ad43057155
A. Hlstoric Structures
The Airport in consultotion with the 5HPO sholl evaluate treasures to allow
the .5gmue1 Brown Farm (MK1874) to remain standing. Such measures
shall Include options for odapiive reuse, - stabilizolion and preservotlon,
and /or the possibility of moving the structures) to aa new oca rehabilitation, n. If ,
after consultation with the 5HPO, no feasible and p en
adaptive reuse. and /or relocation of the property(s) is found, the Airport
shall carry out the recordation plan attached as Appendix A. Demolition of
affected properties will be conducted in such a way as to minimize
disturbance of the back yard(s) of such properties and potential
archeological deposits on said property W.
2. The followipg structures are located in areas subject to aircraft noise
exposure levels greater than 65dP based on the Day -Night Average sound
level metric (DNL) and are not a compatible land use in accordance with 14
CFR Part 150, b A150.101, Table 1: or are located in on area that may be
subject to an increase of more than 3 d8 within 60 DNL resulting from the
proposed action and are also considered to be of fected by the introduction
of new noise.
f Or Richard A. Query House AW1373W
4 .Tohn Dotylas House (AW361):
4 Asbury NOUSC 091874
4 Samuel grown faun (540874): and
4 Sprott -brier farmhouse and Slave House (AW 875).
These structures are eligible for sound attenuation under the provisions of
the Airport's Noise Compatibility Program approved under the provisions
of 14 CFA Part 150 and, when sound attenuation is completed, these
structures will be considered compatible land uses. Prior to initiating any
project- related modifications to these structures to accommodate the
sound attenuation, the Airport will consult with the 5HP0 and develop
plans and specifications for the proposed modification of the structures.
Any proposed modification to these structures for sound attenuation, will
be conducted In a manner consistent with The Secretory of the Interior's
5taa dords. for Rehabilitotlon and GuidelineRelitat�n_g Historic
But dins (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1992)
and in accordance with the plans and specifications agreed to by the
Airport and SHPO.
2

CHARLOTTE /DOUGLAS INT' I, AIRPORT TEL :[phone] P. OUP
JAN. -07' DO(FRI) 09 :53 PAGE 06
01/06; 2oo0 09:31 4e43057155 gTLnN1a ADD
3, The Airport in consultation with the 5HPO shall evaluate and implement
measures to minimize potential impacts resulting from the relocation of
West Boulevard on the Dr Richard A. Query House (MK1373) Such
measures shall include providing a landscaped buffer area between the
roadway and the affected property.
S. Archeological Resources
The FAA shall ensure that the Airport prepares and implements on
archaeological dato recovery plan for the Wynn Sire (31MK811) and the
&tc/ Site (31MK814). This pion will be consistent with the standards
included in the 5ecrelgrr�r of the Interiors Standards and Guidelines for
Archeolo and ;storic Preservation Projects (48 FR 44716 -42).
Hereinafter "Standards and Guidelines ". The plan will identify the
research questions that will be addressed, by the data recovery effort and
the field and laboratory methodologies that will be used to address the
identified research questions. The plan myst be submitted to the FAA and
5HPO for review and comment. Unless the SHIRO objects within 15 days
of ter receipt of the plan, the FAA shall ensure the plan Is implemented.
2. Prior to any disturbance of lands immediately surrounding the freeinan
House (/NK1363►), the Airport will conduct qn archeological survey to
enable the FAA and SHPO to determine the presence of archeological
features potentially eligible for the NRHP. This investigation will be
conducted in consultatioh with the 5HP0 and In a Manner consistent with
the "Standards and 6uidelines". If the site is determined eligible, a data
recovery pion will be prepared and implemented In the some manner as
outlined in Stipulation 8.1.
3. The FAA agrees to ensure that all materials and records resulting from
excavations of the Wynn Sire (31AIK811 ), the Ertel Stile (3lMX814), and
any other sites investigated and determined eligible for the N4tionol
Register, will be curated in accordance with 36 CFR Part 79. The Airport
agrees to provide to the FAA and SHPO all final historic. and archaeological
reports resulting from actions taken pursuant to Stipulations 9.1 and 8.2
of this agreement, Such reports are to be prepared in accordance with
the SHPO's most current Specificotions for Archaeolo icq l Field Reports
and " 5tandards and Guidelines ".
3

JAN. -07' 00 ( F R I ) 09:54 CHARLOTTMOUGLAS I N I L A I NYUN I ItL. /UN JJy 4UJU r, Uuo PAGE 86
b1/86/26u8 69:31 404�b57155
AIIANTA ADO
4. In the event previously unknown archeological resources are discovered
during construction:
o. The Airport will cease work in the immediate area of the previously
unknown archaeological resources and the FAA and 5HPO will be
notif ied, The FAA and 5HP0 will determine the eligibility and
slgnif iconce of any artifacts discovered.
b. If it is determined that the site is eligible for the NRHP. the FAA. SHPO,
the ACHP, and Airport shall consult to determine appropriate mitigation
measures for the site.
C. General Stipulations
1. The FAA shall ensure that the work carried out pursuant to this Agreement is
carried out under the direct supervision of o person or persons meeting at
o rnlnimum the professional qualifications set forth in the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards and Guidelines.
2. If the SHPO or FAA object in writing, within 15 days, to any plans,
specifications or recommendations submitted pursuant to the terms of
this Agreement, then the FAA, the SHPO, and the Airport shall consult to
resolve any objections which have been raised. If the FAA determines
that the ob jectionsM cannot be resolved by such consultation with the
SHFQ, the FAA shall request further comments of the Council pursuant to
36 CFA Part 800.6(b)(1)(y), The agency official agrees to consider any
Council comment provided In response to such o request in accordance with
the provisions of 36 CFR Part 800,7(c)(4). This requirement shall be
applicable only to 'the mottor which is the subject of the unresolved
ob jectlon. The FAA agrees that Its responsibility to carry out all other
actions provided for under this Agreement, not the subject of an
unresolved qb jection, will remain unchanged.
3. If any of the parties to this agreement believe that an gmendment or on
addendum to the agreement is necessary, that party shall imrr►ediotely
notify the other parities and request consultation to consider an
amendment or addendum to this agreement. The process of amending or
exeeuting an addendum to the ogreement shall be The some as that
exercised in creating the original agreement. In the event of an
amendment or an addendum, the FAA will comply with 36 CFR Pori
9

dpN, 01' OWN) 0954 CHARLOTTE/ DOUGLAS INT' L AIRPORT 'I'LL: 704 359 40 1) r. U1J
O1 /b6 /?0bd 09:.11 4843a5715b ATLAWA A00 PAGE 87
H00.6(U) (71
4 Any consulting party to this agreement moy terminate it by providing 30 days
written notice to the other parties, provided that the parties will consult
during the period prior to the Termination to seek agreement on
amendments or other actions That would avoid termination. In the event
of termination, the FAA will comply with 36 CFR Ports 800.7(0).
Execution of this Memorandum of Agreergent and implementation of its terms
evidence that FAA has afforded the 5HPO and the Council an opportunity to
comment on the undertaking and its effects on historic properties, and that FAA
has taken into account the of f ects of the undertaking on historic properties.
FEDE L AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
` 8 5 A?
Scott Seritt, Manager (Date)
Atlanta Airports District Office
NORTH CAROLINA HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
Zq
Jef fr y (Dote)
State Historic Preservation Officer
CONCVR:
T, J. Orr, A iat on Dircctor
Chvrlotte /D as International Airport
5
1, tv • 00
(Dote)