20001195 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20050907 (2)

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
151 PATTON AVENUE
ROOM 208
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801-5006
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF? July 28, 2005
Regulatory Division
Action ID. 199831056
Mr. J. T. Orr, Airport Manager
Charlotte Douglas International Airport
Post Office Box 19066
Charlotte, North Carolina 28219
Dear Mr. Orr:
R-7 F
%
o? C a?9%
?
zoa?
AEG 1 -
BE p,ND SjpR4r?A ERBRf?CH
WESTDS
Reference is made to the Public Notice dated July 31, 2003 in which we described the
extension of a runway, the construction of an additional runway and the relocation of Wallace
Neal Road to the east side of I-485, at the Charlotte International Airport, Charlotte,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Adverse impacts to waters of the US associated with the
original project were 45,801 if of streams, 3.78 acres of wetlands, and 8.59 acres of open water.
Reference is also made to our letter dated March 7, 2005 in which we elected to retire your
application due to the significant changes that were made to the original project as well concerns
over what was described in the Federal Aviation Administration Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) versus what was contained in the permit application, primarily with regard to the
potential relocation of Wallace Neal Road to the west side of I-485 as well as other construction
projects that were either not mentioned in the EIS or were inadequately described in this
document.
As the Corps of Engineers is a cooperating agency in the development of the EIS, it is
incumbent upon lead Federal Agency, in this case the FAA, to address our concerns relative to
the requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). This would include a
description of the actions under consideration, an analysis of alternatives to the proposed actions,
and a description of the adverse and beneficial impacts associated with each. Provided these
issues are adequately addressed, we may adopt the EIS as our decision document.
On July 15, 2005 Mr. David Baker of the Asheville Regulatory Field Office met with
Messrs. John Hennessey and Jack Christine to discuss changes to the proposed airport
improvements, including the relocation of Wallace Neal Road to the west side of I-485,
compensatory mitigation, and the permit application process relative to the EIS. These issues are
more fully addressed below:
Compensatory mitigation will be required for all unavoidable impacts associated with
this project including impacts to "unimportant" stream channels. According to Mr. Hennessey,
you wish to utilize the Charlotte Mitigation Bank to provide such mitigation. While this may be
acceptable, final approval of the type and amount of required mitigation can only be made after
opportunity for public comment, agency review of the proposed project, and our analysis for
compliance with the 404 (b) (1) Guidelines. We can, however, provide you with an estimate of
the amount of mitigation required for your project once the magnitude of the impacts are known.
Use of mitigation credit from this bank is subject to the terms and conditions of the Mitigation
Banking Instrument (MBI). Of particular importance is the requirement that the Bank have
mitigation credits available; advance sale of credits at the bank is not allowed. In the event that
such credits were not available, we would have no choice but to deny your request to utilize the
Bank. It has been our experience that the development of a mitigation plan can be a lengthy
process. The Wilmington District will not issue a permit until a final compensatory mitigation
plan has been approved (Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 02-2, December 24, 2002).
It is our understanding that the FAA is preparing a supplement to the EIS in which
alternatives to the relocation of Wallace Neal Road relative to the construction of a new runway
will be described. Furthermore, it is your intention to revise your permit application such that
only the proposed runway extension would be permitted initially, and that a later request for DA
authorization to construct the new runway and relocate Wallace Neal Road will be made
sometime after draft supplement to the EIS is released for comment. This may be acceptable
provided the FAA concurs that the runway extension is a separate and complete project with
independent utility, that the runway extension does not preclude alternatives for future activities,
including the proposed new runway and the relocation of Wallace Neal Road, and that the
extended runway serves a logical or major function at the airport, whether or not other
improvements are made.
We understand that you wish to apply for DA authorization to construct the new runway
and relocate Wallace Neal Road at the time the draft supplemental EIS is released for comment.
You may wish to reconsider the timing of your application. We will not accept an application
without final design plans for the proposed runway and road relocation. You may wish to defer
making those final designs until after the draft supplemental EIS has been completed and has
been through the public review and comment process. Once our review of the document and
comments has been completed, we can concur, in general, with the selection of a preferred
alternative. While this does not constitute a final permit decision on our part, nor a final decision
on the preferred alternative should new information arise, it does allow you to proceed with
design of the project with some assurance that we would not reconsider alternatives that were
already analyzed in the EIS in our permit review.
Questions or comments regarding this correspondence may be directed to Mr. David
Baker, Asheville Regulatory Field Office, telephone [phone] extension 225.
Si cerel ,
G
Scott McLendon
Chief, Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Copy furnished:
Ms. Rebecca Fox
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1349 Firefly Road
Whittier, North Carolina 28789
Mr. Ronald J. Mikulak, Chief
Wetlands Section - Region IV
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Mr. Brian Cole
Asheville Field Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Mr. Cyndi Karoly
N.C. Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 276041
R.Clement Riddle
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792
Mr. Parks Preston, Program Manager
Federal Aviation Administration
1701 Columbia Avenue
Campus Building, Suite 2-260
College Park, Georgia 30337
t
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4

Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 - 8960
November 23, 2005
Colonel John E. Pulliam Jr.
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
ATTN: Ms. Angie Pennock
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
SUBJ: Charlotte-Douglas International Airport
Action ID: 200531167
Dear Colonel Pulliam:
R@ffl?vg
Q
NO 2 8 2005
WET DENK. QUA""'
This letter is in reference to the application by the Charlotte-Douglas International
Airport, described in the above referenced Public Notice (PN) dated September 26, 2005. The
application is for an expansion of the airport's current facilities in Mecklenberg County, North
Carolina and includes the following activities: construction of a 2000 foot runway extension for
runway 18R/36L and relocations of West Boulevard and a portion of Old Dowd Road. To
accomplish these activities the applicant proposes to impact 5,450 linear feet of perennial/inter-
mittent and important streams, 0.176 acres of open waters/ponds and 0.652 acres of wetlands.
The PN does not discuss mitigation plans but the permit application package states the applicant
proposes to either purchase mitigation credits from the Mecklenberg County/City of Charlotte
Mitigation Bank or provide other off-site mitigation. The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Region 4, has reviewed the project information contained in the PN and the application
package and offers the following comments.
It is not clear from reading the application information why the Old Dowd Road
relocation is part of this application. The application states the activities proposed for this permit
are "... essential and independent of future expansion considerations." From reviewing the
proposed project plans it is not apparent as to why this road would need to be relocated to
construct the extension of runway 18R/36L. If this is not needed for the proposed runway
extension, EPA recommends it be deleted from this project proposal.
It appears from reviewing the project plans that a portion of the project to provide
stormwater treatment will impact jurisdictional waters of the United States. EPA generally does
not support "on-line" stormwater systems which use jurisdictional streams and wetlands as
treatment systems. In general, the Clean Water Act prohibits the designated use of creeks,
-? ? 7
ti
f
2
streams, lakes or wetlands from being used as treatment systems except in the most extreme
situations. The construction of in-stream treatment systems generally requires a Section 404
permit for the discharge of dredged or fill material to construct control structures in waters of the
U.S. and would require an alternatives analysis to demonstrate there is no less environmentally
damaging practicable upland alternative than the in-stream system to accomplish the project
purpose. If the alternatives analysis shows there is no less damaging practicable alternative, then
the use of these waters for stormwater treatment would require mitigation. Since there is no
discussion of this in the permit application, we assume the applicant has not provided
alternatives analysis information on the proposed in-stream treatment portion of the project and
we also assume the impacts from this were not included in the impact numbers.
EPA also has several concerns with the project mitigation plan. The applicant proposes
to either use the Charlotte/Mecklenberg Mitigation Bank or another offsite mitigation location to
be determined at a later date. We agree with the discussion of the use of the Charlotte Mitigation
Bank in the U.S. Corps of Engineers' (Corps) July 28, 2005, letter to the applicant. As the
Wilmington District stated in the above referenced letter, use of this bank would be contingent
on the bank having the appropriate mitigation credits available and agree to transfer these bank
credits to the applicant. Has the applicant received any such assurance from the Charlotte Bank?
For this to be accepted as the mitigation option, we recommend information be provided by the
bank to the reviewing agencies so the determination can be made as to whether these credits will
provide appropriate mitigation for the project impacts and if so; we recommend there be a
contractual agreement in place between the Charlotte Bank and the applicant before the permit is
issued. As you also stated in the above referenced letter, "The Wilmington District will not issue
a permit until a final compensatory mitigation plan has been approved." The Corps letter
references Regulatory Guidance Letter 02-2. We agree with this and would also like to note the
North Carolina Stream Mitigation Guidelines also states, "prior to a permit being issued, a final
mitigation plan should be approved and the site secured".
EPA is also aware that stream determinations were done in 2000 and 2001 as to whether
the streams were intermittent/perennial and important/unimportant using both the Wilmington
District's Intermittent Channel Evaluation Form and North Carolina Division of Water Quality's
(NCDWQ) Stream Classification Form. We are not aware, however, if any analyses have been
done to determine if these stream have been rated as poor, good or excellent. As you know, the
Stream Mitigation Guidelines uses these designations to determine the amount of stream
mitigation needed to compensate for impacts with poor requiring 1:1 and good 2:1. We
recommend this information be used in determining the amount of stream mitigation that will be
used to compensate for the project impacts. We also agree with the discussion of intermittent,
unimportant streams in your July 28, 2005, letter in which you stated that "compensatory
mitigation will be required for all unavoidable impacts associated with the project including
impacts to "unimportant stream channels".
The applicant also states they do not propose mitigation for the 0.662 acres of proposed
impact to wetlands because impacts under an acre are not required by the NCDWQ Section 401
certification rules. Since this acreage threshold refers to NCDWQ rules and not to federal
mitigation requirements, EPA recommends there also be compensation for the wetland impacts
to be consistent with federal requirements.
EPA appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. We believe the proposed
project is not approvable at this time and should be held in abeyance until the applicant addresses
the issues discussed herein. Please provide this office with any additional project information or
the applicant's responses to these comments. If you have any questions or would like to further
discuss these comments, please contact Becky Fox at [phone] or fox.rebecca@ epa.gov.
Sincerely,
Ronald J ikulak, Chief
Wetlands Regulatory Section
cc: USFWS, Asheville
NCDWQ, Raleigh
NCDWQ, Asheville
NCWRC, Kernersville
4
,cc List:
cc: Ms. Cyndi Karoly
NC Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Mr. Allan Johnson
NC Division of Water Quality
919 N. Main Street
Mooresville, North Carolina 28115
Mr. Brian Cole
US Fish and Wildlife Service
160 Zillicoa Street
j Asheville, North Carolina 28801-1082
Mr. Ron Linville
Regional Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
3855 Idlewild Road
\ NA
T ?9pG
co
r
o ?
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
November 17, 2005
Mr. Jerry Orr
Charlotte-Douglas International Airport
P.O. Box 19066
Aviation Department
Charlotte, NC 28219
Re: Charlotte-Douglas International Airport Expansion, Mecklenburg County
DWQ #00-1195, Ver. 2; USACE Action 1D. No. 200531167
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification - Ver. 2
Dear Mr. Orr:
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. 3547 issued to Mr. Jerry Orr of Charlotte-Douglas
International Airport, dated November 17, 2005. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or
local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Solid Waste, Sediment
and Erosion Control, Stormwater, Dam Safety, Non-discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
?I GZza
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
AWK/cbk
Attachments: Certificate of Completion
cc: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory Field Office Wilmington District, USACOE
Alan Johnson, DWQ, Mooresville Regional Office
DLR Mooresville Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
R. Clement Riddle, Clearwater Environmental Consultants, Inc., 224 South Grove Street, Suite F,
Hendersonville, NC 28792
Filename: 001195 Ver2 CharlotteDouglasIntAirportExpansion(Mecklenburg)401-IC
401 Oversight/Express Review Permits Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Intemet: htta://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncvvetlands
None Carolina
AM WAY
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Charlotte-Douglas International Airport
Page 2 of 6
November 17, 2005
NORTH CAROLINA 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401 Public Laws 92-500
and 95-217 of the United States 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 fill 5,450 linear feet of important intermittent and perennial stream, 528 linear feet of unimportant
intermittent stream, 0.176 acres of open waters (Ponds), and 0.652 acres of wetland in the Catawba River
Basin, associated with the construction of Charlotte-Douglas International Airport Expansion Area site in
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, pursuant to an application filed on the 291h of August, 2005.
The application and supporting 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 this activity will not violate the applicable portions of Sections 301,
302, 303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the application, the
supporting documentation, and conditions hereinafter set forth.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design submitted in the application materials and as
described in the Public Notice. If the project is changed, prior to notification a new application for a new
Certification is required. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of the Certification
and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions of this Certification. Any
new owner must notify the Division and request the Certification be issued in their name. Should wetland
or stream fill be requested in the future, additional compensatory mitigation may be required as described
in 15A NCAC 211 .0506 (h) (6) and (7). If any plan revisions from the approved site plan result in a
change in stream or wetland impact or an increase in impervious surfaces, the DWQ shall be notified in
writing and a new application for 401 Certification may be required. For this approval to be valid,
compliance with the conditions listed below is required.
Conditions of Certification:
1. Impacts Approved
The following impacts are hereby approved as long as all of the other specific and general
conditions of this Certification (or Isolated Wetland Permit) are met. No other impacts are
approved including incidental impacts:
Amount Approved Units Plan Location or Reference
Stream 5,450 (linear feet) of important intermittent and US Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice,
perennial stream 26 September 2005
Stream 528 (linear feet) of unimportant intermittent stream US Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice,
26 September 2005
Open Waters 0.176 (acres) of ponds US Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice,
and 26 September 2005
404/Wetlands 0.652 (acres) of wetland US Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice,
26 September 2005
Charlotte-Douglas International Airport
Page 3 of 6
November 17, 2005
Mitigation:
2. Compensatory Mitigation Using a Mitigation Bank
Mitigation must be provided for the proposed impacts as specified in the table below. We
understand that you intend to purchase credits from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Stormwater
Services Wetland and Stream Mitigation Bank in Mecklenburg County as described in your
application to meet this mitigation requirement. This contribution has been determined by the
DWQ to be a suitable method to meet the mitigation requirement. Until the Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Stormwater Services Wetland and Stream Mitigation Bank receives and clears your
check, and proof of payment has been provided to this Office, no impacts specified in this
Authorization Certificate shall occur. For accounting purposes, this Authorization Certificate
authorizes payment into the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Stormwater Services Wetland and
Stream Mitigation Bank to meet the following compensatory mitigation requirement:
Compensatory Mitigation
Required River and Sub-basin Number
Stream 5,450 (linear feet Catawba/03050101
Sediment and Erosion Control:
3. Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications
governing the proper design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best Management
Practices in order to protect surface waters standards:
a. The erosion and sediment control measures for the project must be designed, installed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina
Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual.
b. The design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and erosion control
measures must be such that they equal, or exceed, the requirements specified in the most
recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Manual. The devices
shall be maintained on all construction sites, borrow sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects,
including contractor-owned or leased borrow pits associated with the project.
c. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be designed, installed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina
Surface Mining Manual.
d. The reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the reclamation in
accordance with the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.
e. Sufficient materials required for stabilization and/or repair of erosion control measures and
stormwater routing and treatment shall be on site at all times.
4. No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian areas beyond
the footprint of the impacts depicted in the 404/401Permit Application. All construction activities,
including the design, installation, operation, and maintenance of sediment and erosion control Best
Management Practices, shall be performed so that no violations of state water quality standards,
statutes, or rules occur;
5. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum
extent practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is
Charlotte-Douglas International Airport
Page 4 of 6
November 17, 2005
unavoidable, they shall be removed and the natural grade restored within six months of the date that
the Division of Land Resources has released the project;
6. Protective Fencing - The outside buffer, wetland or water boundary and along the construction
corridor within these boundaries approved under this authorization shall be clearly marked with
orange warning fencing (or similar high visibility material) for the areas that have been approved
to infringe within the buffer, wetland 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;
Deed Notifications:
Deed Notifications - Deed notifications or similar mechanisms shall be placed on all retained
jurisdictional wetlands, 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://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. The text of the sample deed notification
may be modified as appropriate to suit to this project;
Stormwater:
9. Written Stormwater Management Plan (Final Plan Needed)
A final, written stormwater management plan (including a signed and notarized Operation and
Maintenance Agreement) shall be submitted to the 401 Oversight and Express Permitting Unit
(2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250, Raleigh, NC, 27604) within 60 days of the issuance of the 401
Water Quality Certification. The stormwater management plans shall be approved in writing by
this Office before the impacts specified in this Certification occur. You have the option of using
the Express Review Program for expedited approval of these plans. If you propose to use the
Express Review Program, remember to include the appropriate fee with the plan. The stormwater
management plan must include plans, specifications, and worksheets for stormwater management
facilities that are appropriate for the surface water classification and designed to remove at least
85% TSS according to the most recent version of the NC DENR Stormwater Best Management
Practices Manual. These facilities must be designed to treat the runoff from the entire project,
unless otherwise explicitly approved by the Division of Water Quality. Also, before any
permanent building is occupied at the subject site, the facilities (as approved by this Office) shall
be constructed and operational, and the stormwater management plan (as approved by this Office)
shall be implemented. The structural stormwater practices as approved by this Office as well as
drainage patterns must be maintained in perpetuity. No changes to the structural stormwater
practices shall be made without written authorization from the Division of Water Quality.
10. Construction Stormwater Permit NCGO 10000
Upon the approval of an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan issued by the Division of Land
Resources (DLR) or a DLR delegated local erosion and sedimentation control program, an NPDES
General stormwater permit (NCGO10000) administered by DWQ is automatically issued to the
project. This General Permit allows stormwater to be discharged during land disturbing
Charlotte-Douglas International Airport
Page 5 of 6
November 17, 2005
construction activities as stipulated by conditions in the permit. If your project is covered by this
permit [applicable to construction projects that disturb one (1) or more acres], full compliance with
permit conditions including the sedimentation control plan, self-monitoring, record keeping and
reporting requirements are required. A copy of this permit and monitoring report forms may be
found at htW:Ilh o ettrstate.rtc.us/su/Foi-ms Docuntents.htrn.;
Continuing Compliance:
11. Mr. Jerry Orr and Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, shall conduct construction activities in
a manner consistent with State water quality standards (including any requirements resulting from
compliance with section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act) and any other appropriate requirements of
State law and federal law. If the Division determines that such standards or laws are not being met
(including the failure to sustain a designated or achieved use) or that State or federal law is being
violated, or that further conditions are necessary to assure compliance, the Division may reevaluate
and modify this Certification to include conditions appropriate to assure compliance with such
standards and requirements in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0507(d). Before modifying the
Certification, the Division shall notify Mr. Jerry Orr and/or Charlotte-Douglas International
Airport and the US Army Corps of Engineers, provide public notice in accordance with 15A
NCAC 211.0503 and provide opportunity for public hearing in accordance with 15A NCAC
2H.0504. Any new or revised conditions shall be provided to Mr. Jerry Orr and/or Charlotte-
Douglas International Airport in writing, shall be provided to the United States Army Corps of
Engineers for reference in any Permit issued pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and
shall also become conditions of the 404 Permit for the project;
Culverts:
12. Culvert Installation
Culverts required for this project shall be installed in such a manner that the original stream profiles
are not altered. Existing stream dimensions (including the cross section dimensions, pattern, and
longitudinal profile) must be maintained above and below locations of each culvert. Culverts shall
be designed and installed to allow for aquatic life movement as well as to prevent head cutting of the
streams. If any of the existing pipes are or become perched, the appropriate stream grade shall be re-
established or, if the pipes installed in a perched manner, the pipes shall be removed and re-installed
correctly.
Culvert(s) shall not be installed in such a manner that will cause aggradation or erosion of the stream
up or down stream of the culvert(s). Existing stream dimensions (including the cross section
dimensions, pattern and longitudinal profile) shall be maintained above and below locations of each
culvert. Therefore, you must provide plans with adequate details that indicate that the current
stability of the stream will be maintained or enhanced. You must receive written approval from this
Office for the above plans before the culvert(s) is installed. Culvert(s) must be installed according to
approved plans.
Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands must be placed below the
elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches, and 20
percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow low flow
passage of water and aquatic life. Design and placement of culverts and other structures including
temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result in dis-
equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream of the
Charlotte-Douglas International Airport
Page 6 of 6
November 17, 2005
above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium shall be
maintained if requested in writing by DWQ.
The establishment of native, woody vegetation and other soft stream bank stabilization techniques
must be used where practicable instead of rip rap or other bank hardening methods. If rip-rap is
necessary, it shall not be placed in the stream bed, unless specifically approved by the Division of
Water Quality.
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 the project, the Applicant shall complete 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 /Wetlands
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
Certificate of Completion form.
Certificate of Completion:
13. Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or applicable
Buffer Rules, and any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return the attached
certificate of completion to the 401/Wetlands Unit, North Carolina Division of Water Quality,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650.
Also, this approval to proceed with your proposed impacts or to conduct impacts to waters as
depicted in your application shall expire upon expiration of the 404 or CAMA Permit.
If this Certification is unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written
request within sixty (60) days following receipt of this Certification. This request must be in the form of a
written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes and filed with the
Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. If modifications
are made to an original Certification, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing on the modifications
upon written request within sixty (60) days following receipt of the Certification. Unless such demands
are made, this Certification shall be final and binding.
This the 17`h day of November 2005
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
?rA ??6
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
AWK/cbk/ym
Staff Report
Project Num: 20001195 Version: 2
Name: Charlotte-Douglas Airport Safety Area
County: Mecklenburg
Location: Coffey Creek & Ticer Branch
Latitude: +35°13'02"
SW Plan Location:
Owner: Charlotte Douglas International Airport
Contact Person: Title:
Inspection Date: 08/23/2003
Entry Time: 10:00 AM
Reason for Inspection: Routine
On-Site Representative(s):
Primary Inspector: Alan D Johnson
Secondary Inspector(s):
Status: Received
Project Type: Industrial / Commercial / Business
Region: Mooresville
Longitude: -80°57'35"
Phone:
Exit Time:
Inspection Type: Staff Report
Phone: [phone] Ext.207
Question Areas:
M Site Visit
Inspection Summary:
Dave Penrose and Alan Johnson conducted a site inspection in August 2003 over the course of three days. The stream calls in
general were satisfactory. Not all streams were inspected. Those streams with impacts proposed with >500 ft were reviewed. In
several cases the IP points were suggested to be relocated further upstream. A parallel runway is still in the planning stages and is to
be located between 1-485 (to the west) and the existing roadway. Stormwater managment ponds/areas have been identified.
The Old Dowd road relocation that is planned to impact stream 2Z may be able to be relocated further upstream to avoid a pond,
wetland, and intermittent stream. (sheet 6)
This is an IP to be issued from Raleigh.
Page: 1
Project Num: 20001195 Owner: Charlotte Douglas International Airport
Inspection Date: 08123/2003 Inspection Type: Staff Report Reason for Visit: Routine
Site Visit YE
Do impacts described in the application differ those seen in the field?
If yes, please describe differences:
Are the Intermittent/Perennial calls different in the application?
If yes, please describe differences, and how mitigation ratios are affected: Visited the site with Dave Penrose.
Are there additional impacts not described in the application?
If yes, please describe and quantify:
Were the impacts in place prior to the application for the 401 Certification?
Additional conditions recommended for the Certification:
Recommended project modifications: Is it possible to move the relocation of Dowd Rd (stream 'U", sheet 6) fu
Is this a modification request to an existing Certification?
Are there additional stromwater conditions that should be required due to the following classifications:
# 303(d)list, Class WS, NSW, ORW, HQW
Describe:
Is this a subdivision or otherwise part of a larger project?
# If yes, what phase is this?
Are there prior impacts from prior phases?
If yes, what are the cumulative imacts for this project?
Possible secondary impacts noted:
Comment:
¦ ? ? ?
¦ ? ? ?
? ¦ ? ?
? ¦ ? ?
¦ ? ? ?
¦???
¦ ? ? ?
¦ ? ? ?
Page: 2
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 1-2
Richard B. Hamilton, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: David Baker, Permit Coordinator
Asheville Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Cyndi B. Karoly, Supervisor
401 Oversight and Express Permits Unit
NCDWQ Wetlands and Stormwater Branch
FROM: Ron Linville, Regional Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: September 23, 2005
zpow
R1R@[9flW[9@
OCT 1 3 Zoos
iNETWV0.SAN STORE STORMWATER BRANCH
SUBJECT: Individual Permit Application, Charlotte-Douglas International Airport
Expansion, DWQ No. 20001195 (version 2), Coffey and Ticer Creeks,
Mecklenburg County
Clear Water Environmental Consultants, Inc. is requesting a letter of concurrence from the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) for Charlotte-Douglas International Airport
to obtain a 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The NCWRC has reviewed
information provided by the applicant, and field biologists on our staff are familiar with habitat
values of the project area. These comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the
Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et. seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48
Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
Phase I of the project includes expansion of an existing runway and the development of a new
runway. Impacts proposed for the first phase of the project are 5,450 linear feet of important
intermittent and perennial streams, 528 linear feet of unimportant intermittent channel, 0.652
acres of wetlands and 0.176 acres of ponds. The proposed first phase alternative being pursued
extends Runway 18R/36L to a length of 12,000 feet and the relocation of West Boulevard. No
federal or state listed endangered or threatened species are indicated to be affected by the project.
Best Management Practices (BMP) are proposed for the construction phases of the project.
Mitigation is indicated to be available for purchase from Charlotte-Mecklenburg Stormwater
Services wetland and stream mitigation bank. Post construction stormwater management will be
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries - 1721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Richard B. Hamilton, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: David Baker, Permit Coordinator
Asheville Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Cyndi B. Karoly, Supervisor
401 Oversight and Express Permits Unit
NCDWQ Wetlands and Stormwater Branch
FROM: Ron Linville, Regional Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: September 23, 2005
)OW
P@00YR,
OCT 1 3 2005
'ANDSANO TORMWA RIBRWH
SUBJECT: Individual Permit Application, Charlotte-Douglas International Airport
Expansion, DWQ No. 20001195 (version 2), Coffey and Ticer Creeks,
Mecklenburg County
Clear Water Environmental Consultants, Inc. is requesting a letter of concurrence from the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) for Charlotte-Douglas International Airport
to obtain a 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The NCWRC has reviewed
information provided by the applicant, and field biologists on our staff are familiar with habitat
values of the project area. These comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the
Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et. seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48
Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
Phase I of the project includes expansion of an existing runway and the development of a new
runway. Impacts proposed for the first phase of the project are 5,450 linear feet of important
intermittent and perennial streams, 528 linear feet of unimportant intermittent channel, 0.652
acres of wetlands and 0.176 acres of ponds. The proposed first phase alternative being pursued
extends Runway 18R/36L to a length of 12,000 feet and the relocation of West Boulevard. No
federal or state listed endangered or threatened species are indicated to be affected by the project.
Best Management Practices (BMP) are proposed for the construction phases of the project.
Mitigation is indicated to be available for purchase from Charlotte-Mecklenburg Stormwater
Services wetland and stream mitigation bank. Post construction stormwater management will be
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries - 1721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] - Fax: [phone]
CLT Douglas International Airport 404
September 23, 2005
provided by the incorporation of extended detention wetlands to remove suspended solids,
nutrients and pollutants from stormwater.
Based on the information provided by the applicant and our knowledge of the area, we do not
believe this project will cause significant effects to waters providing the following
recommendations are implemented:
1. Where possible, jurisdictional waters should be relocated using state-of-the-art
bioengineering (natural channel design) techniques and methodologies.
2. Post development hydrographic conditions should be maintained to the maximum
extent possible. Mimicking pre airport hydrographic conditions should be the goal.
Hydrograph maintenance should include new construction and previously developed
areas of the airport to reduce secondary and cumulative impacts.
3. Besides the proposed detention wetlands, Low Impact Development (LID)
methodologies should be incorporated into all individual facilities that will be
developed on airport property. Low Impact Development (LID) techniques are
encouraged. Information on LID practices and measures can be found at
www.lowimpactdevelopment.org.
4. Only native plants should be used for constructed wetlands and open spaces. We
recommend and encourage the airport to provide and maintain native prairie habitats
using Native Warm Season Grasses (NWSG) landscapes instead of typical fescues.
Please see the piedmont prairie plant attachment provided by Ms. Laura M. Fogo
(910-695-3323 ext. 4) with US Fish & Wildlife Service. These species should require
less mowing and can help reduce Canada geese presence on the airport. The
avoidance of open water through vegetated wetlands should also help. A three (3)
year mowing cycle is recommended where only a third of the prairie plant areas will
be mowed annually.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any questions
regarding these comments, please contact me at 336/769-9453.
Attachment: USFWS Recommendations of Piedmont Prairie Restoration and Creation
Ec: Alan Johnson, DWQ-MRO
Becky Fox, EPA
Alan Ratzlaff, USFWS
Laura Fogo, USFWS
CLT Douglas Intemational Airport 404
September 23, 2005
Recommendations of Piedmont Prairie Restoration and Creation
Laura M. Fogo, Private Lands Biologist, US Fish and Wildlife Service
RESTORATION
If you discover a potential prairie remnant, it is recommended that you reestablish fire
into the ecosystem and thin the site depending on your goals for prairie, savannah, or woodland.
Thinning a site will allow sunlight to reach the forest floor to encourage herbaceous plants to
grow. Your native understory vegetation may already be there and it may not be necessary to
plant. See Piedmont Prairies and a Partnership, to reference associated community types to look
for.
CREATION/REESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIVE PRAIRIE
Seed Source: Try to obtain local genotypes of native plant material to reestablish a
prairie. I only recommend buying seed from outside NC if it's a creation project or the local
genotypes are not available or present. There is limited availability of NC grass seed from
nursery growers. There are commercial nurseries that provide local plants and seed. If you have
the time and want only local seed sources, it will take more effort. For large scale restoration,
some projects may want to go ahead and purchase seeds. It is agreed by the partnership to
collect local seed from remnant sites and roadside populations for trying to restore remnant
prairies. Planting associated prairie species provides habitat for migratory songbirds and other
early successional wildlife dependant species.
Native Warm Season Grasses (NWSG): Attached are commercial native seed sources
and planting guides to establish NWSG prepared by Bob Glennon, USFWS. He mentions
applying fertilizer the year after it is established. These grasses are fertilized to grow hay
(forage) for cows as far as a productivity production, however, it will encourage undesirable
weedy competition. It has been recommended only to lime according to your soil's needs.
These grasses are native and grow on poor sites anyway and are not used to having good
nutrients. I would re-evaluate after a year and establishment.
Remember that it may take at least two years to see good results on the NWSG. Bob has
done a great job on explaining methods: using a seed drill, calibrations, seeding depths, etc.
Follow his instructions. When planting, drilling is best, but if you cannot, broad cast and run a
cultapacker over it. You can plant the different ones at the same time (except gama) and place
them in the appropriate seed boxes in the no-till drill. You put the fluffy-chaffy ones, big blue,
little blue, and Indian grass in the chaffy seed box and plant 1/4" seed depth. The small box is
used for smooth grass seeds like switch grass and gama. He said to make a separate pass for the
gama grass at 1" seed depth.
Planting times: For NWSG, it is recommended, to plant in the fall after Thanksgiving,
after the first killing frost (Oct. 31 Piedmont-Nov. Coast) until the last killing frost in the spring
(March 15 on the coast, April 1 for most of the state, April 15 in the west). As soon as you have
the site prepared, you might want to plant winter annuals such as winter wheat, barley, and
F
CLT Douglas International Airport 404 4 September 23, 2005
ryegrass grain. Be cautious planting ryegrass, because it may re-seed and cause competition the
next spring. NWSG's require to be pre-chilled in moist conditions at least two weeks at 40
degrees F (stratification). So November planting is fine.
There are some exceptions for planting in the spring before May. The exception is if you have
not eradicated all the non-natives or fescue. If you plant in the spring, you run the risk of loosing
the new seedlings to drought. If you plant in the winter, it will give the grasses time to establish
a root system to be better prepared for potential dry times in spring or summer. It may be
possible to apply herbicide on fescue in the spring, then plant immediately.
Forbs associated with Piedmont Prairies: Attached is a list of forbs for propagation
compiled by members of the partnership derived from the "Vascular Flora of Piedmont Prairies:
Evidence from Several Prairie Remnants" by Davis, et al. 2002. This document establishes a
good baseline of Piedmont prairie vegetation for reestablishment and identification. Please
notify me or Moni Bates, NC Plant Conservation Program, if you are interested in seed
collection and propagation.
Recommended Prairie Mixture: Below is a mixture recommended based on the list
mentioned above for planting five warm season grasses: big blue stem, little blue stem, Indian
grass, gama grass and switch grass (see rates below). When you mix it and add native
wildflowers, it will make your project more diverse and more like a natural prairie community.
For starting over, I recommend planting at 6-8 pounds per acre of the following mixture of
NWSG:
I pound of a switch grass (Panicum virgatum) (Plateau will injure), or
P. anceps = Beaked Panicum, P. clandestinum = Deertongue,
2 pounds of big blue stem
2 pounds of little blue stem
2 pounds of Indian Grass
I pound of Gama grass (Plateau will injure)
(Note: For forage production, higher rates are recommended).
A mixture that is compatible with Plateau or herbicides with the same chemical:
3 pounds of big blue stem
2 pounds of little blue stem
3 pounds of Indian Grass
For wildflowers: plant I pound per acre and mix it with the grass. I picked the following:
Butterfly milkweed, Purple coneflower, Coreopsis lanceolata, Coreopsis tinctoria (annual),
Rough blazing star (Liatris aspera) and black-eyed susan (Rudbeckia hirta).
When developing and customizing a seed mixture, I recommend checking the local
county plant species list (if there is one) and Vascular Plants of the Carolinas for species
diversity, as well as consulting with botanists. The NC Botanical Garden is a good reference and
has a native seed source list of local commercial growers.
1
CLT Douglas International Airport 404
September 23, 2005
Figure 1. Listed rare vascular plant species associated with Piedmont prairies and associated
communities (not all inclusive)
Common Name
' Scientific Name
nthus schweinitzii
li
H Status
Federall Endangered
s sunflower
Schweinitz
smooth coneflower a
e
Echinacea laevi ata Federall Endangered
Georgia aster S h otrichum eor ianum Federal S ecies of Concern
Carolina birdfoot-trefoil Lotus helleri Federal Species of Concern
Tall larkspur Delphinium exaltatum Federal Species of Concern
Butner Barbara's buttons Marshallia s 1 Federal Species of Concern
Heller's rabbit tobacco Gna halium helleri Significantly rare-Proposed.
Carolina thistle Cirsium carolinianus Significantly rare-Proposed
Sessile Tick-trefoil Desmodium sessilifolium Si ificantl rare-Pro osed
Carolina thistle rsium carolinianum Si ifcantl rare-Pro osed
j
Thick- white wild indi o tisia alba Si ifcantl raze-Pro osed
Thin- od white wild indi o tisia albescens Si ificantl rare-Pro osed
Smooth sunflower lianthus laevi atus Significantly rare-Proposed
Earle's blazing star Liatris s uarrulosa Significantly rare-Proposed..
Southeastern bold goldenrod Solida o ri ida ss labrata Significantly rare-Proposed
Prairie dock Sil hium terebinthinaceum Significantly rare-Proposed
Glade wild quinine Parthenium auriculatum Significantly rare-Threatened
Figure 2. NC Partners In Flight Priority Bird Species associated with prairie/grassland, shrub-
scrub, and savanna habitats (not all inclusive)
Prairie/Grassland
Henslow's sparrow Shrub-scrub
Prairie warbler Pine savanna
Red-cockaded woodpecker
Bachman's sparrow
Northern bobwhite American woodcock
Northern bobwhite Bachman's sparrow
Brown-headed nuthatch
Loggerhead shrike
Short-eared owl winter, b Fields arrow
Eastern towhee Henslow's sparrow
Northern bobwhite
Barn owl
Northern harrier winter
Grasshopper sparrow Orchard oriole
Yellow-breasted chat
Gray catbird Summer tanager
American kestrel
Red-headed woodpecker
Eastern kingbird
Eastern meadowlark Common ellowthroat
Brown thrasher Northern flicker
Chuck will's widow
Sedge wren winter White-eyed vireo Whip-poor-will
Dickcissel Willow flycatcher
Bobolink (migrant, b Vesper sparrow winter
Horned lark winter, b Lo erhead shrike
Barn owl
NC sources are: Garrett Wildflower seed farm 919-818-4309 (Don Lee) www.crustseed.com Adams Briscoe &
Sharpe Bro. for Americas Indian grass from Georgia. Contact NC Botanical Garden and ask for their nursery list.
Local plant information may be obtained by contacting Mr. Don Serriffat 704-336-8798 or 704-432-1391 with the
Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Department.
M
US Army Corps PUBLIC NOTICE
Of Engineers
Wilmington District
Issue Date: September 26, 2005
Comment Deadline: October 25, 2005
Corps Action ID #: 200531167
All interested parties are herby advised that the Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers (Corps)
has received an application for work within jurisdictional waters of the United States. Specific
plans and location information are described below and shown on the attached plans. This
Public Notice and all attached plans are also available on the Wilmington District Web Site at
www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands
Applicant:
AGENT (if applicable):
Authority
Charlotte-Douglas International Airport
C/O Jerry Orr
Mr. Brian Hennessey
Post Office Box 19066
Aviation Department
Charlotte, North Carolina 28219
o9?c?od?D
C1earWater Environmental Consultants
Mr. R. Clement Riddle, P.W.S. W oc, 3 ' 2005
224 South Grove Street, Suite F
?O AN BRANCH
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792 p D ST E AR
The Corps will evaluate this application and a decide whether to issue, conditionally issue, or
deny the proposed work pursuant to applicable procedures of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344).
Location
The proposed project is located within the Charlotte Douglas International Airport (CLT)
Expansion Area of approximately 2,500 acres of land in the City of Charlotte, North Carolina
(35.2147389°N, 80.942716°W). The proposed project footprint comprises approximately 60
acres within the project expansion area. The airport is bounded to the north by US 74
(Wilkinson Boulevard). To the east the project is bounded by existing Runway 18R/36L. The
southern project boundary is located just south of Byrum Drive. To the west, Interstate 485
Outer Beltway is under construction and creates a definitive boundary for the airport.

The study area contains a variety of both permanent (Coffey Creek and Ticer Creek), the upper
reaches of named intermittent streams (Little Paw Creek and Beaverdam Creek), and numerous
headwaters of small unnamed intermittent streams. All of these channels are part a tributary
system to the Catawba River, which is navigable below the Mountain Island Dam.
Existing Site Conditions
The 2,500-acre site consists mostly of upland areas. There are 21.76 acres of jurisdictional
Waters of the U.S. including wetlands. Upland areas included the following habitat types:
• Oak-Pine-Hickory Forest. The study area was predominately secondary forest situated
on a soil moisture gradient ranging from sub-mesic to well drained. Typical species in
the forests were white oak (Quercus alba), blackjack oak (Q. marilandica), willow oak
(Q. phellos), red oak (Q. rubra), southern red oak (Q. falcate), red maple (Acer rubrum),
mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), pignut hickory (C. glabra), sweet pignut (C.
ovalis), Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), shortleaf pine (P. echinata), and red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana). Subdominant species were hackberry (Celtis occidentalis),
basswood (Tilia heterophylla), beech (Fagus americana), black locust (Robinia
pseudoacacia), white ash (Fraxinus americana), and black walnut (Juglans nigra).
Understory species were comprised of slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), blueberry (Vaccinium
atrococcum), silverberry (Eleaganus umbellate), red cedar, strawberry bush (Euonymus
americanus), black haw (Viburnum prunifolium), flowering dogwood (Corpus florida),
black cherry (Prunus serotina), winged sumac (Rhus copallina), American hornbeam
(Carpinus caroliniana), red bud (Cercis canadensis), and American holly (Ilex opaca).
Woody vines included Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), moonseed
(Menispermum canadense), kudzu-vine (Pueraria lobata), Carolina rose (Rosa carolina),
muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), blackberry
(Rubus allegheniensis), greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), and Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia). The herb layer was generally composed of bluegrass
(Poa. spp.), fescue (Festuca spp.), ryegrass (Lolium perenne) and sedges (Carex spp.).
Common forbs included five-finger (Potentilla canadensis), bedstraw (Galium aparine),
wild licorice (G. circaezans), cranesbill (Geranium carolinianum), mayapple
(Podophyllum peltatum), violets (Viola sororia), wild ginger (Asarum canadensis),
snakeroot (Sanicula gregaria, S. canadense), wild strawberry (Fragaria virginica),
spotted wintergreen (Chimaphila maculata), puttyroot (Aplectrum hyemale), sweet cicely
(Osmorhiza claytonii), liver-leaf (Hepatica americana), and bloodroot (Sanguinaria
canadensis). Woodland ferns common in the survey area included Christmas fern
(Polystichum acrostichoides), wood fern (Dryopteris marginalis), grape fern (Botrychium
dissectum), rattlesnake fern (B. virginianum), and ebony spleenwort (Asplenium
platyneuron).
• Bottomland Forests. Shafale and Weakley (1990) reserve the term bottomland forest for
floodplain ridges and terraces. Thus, the moist woodlands found adjacent to intermittent
streams, drainageways, and ponds were identified as Alluvial/Upland Depression Swamp
Forests (Report on Biotic Communities). Dominant tree species included tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple, green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), sweet gum,
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), box elder (Acer negundo), cottonwood (Populus
2
11
deltoids), and black willow (Salix nigra). The understory community was composed of
river birch (Betula nigra), America hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), and smooth alder
(Alnus serrulata), in addition to the trees listed above. The herb layer contained sedges
(Carex vulpinoidea, C. frankii, C. crinata, C. spp.), bedstraw (Galium aparine), spotted
touch-me-not (Impatiens capensis), snakeroot, golden ragwort (Senecio aureus), white
avens (Geum canadense), jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), sensitive fern
(Onoclea sensibilis), stonecrop (Sedum ternatum), and the exotic, invasive grass (Eulalia
viminea).
• Old Field and Scrub/Shrub. Old-field growth was identified in scattered areas throughout
the survey area, but predominantly within the existing airport property. Widely dispersed
empress-trees (Paulownia tomentosa), though not dominant, were observed colonizing
old-field and scrub/shrub areas at CLT. Grasses such as Canada bluegrass (Poa
compressa), Kentucky bluegrass (P. pratensis), timothy (Phleum pratense), red fescue
(Festuca rubra), barnyard grass (Echinochloa crus-galli), green foxtail grass (Setaria
viridis), and orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata) were common. Broadleaf herbaceous
species included goldenrod (Solidago spp.), common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca), curly
dock (Rumex crispus), ox-eye daisy (Chrysanthium leucantheum), wild carrot (Daucus
carota), poke (Phytolacca americana) bush clover (Lespedeza spp.), tick-trefoil
(Desmodium spp.), mugwort (Artemisia vularis), small white aster (Aster vimineus),
blackberry (Rubus spp.) and ragweed (Ambrosia spp.)
• Urban-Industrial-Turf. Turf grass or maintained lawns were identified in the vicinity of
the existing airport facility and at commercial and residential properties in the study area.
These areas undergo regular mowing. Vegetation in these areas was dominated by a
variety of introduced grasses including perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne), redtop
(Agrostis gigantea), red fescue, Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), and annual bluegrass
(P. annua). Other common herbaceous species included dandelion (Taraxacum
officinale), lyre-leaf sage (Salvia lyrata), yellow wood sorrel (Oxalis stricta, O. europea),
common plantain (Plantago major), lance leaf plantain (Plantago lanceolata), and white
clover (Trifolium repens). A large percentage of the project areas is covered with roads
and other hard surfaces or impervious coatings.
• Disturbed - Unvegetated. Examples of this land use were observed in the soil harvesting
operations or borrow areas conducted by outside contractors on behalf of CLT, which
covered approximately 153 acres in the project area. This land use fluctuates with Old
Field vegetation. A demolition debris disposal area covers approximately 18 acres of the
airport property north of Old Dowd Road. Another 37 acres of disturbed land is located
south of Byrum Road.
Vegetated wetlands were delineated throughout of the study area. Total acreage of wetlands in
the study areas is 3.78 acres. Wetlands were subdivided into three types based on the plant
communities: 1.) Palustrine Scrub/Shrub and Emergent Wetlands describes areas with an open
canopy of small broad-leaf deciduous trees and/or broad-leaf deciduous shrubs and an extensive
persistent herb layer; 2.) Palustrine Emergent and Scrub/Shrub Wetland is a mixed-vegetation
wetlands type described a single area dominated by herbaceous ground cover but was surrounded
by small broad-leaf deciduous trees and/or broad-leaf deciduous shrubs and 3.) Palustrine Forest
and Scrub/Shrub Wetlands are wetland forests in the project area, which were characterized by
3
11
widely-spaced mature broad-leaf deciduous trees and densely-packed broad-leaf deciduous
shrubs.
Ticer Creek and Coffee Creek are the only U.S.G.S perennial streams found on-site. These
streams have water flow throughout the year. Because of the year around flow and swiftness of
the water current there is no rooted vegetation in these streams. Biological indicators observed
in these streams included fish, crayfish, and small invertebrates. Vegetation along the banks of
these streams varied but generally has a large canopy that is dominated by American sycamore,
yellow poplar, eastern white pine (Pinus strobus), and red maple. Saplings of the above species
dominated the scrub/shrub layer along the streambed and banks. The herbaceous layer was
dominated by Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), ebony spleenwort (Asplenium
platyneuron), and blackberry.
The intermittent streams located within the project boundary have moderate flow most of the
year. In other parts of the year, these streams have little or no flow and are filled with leaf litter.
The moderate flow does not allow rooted vegetation to thrive. These streams were observed to
have stable stream banks, scattered persistent pools, channel substrate and biological indicators
such as crayfish and amphibians were observed in and around persistent pools. Vegetation in the
riparian areas included American sycamore, yellow poplar, eastern white pine, and southern red
oak (Quercus falcata). The scrub/shrub layer was dominated by saplings of all of the above
species and included sweet gum. The herbaceous layer is dominated by Christmas fern, ebony
spleenwort, blackberry, and greenbrier.
"Unimportant" intermittent streams within the project boundary have little or no flow most of the
year. There is little vegetation in the beds of these streams because they are mostly filled with
silt that occurs during heavy amounts of rainfall. Along with silt there is a high content of leaf
litter on the streambed. These streams lack a persistent flow, stable stream banks, crawfish,
minnows, in-stream habitat structure, adjacent wetlands, and rifle pool structures typically
observed in higher quality intermittent streams. The classification of these streams was verified
in the field by Mr. Dave Penrose (DWQ) and Ms. Amada Jones (USACE) In August 2003.
A total of eight ponds were identified within the study area. The total acreage of open water in
the study area was estimated to be 8.60 acres (Table 2). These water bodies are itemized in
Table 2. Six of these are impoundments are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and are located on
intermittent streams. Two of the ponds are isolated and non jurisdictional. Common shoreline
vegetation of the water bodies consisted of smooth alder, cottonwood, sycamore, and willow.
Scrub/shrub growth along pond borders included alder, slippery elm, buttonbush (Cephalanthus
occidentalis), swamp rose, multiflora rose, and blackberry. Floating aquatic vegetation was
present in the larger bodies of open water and included pondweed (Potamogeton crispus),
duckweed (Lemma minor), and coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum).
Applicant's Stated Purpose
The specific purposes of this project is to provide sufficient runway length to accommodate
potential air transportation demand; provide sufficient ancillary facilities to support the potential
4
.1 1
increase in air and ground transportation demand; and minimize potential impacts on human
health and environment by reducing noise impacts on the surrounding communities.
Project Description
The specific proposed project in this phase includes the extension of runway 18R/36L, relocation
of West Boulevard, and relocation a portion of Old Dowd Road. These three proposed activities
are essential and independent of future expansion considerations. They are necessary whether
the third proposed runway is located on the eastern side of I-485 as currently approved in the
Record Of Decision or located on the west side of I-485 as being proposed under the
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) under preparation.
The proposed Wetland Master Plan (PLAN) includes impacts to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) jurisdictional waters of the U.S. including wetlands for construction of a runway
extension (18R/36L, taxiways F and Echo), road relocations (West Boulevard and a portion of
Old Dowd Road). The following is a description of activities for the preferred alternative:
• Extension of Runway 18R/36L to a length of 12,000 feet by constructing a 2,000 foot
southerly extension with parallel and connecting taxiways and associated lighting.
Additionally, the southerly extension was selected because it provides the necessary
length for long haul capacity and provides the most efficient use of the airport for
departures with the least environmental impact.
• Relocation of West Boulevard around the south end of the airport from the eastern end of
Runway 36R and closure of Byrum Road; Relocation of the northern portion of Old
Dowd Road, just east of I-485 Outer Beltway (the final alignment of Wallace Neal Road
will either be parallel to I-485 on the east or west side). The Wallace Neal Road and
third runway alternatives are under discussion in the forthcoming Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement.
• To accomplish these activities the applicant proposes to impact 5,450 linear feet of
perennial and intermittent, important streams; 528 linear feet of unimportant, intermittent
channels; 0.176 acres of open waters/ponds; and 0.652 acres of wetlands. Jurisdictional
Waters of the U.S./wetlands were delineated throughout the study area and verified by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on January 8, 2001.
Due to the extensive project proposal and the necessary time to construct these projects, the
Project applicant is requesting that this Individual Permit be valid for a period of 7 years from
the date of issuance.
Other Required Authorizations
This notice and all applicable application materials are being forwarded to the appropriate State
agencies for review. The Corps will generally not make a final permit decision until the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) issues, denies, or waives State certification
required by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (PL 92-500). The receipt of the application and
5
11
this public notice in the NCDWQ Central Office in Raleigh serves as application to the NCDWQ
for certification. A waiver will be deemed to occur if the NCDWQ fails to act on this request for
certification within sixty days of the date of the receipt of this notice in the NCDWQ Central
Office. Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be reviewed at
the NCDWQ Central Office, 401 Oversight and Express Permits Unit, 2321 Crabtree Boulevard,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-2260. All persons desiring to make comments regarding the
application for certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act should do so in writing
delivered to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 1650 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650 Attention: Ms Cyndi Karoly by October 25, 2005.
Essential Fish Habitat
This notice initiates the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation requirements of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The Corps' initial determination
is that the proposed project will not adversely impact EFH or associated fisheries managed by
the South Atlantic or Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Councils or the National Marine
Fisheries Service.
Cultural Resources
The Corps has consulted the latest published version of the National Register of Historic Places
and has determined that registered properties, or properties listed as being eligible for inclusion
therein are located within the project area and/or will be affected by the proposed work. A
Memorandum of Agreement between the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources and
the CLT was implemented on August 11, 1999 (attached) to resolve issues related to these
resources.
Endangered Species
The Corps has reviewed the project area, examined all information provided by the applicant and
consulted the latest North Carolina Natural Heritage Database. Based on available information,
the Corps has determined pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, that the proposed
project will have no effect on federally listed endangered or threatened species or their formally
designated critical habitat.
Surveys were performed for federally protected species as part of the Environmental Impact
Statement. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concurred in their December 4, 1998
letter that the project will not affect endangered or threatened species or their habitats. In order
to update this study, CLT plans to conduct surveys within the proposed project areas during the
flowering season (September) for listed species known to occur in Mecklenburg County
(Helianthus schweinitzii). A copy of this report will be forwarded to the USACE and USFWS.
6

Evaluation
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impacts,
including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity on the public interest. That decision will
reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. The
benefit which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal must be balanced against
its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors which may be relevant to the proposal will be
considered including the cumulative effects thereof; among those are conservation, economics,
aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife
values, flood hazards, flood plain values (in accordance with Executive Order 11988), land use,
navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water
quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of
property ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. For activities involving
the discharge of dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States, the evaluation of the
impact of the activity on the public interest will include application of the Environmental
Protection Agency's 404(b)(1) guidelines.
Commenting Information
The Corps is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State and local agencies and officials;
Indian Tribes and other interested parties in order to consider _and evaluate the impacts of this
proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps to determine
whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this proposal. To make this decision,
comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water quality,
general environmental effects and the other public interest factors listed above. Comments are
used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Comments are also
used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the overall public interest of the
proposed activity.
Any person may request, in writing, within the comment period specified in this notice, that a
public hearing be held to consider the application. Requests for public hearings shall state, with
particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing. Requests for a public hearing shall be
granted, unless the District Engineer determines that the issues raised are insubstantial or there is
otherwise no valid interest to be served by a hearing.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will be received
by the Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, until 5pm, October 25, 2005. Comments should
be submitted to
Ms. Angie Pennock
US Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
7
BASE MAP BY DOLORME 3-0 TOPO QUADS 1899
WEST EXPANSION MASTER PLAN PACE
.waa ra: n,m,a vwrma oavvm.ruc wrt
ae0573ll??
BASE MAP FROM USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAp3'CHARLOTrE WEST 1883
WEST EXPANSION MASTER PLAN PACE
Charlotte.Dou laS MA7 - Fi W.rwue+any n
IM t77 M1 t10M?1 i1R1 1t 1'x,'1 IQ,117/414 /?? prpyp4 ?yE 1(T1 L
") /f% 0 5
OVU

LEGEND i
i
PROJECT BOUNDARY ?
----- PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS)
- - - - IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (IIS)
UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (UI)
PONDS
WETLANDS
LF LINEAR FEET
1
1
I
1
1
1 1L IIS
1 786 LF (13
1 /
1
1 1L UI
1540 LF (13)
1
1
1
1
1
Imo,'
I?
I
I
/
.
7
4 5
6 7"
8 9 ,.
10 11 12
16
16
13 14 15
/4
?? 2E UI
? 198LF(
2B (Ticer Branch) PS
1671 LF (1) %
% ?.
1Z IIS
2195 LF (2)
'. 1 K I I S
3218 LF (7)
' 1M IIS
393 LF (10) ,-
p- _ ..... ice`-? ?`
%
1Q UI
311 LF (8)
2005 PERMIT 1 PAGE
Fl E NAME WETLAND61 M PERMIT 1\200 FlNAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT - PAGE 04 ON 5 x 11 MXD PRINTED AUGUST 20051SCALP Q., 4
Roos3 1167
-% I
LEGEND
PROJECT BOUNDARY
----- PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS)
----- IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (IIS)
UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (UI)
PONDS
WETLANDS
LF LINEAR FEET
c'tiy \
off,
2C UI ;
45 LF (4)
i
%
2A 11S
844 LF (5) 2D & 2F IIS
2210 LF (6)
1Y WETLAND ?
0.153 AC (1) `.
CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS
1 P IIS
369LF(14
1R UI
39 LF (15)
l/ 1U IIS !:, ry
167 LF (16)';
1V WETLANI
0.983 AC (4)

IOU Ift ?i
2005 PERMIT 1 PAGE
tarlott-C
iNTROM eAL ulkr •s IF E NAME: WERANREM5 PERMIT 1\2005 FINAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT -PAGE 05 ON 8 x 11.MXD PRUYTED AUGUST 2005 SCALE: 1' =400' 5
,?so 147
1T POND
1.384 AC (1
1
1
1N UI
376 LF (12
1
1
1
1

1S UI
`I` 230 LF (9);
10 WETLAND
0.031 AC (2)j
2Z UI
556 LF (11)
w
3B POND
1.521 AC (2) ?.. - - -
3A WETLAND
,w 0.086 AC (3)
14.11
CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS
3C POND
0.188 AC (3)
1
1
1

1
1

1
1
1 P1 POND
i X1 UI 0.170 AC (4
1 181 LF (20)
i
1
1
1
1 1
1 ?
1 1
1 ?
1 1
1 1

W1 IIS
930 LF (19)
LEGEND
PROJECT BOUNDARY
----- PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS)
- - - - - IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
Y1 UI STREAM CHANNEL (IIS)
227 LF (21) UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (UI)
PONDS
WETLANDS
LF LINEAR FEET
V2 UI
345 LF (25)
2005 PERMIT 1 PAGE
FILE NAME: WETLAN=2005 PERMIT 1MM FINAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT • PAGE 06 ON E x I I-MXD PRINTED AUGUST 20US SCALE• 1' 400' V
Baas 3 4p "7
09,o45311(,o-7
2005 PERMIT 1 I PAGE I
C?WfIO?!•DOUg FILE NAME. WETLANDS?2005 PERMIT 12005 FINAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT . PAGE 07 ON 8 x 11 MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2005 SCALE 1' = 400' 7
IMTiiN?Tl0 Mil 11i? !T
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4 5
,
T1 POND 6 7
2.214 AC (5) V1 IIS
1 700 LF (24) 8 9
1
10 11 12
16
13 14 15
1 U1 UI
1 463 LF (23)
1 S2 IIS N
F694 LF (22)
1 _ R1 UI
235 LF (29)
I
1
1 Q1 WETLAND
1 0.221 AC (5)
1
1 11 IIS
1 2127 LF (26)
M1 UI
472 LF (30)
r. _
1 `-
M1 IIS
1 629 LF (30)
1 '
LEGEND •
PROJECT BOUNDARY
L1 IIS
----- PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS) 260 LF (28)
- - - - - IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (IIS) s
UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT K1 IIS
STREAM CHANNEL (UI) 20 LF (27)
PONDS
WETLANDS A POND
LF LINEAR FEET 2.045 AC (6)
N1 UI
1,042 LF (31)
01 UI
5 LF (32)
N1 IIS
254 LF (31)
J1 WETLAND
0.409 AC (12)
2005 PERMIT 1 I PAGE I
?MT?ii uur oa Fl LE NAME WETLAN 02M PERMIT 1N2M FINAL PERMIT i EXHIBIT -PAGE 06 ON 8, 11-Mr PRINTED AUGUST 20pb SCALE; V - 4W- 8
r?C
ano52? 11(e7
C'{ar^2fte, 2005 PERMIT 1 ?I PAGE I
.MnINATiOMAI AIA? ?• FlLE NAME: WETLANDS\2005 PERMIT 112005 FINAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT- PAGE 09 ON 8 x 11 MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2005 SCALE• 1• 400'
RLE NAME: WETLANDS\2005 PERMIT 1\2005 FINAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT -PAGE 10 ON 8x 11.MXD MNTED ALK3UST 2005 SCALE: V • 100• I 10
a(90 531?Ce -7
II 2005 PERMIT 1 1 PAGE I

LEGEND
PROJECT BOUNDARY
----- PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS)
- - - - - IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
2U UI STREAM CHANNEL (IIS)
236 LF (37) UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (UI)
PONDS
WETLANDS
LF LINEAR FEET
i
2U IIS
` 1541 LF (37)
2V WETLAND
0.140 AC (8) i
2S1 IIS
68 LF (35)
2R1 IIS
231 LF (36)
2T WETLAND
0.057 AC (9)
2Y U l
2X UI 1273 LF (45)
300 LF (44)
2Y IIS
57 LF (45
_ 2X 11S
%
1,564 LF (44)
2005 PERMIT 1 PAGE
InaM??eA& A- _AP$ FILE NAME: WETLANm2w5 PERMrr 1\2005 FINAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT -PAGE 11 ON 8x 11.MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2005 SCALE: 1'-4W' 11
,7©o53/ i?-7
ano53IIl?7
2005 PERMIT 1 PAGE
CharlotteaA)ou
IMTt
RWATIO
?\ ???? ?* FILE NAME VYETIANDS\2005 PERMIT 1\2005 FINAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT -PAGE 12 ON 8 x / 1.MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2006 SCALE: 1' •400' A 1 2
B1 UI 951 LF (4 1)
`
49 LF (40)
1
1 ,
i
1
1 1 E1 IIS
1 210 LF (42
1
LEGEND
Al UI
1I49 3 LF (41
E1 UI
) 320 LF (42)
PROJECT BOUNDARY
----- PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS)
IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (IIS)
UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (UI)
PONDS
WETLANDS
LF LINEAR FEET
1
1
I1
Al PS
1
1
"I ?A
D1 UI
126 LF (38)
C1 UI
70 LF (39)
1171 LF (47)
1B IIS ;
0
e`
r---I 1A U1
i 1B U l
264 LF (46)
I .
418 LF (47) ? ? •
r
r
r
1A US ?

1,220 LF (46)???
E
2005 PERMIT 1 I PAG
FILE NAME. WETLANDS12W5 PERMIT 112005 FINAL PERMIT tEXHIBIT -PAGE 130N 8 x 11.MXD PRINTED AUGUST2005_SCALE: V=400' _ 1Q
?J
aoo531tco I
STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT
AREA
415
6 7-
8 9
10 11 12
131141151 16
>t
? I
I
1
2W IIS
892 LF (43)
CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS
13 IoNi 1)
f 11 16
SO i6
3G WETLAND
0.165 AC (10)
Y
STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT
AREA
3F WETLAND
1.410 AC (11)
I h;
3E IIS
94 LF (52)

a CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS
m
k .... O Rw?
D
? YRVM
LEGEND
PROJECT BOUNDARY
PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS)
- - - - IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (IIS)
UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (UI)
PONDS
/? 61 WETLANDS
/
' 77 LF LINEAR FEET
2005 PERMIT 1 - ? P14
FILE NAME: WETLANDS N PERMIT 1\2006 FINAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT - PAGE 14 ON 8 x 11.MX0 PRINTED AUGUST 2005 SCALE: 1' = 400• 1 T
IM7[[M[TtOMlll •1[? 1T
ago bs 3 l ! V7
STORMWATER
! .,?MANAGEMENT LSD.
! AREA WEST 13
! 2G (Coffey Creek) PS • _ , - '
386 LF (48) , -
D --
-
.w ?? q A l aq ??\ 1
2L IIS
1 N
,295 LF 50
( )
t
(n ..
STORMWATER
2K (Coffey Creek) PS MANAG_ EMENT
1,592 LF (49) AREA
2H & 3D IIS • m
I
1,468 LF (51) ; 1J1 POND l
0.232 AC (7)
'????? - ? EVE No ID POND
I UM ?R 0.849 AC (8)
513 LF (55)
B -?
11 WETLAND
0 0.048 AC (13) 1D US
517 LF (53) m
I H U l 'm
..+?a
63 LF (57) 71?
1G IIS .' "
45 LF (56)
LE_
1 E (Coffey CreeK) PS f 4 5
PROJECT BOUNDARY 1,642 LF (54)
---- PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS) 4 6 7 ?
-- IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
_ STREAM CHANNEL (IIS) WIES T $ 9
-s UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (UI) 10 11 12
PONDS
WETLANDS
1
LF LINEAR FEET 13 14 15 6
2005 PERMIT 1 PAGE
FILE NAME: WETLANOS\2005 PERMIT 1\2005 FINAL PERMIT1 EXHIBIT -PAGE 15 ON 8x 11.MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2005 SCALE: "-400' 15
aObs?t! c??
aaoS3tlur7

GRADE
REEK BED
C,C.J WEST EXPANSION MASTER PLAN 11 I AG I
Charlotte-Douglas ?
,,,?,,,? .,
1_Ntf4N?I1G N41.414t04T t W' "100108 1001 >1G11L 1 ?t00
ao0531C4.?1
CROSS SECTION A-A
TYPICAL ROAD CROSS SECTION

PROPOSED FILI
CROSS SECTION C-C
PROPOSED RUNWAY & TAXIWAY
GY V%1 '71 /1'.L
ED GRADE

4 5
Q 7
si
r
14 u
WEST EXPANSION MAS
Poo= TER PLAN moll. 0
. ?, ?? 8
a. o S'? 1 1 to `7
JAN, -01' 00 (FRI) 09:52
01/06/2000 09:31
GHARLU'I"I'E/UUUGLAS INT' L AIRPORT TEL: 7U4 359 4U3U
4043057155 ATLANTA"ADO
T Y
??? 2 ? 1955
x
James B. Hunt Jr.. Governor
Baty Ray mccaitl, sccrctary
August 11, 2999
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
F. UU2
PAGE 02
ViViSion of Archives IN Mstory
Jeffrey J. Glow. Director
Thorns M. Roberts
Program Manager
Federal Aviation Administration
Airports District Office'
1701 Columbia Avenue, Suite 2-26Q
College Park, GA 30337.2747
Re: MOA for Charlotte-Douglas International Airport
Mecklenburg Counry,,tR99.8616
Dear Mr. Roberts:
Enclosed please find the Memorandum of Agreement for the improvements at Charlotte-
Douglas International Airport. I Kaye 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 Council'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 us when it has been
filed.
Thank you for your vooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Farley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Crow
State Historic Preservation Officer
Enclosure
cc: Advisory Council
Charlotte/ Mecklenburg HPC

JAN. -01' 00(FRI) 09:52 CHARLOTTE/DOUGLAS INT' L AIRPORT Tbb:704 359 403U F. UUj
?01/©6/2000 09:31 404305'155 ATLANTA ADD PAGE 03
Memorandum of Agreement
Between the
Federal Aviation Administration and
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer
for the
Charlotte/Douglas International Airport
Mecklenburg County, North County
Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.6(b)(1)
WHEREAS, the Federal Avfation Administration -(FAA) has determined that
implementation of development and/or air traffic actions (the Undertaking)
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-toot runway extension, development of associated ancillary
facilities, and implementation of noise abatement measures and are described in
the Air port's Master Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement may affect
historic properties, including both structures and archeological 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 an Historic Preservation
(Council) pursuant to the regulations at 36 CPR 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 that the following measures are carried out:
=S 3 I I (Q,'7
JAN. -07' 00(FRI) 09:53 CHARLOT'11M000S INI b AIKFUKi Ibb. /U4 JJ7 4UJU t. 'uv4
b1106/2000 69, :11 4043057155 ATLANTA,ADCJ FAGE 04
A. Historic 5trvctures
1. The Airport in consultation with the SHPO shall evaluate measures to allow
the Samuel Brown Farm (ti1K1874) to remain standing. Such measures
shall Include options for adaptive reuse, 'stabilization and preservation,
and/or the possibility of moving the structure(s) to a new location. If,
after consultation with the 5HPO, no feasible and prudent rehabilitation,
adaptive reuse, and/or relocation of the property(s) is foynd, 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 (s).
2. The followi?,g structures are located in areas subject to aircraft noise
exposure levels greater than 650 based on the Day-Night Average sound
level metric (ONL) and are not a compatible land use in accordance with 14
CFR Part 150, 5 A150.101, fable 1; or are located in an orea that may be
subject to an increase of more than 3 d9 within 60 DNL resulting from the
proposed action and are also considered to be off ected by the introduction
of new noise.
+ Or Richard A. Query House (MV 373);
4 Zahn Douglas House (MKJ36J);
4 Asbury Nause (MKJ873),,
3 Samuel Frown Form (MK1874); and
50ratt-i9rier Farmhouse and Slave House (MKI875).
These structures are eligible for sound attenuation under the provisions of
the Airport's Noise Compatibillty Program approved under the provisions
of 14 CFR 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 SHPO 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 Secretary o.tthe Interior's
Standards for Rehabilitatlon and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic
Rui dins (U.S. bepartment of the Interior, National Park Service, 1992
and in accordance with the plans and specifications agreed to by the
Airport and SHPO.
2
oJDO5314 (i? r
JAN.-01'00(FRI) 09:53 CHARLOTTE/DOUGLAS INT'I, AIRPORT TEb:704 359 4030 K OU5
81/06;2000 09:31 4043057155 ATLANTA ADO PAGE 05
3, The Airport in consultation with the SHPO shall evaluate and implement
measures to minimize potential imports resulting from the relocation of
West Boulevard on the Dr Richard .t. Quern House (MKJ373). Such
measures shall include providing a landscaped buffer area between the
roadway and the affected property.
8. Archeological Resources
1. The FAA shall ensure that the Airport prepares and implements an
archaeological data recovery plan for the Wynn Site (3-1,0MI) and the
Ertel Site (31MK314). This plan will be consistent with the standards
included in the &cret? of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for
Ar, checlogy and istoric 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 tryst be submitted to the FAA and
5HPO for review and comment. Unless the 5HPO objects within 15 days
of ter receipt of the plan, the FAA shall ensure the plan Is implemented.
2. Prior to qhy disturbance of lands immediately surrounding the freeinaq
House (MK1363), the Airport will conduct an 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 consultation with the SHPO and in a planner consistent with
the "5tondords and Guidelines". If the site is determined eligible, a data
recovery plan will be prepared and implemented in the some manner as
outlined in Stipulation 6.1.
3. The FAA agrees to ensure that all materials and records resulting from
excavatlcns at the Wynn Site (31MK611), the Ertel Site (3JMX6J4), and
any other sites investigated and determined eligible for the National
Register, will be curated in accordance with 36 CFR Part 79. The Airport
agrees to provide to the FAA and 5HP0 all final historic and archaeological
reports 'resulting from actions taken pursuant to Stipulations 6.1 and 8.2
of this agreement, Such reports are to be prepared in accordance with
the SHPO's most current Specifications for ArphQeolo iical Field Reports
and "Standards and Guidelines".
3
aooS3110
JAN. -01' 00 (FRI) 09:54 GHARLO'I'TR%DOUG bAS INI L AIKf UKI IGL: /U4 J3y 4uJU r. vuu
01/96/20UO 09:31 4043057155 A'ILANTA,,ADO PAGE 06
4. In the event previously unknown archeological resources are discovered
during construction:
a. The Airport will cease work in the immediate area of the previously
unknown archaeological resources and the FAA and 5HP0 will be
notified, The FAA and 5HP0 will determine the eligibility and
significance of any artifacts discovered.
b. If it is determined that the site is eligible for the NRHP, the FAA, 5HP0,
the ACHP, and Airport shall consult to determine appropriate mitigation
measures for the site.
C. Gtncral Stipulations
1. The FAA shall ensure that the work carried out pursuant to this Agreement is
carried out under the direct supervision of a person or persons meeting at
a rnlnimum the professional qualifications set forth in the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards and Guidelines.
2, xf the SHPO or FAA object in writing, within 15 days, to any plans,
specif icatiohs or recommendations submitted pursuant to the terms of
this Agreement, then the, FAA, the 5HPO, and the Airport shall consult to
resolve any objections which have been raised. If the FAA determines
that the objections(s) cannot be resolved by such consultation with the
SHPQ, the FAA shall request further comments of the Council pursuant to
36 CFA Part 800.6(?)(z)(y). The agency official agrees to consider any
Council comment provided In response to such a request in accordance with
the provisions of 36 CFR Part 800.7(c)(4). This requirement shall be
applicable only to the matter which is the subject of the unresolved
objection. The FAA agrees that its responsibility to carry out all other
actions provided for under this Agreement, not the subject of an
unresolved pb jection, will remain unchanged.
3. If any of the parties to this agreement believe that an amendment or an
addendum to the agreement is necessary, that party shall immediately
notify the other parities and request consultation to consider an
amendment or addendum to this agreement. The process of amending or
executing an addendum to the agreement shall be the same as that
exercised in creating the original agreement. In the event of an
amendment or an addendum, the FAA will comply with 36 CFR Part
q
aces ? a ?,??
JAN. -01' 00 (FRI) 09:54 CHARLOTTE/ DOUGLAS I NT' L A I RPORT 'I EL: 704 359 403U P. UU 7
611ti6/200V 09::[phone] ATLANTA'ADO PAGE 07
. . • .
N00. 6 (c:) (7) .
4. Any consulting party to this agreement may 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 avold termination. In the event
of termination, the FAA will comply with 36 CFR Parts 800,7(x).
Execution of this Memorandum of Agreement and implementation of its terms
evidence that FAA has afforded the 5HPO and the Council an opportunity to
comment an 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.
FEDEML AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Scott Seritt, Manager
Atlanta Airports District Office
8/5 /Ty
(Date)
NORTH CAROLINA HISTORIC. PRESERVATION OFFICE
8 zq
Jeffry r (Date)
State Historic Preservation Officer
CQNCVR
I. W - 00
T. J. Orr, A iat on Director (Date)
Chgrlotte/D as International Airport
5
I 1 ?e
Roos

L'nitud States Department of the Xnteiior
FISH NISM WII.DLIFS SFJtVICE
Mfvillc Ftdd pifisc
160 TOMA Surd
AgWytll• North Carolio 2:$01
December 4,1998
Mr. Robert D Rtq uiW, Ecologist
F.nYiconmcnt & Amhaeology. LLC
6948 Oakwood Drive, Suites 201 & 202
Florcure. Kcatucky 41013
Dear Mr. 9 epasky:
Subj=: Proposed eapansian of Charlotte-Douglas ittternarionel Airport, Charlotte,
Mecklenburg County. North Carolina
W r received a copy of your letter of November 3,1948, to Dr. Willie TKylor, OR3ca of
Fn4m(uutnW Policy 2nd Compliance, Department ofthc Intotior, Washington, D.C., raftardhig
additionid ipformstion on the Draft Enviromawrl Impact Statement for tho CherlotwDouglos
international Airport. )*ckl:abazg County. North Caroling. Wo are providing tht folletwing
comment; in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of the EndmScred Speciet Act of 1973,
as otended (16 V•S•C.1531-1543) (Act).
in ymir letter you provided the results of intentivc nuvey's for MV Plants WiNn the MOO >3rg11,
nc sitrti'cyi lbcuscd on existing rights-of-way VW woodland edt" as well as other potential
ftsbitat for Sehweinitz'e sunflower (Hellanthar sckwri„ltzii) and Georgia attar (Aster
,eorgianus). Stnvcye were performed October 13-16,1999.
We have records of SchweitiVe sunflower from nett the 14c4lenburg County project site. In
nu- Jett or of December 14, we rccontmanded a field :trrvay to drtoattinc the preioncc or
absencc of tfus species or iv hatritat. In our September 10, 1998, letter, we recommended
additional surveys to coincide with the flowvring period for Xelonrhus schweinittii. According
to your letter, neither Schweinitz's tanGowu nor any of the Federal epeeies of concern were
located bi the proposed wcpansiori area during the inter s;ve swveys. The photoentohs included
with your letter were hclptUl in discerning important characters of Aster parent. We therorare
now concur with your dctcnttimtion that the proposed project will not affect crt"ngered or
threatened spec es or their 1laWats. We believe the rcquuemcrits under Section 7 of the Rat are
fulfilled. However, obligations tmdt-r Section 7 of tbo Act must be reconsidered if` (1) nave
utfurntation reveal% impecu of this ldctlriFed active tnat may a.flrect listed opecies or critical
aooS31l V)

habitat in a=annernot previously taiuid- id. (2) this,,ctian is subtequsnrty mortified in a
uaurim that was not considered io this review, or (3) a new species Is listed or critical babiras it
determined that may be xMctod by the identified action.
We 2ppreci4W tAc oppominity to provide them commcuts. Ifwe cast be of arty suiata=C or if
you hove say questions, piaaa do rot bccitate to cWact Mr. Mark A. Cantrell of oik star at
82811584939, Ext. 227. In any Boors corrwpondonee oencomin: this project, plo&j® nfaaxe
our Log Number 4.2.96.021.
9iacctt; r ?'?
T?
Shia P. Cole
State Supatviwi
cc:
Dr. Willie R Taylur, Director, Office of Envirotttncntal Policy and Compjianre,
Lt-S. Aepart neat of the Interior, Interior Building. 1949 C Street, :WV.,
Warbitlgtoti. DC 20240

??85211??
el I
CLEARWATER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
August 31, 2005
Mr. David Baker
US Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Field Office
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
RECEIVED
Ms. Cyndi Karoly p 2??5 SE 0, N.C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 CESAW-CO-RA
Re: Individual Permit Application
Charlotte-Douglas International Airport Expansion
Mecklenburg County, NC
Dear Mr. Baker and Ms. Karoly:
Enclosed for your review is an Individual Permit application for stream and wetland impacts
associated with construction of the first phase of expansion at the Charlotte-Douglas International
Airport, in Charlotte, (Mecklenburg County) North Carolina. The following information is
included with the application as supporting documents:
1) 8.5 X 11" plan drawings including stream impacts
2) List of Adjacent Land Owners
3) MOA with NC Department of Cultural Resources
4) Correspondence with USFWS
5) DWQ Permit Application Fee
Please do not hesitate to call Brian Hennessey at [phone] or me at [phone] to
discuss this application or if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
12,
R. Clement Riddle, P.W.S.
Principal
enclosures
cc: NCWRC
USFWS
OCT 3 '. 2Q05
DE l unVe crYt gK - BRANC,N
224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
www.cwenv.com
Section A'104 Individual Permit
c • tion
_Ar'd
401 Wa#er Quality Certification
. a
August 29, 2005

I
Charlotte • Douglas
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Prepared By:
C-1,earwater
`ErWironmental Consultants, inc
224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Hendels6oville,"North Carolina 28792
Tel: [phone] Fax: (828) A98-9003
www.clearwaterenvironmental.com
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT OMB APPROVAL NO.0710-003
33CFR 325 Expires October 1996
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing
Nta sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or
,y other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service
Directorate of Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management and
Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC 20503. 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
Authority: 33 USC 401, Section 10; 1413, Section 404. Principal Purpose: These laws require permits authorizing activities in, or affecting, navigable waters of the
United States, the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the Untied States, and the transportation of dredged material for the purpose of dumping it into
ocean waters. Routine Uses: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Disclosure: Disclosure of requested information
is voluntary. If information is not provided, however, the permit application cannot be processed nor can a permit be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this application (see sample
drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction n ro
ed vity. An application that is not completed
g
in full will be returned.
ITEMS I THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS
1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED 4.DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED
SEP 0 12005
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICANT)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME &A J
& TITLE (an agent is not required)
CHARLOTTE-DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
C/O Jerry Orr
Mr. Brian Hennessey
Post Office Box 19066
Aviation Department
Charlotte, NC 28219
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE 10. AGENT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE
a. Residence N/A a. Residence N/A
b. Business 704/359-4000 b. Business
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request, supplemental information in
support of this permit application.
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
Charlotte-Douglas International Aiport (CLT) Expansion
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable)
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
Coffey Creek and Ticer Creek
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Mecklenberg NC
COUNTY STATE
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN, (see instructions)
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
terstate 85 to Billy Graham Parkway (exit #33). Head south for approximately two miles and exit onto Josh Birmingham Parkway. Jost Birmingham
.rkway takes you to the main airport terminal.
.1 1
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
SEE ATTACHED.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
SEE ATTACHED.
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
SEE ATTACHED.
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Fill of approximately 50,000 cubic yards and culverts proposed in jurisdictional wetlands and streams will be clean material from on-site or adjacent areas.
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
Approximately-3*46,acres of jurisdictional Waters of the U.S./wetlands are proposed for impacts. This includes the following:
5,4501inear feet of perennial and important intermittent streams
528 linear feet of unimportant intermittent streams
0.652 acres of wetlands
0.176 acres of Ponds.
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Completed? Yes No IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
Yes, construction of the Safety Area for Runway 23 and impacts to 296 linear feet of stream was authorized under Nationwide Permit 39 in November
2000.
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be entered here, please attached
a supplemental list).
SEE ATTACHED.
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL* IDENTIFICATION # DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
FAA EIS - Record of Decision 4-28-00
*Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building and flood plan permits
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this
application is complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly
authorized agent of the applicant.
SIGNATURE OF LICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The application m e signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly authorized agent if
the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and
willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry, shall
be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.

Adjacent Property Owners
TAXPID COMMONPID OWNER
14311170 14311170 CK AIRPORT COMMERCE CENTER LLC
301 S COLLEGE ST #2800 CHARLOTTE, NC 28202
14311132 14311132 PARTNERSHIP AIRPORT CENTER LTD AND %FINMARC MANAGE
4733 BETHESDA AV SUTE 500 BETHESDA MA 20814
14105434 14105434 FUND III LLC %AMB PROP CO AMB INSTITUTIONAL ALLIAN
60 STATE ST SUITE 3700 BOSTON, MA 02109
14101416 14101416 FUND III LLC AMB INSTITUTIONAL ALLIANCE AND % AMB
60 STATE ST SUITE 3700 BOSTON, MA 02109
14105538 14105538 RICHARD E STILWELL
3753 LANDMARK DR SHERRILLS FORD, NC SHERRILLS FORD, NC 28673-
14105539 14105539 RICHARD E STILWELL
3753 LANDMARK DR SHERRILLS FORD, NC 2867SHERRILLS FORD, NC
14105558 14105558 JOSEPH T SR MCLEAR
7901 BYRUM DR CHARLOTTE, NC 28217
14120104 14120104 DAVIDLAND LLC
6707 FAIRVIEW RD #C CHARLOTTE, NC 28210-3354
14120105 14120105 THOMAS STEPHEN AUTRY
8918 BYRUM DR CHARLOTTE, NC 28217 8918 BYRUM DR. CHARLOTTE, NC
14120105 14120105 THOMAS STEPHEN AUTRY
8918 BYRUM DR CHARLOTTE, NC 28217 8918 BYRUM DR. CHARLOTTE, NC 2
14104107 14104107 DAVIDLAND LLC
6707 FAIRVIEW RD #C CHARLOTTE, NC 28210-3354
14112126 14112126 PAUL JACKSON SR BROWN AND % P J BROWN JR
648 LAKEWOOD RD YORK, SC 29745
14112123 14112123 PAUL J JR BROWN AND LOIS H BROWN
6420 DIXIE RD CHARLOTTE, NC 28208
14112121 14112121 JOSEPH 0 BROWN AND BETTY M BROWN
2742 CLINELAND RD CHERRYVILLE, NC 28021-9601
14112133 14112133 JOSEPH 0 BROWN AND BETTY M BROWN
2742 CLINELAND RD CHERRYVILLE, NC 28021-9601
8 I ^
?A?p,sYS9

R
a,3 f
I
w4
Charlotte-Douglas
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

yF
? ? ? Y? pf
?
.+ I • v
?' 7e?.
F1p
?
4 ? my
a.
Pr t S fir! yy

?t w r

ll
11 -
Table of Contents
1.0
1.1
1.2 INTRODUCTION ........................................................
Project Site ................................................................
Project Purpose ......................................................... ............................................. 1
...............................................2
...............................................2
1.3 Public Involvement ................................................... ...............................................2
2.0
3.0
4
0 PROPOSED ACTIVITY (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) ......................................4
ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS .....................................................................................6
HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS .......................................................................................9
.
4.1
4.2
4.3 Oak-Pine-Hickory Forest .........................................................................................9
Bottomland Forests ................................................................................................10
Old Field and Scrub/Shrub .....................................................................................11
4.4 Urban-Industrial-Turf .............................................. ..............................................11
4.5 Disturbed - Unvegetated .......................................... ..............................................12
4.6 Wetlands .................................................................. ..............................................12
4.7 Open Water/Ponds ................................................... ..............................................12
4.8 Streams ..................................................................... ..............................................13
5.0 FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES ............................... ..............................................15
6.0 MITIGATION PLAN .................................................. ..............................................16
6.1 Avoidance ................................................................ ..............................................16
6.2 Minimization ............................................................ ..............................................16
6.3 Compensatory Mitigation ........................................ ..............................................17
7.0 STORMWATER .......................................................... ..............................................18
8.0 SUMMARY ................................................................. ..............................................19
Figures
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Alternative Analysis
Memorandum of Agreement Dept of Cultural Resources
Correspondence with US Fish and Wildlife Service
Stream Evaluation Forms

WETLAND MASTER PLAN
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Charlotte Douglas International Airport (CLT) is a publicly owned air carrier and air
cargo transportation facility operated by the City of Charlotte Aviation Department in
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (Figure 1).
In the late 1980's the FAA sponsored an Airport Capacity Enhancement Study, which
culminated in the 1991 CLT Capacity Enhancement Plan. The FAA sponsored capacity
study identified demand levels at which CLT should operate or suffer consequence of
delays. Thereafter, a Master Plan was prepared by the City of Charlotte, which indicated
the existing airport runway system is beyond its calculated Annual Service Volume
capacity and the baseline activity levels identified in the 1991 Capacity Study were
exceeded which triggered the need to increase the capacity of the airport. If the capacity
of the airport was not increased, the airport would suffer operational delays. The 1991
Capacity Study recommended the construction of a third parallel runway as the most
beneficial development proposal to increase capacity at CLT and at the same time reduce
operational delays. In 1998, the City of Charlotte completed an update of the current
Airport Master Plan. The recommendations of the updated master plan and
developments were assessed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
submitted in November of 1999. The Record of Decision (ROD) for the proposed
expansion of CLT was signed April 28, 2000.
This application proposes impacts to jurisdictional wetlands/waters of the US for several
of the proposed airport improvements listed below in Section 2.0 (Proposed Activity).
The specific project purposes that are proposed in this phase include the extension of
runway 18R/36L, relocation of West Boulevard, and relocation a portion of Old Dowd
Road. These three proposed activities are essential and independent of future expansion
considerations. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) is being
1

prepared that will further studies of the alignment for the proposed third runway and the
relocation of portions of Wallace Neal Road west of Interstate 485.
1.1 Project Site
The proposed project is located within the CLT Expansion Area of approximately 2,500
acres of land in the City of Charlotte, North Carolina (Figure 2). The proposed project
footprint comprises approximately 60 acres within the project expansion area. The
airport is bounded to the north by US. 74 Wilkinson Boulevard. To the east the project is
bounded by existing Runway 18R/36L. The southern project boundary is located just
south of Byrum Drive. To the west, Interstate 485 Outer Beltway is under construction
and creates a definitive boundary for the airport.
1.2 Project Purpose
The specific purposes of this project is to provide sufficient runway length to
accommodate potential air transportation demand; provide sufficient ancillary facilities to
support the potential increase in air and ground transportation demand; and minimize
potential impacts on human health and environment by reducing noise impacts on the
surrounding communities. The specific project purposes that are proposed in this phase
include the extension of runway 18R/36L, relocation of West Boulevard, and relocation a
portion of Old Dowd Road. These three proposed activities are essential and independent
of future expansion considerations. They are necessary whether the third proposed
runway is located on the eastern side of I-485 as currently approved in the ROD or
located on t the west side of I-485 as being proposed under the Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) under preparation.
1.3 Public Involvement
The public was afforded numerous opportunities through the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) process to evaluate the proposal for airport expansion and provide
2

comments on those proposals. The evaluation periods included public notices March 31,
1995, Federal Register, Public notice in newspapers announcing meetings November 14-
18, 1995; agency scoping meeting December 13, 1995 1:00 pm; public scoping meeting
December 13, 1995, 6:00 pm; notice of availability for the Draft EIS; and a public
information workshop and public hearing held on August 27, 1998. The FAA in
preparation of the Final EIS carefully considered all comments received from the public
as well as from Federal, State, and local agencies.
3

2.0 PROPOSED ACTIVITY (PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE)
The proposed Wetland Master Plan (PLAN) includes impacts to U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) jurisdictional waters of the U.S. including wetlands for construction
of a runway extension (18R/36L, taxiways (F and Echo), road relocations (West
Boulevard and a portion of Old Dowd Road). The following is a description of activities
for the preferred alternative:
Extension of Runway 18R/36L to a length of 12,000 feet by constructing a 2,000 foot
southerly extension with parallel and connecting taxiways and associated lighting.
Additionally, the southerly extension was selected because it provides the necessary
length for long haul capacity and provides the most efficient use of the airport for
departures with the least environmental impact.
Relocation of West Boulevard around the south end of the airport from the eastern end of
Runway 36R and closure of Byrum Road; Relocation of the northern portion of Old
Dowd Road, just east of I-485 Outer Beltway (the final alignment of Wallace Neal Road
will either be parallel to I-485 on the east or west side). The Wallace Neal Road and
third runway alternatives are under discussion in the forthcoming Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement.
To accomplish these activities the applicant proposes to impact 5,450 linear feet of
perennial and intermittent "importantl" streams, 528 linear feet of unimportant
intermittent channels, 0.176 acres of open waters/ponds, and 0.652 acres of wetlands.
Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S./wetlands were delineated throughout the study area and
verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on January 8, 2001.
1 USACE Stream Evaluation form
4

Due to the extensive project proposal and the necessary time to construct these projects,
the Project applicant is requesting that this Individual Permit be valid for a period of 7
years from the date of issuance.

3.0 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
An alternative analysis was conducted as part of the FEIS process for the proposed
expansion of CLT. While written for the FEIS, this Alternative Analysis gave
consideration to practicable and reasonable alternatives and adequately complies with
Section 404(b)(1) guidelines and is attached in Appendix A. This discussion of
alternatives is submitted by the Applicant to assist the Wilmington District, USACE in
evaluating the application for authorization to discharge dredged or fill material into
waters of the United States, including wetlands, under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344 for CLT expansion in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. An
analysis of the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines requirements for consideration of
alternatives as required by 40 C.F.R. 230.10(a) is set forth below.
The Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines Alternatives requirements provide that "no discharge of
dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the
proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so
long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental
consequences." [See 40 C.F.R. 230.10(a) (emphasis added).] The record must contain
"sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed discharge complies with the
requirements of Section 230.10(a) of the Guidelines. The amount of information needed
to make such a determination and the level of scrutiny required by the Guidelines is
commensurate with the severity of the environmental impact (as determined by the
functions of the aquatic resource and the nature of the proposed activity) and the
scope/cost of the project." [See ACOE/EPA Memorandum to the Field "Appropriate
Level of Analysis Required for Evaluating Compliance with Section 404(b)(1)
Guidelines Alternatives Requirements," p. 2, dated August 23, 1994, hereinafter the
"Memorandum."] As noted in the Memorandum at pages 3-4, the 404(b)(1) Guidelines
"only prohibits discharges when a practicable alternative exists which would have less
adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem." [See Memorandum.] "If an alleged
alternative is unreasonably expensive to the applicant, the alternative is not practicable."
6

[See Guidelines Preamble, "Economic Factors," 45 Federal Register 85343 (December
24, 1980).]
Practicable alternatives for the project are those alternatives that are "available and
capable of being done after taking into consideration costs, existing technology, and
logistics in light of overall project purposes." [See 40 C.F.R. 230.10(a)(2).] Clarification
is provided in the Preamble to the Guidelines on how cost is to be considered in the
determination of practicability. An alternative site is considered "available" if it is
presently owned by the applicant or "could reasonably be obtained, utilized, expanded or
managed in order to fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed activity." 40 C.F.R. §
230.10(a)(2).
Our intent is to consider those alternatives, which are reasonable in terms of the overall
scope/cost of the proposed project. The term economic [for which the term "costs" was
substituted in the final rule] might be construed to include consideration of the applicant's
financial standing, or investment, or market share, a cumbersome inquiry which is not
necessarily material to the objectives of the Guidelines.
The EPA 404(b)(1) Guidelines state that, "we have chosen instead to impose an explicit,
but rebuttable presumption that alternatives to discharges in special aquatic sites are less
damaging to the aquatic ecosystem, and are environmentally preferable." Of course, the
general requirements that impacts to the aquatic system not be acceptable also applies.
This presumption "...contains sufficient flexibility to reflect circumstances of unusual
cases" (249 Fed. Reg., 85339, December 24, 1980). It is clear from these stipulations
that a preferable alternative may allow filling in certain wetland areas and subsequent
mitigation and/or management of other areas.
The wetlands and streams estimate in the FEIS Alternative Analysis vary from current
impacts because the wetlands and streams had not been surveyed and verified by the
USACE. However, the conclusions and recommendations of this report remain valid
taking into consideration the changes in total impact.
7

The alternative analysis address the proposed projects discussed in this application as
well as the proposed third runway and relocation of Wallace Neal Road. The alternative
analysis is valid for the projects in this application as it was approved in the ROD,
provides the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. In addition, the
forthcoming Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement will not address the projects
proposed in this application as there are no changes and no new alternatives considered.
Therefore, the applicant believes that the attached discussion of alternatives, together
with other documents submitted by the applicant in support of its 404 Permit, shows that
the project complies with the guidelines and promotes public interest.
8
11
4.0 HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS
The 2,500-acre site consists mostly of upland areas. There are 21.76 acres of
jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. including wetlands. The site was delineated between
September and November 2000 and verified by the USACE on January 8, 2001. A
description of vegetation habitats is summarized below from data collected for the Report
on Biotic Communities, Charlotte-Douglas International Airport (Environment and
Archeology for the Environmental Impact Statement, November 1997).
4.1 Oak-Pine-Hickory Forest
The study area was predominately secondary forest situated on a soil moisture gradient
ranging from sub-mesic to well drained. Typical species in the forests were white oak
(Quercus alba), blackjack oak (Q. marilandica), willow oak (Q. phellos), red oak (Q.
rubra), southern red oak (Q. falcate), red maple (Acer rubrum), mockernut hickory
(Carya tomentosa), pignut hickory (C. glabra), sweet pignut (C. ovalis), Virginia pine
(Pines virginiana), shortleaf pine (P. echinata), and red cedar (Juniperus virginiana).
Subdominant species were hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), basswood (Tilia
heterophylla), beech (Fagus americana), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), white ash
(Fraxinus americana), and black walnut (Juglans nigra).
Understory species were comprised of slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), blueberry (Vaccinium
atrococcum), silverberry (Eleaganus umbellate), red cedar, strawberry bush (Euonymus
americanus), black haw (Viburnum prunifolium), flowering dogwood (Corpus florida),
black cherry (Prunus serotina), winged sumac (Rhus copallina), American hornbeam
(Carpinus caroliniana), red bud (Cercis canadensis), and American holly (Ilex opaca).
Woody vines included Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), moonseed
(Menispermum canadense), kudzu-vine (Pueraria lobata), Carolina rose (Rosa carolina),
muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), blackberry
(Rubus allegheniensis), greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), and Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia).
9

The herb layer was generally composed of bluegrass (Poa. Spp.), fescue (Festuca spp.),
ryegrass (Lolium perenne) and sedges (Carex spp.). Common forbs included five-finger
(Potentilla canadensis), bedstraw (Galium aparine), wild licorice (G. circaezans),
cranesbill (Geranium carolinianum), mayapple (Podophyllum peltatum), violets (Viola
sororia), wild ginger (Asarum canadensis), snakeroot (Sanicula gregaria, S. canadense),
wild strawberry (Fragaria virginica), spotted wintergreen (Chimaphila maculata),
puttyroot (Aplectrum hyemale), sweet cicely (Osmorhiza claytonii), liver-leaf (Hepatica
americana), and bloodroot (Sanguinaria canadensis). Woodland ferns common in the
survey area included Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), wood fern (Dryopteris
marginalis), grape fern (Botrychium dissectum), rattlesnake fern (B. virginianum), and
ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron).
4.2 Bottomland Forests
Shafale and Weakley (1990) reserve the term bottomland forest for floodplain ridges and
terraces. Thus, the moist woodlands found adjacent to intermittent streams,
drainageways, and ponds were identified as Alluvial Upland Depression Swamp Forests
(Report on Biotic Communities). Dominant tree species included tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple, green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), sweet gum,
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), box elder (Acer negundo), cottonwood (Populus
deltoids), and black willow (Salix nigra). The understory community was composed of
river birch (Betula nigra), America hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), and smooth alder
(Alnus serrulata), in addition to the trees listed above. The herb layer contained sedges
(Carex vulpinoidea, C. frankii, C. crinata, C. spp.), bedstraw (Galium aparine), spotted
touch-me-not (Impatiens capensis), snakeroot, golden ragwort (Senecio aureus), white
avens (Geum canadense), jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), sensitive fern
(Onoclea sensibilis), stonecrop (Sedum ternatum), and the exotic, invasive grass (Eulalia
viminea).
10
11
4.3 Old Field and Scrub/Shrub
Old-field growth was identified in scattered areas throughout the survey area, but
predominantly within the existing airport property. Widely dispersed empress-trees
(Paulownia tomentosa), though not dominant, were observed colonizing old-field and
scrub/shrub areas at CLT. Grasses such as Canada bluegrass (Poa compressa), Kentucky
bluegrass (P. pratensis), timothy (Phleum pratense), red fescue (Festuca rubra), barnyard
grass (Echinochloa crus-galli), green foxtail grass (Setaria viridis), and orchard grass
(Dactylis glomerata) were common. Broadleaf herbaceous species included goldenrod
(Solidago spp.), common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca), curly dock (Rumex crispus), ox-
eye daisy (Chrysanthium leucantheum), wild carrot (Daucus carota), poke (Phytolacca
americana) bush clover (Lespedeza spp.), tick-trefoil (Desmodium spp.), mugwort
(Artemisia vularis), small white aster (Aster vimineus), blackberry (Rubus spp.) and
ragweed (Ambrosia spp.)
4.4 Urban-Industrial-Turf
Turf grass or maintained lawns were identified in the vicinity of the existing airport
facility and at commercial and residential properties in the study area. These areas
undergo regular mowing. Vegetation in these areas was dominated by a variety of
introduced grasses including perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne), redtop (Agrostis
gigantea), red fescue, Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), and annual bluegrass (P.
annua). Other common herbaceous species included dandelion (Taraxacum officinale),
lyre-leaf sage (Salvia lyrata), yellow wood sorrel (Oxalis stricta, O. europea), common
plantain (Plantago major), lance leaf plantain (Plantago lanceolata), and white clover
(Trifolium repens). A large percentage of the project areas is covered with roads and
other hard surfaces or impervious coatings.
11
11
4.5 Disturbed - Unvegetated
Examples of this land use were observed in the soil harvesting operations or borrow areas
conducted by outside contractors on behalf of CLT, which covered approximately 153
acres in the project area. This land use fluctuates with Old Field vegetation. A
demolition debris disposal area covers approximately 18 acres of the airport property
north of Old Dowd Road. Another 37 acres of disturbed land is located south of Byrum
Road.
4.6 Wetlands
Vegetated wetlands were delineated throughout of the study area. Total acreage of
wetlands in the study areas is 3.78 acres (Table 1). Wetlands were subdivided into three
types based on the plant communities: 1.) Palustrine Scrub/Shrub and Emergent
Wetlands describes areas with an open canopy of small broad-leaf deciduous trees and/or
broad-leaf deciduous shrubs and an extensive persistent herb layer; 2.) Palustrine
Emergent and Scrub/Shrub Wetland is a mixed-vegetation wetlands type described a
single area dominated by herbaceous ground cover but was surrounded by small broad-
leaf deciduous trees and/or broad-leaf deciduous shrubs and 3.) Palustrine Forest and
Scrub/Shrub Wetlands are wetland forests in the project area, which were characterized
by widely-spaced mature broad-leaf deciduous trees and densely-packed broad-leaf
deciduous shrubs.
4.7 Open Water/Ponds
A total of eight ponds were identified within the study area. The total acreage of open
water in the study area was estimated to be 8.60 acres (Table 2). These water bodies are
itemized in Table 2. Six of these are impoundments are jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
and are located on intermittent streams. Two of the ponds are isolated and non-
jurisdictional. Common shoreline vegetation of the water bodies consisted of smooth
alder, cottonwood, sycamore, and willow. Scrub/shrub growth along pond borders
12
11
included alder, slippery elm, buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), swamp rose,
multiflora rose, and blackberry. Floating aquatic vegetation was present in the larger
bodies of open water and included pondweed (Potamogeton crispus), duckweed (Lemma
minor), and coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum).
4.8 Streams
The study area contains a variety of both permanent (Coffey Creek and Ticer Creek), the
upper reaches of named intermittent streams (Little Paw Creek and Beaverdam Creek),
and numerous headwaters of small unnamed intermittent streams. On-site meetings were
conducted on August 20-21, 2003 with Ms. Amanda Jones (USACE), Becky Fox (EPA),
Dave Penrose (NCDWQ), Alan Johnson (DWQ), and Clement Riddle (C1earWater
Environmental Consultants, Inc.) to confirm the classification and condition of stream
segments within the project area.
4.8.1 Perennial Streams
Ticer Creek and Coffee Creek are the only U.S.G.S perennial streams found on-
site. These streams have water flow throughout the year. Because of the year
around flow and swiftness of the water current there is no rooted vegetation in
these streams. Biological indicators observed in these streams included fish,
crayfish, and small invertebrates.
Vegetation along the banks of these streams varied but generally has a large
canopy that is dominated by American sycamore, yellow poplar, eastern white
pine (Pinus strobus), and red maple. Saplings of the above species dominated the
scrub/shrub layer along the streambed and banks. The herbaceous layer was
dominated by Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), ebony spleenwort
(Asplenium platyneuron), and blackberry.
13

4.8.2 Intermittent Streams
The intermittent streams located within the project boundary have moderate flow
most of the year. In other parts of the year, these streams have little or no flow
and are filled with leaf litter. The moderate flow does not allow rooted vegetation
to thrive. These streams were observed to have stable stream banks, scattered
persistent pools, channel substrate and biological indicators such as crayfish and
amphibians were observed in and around persistent pools.
Vegetation in the riparian areas included American sycamore, yellow poplar,
eastern white pine, and southern red oak (Quercus falcata). The scrub/shrub layer
was dominated by saplings of all of the above species and included sweet gum.
The herbaceous layer is dominated by Christmas fern, ebony spleenwort,
blackberry, and greenbrier.
4.8.3 Unimportant Intermittent Streams2
"Unimportant" intermittent streams within the project boundary have little or no
flow most of the year. There is little vegetation in the beds of these streams
because they are mostly filled with silt that occurs during heavy amounts of
rainfall. Along with silt there is a high content of leaf litter on the streambed.
These streams lack a persistent flow, stable stream banks, crawfish, minnows, in-
stream habitat structure, adjacent wetlands, and rifle pool structures typically
observed in higher quality intermittent streams. Stream Evaluation Forms are
attached in Appendix D. The classification of these streams was verified in the
field by Mr. Dave Penrose, (DWQ) and Ms. Amada Jones (USACE) In August
2003.
2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Intermittent Stream Channel Evaluation Form
14

5.0 FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES
Surveys were performed for federally protected species as part of the Environmental
Impact Statement. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concurred in their
December 4, 1998 letter that the project will not affect endangered or threatened species
or their habitats. In order to update this study, CLT plans to conduct surveys within the
proposed project areas during the flowering season (September) for listed species known
to occur in Mecklenburg County (Helianthus schweinitzii). A copy of this report will be
forwarded to the USACE and USFWS.
15

6.0 MITIGATION PLAN
The site assessment identified and evaluated potential impacts to the wetlands and
streams occurring on the project site. To compensate for the unavoidable loss of stream
habitat, CLT will provide for a "no net loss" of jurisdictional streams habitat and
associated functions and values.
6.1 Avoidance
Wetland and stream impacts associated with this proposed project are unable to be
avoided onsite due to the scope of proposed development and its location, which is
adjacent to existing CLT facilities. 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 and the flexibility needed to construct a large scale
master planned airport transportation complex. Options for locating the proposed
projects are severely limited as the proposed projects are linear in nature and have
existing fixed structures in place. (i.e. runway extension has to be at the existing runway).
CLT foresees continuing expansion and development of the airport facilities in the future.
Due to the location of the existing airport and the expected potential for aviation and
transportation related development it is anticipated that significant portions of the site
will be developed for transportation related activities. Therefore, it is likely that CLT
will apply for a Section 404 permit and 401 Water Quality Certification for future
projects.
6.2 Minimization
Adequate sedimentation and erosion control measures will be implemented during the
grading and filling phases of the project. Best management practices (BMP) will be
employed to minimize the impacts to wetlands and streams adjacent to the proposed
airport expansion. The BMP's which may be employed include siltation barriers and
16

sediment traps. The BMP's will be the most useful and successful method of mitigation
to minimize disturbance of natural stream and wetland functions.
6.3 Compensatory Mitigation
On-site areas are not considered feasible for stream mitigation as the site is being
proposed for development and FAA requirements severely restrict opportunities on-site.
Either one of or combination of the following will be used to provide adequate
mitigation.
• Purchase Mitigation Credits from the approved Mecklenburg County/City of
Charlotte Stormwater Services Stream and Wetland mitigation bank.
• Other off-site restoration approved by the USACE and DWQ
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Stormwater Services operates a wetland and stream mitigation
bank to offset impacts to jurisdictional areas as a result of public projects. This
Mitigation Bank was approved by the multi-agency review team on July 16, 2004 and
will have 12,800 linear feet of restoration credits available. CLT proposes to purchase
credits in this mitigation bank to offset impacts as proposed in this application.
CLT does not propose mitigation for wetland impacts at this time as impacts are limited
to 0.662 acres in this phase. CLT recognizes that any additional impacts to wetlands and
streams will be considered cumulative impacts. Therefore, if/when future impacts greater
than .338 acres occur, then CLT will provide compensatory mitigation for the total
amount of wetland impacts. This is consistent with the 401 Certification rules (15A
NCAC 2H.0500).
17
e, I
7.0 STORMWATER
A final stormwater management plan will be designed by Talbert and Bright, Inc. to
satisfy the future stormwater treatment needs of the proposed development. These plans
will be prepared and submitted for review when runway and taxiway design drawings are
prepared.
The stormwater management facilities will be designed using the Stormwater Best
Management Practices, NCDENR 1999. These stormwater management techniques will
direct stormwater into FAA approved stormwater measures from the impervious area
associated with the runways and taxiways. Following coordination with the NC Division
of Water Quality (March 15, 2005), CLT will incorporate extended detention wetlands to
treat the stormwater associated with the proposed project. Potential locations for the
extended detention stormwater wetland areas for runway 18R/36L are indicated on the
enclosed site plan.
These stormwater features are designed to provide removal of suspended solids,
nutrients, and pollutants from incoming stormwater. Design parameters include the
provision of sufficient surface area to promote settling of potential pollutants.
The stormwater management plan and maintenance agreement will be approved by NC
Division of Water Quality prior to impacts to streams. Stormwater treatment is a
requirement under the 401 Water Quality Certification and may require periodic
maintenance to meet stormwater plan requirements.
18

8.0 SUMMARY
CLT expansion actives listed above will be implemented in phases, and because of the
scope of planned expansion activities, the long-term commitment to public need, public
resources, and lack of alternatives the applicant is proposing a 7-year permit. By master
planning the project, the applicant proposes compensatory mitigation up-front or
concurrent with development phases.
19

BASE MAP BY DOLORME 3-0 TOPO QUADS 1998
WEST EXPANSION MASTER PLAN PAGE
,.?"A ft wa. ft om"m 1
waa.T ro: rna,a mwaR owyma rcuP wn
BASE MAP FROM LISGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS 'CHARLOTTE WEST' 1983
WEST EXPANSION MASTER PLAN PAGE
..? wwE rrr w•wr. ?+.?e.o roaia,? w., n+ro,a nw,ra owvom .cuc w,. 2
LEGEND
mow"" ?/) PROJECT BOUNDARY
74 1
- - - - PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS)
' IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
t ----
STREAM CHANNEL (IIS)
-' ..; r _- - -_ - • UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
'? ±5 STREAM CHANNEL (UI)
..•• y ~\ ?°°+n?? ® PONDS
WETLANDS
-LF LINEAR FEET
9
it O r
00
+1 O
- OO
O CCYNOIMlC A
y ,f 8
yR L D
. o a Ai
- CI
O
O •?i 1
' t1e111OINw O +
?
?o goo=
2005 PERMIT 'l PAGE
.::..:
FILE NAME: WETLANDS12W5 PERMIT 1+2005 FINAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT - PAGE 03 ON & x 1 1.MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2006 SCALE: 1' . 2.000' 3
LEGEND i
PROJECT BOUNDARY /
----- PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS) /
- - - - • IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (IIS)
UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (UI)
PONDS
WETLANDS _
LF LINEAR FEET
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12
WX 13 14 15 16
K/
1 '
1 '
1 _
1
2E U'
198 LF (3)
2B (Ticer Branch) PS
/ 1671 LF (1) %
/ `
/ 1Z IIS
/ 2195 LF (2)
1 / `,
1K 11S
1L IIS ` 3218 LF (7)
1 786 LF (13) 1 M IIS
1 1 ? `
393 LF (10) -
1L Ul
540 LF (13) •' %
' `
1Q UI
311 LF (8)
1
\\ r
I (M?'?}_'? I? 2005 PERMIT 1 lI PAGE I
ien,NATIONAL AlllrSar FILE NAME: WETLANDS\2005 PERMIT 112005 FINAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT -PAGE 04 ON 8 x 11.MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2005 SCALE: 1'=4W' '7
LEGEND
0 PROJECT BOUNDARY
----- PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS)
- - - - - IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (IIS)
UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (UI)
PONDS
WETLANDS
LF LINEAR FEET
2C U l
45 LF (4

.
2A US
S
844 LF (5
`Qa
1
1 ?
CIO
Z
2D & 2F IIS,
2210 LF (6)
1Y WETLAND+
0.153 AC (1)
1 P IIS
369 LF (14)
1T POND
1.384 AC (1
1U IIS
167 LF (16)
1V WETLAND
rt5- 0.983 AC (4) ,
r?
i
CONSTRUCTION'
LIMITS
a1?t r Y y'
?wh e-'u y?" `? ?i?"?ti ?
N
q
4 5
6 7
10 11 12
13114115I16
c,
tiq
off,
2005 PERMIT 1 -]I PAGE I
iwTS ?i• ? Fl LE NAME: WETLANDS\2005 PERMIT 1\2005 FINAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT - PAGE 05 ON 8 x 11.MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2005 SCALE: 1' = 400' 5 R 11
1 ,
IN UI
376 LF (12)
1
i
1
1
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12
13 14 15
I
1
1
1
1
1
16
1S UI
230 LF (9)
10 WETLAND
0.031 AC (2)
2Z UI
i ` 556 LF (11)
5
3B POND ..- Il
1.521 AC
i f
3A WETLAND
0.086 AC (3)
? f CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS
1
1
1 X1 UI
1 181 LF (20)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
P1 POND
0.170 AC (4

W1 IIS
jj 930 LF (19)

3C POND
0.188 AC (3)
LEGEND
0
PROJECT BOUNDARY
----- PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS)
- - - - • IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT

STREAM CHANNEL (IIS)
Y1 UI
227 LF (21) --'--- UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (UI)

PONDS
WETLANDS

LF LINEAR FEET
V2 UI
345 LF (25
2005 PERMIT 1 11 PAGE
I
-•'{??'?{K-?pLW I? ? I
?I111 1401 tt*. D* 1111 T FILE NAME: WEfLANDS\2005 PERMIT 1\2005 FINAL PERMIT I EXHIBIT - PAGE 06 ON 8 x 11.MXD PRINTED AUGUST M5 SCALE: 1' =400' 6
FILE NAME: WETLANDS12005 PERMIT 1\2005 FINAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT- PAGE 07 ON 8 x 11.MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2005 SCALE: 1'=400- 1
II 2005 PERMIT 1 II PAGE I
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
i
1
1
1
T1 POND
2.214 AC (5) V1 IIS
1 700 LF (24)
hI ? ??Aai
1 ?
lot
1 U1 UI
1 463 LF (23)j
1 S2 IIS
1 694 LF (22)
1
1
1
NE%
R1 UI
235 LF (29
Q1 WETLANI
i 0.221 AC (5)
1
11 IIS
1 2127 LF (26)
. ? M1 UI
r? 472 LF (30)
?.
%
1 ?-
1 M1 IIS
1 629 LF (30)
id 1 ??
%
LEGEND
PROJECT BOUNDARY
L1 IIS
----- PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS) 260 LF (28)
--- IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT !
STREAM CHANNEL (IIS)
_____= UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT K1 IIS
STREAM CHANNEL (UI) 20 LF (27)
PONDS
WETLANDS J1 POND
LF LINEAR FEET 2.045 AC (6)
N1 UI
1,042 LF (31)
FA?

01 UI
5 LF (32)
N1 IIS
254 LF (31)
JWETLANE
0.409 AC (12)
I I? 2005 PERMIT 1 II PAGE
FILE NAME: WETLANDWW5 PERMIT 1\2005 FINAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT- PAGE 08 ON 8 x 11.MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2005 SCALE: 1• =400' 8

r 4 5
6 7
8 9
r
1 10 11 12
q
p
13 14 15 16
PO

22

p? ?,ONO
u
?O
?O
OpO

LEGEND
PROJECT BOUNDARY
----- PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS)
- - - - - IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (IIS)
UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (UI)
PONDS
WETLANDS
Q LF LINEAR FEET

L 2005 PERMIT 1 PAGE
n
?wrt ?L 413 f • FILE NAME: WErLANDS12006 PERMIT 1\2M FINAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT - PAGE 09 ON 8 x 11.MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2006 SCALE: 1' =400' J
2005 PERMIT 1 PAGE I
FILE NAME: WETLANDS\2005 PERMIT 1\2005 FINAL PERMIT 7 EXHIBIT -PAGE 10 ON 8x 17.MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2005 SCALE: 1'=400'11 1 0
4 5 LEGEND

PROJECT BOUNDARY
6 7 ---
----- PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS)
$ 9 - - - - • IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
2U UI STREAM CHANNEL (IIS)
236 LF (37) UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
10 11 12 STREAM CHANNEL (U

16 PONDS
13 14 15 ; , WETLANDS

LF LINEAR FEET
'. 2U [IS
1541 LF (37)
2V WETLAND %
0.140 AC (8)
2S1 IIS
68 LF (35)
2R1 IIS
231 LF (36)
2T WETLAND
0.057 AC (9)
2Y U l
2X UI 273 LF (45)
300 LF (44) 2Y IIS
I )) ? 57 LF (45)
2X IIS "
%
1,564 LF (44)
2005 PERMIT 1 PAGE
iMTS ?? FILE NAME: WE LANDS\W05 PERMIT 1\2005 FINAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT - PAGE 11 ON 8x 11.MXD PRIMED AUGUST 2005 SCALE: 1' = 400' 11
L
STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT
AREA
2Q -2P -2N PS
3,352 LF (58)
, yti
CONSTRUCTION 10 11 12
h
LIMITS 13 14 15 16
I'
1
2005 PERMIT 1 PAGE
im e- ..
t" FILE NAME: WETLANDS�2005 PERMIT 1\2005 FINAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT - PAGE 12 ON 8 x 11.MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2005 SCALE: 1' = 400' 12
LEGEND
PROJECT BOUNDARY
-----
PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS)
- - - - -
IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (IIS)
UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (UI)
PONDS
WETLANDS
LF
LINEAR FEET
Z
Z
G)
_
r
D
Z
m
HANGAR ROAD
STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT
AREA
2Q -2P -2N PS
3,352 LF (58)
, yti
CONSTRUCTION 10 11 12
h
LIMITS 13 14 15 16
I'
1
2005 PERMIT 1 PAGE
im e- ..
t" FILE NAME: WETLANDS�2005 PERMIT 1\2005 FINAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT - PAGE 12 ON 8 x 11.MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2005 SCALE: 1' = 400' 12

1 Al PS
B1 UI 1951 LF (41)
49 LF (40)
1
1 1 Al UI
1493 LF (41
/ 1 \
1 1 E1 IIS E1 UI
i 210 LF (42)I 1320 LF (42)
1 1
LEGEND
PROJECT BOUNDARY
---- PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS)
- - - - - IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (IIS)
UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (UI)
PONDS
WETLANDS
LF LINEAR FEET
1
1
II
I
D1 UI
126 LF (38)
C1 UI
70 LF (39)
0

1A UI
i 1B U l 264 LF (4E
171 LF (47)
I
,
1B IIS ; ,.
418 LF (47)
r '
r
r
1A IIS
1,220 LF (46)
2005 PERMIT 1 I PAGE
,Mr?iw i ?u?r -* FILE NAME:WETLANDS\2005PERMIT 1\2005 FINAL PERMIT IEXHIST-PAGE130N8x11.MXD PRINfEDAWUST2005SCALE:1--400' 13
I
I
STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT I
AREA 2W 11S I
892 LF (43)
CONSTRUCTION I
T-1 LIMITS

[iF WETLAND I
160 1.410 AC (11)
I
3G WETLAND
0.165 AC (10) 4 i.
STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT 3E IIS
AREA 94 LF (52)
a CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS
m
o

?vE
DR
--
8 LEGEND
u
-
wLa,L _~

PROJECT BOUNDARY
?„_
-.? - - - - PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS)
?' "" ?-- - - - - IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (IIS)

co UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (UI)
PONDS
WETLANDS
LF LINEAR FEET

2005 PERMIT 1 PAGE

C?
IMTttMAT10MAl AIR? tT FILE NAME: WETLAND&2005 PERMIT 1\2005 FINAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT -PAGE 14 ON 8 x 11.MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2005 SCALE: 1' - 400' 14
4-
i

2H & 3D [IS
11,468 LF (51
STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT B LVD-
AREA WEST
?J
2G (Coffey Creek) PS • - ?'
386 LF (48)
D
2L IIS N
1,295 LF (50)
1
(C
STORMWATER
• ?z
1 2K (Coffey Creek) PS MANAGEMENT
m
1,592 LF (49) AREA.
1,11 POND t
' 0.232 AC (7)
w E No ID POND
1F IIS - Y1. m uR 0.849 AC (8)
513 LF (55) 6
11 WETLAND
0.048 AC (13) 1D IIS
517 LF (53)
k
1H U l
• ?''
63 LF 57 '
m

LEGEND

L 1 E (Coffey CreeK) PS 4 5
PROJECT BOUNDARY 1,642 LF (54) V /O

- - - - •
PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS) F., N
"?"?' Y
6
7

- - - -
IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT ....
STREAM CHANNEL (IIS) WEST 8 9
-
----- UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (UI)

PONDS 10 11
'; 12
WETLANDS 16
13 14 15
LF LINEAR FEET
2005 PERMIT 1 PAGE
iwn .. ? ? FILE NAME: WEfLANDS12005 PERMIT 112005 FINAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT -PAGE 15 ON 8 x 1 1.MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2005 SCALE: 1' . 400' 15
?°2r
?Q
/ M C0
I ? ? ???G?SSN X20
- ;4 1PER SANE
LEGEND
B`?RUNI'???R`? PROJECT BOUNDARY
'r I
----- PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS)
- - - - IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (IIS)
UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (UI)
PONDS
WETLANDS
LF LINEAR FEET
2005 PERMIT 1 PAGE
FILE NAME: WETLANDS\2005 PERMIT 1\2005 FINAL PERMIT I EXHIBIT - PAGE 16 ON 8 x 11.MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2005 SCALE: 1'= 400' 16
INT[[MATIOMAI AI[? AT

4 q
7
a o
r
K ?s
GRADE
F
REEK BED
? 7
WEST EXPANSION MASTER PLAN - I ,PAGE
ru wme /Yw w.rr rsruw rasa wo t rnoma rwm? oiav?om wus r •.ov
CROSS SECTION A-A
TYPICAL ROAD CROSS SECTION

4
a
r
14 1 13
PROPOSED FILI
GRADE
59
I CL/ Imo- WEST EXPANSION MASTER PLAN Charlotte-Douglas ruN+1AC ?WO?W,bffAf? aro>?m'
IMTtRNAt10NA1 A1t10AT ACT tQ.i T]10Gtd
CROSS SECTION C-C
PROPOSED RUNWAY & TAXIWAY
Fl FV_ 71n'4-

Appendix A
Alternative Analysis

CHAPTER THREE- ALTERNATIVES FINAL
"Jump Start" process included representatives from the airport, airlines, FAA, and
local planning agencies. The second phase evaluation was to examine the shortlisted
alternatives in greater detail and modify those alternatives based on additional
analysis.
The initial "jump-start" evaluation resulted in a shortlist of alternatives that satisfied
the following CLT (airport sponsor) criteria: meet the 20-year arrival and .departure
demand requirements, minimize off-airport impacts, minimize on-airport impacts,
and maximize runway use flexibility. The conclusions reached from this evaluation
were:
• New runway development to the east of the existing airfield would be more
disruptive to the neighboring community, has higher development cost, and
conflicts with the use of Runway 23 for arrivals.
• New runways less than 7,000 feet in length do not serve jet aircraft which is
the predominant aircraft using CLT. Shorter runways, which do not serve
jet aircraft, do not deliver sufficient capacity to serve future capacity needs
of the airport.
• New parallel runways which are spaced less than 2,500 feet from current
runways cannot serve as a third arrival or a third departure runway.
• While there is some need for additional departure runway capacity, the
predominant need for additional runway capacity is for arrivals.. Thus,
runway lengths in excess of 9,000 feet are not necessary, because this length
is sufficient to serve all aircraft in the airlines' fleets.
The result of the "jump-start" process was the selection of three airfield development
concepts that were proposed to be carried forward for further analysis. The shortlist
of alternatives included:
New 9,000-foot runway spaced 2,500 feet west of existing
Runway 18R/36L
• New 9,000-foot runway spaced 3,400 feet west of existing
Runway 18R/36L
New 9,000-foot runway spaced 5,000 feet west of existing
Runway 18R/36L
All of the proposed runway development alternatives would require acquisition of all
the land west of the airport to the proposed Outer Beltway (I-485) in order to
accommodate the runway and associated parallel and connector taxiways.
Residential and commercial properties in this area would need to be acquired and
relocated.
CHARLOTTEIDOuGms INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-20
November, 1999

R
CHAPTER THREE - ALTERNATIVES
FINAL
The second phase of the evaluation process evaluated the selected alternatives on the
following criteria: additional peak-period capacity, acceptable taxiing distances and
times, development costs, aircraft noise impacts, long-range development
preservation (beyond the 20-year Master Plan horizon development requirements),
and compatibility with future FAA ATC technological advances.
In addition to the shortlisted alternatives, the proposed runway alternative from the
previous Master Plan was included as part of the evaluation process. This
alternative, a parallel runway at a separation of 1,200 feet from existing Runway
18R/36L, does not meet the airside facility requirements as identified. However, it
was necessary to draw a comparison to the shortlisted alternatives.
The three shortlisted alternatives were modified to account for separation
requirements associated with the runway threshold staggers. Also, the runway
separation standard was reduced by the FAA in 1996 from 5,000 feet to 4,300 feet.
Therefore, 4,300 feet of separation is the minimum separation that is required to
conduct triple independent instrument (IFR-instrument flight rules) operations. As a
result, the following alternatives were included in the detailed evaluation process:
• New 9,000-foot runway spaced 1,200 feet from existing Runway 18R/36Lso
• New 9,000-foot runway spaced 2,700 feet from existing Runway 18R/36L"
• New 9,000-foot runway spaced 3,700 feet from existing Runway 18R/36L32
• New 9,000-foot runway spaced 4,300 feet from existing Runway 18R/36L33
Exhibit 3-1 shows all of the runway configuration alternatives in the Sponsor's
Proposed Action evaluation. The close-in alternatives (1,200 feet and 2,700 feet
separation) were eliminated from further analysis because neither would provide the
capability of triple independent arrivals under IFR. Both alternatives would cause
operational delays for both arriving and departing traffic and result in noise events
occurring into the more sensitive nighttime hours.34 There would also be direct
overflights of three schools located south of the airport. In addition, neither
alternative would be compatible with future air traffic control technology advances
because it is not likely that future technology would allow triple independent IFR
arrivals at these proposed separations.
30 This alternative is referred to as "Alternative A" in the CharlottelDouglas International Airport Master Plan
Study Update, Final, January, 1998, prepared by Landrum & Brown, Incorporated.
31 This alternative is referred to as "Alternative B" in the CharlottelDouglas International Airport Master Plan
Study Update, Final, January, 1998, prepared by Landrum & Brown, Incorporated.
32 This alternative is referred to as "Alternative C" in the CharlottelDouglas International Airport Master Plan
Study Update, Final, January, 1998, prepared by Landrum & Brown, Incorporated.
33 This alternative is referred to as "Alternative D" in the CharlottelDouglas International Airport Master Plan
Study Update, Final, January, 1998, prepared by Landrum & Brown, Incorporated.
34 Operational delays would increase the likelihood that the arrival and departure times of aircraft would be
deferred to the nighttime hours -- between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
CXARLOTTE/DOUCLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-21
November, 1999
el I
CHAPTER THREE -A L TERNA TIVES
FINAL
The construction of a 9,000 foot north/south parallel runway, spaced approximately
1,200 feet or 2,700 feet west of existing Runway 18RI36L would not meet the need
(as outlined in Chapter Two) of providing sufficient airfield capacity or reducing
delay during peak operating periods. Therefore, these alternatives are not carried
forward in the detailed assessment of environmental consequences provided in
Chapter Five.
9,000-Foot North/South Parallel Runway, Spaced Approximately 3,700 Feet
West of ExistinE Runway 18R/36L
This alternative provides additional peak-period capacity allowing for independent
arrivals and departures during VFR (visual flight rules); independent departures
during IFR, and dependent arrivals during IFR (instrument flight rules). Taxiing
distance and times would be longer than is currently experienced between the two
existing parallel runways. The development cost is estimated at $59.4 million,
which is in the mid-range of the alternatives to develop. This alternative provides for
delay reduction, thereby reducing delays into the night (noise-sensitive) hours."
The development of this option provides adequate area to locate a future parallel
runway between existing Runway 18R/36L and the proposed third parallel runway at
a 3,700-foot separation. This alternative would ensure adequate area to
accommodate long-range airport development and ensure compatible land use
planning near the airport.
This alternative would be compatible with future ATC technology advancements. It
is highly likely that future technology would permit triple IFR arrivals prior to the
requirement to develop a fourth parallel runway.
The construction of a 9, 000 foot north/south parallel runway, spaced approximately
3,700 feet west of existing Runway 18RI36L would meet the need (as outlined in
Chapter Two) of providing sufficient airfield capacity or reducing delay during peak
operating periods. Therefore, this alternative is carried forward in the detailed
assessment of environmental consequences provided in Chapter Five.
9,000-Foot North/South Parallel Runway, Spaced Approximately 4,300 Feet
West of Existine Runway 18R/36L
This alternative provides additional peak period capacity allowing for independent
arrivals and departures during. VFR, independent departures during IFR, and
independent arrivals during IFR. . This alternative provides the highest delay
reduction benefits. The taxiing distance and times would be the highest of all
alternatives. The development cost is estimated at $63.2 million, which makes it the
highest cost of all of the alternatives to develop. In addition, this option would
35 See Footnote 31.
CHARL07TEID000LAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-22
November, 1999

CHAPTER THREE - ALTERNATIVES FINAL
e
require the westward relocation of the proposed I-485 Outer Beltway to
accommodate the applicable safety areas and satisfy FAA obstruction [FAR Part 77]
requirements. Noise impacts would be spread into areas west of I-485 and arrivals
would be routed directly over residential areas north of the airport. Ground noise
would be moved nearer residential areas west of airport.
Like the 3,700-foot alternative discussed in the previous section, the development of
this alternative provides adequate area to locate a future parallel runway between
existing Runway 18R/36L and the proposed third parallel runway. This would
ensure adequate area to accommodate long-range airport development and ensure
compatible land use planning near the airport. Also, a reconfiguration of the planned
Outer Beltway may delay the implementation of the new runway development
beyond the proposed phasing schedule (Phase I). This alternative is also compatible
with future ATC technology enhancements.
The construction of a 9,000 foot north/south parallel runway, spaced approximately
4,300 feet west of existing Runway 18RI36L would meet the needs (as outlined in
Chapter Two) of providing sufficient airfield capacity and reducing delay during
peak operating periods. Therefore, this alternative is carried forward in the detailed
assessment of environmental consequences provided in Chapter Five.
3.3.1.2 Runway Extension Alternatives
The airfield requirement analysis performed in this environmental analysis resulted
in the recommendation of 12,000 feet of departure capability. This runway length
would enable a Boeing 747-200 to serve destinations on the Pacific Rim on a warm
summer day with no payload restrictions. All three existing runways (18L/36R,
18R/36L, and 5/23), as well as the proposed third parallel runway were considered as
candidates for a runway extension.
Extension of Runwav 5/23
Extending Runway 5/23 would require an extension of 4,499 feet to provide
12,000 feet in departure capacity. It would not be feasible to extend this
runway to the northeast due to the proximity and location of Norfolk Southern
Railroad, Josh Birmingham Parkway, and Billy Graham Parkway. Extending
this runway to the southwest would create a runway intersection with Runway
18R/36L causing additional air traffic control coordination effort.
Therefore, the proposed extension to Runway 5123 was not carried forward for
further analysis in this FEIS.
Extension of Runway 18L/36R
Extending Runway 18L/36R would require an extension of at least 3,800 feet
to provide 12,000-foot departure capability. A 3,800-foot extension would be
necessary to provide the requisite safety area on Runway 18L. It would not be
C1IARLomE/DouGms INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3.23
November, 1999

CHAPTER THREE - ALTERNATIVES FINAL
feasible to extend this runway to the north due to the proximity and location of
Norfolk Southern Railroad and the Josh Birmingham Parkway. An extension
to the south would require the relocation of West Boulevard, Byrum Drive, and
require the reconfiguration of the West Boulevard/Yorkmont Road intersection
and would require the airport to acquire a large amount of land to accommodate
the runway and affected roadways.
Therefore, the proposed extension to Runway 18LI36R was not carried forward
for further analysis in this FEIS.
Extension of the Proposed Third Parallel Runway
Four extension options were identified to achieve a 12,000-foot departure
capability on the proposed third parallel runway."' None of these options were
considered for further analysis because, from an airfield operational
perspective, departures should be conducted on the runway(s) closest to the
terminal area and the proposed third parallel runway would be located farthest
from the terminal area. In addition, there would be increased taxi time and
distance for aircraft to reach the departure ends of the proposed runway
particularly with any type of a runway extension.
For these two reasons, the proposed extension to the proposed new runway
was not carried forward for further analysis in this FEIS.
Extension of Runway 18R/36L
Two alternatives to extend existing Runway 18R/36L to 12,000 feet were
identified.37 The first alternative proposed extensions of 1,294 feet to the north
end and 562 feet to the south end and required the use of declared distance
criteria to provide adequate runway end safety areas. However, with these
extensions, and by applying the declared distance criteria, only a maximum
take-off distance of 11,506 feet in each direction could be achieved. This
distance, however falls 494 feet short of the 12,000-foot requirement identified.
Therefore, the proposed extension to Runway 18RI36L was not carried forward
for further analysis in this FEIS
The second alternative to extending Runway 18R/36L to 12,000 requires
relocating either West Boulevard or the Norfolk and Southern Railroad. Of
these two options, the Sponsor's Proposed Action determined that relocating
West Boulevard cost less than relocating the railroad. Therefore, the Sponsor's
36 These alternatives are referred to as "Alternative 1," "Alternative 2," "Alternative 3," and "Alternative 4" in the
CharlottelDouglas International Airport Master Plan Study Update, Final, January, 1998, prepared by
Landrum & Brown, Incorporated.
37 These alternatives are referred to as "Alternative 5" and "Alternative 6" in the CharlottelDouglas International
Airport Master Plan Study Update, Final, January, 1998, prepared by Landrum & Brown, Incorporated.
CHARLOTTE/DOUGL,AS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-24
November, 1999

CHAPTER THREE- ALTERNATIVES FINAL
W
Proposed Action proposed extending Runway 18R/36L to the south by
2,000 feet." This extension would require the relocation of West Boulevard
around the south end of the airport initiating from the east near the Runway
36R end and tied into the I-485 interchange with West Boulevard. The most
notable benefit of the runway extension would be the increased operational
utility of the runway for Boeing 747-200 aircraft which would be able to depart
from this runway with minimal or no payload restriction on long stage-length
routes. Aircraft needing the extra length would not be required to cross a
runway and the extension would not have any impact on the existing
TVOR/DME facility. In addition, the runway extension and roadway
relocation would provide an area for additional air cargo or aviation-related
development east of the runway extension.
An additional benefit of the proposed runway extension would be its mitigating
effect on aircraft noise impacts. The extension would reduce noise impacts
because aircraft departing from Runway 36L would be at higher altitudes over
noise-sensitive areas to the north.
Therefore, this alternative, in conjunction with the relocation of West
Boulevard, was selected as the Sponsor's Proposed Project and was included
on the proposed revised ALP.
3.3.1.3 Summary -- Runway Extension Alternatives
The runway extension alternatives represent one component of the Sponsor's
Proposed Project. The proposed construction of a 2, 000 foot extension on the
southern end of Runway 18RI36L would be the only alternative to meet the
need of providing sufficient runway length to accommodate potential air
transportation demand (long-range aircraft departures to destinations on the
Pacific Rim). The development of this project would result as a consequence
of implementing this alternative or as an element of the proposed action
alternative. Therefore, the alternatives which incorporate the proposed
2,000-foot runway extension on the south end of Runway 18R/36L together
with the required no-build alternative are carried forward in the detailed
assessment of environmental consequences provided in Chapter Five. The
landside projects are described in the Chapter 2, Section 2.5. These projects
are included in all airside alternatives including Alternative 2.
38 This alternative is referred to as "Alternative 5" in the Charlotte/Douglas International Airport Master Plan
Study Update, Final, January, 1998, prepared by Landrum & Brown, Incorporated.
CHARLOTTEIDOUCLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-25
November, 1999

CHAPTER THREE - ALTERNATIVES FINAL
3.3.2 Landside Projects
3.3.2.1 Terminal Alternatives
Because the need to provide sufficient terminal gate capacity for commuter
aircraft, and domestic and international jet aircraft -would result as a
consequence of implementing the development alternative, as presented in
Chapter 2, Purpose and Need, Section 2.5.1 there is no other reasonable,
prudent, feasible, or practicable development alternative that provides the
required functional design. The existing terminal facilities can be improved to
meet CLT's future needs, and thus it is more reasonable to improve the existing
facilities than to build new ones. Therefore, the recommendation would be to
implement the Sponsor's Proposed Project or to take no action (no-build).
Therefore, the terminal projects as outlined in the Sponsor's Proposed Project
and the No Action/No-Build Alternative are carried forward in the detailed
assessment of environmental consequences provided in Chapter Five.
3.3.2.2 Ancillary Facility Alternatives
Because the need to provide sufficient ancillary facilities to support the
potential increase in air transportation demand would result as a consequence
of implementing the development alternative, as presented in Chapter Two,
Purpose and Need, Section 2.5.1 there is no other reasonable, prudent, feasible,
or practicable development alternative that provides the required functional
design. The existing ancillary facilities can be improved to meet CLT's future
needs, and thus it is more reasonable to improve the existing facilities than to
build new ones. Therefore, the recommendation would be to implement the
Sponsor's Proposed Project or to take no action (no-build). Therefore, the
ancillary facility projects as outlined in the Sponsor's Proposed Project and the
No-Action/No-Build Alternative are carried forward in the detailed assessment
of environmental consequences provided in Chapter Five.
3.3.3 Approved Noise Abatement Air Traffic Actions and Associated Land Use
Compatibility Actions
This FEIS assesses environmentally the impact of implementing the Phase I and Phase II
noise abatement air traffic measures (previously approved by the FAA on regulatory,
non-environmental assessment grounds) that were contained in the 1997 Update of CLT's
Part 150 Noise Compatibility Plan. These actions are identified as "Phase I" measures
which abate the noise impacts of aircraft operations with the airfield in its existing
configuration, and "Phase II" measures which abate the noise impacts of aircraft operations
with the development of a new north/south parallel runway and a 2,000-foot extension to
Runway 18R/36L. The noise abatement air traffic measures to be environmentally
assessed are:
CNARLOTTEIDOUCLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-26
November, 1999
11 -
CHAPTER THREE - ALTERNATIVES FINAL
IP
Phase I Air Traffic Measures
• Continue periodic monitoring procedures (initiated as a result of the 1990
approved noise abatement air traffic actions and associated land use compatibility
actions) within the airport environs.
• Provide monthly reports on late night (11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) runway
utilization and variances from approved noise abatement and air traffic
assumptions to Air Traffic Control Tower management and frequent nighttime
operators.
• Designate Runways 18R or 18L as preferred for takeoffs by turbojet and large
four-engine prop aircraft between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. when, under the
current preferential runway use program, Runway 23 cannot be used for reasons
of wind, weather, operational necessity, or required runway length.
• Departing Runway 18R, turbojet and large four-engine prop aircraft maintain
runway heading to 4 DME south of the CLT VORTAC.
• Designate a location for US Airways maintenance run-ups on the company
maintenance apron, with orientations aligned with Runway 5/23.
• Departing Runways 36R and 36L, turbojet and large four-engine prop aircraft
initiate turns at the 2.6 and 2.5 DME north of the CLT VORDME, respectively.
Phase II Air Traffic Measures
• On commissioning a third parallel runway west of Runway 18R/36L, establish an
initial departure turn, as soon as practicable, by turbojets and four-engine prop
aircraft to a heading of 195 degrees from Runway 17,40
• On commissioning a third parallel runway west of Runway 18R/36L, establish an
initial departure turn, as soon as practicable, by turbojets and four-engine prop
aircraft to a heading of 315 degrees from Runway 35.4'
Because the need to enhance the human environment by reducing noise impacts on
surrounding communities would result as a consequence of a build alternative, the
only alternatives are to implement the proposed noise abatement air traffic measures
or to take no action. The 1997 FAR Part 150 Study Update Record of Approval was
received on March 30, 1998.42
40 The proposed new runway is designated as Runway 17/35.
41 See Footnote 40.
42 Charlotte/Douglas International Airport FAR Part 150 Study Update, Final, August, 1997, prepared by
Landrum & Brown, Incorporated. To review the alternatives evaluation, see Appendix B, Noise Abatement and
Land Use Alternatives, of the Part 150 document. The FAA approved this Part 150 Study Update and issued its
Record of Approval dated March 30, 1998.
CHARLOTTE/DOUCLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-27
November, 1999

CHAPTER THREE - ALTERNATIVES FINAL
Therefore, both the alternative which incorporates the recommendations resulting
from the Part 150 Update process and the no action alternative are carried forward
in the detailed assessment of environmental consequences provided in Chapter Five.
3.4 Alternatives to be Environmentally Assessed
Based upon its systematic evaluation of the full range of potential alternatives, the City of
Charlotte, as airport sponsor, selected and requests FAA action and approval of the combination
of a new third north/south parallel runway and (Sponsor's Proposed Project Alternative C, a
9,000-foot runway spaced 3,700 feet from existing Runway 18R/36L) a runway extension to
create a runway 12,000 feet in length (Sponsor's Proposed Project Alternative 5, a 2,000-foot
extension to Runway 18R/36L). Along with the implementation of the 2001 approved noise
abatement air traffic and associated land use compatibility actions, and the landside and ancillary
facilities, these projects together represent the Proposed Federal Action. These development
alternatives provide a proposed project which best addresses the total composite of all the
airport's needs.
3.4.1 Proposed Federal Action
The Proposed Federal Action is to approve the Sponsor's Proposed Project which includes
the construction of the proposed third north/south parallel runway at a 3,700-foot
separation and the 2,000-foot southerly extension to Runway 18R/36L. The proposed
construction of the new runway is the airport's preferred way of achieving sufficient
airfield capacity and reducing delay during peak operating periods. The proposed
construction of the 2,000-foot runway extension is its preferred way of achieving sufficient
runway length to accommodate potential air transportation demand (long-range aircraft
departures to destinations on the Pacific Rim). Improved terminal gate capacity for
commuter aircraft, and domestic and international jet aircraft along with the necessary
supporting ancillary facilities would be accomplished through the expansion of the existing
terminal and upgrading of the existing roadway and parking systems.
A detailed description of the Sponsor's Proposed Project is listed below. Exhibit 3-2,
along with Exhibits 2-1 through 2-10 shown previously, illustrate the locations of the
Proposed Federal Action. The following paragraphs describe each of the airfield
development items included in the Proposed Federal Action.
• Construct a new 9,000-foot independent IFR approach runway, parallel to and
3,700 feet west of existing Runway 18R/36L to improve airfield operational
flexibility and result in increased capacity and reduced delay.
• Site, purchase, install, and flight check all necessary navigation aids and lighting
to support the proposed development
• Implementation of necessary air traffic control procedures to support the proposed
development '
CHARLOTTE/D000LAs INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-28
November, 1999

CHAPTER THREE -ALTERNATIVES FINAL
e
• Extend Runway 18R/36L from its current length of 10,000 feet to a length of
12,000 feet by constructing a 2,000-foot southerly extension with parallel and
connecting taxiways and associated lighting and navigational aids.
• Relocate West Boulevard around the south end of the airport from east of Runway
36R west to the proposed I485 interchange and close Byrum Road to
accommodate the extension to Runway 18R/36L.
• Relocate Wallace-Neel Road, just east of and parallel to the proposed I-485 Outer
Beltway, on airport property purchased for the new third parallel runway project.
• Relocate Old Dowd Road to north of the new third parallel runway, keeping clear
of the Runway 18R Runway Safety Area (RSA) and Runway Object Free Area
(OFA) to accommodate the new proposed runway.
• Extend Concourse A to accommodate additional jet bridges and additional aircraft
parking positions in the near term for either current non-hub airlines or gates for
an additional carrier to introduce service to CLT.
• Extend Concourse B to provide 11 additional jet bridge positions (for a total of
27) capable of accommodating Boeing 757-size aircraft. The extension would
supplement hub operations and accommodate the potential for lost jet positions on
Concourse D associated with increased international demand.
• Relocate.the Federal Inspection Services facilities within Concourse D, east of the
expanded baggage claim area, to allow for the future expansion of the concourse.
• Expand Concourse D to allow for additional hold rooms and related facilities to
accommodate a larger seating capacity for wide-body international transoceanic
aircraft. The concourse expansion would require the relocation of commuter
aircraft parking positions currently located in this area.
• Develop two remote concourses accessible from Concourse D, via underground
passenger tunnels with moving walkways, to accommodate the increase in
commuter aircraft traffic associated with hub operations. Each concourse would
contain 17 parking positions (a total of 34).
• Extend the lower level roadway to the east in front of the newly relocated FIS
facility to expand the arrival-level curb frontage.
• Reconfigure the ingress/egress of the existing parking structures only if a new
parking structure and/or hotel is developed. This reconfiguration would require
the relocation of the short-term and daily toll booths, development of hotel
parking areas (either surface lots br parking deck), and an egress roadway for hotel
patrons to bypass the toll booths.
CHARLormffiomus INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-29
November, 1999

CHAPTER THREE- ALTERNATIVES
FINAL
• Develop approximately 1,050 new auto parking spaces between the existing
airport maintenance facility and the railroad right-of-way to accommodate
projected passenger traffic at the new commuter concourse. Access to these lots
can be maintained via the existing routes.
• Relocate 1,410 auto parking spaces in the "green lot" to west of existing Runway
End 18R and develop an additional 235 employee parking spaces. Access to the
new employee lot would be provided via a roadway from Old Dowd Road.
• Develop additional remote public parking facilities north of the terminal core area
to the west of the existing remote parking facility. This new lot would use the
existing toll plaza with minor expansion.
• Relocate all the rental car facilities due to the development of the remote jet
concourse. The area north of Wilkinson Boulevard would accommodate all
relocation requirements and long-term expansion needs. Access would be via a
connector road to Wilkinson Boulevard with airport access via Old Dowd Road.
• Develop approximately 360 additional employee parking spaces in the area near
the end of Runway 18R.
• Develop approximately 420 additional spaces for remote parking facilities directly
north of the terminal core area near the existing remote parking facilities.
• Develop an additional parking structure immediately north of the existing parking
decks. This development would be designed to either coincide with or be
compatible with development of a hotel located on top of the parking deck. The
development of an airport light rail system would be considered in the design of
the parking structures and hotel to ensure that access to the main terminal building
can be achieved.
Implement noise abatement air traffic actions and associated land use
compatibility actions approved in the updated Noise Compatibility Program.
NA4 Provide monthly reports on late night (11:00 p.m. to
7:00 a.m.) runway utilization and variances from NCP
assumptions to Air Traffic Control Tower management
and frequent nighttime operators. Conduct follow-up
with FAA and carriers to enhance voluntary adherence to
existing program. * New measure.
NA-5 Designate Runways 18R or 18L as preferred for takeoffs
by turbojet and large four-engine prop aircraft between
11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. when, under the current
preferential runway use program, Runway 23 cannot be
used for reasons of wind, weather, operational necessity,
or required runway length. New measure.
CHARLOTTE/DOUCLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-30
November, 1999

CHAPTER THREE - ALTERNATIVES FINAL

NA-6 Departing Runway 18R, turbojet and large four-engine
prop aircraft maintain runway heading to 4 DME south of
the CLT VORTAC. New measure.
NA-7 Designate a location for US Airways maintenance run-ups
on the company maintenance apron, with orientations
aligned with Runway 5/23. Revision of existing
procedures.
NA-8 Departing Runways 36R and 36L, turbojet and large four-
engine prop aircraft initiate turns at the 2.6 and 2.5 DME
north of the CLT VORDME, respectively. Modification
of current operating procedures.
NA-9 On construction of a third parallel runway west of Runway
18R/36L, establish an initial departure turn, as soon as
practicable, by turbojets and four-engine prop aircraft to a
heading of 195 degrees from Runway 17. New measure.
NA-10 On construction of a third parallel runway west of Runway
18R/36L, establish an initial departure turn, as soon as
practicable, by turbojets and four-engine prop aircraft to a
heading of 315 degrees from Runway 35. New measure.
• Acquire approximately 1,475 acres of land for airfield development that includes
the acquisition and relocation of approximately 123 residential structures and 32
businesses to accommodate the proposed new runway.
Compensate for impacts to approximately 2.0 acres of wetlands, 5,400 feet of
intermittent streams, 6,780 feet of perennial streams (a total of 12,180 feet), 4.2
acres of identified open water-ponds, and 10,900 feet of identified small drains
caused by the development of the Proposed Federal Action.
3.4.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Federal Action
This chapter has summarized various alternatives to the Proposed Federal Action.
Proposed Federal Action involves the proposed construction of a new 9,000-foot Runway
17/35 (future 18R/36L) with associated taxiway improvements, and the development of a
2,000-foot extension to existing Runway 18R/36L (future 18C/36C). This EIS also
assesses the Federal action (which is part of each alternative) regarding installation of
navigational aides, airspace use, and approach and departure procedures associated with the
airside development along with the implementation of the following identified elements
depicted on the proposed, revised ALP: terminal development projects to extend
Concourse A, construct a new commuter concourse, extend the terminal building to
relocate the Federal Inspection Services, extend the lower level roadway, extend Concourse
B to provide 11 additional jet bridge positions, expand Concourse D to allow for additional
hold rooms and related facilities, and develop two remote concourses accessible from
Concourse D; landside development projects to expand Loop Road, relocate the rental car
CHARLOTTEIDOUCL 4S INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-31
November, 1999

CHAPTER THREE - ALTERNATIVES
FINAL
area, reconfigure the hotel ingress/egress, relocate employee parking, develop additional
long-term parking; and roadway relocation projects for West Boulevard, Wallace Neel
Road, and Old Dowd Road, acquire approximately 1,475 acres of land for proposed airfield
development which includes the acquisition and relocation of approximately 123
residential structures and 32 businesses, and mitigate the potential impacts to
approximately 2.0 acres of wetlands, 5,400 feet of intermittent streams, 6,780 feet of
perennial streams (a total of 12,180 feet), 4.2 acres of identified open water-ponds, and
10,900 feet of identified small drains. As is noted, six feasible alternatives exist to the
Proposed Federal Action: 1) the implementation of the 1997 approved noise abatement air
traffic actions and associated land use compatibility actions (Alternative 1), 2)
implementation of No-Action/No-Build (Alternative 2), 3) the implementation of the 2001
approved noise abatement air traffic actions and associated land use compatibility actions
(Alternative 3), 4) the construction of a new third parallel runway at a 3,700-foot separation
along with implementing the 2001 approved noise abatement air traffic actions and
associated land use compatibility actions (Alternative 4), 5) the construction of a new third
parallel runway at a 4,300-foot separation along with implementing the 2001 approved
noise abatement air traffic actions and associated land use compatibility actions
(Alternative 5), and 6) construct a 2,000-foot extension to Runway 18R/36L along with
implementing the 2001 approved noise abatement air traffic actions and associated land use
compatibility actions (Alternative 6). The following paragraphs describe the actions
considered under each of the alternatives.
Alternative 1: Implementation of the 1997 Approved Noise Abatement Air
Traffic Actions and Associated Land Use Compatibility Actions Only: The
implementation of the 1997 approved noise abatement air traffic actions and
associated land use compatibility actions shown in Exhibit 3-3, would abate the
noise impacts generated by aircraft operations on the existing airfield
configuration. Implementing these actions would not contribute directly to
satisfying the need for sufficient airfield capacity, reduce delay during peak
operating periods, or provide sufficient runway length to accommodate potential
air transportation demand (long-range aircraft departures to destinations on the
Pacific Rim). The 1997 approved noise abatement air traffic actions and
associated land use compatibility actions are listed in Section 3.3.3, Approved
Noise Abatement Air Traffic Actions and Associated Land Use Compatibility
Actions, Phase I Measures.
• Alternative 2: No Build/No Action Alternative: The No-Build/No-Action
Alternative (2001 Baseline), shown in Exhibit 34, would result in the airport
runway configuration remaining as it is today. Therefore, future demand
requirements would not be satisfied, as identified in Chapter Two, Purpose and
Need. Also, any existing negative environmental and operational impacts of the
airport would not be reduced. Although this alternative may not be prudent, it is
feasible, and is one of the alternatives considered throughout this FEIS.
CHARLOTTE/DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-32
November, 1999

CHAPTER THREE - ALTERNATIVES FINAL
V
Alternative 3: Implementation of the 2001 Approved Noise Abatement Air
Traffic Actions and Associated Land Use Compatibility Actions Only: The
implementation of the 2001 approved noise abatement air traffic actions and
associated land use compatibility actions shown in Exhibit 3-5, would abate the
noise impacts generated by aircraft operations on the existing airfield
configuration with future projected operations. Implementing these actions
would not contribute directly to satisfying the need for providing sufficient
airfield capacity, for reducing delay during peak operating periods, or for
providing sufficient runway length to accommodate potential air transportation
demand (long-range aircraft departures to destinations on the Pacific Rim). The
2001 approved noise abatement air traffic actions and associated land use
compatibility actions are listed in Section 3.3.3, Approved Noise Abatement Air
Traffic Actions and Associated Land Use Compatibility Actions, Phase I
Measures.
Alternative 4: Construction of a New Third Parallel Runway with a 3,700 foot
Separation along with Implementing the 2001 Approved Noise Abatement Air
Traffic Actions and Associated Land Use Compatibility Actions: The
development program for this alternative, shown in Exhibit 3-6, would be almost
identical to that of the Proposed Federal Action. The primary difference is that
the 2,000-foot extension to third Runway 18R/36L would not be constructed.
This alternative would meet the stated need to provide sufficient airfield capacity
and reduce delay during peak operating periods. However, without the
development of the runway extension to provide for a 12,000-foot runway, the
need to provide sufficient runway length in order to accommodate potential air
transportation demand (long-range aircraft departures to destinations on the
Pacific Rim) would not be met. The 2001 approved noise abatement air traffic
actions and associated land use compatibility actions to be implemented are listed
in Section 3.3.3, Approved Noise Abatement Air Traffic Actions and Associated
Land Use Compatibility Actions, Phase I and Phase II Measures.
Alternative S: Construction of a New Third Parallel Runway with a 4,300 foot
Separation along with Implementing the 2001 Approved Noise Abatement Air
Traffic Actions and Associated Land Use Compatibility Actions: The
development program for this alternative, shown in Exhibit 3-7, would be almost
identical to that of Alternative 4. The primary difference is that the third parallel
north/south runway would be separated from existing Runway 18R/36L by a
distance of 4,300 feet instead of 3,700 feet. The 2001 approved noise abatement
air traffic actions and associated land use compatibility actions to be implemented
are listed in Section 3.3.3, Approved Noise Abatement Air Traffic Actions and
Associated Land Use Compatibility Actions, Phase I and Phase H Measures.
• Alternative 6: 2,000-Foot Extension of Runway 18RI36L along with
Implementing the 2001 Approved Noise Abatement Air Traffic Actions and
Associated Land Use Compatibility Actions: The development program for this
alternative, shown in Exhibit 3-8, would require considerably less land to be
acquired than the Proposed Federal Action -- 37 acres versus 1,475 acres (1,438
CHARLOTTE/DOUCLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENvIRONMENT.IL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-33
November, 1999

CHAPTER THREE - ALTERNATIVES FINAL
acres for the proposed runway development and 37 acres for the proposed runway
extension). There would be no residential or business construction impacts with
this alternative. The 37 acres which would need to be acquired is primarily
undeveloped/vacant or contains the right-of-way for West Boulevard. All other
development projects (landside and ancillary facilities, and approved noise
abatement air traffic actions and associated land use compatibility actions), as
identified in the Sponsor's Proposed Project, would be implemented. The 2001
approved noise abatement air traffic to be implemented are listed in Section
3.3.3, Approved Noise Abatement Air Traffic Actions and Associated Land Use
Compatibility Actions, Phase I and II Measures.
3.5 Regulatory Framework for the FAA's Consideration of Reasonable Alternatives
Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the FAA has a responsibility to
explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, including those beyond the
jurisdiction of the FAA and CLT. For major Federal actions in which the Federal Government,
as a proprietor, plans and develops a Federal facility, the scope of alternatives considered by the
sponsoring Federal agency is wide ranging and comprehensive. However, where the sponsor is
not the Federal Government, but is a local government or private applicant, the Federal agency
role is necessarily more limited with substantial deference given to the preferences of the local
sponsor.
Federal agencies may consider the applicant's purposes and needs and common sense realities of
a given situation in the development of alternatives. Federal agencies may also afford substantial
weight to the alternative preferred by the applicant, provided there is no substantially superior
alternative from an environmental standpoint.
3.5.1 Discussion
The FAA does not initiate airport development projects. Such projects require the
involvement of a local sponsor, which for the proposed action would be provided by the
City of Charlotte. It is, therefore, appropriate for the FAA to give substantial deference to
the recommendations of the sponsor in identifying reasonable alternatives and considering
whether alternatives meet both the national policy objectives expressed in the National
Transportation Policy (NTP) and the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991 (ISTEA), and the purposes and needs of CLT.
The FAA has identified and analyzed a wide range of both location and facility design
alternatives for meeting the purposes and needs presented in Chapter Two, Purpose and
Need. The FAA has applied a comprehensive range of operational, economic, engineering,
and environmental criteria in assessing whether alternatives would be feasible and prudent,
practicable, or reasonable. Through this process, the sponsor and the FAA identified the
Proposed Federal Action as its preferred alternative for meeting the purpose and need. The
FAA has independently reviewed the airport's process and has concluded that is was
acceptable and also appears consistent with the public policy objectives of the National
Transportation Policy Act and ISTEA.
CHARLOTTE/DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-34
November, 1999

CHAPTER THREE - ALTERNATIVES FINAL
W
The FAA has selected its preferred alternative (2001 approved noise abatement air traffic
actions and associated land use compatibility actions with a third parallel runway at 3,700-
foot separation and a 2,000-foot extension on the south end of Runway 18R/36L) which
satisfies those considerations consistent with the stated purpose and need. The FAA has
also found this alternative to be the least environmentally damaging practical alternative, or
otherwise known as the environmentally preferred alternative.
Accordingly, the reasonable alternatives selected by the FAA for detailed analysis in this
EIS include:
• 1997 Noise Abatement Air Traffic Actions and Associated Land Use
Compatibility Actions Only (Alternative 1)
• 2001 Baseline (No-Build/No-Action) (Alternative 2)
• 2001 Noise Abatement Air Traffic Actions and Associated Land Use
Compatibility Actions Only (Alternative 3)
• 2001 Noise
Compatibility
(Alternative 4)
• 2001 Noise
Compatibility
(Alternative 5)
Abatement Air Traffic Actions and Associated Land Use
Actions with a Third Parallel Runway at 3,700-Foot Separation
Abatement Air Traffic Actions and Associated Land Use
Actions with a Third Parallel Runway at 4,300-Foot Separation
• 2001 Noise Abatement Air Traffic Actions And Associated Land Use
Compatibility Actions with 2,000-Foot Extension on the South End of
Runway 18R/36L (Alternative 6)
• 2001 Noise Abatement Air Traffic Actions and Associated Land Use
Compatibility Actions with a Third Parallel Runway at 3,700-Foot Separation and
a 2,000-Foot Extension on the South End of Runway 18R/36L (Proposed Federal
Action, Alternative 7)
SA99CLI'TrNAL_TO PRINTER_NOV-1999THAP-3 DOC
CHARLOTTEIDouGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
November, 1999
Page 3-35

CHAPTER THREE - ALTERNATIVES
FINAL
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
c,HARLO77,FI,U00OL4S INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
November, 1999
Ip

.0
?+

1 x-

1 I

1 ,
0 O ,1 Ij 1 1 1 1 1 1
r+ y
C
O
N `rte--
\- -,\^,? `111
\-?\` ?\_,? ?1-J
,\_,? ai-!
\-?\
\_-I
-,\`, i -/
? 1
E = ??? ??, y
?`? `
_
?_,
N f
p R C7 7 , , ov

Z
0
>?
CL
R
3 1 /
j 1 ? I
? 1 / I
Ij 1 / 1
1

l1f
3
C
?

S
, 1
- l
1 1
?
1 1
1 ? 1
1 1

CID ,

u F `L
EL "-
w >1
43
°
° C)
°

z c

0 o

C) o

C) C)

ms
o

cy_
W r- N - M
e
1 r 1` 1 l 1 1 /
o ? i r 1 i 1 i 1
O , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
\ _, \
117 -'\ --,\_,? I IF -,\_,? `?-? --\ -,\_,? al -1 \_-\ -,\^,? a,-/
CV)
W
O 1 / 1 1 1 I 1 '
? , j % 1 I 1 j 1
1
C? 1 i 1 1 1 1 1
C Fs
0 / 1 , 1 / 1
l ,
O 1
1 1 1 1 1
N /'1 1 , 1 , 1 11
CL 0
m d IA •i•••. •lr?••• ?a?_i ••••••??fJ•
> d N r- N M
4) F
4) U V U U
C: ? 1` ? 1` 1 1 f 1 ,
$ 1 1 j 1 1
Q: N ,1 1 i 1 ,1 ; 1 1
? \ •? ••??/? `l 11 `-•1`••f? \ gal / \ ?.••??.?` .110) \_,•• ???•?7„1i
00
d m m m
1 1 / 1 / m
1 % i 1 1
1 1 1 , 1 i 1 aiS
p ' 1
co e
r
a a a Q
to C)
U
H I cc o ° o o
aJ co N ? ?,, cy 0
_N
O M
Z ?
m
c
ca
w
N
d
cu
V
a
C
V
d
N
O
CL
0
CL
N
6•
O
H
c
O
Q.
U)
e
1Y1
Y~
c
Ta
.5E
0
v
s'
^ xr t,
. 4 Y `` ? ,.tit e ? e_ i? •?
? C4 1 '
C33 C C1
2? a ,S 0
C39 C84 < 515 ,:. C3 S1'' S7 ?T]•R. ,e
?SH { 3 t J C55 Y t C2 ,
3: Tu
C82: •i T .•ra? : Y Alla ` I ,r?''' •? h? \?
I ' p .+
Z.
. nb.toy/ I , llk '1 ? ? -s4 - 1.?• ,? i I?r?„? /l
Raft
ZZ 7-
t A r „J / `
Ilk
pn T.
C46 W J C11 ?y.•
VIA
1 ?# wee e s
3 i. 2 I `gt
nzz-
yr I Cs t.c•? , ey ?*II
--Dixie RNer R
` C7 C70 °e v?
.,. C71 s 1' a\
r ?: ,.?..
S1q
?.
grow s16 e' I 6
n-Gn'or Rd y •Q,
NJI

`
• Sam). h Feet
_
6
_

• % _ ? 1s w ?b
?
100
70
5
000 A

\
r.• 21
/
'. M 1:
Weriburg Co. I C 02 CharloVe ?
1 OS/18!99

.-
,
.......
• CONTOURS SA4RR1
...
, _ _ _ I ??r `.',. r1,.`
.:' "' L, . ;q;'d, ,°.o?rc?: Landrum a Srown, tIMMH, 7008
File. EXH3 4 Flight Track: RR Count: 2001FltTNW0Rwy

?
' '
?: ? ?
-=? . tip. - ;?•? ?

EXHIBIT
Environmental Alternative 1 Flight Tracks and Noise Contours 3_3
Impact Statement
I

\ � `.•� \, ,-, \ �.� �• 1, ,\ ,
\ 1
T 52,e,
— C
1 C1 2 S
tt °a =_•4 '� t 7•'\ r i nye 1 F s 0
S15 ' le
29 74
t
- .C82 o 1 it �`• _ {' ANaAhlfly...$I. f �
3'cun+sm q.Wp.O I ' , r _ -r • ,. i•3.•v.r.. - %T
'fic'I 1: ,
I-
C ^, '
tC4 i
Legend
Study Area
C46 r' Q C11
Mr. a m
huAirport Property
a rc Rd IY \ °v1 C$
g4ot% V.
l8 C . J City Limits
2 S
(7) Interstate Highway
State Route /
'•'`�� \. ! ;� / ;9 Q U.S. Route
I /R • E� o:' River/Lake \
Compatible Land Use
ji3� r '{(f' \ ~ �'„ �._.•j/ err Single -Family Residential i
e>� t �" ', , �• \r \
Multi -Family Residential '
School
i i+ ...Dixie River R��.� .i Z •+ S < -+.,y' , ■ Church
' ��° — / �J • Nursing Home
r `_zz V; C70 1990 Acquisition Program
49
1 V„ sn�l 222222, 1990 Sound Insulation Program
< wo o — Sfiiii
N4 e +� 1.485 Right -of -Way
zr
I Brow, S16 - t 6 �.r, Airport -Owned Church
R i
Sound Insulated School
Sound Insulated Church
47
o
J �'+•” '� ._: Consolidated Flight Tracks
+ ,....\. s. /t-- � (' . 9"'4'x. � 7 • �`1pD � +� 't'
13
2001 Baseline Noise Contours
1
N2FF
ry
'Ij IN� ,. r/ f• „ 4ti. / S I. In FnlN
/ 1000' 3000 5000
M cklenburg Co. I Cl I Chortle �• '\rn^ ^r: � 21 SI
• ' � .....,.�., .•.••.�.^ • �•'�• d Li CONTO R' 20F21 09/18/99 -
— ' I ,;,� \1J =a •'�, . �. St urea u.aaa dru,6 Drotrn, HMMH, 1993
'.�/""'~ ! „p•r""�tt ,
File: E%H3 9 Flight Track. TrackAltl
EXHIBIT
Environmental Alternative 2 Flight Tracks and Noise Contours 3-4
Impact Statement
I

.... � '�� � it �� � 5• r • :�
�..
.l
J
1 •r"'
II i,. tOr• i of All,
r" 3 C 5 �6
it
y.� C3. t) • `-, ter, `c.• .� .�. ' � 'r 8i :,�[.. `• � ' i
S15 C7
C55'
ito � ,� " ` .,;,� •7y.
ZZ;° /N
1 r
.� [ca
Legend
V i
Study Area r
\ C46v C11 ( —,
w ,r' 8' , ;L,•:. �,_ . Airport Property
i � � e hurt A � � 1 t 1< C3 • — *.,\
City Limits
�II'S C7 Interstate Highway
'N
g :g State Route
/Q� y �.,I1 •$_it \ , f/. �� :9 Q U.S. Route
�� �•^ River/Lake
Compatible Land Use
Single -Family Residential
- mily Sifs.2„ �'li t • -;•�� \T I Mulli•Fa
� Residenliai �
tz r: C6Z �' School
Dixie River R�\..) •) f 1 n�•9 ••}� $ Church
pC^did. Nursing Home
1990 Acquisition Program
C71 C7rt \ S \`;` C70 Rd 4e
1 `• ' e
�; ' �l tt tt22tt 1990 Sound Insulation Program
< co a
h \�
1-485 Right -of -Way
I . Bro n-/ S116 6 Airport -Owned Church
OSound Insulated School
tiL g .'E �,Rw • ® Sound Insulated Church
° Consolidated Flight Tracks
13 2001 NCP (No New Run y) Noise Contours
wa N
s;
$"Is In Feet
f 1000 3000 5000 A
\ 2'
j M cklenburp Co. I C QI Chari,
�i ��� } '� �• CONTOURS OA4RRI /10/12/99
`i
_ . _ •
.,,o .` r `. ;3ourca: Landn°n a 3rown, HWAH, 1^.28
- � �,.✓'r •.nrr � � ,rte•:•, [ [ ,j i \
File: EXH3 5 Flight Track: RR Count:2001FIITrkWORwy
IN
—•-r \'
- I
EXHIBIT
Environmental Alternative 3 Flight Tracks and Noise Contours
3-5
`•\ •' Impact Statement
J

:RSTATE 485 UNDER CONSTRUCTION "
�dPi RC Josh
\d ° B1�m aa
PROPOSED RELOCATION m�Y
OF OLD DOWD ROAD � PROPOSED TERMINAL
_ �$ �• EXPANSION
PROPOSED RELOCATION OF ft
WALLACE-NEEL ROAD
J.
I n
i I Q I
11 Ae9-
3,700
®
�
J.1DID ,
I � I
i
°
M CP D
M �a I I
1 I I o
i.
t PROPOSED NEW RUNWAY + - _ 36R
l
�♦ 36L a� lama �a
PROPOSED TO BE CLOSEDV .
.,..,:..,:• , .....::::
W ;
RELOCATION OF WEST BLVD. .N• ...
j
A Not to Scale :SOURCE: Landrum & Brown, 1998. "•
EmilrammEXHIBIT
impact ntal
Alternative 4
Impact statement 3_6
a

l
14
1 0 jffs-'�- /
INTERSTATE 485 UNDER CONSTRUCTION • �' `"
1 � '
Rc Jos 1 d +
old • J e/min
an' �+y
M PROPOSED TERMINAL
�8 " EXPANSION
IJ
IU
I
W
I
I aI
ZmVel
4 I
I
I
1 41
1
I R
I
36R
PROPOSED EXTENSION
C)
r PROPOSED TO BE CLOSED
RELOCATION OF WEST BLVD. ,,::• j ��
gyN,. x Ole
N ..•tom ,�. .J.
ANot to Scale -SOURCE: Landrum & Brown, 1998
� __
EXHIBIT
�ImeMImpact
al Alternative 6
pact5tatem�nt 3.8
E:W] /.CDR WIM9 - -

APPENDIX B
Memorandum of Agreement
Cultural Resources
JAN, -07' 00 (FRI) 09:52
01/06/2000 09:31
GHARL01"I'E1000GLAS INT' L AIRPUR'f TEL: [phone]U60
4043057155 ATLANTA ADO

JAMO B. Hunt Jr.. Govetaor
Betty Ray McCain. Secretory
August 11, 2999
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
N. UU2
PAGE 02
Vivision of Archives end H)story
kffrcy J. Clow. IDireetor
Thomas M. Roberts
Program Manager
Federal Aviation Administration
Airpgrts District Office'
1701 Columbia Aveoue, Suite 2-26Q
College Park, GA 30337.2747
Re! MOA for Charlotte-Doii&las International Airport
Mecklenburg County, ER99-8616
Dear Mr. Roberts:
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 Council's new regulations do not require them to sign the agrcemcrlt.
However, they must file it with the necessary documentation for it to become effectiYe.
Please provide us with a copy of the fully executed agreement and notify us when it has been
filed.
Thank you for your-cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Crow
State Historic Preservation Officer
Enclosure
cc: Advisory Council
Charlotte/ Mecklenburg HPC
rx-V
JAN. -07' 00 01) 09:52 CHARLOTTE/DOUGLAS I NT' L AIRPORT TEL: [phone]M r. uus
'01/136/2000 09:31 4043057155 ATLAINTA ADD PAGE 03
Memorandum of Agreement
Between the
Federal Aviation Administration and
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer
for the
Charlotte/Douglas international Airport
Mecklenburg County, North County
Pursuant to 36 Ci~R 800.6(b)(1)
WHEREAS, the Federal Aviation Administration -(FAA) has determined that
implementation of development and/or air traffic actions (the Undertaking)
resulting from its approval of changes to the Airport Layout Pion (ALP) for the
Charlotte/Douglas International Airport, which include the construction of a third
parallel runway, a 2000-foot runway extension, development of associated ancillary
facilities, and implementation of noise abatement measures and are described in
the Airport's Master Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement may off ect
historic properties, including both structures and archeological 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 CPR 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 hqs been invited to concur in INS 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 that the fallowing measures are carried out,
JAN. -01' 0001) 09:53 CHARL0911MUGLAs IINI L AIRrURI Ibb- /Uq Jjy 4UJ0 r. Uuy
n1/06/2000 69:J1 4043057155 ATLANTA /.DO PAGE 04
A. Historic Structures
1. The Airport in consultation with the 5HP0 shall evaluate measures to allow
the Samuel Brown Farm (Mk1874) to remain standing. Such measures
shall include options for adaptive reuse, 'stabilization and preservation,
and/or the possibility of moving the structure(s) to a new location. if,
after consultation with the 5HP0, no feasible and prudent rehabilitation.
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 (s).
2. The following structures are located in areas subject to gircraft noise
exposure levels greater than 65dH based on the Day-Might Average sound
level metric (DNL) and are not a compatible land use in accordance with 14
CFR Part 150, 5 A150.101, Table 1; or are located in an 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.
+ Or Richard A. Query House (MK1373);
_k John Douglas House (AW 361;
4 Asbury House (MV 873);
3 Samuel Brown Form (MK1 874); and
+ Sprott-brier Farmhouse and Slave House (W1875).
These structures are eligible for sound attenuation under the provisions of
the Airport's Noise Compatibillty Program approved under the provisions
of 14 CFR 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 Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for Rehabilitotlon and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic
Buildings (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
JAN. -01' 00(FRI) 09:53 CHARLOTTE/DOUGLAS INT' L AIRPORT 1'EL:104 359 4U30 P.005
01/061,2000 09: 31 4043057155 ATLANTA ADD PAGE 05
3, The Airport in consultation with the 5HPO shall evaluate and implement
measures to minimize potential impacts resulting from the relocation of
West Boulevard an the Dr Richard A. Query House (MK1373). Such
measures shall include providing a landscaped buffer area between the
roadway and the affected property.
8. Archeological Resources
1. The FAA shall ensure that the Airport prepares and implements an
archaeological data recovery plan for the Wynn Site (31MK811) and the
Ertel Site (31MK814). This plan will be consistent with the standards
included in the Secretary of the IntePior's Standards trod Guidelines for
Arc eolo y and Historic 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 rnwst be submitted to the FAA and
5HP0 for review and comment. Unless the 5HPO 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 freeman
House (MK1363), the Airport will conduct an 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 consultation with the SHPO and in a manner consistent with
the "Standards and Guidelines", rf the site is determined eligible, a data
recovery plan 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
excavatlons at the Wynn Site (31MK811), the Ertel Site (31MK814), and
any other sites investigated and determined eligible for the Ngtionol
Register, will be curated in accordance with 36 CFR Part 79. The Airport
agrees to provide to the FAA and 5HPO all final historic and archaeological
reports 'resulting from actions taken pursuant to Stipulations s.1 and 82
of this agreement. Such reports are to be prepared in accordance with
the SHPO's most current Specifications for A_rphaeological Field Reports
and "standards and Guidelines".
3
JAN. -07' 00(FRI) 09:54 CHARLO'T'TE/MULAS INI L AIKeUKI Ibb:IU4 X01 4UJU r. UUQ
el/06/208I3 X79.31 4043857155 A'ILANTA f4DO PAGE 06
4. In the event previously unknown archeological resources are discovered
during construction:
Q. The Airport will cease work in the immediate area of the previously
unknown archaeological resources and the FAA and SHPO will be
notif ied, The FAA and 5HPO will determine the eligibility and
significance 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 a person or persons meeting at
a rnlnimurn the professional qualifications set forth in the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards and Guidelines.
2, Tf the 5HPO or FAA object in writing, within 15 days, to any plans,
speci f icatiohs or reco?nmendations submitted pursuant to the terms of
this Agreement, than the FAA, the 5HPO, and the Airport shall consult to
resolve any objections which have been raised. If the FAA determines
that the objections(s) cannot be resolved by such consultation with the
SHPQ, the FAA shall request further comments of the Council pursuant to
36 CFA Part 600.6(l;I)(J)(y). The agency official. agrees to consider any
Council comment provided in response to such a request in accordance with
the provisions of 36 CFR Part 900,7(c)(4). This requirement shall be
applicable only to the matter which is the subject of the unresolved
objection, The FAA agrees that its responsibility to carry out all other
actions provided for under this Agreement, not the subject of an
unresolved pb jection, will remain unchanged.
3. If any of the parties to this agreement believe that an amendment or an
addendum to the agreement is necessary, that party shall immediately
notify the other parities and request consultation to consider an
amendment or addendum to this agreement. The process of amending or
exetuting on addendum to the agreement shall be the same as that
exercised in creating the original agreement. In the event of an
amendment or an addendum, the FAA will comply with 36 CFR Part
A
JAN. -01' 00 (PRI ) 09:54 CHARLOTTE/ DOUGLAS I NT' L AIRPORT TEL: )04 3S9 4030 N. U0
01106/2000 09::11 404305715b ATI.ANrA ADO PAGE 07
H00.6(c!) (7) .
4. Any consulting party to this agreement may 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 1 hat would avoid termination. In the event
of termination, the FAA will comply with 36 CFR Parts 800.7(a).
Execution of this Memorandum of Agreement and implementation of its terms
evidence that FAA has afforded the 5HP0 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&AL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Scott Seritt, Manager
Atlanta Airports District Office
NORTH CAROLINA HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
8/5 /99
(Date)
V,
Jcf fr1y'Cr'c
5tote Misto
(Date)
CONCVR:
Preservation Off icer
I• Lp•O?
T. J. Orr, A iat on Director (Date)
Charlotte/t) as International Airport
5

,APPENDIX C
Protected! Species Correspondence

Unitt:d States Department of the Xnteiior
FISH xSiD WILDLIFE SF.RV(CE
mottle. Ftetd Office
•? 1 f4 ZiUitOe 3 tt+ec!
Ashevlil., Monti Cvroliap 21801
December 4,1998
Mr. llobwt D Rtvulw. Ecologist
t.jtyiO them & Archmiogy. LLC
6948 Oakwood Drive, Suites 201 & 202
Flottwcc. Rcotucky 41041
Dear Mr. Itepasky:
Subject: Propo:rd expansion otCharlotte-Douglas Intetr dOnal Airport, Charlotte,
Mecklenburg County, Notch Carolina
Wr received a copy of your letter of November 3, 1998, w Dr. Willie Titylor, OR3ea of
EnvimnrumW Policy and Compliance, Uepsrtmeot of the Intarior, Washington, D.C.. ronardbl8
addiiiontil iirformstion on the Dmil EnvirorunWal1WPact StatMtM for the CherlotWDou$tas
tritenutional Aitpott. Mecklenboig County. Noah Caroling. Wo Apo pi:ovidiq the following
conumentc in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of the EndmiScmd Species Act of 1973,
as tyricnded (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
In Ylvir letter you provided the re-alts of intensive surveys for rajt plants within the Ptojsct Xva,
The virvcyi focused on existing rights-of-way acrd woodland cde„ as well as other potentia)
fubitat for Schweiriitz'i nnflowcr (Hellanthus Jchuvixlttii) and Gewgia astar (Aarar
porpfanus). Surveys were performed October 15-16. 1998.
We have records of Schweinits's sunflower !*om norr the Mecklenburg County project site. In
nur letter of December 14,1955, we rccortunanded a treld survey to detem ine the presence or
abRence of tfus species or its habitat. In our September 10, 1998. letter, we recommended
add ithinal curve" to coincide with the flowering period for KehanrAut sch weiniltii. According
to your letter, ncither Schweinitz's avnfiowu:or;ay of the Federal tpeeies of ooncern were
located in the proposed =tpansion area during the irttersive surveys. The photurmbs included
with your lcner were helpibl to discataing important characters of Airer parem. We theroi=
now concur with your dctenttimtivn that the proposed pmjcct will not affect endangered or
ibicatatled species or their habitats. We believe the requirements under Section 7 of the Act out
fulfilled. However, obligations under Section 7 of Iho Act must be rccomidered if`. (1) new
infumiation reveals impaeu of this ldcatil ed action that may sprat li5tcd apai•s or rrideal

babitat in a taanner not previously tontidsrvd, (2) this action is nubsequsnrly mad" red in a
u ourinu that was not considered in this review, or (3) a now species is listed or critical babitu it
deAnninod that may be affected by the identified action.
We appreciate the vppvmu?ity to provide these coauncuts. IN# test be of vy utiataaae or if
you have any questions, p!mv do rot hccitate to cvW;ct Mr. Mark A. Cantrell of oik Gta>Tgt
82VI58•3939, Ext. 217. In any fat= eorrwpondenoe oaaccming this projcet. plosse refatme
our Log Numbcr 4.2.96.021.
9inccre r "??
Brian P. Cole
Stale Supervi'm
cc:
Dr. Willie R Taylor, Director, Office ofEnviroumcntal Policy and Corugume,
L.S. Deparment of the Intrior, Interior Building, 1949 C Street, :WV.,
Wash igton, DC 20240

APPENDIX D

Stream Evaluation Forms
t
NCIMO Stream Classification Form
PrujeclName: CbTA River Basin: C0.+tt-wbo- County:/YleckkNb?rgEvaluator: 6err: C.I'-' "lytt's
DWQ Project Number. Nearest Named Stream:CAPeY Latitude: Signature: A&
Date: 0,a,- OS- 0 ) USGS QUAD: Otor),vi e l(kSi Longitude: Location/Dimctions: .'?-f ?G?N p? y
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree than the fruture is a arnn-muds ditch, then use of this form It not necessury.
Also, if in (he belt profestionuiludremen(of the evaluator, (he feature is a man-Inade ditch and not u modlUled nrrturul.ttream-this
rating sytrem should not be uted*
Primary Field Indicators: (Ctrr1e(1nr1Vurnl)erPvrV#m)
Geonlorpholoirry Alment •t Moderate R o
11 Is There A Riffle-foul Sequence? 0 1 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed _
S) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is A Cunlinuuus Bed & Bank Present! 0 2
CNOM Ifhed A bunk Cagred bv/Nrr04re And )YlT1)OUT Stnunrhv T?'n rn t
10) Is A 2 4 Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
To IM Map AndlOr In Field) Present? Yes-3 Nn 0
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
Secondary Field indicators: (rirrle(1nrNand/rrPrrL/ne/
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Nntund Dmipnge Wny? 0 f I 1.5
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:--r-
IL Hydrology Absent Weak ModeEate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaniaer
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 S (?) 1.5
Lail Known s r r ...
S) Is Them Water In Channel During Dry 0 t S 1 1.5
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS
8) Are Welland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mustly OOL Mostly FACW "' Iostly AC Mostly FACII Mostly (IP(,
(' NOM If Total Abtenre of All Plants low SrrenaJird 2 1 .75 0 0
AfNotedAlnnYSkin r1dySteu UNLEYSSAYPretvprrl
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS. 7. y
TOTAL POINTS (Primary +Sernndan,)- ?(IjCreater Than Or F.yua/ Ta L Points The Streans Is At Least Inrermitrent)
SL Hydro an Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is Them A Groundwater
Flow/Discharee Present? 0 I © 3
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICAI TOR POINTS.
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL •w
EVALUATION FORM
ACTlocrm a 00/30 3 "M APPLICANT NAME D1, Q DATE
PA6P05MCS4Vr+EI, WORK (i.e., Culvert, rotoc&ior% etc.)
WATER5O9YAU%XR.Wlr4 S"-rcccv,, o L / L ct•+& w btu
COUMT/CrrY file- ???e? ?4 0 Z ?.h4r/pfd ?.
RECEKT WEATHER COKDCTIONS _L )e CLr-
P SP NP Observadon
Comments or Descriodon
FixWShe1lf6WCnutacearo P,eerR SovK? G rc?? ; S!,
Benthie Macro Invertbratee
Amphibians Present/Breeding 1 S a 14 m4 h d e: w, P N e1
t
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function)
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? ®/ N Approx. Drainage Area: -7 Ckcr'
Determination:
Perennial Channel (gyp) Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (peed) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (nold) (attach map indicating location of importanvunimporwt channel)
Ditch Through (-jd))
Upland
Evaluator's Signature:
(if other than C.O.E. project manager)
l//lll////ll/llI/llllllllllll//llll/1/ll/!ll//lllll/////!l///lJ///l//l////l/l/ll/l///////l/////lll//ll1/l/!ll/lllll//ll/!/llll/ll//ll//1/////l//l//l///ll//l////////////ll1//l///lll///lJ//ll///1/l/lllll/ll/lllllllllll/l/l/ll
P-Present SP-Stongly Present NP=Not Present •
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
NC;DWO Stream Classification Form ,,
Project Name:C QL / i River Basin; Lin }AW btu Cbwi(y: y?? //1 "l C'Mhl? valualor: I? z?rri G rs
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Slream:(_z +4 / Latitude: Signature: NMI,
Date: /U-/v - 6o USGS QUAD: (-6r-kfk 4 e5tLotigitude: Location/Directions: S t?e?l h+ o?
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluawr and hindowner agree that the frature Is a man-matte ditch, then use ofthls farm it not neressury.
Also, If In the hcr(Pmfesslonal judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not u modified istutural.stream-this
ralinr.system should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle OneNumoberPer Llne)
n n ou Absent a Moderate S ms
11 IsTherc A R'Mc-PnolSeguence?_ 0 1 2
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 I 2
(+NOTE: !lord d bans Consed Be INfrhinwAnd IVITHOUT Slnaadiv rh •n PraremO'a
10) Is A 2"a Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Toro Map_And/fh In Field) Pmsen(? Yes _ NO iA
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:y14a,
Secondary Field Indicators: (C11,1,0neNa.b rPtlrUne)
3) Does
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
II,_Hydrolozry Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Yenr s (Or Last's) Len[liurr
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 $ )
$) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .$ 1 I.S
Conditions Or IQ Growing SSenspn)?
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICA TOR POINTS
8) Arc Wetland Plants In Strenmbed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FAC W Alostly FAC Mostly FACl1 Mostly VPL
('NOM if rota!Muenre Of All Plants In Greapiked 2 I ,7$ .$ 0 0
ds •Yui,at Atwe Sin rhls a • . N . V's• BAY Pr sent') '
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
TOTAL POINTS (Prlmarr +Secondary)a (If Greater Than Or Equal TO 12 Points The Stream Is A( Least Intermittent)
S) Is There An Active (Or Relic) w
IL_HvdroloLrry Absent Weak Moderate Strunu
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/D'scharve ' ;
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
'e;e ?'? r:
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
Xmoffm a 601303 yv APPLICANT NAME L p TA DATE
PROPOSED-C11%NNEI. WORK (i.e.. Culver relocation, starI) / l
WATERBOOVAIU GER.AAMN _SLe V. d t cJ4 wbe, COUNTY/CITY Me_c.,LIeN bkI4 I C.h (AYIG -He
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS -L -le- ar
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? U' N Approx. Drainage Area: /v y es c"S
uaiimnniniai?ini?uiniiinainniaiiniiniannmiiniiunniiiaiamm?aniuiiuininiumiiinuniiaiaiiiuiinniiiinnuiiaainainiua nniuiainiiuinmiuiannainiuininiin
Determinadon:
Perennial Channel (swp) Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (Prod) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no1d) (attach map indicating location of
unportandunimportant channel)
Ditch Through (no jd)
Upland
Erdtutor'r S(prature;
(if other dean C.O. E. pmjcd ffwm8K)
?iiminiinunnuiuiiiniaiuuuiiniuniiuniiunmm?iuianiauanuiuuaiuuiiuiuiiainnuiumuiiiuuaauniaiuiainiumuuiiuiinmiuiaiuiuriniiuunnmm?iaiaiiianiiai
P-Pmsent SP-Stongly Present NP=Not Present '
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
NCI)WO Stream Classification Ca Form
Projecl Name: L Al A River Basin: +G W be,
DWQ Project Number:
CuurSty: 44?yEvaluator: e rr,1L AY eO
Nearest Named Stream: CO'1't eY&OOttitude:
Signntum: MW
r
Date://-/3-60 USGS QUAD: 0401-4 "C$' Longitude: Local ion/Di rections:
* PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree rhur the feature it a nian-etude ditch, then use of this form Lc not neressary.
Also, if in the Asst pmfesslonal judgement of the evaluator, the fruture Is a man-made ditch and not u modified natural stream-this
rating system should no( be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Orde (At Number Per Line)
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is A Continuous Bed Bc Bank Prescm? 0 2 3
!`NOf£: lfBrd 6 bank Caused Br&f htnn Aad IYITIIO TSt t by Th m Snare-aft
10) is A 2%j Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
0 r o MaVjnd1O#- In Field I PrcscnO, rc=1 Nn?O )
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators: (CtrleoneNumherPerUne)
3) Does Topography Indicate A
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR
11, Hydroloev Absent Wenk Moderate Strove
1) Is This Yenr s (Or Last's) Lentlitter
4) Is Water In ChannelAnd>48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 f 1.
Las[ Known Rain" 0N0rE_-h`D1trkjlld1rafd1m 5
c s .•
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 I I.S
Conditions nr In 11--i-, s. .. .mss l
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR
8) Are Wethmd Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACII Mostly IIPL
P NOM If rainAhrenre 01M1 Plants in pre awped 2 1 .75 .5 O 0
di.Yded A/snY Sits nis Step UN _SSSAVPret-t-i
SECONDARYBIOLOGY INDICATORPOINTS: S
TOTAL POINTS (Prlmarv +Secondarv)?(IfGreater Than Or Equal Teo 12 Points The Stream AAt Least Inrerminent)
II HvdroloU Absent Weak Moderate Strove
I) Is There A Groundwater ?
flow/Discharee Present' 0 1 l2J 3
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
5
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
^ ,r
nCTIOIVmaDO??D?yO APPLICANT NAME LDTA DATE Jl-I3-a0
PROPOSEWC11VI"L WORK (i.e.. Culva % relocati/on, eta) I
WATERSOBY/ M11,11ASIN, STre.al% 35 / L 0& tJ b a- COUNTY/CITY h?
_/I / e'Oe 1? A,40
T ?C
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS c- le- o, r
P SP NP Observation
Comments or Description
Fish/Shellfish/Crustaceans Pr mK
BenWc Macro InvertWala
rwo t2raf?
Amphibiuu Presertt/Hreading
Sa Ja wl k k revs ?? S
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function) /yI a { emote -
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, face; shells, others) O t-, e- ?-ra G'ZS
Federally Protected Species Present (Discontinue)
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? ®/ N Approx. Drainage Area: 106 &e res
Determination:
RPerennial Channel (gyp) Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR Initials
Intermittent Channel (pry) ? Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no1d) (attach map indicating location of important/unimportsnt channel)
Ditch Through (-1d)
Upland
Evaluator's Signawre:
(if other than C.O.E. project manager)

P--Present SPrStongfy Present NP=Not Present
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
ill U?1 V 6tream Llasslllcaclon Ir'orm
T Project Name: L IJ.J- A River Basin: 66kl cx w l?
DWQ Project Number.
Nearest Named Stream: , ' k- -Latitude:
11 .
Coynty: McJ)eH6u?Jy cyaluator; f)ernc.l M
,rt°rS
Sibmature: M01-
/ 1 1

Date:Q/s/U) USGSQUAD: ?-k1(r1f4t Ut'5rLongitude: Local ion/Directions:.D treA?-- A
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use althis toms is not neeettury.
Also, if in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, thelearoe is a man-made dirrh and not a ,nodij!ed natural abeum-this
rating .system should not be wed*
Primary Field Indicators: (amt, one mawwr per Lind)
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 I 2 3
l?NOTfr r/Nrd 6 bank Cmaad by Lhtch And IV/TI/OL/l elnnndrv Th •n Prl re-Vt
10) Is A 2"" Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
1 1 KIV / In Field I ergsent? yes .1 IV. 0
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators: rcim o.,Nund?erPerLins/
.1) Does Topography Indicate A
SECONDARY
Y INDICATOR POINTS.
tt. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Stroh
1) Is This Years (Or Last's) LcMutcr
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 I I.5
LMIXmawq " , And r
fteloir-l
Is There Water In Channel During Dry
CO) .5 I 1.5
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS. /-
TOTAL POINT (Primary + Seenndan) Ylf Greater Than Or Equal To J2 Point,; The Stream I.t At Least Interminenl)
1. Ceomornholoey Absent We ik Moderate Stroh
II Is Then` A Riffle-Pool sequence! n 2
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
It. Hydroloey Absent We•tk Moderate Strontr
1) Is There A Groundwater ?
Flow/Discharge Present? (01 1 2 ]
PRIMARYHYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
• - --- - --.---•- • - • •^•-••••• ... r mushy vu t, Mostly FACW Mostly AC Mostly FACII Mostly IIPL
r• NOTE: If rotol Ahrenre O/All Plants In Ctrea mbed 2 I .75 0 0
Af Nrnavl Alnive Skin ThLr C • IN yy oAr Piet •n!•1
?I

c.
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL -..
EVALUATION FORM
. - -T10N"1D,&,#3 w Yo APPLIcAIVT MANE _(AT A DATE
PRbPOSED'CRAMMEL WORK (i.e., vulver% relocation, etc.)
WATER5O9Y4LlVER.AA,5IN.$ify rt, )A..,/ &A u W b t,. COUNTY/CITY /Y/e C.Wet-bA V rl / U o y)0 iie
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS a A?r'
r Sr NP 9bservadon
Cornments or Description
V Fish/Shellfish?Cnutacemrm h4eaart
Benthic Macro Invertbrates
LZ Amphibians PtacrWarooding
lj AJgae And/Or Fungus (water quality function) Sp v'01c w? rd t; .s d' lam, 6
Wildlife Chancel Use (i.e. tracks. feeesr shell; others)
Federally Protected Species Present (Discontinue)
I" RiHlorwi Suum. l„J e
Stable Streambanks SO 1e area S
Chuml Substrate
i.e. vel, cobble. rock boarse sand
SO !s. e ? GW t' L O C. v f e s p I"-J
Riparian Canopy Pt=au (SP -/> 30% closure)
Undercut 8ankstInsamm Habitat Structure
Flow In Channel
Wedaods Adjacent To/Cortig. With Chancel (Discontinue)
Persistent PoolalSanuatod Bottom
June thru SSM)
Scc*C4QWSdwater Discharge (June dum Sept.)
Adjacent Floodplain Preseet
? Wrack Material or Drift Lino etc
Hydrophytic Vegetation irvadiacent to charnel
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y /© Approx. Drainage Ana: JO Qe401
Determination:
R Perennial Channel (gyp) Important Channel: L.F PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (m--d) nimportant Channel: L.F
Ephemeral Channel (nojd) (attach snap indicating location of imponut/unirnportant channel)
Ditch Through (nojd)
Upland
ErsaJasator's Siptature:
(if other than C.O.E. project manager)
rnlurninilnurnn?ruunnrmrnuaianiauiuauiiiuunirauiianu?aunimiuurunauaaanu?u?rr?uinmauniaiuai?iuuuiuiiuruuiainrnuauuuuuiaiuiaiiuuinnariaiuu
11 P=Pmsent SPrStongly Present NP=Not Present '
NCDWU Stream Classification Form
Project Namc: C A River Basin: e_,6J(1L W blc,,- County: Acklelt hwr Evaluator: D tnGI?r ` y e.,
er S
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream:&_gye k, xLnlitude: Signature: y?? !r &
Date: `D - 3 - V C) USES QUAD: aai?'k 41'-5*Longitudc: Location/Directions: SkeA_, /(J
*PLEAS F. NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that theleature It a roan-made dileh, then use apt, trlorm lr nol nei eerury.
Also, if in the best prolesxlonal,ludgement njthe evaluator, the feruure It a man-made ditch and not a modified natural "wean-thla
rating system should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Orr.le One Number Per Line)
1. Genniomhnloey Absent 1Vey1k Moderate Stronir
I) Is There A Rllfle-Paul Sequence? 0 1 2
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 I 2
PNUTE'16 d d goal Cmead By bltrh/ne A d Ir1T110 tT rlmr rlty Th •n &ar -a4
10) Is A 2"i Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On ToV2 Mnp And/Or In Ficldl Present? Yes=J Na'(0)
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators: (ClrclaOneNunil?rrParLnrt
J) Does Topography Indicate A
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
4) 1s Water 61 ChannclAnd>48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 1.5
Last Known t . •r t
S) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1.5
•
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed'! SAV Mustly OBL Mostly FACW Mos;rC Mostly FACII Mostly tIPL
t • NOTE: l/raal Muenre OjAll Plains In Srreandted 1 1 .75 t / 0 0
As Nnied Alwe Slip n rSr•a tN ?'PeAYPr•r•m•1 ' `!
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
TOTAL POINTS (Prlnlarr +Seeondan,)= ,? / (if Greater Than Or Equal To L2 Polno The Stream I.r.41 Leaw Inferinitfent)
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
Ii. Hydrolo" Absen Weak Moderate Strut
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Discharac Pr scnl? 0 2
PRIMAR Y HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
II. Hydroloey Absent Weak Moderate Strtt)te
1) Is This Years (Or Lasl s) Leallilter
41' ?
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
111F ft-,40- .1
_CT WID2DO1-30-3V0 APPLICANT NAME LU1 A DATE 10-3-00
PROPOSED-CMVINEL WORK (i.e., sulvert, ml?ocaaogk etc.)
WATER808YlRIXEK BASIN r n. !S / L AjLt W 6L- COUNTY/Crry /YIN L? ?EI? li rc, / L l? Q r Ja ?'?e
RECENT WEATHER CONDMONS Leek V
P SP NP Observation Comments or Description
Fish/Sbeil&WCnstao=m Prraat
Benthie Maas InvatbraLm Vimr l; W e
Amphibians PraaWB eediog
Algae AzWOr Fungus (water quality function)
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y'\`% Approx. Drainage Area: s elre
uluulnanluuaiimiimuala/nnlnlaiiuualnaiiilmnaialiiniinnnuniiniilainnnmm?lmnilniiiuninliiaiunaiuiliiiaiiannnnunainainlaiiunniuinnnuaininnani
Determination:
Perennial Channel (gyp) Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (P--d) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no jd) (attach map indicating location of important/unimportant channel)
Ditch Through (no id)
Upland
Evaluator's Slenatu v:
(if other than C.O.E. projoa manager)
//1//lllll/lllll!lllllllllllllllllllll/llllllll/l/ll/l//ll/lll//l/l//llllll//llll/lllll/lll////l/llllllll/lll/l!/lllll/lll//llllllllllll/ll/lllllllll/l/lllll/ll/ll/!/l///l//llll/lllllll/lllllHllllllllllll/lllll/llll//llll/
PIIPrrsent SB=Stongfy Present NP=Not Present
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
NCDWO Stream Classification Form ,,
Project Name: 6b.TA River Basin: / Jaw b A^
1 (? Cowity: I„eJ4hbKfti Gvalualor: p,?2ATtr1`?-` •' `y P'rS
DWQ?Plrnjecll-Number. Nearest NumcdSlrcam:?UerkValitude: Signature: ZZ
Date:oC? '" 0 USGS QUAD I-. OXt'F4 oC StLongitudc: Localion/Dimctions: r :Or caves
* PLEAS F: NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a ntan•mude ditch, then use of Chit form is not necessary.
Also, if in the hest profettional)udgemens of the evaluator, the feuture is a man-made ditch and nat a aasdtried natural.theanr-Ntis
rating system should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Clrrle(heNumber PerLine)
I. Geomornholotry Abs nt 1yeli ModIMIte Strong
i t Is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence! 0 1 2 1
2) Is The USDA Texture In Stmambcd
Different From S rro +ndin , Terrain" 0 2- 3
31 Arc t t 3
41 Is The Channel Sbtuous7 0 ? 2
S) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2 )
CNOT£r //Brd d Bank Cfin_t?1BvUhrhlneAnJ iV/Tl10UT Cinamay n en Srnre.O.
10) Is A 2"i Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Topo MnPAnd/Or In Fieldl Present? Yes=3 Nn?l1
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators' (Clrrlr(ArrNumJxrPerlJne/
1) Does Topography Indicate A
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
II HHydroloev Absent Weak Moderate St on
1) Is This Years (Or Last s) Lenfliller
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs, Since 0 .3 I i S
' t SlevAnd r .,..
S) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .3 1 1.3
f node:..... n. t.. r]......._.. n__
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Seenndanl4safGreater Than Ur Equal TO 12 P01110 The Stream I.s A/ Loom Inlerminent)
Ii. Hydrology Absent Wenk Moderate Strnnw
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Dischalge Present? f Ol 1 2 3
PRJMAR Y HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
___ -....y A.. W Dias t: Mostly FACII Mostly UPI,
NOTE, f otol Ahteare O/All Plants In Slraambed 1 .73 0 0
Ar Natd Abuiv Skin tr6,o W tt•SAVpr,rrm'1 '
6
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
att
nCT10ff1D dC003o3yo APPLICANT NAME L DT A DATF. -S- o
PROPOSEWCE"REL WORK (La., vulva% relocaio% etc.) 1 II
WATER806YlRiKERRA,SiN e-s r, A / Lai' 4 w b COUNTY/CITY e LK je t. b 4 v' c L L a rlw,e
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS jje-c.-
P Sr NP QtKa-adon Comments or Description
F6WShc1L iWCnuuoc&n Pr=aK
Bendtie Macro Invenbm&a
Amphibians Prarnt/BM%Aing
Algae A"Or Funpa (water quality function)
Wildlife Chanel Use (i.e. tracks. Coca, shells, othea)
Does Cbannel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y 10 Approx. Drainage Area: 20 az&&?
urainrnnrurrrrnrnnurunauriuirunniainarranuirrnirmrnrnnaininiunniairunnuiiiinnnaiinauuaaaiamiirniiaiaiinniminaiuuninnannia?uirunraiaiiurniiim
Determination:
P
R erennial Channel (A") Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (Prod) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (noid) (saach truW indicating location or important/unimportant chancel)
Ditch Through (-id)
Upland
Evdumoes sign m:
(if odw dun C.O.E. project nuuuger)
nnuuiruuinuuunanrunuunnaiuumiuinuaranauurrunnruamruiuuiuuuiiniiiaaiiirurrnninauiruinrriinirinnuaiuiainuniaiaiirniannnrrrruniaiaiururirninari
P=Prtsent SPA-Stongfy Present NP=Not P=nt '
Important To Domestic Water Supply? YIN
NC D WU Stream Classification Form
Prujcct Name. L QT A River Basin: 6a6 w 6c- Cotouy: / WeCk.)ek 6u! valuator. De rtf, &k-dye+'s
DWQ )Project Number. Nearest Named Stream: ftatitude: JS'ibmnturc: A
Dale:/ o -3-OV VSC1S QUAD:t??4"10? W%S:Longitude: Location/Dircctions: s7'rec , A
*PLEASE NOTE: Ijevoluator and landowner agree that the jeattre IT a atan-taudr. dhch, then use o/thLs Jortn Ls nor neressary.
Also. I/Ix the beer pro/?crlnnal/adReroent n/thr evaluator, the fralarr ho roan-made ditch and nor a snodUW nararrrl stream-this
rating .sys(em should nor be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (0arle(JneNum1trrPrrLlne1
9) Is A C'onlinuous Bed & Bank Present' 0 2
l?NOT£? llBrd ,t Banc Cmoed By Dftrhine Amd JF1WQVT Nmmtfrv jh en Garr-ah
10) Is A 1s'i Order Or Orcater Channel (As Indicated
o /J =1 0
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
II. Hvdrolnev Absent Weak Mndemte Strnno
1) Is There A Groundwater
flow/DeschaEge 't
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR
Secondary Field Indicators: (ClrelrUneNamberPerLim)
J) Does Tolxtgraphy Indicate A
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Years (Or Last's) Lennuter
4) Is Water In ChannelAnd>48 Hrs. Since 0 S 1 1.5
. t s .,..
S) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 I 1.5
Conditions Or In C7rowine ' nsopl7
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR
8) Are Welland Plants In Strenmbed? SAV Mostly UBL Mostly FAC W ostty FAC Mostly FACII Mostly IIPL
(• NOTEr I/Tnml Ahtenre O/All Plant In Strranth,-4 2 1 .75 0 0
As Noted Alnre P,tln nkt Stet UN KPt' PAV Pre,entel ?
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
TOTAL POINTS (Primary t Secondarr).x?Greater Than Or Equal To lp Poinls The Stream Is At Least Intermittent)
1. Cenmornholoev Absent Weak Modernt Strnnt.
11 Is There A Riffle-Pool ScQuence tl 1 J
2) Is The USDA Texture In Strenmbed
7
e:R??i:
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM

AcTIoIrIDv?c1Q?3o q0 APPLICANT NAME LW A DATE /0 -3 -0?
PROPOSED'Cit/C04EL WORK (i.e., culvert relocation, ere) 1
WATER809Y4lM&.WlNi-h-e&?LcAkw6c. cOUrfry/Ci" ur L adof{,e
RECEIPT WEATHER CONDITIONS _C.J e A e-
P SP NP Observation Comments or Description
F6WStxllf6WCnauoww Preaart
? BmW Macm Invenbratee
Amphibians PresentlBreadiag
•?'r ? re e k'l'
Algae A WOr Fungus (water quality function) ..
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. track& foom shells. odwml
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? ©/ N Approx. Drainage Ana: q.3 "res
lunnilalaiuaarnu((/iiuuuuiuuiuiuiuiiuilliiiuiaiiiunanaauil?iniiiaaunuiuiiaaiaianiaiaauiininniiiii/i/la/i//iniaiiiaiiauiiuniianliunuiiiiaii(iiuniiulanuiiii
Determination:
Perennial Channel (900 R Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR Initials
Intermittent Channel () Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no id) (attach map indicating location of important/unirn o t channel)
Ditch Through (-jd)
Upland
EvaJuetor's Sigm uss:
(if other than C.O.E. Project rnamger)
I//lNl1/Ill//ll/(Il/l/ll/l/!//ll/l//llll/llll//l/Ill//l/l/l//Ill/Ill/1/l///llllllll//l/ll/l/ll/Ill/l/l/Ill/ll/Ill///l//Ill/llll//lllll//l/!/Jlll//Ill/l////l/ll//////llll/l//Ill/ll//ll!/Ill(l/1lllllllllJ/llllllllllllllllJll
P=Present SPrStongiy Present NP=Not Present
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
NC L)WO 6tream Classification Form
Project Name: River Basin: (,C,T&&J6C,_
DWQ Project Number.
..
Cowlty: rneJd",6 vyva)uator: be,,. j 04Y,et.5
Nearest Named S(ream: LI )e PQttLalitudc: •/
Sibmature: tw' " " C
Date: 2-S--0 f USGSQUAD:t-kcLrifftlkStLuitgilude: LocadoniDirectiuns: S?rear.
"PLEASE NO'T'E: If evaluator and landowner agree (hut the feature is a munquade ditch, then use ofthis fornt is nor neresrary.
Also, If In the best professlonalludgernent of the evaluator, the featurr is a man-made ditch and not a modiilled natural streunt-Nil:
rating M. tern should not be sited"
Primary Field Indicators: IClmJeOneNumberPerLlneJ
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 2
l1NUfE: //be6 bank anted br/Btrhine And tY/Tl/O[1r Slrotnrlty Then Trore-ah
10) Is A 2-f01 der Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On TWO Milo And/Or In Field) Present? Yyf-3 Nn 0
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
11. Hydroloey Absent Weak Moderate Ctrono
1) Is There A (iruundwaler /?yy
FlowiDischaree Present? {01 I 2 3
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS. Q
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR
Secondary Field Indicators: (Clrrlel)neNuniberPrr/lne/
2) 11 There A (;rnde ' n1 tl Poin1 In 'hnnn I° 0 I I S
1) Does Topography Indicate A
Nnntrnl Dniinnee Wnva 0 I I
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POIN7S:__J_
It. Hydrulon Absent Weak Moderate trot
1) Is This Years (Or Last's) Lenlltiter
4) Is Water In ChannclAnd>48 Hrs. Since
S) Is There Water In Channel During Dry
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
8) Are Welhind Plants In Sireambed? SAV Mostly 0111, Mostly FA(: W Moult' AC Mostly FACU Mostly UPI,
("MOM l(rotal Ahtenre OIAII Plants la dlreamhed 2 1 .75 0 0
,A.f Nteett AMm• Skin rhd h • /N Ct• CAYYr yenr.l
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
TOTAL POINTS (Pri..arp +Secondun,)J (IjGreater Than Or Equal Tip L4 Points The Stream It At Least Intertnhtenq
I. Geomnrnholoey Absent Weak Moderate Strunn
11 Is There A R Wfic•Poul caucuce t 0 I 2
2) Is The USDA Texture In Strenmbed
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL "`~•?-
EVALUATION FORM
-nww 2aoolo-M APPLICANT NAME L DT A DATE 0/
PROPOSEWCItAQ REL WORK (i.e., culvert relocation,, etc.) y
WATERSOBYAUVER.WIW?tI'eA?,^n W 7 o? COUNTY/CITY 1kr-5 l Uttr/offe
RECENT WEATHER CONDrrIONS ??'e4 r
P SP NP

Observation Comments or Descrir)tion
F6WShe1llisWCrustsoeans Prc a*
ocnuur mw;ru Invwwru=
shells,
Structure
(i.e.. gravel, cobble. rock, 6oane sand)
Riparian Canopy Present (SP -/> 30% closure)
Underrvt BankAnstream Habitat Structure
Flow In Channel
L)(.' a1-
W ?O?AL
I c3re-u e- t d' LOGrSe- SQ
Persistent Poole/Saturaw Bottom
June thru SSM)
SeeWCrroundwater Discharge (June thru Sept)
AdjaoentFloodplain Present
Wrack Material or Drift Linea
Hydrophytic Vegetation in/adjacent to channel
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? YIN Approx. Drainage Area: / t l"e
la?linnnilainnniinmm?lmmm?imiannnruiniaaniriminiinaiainiiiamm?anaiinnaif?iimiinuiainmuiuianaiinniaimiiainaanimiannmiiaininnanmauaaa
Determination:
Perennial Channel (gyp) [g.,Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR Initials
Intermittent Channel (Pry) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no id) (adsch map indicating location of imporwVunimportant chancel)
Ditch Through (nojd)
R"Upland
Evaluator's Signature:
(if other than C.O. E. project rt mager)
./l/lllll/llll/llllllll/llll/lllllll/llllll/l/lll/lllll//llll/llllll/l/llllll/ll/ll//ll/lllllll/l/llll/lll/llllllllllllllll/lllllllll/l////llll///l/l/l///l////////lIl/lllll/lllll//llll//lllll////llll/l//l//////ll/lll/l
'=Present SP:-Stongly Present NP=Not Present '
q NC:UVVU Stream Classification Form ?,?t e, `
I Project Name: L 0? i River Basin: LLB+?+W ?? C'owity: Meck)n v `t vnluntorlCJ em ?'? ???5
1 A?,?,,
QWQ Project Number: Nearest Numed Strearnl" ''f PaWLnlitude: Signatum: v1 / r'Y4 "'
Date: ;0 `/0 oQ USGS QUAD:(,kg,1I Yt Oet;l ongitude: Location/Directiuns: S f "e^rt "m I
* P LEAS F NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature Is a man•musle diteh, then use ojdila form fx b necessa
.
Also, If in the belt pmjerrlono1 judgement of the evaluator, the feature Is a roan-made ditch and not a urodiJied natural at ry
streunt-!/?!s
rating system should net be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (C/releUleNanalxrPyrLlneJ
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 I 3
/•A'OTEr IfNed A lank Caused By O6rhtnr And larlIOUT ttnunstfv Th •n Gr re.a•7
10) Is A 2"J Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
Tt,vD Map / Present? t= 0
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
It. HydrolneV Absent Welk Moderate Strone
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/D'schrime 'a
PRIMAR Y HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR
Secondary Field Indicators: /ClrcleUnrNumlmPsrl/nq
3) Does Topography Indicate A
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS
11. Hydroloey Absent Weak Moderate Strobe
1) Is This Years (Or Last s) Lenfltter
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 His. Since 0 ,5 1 1.5
s Slel, A",1 t ••
S) Is Them Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1.5
Conditions Or In Grawine Sensonlil
HYDROLOGY INDICATOR
8) Arc Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mustly UDL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACII Mostly UPI,
l' NOT& If Total Ahrears Of All Plants in Streand?ed 2 I. .75 ,S 0 0
Ai Nrned Alias Pkla ThLs sYo, r N U SA.V eadent•1
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
TOTAL POINTS (Prltnarv + Seenndarr)-31,r?/-'Greater Than Or Equal Ta L2 Points The Stream /s Al Lease Intermittent)
i
L Gennloroh111111ry Absent Weak Mo er•tte Strong
I I Is There A Rlfflc-Pool Seauenecl 0 I 2 1
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
Cl
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL "--•
EVALUATION FORM
rtoKm?oo¢3o3y0 A>Pi?rsc,?v':crrwi? -b-TA DATE jd-/0-00
PROPOSED'CMV414EL WORK (i.e.. sulva% relocatioc4 etc.) ?JA
WATER:506Y4lMPLWlNS?r"ec, 7 l tcJAt bc COt1NTYcr" MGC,?feel ljllrq I?.?ar1o e
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS L /e lA tr
P SP NP Qbservation Comments or Description
FLWShellfish/Cnuuceans Pima
rt
U2r ,'7 T +`
v Benthic Macro Invenbratee
Amphibians Pr=crW&oediog
Algae AzWOr Fungus (wawa quality function)
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks. fear. shell; others) S 0 hn Z a S e A-
ederany Protected Species Ptemat (Discontinue)
t/ Rat/Pool Structure /1?ip ?ukte
StableStreambanks /YlGdenRft° r Qs-e a ?'eaS
Chatnrel Suban,
(i.e. wavel. cobble. rock boarse sand) G 0A. 1r$ e- Sce e14 OL' q rlr u C I
Structure
? I I Flow In Channel
Wetlaods
June thra S T ---- - ! j
Seeps/Groundwater Discharge (June thru Sept) X1 q) a ?`G f"?
or
I I I ?I Hydrophytic Vegetation wadjacent to charnel f I
Important To Domestic Water Supply' Y / N
tt GY'
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? U/ N Approx. Drainage Area: 1.27
?lnniull/nninlnuaniiiiaiuaili?ilitiaiaulimiilniiaiaaiiilnnaaaanaiauaaiiiinlnnaimnniiiliaiiaiiiiaiiiaiiiminmiaiainiiiiiianiiuiiaiinniininiauiuuiulluiinni
Determination: '
Perennial Channel (A") Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR Initials
nternlittent Channel (Pr_ Unimportant Channel: I.F
Ephemeral Channel (void) (attach map indicating location of inrportanl/unimportant channel)
Ditch Through (nojd)
Upland
Evaluator's Slgneturc:
(if other than C.O.E. project manager)
lI llllllll!l!ll!l!llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll/llllllllllll/lllllll/ll/l1/lll/1//lll/1//lllllllll/lll/ll/l1/ll/1/llllllllllllll///llll/1/l11!!l/ll//l //l//l///l1/l1/llll/l11/ll/llllllllllllllll/ll/lllllllllllll/l/l/!
P-Present SP=Stongly Present NP=Not Present •
1O NC DWO Stream Classification Form
Project Name: GD,L A River 13asin: &r,+&w 6c ,
DWQ Project Number:
Nearest Named Stream:Lo+f1ePQ*-:Lalitudc:
county:Inet-Wei^ 6k/valuator:Oer r;c,,LMVers
Signature: W_ "
Datc: r S-U' US13S QUAD:(ikkr'L s+/LSonsitude: Loention/Direclions: S M?@ 1•+
* PI,F,AS F NOTE. Ifevalumor and landowner agree that the feature Is a man-made ditch, then use ofthk farm Is not neressury.
Alto, If In the bets pmfe.t.tionuljudgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a tnndijied natural streum-this
raring system should not be used's
Primary Field Indicators., (CirrleOneNuadwPerLine)
o n t r ---Absent Vr i Moderate Strone
11 Is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence? 0 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Strenmbed
5) Is There An Active (Or
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present." 0 I 2 1
t•NBT£• h`# •d s bank Cannes By ilrhlnn AnJ rVlTIIOUT SInaneIrv 7h •n Prnr -a•I
10) IS A 2 l Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
To no n / 1 Present'! tnl A'a 0
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle 0m,MooherPerl/ael
1) Does Topography Indicate A
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICA TOR POINTS:
It. Hvdrolot_ry Absent Weak Moderate Stron t
1) Is This Years (Or Last's) Leaflitttr _
4) Is Water In Channel A4>48 Hrs. Since S I 1.
I.Ast Known 5
' l t
5) Is Them Water In Channel During Dry 0 S I 1.5
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS
8) Are Wetland Plants In Strenmbed? SAV Mustly OUL ostly FACW Mostly C Mostly FACII Mostly UPL
(' NOTP l(Tourl Ahrenre O/All Plnntt In fireaadird ? 1 .75 0 0
AUVotwt Aliot?r SAID TA t 4 UN SYSAVPretrnt?l
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
TOTAL POINTS (Prbnant + Secondon-)_11af Greater Than Or Equal To L9 Paints The Stream It At Least Intermittent)
11._Hvdroloev Absent Weak Moderate Strome
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Discharue Present? __ (0 J 1 2
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
ACTION-ID-2W430-00 APPLICANT NAME L D1 A DATE ?-S-d
PRbPOSEDY V&KEL WORK (i.e., cul,0% nlocatioc% etc.) ?A ,?/
WATERSOi)y4U CER$ASIN. S t?aA6, /4 j&1,f 1t w bCk COUNTY/CITY /i'[e C?C `E'1??j4?Yi ??k V /O M'e
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS l eas-
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y/6) Approx. Drainage Area: a6 acr e>
unJUJJaJm?an?naniniiniuniininiunaniiiiiauiniiiiilinaiiiiJ/nmauiiimiunamaiuininiinaiiaanininiiiiiniainliiiaininaiaiuinimanaiiiu/niiaai uaiinuuanna
Determination:
Perennial Channel (Swp) Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR Initials
Intermittent Channel (Pw-d) EE"U'aimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (^o jd) (attach map indicating lw46on of important/unintportant channel)
Ditch Through (-jd)
Upland
Evrduatees SICMUUe:
(ifodw than C.O.& project "Umpr)

P-Present SPA-Stongly Present NP=Not Present '
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
J 1 ,.
c°rti?• ~
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL "~-'`•?
EVALUATION FORM
?CTIOIYIDd
CJ303 j1O APPLICANT NAME C.Ol T 14
H DATE o?' S?'O/
PROP03MCSAi1NEL WORK (i.e.. Nivert, relocation. Cw-)
WATER$ODY4UYER.WIN,41(-(--CLP., I? / -Llh(w be, COUNTY/C" jeA bit!'k rC.?4fI'Gf?e
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS _ G e a r
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? YON Approx. Drainage Area:
Determination: '
Perennial Channel (Swp) Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR Initials
Intermittent Channel (pad) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no1d) (attach trop indicating location of Unponant/unimportant channel)
Ditch Through (-ld)
Upland
Evatuator'i Signature:
(ifouw Ulan C.O.E. pmjod manager)
ann?inmunnunnniininaaiuniuailununmm?iiiiannmm??iliiuinmiauuaaauiinuniniinnaaanuiuuliiianaiauunialaurunnamm?aa?inunaiauiniaiiniiinmi
P=Pr=nt SPrStongly Present NP=Not Present '
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
I NCUVVO Stream Classification Form
Project Namc: (, pS A River Oasin: Ca10.WVc, pp Cuwny: JAec We 0, ?tsvitlu:itor: ?t:.rn? ?yt°?S
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Narncd Sirearni;44-PrAVLatitude: Signntum: Mb44-
Datc: o2'S-0l USGSQUAD: (.karbfk 00rLungitude: Locntion/Diredions: 57r C???-^r
* P LEAS F NOTE: Ijevaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-crude ditch, Ihen u.ce n/(hir/nrm It oar nteessury.
Also, /jM the hes(projesslonaljudgement ojtht evaluator, the jeutu?t IN O man-made ditch and not a mod/Jled nutarul.sirrr,n-thle
ruting sperm should not Be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle 0"e Hundwr Per Line)
n n nu Absent V 3 o ate S4112
11 Is There A Riffle-Pool Seauenee". 0 1 {
2) Is The USDA Texture In Strenmbed
Present! 0 1
.1) Arc Naltyal Levecs 41 Is The Channel Sinuous?
S) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is A Continuous Bed dt Bank Present? 0 © T 2 3
CNOTE: /1Bw16 Bunt Cauted By bitch tnr A,d IVIT//OUT clm,adly Then Grore-0s7
10) Is A 2"d Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
n n d/O ? Yes-3 NW
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators (cirri,OR,,vawwrperLlnq
1) is There A I end Cut Present t 0 1=5
21 Is There A (trade Control Punt In Channel? 0 w 1 13
3) Does Topography ["cote A ?
Nnlural Dminane_Wnv? 0 (SJ I
1
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS. -L ,S
11. Hvdrulon Absent Weitk Moderate Stran r
1) Is This Years (Or Last's) Lenflitier
Present hi SIreginbed? 15 0-
S
1
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 ) 1.5
t .,.•
S) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1.5
Cond1fifins ,t
61 Are Ily4ric Sools Crcsenl In Sides Of Channel (Or In lie 1cllfr Yes=I.S N, Ztl
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:.
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly 081, Mostly FACW Mostly AC Mostly FAC11 Mostly VPL
(" NOM lrratal Ah.enre O(All Plant. In Sveandll'd 2 1 .75 S 0 0
JSNn Al ma kin 1h 1, Coe IN IN SAY Pr nnj' 1 SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: (-
TOTAL POINTS (Pritnarv +Secnndan,)?a (IfGrea/er Than Or Equal Ta L Points The Stream is Al Leas, Intertni(lent)
11. Hvdrolorv s Absent Wen It Moderate Strone
1) Is Then: A Gruundwnter
Flow/Discharge Present? Q ! 11 2 3
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.-?
j 1 NCDN'U Stream Classification Form
Project Name: L r'J l A River Basin: La4etw 6c,
DWQ Project Number.
Wy Y0etk-Aet4lriirj wu valuator. aQX'Yl v verS
Nearest Named Stream: L;A PQi..l.ntilude:
Sipature: MP&
Date: - r-o 1 USGS QUAD:6AQr/4f4f- ueALungitude: Location/Dircelions: R :S re ao,
*PLEASE NO'T'E: l/evaluator and landowner agree char thr/eature Is a man-made. ditch, then a.ir afthlr torn is oat neresrury.
Alto, 0'/n the Aert pmferrionulludgement olthe evaluator, the jrarure Is a man-made ditch and not n modilied natural stream-Ihlr
rating.gatem should nor be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (C/releOheNaalxrPerDow)
1. Genmornhol(ev Absent Milk Moderate Stron
II Is There A Riffle-Po oI eenueacct o I 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texture in Streambed _
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is A Continuous Bed Jr. Rank Present? 0 I 2 3
PNOTE: !/Bed 6 Ban ACaurgd BVDlichlnrAnl IYtT!/ T CMundrv Then Prnre 0r4
10) Is A 2" Order Or Greeter Channel (As Indicated
O Tow Mon A(rd/Or In Fieldl Pmscni? Yer=1 _ _ Nn
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators: /ClrrfeUneNumberPrrLnri
J) Does Topography Indicate A
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
11• Hydrolony Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Years (Or Last's) Leallitter
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since I 1115
0
r _...----- ^-°--.. -..-.-- --- - - -
S) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1.5
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS
8) Arc Wetland Plants In Strenmbed? SAV Mostly OBL
v FACW Mostly AC Mostly FACII Mostly IIPL
(• NOTE:1/'Tnsal Ahtenre OIAII Plnntr In Greamih,4 2 1 .75 5 0 0
Jlt.Vd.al Almre SAfo Th/r S: • v UNr FSt' CAY Pre_remri
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: / 157'
TOTAL PMTS (PrLnurv +Seenndan)=?d\ (ifGreater Than Or Equal To LY Points The Stream I.s At Least Intermittent)
11. Hvdroloey _ Absent Weak Modernte Ctronn
1) Is There A Groundwater no Present? (0) I
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: Q
w,
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL .?•.>?P
EVALUATION FORM
ACTION-M2660303 VV APPLICANT NAME (,Dl)l DATE,;? ????i
PROPOSED-CE"NEL WORK (i.e.. Nlvat, /mlocatioe4/etc)
WATER$O9YAtMR.W1N 5--&W% L t ?-F a wb C.
coutrmurtir Me-t, Ie ?h it ?G
RECEIPT WEATHER CONDITIONS AV
P SP NP Qiservation Comments or Description
t, --j m Preaont
Benthic Maoro Invatbrato
Atnplubiant Ptssend8rneding
mg" Aud/Or Fungus (water quality function)
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks. feoes. shells, others)
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y/8 Approx. Drainage Area: t2c,i-e
unu?arninuuaniauaainnaainriiuininrrnliiuiul/iilmml/uiuniiiiuinaiinarnlua?uniuuinnnuaaiaiiiainaiiaaiaiununiinaaiiniiniuininiiiurii/uninnai?liiiiiai
Determination:
Percaaial Channel (nap) portant Channel: LF PROJECT MGR Initials
Intermittent Channel (procced> ?Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (noJd) (aaach map indicating location of important/unimportant channel)
Ditch Through (-jd)
Upland
EviJustor's Signature:
(if now than C.O.E. project nunager)
llllll!ll/llllllll!llllllllll!lllllll!llll/ll1/l!/ll///lll/ll/ll/lll/ll//l/lll//l/ll1/l/ll//ll/ll//llllllll//l/lll//ll//llllllll/l///lll/1//ll!////ll//////l/l////l/!/l/l!l////lll//l/ll1/l/l/ll11/ll/lll/lllllllllllll//lllll/
P=Prtsent SP,-Stongiy Present NP=Not Present '
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
NC DWO Stream Classification Form ,.
13 ctt•
Project Name: (,01A River Basin:(/A+4 lJ ba (.'uwity: Il'e k 0 fe " b
?vuluator, k.)G?rt ? ? / ?l?/G'rS
DWQ Project Number, Nearest Numed Strcam:L;P/rPOk) Lntitude: Signature:
Date: f0 -/0- tTU US(iS QUAD: 6k(AV-I0*We> Longitude: Location/Direeliuns: S'r-eCtN. S
P LEAS E NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree char the feature is u ntun-ready. ditch, then use of this form is not necessary.
Alva, !fin the Acti pmfestional/udgrment of the evaluator, the fraorre is a man-made ditch and not u modified nuturul stream-this
rating .sy-went should not be used'it
Primary Field Indicators' IClrcleOnrNund,rrPrrL/nrJ
'.e Weak -moderate Stronn
11 Is There A Riffl Po I S a ie t t 1 l
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed Terrain? n2 3
-11-A re Nnfurtil Levees t 0 1
'
01s The (. a ,) S) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present'?
10) Is A 2' Order Or Greater Channel (As indicated
n ) Yet -l o
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indieators• (Circle One Nup,l rr Per lJnr/
' S
1) Does Topography Indicate A
t S
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
(l, Hydrolot_rv Absent weak Moderate Stron r
1) Is This Yews (Or 1 ist s) I eallkler
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since S
t •.. I 1.5
S) Is There Water In Channel During Dry p S I 1.5
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR PO/NTS:-I-??
TOTAL POINTS (Prim art, + Seenndan )s (if Greater Than Or Equal To L2 Points The Stream Ism Least Intermittent)
SECONDAX Y HYDROLOGY /ND/CATOX POINTS:
H Hydrologx Absent Wenk Moderate Strom.
I) Is There A Groundwater
w ' e 'r 0
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
I - 7S niozt6 Mostly FACIE nrosny UPL
otal Ahtenre O/All Plant, In Streand rd 2
A.,.Yol¢a Above Skip Thbkep jN St'SAVPr,,%n1 1 ' '
t.Rti1:
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
A
ACTIOKID! ?? APPIdCANT NAME C l A DATE 10-16-00
PROPOSED'CSl11VNEL WORK (i.e., culvert. reloeadoN ctc)
WATERSODY/RIKEFZ9,A,SI1V??rCkH1 S ?La4e, wbe, COUNTY/CITY /YIE'f-k-lek6 yi Aker- ffe
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS L I at-
r 5r Nr Observation Comments or Description
Fish/Shall&ah/Cruuaoew PreaaK
lUnduo Memo Lnvw%br*&ca L-,) e- e,
Amphibians Prt -WBreedwg
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function) f ef? k
Wildlifo Chanoel Use (i.e. tracks, faoes, shells, others) r , o r t . '? e . .. . _
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? ©/ N Approx. Drainage Area: e, "e
lnl/nounlluunnaiuunilulyulnullnuaulnuiniuaalanalituiiiii?i?aiiiuuuanuinu?uiniuiuuaiiaiuuanaauiaiiiiaiauiniiiniininaaiiililniuinnalauuniiuuNlain
Determination:
R Percaaial Channel (nap) Important Channel: L.F PROJECT MGR Initials
Intermittent Channel (proo-w) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (nojd) (attach map indicating location of important/unimportaat chancel)
Ditch Through (-jd)
Upland
Evaluator's Signature:
(if odtar than C.O.E. project nw-gar)
/Il/ll/ll/llllll//Il//lllll/l/!lllll/lllll///1/lNl%/l/l/lll///llll//////ll1///ll/l/l/ll/l/ll/lllll/l/llllllll/lll/l/lllll/llll/l///lll//l/lll/l///ll/l//ll/l1/!l/l//////!l//llll/lll/ll//!!l/11111/lllll!llllllllllll/l/l1//ll
P--Present SP;^Stongiy Present NP=Not Present
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
NCQWUSttream Classification Form
/ q Project Name: (1141A River Dasin:&tjo.'Acl
DWQ Project Number:
Nearest Numed Stream:`AAW-alitude:
11 .
County: ry?etkle H b(4Yjvalualur: f -nr1,,?k, h'?Xee:

, J - Sipnturc: A4 AA
Date ?^ J USGS QUAD:&"(10t-k 005 Longitude: Locnlion/Dircetiuns: t;4rC i-' v
*PI.FAS F. NUTS: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature i.r u ntun•nturle diU-h, then use ofthis form If nor necessary.
Also, trim the best professional)udgement of the evaluator, the feature it u man-made ditch and mol a niodilied natural stream-thlx
ruling system should not be used*
Primnry Field Indicators' (Orde (Ae Number Per Line)
2) Is The USDA Texture In
Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) !s A Continuous Bed & Bunk Present? 0 2 3
(`NOT£r ed t bank 179-fad 4V DUrhlnnAnd IVIWOUT ctmrndrv Th •n Crorr 0•t
10) Is A 2'j Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated A
On Topo Mnp And/Or In Fi IA I u ., nrn Yes'=10)
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One NumGer Per llnr/
J) Does Topography Indicate A
Natund Drninnl!e Way't 0 ?? I I S
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: _?L
11. Hydrolm Absent Weak Moderate Strum r
1) Is This Years (Or Last s) LenOuter
4) Is Water In ChnnnelAnd>48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 I.S
S) Is Them Water In Channel During Dry 5 1 1.5
Cnndiiinne nr In
r:.....,:.,•. c..e.....r•t
8) Arc Wetland Plants In Strcumbed? SAY Mostly OHL Mostly FACW Musdv a Mostly FACII Mostly UIRL
P NOM NOTE: if ravel AGrenre (1/All Plants in Svaamhcd 1 ) .75 0 0
dr 4ned Altwe Skin Lr See t _S1' SA Prer entrl '
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:_??
TOTAL POINTS (Print art, +Secondary')
(IfGreater Than Or Equal rip L9 Paints The Stream I.s .4/ Least Intermittent)
6
II. HvdroloEv Absent -Weak ModerwfB Strom
1) Is There A Groundwater
FlowlDisyburus Present"
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.'
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL `'`-•.
EVALUATION FORM
AcnoKmor?o01 3o3V6 APPLICANT NAME G 614 DATE S' O
PROPOSED'Ct"Net. WORK (Le.. culvat, RloC&dwk do.)
WATt:RSOOVAUV &AA.Sln.41 -?&i,vlt) f LCfawbc, COUNITY/Crry_?1'?i.c,?(c le ur-r7 A karlaffe
RECENT WFATHER CONDITIONS G?e C,&
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils. Map? Y / N Approx. Drainage Area: 1-5, &t-re-5 -
,mi//!ulnn//aaualauu/ulna/uliuiiinilsillui/uu/aululluniaiaiiuuuiai/iiinininniaanai/iminiiiluuniiiniiiniianiiiiuinnininninniianianunniliinuiiiiiianluiu
Detcrmination•
Perennial Channel (gyp) Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR, Initials
Intermittent Channel (Pw-40d) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (noid) (uach map indicating locuion of Ur4w r f/uni nportant ctwwel)
Ditch Through (noid)
Upland .
Evalr.toes Siputu v:
(iifodw Uun C.O.E. projed nwugcr)
!!/!llll!/Nl!/Nl/Uln!!!l!l/!!!!n/l!//!l//n!//I/l/ll/I/////l1///l//l/lI///!lI//l/l//I/llll/lllllllll/llllll/l/lllll/lllllllll///lll/lllll/ll//l//////l//l//llll///l/lll//lll/ll/l/ll/!!/111111/l1/llllllll/ll/llllllllllll
P=Present SP.--Stongly Present NP=Not Present
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
NCDWO Stream Classification Dorm I '
15 Projct:lNamc:LQTA River Basin:LcJawbc- county: MeGkjGvnluator.lJt'Y??IC `//syCrs
DWQ Project Number. Nearest Named Stream: &)&Ct' ILLntimde: Signature: ?,'?"k
Date:. -S L USGSQUAD: 6k'Ll1Ot+C.1Je5r Longitude: Location/Directions: 5•fr4KX
* PLKASE NOTE: If evalaotor and landowner agree that the jealure is a ratan-nlade direh, then u.se afthls form Is not neressary.
Also, ifin the Act! pmjeerlanallwdgemrnt of the evaluator, the feature Is n man-made dits'h and not a modified nutural stream-this
rating system should not he used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Linel
rt Moderate
I I Is There A Riffle-pod auenec" 0 l
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambcd
31 Are Natural Levees Present" 0 I l
11 Is The r 1annel S' mo us" ,
S) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
Secondary Field Indicators: (Girth (Art Nam/wr Prr Une/
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Nalural Drainage "
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
8) Are Welland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mustly UDL ostly FACW blot llyy AC Mostly FACU Mostly VPL
(*NO rE. If Toot Ahrenn UfAll Plana In S;rda ,h,d 1 1 ,75 [ ,5 { 0 0
As N(N¢d Alyye Skin rlrlr i•, /N _UsAreZ•rmol _ u
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.a r S
TO TAL POINTS (Primarl, + Seeandar y,)m?(IfGreater Than Or Equal To L Paints The Stream It At Least Intermittent)
10) IS A 2"r Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
1 MR11.4ndlor In o aj 0
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
II Hvdrolorv Ah%pnt Weak Moderate Stronm
1) Is There A Groundwater ?
Flow/Discharve present'! Q l t , 2
PRIMAR Y HYDROLOGY INDICA TOR POINTS.--I-
11. Hydrulon Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is This Years (Or Last's) Leaf tter
LMJ INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
ACTIOtflD,2 / o S 10 AppI.ICAN-r NAME L QZ'1a DATE
PROPO'SEWCUAvNet, WORK (i.e., Nlvcm mlocatlon, cw.) n? I /
WATERSOBYMMF.W11N ?-/?eQ 1, f -a f?W?jt COUNTY/C11Y lNec Iek% b&V?
RECENT WEATHER CONDMONS dec, &-
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y / N Approx. Drainage Area: )3 CiwA:
unnrrnunnurunnruuaurnraauunrarurmrmnuurarnrunriiuna/urnuurrrnnuruunniurinnrraii/aiaininaniiuanuiannainiiiainniinuianauaaaiiiiiiiuaruniiuii
Dcccrnuuon:
Percanial Channel (gap) &Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR Initials
Intermittent Channel (Pw-d) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (noid) (atsach map indicating location of imponwt/unimportant chuwel)
Ditch Through (-jd)
Upland
Ev.lr.toes Sicmuu e:
(ifodwx than C.O.E. project manager)
rraamrnuuruunnununarramnrunruriaunniuauarurumrananurnrurannannrnuuniauuruirirauuiurirnir/nruiuiuiuunuaiuuiunnuauruurruiunuuuirnuuuui
P=Present SPrStongfyy Present NP=Not Present
Important To Domestic Water Sypply? Y / N
(0
R:? ? is
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
ACTIOIfm??D01?D3V6 APPLICANT NAME CD.t- A DATE 43-L16
PROPOISEWCHANNEL WORK (i.e.. culva% mlocat wk eta) r /
WJITER$OBYsRI?CER QA.StN TI?t.arp PI Z / - - ?, wb& COUNTY/GTIY ?/ //?e-L/G 1e-kt &t!4 1U a f-IO
RECENT WEATHER CONDMONS t/-
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y / N Approx. Drainage Area:..,) b Qures
lalnannunnuilunluiuuunaainlinailinlnlliuallull/niuniauialuaiuiiiliiiuuiuiniaiinilau/itiiaiaiiaaiiinananlniaaaiailiiiiiniauiiulliuinilulliinuaiiinu?anu
Determination'
Perennial Channel (gap) Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR, Initials
Intermittent Channel (P -d) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (nojd) (anach map inWcating location of unportant/unimportant ctwwal)
Ditch Through (-jd)
Upland
Evatuawes Slgmuuv:
(if other stun C.O.E. pmjca martagcr)
llllllllllll!//!lllllllll!llll/llllll!llll/llllll/lll//l1/ll/!lllll/lll/lllllll!/llll/ll/lll//l/!I/lllllllllllll/ll/lllllllllllll/lll///ll/l/lllllllllll/l/ll//ll/ll//J/lllll/!ll/lllllllllllll/lllllllllll/ll/llllllllllllllll
P=Pre.sent SPrStongly Present NP=Not Present
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
' NC DWO Stream Classification Form
PrujcclNamc:LQTA River Basln: :kij64 CurialY Me( IlPHbisy
valuator: Oern c1c My erS
DWQ Project Number. Nearest Named S(ream?Gef'UCdkatirude: Signature: M-,
Date) /-13`60 USGSQUAD/?+40St Longitude'. Lucation/Dircetiuns:,SS r-CAh- Z
* PI.F.AS F NOTE: /f evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a aoan•mude ditch, then use of this form is not nerecsary.
Alto, if in the best prafesslaaal judgement of the evaluator, the feoture Ito man-made diteh and not a modified natural stream-dtis
rating system should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (ClrrteOMeNarnlerPerUne)
1. Geomornholow Absent 1Veak Moderate Strone
I I Is There A Riffle-Pool Scauence? o 1
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
0
31 Are NglurHI Leyees Present'? 0
41 Is The Cbfinnel 1
Sinuous"
0- 4-) 2 3
S) Is There An Active (Or Relic) s
9) is A (:untinuous Bed .tr. Bank Present? 0 3
f?NOTl: /lbvd a blank awed by UttrAtnn And WITHOUT SInundry Them ore 1!'r
10) Is A 2*'brder Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
r o MagAndlOr so 0
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: "IS
Secondary Field Indleators: (OrrleoneNawberPerUne/
3) Does Topography Indicate A
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
8) Are Welland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly UBL Mostly FACW -ftlMosely FAC Mostly FACII Mostly l1PL
P NO T& //'Total Aluenre ()/All plants In S7reandjed 2 1 .75 .S 0 0
Ar.YaedAhnr Ott TA! C4 IN 'l'C?S?rra?rrm 1
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:"
TOTAL POINT (Primary +Serandam Greater Than Or Equal To L2 Paints The Stream Isar Least Inrerininenq
IL Hvdrolocrv Absent Weak M leEnte Strono
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Dischnrne Presrni" 0 2 3
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:-.J-_
11, Hydrolo" Absent Weak Moderate Strung
1) Is This Years (Or Last's) Leo liner _
NC LIWO Stream Classification Forln .1-'I \
1 Prujcct Name: i •D.'A River Basin: (cJuw 6c, C'uwty:Meck)e~bk9Gvaluuwr: pPrrI t:- L hA/ler-S
DWQ Project Number. Nearest Named //S''tream?T..,Ju'etee tteekLatitude: Signature: a)A
Date: g-p???-?() USGSQUAD(.(nttl`?OIKL)0'tLongitude: Lucation/Dimctions: $+re4n- Il?-
* PI.FASF NOTE: If eva/actor and landoWneragrer slut rile fraturr (.s a hnan•ahalte dia'h, then axr of this form, Is nat neressary.
A/so. If in she Oest prafesslonal/udgemenr of the evaluator, the feature is a lnan•alade ditch and onto modified nalaenl stream-this
rating syaew should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Cbr1e(Jhe mumamr per Line)
I-Ceonlort)holoev Absent Weak li oderate Strvrrtn
I I Is There a Ril lie-P +nl 4eauence' 0 I 2 ;
2) is The USDA Texture In Stmambed
0
-Different From SwToundint,
0 -3
1
411; The Channel Sinuous? 0 92 3
S) Is There An Active (Or Relic) -
9) Is A Coulinuous (led & Bank Present:' 0 l 1
f`11'OTE? 1/b.•d 6 Ban! Cuured by bhrAfnn And IFIVIOUT SIn n by IX Crnrr 0 h
10) 1s A 2" order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated /?
An Tono K4pg And/Or In Ficldl Pmscnl'1 Ve.11 1 Nn=0
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POIN S:
Secondary-Field Indicators: (ClrrleUneNaadierPerline)
1) Does Topography Indicate A
Y GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR
H. Hydrolon Absent Weak Modernte Strnn r
1) Is This Years (Or Last's) Leaflitier
4) Is Water In Chunnel.4nd>48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 1.5
La 91 Known Ra ' . Siew And s .,..
S) Is There Water Lt Channel During Dry 0 .5 I 1.5
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
a) Arc Wetland Plants In Strenmbed? SAV Mostly UBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACII Mostly LIPL
(• NOTE: If rnhel Ahrenre s)/A11 Plant, in Streaadnd 1 1 .75 .5 0 0
Al .Kaed.Ilnnti SAID TALI l • , 1Xl Wi't' CAV Pr•n•nol
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.-
770
TAL POINTS (Prima?tl +SecandaM-.?i-yaf Greater Than Or Equal Ta L,p Points The Stream Is At Least Intermittent)
IL Hvdrolnlrv Absent Weak Moderate Strom
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Mschawe " o
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
!.
ACTIOKID 266130 VO APPLICANT NAME G Al A DATE 00
PROPOSED'CW04NEL WORK (i.e., culver% mlocalion. eta) L
WATER$OBY/ UVE1LW1 .,.S 'QQN? 64, couNTY/cr" Meck-let+j(.;r 6 I L ?.4r?0?
RECENT WEATHER CONDrTIONS C e- CAP-
P Sr NP Observation Comments or Description
? Fish/SMllftsh/CnsaaoearrPreaart $p N. e- r-;4 k t- G« t 44 k
B WWO Macro Invertbrates
Nam PrinawBrooding -Pre,
Algae Aad/Or Fungus (wua quality function)
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, foots„ "L% od" n) !tin Q trc. t: /
tG
Federally Pretested Species Prevent (Discontinue)
i/ RiHldPool Structure
j/ Stable Streambutks
Channel Substrate
(i.e. vel, cobble. rock bonne sand ?Lt d 'tt

G
S /'QG/C S s o vt'. e-
? Riparian Canopy Present (SP -n 50% closure) 1h So&,e csrec.S
Undemn B&Wu/kuu=m Habitat Structure
Flow In Channel
Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel (Discontinue)
Persistent Ptala/Satunmd Bottom
June then S
V Socpe/Groundwater Discharge (June Ovu Sept.)
Adjacent Floolplain Preseat
Wrack Material or Drilt Lints
?v ere, i-,e
Hydrophytic Vegetation itvadjaecnt to channel
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? &)l N Approx. Drainage Area: 4Gr?
ullnuaauluulynuuauuualilnn?uiauilaiiluniniauinaalluiiuninimiaiuaininiuiniuiilnaiiiuiiiliianiiiuianiuiiiiminnuniaiinniaiuinlananluiuiiiiunniliuiai --
Determination:
Perennial Channel (map) Important Channel: L.F PROJECT MGR Initials
Intermittent Channel (Proceed) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no jd) (mach map indicating location of importast/unimportant chawel)
Ditch Through (no id)
Upland
Evaluator's Sigrtawn:
(ifodwx than C.O.E. pnojca a -mr)
/ll//llllll?l?llp???rl?r?l?l/!lIIIIII?II?UIIIII?IN??III?IN?II?INlllll?l?llll??lllll?l?l??ll?ll?l?llll?lll?/??l??lllll?llllll?ll?l?l?l?l?l??!!?l!!!ll?ll????l?ll?llll???l?ll???lllllHl?l?lllllll?l??ll?INl?l?lllN?ll?lll
P--Present SPrStoneiv Present NP=Not Present
NC:DWO Stream Classification Form '
1 Prujecl Name: River Basin:(.CL+Owb.:,- cow,ty: Meckkl''-'AL5rvulualur: f)-.fn?,k' )I( ers
DWQ Project Number, Nearest Named Stre=T- i-eIr Latitude: Signature: M&I
Date: a -S-OI USGS QUAD-6 84040 4-t Wi'g1ungitude: Location/Directions: S rY1eC( r1 t I y
*PLEASE NOTE: lI evaluator and lundownerugrer that theleaturrix a nlun•nlalle ditch, then use althis form is mat nel•essury.
Alva, ijin the best prajemianal judgeatent olthe evaluator, the/rature ita man-made ditch and not a ntodifoed natural sirratn-this
rating sysrret should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators:lCArleUieNundorPerLlne)
2) Is The USDA Texture In
S) Is Thcm An
(Or Relic)
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 I ?7 1
t•NOTE' IrbrJ A bunt maeA by itehinn Atd IYITIIOUT SInuatnr Th •n Crorr-ah
10) Is A 2" Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
Tt)Vg Mop AndlOr In Field) Present? Yes-3 to
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators: lClrrleUorNuntberPerD#el
1) Does Topography Indicate A
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
IL Hydroloity Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Lea(litier
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 ZS) 1 1.5
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry .5 1 LS
00
Condilinns Or In Growin , Sensonl?
SECONDARY HYDROLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS:
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.--L-),
TOTAL POTS (PrImari, + Secondan,)?jGreater Than Or Equal Ta 12 Paints The Stream Is At Least Interowiffeno
IL Hydrolory Absent Weak Moderate Stroh
1) Is There A Groundwater
rlow/13kchbrue Present'! C lJ 2 7
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.'-J-
8) Arc Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OUL Mostly FACW Mosdv PAC MostCO) l ACTS Mostly VPL
('NOTE: 1/ fuel Ahrens O(AllPlana In S/roaednd 2 1 .75 5 ^ 0
A!Mmo AlkweSRInchitSte"UNLFSSSAYPr¢nnNl- ,'

INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
ACTIOKID(?o )36 3 VO APPLICANT NAME L D T A DATE - s
PROPOSEWCW0049I. WORK (La.. culver% relocation, etc)
WATER5O8V4lMR.AA.SII4-.jtre.&, I /6&4-it o be,-- COUNTY/CITY ?/'I ede-k,- 6 t.l,rc I L?ci.IafPc
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS C-! e4 r
P SP NP Observation Comments or Description
FisNShellfiah/Cruaaoearo Praaant
Beothie Maao InvettbraAce I ` P
1
An*tibiuts PresaWBroodiog
Algae Aad/Or Fungus (watts quality function) V e.r I. fd I{
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, foots, shells, cams) ?rc?c.k S
FederaHy Protected Species Present (Discontinue)
t/ RiBlvPool Strueotro
pol Stable Streambanks
Chuml Substrate
i.e, vet, cobble. rock coarx sand
5 t hJ- t' k U t Yt+ 0 5 f fy s• • ?f
? ltipan+n Canopy PrCM%(SP -A 30Ne closure)
UodcrmA BaoluAramm Habitat Structure
I/ Flow In Channel Uetr
Wetlands Adjacent TdContig. With Clumul (Discontinue) W L?, c-4 t' /Ol? Dt{ t4 O, wfi
Persistent PoolslSaturatod Bottom
June tanr S
Socps/Grourrdwawr Disdwge (Junc thm Sept.)
t/ Adjacent Floodplain Prssettt
Wrack Material or Drilt Liam v er1"44
Hydrophytic Vegetation iwadjac" to chumel
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
Dow Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map' Y / N Approl` Drainage Area: I-L&OeS
u?luiaaliallaaan/aaaan/aanaalWaaln/iaaianiiuinaulmail/uiuliuuuinilnmiinllniiiaiiuanniuainnaiiaiiuinanuuuaiinuinaiuiniunilmiinuiluuiaunuuuu
Determination:
Perennial Channel (gap) Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel () Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (nojd) (attach reap indicating location of Unportant/unimportant channel)
Ditch Through (-jd)
Upland
Evaluator's Signature:
(if other than C.O.E. project mugger)
uruula/uiaanaaaaraaalanalaiaaaaaliaunaiiaaaaaalaaaaamaa/mama/aaanualaianaiaaaaauianaaalmats/aiaaaauaaaaiaalna/naa/naaaaar?/l/??!a
P=Preant QP-gtnnpW Pn-."nr NP--Nn? Pre-,cent
)q
?atins system should not be used*
Primnrv Field Indies?tors:(COWtA-vNaxlvrPerDow)
iNC LIWO Stream Classification burin e,I `- y(
Prujccl Name: (01 A River Basin: 6&+4 tJ b ?- Cuwty: „ /I ck 6 6149tvuluatur: /? I??J?t'.4Iiy-;,'k Myers
DWQ Project Number Nearest Named Stream: Tor, ?: Latitude: JSibmature: /W 4 1 ^ /?
Date: 10-3`00 USCS QUAD: UQ1rI +et-W Lungitude: Location/Direc(iuns: S rCtith a V
*P LEAS E NOTE: II /valuator and landowner .fret that the feature Is a Mt1n-/nude difell. then ase of this form Is not a1.011Yry.
Also. if in the hat professional fadgement of the evaluator, the frature is a Man-no ade dirrlt and not a nmodilled natural rlreaM-Ntis
9) Is A (:onlinuous Bed & Bank Prescol" 0 I
1`;;illTl t 1/b.•E s A•.wt r`.••c! a+•• ghrhLng.4l YITNOUTSin mrtrv Th •n a v.-Ob
10) Is A 2"'' Order Ur Greater Channel (As Indicated ?
On Toro Map AndlOr In Field) Present? r'. 61) Nn=0
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POIN S:
Secondary Field Indicators: IClrcletAie,wadarPerUae,
-1) Does Topugraphy Indicate A
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
11. Hydrolotw Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Lenlliuer ?-?
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 His. Since 0 .5 I 1.5
Last Xnown '' . S'r , f .,..
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 I.5
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
TOTAL POINT (Pritnartr +Sreondan,)4 d if Greater Than Or Equal 7'0 12 Points The Stream Is AI Least Intermittent)
I
L Cromornholoev Absent Mak Modrrttr Strome
I I Is Their A Rime-I', 1 Seuuence'' 0 1 2 1
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed r'
IL Hydroloey Absent Weak Moderate S$rtrne
1) Is Then A Groundwater ?
flow/Discharge Present! 0 1 2 / 1 I
PJUMAR Y HYDROLOGY INDICA TOR POINTS:
of AM westana Pttmts In s1reumbC07 SAY Moistly OHL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACII Mostly UPI.
t" NOTE: I/Total Ahieare Of All Plant+r in Sireaarlnul 2 1 .75 .5 0 0
At Nued Manv Woo ar ien IN Y'y AYPresrnrel r
R:k t ? C:
rl?
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL "`••?
EVALUATION FORM
Acrlorrm ? 1` APPLdcANT rrAm L D l A DATE l0 3 00
PROPOSED'OMMOEL WORK (i.e.. Vulva% relocation, cm)
WATERfOIB-VM R.AA,SIIV??(ti-. A 16&+1tW6c COUNTY/CITY M4e&Ljea?4krj
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS _L LclCi?
r sP NP Observation Comments or Description
FisNShellFtalt/Crustaooarr Presatt S%A'+ Q ? ? rst / N N t)tJs
Banthic Macro Invertbratca
? Amphibiacs hucnt/&ooding
OC
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function)
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks. feces, shells, othas) r(A LL OV 1? -?-r(,? [,Lj
Federally Prwected Species Present (Discontinue)
L,-, Raw Uucture
t/ Stable Streambanks SQ 4, 5 4tL W e s O o-e L411 S+4. /r
Channel Substrate
i.e, vcL cobble. rock hoarse sand
rack- Lo We
Riparian Canopy Present (SP •/> Toll. closure)

i Underta A Bae manarwo Habitat structure
Flow In Channel
Wetlands Adjacent TclContig. With Channel (Discontinue)
Persistent PooWSacuatod Boaom
tune Ow SepL)
SoeparGroun"aw DisctwYe (June Wu ScpL)
Adjacent Floodplain Prt scot
Wrack Material or Drill Lim
Hydrophytie Vegetation invadjaeent to dwml
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? N Approx. Drainage Area: 1r_e$
„are„arrnuuuuirnirnauirrumnaiuarnrmirniaruianaiiruunanairnuiuuranainruinniaiiauiuiiuinrniiaiuiaininniuinaniiniinuuiaainnuuniiuuaii?iinini
Deternunation:
Perennial Channel (nap) important Channel: L.F PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (Pry) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (nojd) (attach map indicating location of intponant/unimportant chancel)
Ditch Through (nojd)
Upland
Evaluator's sign rum:
(if odwr than C.O.E. Project manager)
aaaraaaaraunraiaaraurraaiaaanaaiunuuaaauurarmraanaaanaaaraaiaaiaiaaaurnaunuiairarna?arrnaaranararaaaraiaraaiaaaanaanauaaiaaaHai
P=Present SPrStnnaW Prtcent NP=Nnt Prtsent
NC DWU Sircam Classification burin ?- ( J/?
Pruject Namc: River Basin: t; +ct 6)'Cuwtty: jwet. {" 43 Gvaluatur.K Jem?rL `?" `y 'S
r?O DWQ Project Number. Nearest Named Stream: /iCer Latitude: Sipature: /I.Wts 1
Date: 10-3-60 USGS QUAD: )*1 kStLungitude: Location/Directions:
"PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and bndotrner agree that ohe fiatarr is a elan-Maude diseh. then aXr of this fordo Is not mel'essurr.
Also. if in the best professional jadgemenl of the evaluator, the fruture is u neon-alade dilrh and not a aoodijled naourul stream-shlr
rating sysmnt shoald not be asd•
Primary Field Indicators: tOwleOne NostlerAwLlse) ?
t
1. Geomornholorv Abssutt Weak Moderate Caron r
I I Is There A Riffle-P + r) Seuuence" 0 1 2 l
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
31 Arc Natural Levees a 1
4) Is The Channel S' .a
S) Is There An Active (Or Relic) ,1
9) Is A Continuous Bed A Bank Present'! 0 2 1
PNOTE, t/bd A Runk Canned Be L,itehinN And IYITIIOUT Sinundty Then trare• a 4
10) Is A 2"t Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated /?
OnTonoMnnAndlOrInfield) Present? yes-3 _ No?0
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators: ICtrrlerAre,VuarbarPerUsrl
1) Does Tupugraphy Indicate A
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed" SAV Mostly OHL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACV Mostly IIPL
P NOTE: NOTE: I/Tool Ahrears UTAII Plas:s in Streaeotlud 1 1 .75 0 0
Ar Nat al Al,r.ve Skin nb Situ UNLEVSSAYPrjrr •nr-r '
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 2
TOTAL POINTS f PrirnurY +.Secondun,)¦&?afGreater Than Or Equal Ti, L Points The Strewn Is At Leari InfenninenO
It. Hydroloev Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Dischnrgc Present'! 0 2
PRIMAR Y HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
IL Hvdrolot v Absent Weak Moderate Strane
1) Is This Yenr's (Or Last's) Leatlitier
0 0
,P t
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM

ACTION'M at0l 363 YO APPLICANT NAME G U 4 DATE /Q-3" OO
PROPO'SED'CILVKNEL WORK (Le.. culvert, relocation. eta) y? f
WATERSO8Y4UVER.AA.SIIV, S Ter ?Q 1? ? z / LafA 1.) 12 ? COUNTY/CITY / Ft t c,tC-???- b? ?S ? L ?• Arlo ff+e
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS t'_1 ea r
P SP NP Observation Comments or Description
? FisNShellFuh/Ceustaoeart. Pre.art
l/ Berntftio Maa+o Inveetbratea
Amphibians PracrWEIn ling
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function) ?
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks. fooea. shells6 others) /li L(LS
Federally Protected Spectres Present (Discontinue)
? Ril3ldPool Structure
Stable Streambanka ) n Sett. e GLrC CC
Charnel Substrate
i.e. vel, cobble. rock bos++e sand
L OCz &-S e- S G. t, 8
Riparian Canopy ft ent(SP -n 30% closure)
l/ Undercut 8aoks/huxream Habitat Structure
Flow In Channel UL f W?
Wetlands Adjacernt TolCorWg. With Channel (Discontinue)
hvv? lJc?f4 :,+
Persisten PoolslSanamod Bottom
June SCPL)
Scc*Gronmdwater Discharge (June dfvu Sept.)
Adjacent Floodplaia Preserve
Wrack Material or Drift Lines
f Hydrophytie Vegetation irvadjaoent to channel
Important To Domestic Water Supply' Y / N
Does Chancel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map' Y /( 1? Approx. Drainage Area:
rraraaaauuarata/inn/ararrnili/ranmli/miuiamanaaauuinnnauiiaiiin?iuilmiainaiinnnilniuniiuiauui/uiunuiaaiiuainniinuaiiiuuiniiiuaiminniiaaiunnu
Determination:
Perennial Channel (gap) portant Channel: LF PROJECT MGR Initials
Interrrjttent Channel (mom) Lt?j Unimportant Channel: L.F
Ephemeral Channel (an jd) (aaach map indicating location of imporwu/ununpodant channel)
Ditch Through (-jd)
Upland
Evaluator's Slpugse:
(if other than C.O.E. ptoj«x n--&cr)
aaaaarararaaaaraaaaraaaaaraaaraaraaraaraaaiaiaaaraaaraaaaauaaiuniaiaaaaaaararaararaaan/a/aaaawianaaiaaaarraaauaiaaaaraaraai r? rr?r/

a1
NCI-)WO Stream Classification Form
Prujcct Name: f?L.LL /'t River Basin: if t fu w6 c -
DWQ Project Nwnber.
Nearest Named Stream: (t r e-r
Cuwtty: m t'cl"le&tLo'ulwttur: f) e4-V-1 C'LAyefS
Latitude: Signature: At*
Date: p2"S 0? USGSQUAD:0h"Wka5T-Lungilude: Local ion/Direct ions: 5?re,4n, oCPt
*PIXAS F NOTE.- If eva/aa/or and landowner agree that /he fealyre is a ytan-mule dlroh. then s.se oflhls form Is nos necessary.
Alva, if in the hs sf llnlfgxlpllyl fydgemenl of (ht evaluator, the fentare Is a man-made din-le and not a atodified natural slreum-this
rating systrat should nor be sexed*
Primary Field Indicators: XWk(AeNuw1rrPrrL1#w) #.
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 I 2
[`IVOTF, llll,•c 4 J1ukCa,-fgd My Li/r•hJa,-A0d IYITII &a,,nrLv Th en Tmr •-0 •)
10) I. A 2- Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators:
lCYrclr(/neNam/?rrPrrUne/
1) Does Topography Indicate A
LJplyral Drainup Wn4 0 r1
I S
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS. 4
11,-_Hydruloley Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Lea(litler
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 (P 1 1.5
r .,,.
S) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1.5
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
8) Arc Wetland Plants In Streumbed? SAY Murtly OUL Mostly FAC W MostI.AAC Mostly FACII Mostly IIPL
P NOTE: If Taal Ahrenre O/All Planr. In Streandid 2 1 .73 5S 0 0
?lyylxrl( yn•e Slla TAt? S?cu UNL E1'.1' AY Pr •.Irn?' ? ^ '
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
OTAL POINTS (Prilnarn +Si-eondarL, -1 4l?Greater Than Or Equal Ty J.2 Points The Stream Is At Least Intermitten0
S) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
11. ffydroloey Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is There A Groundwater
&low/Dischnree Present'! 0 l 1) 2 7
PRIMAR Y HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
2 1
r:ta
INTERNIITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM

AcTIorrm ! 30? Vd APPI.tcAtvT i±rA t XI DATE a-5--6=
PROPOSE7C tXNNEL WORK (Lt.. sulva% relocation, etc.)
WATER$O9vRtlKER.JL4SiM h2Sa?h cX H k a+a 1. -c, COUNTY/CITY >v L IQ h u ??, l t! url?f f.?
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS _(--Iea--
P SP NP Observation Comments or Description
F6WShelWulvCnaa.oean Pn. %
l/ Benwc Macro Inverums"e l1t" O L4I1C? LJ . M ! N E' ?'
Amphibians Pnac%WBroodiag
Alga And/Or Fungus (wawr quality function) ..
? Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tra" faces, shells, others) T/ It ?l s
K
Fodemlly Pra.cted Species Present (Discauinue)
Rilile/pool Structure
Sable Streambanks
? Channel Substrate
i.e. gravel, cobble. rock boarse sand I'"L v e
Riparian Canopy Present (SP -/> 50% closure)
Urt kMA BaOki/lmUvap Habitat Stn =m
Flow in Channel s Ot'r. e jJ4f U Q r ?/ f? (e
Wetlaeds Adjacent To/CoWg. With Channel (Discontinue)
Peniamt Pools/Saouatod Bottom
June thru S
SecpdCnvundwater Disdwge (June ftu ScpQ
Adjacent Floodplain Prescnt
Wrack Material or Drift Lines
Hydrophytic Vegetation iswimlijacent to channel
Important To Domestic Water Supply' Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map' Y / Appror- Drainage Area:
luulnuluuuluaauuaulnlmauulailuanalanaallandnaluuiinanaiailliaailnn?mliaialni/unlniuiminiai/iainniinaainaaiuiani[iuluiininaia/ini?iiulunillanl
Determination:
Perennial Channel ()p) -Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (proceed) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (nojd) (attach map indicating location of important/unimportant chancel)
Ditch Through (nojd)
Upland
EvIlustoes Sivw"L e:
(if other than C.O. E. pruiea manager)
/llllllllllllll//ll/!/!/!1/lll/lll/l/l///l/ll/////l/ll///l//1//////////l/////llll/l/ll/llI////lll/ll/lll//l//l/!////l/l/llll////ll//l/llll//ill/ill/l/l///l/l!///ill///l//l!ill!/l/llllllll/1l l/l///llll/l//l//////l///lll!/l/l
D-D...-P CO--et . j- Dr?ewnt AR>=TJnt Prrcrnr
t'N(.,11WU Stream Classification burin
Project Name: /DTN River Basin:
2? DWQ Project Number. Nearest Natned Stream-'LCV-

(:uufuy:AAe,,)'ks`'&yivuluutor:I-yc'rr1v?'
Latitude: Sibmatum: l'YVu
Date:/t/ -/ U-'00 USGS QUAD: CkCWV (L e -unbitude: LocationiDimcdons: Mrew- , a1 r
*PLEASE NOTE; /j evalumfor and landowner agree thus the jtaturr Is a alun-atude ditch. then use of this feral is mat neressury.
Also. if in the, best IlrofessionaI judgealent of the evaluator, the fraturt is a /van-elude ditch and nos a mladljled naw"I slream-this
rating .4pirM should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators:ICtrrlaUbeNuwhrrAwl.llwf
2) Is The USDA Texture In Stmambed
S) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is A l:onlinuous Bed ds Bank Present'! 0 I J
KNOT * I!B' t b k r • trd Br DltehL eAnd 1rITIIOUT S/n nrL IH n Crvvr?04
I0) Is A 2`l Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Tom Mop dndlO& In Meldl Present? Yes-3
M ?
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:-LLL
Secondary Field Indicators: Ic?rrle Ote Naalhe. Per oast
1 1, Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leallitter
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 :S V 1.S
I-AstKnown " r t .. ••
S) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 S I 1.5
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR
8) Ate Welland Plaits In Streambed? SAY Mostly OOL Mostly FACW hloslly FAC Mostl ACII Mostly l1PL
P NOTE: If royal Ahreare O/All Plasus In Slreandlyd 2 1 l .75 .S 0
Ar ded Alkwe SLID M, Stew UNhEVNSAVPr¢rrnl-l
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
IOTA L POINTS (Prllnart, +.Teenndaril -?6 (If Crearer Than Or Equal Tir L Points The Stream Is At Least Intermittent)
If. Hvdrolnev Absent Weak Moderate Stron(w
1) Is There A Groundwater
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: __
Natural Dmonat-C f n 5 S
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
01 1
'•v:?y-.
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
ACTYOKID 0?oo) 303 yo APPucANT,,Ahm G D-T A DATE 10' 26-00
PROPOSEWC-d Q1NE[. WORK (La.. sulva% mlocatian, arc.)
WATERSOBYMYE&A&SIN SJr•el w% r /GCaT4iJbe, COUNTY/crrry rrtLk?h ae G?ccrlaA4e
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS Cjl°C,0
P SP NP Observation fbnvnents or Deseriodon
t'A Fish/Shellfuhtcrumoeans Prsaaa
Benthie Macro Invenbrau s
Amphibians Praa-tt/Breoding -Pro
t/ Algae AodlOr Fungus (wua quality function) -
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks. feoca, shelf others) SC e /?(,?L000i? ,{? LJ pGY ?'li CAS
Federally Protected Species Present (Discontinue)
Pifficvpool Structure
stable Streambanks ?'Qh.t' 4 LL$ CL1'E' STcr e
? Channel Subetrato
i.e. travel, cobble. rock nears sand r G v P ( GU 4rS ?' SG?2
Riparian Canopy Present (SP -p 30% closure) ? u rC4
Undao t BaokVInsmasu Habitat Structure
1, Flow In Channel
Wctlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel (Discontinue)
Ptssistau PoolySawntod Bottom
June thru Sss)
SoepelGrautdwuw Discharge (June thru Sept)
Adjacent Floodplain Present
I/ Wrack Material or Drift Luce Lq
Hydrophytie Vegetation irvadjaomt to channel
Important To Domestic Water Supply' Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map' Y/(@ Approx. Drainage Area: 13 R°S
!f!I/nlnfuuuuluuunflniarfuui?uauinuuualnnnaluluaiuruimuluminaaianulnnaanulmiuaiilarunrnaiuiainuiuunniriuiliiulannrunnnilnrualinraln?rn/?ini
Determination:
Perennial Channel () important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (mveo d) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (nojd) (attach map indicating location of unporwu/unimporUAt chtuwel)
Ditch Through (najd)
Upland
Evaluator's Slvwuue:
(if other than C.O.E. project mar?sga)
l!f//llllllf/ll//I/lllfllll/!//l11/l////llf/1/l//llll/l/////l/f ll /1/ll//llllll!/llll/l1/lllll/llllll/ll!llllllllll/lllllllllllll/llllll//1/lllll/llll!/ll//ll/llllll//l111/l//l/lllllll//ll/l//lllllllllllllllllllllll/ll/l!l!l

0 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 0
Richard B. Hamilton, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM
DATE:
David Baker, Permit Coordinator
Asheville Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Cyndi B. Karoly, Supervisor
401 Oversight and Express Permits Unit
NCDWQ Wetlands and Stormwater Branch
Ron Linville, Regional Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
September 23, 2005

SUBJECT: Individual Permit Application, Charlotte-Douglas International Airport
Expansion, DWQ No. 20001195 (version 2), Coffey and Ticer Creeks,
Mecklenburg County
Clear Water Environmental Consultants, Inc. is requesting a letter of concurrence from the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) for Charlotte-Douglas International Airport
to obtain a 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The NCWRC has reviewed
information provided by the applicant, and field biologists on our staff are familiar with habitat
values of the project area. These comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the
Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et. seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48
Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
Phase I of the project includes expansion of an existing runway and the development of a new
runway. Impacts proposed for the first phase of the project are 5,450 linear feet of important
intermittent and perennial streams, 528 linear feet of unimportant intermittent channel, 0.652
acres of wetlands and 0.176 acres of ponds. The proposed first phase alternative being pursued
extends Runway 18RJ36L to a length of 12,000 feet and the relocation of West Boulevard. No
federal or state listed endangered or threatened species are indicated to be affected by the project.
Best Management Practices (BMP) are proposed for the construction phases of the project.
Mitigation is indicated to be available for purchase from Charlotte-Mecklenburg Stormwater
Services wetland and stream mitigation bank. Post construction stormwater management will be
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
CLT-Douglas International Airport 404
September 23, 2005
Recommendations of Piedmont Prairie Restoration and Creation
Laura M. Fogo, Private Lands Biologist, US Fish and Wildlife Service
RESTORATION
If you discover a potential prairie remnant, it is recommended that you reestablish fire
into the ecosystem and thin the site depending on your goals for prairie, savannah, or woodland.
Thinning a site will allow sunlight to reach the forest floor to encourage herbaceous plants to
grow. Your native understory vegetation may already be there and it may not be necessary to
plant. See Piedmont Prairies and a Partnership, to reference associated community types to look
for.
CREATION/REESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIVE PRAIRIE
Seed Source: Try to obtain local genotypes of native plant material to reestablish a
prairie. I only recommend buying seed from outside NC if it's a creation project or the local
genotypes are not available or present. There is limited availability of NC grass seed from
nursery growers. There are commercial nurseries that provide local plants and seed. If you have
the time and want only local seed sources, it will take more effort. For large scale restoration,
some projects may want to go ahead and purchase seeds. It is agreed by the partnership to
collect local seed from remnant sites and roadside populations for trying to restore remnant
prairies. Planting associated prairie species provides habitat for migratory songbirds and other
early successional wildlife dependant species.
Native Warm Season Grasses (NWSG): Attached are commercial native seed sources
and planting guides to establish NWSG prepared by Bob Glennon, USFWS. He mentions
applying fertilizer the year after it is established. These grasses are fertilized to grow hay
(forage) for cows as far as a productivity production, however, it will encourage undesirable
weedy competition. It has been recommended only to lime according to your soil's needs.
These grasses are native and grow on poor sites anyway and are not used to having good
nutrients. I would re-evaluate after a year and establishment.
Remember that it may take at least two years to see good results on the NWSG. Bob has
done a great job on explaining methods: using a seed drill, calibrations, seeding depths, etc.
Follow his instructions. When planting, drilling is best, but if you cannot, broad cast and run a
cultapacker over it. You can plant the different ones at the same time (except gama) and place
them in the appropriate seed boxes in the no-till drill. You put the fluffy-chaffy ones, big blue,
little blue, and Indian grass in the chaffy seed box and plant 1/4" seed depth. The small box is
used for smooth grass seeds like switch grass and gama. He said to make a separate pass for the
gama grass at 1" seed depth.
Planting times: For NWSG, it is recommended, to plant in the fall after Thanksgiving,
after the first killing frost (Oct. 31 Piedmont-Nov. Coast) until the last killing frost in the spring
(March 15 on the coast, April 1 for most of the state, April 15 in the west). As soon as you have
the site prepared, you might want to plant winter annuals such as winter wheat, barley, and
CLT-Douglas International Airport 404
September 23, 2005
Figure 1. Listed rare vascular plant species associated with Piedmont prairies and associated
communities (not all inclusive)
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Federally Endangered
smooth coneflower Echinacea laevi ata Federally Endangered
Georgia aster S m h otrichum eor ianum Federal Species of Concern
Carolina birdfoot-tre foil Lotus helleri Federal Species of Concern
Tall larkspur Delphinium exaltatum Federal Species of Concern
Butner Barbara's buttons Marshallia s 1 Federal Species of Concern
Heller's rabbit tobacco Gna halium helleri Significantly rare-Proposed
Carolina thistle Cirsium carolinianus Significantly rare-Proposed
Sessile Tick-trefoil Desmodium sessilifolium Significantly rare-Proposed
Carolina thistle Cirsium carolinianum Significantly rare-Proposed
Thick-pod white wild indigo Ba tisia alba Significantly rare-Proposed
Thin-pod white wild indigo Ba tisia albescens Significantly rare-Proposed
Smooth sunflower Helianthus laevi atus Significantly rare-Proposed
Earle's blazing star Liatris s uarrulosa Significantly rare-Proposed
Southeastern bold goldenrod Solida o ri ida ss labrata Significantly rare-Proposed
Prairie dock Sil hium terebinthinaceum Significantly rare-Proposed
Glade wild quinine Parthenium auriculatum Significantly rare-Threatened
Figure 2. NC Partners In Flight Priority Bird Species associated with prairie/grassland, shrub-
scrub, and savanna habitats (not all inclusive)
Prairie/Grassland Shrub-scrub Pine savanna
Henslow's sparrow Prairie warbler Red-cockaded woodpecker
Bachman's sparrow American woodcock Bachman's sparrow
Northern bobwhite Northern bobwhite Brown-headed nuthatch
Loggerhead shrike Fields arrow Henslow's sparrow
Short-eared owl winter, b Eastern towhee Northern bobwhite
Barn owl Orchard oriole Summer tanager
Northern harrier winter Yellow-breasted chat American kestrel
Grasshopper sparrow Gray catbird Red-headed woodpecker
Eastern kingbird Common ellowthroat Northern flicker
Eastern meadowlark Brown thrasher Chuck will's widow
Sedge wren winter White-eyed vireo Whip-poor-will
Dickcissel Willow fl catcher
Bobolink (migrant, b Vesper sparrow winter
Horned lark winter, b Loggerhead shrike
Barn owl
NC sources are: Garrett Wildflower seed farm 919-818-4309 (Don Lee) www.enistseed.com Adams Briscoe &
Sharpe Bro. for Americas Indian grass from Georgia. Contact NC Botanical Garden and ask for their nursery list.
Local plant information may be obtained by contacting Mr. Don Serriff at 704-336-8798 or 704-432-1391 with the
Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Department.
Triage Check List
Date: 9/15/05 Project Name: Charlotte-Douglas Airport Safety Area
DWQ#: 00-1195 Ver. 2
,
&*b Am yy[County: Mecklenburg
HU
Alan, this is an IP with on PNyet. - Ian
To: Alan Johnson, Mooresville Regional Office
60-day Processing Time: 9/07/05 -11/05/05
From: Cyndi Karoly Telephone : [phone]
The file attached is being forwarded to you for your evaluation.
Please call if you need assistance.
? Stream length impacted
? Stream determination
Wetland determination and distance to blue-line surface waters on USFW topo maps
? Minimization/avoidance issues
? Buffer Rules (Neuse, Tar-Pamlico, Catawba, Randleman)
? Pond fill
Mitigation Ratios
? Ditching
? Are the stream and or wetland mitigation sites available and viable?
? Check drawings for accuracy
Is the application consistent with pre-application meetings?
? Cumulative impact concern

Comments: As per our discussion regarding revision of the triage and delegation processes,
please review the attached file. Note that you are the first reviewer, so this file will need to be
reviewed for administrative as well as technical details. If you elect to place this project on hold,
please ask the applicant to provide your requested information to both the Central Office in
Raleigh as well as the Asheville Regional Office. As we discussed, this is an experimental, interim
procedure as we slowly transition to electronic applications. Please apprise me of any
complications you encounter, whether related to workload, processing times, or lack of a "second
reviewer" as the triage process in Central had previously provided. Also, if you think of ways to
improve this process, especially so that we can plan for the electronic applications, let me know.
Thanks!

CLEARWATER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS. INC.
August 31, 2005
Mr. David Baker
US Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Field Office
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
N.C. Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
FILE UurY
Re: Individual Permit Application
Charlotte-Douglas International Airport Expansion
Mecklenburg County, NC
Dear Mr. Baker and Ms. Karoly:
Enclosed for your review is an Individual Permit application for stream and wetland impacts
associated with construction of the first phase of expansion at the Charlotte-Douglas International
Airport, in Charlotte, (Mecklenburg County) North Carolina. The following information is
included with the application as supporting documents:
1) 8.5 X 11" plan drawings including stream impacts
2) List of Adjacent Land Owners
3) MOA with NC Department of Cultural Resources
4) Correspondence with USFWS
5) DWQ Permit. Application Fee
Please do not hesitate to call Brian Hennessey at [phone] or me at [phone] to
discuss this application or if you have any questions.
Sincerely, ____
> Zu
R. Clement Riddle, P.W.S.
Principal
enclosures
cc: NCWRC
USFWS
`Z005
DENR - D §TORMWA ERBRPNGH
_? .uns AN
224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
www.cwenv.com
,r Nce \ \ C1 S \? (-K a_

4
4 Interstate 85 to Billy Graham Parkway (exit #33). Head south for approximately two miles and exit onto Josh Birmingham Parkway. Jost Birmingham
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT OMB APPROVAL NO.0710-003
33CFR 325 Expires October 1996
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing
+ata sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or
ny other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service
Directorate of Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management and
Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC 20503. 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
Authority: 33 USC 401, Section 10; 1413, Section 404. Principal Purpose: These laws require permits authorizing activities in, or affecting, navigable waters of the
United States, the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the Untied States, and the transportation of dredged material for the purpose of dumping it into
ocean waters. Routine Uses: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Disclosure: Disclosure of requested information
is voluntary. If information is not provided, however, the permit application cannot be processed nor can a permit be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this application (see sample
drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. An application that is not completed
in full will be returned.
ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS
1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED 4.DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICANT)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME & TITLE (an agent is not required)
CHARLOTTE-DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
C/O Jerry Orr
Mr. Brian Hennessey
Post Office Box 19066
Aviation Department
Charlotte, NC 28219
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE 10. AGENT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE
a. Residence N/A a. Residence N/A
'
b. Business 704/359-4000 b. Business
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request, supplemental information in
support of this permit application.
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
Charlotte-Douglas International Aiport (CLT) Expansion
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable)
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
Coffey Creek and Ticer Creek
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Mecklenberg NC
COUNTY STATE
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN, (see instructions)
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE

'arkway takes you to the main airport terminal.
LP, Q_Ib? L?Ell U W L-si
W S E P 7 2005 lJ
•
•
•
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
SEE ATTACHED.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
SEE ATTACHED.
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
SEE ATTACHED.
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Fill of approximately 50,000 cubic yards and culverts proposed in jurisdictional wetlands and streams will be clean material from on-site or adjacent areas.
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
Approximately 300 acres of jurisdictional Waters of the U.S./wetlands are proposed for impacts. This includes the following:
5,4501inear feet of perennial and important intermittent streams > S al -I
528 linear feet of unimportant intermittent streams
0.652 acres of wetlands
0.176 acres of Ponds.
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Completed? Yes No IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
Yes, construction of the Safety Area for Runway 23 and impacts to 296 linear feet of stream was authorized under Nationwide Permit 39 in November
2000.
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be entered here, please attached
a supplemental list).
SEE ATTACHED.
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL* IDENTIFICATION # DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
FAA EIS - Record of Decision 4-28-00
*Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building and flood plan permits
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this
application is complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly
authorized agent of the applicant.
?-Zy-oS
SIGNATURE OF LICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The application in e signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly authorized agent if
the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and
willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry, shall
be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
?? v?nft VVAI tK UUAL1 I Y 9
Adjacent Property Owners
TAXPID COMMONPID OWNER
14311170 14311170 CK AIRPORT COMMERCE CENTER LLC
301 S COLLEGE ST #2800 CHARLOTTE, NC 28202
14311132 14311132 PARTNERSHIP AIRPORT CENTER LTD AND %FINMARC MANAGE
4733 BETHESDA AV SUTE 500 BETHESDA MA 20814
14105434 14105434 FUND III LLC %AMB PROP CO AMB INSTITUTIONAL ALLIAN
60 STATE ST SUITE 3700 BOSTON, MA 02109
14101416 14101416 FUND III LLC AMB INSTITUTIONAL ALLIANCE AND % AMB
60 STATE ST SUITE 3700 BOSTON, MA 02109
14105538 14105538 RICHARD E STILWELL
3753 LANDMARK DR SHERRILLS FORD, NC SHERRILLS FORD, NC 28673-
14105539 14105539 RICHARD E STILWELL
3753 LANDMARK DR SHERRILLS FORD, NC 2867 SHERRILLS FORD, NC
14105558 14105558 JOSEPH T SR MCLEAR
7901 BYRUM DR CHARLOTTE, NC 28217
•
14120104 14120104 DAVIDLAND LLC
6707 FAIRVIEW RD #C CHARLOTTE, NC 28210-3354
14120105 14120105 THOMAS STEPHEN AUTRY
8918 BYRUM DR CHARLOTTE, NC 28217 8918 BYRUM DR. CHARLOTTE, NC
14120105 14120105 THOMAS STEPHEN AUTRY
8918 BYRUM DR CHARLOTTE, NC 28217 8918 BYRUM DR. CHARLOTTE, NC 2
14104107 14104107 DAVIDLAND LLC
6707 FAIRVIEW RD #C CHARLOTTE, NC 28210-3354
14112126 14112126 PAUL JACKSON SR BROWN AND % P J BROWN JR
648 LAKEWOOD RD YORK, SC 29745
14112123 14112123 PAUL J JR BROWN AND LOIS H BROWN
6420 DIXIE RD CHARLOTTE, NC 28208
14112121 14112121 JOSEPH O BROWN AND BETTY M BROWN
2742 CLINELAND RD CHERRYVILLE, NC 28021-9601
14112133 14112133 JOSEPH O BROWN AND BETTY M BROWN
2742 CLINELAND RD CHERRYVILLE, NC 28021-9601
•
M
r
s
S
RIS
,
-Do
AIR
r
�Y62r F'S�
�f4
•� t
i�,
, ,
i
t
4
s'.
i
r
r
s
Charlotte
INTERNATIONAL
RIS
,
-Do
AIR
�Y62r F'S�
�f4
•� t
i�,
4
s'.
r

Table of Contents
•
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Site ...............................................................................................................2
1.2 Project Purpose ........................................................................................................2
1.3 Public Involvement ..................................................................................................2
2.0 PROPOSED ACTIVITY (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) ......................................4
3.0 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS .....................................................................................6
4.0 HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS .......................................................................................9
4.1 Oak-Pine-Hickory Forest .........................................................................................9
4.2 Bottomland Forests ................................................................................................10
4.3 Old Field and Scrub/Shrub .....................................................................................11
4.4 Urban-Industrial-Turf ............................................................................................11
4.5 Disturbed - Unvegetated ........................................................................................12
4.6 Wetlands ................................................................................................................12
4.7 Open Water/Ponds .................................................................................................12
4.8 Streams ...................................................................................................................13
5.0 FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES .............................................................................15
6.0 MITIGATION PLAN ................................................................................................16
6.1 Avoidance ..............................................................................................................16
6.2 Minimization ..........................................................................................................16
6.3 Compensatory Mitigation ......................................................................................17
7.0 STORMWATER ........................................................................................................18
8.0 SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................19
Figures
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Alternative Analysis
Memorandum of Agreement Dept of Cultural Resources
Correspondence with US Fish and Wildlife Service
Stream Evaluation Forms
0
• WETLAND MASTER PLAN
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Charlotte Douglas International Airport (CLT) is a publicly owned air carrier and air
cargo transportation facility operated by the City of Charlotte Aviation Department in
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (Figure 1).
In the late 1980's the FAA sponsored an Airport Capacity Enhancement Study, which
culminated in the 1991 CLT Capacity Enhancement Plan. The FAA sponsored capacity
study identified demand levels at which CLT should operate or suffer consequence of
delays. Thereafter, a Master Plan was prepared by the City of Charlotte, which indicated
the existing airport runway system is beyond its calculated Annual Service Volume
capacity and the baseline activity levels identified in the 1991 Capacity Study were
exceeded which triggered the need to increase the capacity of the airport. If the capacity
of the airport was not increased, the airport would suffer operational delays. The 1991
Capacity Study recommended the construction of a third parallel runway as the most
beneficial development proposal to increase capacity at CLT and at the same time reduce
operational delays. In 1998, the City of Charlotte completed an update of the current
Airport Master Plan. The recommendations of the updated master plan and
developments were assessed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
submitted in November of 1999. The Record of Decision (ROD) for the proposed
expansion of CLT was signed April 28, 2000.
This application proposes impacts to jurisdictional wetlands/waters of the US for several
of the proposed airport improvements listed below in Section 2.0 (Proposed Activity).
The specific project purposes that are proposed in this phase include the extension of
runway 18R/36L, relocation of West Boulevard, and relocation a portion of Old Dowd
Road. These three proposed activities are essential and independent of future expansion
considerations. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) is being
1
prepared that will further studies of the alignment for the proposed third runway and the
relocation of portions of Wallace Neal Road west of Interstate 485.
1.1 Project Site
The proposed project is located within the CLT Expansion Area of approximately 2,500
acres of land in the City of Charlotte, North Carolina (Figure 2). The proposed project
footprint comprises approximately 60 acres within the project expansion area. The
airport is bounded to the north by US. 74 Wilkinson Boulevard. To the east the project is
bounded by existing Runway 18R/36L. The southern project boundary is located just
south of Byrum Drive. To the west, Interstate 485 Outer Beltway is under construction
and creates a definitive boundary for the airport.
1.2 Project Purpose
The specific purposes of this project is to provide sufficient runway length to
accommodate potential air transportation demand; provide sufficient ancillary facilities to
support the potential increase in air and ground transportation demand; and minimize
potential impacts on human health and environment by reducing noise impacts on the
surrounding communities. The specific project purposes that are proposed in this phase
include the extension of runway 18R/36L, relocation of West Boulevard, and relocation a
portion of Old Dowd Road. These three proposed activities are essential and independent
of future expansion considerations. They are necessary whether the third proposed
runway is located on the eastern side of I-485 as currently approved in the ROD or
located on t the west side of I-485 as being proposed under the Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) under preparation.
1.3 Public Involvement
The public was afforded numerous opportunities through the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) process to evaluate the proposal for airport expansion and provide
2
comments on those proposals. The evaluation periods included public notices March 31,
1995, Federal Register, Public notice in newspapers announcing meetings November 14-
18, 1995; agency scoping meeting December 13, 1995 1:00 pm; public scoping meeting
December 13, 1995, 6:00 pm; notice of availability for the Draft EIS; and a public
information workshop and public hearing held on August 27, 1998. The FAA in
preparation of the Final EIS carefully considered all comments received from the public
as well as from Federal, State, and local agencies.
•
•
3
• 2.0 PROPOSED ACTIVITY (PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE)
The proposed Wetland Master Plan (PLAN) includes impacts to U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) jurisdictional waters of the U.S. including wetlands for construction
of a runway extension (18R/36L, taxiways (F and Echo), road relocations (West
Boulevard and a portion of Old Dowd Road). The following is a description of activities
for the preferred alternative:
Extension of Runway 18R/36L to a length of 12,000 feet by constructing a 2,000 foot
southerly extension with parallel and connecting taxiways and associated lighting.
Additionally, the southerly extension was selected because it provides the necessary
length for long haul capacity and provides the most efficient use of the airport for
0 departures with the least environmental impact.
Relocation of West Boulevard around the south end of the airport from the eastern end of
Runway 36R and closure of Byrum Road; Relocation of the northern portion of Old
Dowd Road, just east of I-485 Outer Beltway (the final alignment of Wallace Neal Road
will either be parallel to I-485 on the east or west side). The Wallace Neal Road and
third runway alternatives are under discussion in the forthcoming Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement.
•
To accomplish these activities the applicant proposes to impact 5,450 linear feet of
perennial and intermittent "importantl" streams, 528 linear feet of unimportant
intermittent channels, 0.176 acres of open waters/ponds, and 0.652 acres of wetlands.
Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S./wetlands were delineated throughout the study area and
verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on January 8, 2001.
1 USACE Stream Evaluation form
4
Due to the extensive project proposal and the necessary time to construct these projects,
the Project applicant is requesting that this Individual Permit be valid for a period of 7
years from the date of issuance.
•
•
5
3.0 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
An alternative analysis was conducted as part of the FEIS process for the proposed
expansion of CLT. While written for the FEIS, this Alternative Analysis gave
consideration to practicable and reasonable alternatives and adequately complies with
Section 404(b)(1) guidelines and is attached in Appendix A. This discussion of
alternatives is submitted by the Applicant to assist the Wilmington District, USACE in
evaluating the application for authorization to discharge dredged or fill material into
waters of the United States, including wetlands, under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344 for CLT expansion in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. An
analysis of the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines requirements for consideration of
alternatives as required by 40 C.F.R. 230.10(a) is set forth below.
The Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines Alternatives requirements provide that "no discharge of
dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the
proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so
long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental
consequences." [See 40 C.F.R. 230.10(a) (emphasis added).] The record must contain
"sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed discharge complies with the
requirements of Section 230.10(a) of the Guidelines. The amount of information needed
to make such a determination and the level of scrutiny required by the Guidelines is
commensurate with the severity of the environmental impact (as determined by the
functions of the aquatic resource and the nature of the proposed activity) and the
scope/cost of the project." [See ACOE/EPA Memorandum to the Field "Appropriate
Level of Analysis Required for Evaluating Compliance with Section 404(b)(1)
Guidelines Alternatives Requirements," p. 2, dated August 23, 1994, hereinafter the
"Memorandum."] As noted in the Memorandum at pages 3-4, the 404(b)(1) Guidelines
"only prohibits discharges when a practicable alternative exists which would have less
adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem." [See Memorandum.] "If an alleged
alternative is unreasonably expensive to the applicant, the alternative is not practicable."
6
[See Guidelines Preamble, "Economic Factors," 45 Federal Register 85343 (December
24, 1980).]
Practicable alternatives for the project are those alternatives that are "available and
capable of being done after taking into consideration costs, existing technology, and
logistics in light of overall project purposes." [See 40 C.F.R. 230.10(a)(2).] Clarification
is provided in the Preamble to the Guidelines on how cost is to be considered in the
determination of practicability. An alternative site is considered "available" if it is
presently owned by the applicant or "could reasonably be obtained, utilized, expanded or
managed in order to fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed activity." 40 C.F.R. §
230.10(a)(2).
Our intent is to consider those alternatives, which are reasonable in terms of the overall
scope/cost of the proposed project. The term economic [for which the term "costs" was
substituted in the final rule] might be construed to include consideration of the applicant's
financial standing, or investment, or market share, a cumbersome inquiry which is not
necessarily material to the objectives of the Guidelines.
The EPA 404(b)(1) Guidelines state that, "we have chosen instead to impose an explicit,
but rebuttable presumption that alternatives to discharges in special aquatic sites are less
damaging to the aquatic ecosystem, and are environmentally preferable." Of course, the
general requirements that impacts to the aquatic system not be acceptable also applies.
This presumption "...contains sufficient flexibility to reflect circumstances of unusual
cases" (249 Fed. Reg., 85339, December 24, 1980). It is clear from these stipulations
that a preferable alternative may allow filling in certain wetland areas and subsequent
mitigation and/or management of other areas.
The wetlands and streams estimate in the FEIS Alternative Analysis vary from current
impacts because the wetlands and streams had not been surveyed and verified by the
USACE. However, the conclusions and recommendations of this report remain valid
taking into consideration the changes in total impact.
7
The alternative analysis address the proposed projects discussed in this application as
well as the proposed third runway and relocation of Wallace Neal Road. The alternative
analysis is valid for the projects in this application as it was approved in the ROD,
provides the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. In addition, the
forthcoming Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement will not address the projects
proposed in this application as there are no changes and no new alternatives considered.
Therefore, the applicant believes that the attached discussion of alternatives, together
with other documents submitted by the applicant in support of its 404 Permit, shows that
the project complies with the guidelines and promotes public interest.
•
1?1
8
• 4.0 HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS
The 2,500-acre site consists mostly of upland areas. There are 21.76 acres of
jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. including wetlands. The site was delineated between
September and November 2000 and verified by the USACE on January 8, 2001. A
description of vegetation habitats is summarized below from data collected for the Report
on Biotic Communities, Charlotte-Douglas International Airport (Environment and
Archeology for the Environmental Impact Statement, November 1997).
4.1 Oak-Pine-Hickory Forest
The study area was predominately secondary forest situated on a soil moisture gradient
ranging from sub-mesic to well drained. Typical species in the forests were white oak
(Quercus alba), blackjack oak (Q. marilandica), willow oak (Q. phellos), red oak (Q.
rubra), southern red oak (Q. falcate), red maple (Acer rubrum), mockernut hickory
(Carya tomentosa), pignut hickory (C. glabra), sweet pignut (C. ovalis), Virginia pine
(Pinus virginiana), shortleaf pine (P. echinata), and red cedar (Juniperus virginiana).
Subdominant species were hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), basswood (Tilia
heterophylla), beech (Fagus americana), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), white ash
(Fraxinus americana), and black walnut (Juglans nigra).
Understory species were comprised of slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), blueberry (Vaccinium
atrococcum), silverberry (Eleaganus umbellate), red cedar, strawberry bush (Euonymus
americanus), black haw (Viburnum prunifolium), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida),
black cherry (Prunus serotina), winged sumac (Rhus copallina), American hornbeam
(Carpinus caroliniana), red bud (Cercis canadensis), and American holly (Ilex opaca).
Woody vines included Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), moonseed
(Menispermum canadense), kudzu-vine (Pueraria lobata), Carolina rose (Rosa caroling),
muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), blackberry
(Rubus allegheniensis), greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), and Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia).
9
• The herb layer was composed of bluegrass Poa. SPP ), fescue (Festuca s
generally ( PP ),
ryegrass (Lolium perenne) and sedges (Carex spp.). Common forbs included five-finger
(Potentilla canadensis), bedstraw (Galium aparine), wild licorice (G. circaezans),
cranesbill (Geranium carolinianum), mayapple (Podophyllum peltatum), violets (Viola
sororia), wild ginger (Asarum canadensis), snakeroot (Sanicula gregaria, S. canadense),
wild strawberry (Fragaria virginica), spotted wintergreen (Chimaphila maculata),
puttyroot (Aplectrum hyemale), sweet cicely (Osmorhiza claytonii), liver-leaf (Hepatica
americana), and bloodroot (Sanguinaria canadensis). Woodland ferns common in the
survey area included Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), wood fern (Dryopteris
marginalis), grape fern (Botrychium dissectum), rattlesnake fern (B. virginianum), and
ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron).
4.2 Bottomland Forests
Shafale and Weakley (1990) reserve the term bottomland forest for floodplain ridges and
terraces. Thus, the moist woodlands found adjacent to intermittent streams,
drainageways, and ponds were identified as Alluvial/Upland Depression Swamp Forests
(Report on Biotic Communities). Dominant tree species included tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple, green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), sweet gum,
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), box elder (Acer negundo), cottonwood (Populus
deltoids), and black willow (Salix nigra). The understory community was composed of
river birch (Betula nigra), America hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), and smooth alder
(Alnus serrulata), in addition to the trees listed above. The herb layer contained sedges
(Carex vulpinoidea, C. frankii, C. crinata, C. spp.), bedstraw (Galium aparine), spotted
touch-me-not (Impatiens capensis), snakeroot, golden ragwort (Senecio aureus), white
avens (Geum canadense), jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), sensitive fern
(Onoclea sensibilis), stonecrop (Sedum ternatum), and the exotic, invasive grass (Eulalia
viminea).
•
10
0 4.3 Old Field and Scrub/Shrub
Old-field growth was identified in scattered areas throughout the survey area, but
predominantly within the existing airport property. Widely dispersed empress-trees
(Paulownia tomentosa), though not dominant, were observed colonizing old-field and
scrub/shrub areas at CLT. Grasses such as Canada bluegrass (Poa compressa), Kentucky
bluegrass (P. pratensis), timothy (Phleum pratense), red fescue (Festuca rubra), barnyard
grass (Echinochloa crus-galli), green foxtail grass (Setaria viridis), and orchard grass
(Dactylis glomerata) were common. Broadleaf herbaceous species included goldenrod
(Solidago spp.), common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca), curly dock (Rumex crispus), ox-
eye daisy (Chrysanthium leucantheum), wild carrot (Daucus carota), poke (Phytolacca
americana) bush clover (Lespedeza spp.), tick-trefoil (Desmodium spp.), mugwort
(Artemisia vularis), small white aster (Aster vimineus), blackberry (Rubus spp.) and
ragweed (Ambrosia spp.)
0 4.4 Urban-Industrial-Turf
Turf grass or maintained lawns were identified in the vicinity of the existing airport
facility and at commercial and residential properties in the study area. These areas
undergo regular mowing. Vegetation in these areas was dominated by a variety of
introduced grasses including perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne), redtop (Agrostis
gigantea), red fescue, Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), and annual bluegrass (P.
annua). Other common herbaceous species included dandelion (Taraxacum officinale),
lyre-leaf sage (Salvia lyrata), yellow wood sorrel (Oxalis stricta, O. europea), common
plantain (Plantago major), lance leaf plantain (Plantago lanceolata), and white clover
(Trifolium repens). A large percentage of the project areas is covered with roads and
other hard surfaces or impervious coatings.
•
11
0 4.5 Disturbed - Unvegetated
Examples of this land use were observed in the soil harvesting operations or borrow areas
conducted by outside contractors on behalf of CLT, which covered approximately 153
acres in the project area. This land use fluctuates with Old Field vegetation. A
demolition debris disposal area covers approximately 18 acres of the airport property
north of Old Dowd Road. Another 37 acres of disturbed land is located south of Byrum
Road.
4.6 Wetlands
Vegetated wetlands were delineated throughout of the study area. Total acreage of
wetlands in the study areas is 3.78 acres (Table 1). Wetlands were subdivided into three
types based on the plant communities: 1.) Palustrine Scrub/Shrub and Emergent
Wetlands describes areas with an open canopy of small broad-leaf deciduous trees and/or
broad-leaf deciduous shrubs and an extensive persistent herb layer; 2.) Palustrine
Emergent and Scrub/Shrub Wetland is a mixed-vegetation wetlands type described a
single area dominated by herbaceous ground cover but was surrounded by small broad-
leaf deciduous trees and/or broad-leaf deciduous shrubs and 3.) Palustrine Forest and
Scrub/Shrub Wetlands are wetland forests in the project area, which were characterized
by widely-spaced mature broad-leaf deciduous trees and densely-packed broad-leaf
deciduous shrubs.
4.7 Open Water/Ponds
A total of eight ponds were identified within the study area. The total acreage of open
water in the study area was estimated to be 8.60 acres (Table 2). These water bodies are
itemized in Table 2. Six of these are impoundments are jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
and are located on intermittent streams. Two of the ponds are isolated and non-
jurisdictional. Common shoreline vegetation of the water bodies consisted of smooth
alder, cottonwood, sycamore, and willow. Scrub/shrub growth along pond borders
12
included alder, slippery elm, buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), swamp rose,
multiflora rose, and blackberry. Floating aquatic vegetation was present in the larger
bodies of open water and included pondweed (Potamogeton crispus), duckweed (Lemma
minor), and coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum).
4.8 Streams
The study area contains a variety of both permanent (Coffey Creek and Ticer Creek), the
upper reaches of named intermittent streams (Little Paw Creek and Beaverdam Creek),
and numerous headwaters of small unnamed intermittent streams. On-site meetings were
conducted on August 20-21, 2003 with Ms. Amanda Jones (USACE), Becky Fox (EPA),
Dave Penrose (NCDWQ), Alan Johnson (DWQ), and Clement Riddle (C1earWater
Environmental Consultants, Inc.) to confirm the classification and condition of stream
segments within the project area.
0 4.8.1 Perennial Streams
Ticer Creek and Coffee Creek are the only U.S.G.S perennial streams found on-
site. These streams have water flow throughout the year. Because of the year
around flow and swiftness of the water current there is no rooted vegetation in
these streams. Biological indicators observed in these streams included fish,
crayfish, and small invertebrates.
Vegetation along the banks of these streams varied but generally has a large
canopy that is dominated by American sycamore, yellow poplar, eastern white
pine (Pinus strobus), and red maple. Saplings of the above species dominated the
scrub/shrub layer along the streambed and banks. The herbaceous layer was
dominated by Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), ebony spleenwort
(Asplenium platyneuron), and blackberry.
•
13
0 4.8.2 Intermittent Streams
The intermittent streams located within the project boundary have moderate flow
most of the year. In other parts of the year, these streams have little or no flow
and are filled with leaf litter. The moderate flow does not allow rooted vegetation
to thrive. These streams were observed to have stable stream banks, scattered
persistent pools, channel substrate and biological indicators such as crayfish and
amphibians were observed in and around persistent pools.
Vegetation in the riparian areas included American sycamore, yellow poplar,
eastern white pine, and southern red oak (Quercus falcata). The scrub/shrub layer
was dominated by saplings of all of the above species and included sweet gum.
The herbaceous layer is dominated by Christmas fern, ebony spleenwort,
blackberry, and greenbrier.
0 4.8.3 Unimportant Intermittent Streams2
"Unimportant" intermittent streams within the project boundary have little or no
flow most of the year. There is little vegetation in the beds of these streams
because they are mostly filled with silt that occurs during heavy amounts of
rainfall. Along with silt there is a high content of leaf litter on the streambed.
These streams lack a persistent flow, stable stream banks, crawfish, minnows, in-
stream habitat structure, adjacent wetlands, and rifle pool structures typically
observed in higher quality intermittent streams. Stream Evaluation Forms are
attached in Appendix D. The classification of these streams was verified in the
field by Mr. Dave Penrose, (DWQ) and Ms. Amada Jones (USACE) In August
2003.
•
2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Intermittent Stream Channel Evaluation Form
14
• 5.0 FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES
Surveys were performed for federally protected species as part of the Environmental
Impact Statement. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concurred in their
December 4, 1998 letter that the project will not affect endangered or threatened species
or their habitats. In order to update this study, CLT plans to conduct surveys within the
proposed project areas during the flowering season (September) for listed species known
to occur in Mecklenburg County (Helianthus schweinitzii). A copy of this report will be
forwarded to the USACE and USFWS.
•
•
15
6.0 MITIGATION PLAN
The site assessment identified and evaluated potential impacts to the wetlands and
streams occurring on the project site. To compensate for the unavoidable loss of stream
habitat, CLT will provide for a "no net loss" of jurisdictional streams habitat and
associated functions and values.
6.1 Avoidance
Wetland and stream impacts associated with this proposed project are unable to be
avoided onsite due to the scope of proposed development and its location, which is
adjacent to existing CLT facilities. 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 and the flexibility needed to construct a large scale
master planned airport transportation complex. Options for locating the proposed
projects are severely limited as the proposed projects are linear in nature and have
existing fixed structures in place. (i.e. runway extension has to be at the existing runway).
CLT foresees continuing expansion and development of the airport facilities in the future.
Due to the location of the existing airport and the expected potential for aviation and
transportation related development it is anticipated that significant portions of the site
will be developed for transportation related activities. Therefore, it is likely that CLT
will apply for a Section 404 permit and 401 Water Quality Certification for future
projects.
6.2 Minimization
Adequate sedimentation and erosion control measures will be implemented during the
grading and filling phases of the project. Best management practices (BMP) will be
employed to minimize the impacts to wetlands and streams adjacent to the proposed
airport expansion. The BMP's which may be employed include siltation barriers and
16
sediment traps. The BMP's will be the most useful and successful method of mitigation
to minimize disturbance of natural stream and wetland functions.
6.3 Compensatory Mitigation
On-site areas are not considered feasible for stream mitigation as the site is being
proposed for development and FAA requirements severely restrict opportunities on-site.
Either one of or combination of the following will be used to provide adequate
mitigation.
• Purchase Mitigation Credits from the approved Mecklenburg County/City of
Charlotte Stormwater Services Stream and Wetland mitigation bank.
• Other off-site restoration approved by the USACE and DWQ
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Stormwater Services operates a wetland and stream mitigation
bank to offset impacts to jurisdictional areas as a result of public projects. This
Mitigation Bank was approved by the multi-agency review team on July 16, 2004 and
will have 12,800 linear feet of restoration credits available. CLT proposes to purchase
credits in this mitigation bank to offset impacts as proposed in this application.
CLT does not propose mitigation for wetland impacts at this time as impacts are limited
to 0.662 acres in this phase. CLT recognizes that any additional impacts to wetlands and
streams will be considered cumulative impacts. Therefore, if/when future impacts greater
than .338 acres occur, then CLT will provide compensatory mitigation for the total
amount of wetland impacts. This is consistent with the 401 Certification rules (15A
NCAC 2H.0500).
•
17
•
7.0 STORMWATER
A final stormwater management plan will be designed by Talbert and Bright, Inc. to
satisfy the future stormwater treatment needs of the proposed development. These plans
will be prepared and submitted for review when runway and taxiway design drawings are
prepared.
The stormwater management facilities will be designed using the Stormwater Best
Management Practices, NCDENR 1999. These stormwater management techniques will
direct stormwater into FAA approved stormwater measures from the impervious area
associated with the runways and taxiways. Following coordination with the NC Division
of Water Quality (March 15, 2005), CLT will incorporate extended detention wetlands to
treat the stormwater associated with the proposed project. Potential locations for the
extended detention stormwater wetland areas for runway 18R/36L are indicated on the
enclosed site plan.
These stormwater features are designed to provide removal of suspended solids,
nutrients, and pollutants from incoming stormwater. Design parameters include the
provision of sufficient surface area to promote settling of potential pollutants.
The stormwater management plan and maintenance agreement will be approved by NC
Division of Water Quality prior to impacts to streams. Stormwater treatment is a
requirement under the 401 Water Quality Certification and may require periodic
maintenance to meet stormwater plan requirements.
C,
18
• 8.0 SUMMARY
CLT expansion actives listed above will be implemented in phases, and because of the
scope of planned expansion activities, the long-term commitment to public need, public
resources, and lack of alternatives the applicant is proposing a 7-year permit. By master
planning the project, the applicant proposes compensatory mitigation up-front or
concurrent with development phases.
•
0
19
C7
•
*11
na
c
CD
rA
0

{
NV-

ximate Project Bm

Diap
a&k^ • r?n chfp•rtt?p,l,l ind
lotto (CL ,• \
i

l `

1 ?¦ I %
¦ 1 11•
'
nw.'
a
40
r• Ir aniL
?-? . . lulu D•m
I? ^
U E
?

BASE MAP BY DoLORME 3-D TOPO QUADS 1989
WEST EXPANSION MASTER PLAN PAGE
III NNAL ft W W ~ft Inarary / 7 1110J 7310010
nWraoc moaaoox Ik'.ue: ww
BASE MAP FROM USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS 'CHARLOTTE WEST' 1993
WEST EXPANSION MASTER PLAN PAGE
Charlotte•Dou las „?,,.,M ,..,,,o,,,,E,,t,,,
M= IO
INT[?4l TIOH?I UR1 (T a n+OOty pawm ammm wAm wm
2

LEGEND / 4 5
/
PROJECT BOUNDARY
?
6 7
----- PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS)
- - - - - IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT 8 9
STREAM CHANNEL (IIS)
UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
UI
TREAM CHANNEL
10 11 12
)
(
S
PONDS
WETLANDS
13 14 15 16
LF LINEAR FEET

1 '
1
1 ?

1
?
? --'?
?
`? 2E UI
?' ? 198 LF (3)
?
? 2B (Ticer Branch)
[ 1671 LF (1) PSl

%

/ 1Z IIS App_. `?
/ 2195 LF (2)
/
/

1 I.?
1 I ``

1K IIS
1 1 L IIS
3218 LF (7)
1 786 LF (13) 1M IIS
1 %? 393 LF (10)

1L Ul

1 540 LF (13) -'

_' ??
0

, •'
,•
1
1Q UI? ,,
8
311 LF
"-
)j
(
1

2005 PERMIT 1 PAGE
4
NT`LII O te. • s FILE NAME: WETLANDS\2005 PERMIT 1\2005 FINAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT -PAGE 04 ON 8x 11.MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2005 SCALE: 1'=4W'
•
•
•
LEGEND 4 5

PROJECT BOUNDARY
PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS) 6 7
- - - - - IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT 8 9
STREAM CHANNEL (IIS)
UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (UI)
10 11
12
PONDS 16
WETLANDS 13 14 15
LF LINEAR FEET

0
as
- ?
UI
2C
4
- '
45 LF
)I
• \
(

2A IIS 2D & 2F IIS
844 LF (5) 2210 LF
6 \
(
)
--
`
:/
1Y WETLAND
• 0.153 AC (1) ?.
,
? v \ 3

1 P Its CONSTRUCTION
369 LF (14) j
LIMITS
1T POND
1.384 AC (1)

.0 l u IIS
167 LF (16)k
_ C1 V WETLAND
t
0.983 AC (4)
[
LF (15) ?„
39

2005 PERMIT 1 PAGE

C otte• o, 3 [as
IMT[I ¦T FILE NAME: WETLANDS\2005 PERMIT 1\2005 FINAL PERMIT i EXHIBIT -PAGE 05 ON 8 x 1 1.MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2005 SCALE: i' =400' S
•
•
•
-- 1S UI
I' 230 LF (9)
1N UI
376 LF (12) ` 10 WETLAND
\ 0.031 AC (2) J '
- ?2Z UI
556 LF (11 J
3B POND sue'

4 5
1.521 AC (2),,,
?,
"+ -
- -?

6 7 3A WETLAND
L0.986 AC (3)

8 9
CONSTRUCTION
10 11 12 LIMITS
16
13 14 15 - ?3C POND
0.188 AC (3),
1

1
1
LEGEND
1 N PROJECT BOUNDARY

1
P1 POND ----- PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS)
----• IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
1

1
X1 UI 0.170 AC (4)' Y1 UI
181 LF (20)
- 227 LF (21
STREAM CHANNEL (IIS)
-_-: UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
) STREAM CHANNEL (UI)
1 PONDS
WETLANDS
1 1' ' + LF LINEAR FEET

1 1 W1 IIS
1 1 930 LF (19) V2 UI
1 1

1 1
i
345 LF (25)
-?
1 1

2005 PERMIT 1 PAGE

C31arlo tl'DOa
INTERNATIONAL AIRS ¦T FILE NAME: WETLANDS\2005 PERMIT 1\2005 FINAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT - PAGE 06 ON 8 x 11.MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2005 SCALE. 1- = 400' 6

C

r l w I IS
136 LF (17)? 4 5
' 6 7
8 9
10 11 12
1W WETLAND! 16
L 0.458 AC (6) ? 13 14 15

1X PS --
1484 LF (18)
I

Rp p,0
0 0
0
LEGEND

PROJECT BOUNDARY
----- PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS)
- - - - - IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (IIS)
UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (UI)
PONDS
WETLANDS
LF LINEAR FEET

2005 PERMIT 1 PAGE

Charlotte. ?
IMT[IMATIOMAI Ally lT FlLE NAME: WETLANDS\2005 PERMIT 1\2005 FINAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT - PAGE 07 ON 8 x 11.MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2005 SCALE: 1' = 400' 7
•
C
•

/ r r r

4 5
,
1 T1 POND 6 7
1 2.214 AC (5) V1 IIS
1 1 1700 LF (24) $ 9
1 1 ?
1 1 ' "Z

1 1 ? -

10 11 12

13 14 15 :]6

U1 UI
1
1 1 463 LF (23)
WEL` R
1 1 S2 IIS
694 LF (22) NE
1 1
1 R1 UI
235 LF (29)
1 1
1 f - -
r-
1 I 1 Q1 WETLAND ;
1 0.221 AC (5) I`I
1 1 _
1 1 11 Its
1 1 2127 LF (26) N1 UI
f ? M1 UI ?
472 LF (30) 1,042 LF (31)
1 f. F
R
O
", SCh,

'
1 %
' a
q0
M1 IIS
`
629 LF (30)

8
LEGEND
PROJECT BOUNDARY L1 IIS 5 L! 01F 3 (I2)
----- PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS) 260 LF (28) N1 IIS
- - - - - IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT 254 LF (31)
STREAM CHANNEL (IIS)
r
K1 IIS A WETLAND
?- UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (UI)
120 LF (27) 0.409 AC (12)
PONDS
WETLANDS A POND
LF LINEAR FEET 2.045 AC (6)

2005 PERMIT 1 PA
GE
G
Charkae-E)OU
I,,,,,A,,O,AL AIA FILE NAME: WETLANDS\2005 PERMIT 12005 FINAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT -PAGE 08 ON 8x 11.MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2005 SCALE: 1' = 400' V

C:
0
4 5
r
?n
6 7
8 9
r

O 10 11 12
16
13 14 15
PD
2-9

?-o
P RpP?
uP ???'
O
O
O

LEGEND
PROJECT BOUNDARY
----- PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS)
- - - - - IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (IIS)
UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (UI)
PONDS
WETLANDS
Q LF LINEAR FEET

2005 PERMIT 1 PAGE
9
Charlotte-Douglas
INTERNATIONAL AIRS ¦T FILE NAME: WETLANDS 2W5 PERMIT 1\2005 FINIAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT -PAGE 09 ON 8x 11.MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2005 SCALE: 1' =400'

C
i
4 5 i
1
6 7 1

8
9 1
i
- 1
1 JHl UI
10 11 12
i `40 LF (33)
16 i
13 ,
14 15 % F1 IIS
1277 LF (34)
1 1 ?
'
1 1
?
F1 UI
i ?. 552 LF (34)
1 1 `
1 1 `.

1 1 ' ?\
G WETLAND
i 0.012 AC (7)
1 - DIXIE RI tr
i 1 _----- ER Ro s
1
1 1 J
1 I
1 ,
1 ,
1 ,
1 1
1 1
LEGEND

PROJECT BOUNDARY
----- PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS)
- - - - • IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (IIS)
UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (UI)
PONDS
WETLANDS
LF LINEAR FEET

.ve 2005 PERMIT 1 PAGE

C•??
INT[[NATIONAI AI[1 [T FILE NAME: WETLANDS\2W5 PERMIT 1\2005 FINAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT - PAGE 10 ON 8 x 11.MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2005 SCALE: 1- = 400' 1 0
•

•
LEGEND
4 5

PROJECT BOUNDARY
6 7 _
PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS)
8 9 ENT
IMPORTANT
n(
e

IIS)
TREAM CHANNEL
S
I
37) ____- UNIMPORTANT INTERM
(236 ITTENT
10 1 1 12 STREAM CHANNEL (UI)
16 PONDS
13 14 15 WETLANDS
LF LINEAR FEET

i
1
'. 2U IIS
1541 LF (37)

2V WETLAND
0.140 AC (8)

2S1 IIS '
68 LF (35)
2R1 IIS
231 LF (36)
2T WETLAND
0.057 AC (9)
2Y U l
2X UI 273 LF (45)
300 LF (44)l 2Y I'S
57 LF (45)

? \? 1 1
2X IIS
1x-
. 1,564 LF (44) r=:,

? r

2005 PERMIT 1 PAGE
1
Charlofte-Dousdas
INT-ATIOM?I •Ilt li FILE NAME:WETLANDS\2005 PERMIT 1\2005 FINAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT -PAGE 11 ON 8x 11.MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2005 SCALE: 1' = 400
1
C
0
C

LEGEND

PROJECT BOUNDARY
----- PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS)
-
- IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (IIS)
I =___= UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (UI)
PONDS
I WETLANDS
LF LINEAR FEET

1 Z
\ Z
- ?
` \ G7
r

tr
`
' m

HANGAR ROAD

' STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT
/
AREA
!
!

4 5
! 2Q-2P-2N PS
k 3,352 LF (58) 6 7
! 8 9
f ,
' 10 11 12
CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS 13 14 15 16
I

2005 PERMIT 1 PAGE

Chark*te-lDoL4dw
INTKIINATIONAI AIRS ¦T FILE NAME: WETLANDS\2005 PERMIT 1\2005 FINAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT - PAGE 12 ON 8 x 11.MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2005 SCALE: 1- = 400' 12
In
r:
0
Al PS D1 UI
1 126 LF (38)
?
B1 UI 1951 LF (41)j
49 LF
40 = -
f
(
) I- ,
1 1 ,' Al UI
1493 LF (41) j Cl UI
170 LF (39)
1 1
1 I E1 IIS
210 LF (42 E1 UI
) 320 LF (42)
r 1
LEGEND

PROJECT BOUNDARY 0
5
---
----- PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS) ?
Q?
- - - - - IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (IIS)
--
1A UI
UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT 1B UI 264 LF (46)
STREAM CHANNEL (UI) 171 LF (47)
PONDS
I
?I
LF WETLANDS
LINEAR FEET -----
1B IIS ? ' -
- /
418 LF (47)
r ,
1
r
1
1 ,?
r

.: _ 1A IIS
4 5 1 1,220 LF (46) ;
i
6 7
8 9
10 11 12
U13 14 15 16

2005 PERMIT 1 PAGE

1M a Ne-I ou *r FILE NAME: WETLANDS\2005 PERMIT 1\2005 FINAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT - PAGE 13 ON 8 x 1 1.MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2005 SCALE: V = 400- 1 3
U

I

STORMWATER _
MANAGEMENT
AREA 2W IIS I
892 LF (43) I
CONSTRUCTION I
LIMITS
4 5 ?

6 7
g g ?D 3F WETLAND
410AC(11)
160 1
10 11 12 Sot . I
13 14 15 16 .?i
I
3G WETLAND
0.165 AC (10) _
STORMWATER

MANAGEMENT
3E IIS
94 LF (52)
AREA
O CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS
rn
0 vi
LEGEND

PROJECT BOUNDARY
PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS)

- - - - IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (IIS)

co = UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (UI)
y _ PONDS
WETLANDS
LF LINEAR FEET

2005 PERMIT 1 PAGE

Chadoft
'NTT e- ?D on
'RNATION
-I LE NAME: WETLANDS\2005 PERMIT 112005 FINAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT - PAGE 14 ON 8 x 11.MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2005 SCALE: V= 400'
14
C?
•
•
'
' STORMWATER
VD A
/ MANAGEMENT B L
.
AREA WIEST

2G (Coffey Creek) P;
t 386 LF (48) '

-

t f I 2L IIS N

1
295 LF (50)
,
C

,?STORMWATER. `D

MANAGEMENT `Z
2K (Coffe
Creek) PS
i. _.
-" -
1 ,,
y
AREA m
592 LF
49
,
(
)
2H & 3D IIS ,
1,468 LF (51) ; 1J1 POND
' 0.232 AC (7)
?tE No ID POND
RUM DR1 0.849 AC (8)
I
Y
8

55
513 LF (
)
11 WETLAND
0.048 AC (13)

1D IIS
517 LF
53
?
(
)

63 LF (57)

45 LF (56)

u -."t a
f ? I
LEGEND
1 E (Coffey CreeK) PS
5 4 5
PROJECT BOUNDARY .
1,642 LF (54) J , ?O r
6 7,
---- PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS)
- - - - IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (IIS)

9
WIEST
__= UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT
STREAM CHANNEL (UI) 10 11 : 12
PONDS
WETLANDS 13 14 15 16
LF LINEAR FEET

2005 PERMIT 1 PAGE

riA.? FILE NAME: WETLANDS\2W5 PERMIT 1 12005 FINAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT • PAGE 15 ON 8 x 1 1.MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2005 SCALE: 1- = 400' 15
•

112005 PERMIT 1 I PAGE
!-'"o"6W FILE NAME: WETLANDS\2W5 PERMIT 1\2005 FINAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT -PAGE 16 ON S x 11.MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2005 SCALE: 1'=11'1 16

C
Charlotte-
F
4 5
7
8 9
fl
14 15
GRADE
REEK BED
WEST EXPANSION MASTER PLAN PAGE
ru comic nwwa.w Limon Poo= sw "1001011 1A11@ NNW= kmu r.rw 17
CROSS SECTION A-A
TYPICAL ROAD CROSS SECTION
nnnnnc•rn
4 $
a 7
it
14 15
PROPOSED FI11

GRADE
-L/?IJIIIrV VRMVG
Charlotte -Douglas l xzwAm. nwwawr.u.atM
WEST EXPANSION MASTER PLAN
1.8..
Pro= wa: 131001w1 1 minim mumom I SmL. 1.. 4w
CROSS SECTION C-C
PROPOSED RUNWAY & TAXIWAY
ELEV. 710' f
•

a
a
x'
a
0

•
Appendix A
Alternative Analysis
•
0
CHAPTER THREE - ALTERNATIVES FINAL
"Jump Start" process included representatives from the airport, airlines, FAA, and
local planning agencies. The second phase evaluation was to examine the shortlisted
alternatives in greater detail and modify those alternatives based on additional
analysis.
The initial "jump-start" evaluation resulted in a shortlist of alternatives that satisfied
the following CLT (airport sponsor) criteria: meet the 20-year arrival and .departure
demand requirements, minimize off-airport impacts, minimize on-airport impacts,
and maximize runway use flexibility. The conclusions reached from this evaluation
were:
• New runway development to the east of the existing airfield would be more
disruptive to the neighboring community, has higher development cost, and
conflicts with the use of Runway 23 for arrivals.
• New runways less than 7,000 feet in length do not serve jet aircraft which is
the predominant aircraft using CLT. Shorter runways, which do not serve
jet aircraft, do not deliver sufficient capacity to serve future capacity needs
of the airport.
• New parallel runways which are spaced less than 2,500 feet from current
• runways cannot serve as a third arrival or a third departure runway.
• While there is some need for additional departure runway capacity, the
predominant need for additional runway capacity is for arrivals.. Thus,
runway lengths in excess of 9,000 feet are not necessary, because this length
is sufficient to serve all aircraft in the airlines' fleets.
The result of the "jump-start" process was the selection of three airfield development
concepts that were proposed to be carried forward for further analysis. The shortlist
of alternatives included:
• New 9,000-foot runway spaced 2,500 feet west of existing
Runway 18R/36L
New 9,000-foot runway spaced 3,400 feet west of existing
Runway 18R/36L
• New 9,000-foot runway spaced 5,000 feet west of existing
Runway 18R/36L
All of the proposed runway development alternatives would require acquisition of all
the land west of the airport to the proposed Outer Beltway (I-485) in order to
accommodate the runway and associated parallel and connector taxiways.
Residential and commercial properties in this area would need to be acquired and
relocated.
CHARLomEffiouG sINTERNATIONALAIRPORTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENT Page 3-20
November, 1999
CHAPTER THREE - ALTERNATIVES FINAL
The second phase of the evaluation process evaluated the selected alternatives on the
following criteria: additional peak-period capacity, acceptable taxiing distances and
times, development costs, aircraft noise impacts, long-range development
preservation (beyond the 20-year Master Plan horizon development requirements),
and compatibility with future FAA ATC technological advances.
In addition to the shortlisted alternatives, the proposed runway alternative from the
previous Master Plan was included as part of the evaluation process. This
alternative, a parallel runway at a separation of 1,200 feet from existing Runway
18R/36L, does not meet the airside facility requirements as identified. However, it
was necessary to draw a comparison to the shortlisted alternatives.
The three shortlisted alternatives were modified to account for separation
requirements associated with the runway threshold staggers. Also, the runway
separation standard was reduced by the FAA in 1996 from 5,000 feet to 4,300 feet.
Therefore, 4,300 feet of separation is the minimum separation that is required to
conduct triple independent instrument (IFR-instrument flight rules) operations. As a
result, the following alternatives were included in the detailed evaluation process:
• New 9,000-foot runway spaced 1,200 feet from existing Runway 18R/36L'o
• New 9,000-foot runway spaced 2,700 feet from existing Runway 18R/36L31
• New 9,000-foot runway spaced 3,700 feet from existing Runway 18R/36L32
• New 9,000-foot runway spaced 4,300 feet from existing Runway 18R/36L31
Exhibit 3-1 shows all of the runway configuration alternatives in the Sponsor's
Proposed Action evaluation. The close-in alternatives (1,200 feet and 2,700 feet
separation) were eliminated from further analysis because neither would provide the
capability of triple independent arrivals under IFR. Both alternatives would cause
operational delays for both arriving and departing traffic and result in noise events
occurring into the more sensitive nighttime hours.34 There would also be direct
overflights of three schools located south of the airport. In addition, neither
alternative would be compatible with future air traffic control technology advances
because it is not likely that future technology would allow triple independent IFR
arrivals at these proposed separations.
3o This alternative is referred to as "Alternative A" in the Charlotte/Douglas International Airport Master Plan
Study Update, Final, January, 1998, prepared by Landrum & Brown, Incorporated.
31 This alternative is referred to as "Alternative B" in the Charlotte/Douglas International Airport Master Plan
Study Update, Final, January, 1998, prepared by Landrum & Brown, Incorporated.
32 This alternative is referred to as "Alternative C" in the Charlotte/Douglas International Airport Master Plan
Study Update, Final, January, 1998, prepared by Landrum & Brown, Incorporated.
33 This alternative is referred to as "Alternative D" in the CharlottelDouglas International Airport Master Plan
Study Update, Final, January, 1998, prepared by Landrum & Brown, Incorporated.
34 Operational delays would increase the likelihood that the arrival and departure times of aircraft would be
deferred to the nighttime hours -- between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
CHARLOTTE/DouGLAs INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-21
November, 1999
CHAPTER THREE - ALTERNATIVES FINAL

The construction of a 9,000-foot north/south parallel runway, spaced approximately
1,200 feet or 2,700 feet west of existing Runway 18RI36L would not meet the need
(as outlined in Chapter Two) of providing sufficient airfield capacity or reducing
delay during peak operating periods. Therefore, these alternatives are not carried
forward in the detailed assessment of environmental consequences provided in
Chapter Five.
9,000-Foot North/South Parallel Runway, Spaced Approximately 3,700 Feet
West of Existing Runway 18R/36L
This alternative provides additional peak-period capacity allowing for independent
arrivals and departures during VFR (visual flight rules); independent departures
during IFR, and dependent arrivals during IFR (instrument flight rules). Taxiing
distance and times would be longer than is currently experienced between the two
existing parallel runways. The development cost is estimated at $59.4 million,
which is in the mid-range of the alternatives to develop. This alternative provides for
delay reduction, thereby reducing delays into the night (noise-sensitive) hours."
The development of this option provides adequate area to locate a future parallel
runway between existing Runway 18R/36L and the proposed third parallel runway at
a 3,700-foot separation. This alternative would ensure adequate area to
accommodate long-range airport development and ensure compatible land use
planning near the airport.
This alternative would be compatible with future ATC technology advancements. It
is highly likely that future technology would permit triple IFR arrivals prior to the
requirement to develop a fourth parallel runway.
The construction of a 9, 000 foot north/south parallel runway, spaced approximately
3,700 feet west of existing Runway 18RI36L would meet the need (as outlined in
Chapter Two) of providing sufficient airfield capacity or reducing delay during peak
operating periods. Therefore, this alternative is carried forward in the detailed
assessment of environmental consequences provided in Chapter Five.
9,000-Foot North/South Parallel Runway, Spaced Approximately 4,300 Feet
West of Existing Runway 18R/36L
This alternative provides additional peak period capacity allowing for independent
arrivals and departures during. VFR, independent departures during IFR, and
independent arrivals during IFR. . This alternative provides the highest delay
reduction benefits. The taxiing distance and times would be the highest of all
alternatives. The development cost is estimated at $63.2 million, which makes it the
highest cost of all of the alternatives to develop. In addition, this option would
•
35 See Footnote 31.
CHARLOTTE/DOUCLAs INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-22
November, 1999
CHAPTER THREE- ALTERNATIVES FINAL
W
•
require the westward relocation of the proposed I-485 Outer Beltway to
accommodate the applicable safety areas and satisfy FAA obstruction [FAR Part 77]
requirements. Noise impacts would be spread into areas west of I-485 and arrivals
would be routed directly over residential areas north of the airport. Ground noise
would be moved nearer residential areas west of airport.
Like the 3,700-foot alternative discussed in the previous section, the development of
this alternative provides adequate area to locate a future parallel runway between
existing Runway 18R/36L and the proposed third parallel runway. This would
ensure adequate area to accommodate long-range airport development and ensure
compatible land use planning near the airport. Also, a reconfiguration of the planned
Outer Beltway may delay the implementation of the new runway development
beyond the proposed phasing schedule (Phase I). This alternative is also compatible
with future ATC technology enhancements.
The construction of a 9, 000 foot north/south parallel runway, spaced approximately
4,300 feet west of existing Runway 18RI36L would meet the needs (as outlined in
Chapter Two) of providing sufficient airfield capacity and reducing delay during
peak operating periods. Therefore, this alternative is carried forward in the detailed
assessment of environmental consequences provided in Chapter Five.
0- 3.3.1.2 Runway Extension Alternatives
The airfield requirement analysis performed in this environmental analysis resulted
in the recommendation of 12,000 feet of departure capability. This runway length
would enable a Boeing 747-200 to serve destinations on the Pacific Rim on a warm
summer day with no payload restrictions. All three existing runways (18L/36R,
18R/36L, and 5/23), as well as the proposed third parallel runway were considered as
candidates for a runway extension.
Extension of Runway 5/23
Extending Runway 5/23 would require an extension of 4,499 feet to provide
12,000 feet in departure capacity. It would not be feasible to extend this
runway to the northeast due to the proximity and location of Norfolk Southern
Railroad, Josh Birmingham Parkway, and Billy Graham Parkway. Extending
this runway to the southwest would create a runway intersection with Runway
18R/36L causing additional air traffic control coordination effort.
Therefore, the proposed extension to Runway 5123 was not carried forward for
further analysis in this FEIS.
Extension of Runwav 18L/36R
Extending Runway 18L/36R would require an extension of at least 3,800 feet
• to provide 12,000-foot departure capability. A 3,800-foot extension would be
necessary to provide the requisite safety area on Runway 18L. It would not be
CHARLO77E1DOUCL,4s INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-23
November, 1999
CHAPTER THREE - ALTERNATIVES FINAL
•
feasible to extend this runway to the north due to the proximity and location of
Norfolk Southern Railroad and the Josh Birmingham Parkway. An extension
to the south would require the relocation of West Boulevard, Byrum Drive, and
require the reconfiguration of the West Boulevard/Yorkmont Road intersection
and would require the airport to acquire a large amount of land to accommodate
the runway and affected roadways.
Therefore, the proposed extension to Runway 18LI36R was not carried forward
for further analysis in this FEIS.
Extension of the Proposed Third Parallel Runway
Four extension options were identified to achieve a 12,000-foot departure
capability on the proposed third parallel runway."' None of these options were
considered for further analysis because, from an airfield operational
perspective, departures should be conducted on the runway(s) closest to the
terminal area and the proposed third parallel runway would be located farthest
from the terminal area. In addition, there would be increased taxi time and
distance for aircraft to reach the departure ends of the proposed runway
particularly with any type of a runway extension.
For these two reasons, the proposed extension to the proposed new runway
was not carried forward for further analysis in this FEIS.
Extension of Runwav 18R/36L
Two alternatives to extend existing Runway 18R/36L to 12,000 feet were
identified.37 The first alternative proposed extensions of 1,294 feet to the north
end and 562 feet to the south end and required the use of declared distance
criteria to provide adequate runway end safety areas. However, with these
extensions, and by applying the declared distance criteria, only a maximum
take-off distance of 11,506 feet in each direction could be achieved. This
distance, however falls 494 feet short of the 12,000-foot requirement identified.
Therefore, the proposed extension to Runway 18RI36L was not carried forward
for further analysis in this FEIS.
The second alternative to extending Runway 18R/36L to 12,000 requires
relocating either West Boulevard or the Norfolk and Southern Railroad. Of
these two options, the Sponsor's Proposed Action determined that relocating
West Boulevard cost less than relocating the railroad. Therefore, the Sponsor's
36 These alternatives are referred to as "Alternative I," "Alternative 2," "Alternative 3," and "Alternative 4" in the
CharlottelDouglas International Airport Master Plan Study Update, Final, January, 1998, prepared by
Landrum & Brown, Incorporated.
37 These alternatives are referred to as "Alternative 5" and "Alternative 6" in the CharlottelDouglas International
Airport Master Plan Study Update, Final, January, 1998, prepared by Landrum & Brown, Incorporated.
CHARLOTTE1D000L 4s INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-24
November, 1999
CHAPTER THREE - ALTERNATIVES FINAL
i
Proposed Action proposed extending Runway 18R/36L to the south by
2,000 feet.38 This extension would require the relocation of West Boulevard
around the south end of the airport initiating from the east near the Runway
36R end and tied into the I-485 interchange with West Boulevard. The most
notable benefit of the runway extension would be the increased operational
utility of the runway for Boeing 747-200 aircraft which would be able to depart
from this runway with minimal or no payload restriction on long stage-length
routes. Aircraft needing the extra length would not be required to cross a
runway and the extension would not have any impact on the existing
TVOR/DME facility. In addition, the runway extension and roadway
relocation would provide an area for additional air cargo or aviation-related
development east of the runway extension.
An additional benefit of the proposed runway extension would be its mitigating
effect on aircraft noise impacts. The extension would reduce noise impacts
because aircraft departing from Runway 36L would be at higher altitudes over
noise-sensitive areas to the north.
Therefore, this alternative, in conjunction with the relocation of West
Boulevard, was selected as the Sponsor's Proposed Project and was included
on the proposed revised ALP.
0- 3.3.1.3 Summary -- Runway Extension Alternatives
The runway extension alternatives represent one component of the Sponsor's
Proposed Project. The proposed construction of a 2, 000 foot extension on the
southern end of Runway 18RI36L would be the only alternative to meet the
need of providing sufficient runway length to accommodate potential air
transportation demand (long-range aircraft departures to destinations on the
Pacific Rim). The development of this project would result as a consequence
of implementing this alternative or as an element of the proposed action
alternative. Therefore, the alternatives which incorporate the proposed
2,000-foot runway extension on the south end of Runway 18R/36L together
with the required no-build alternative are carried forward in the detailed
assessment of environmental consequences provided in Chapter Five. The
landside projects are described in the Chapter 2, Section 2.5. These projects
are included in all airside alternatives including Alternative 2.
E 38 This alternative is referred to as "Alternative 5" in the Charlotte/Douglas International Airport Master Plan
Study Update, Final, January, 1998, prepared by Landrum & Brown, Incorporated.
CHARLOTTEIDOUCLASINTERNATIONAL AIRPORTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENT Page 3-25
November, 1999
CHAPTER THREE - ALTERNATIVES
FINAL
3.3.2 Landside Projects
3.3.2.1 Terminal Alternatives
Because the need to provide sufficient terminal gate capacity for commuter
aircraft, and domestic and international jet aircraft would result as a
consequence of implementing the development alternative, as presented in
Chapter 2, Purpose and Need, Section 2.5.1 there is no other reasonable,
prudent, feasible, or practicable development alternative that provides the
required functional design. The existing terminal facilities can be improved to
meet CLT's future needs, and thus it is more reasonable to improve the existing
facilities than to build new ones. Therefore, the recommendation would be to
implement the Sponsor's Proposed Project or to take no action (no-build).
Therefore, the terminal projects as outlined in the Sponsor's Proposed Project
and the No Action/No-Build Alternative are carried forward in the detailed
assessment of environmental consequences provided in Chapter Five.
3.3.2.2 Ancillary Facility Alternatives
Because the need to provide sufficient ancillary facilities to support the
potential increase in air transportation demand would result as a consequence
of implementing the development alternative, as presented in Chapter Two,
Purpose and Need, Section 2.5.1 there is no other reasonable, prudent, feasible,
or practicable development alternative that provides the required functional
design. The existing ancillary facilities can be improved to meet CLT's future
needs, and thus it is more reasonable to improve the existing facilities than to
build new ones. Therefore, the recommendation would be to implement the
Sponsor's Proposed Project or to take no action (no-build). Therefore, the
ancillary facility projects as outlined in the Sponsor's Proposed Project and the
No-Action/No-Build Alternative are carried forward in the detailed assessment
of environmental consequences provided in Chapter Five.
3.3.3 Approved Noise Abatement Air Traffic Actions and Associated Land Use
Compatibility Actions
This FEIS assesses environmentally the impact of implementing the Phase I and Phase II
noise abatement air traffic measures (previously approved by the FAA on regulatory,
non-environmental assessment grounds) that were contained in the 1997 Update of CLT's
Part 150 Noise Compatibility Plan. These actions are identified as "Phase I" measures
which abate the noise impacts of aircraft operations with the airfield in its existing
configuration, and "Phase II" measures which abate the noise impacts of aircraft operations
with the development of a new north/south parallel runway and a 2,000-foot extension to
Runway 18R/36L. The noise abatement air traffic measures to be environmentally
assessed are:
•
CH.IRLO77VDouGL 4s INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-26
November, 1999
CHAPTER THREE -ALTERNATIVES FINAL
•
Phase I Air Traffic Measures
• Continue periodic monitoring procedures (initiated as a result of the 1990
approved noise abatement air traffic actions and associated land use compatibility
actions) within the airport environs.
• Provide monthly reports on late night (11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) runway
utilization and variances from approved noise abatement and air traffic
assumptions to Air Traffic Control Tower management and frequent nighttime
operators.
• Designate Runways 18R or 18L as preferred for takeoffs by turbojet and large
four-engine prop aircraft between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. when, under the
current preferential runway use program, Runway 23 cannot be used for reasons
of wind, weather, operational necessity, or required runway length.
• Departing Runway 18R, turbojet and large four-engine prop aircraft maintain
runway heading to 4 DME south of the CLT VORTAC.
• Designate a location for US Airways maintenance run-ups on the company
maintenance apron, with orientations aligned with Runway 5/23.
0 • Departing Runways 36R and 36L, turbojet and large four-engine prop aircraft
initiate turns at the 2.6 and 2.5 DME north of the CLT VORDME, respectively.
Phase II Air Traffic Measures
• On commissioning a third parallel runway west of Runway 18R/36L, establish an
initial departure turn, as soon as practicable, by turbojets and four-engine prop
aircraft to a heading of 195 degrees from Runway 17.40
• On commissioning a third parallel runway west of Runway 18R/36L, establish an
initial departure turn, as soon as practicable, by turbojets and four-engine prop
aircraft to a heading of 315 degrees from Runway 35.41
Because the need to enhance the human environment by reducing noise impacts on
surrounding communities would result as a consequence of a build alternative, the
only alternatives are to implement the proposed noise abatement air traffic measures
or to take no action. The 1997 FAR Part 150 Study Update Record of Approval was
received on March 30, 1998.42
4o The proposed new runway is designated as Runway 17/35.
41 See Footnote 40.
42 Charlotte/Douglas International Airport FAR Par! ISO Study Update, Final, August, 1997, prepared by
Landrum & Brown, Incorporated. To review the allernatives evaluation, see Appendix B, Noise Abatement and
Land Use Alternatives, of the Part 150 document. The FAA approved this Part 150 Study Update and issued its
Record of Approval dated March 30, 1998.
CHARLOTTE/DOUCLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENV/RONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-27
November, 1999
CHAPTER THREE - ALTERNATIVES FINAL
0
Therefore, both the alternative which incorporates the recommendations resulting
from the Part 150 Update process and the no action alternative are carried forward
in the detailed assessment of environmental consequences provided in Chapter Five.
3.4 Alternatives to be Environmentally Assessed
Based upon its systematic evaluation of the full range of potential alternatives, the City of
Charlotte, as airport sponsor, selected and requests FAA action and approval of the combination
of a new third north/south parallel runway and (Sponsor's Proposed Project Alternative C, a
9,000-foot runway spaced 3,700 feet from existing Runway 18R/36L) a runway extension to
create a runway 12,000 feet in length (Sponsor's Proposed Project Alternative 5, a 2,000-foot
extension to Runway 18R/36L). Along with the implementation of the 2001 approved noise
abatement air traffic and associated land use compatibility actions, and the landside and ancillary
facilities, these projects together represent the Proposed Federal Action. These development
alternatives provide a proposed project which best addresses the total composite of all the
airport's needs.
3.4.1 Proposed Federal Action
The Proposed Federal Action is to approve the Sponsor's Proposed Project which includes
the construction of the proposed third north/south parallel runway at a 3,700-foot
separation and the 2,000-foot southerly extension to Runway 18R/36L. The proposed
construction of the new runway is the airport's preferred way of achieving sufficient
airfield capacity and reducing delay during peak operating periods. The proposed
construction of the 2,000-foot runway extension is its preferred way of achieving sufficient
runway length to accommodate potential air transportation demand (long-range aircraft
departures to destinations on the Pacific Rim). Improved terminal gate capacity for
commuter aircraft, and domestic and international jet aircraft along with the necessary
supporting ancillary facilities would be accomplished through the expansion of the existing
terminal and upgrading of the existing roadway and parking systems.
A detailed description of the Sponsor's Proposed Project is listed below. Exhibit 3-2,
along with Exhibits 2-1 through 2-10 shown previously, illustrate the locations of the
Proposed Federal Action. The following paragraphs describe each of the airfield
development items included in the Proposed Federal Action.
• Construct a new 9,000-foot independent IFR approach runway, parallel to and
3,700 feet west of existing Runway 18R/36L to improve airfield operational
flexibility and result in increased capacity and reduced delay.
• Site, purchase, install, and flight check all necessary navigation aids and lighting
to support the proposed development
• Implementation of necessary air traffic control procedures to support the proposed
development '
CH,4RLOT7E/DouGL1s INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-28
November, 1999
CHAPTER THREE -ALTERNATIVES FINAL
i
• Extend Runway 18R/36L from its current length of 10,000 feet to a length of
12,000 feet by constructing a 2,000-foot southerly extension with parallel and
connecting taxiways and associated lighting and navigational aids.
• Relocate West Boulevard around the south end of the airport from east of Runway
36R west to the proposed I-485 interchange and close Byrum Road to
accommodate the extension to Runway 18R/36L.
• Relocate Wallace-Neel Road, just east of and parallel to the proposed I-485 Outer
Beltway, on airport property purchased for the new third parallel runway project.
• Relocate Old Dowd Road to north of the new third parallel runway, keeping clear
of the Runway 18R Runway Safety Area (RSA) and Runway Object Free Area
(OFA) to accommodate the new proposed runway.
• Extend Concourse A to accommodate additional jet bridges and additional aircraft
parking positions in the near term for either current non-hub airlines or gates for
an additional carrier to introduce service to CLT.
• Extend Concourse B to provide 11 additional jet bridge positions (for a total of
27) capable of accommodating Boeing 757-size aircraft. The extension would
supplement hub operations and accommodate the potential for lost jet positions on
Concourse D associated with increased international demand.
• Relocate.the Federal Inspection Services facilities within Concourse D, east of the
expanded baggage claim area, to allow for the future expansion of the concourse.
• Expand Concourse D to allow for additional hold rooms and related facilities to
accommodate a larger seating capacity for wide-body international transoceanic
aircraft. The concourse expansion would require the relocation of commuter
aircraft parking positions currently located in this area.
• Develop two remote concourses accessible from Concourse D, via underground
passenger tunnels with moving walkways, to accommodate the increase in
commuter aircraft traffic associated with hub operations. Each concourse would
contain 17 parking positions (a total of 34).
• Extend the lower level roadway to the east in front of the newly relocated FIS
facility to expand the arrival-level curb frontage.
• Reconfigure the ingress/egress of the existing parking structures only if a new
parking structure and/or hotel is developed. This reconfiguration would require
the relocation of the short-term. and daily toll booths, development of hotel
parking areas (either surface lots br parking deck), and an egress roadway for hotel
patrons to bypass the toll booths.
CmjuoTTE/DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-29
November, 1999
CHAPTER THREE - ALTERNATIVES FINAL
Develop approximately 1,050 new auto parking spaces between the existing
airport maintenance facility and the railroad right-of-way to accommodate
projected passenger traffic at the new commuter concourse. Access to these lots
can be maintained via the existing routes.
• Relocate 1,410 auto parking spaces in the "green lot" to west of existing Runway
End 18R and develop an additional 235 employee parking spaces. Access to the
new employee lot would be provided via a roadway from Old Dowd Road.
• Develop additional remote public parking facilities north of the terminal core area
to the west of the existing remote parking facility. This new lot would use the
existing toll plaza with minor expansion.
• Relocate all the rental car facilities due to the development of the remote jet
concourse. The area north of Wilkinson Boulevard would accommodate all
relocation requirements and long-term expansion needs. Access would be via a
connector road to Wilkinson Boulevard with airport access via Old Dowd Road.
• Develop approximately 360 additional employee parking spaces in the area near
the end of Runway 18R.
• Develop approximately 420 additional spaces for remote parking facilities directly
north of the terminal core area near the existing remote parking facilities.
• Develop an additional parking structure immediately north of the existing parking
decks. This development would be designed to either coincide with or be
compatible with development of a hotel located on top of the parking deck. The
development of an airport light rail system would be considered in the design of
the parking structures and hotel to ensure that access to the main terminal building
can be achieved.
Implement noise abatement air traffic actions and associated land use
compatibility actions approved in the updated Noise Compatibility Program.
NA4 Provide monthly reports on late night (11:00 p.m. to
7:00 a.m.) runway utilization and variances from NCP
assumptions to Air Traffic Control Tower management
and frequent nighttime operators. Conduct follow-up
with FAA and carriers to enhance voluntary adherence to
existing program. 'New measure.
NA-5 Designate Runways 18R or 18L as preferred for takeoffs
by turbojet and large four-engine prop aircraft between
11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. when, under the current
preferential runway use program, Runway 23 cannot be
used for reasons of wind, weather, operational necessity,
or required runway length. New measure.
CHARLOTTE/DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-30
November, 1999
CHAPTER THREE - ALTERNATIVES FINAL
s
NA-6 Departing Runway 18R, turbojet and large four-engine
prop aircraft maintain runway heading to 4 DME south of
the CLT VORTAC. New measure.
NA-7 Designate a location for US Airways maintenance run-ups
on the company maintenance apron, with orientations
aligned with Runway 5/23. Revision of existing
procedures.
NA-8 Departing Runways 36R and 36L, turbojet and large four-
engine prop aircraft initiate turns at the 2.6 and 2.5 DME
north of the CLT VORDME, respectively. Modification
of current operating procedures.
NA-9 On construction of a third parallel runway west of Runway
18R/36L, establish an initial departure turn, as soon as
practicable, by turbojets and four-engine prop aircraft to a
heading of 195 degrees from Runway 17. New measure.
NA-10 On construction of a third parallel runway west of Runway
18R/36L, establish an initial departure turn, as soon as
practicable, by turbojets and four-engine prop aircraft to a
heading of 315 degrees from Runway 35. New measure.
•
• Acquire approximately 1,475 acres of land for airfield development that includes
the acquisition and relocation of approximately 123 residential structures and 32
businesses to accommodate the proposed new runway.
Compensate for impacts to approximately 2.0 acres of wetlands, 5,400 feet of
intermittent streams, 6,780 feet of perennial streams (a total of 12,180 feet), 4.2
acres of identified open water-ponds, and 10,900 feet of identified small drains
caused by the development of the Proposed Federal Action.
3.4.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Federal Action
This chapter has summarized various alternatives to the Proposed Federal Action.
Proposed Federal Action involves the proposed construction of a new 9,000-foot Runway
17/35 (future 18R/36L) with associated taxiway improvements, and the development of a
2,000-foot extension to existing Runway 18R/36L (future 18C/36C). This EIS also
assesses the Federal action (which is part of each alternative) regarding installation of
navigational aides, airspace use, and approach and departure procedures associated with the
airside development along with the implementation of the following identified elements
depicted on the proposed, revised ALP: terminal development projects to extend
Concourse A, construct a new commuter concourse, extend the terminal building to
relocate the Federal Inspection Services, extend the lower level roadway, extend Concourse
B to provide 11 additional jet bridge positions, expand Concourse D to allow for additional
hold rooms and related facilities, and develop two remote concourses accessible from
Concourse D; landside development projects to expand Loop Road, relocate the rental car
CHARLOTTE/DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-31
November, 1999
CHAPTER THREE - ALTERNATIVES FINAL
area, reconfigure the hotel ingress/egress, relocate employee parking, develop additional
long-term parking; and roadway relocation projects for West Boulevard, Wallace Neel
Road, and Old Dowd Road, acquire approximately 1,475 acres of land for proposed airfield
development which includes the acquisition and relocation of approximately 123
residential structures and 32 businesses, and mitigate the potential impacts to
approximately 2.0 acres of wetlands, 5,400 feet of intermittent streams, 6,780 feet of
perennial streams (a total of 12,180 feet), 4.2 acres of identified open water-ponds, and
10,900 feet of identified small drains. As is noted, six feasible alternatives exist to the
Proposed Federal Action: 1) the implementation of the 1997 approved noise abatement air
traffic actions and associated land use compatibility actions (Alternative 1), 2)
implementation of No-Action/No-Build (Alternative 2), 3) the implementation of the 2001
approved noise abatement air traffic actions and associated land use compatibility actions
(Alternative 3), 4) the construction of a new third parallel runway at a 3,700-foot separation
along with implementing the 2001 approved noise abatement air traffic actions and
associated land use compatibility actions (Alternative 4), 5) the construction of a new third
parallel runway at a 4,300-foot separation along with implementing the 2001 approved
noise abatement air traffic actions and associated land use compatibility actions
(Alternative 5), and 6) construct a 2,000-foot extension to Runway 18R/36L along with
implementing the 2001 approved noise abatement air traffic actions and associated land use
compatibility actions (Alternative 6). The following paragraphs describe the actions
considered under each of the alternatives.
. • Alternative 1: Implementation of the 1997 Approved Noise Abatement Air
Traffic Actions and Associated Land Use Compatibility Actions Only: The
implementation of the 1997 approved noise abatement air traffic actions and
associated land use compatibility actions shown in Exhibit 3-3, would abate the
noise impacts generated by aircraft operations on the existing airfield
configuration. Implementing these actions would not contribute directly to
satisfying the need for sufficient airfield capacity, reduce delay during peak
operating periods, or provide sufficient runway length to accommodate potential
air transportation demand (long-range aircraft departures to destinations on the
Pacific Rim). The 1997 approved noise abatement air traffic actions and
associated land use compatibility actions are listed in Section 3.3.3, Approved
Noise Abatement Air Traffic Actions and Associated Land Use Compatibility
Actions, Phase I Measures.
Alternative 2: No-Build/No Action Alternative: The No-Build/No-Action
Alternative (2001 Baseline), shown in Exhibit 34, would result in the airport
runway configuration remaining as it is today. Therefore, future demand
requirements would not be satisfied, as identified in Chapter Two, Purpose and
Need. Also, any existing negative environmental and operational impacts of the
airport would not be reduced. Although this alternative may not be prudent, it is
feasible, and is one of the alternatives considered throughout this FEIS.
CHARLOTTE/DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-32
November, 1999
CHAPTER THREE - ALTERNATIVES FINAL
a
• Alternative 3: Implementation of the 2001 Approved Noise Abatement Air
Traffic Actions and Associated Land Use Compatibility Actions Only: The
implementation of the 2001 approved noise abatement air traffic actions and
associated land use compatibility actions shown in Exhibit 3-5, would abate the
noise impacts generated by aircraft operations on the existing airfield
configuration with future projected operations. Implementing these actions
would not contribute directly to satisfying the need for providing sufficient
airfield capacity, for reducing delay during peak operating periods, or for
providing sufficient runway length to accommodate potential air transportation
demand (long-range aircraft departures to destinations on the Pacific Rim). The
2001 approved noise abatement air traffic actions and associated land use
compatibility actions are listed in Section 3.3.3, Approved Noise Abatement Air
Traffic Actions and Associated Land Use Compatibility Actions, Phase I
Measures.
• Alternative 4: Construction of a New Third Parallel Runway with a 3,700 foot
Separation along with Implementing the 2001 Approved Noise Abatement Air
Traffic Actions and Associated Land Use Compatibility Actions: The
development program for this alternative, shown in Exhibit 3-6, would be almost
identical to that of the Proposed Federal Action. The primary difference is that
the 2,000-foot extension to third Runway 18R/36L would not be constructed.
This alternative would meet the stated need to provide sufficient airfield capacity
and reduce delay during peak operating periods. However, without the
development of the runway extension to provide for a 12,000-foot runway, the
need to provide sufficient runway length in order to accommodate potential air
transportation demand (long-range aircraft departures to destinations on the
Pacific Rim) would not be met. The 2001 approved noise abatement air traffic
actions and associated land use compatibility actions to be implemented are listed
in Section 3.3.3, Approved Noise Abatement Air Traffic Actions and Associated
Land Use Compatibility Actions, Phase I and Phase II Measures.
Alternative S: Construction of a New Third Parallel Runway with a 4,300 foot
Separation along with Implementing the 2001 Approved Noise Abatement Air
Traffic Actions and Associated Land Use Compatibility Actions: The
development program for this alternative, shown in Exhibit 3-7, would be almost
identical to that of Alternative 4. The primary difference is that the third parallel
north/south runway would be separated from existing Runway 18R/36L by a
distance of 4,300 feet instead of 3,700 feet. The 2001 approved noise abatement
air traffic actions and associated land use compatibility actions to be implemented
are listed in Section 3.3.3, Approved Noise Abatement Air Traffic Actions and
Associated Land Use Compatibility Actions, Phase I and Phase II Measures.
• Alternative 6: 2,000-Foot Extension of Runway 18RI36L along with
Implementing the 2001 Approved Noise Abatement Air Traffic Actions and
Associated Land Use CompatiNlity Actions: The development program for this
alternative, shown in Exhibit 3-8, would require considerably less land to be
acquired than the Proposed Federal Action -- 37 acres versus 1,475 acres (1,438
CHA)zLOTTE/DOUCLAs INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-33
November, 1999
CHAPTER THREE- ALTERNATIVES FINAL
acres for the proposed runway development and 37 acres for the proposed runway
extension). There would be no residential or business construction impacts with
this alternative. The 37 acres which would need to be acquired is primarily
undeveloped/vacant or contains the right-of-way for West Boulevard. All other
development projects (landside and ancillary facilities, and approved noise
abatement air traffic actions and associated land use compatibility actions), as
identified in the Sponsor's Proposed Project, would be implemented. The 2001
approved noise abatement air traffic to be implemented are listed in Section
3.3.3, Approved Noise Abatement Air Traffic Actions and Associated Land Use
Compatibility Actions, Phase I and II Measures.
3.5 Regulatory Framework for the FAA's Consideration of Reasonable Alternatives
Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the FAA has a responsibility to
explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, including those beyond the
jurisdiction of the FAA and CLT. For major Federal actions in which the Federal Government,
as a proprietor, plans and develops a Federal facility, the scope of alternatives considered by the
sponsoring Federal agency is wide ranging and comprehensive. However, where the sponsor is
not the Federal Government, but is a local government or private applicant, the Federal agency
role is necessarily more limited with substantial deference given to the preferences of the local
sponsor.
. Federal agencies may consider the applicant's purposes and needs and common sense realities of
a given situation in the development of alternatives. Federal agencies may also afford substantial
weight to the alternative preferred by the applicant, provided there is no substantially superior
alternative from an environmental standpoint.
3.5.1 Discussion
The FAA does not initiate airport development projects. Such projects require the
involvement of a local sponsor, which for the proposed action would be provided by the
City of Charlotte. It is, therefore, appropriate for the FAA to give substantial deference to
the recommendations of the sponsor in identifying reasonable alternatives and considering
whether alternatives meet both the national policy objectives expressed in the National
Transportation Policy (NTP) and the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991 (ISTEA), and the purposes and needs of CLT.
The FAA has identified and analyzed a wide range of both location and facility design
alternatives for meeting the purposes and needs presented in Chapter Two, Purpose and
Need. The FAA has applied a comprehensive range of operational, economic, engineering,
and environmental criteria in assessing whether alternatives would be feasible and prudent,
practicable, or reasonable. Through this process, the sponsor and the FAA identified the
Proposed Federal Action as its preferred alternative for meeting the purpose and need. The
FAA has independently reviewed the airport's process and has concluded that is was
acceptable and also appears consistent with the public policy objectives of the National
Transportation Policy Act and ISTEA.
CHARLOTTE/DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-34
November, 1999
CHAPTER THREE - ALTERNATIVES FINAL
The FAA has selected its preferred alternative (2001 approved noise abatement air traffic
actions and associated land use compatibility actions with a third parallel runway at 3,700-
foot separation and a 2,000-foot extension on the south end of Runway 18R/36L) which
satisfies those considerations consistent with the stated purpose and need. The FAA has
also found this alternative to be the least environmentally damaging practical alternative, or
otherwise known as the environmentally preferred alternative.
Accordingly, the reasonable alternatives selected by the FAA for detailed analysis in this
EIS include:
• 1997 Noise Abatement Air Traffic Actions and Associated Land Use
Compatibility Actions Only (Alternative 1)
• 2001 Baseline (No-Build/No-Action) (Alternative 2)
• 2001 Noise Abatement Air Traffic Actions and Associated Land Use
Compatibility Actions Only (Alternative 3)
• 2001 Noise
Compatibility
(Alternative 4)
• 2001 Noise
Compatibility
(Alternative 5)
Abatement Air Traffic Actions and Associated Land Use
Actions with a Third Parallel Runway at 3,700-Foot Separation
Abatement Air Traffic Actions and Associated Land Use
Actions with a Third Parallel Runway at 4,300-Foot Separation
• 2001 Noise Abatement Air Traffic Actions And Associated Land Use
Compatibility Actions with 2,000-Foot Extension on the South End of
Runway 18R/36L (Alternative 6)
• 2001 Noise Abatement Air Traffic Actions and Associated Land Use
Compatibility Actions with a Third Parallel Runway at 3,700-Foot Separation and
a 2,000-Foot Extension on the South End of Runway 18R/36L (Proposed Federal
Action, Alternative 7)
S:\99CLT%FINAL_TO PRINTER NOV•1999\CHAP•7.DOC
CHARLOTTE/DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-35
November. 1999
CHAPTER THREE - A L TERIVA TI VES FINAL
0-
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
•
•
CHARLOTTE/DOUCLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
November, 1999

O r 1
1 , , ,
1 r r r
1 r r r
1 ,

r7
a
o
? o F5 c-N7

d
G
? .cJ ---• `?
` ? ,:? ---=-- `\
i ,
r ,:J ------`r•
r r
t r .: -====mot-,
r r
1 r
m e

M P
H <L LL. u L
L L
L

0 m

3 p?

O

O
O
O
O
O
?J O
CO r' O
0) N N
V M M
t--
r 1
1 r r r
1 , r r
1 r r r
1 r
1 1 1 1
\--
w w --=?-?_- w - - • w --? _- -? _ w

1 r nom' \
r ,
1 r /:-
r r
1 r
r ,
1 r
I 1 1
1
c ? O O ? O
CL

•,,
C

N

W
r
,
r X

t r

1 r
d CO
a _
N
Q y U U U U 6

C 7

?
? 1 r
.
, j , ,
? 1
1 r r
1` /
1 r r
1 I
i 1
? N ' 1 r
1 1 r
, 1 , 1

co m m m OF,
1 I , ?
r I I
1 r l 1
1 r
0O

?_a ?_ ? ?_a ? a

Q Q ? Q
3?

c o

C ) o o
O

0
00
0
a
? J 0
C)
CD ? 53' N C14 M
a?
.8
O
Z
O
W
N
d
c?
C
Q
C
O
V
d
O
LT.
O
Vr
a
N
O
O
C
N
co
IT
V-
m gg60
E CE
J T?
U
a
o
TION I ??-
:RSTATE 485 UNDER CONSTRUC
dingpdow
a
aRC JO S6
In ar?7
0\6 IVY
PROPOSED RELOCATION PROPOSED TERMINAL
OF OLD DOWD ROAD EXPANSION
PROPOSED RELOCATION OF WA_
f
WALLACE-NEEL ROAD +
I
DIN
1
Q
ti
I ,
/ I
_Q
I
1
..o
I I. I. Q f o I
I ao?l?
31700'
I I?? I O
J
I I I , I ?:-
I? ? s
I
r? I i ? I
i? I V I ,' 0 I
0
I•?. I
. ? ill \?a .,?? I o,?. • ID
M sit
M I I ??\ac;b O 31
M ICI ?'/ ?; I ? O
? a II
:Y
M
? I
Q- ? r
I`? I
M I t f ?I .+ ?0 36R
M PROPOSED NEW RUNWAY ?I 1??
• o ??I II s
O I
PROPOSED RUNWAY EXTENSION O '
.00,..
w.
vd
e -.r
`N PROPOSED ROADS TO BE CLOSED i _ --
RELOCATED WEST BLVD. j / !1
N
A Not to Scale SOURCE: Landrum & Brown, 1998.
EnNronmental
Proposed Federal Action EXMIBI3_2
Impact statement
EMM CDR Oiling

r
\ . r F Q mry? 1
C33 2 S 4"C
C C84 < S15 C3 S7 ;'• '?R.16
\? I' f 3 I C55 ; , r V y yr C2 ,
29 4
( I
oft 7
nw dk i J ?? ?. Lr.. i
sO"rra,n quo
C C44. r
C4
Cos $
M ? w
VE
Ne*tety ?,• C -;S
j0"
•1
i
a>_ S tt
-
....Dixie River R .I .'(„ , C6 Z. f''?S£ r ?5 ar h
( \
V; C70
. ,,.'. C71 S I ' a ti .o
on a `• `? t
zzH
` I 6 °wn S1Q Sts c ?N I . 6
j ' qd '? v "Y
N2 1 , •.rr

""• Scdo In Fut N
5. - r 15 rr r
?. 1000 30J0 5000 A

M cklenburg Co. I C 4f CAarlove . 21

I
.. ••••••'^ ?
bbb CONTOUR: 5A4RRI 09/18/99

'
I
°rourc?: Luldru
Fil
EXH3 4 m a 8rov.
n, NR1tA H, 1998
I
Fli
t T
k
RR C
F
e: rac
gh
:
ount 2001
ItTrkWORwy

EXHIBIT
Environmental Alternative 1 Flight Tracks and Noise Contours 3-3
Impact Statement
77- rM7

• •
0
INTERSTATE 485 UNDER CONSTRUCTION
r
d o?dQ oa ' RCJosh 91, mp 1 , -
PROPOSED RELOCATION 1 PROPOSED TERMINAL \\
OF OLD DOWD ROAD EXPANSION
PROPOSED RELOCATION OF F ,
/ WALLACE-NEEL ROAD
• ' X81•
..e It ti : I rl
5
I
I- i 0 ,f OU"
' . 4 I
I I? - I 311700
,
I
I
? I I ,' I o
N ?. O
I
I a 0 ? D
M I e- >I r ? ,- I
a I O
I M I a` s
i I
0 Q?
I ,. I
I
I ? I
1 \
I ? ? ? I o
I I
I
I .. ii
PROPOSED NEW RUNWAY ?r 36L 36R
?? ae ,?? ?a
v?gS?e?Ja•
PROPOSED TO BE CLOSED _ ???;?-?
?/ ¦
RELOCATION OF WEST BLVD. '"
Q ,N.N ¦
1 _
•e
1 URCE: Landrum & Brown 1998.
ANot to Scale
- EXHIBIT
Environmental Alternative 4
?Impact Statement 3-6
-
EXMJ e.CDR W1WOO
EXH3 7.CDR 9I1"D
INTERSTATE 485 UNDER CONSTRUCTION / • U
RCJos
Odd o0a hB! a .
nn?n amp
PROPOSED TERMINAL
X18 ?• n EXPANSION
a I r1
dl 9,4I?
I a ?y 11' ? •'r
I I
_ I a /? dOd
I
I
0 is
I ? ? 0 I
I
M a I o ?? ? DID ¦
I I ¦
M ?a\ac? ?I O J,11
o M Q- I ? ?. ? O I
+0 I ? I
o I ? I ?w
0
I ? I
I 'r
I
e ,I o
fi g
36R
PROPOSED EXTENSION W ?° M ?i 0 e ??? i
o I? II
O
n
INes?e` Jv /
PROPOSED TO BE CLOSED
' 3 ...... a "/ ¦
RELOCATION OF WEST BLVD. ,• j /
:::.:.
.. ?,? 6yNm D?. ," /
M
A Not to Scale ...SOURCE: Landrum & Brown, 1998.
a }D;EnNronmental Alternative 6 EXHIBIT
I Impact Statement 3.8
EXM7 &CM W1WY
•
•

Y
a.
•
0-
APPENDIX B
0-
Memorandum of Agreement
Cultural Resources
•
JAN, -01' 00 (FRI ) 09:52
61/06/2000 09:31
•
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Scmiory
August 11, 2999
Thomas M. Roberts
Program Manager
Federal Aviation Administration
Airports District Office
1701 Columbia Avenue, Suite 2-26Q
College Park, GA 30337.2747
Re! MCA for Charlotte-Douglas Internncional Airport
Mecklenburg County, ER99-8616
V. UUZ
PAGE 02
Division of Archives vad History
kffrcy J. Ctow• Airector
Dear Mr. Roberts:
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 Council'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 us when it has been
filed.
Thank you for your-cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733.4763.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Crow
State Historic Preservation Officer
Enclosure
cc: Advisory Council
Charlotte/ Mecklenburg HPC
GNARLU'I"II/UUUGLAS I NI" L A I KNUK'I' 'I'RL: N4 359 4U3U
4043057155 ATLANTA ADO

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
/Tti
JAN, -07'00(FRI) 09;52 CHARLOTTE/DOUGLAS INT'L AIRPORT TEL:[phone]M PAGV.UU
01/06/2000 09:31 4043057155 ATLANTA ADO 03
Memorandum of Agreement
Between the
Federal Aviation Administration and
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer
for the
Charlotte/Douglas International Airport
Mecklenburg County, North County
Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.6(b)(1)
WHEREAS, the Federal Avlation -Adrninistrotion -(FAA) has determined that
implementation of development and/or air traffic actions (the Undertaking)
resulting from its approval of changes to the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) for the
Chgrlotte/Douglas International Airport, which include the construction of a third
parallel runway, a 2000-foot runway extension, development of associated ancillary
facilities, and implementation of noise abatement measures and are described in
the Airport's Master Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement may affect
historic properties, including both structures and grcheological 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 CPR 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 that the following measures are carried out'.
0
JAN. T 00(FRI) 09:53 CHARL0111/UUMAS INS L AIkrUXI ibu. /Uq JJ7 4UJU PAGE U04
b1/96/?eaa 09; 1 4643057155 ATLANTA ADO
A. Historic Strpctures
The Airport in consultation with the SHPO shall evaluate measures to allow
the Samuel Brown Farm (MK1874) to remain standing. Such measures
shall include options for adaptive reuse, 'stabi{ization and preservaTlon,
and/or the possibility of moving the structure(s) to a new location. If,
after consultation with the 5HPO, no feasible and prudent rehabilitation,
adaptive reuse, and/or relocation of the property(s) is foynd, 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 qnd potential
archeological deposits on said property (s).
2. The following structures are located in areas subject to aircraft noise
exposure levels greater than 65dl) based on the Day-Night Average sound
level metric (DNL) and ore not a compatible land use in accordance with 14
CFR Part 150, 5 A150.101, fable 1; or are located in an area that may be
subject to an increase of more than 3 d9 within 60 DNL resulting from the
proposed action and are also considered to be affected by the introduction
. of new noise.
Or Richard A. Query House (W] 373);
4 john Douglas House NX1361);
4 Asbury House (40873),'
+ Samuel grown Farm (A191874); and
+ Sprats-brier Farmhouse and Slave House W1875).
These structures are eligible for sound attenuation under the provisions of
the Airport's Noise Compatibility Program approved under the provisions
of 14 CFR 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 SHPO 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 Secretary-of the interior's
5tandardsfor Rehgbi i o lon_ and_ Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic
Rui dins (U.S. bepartment of the Interior, National Park Service, 1992)
and in accordance with the plans and specifications agreed to by the
Airport and 5HP0.
2
-01' 00(FRI)
JAN 09:53 CHARLOTTE/DOUGLAS
TEL:[phone]
INT' L AIRPORT
P.005
.
91/06, 2000 09:31 ae ADU Pa
0
3, The Airport in consultation with the SHPO shall evaluate and implement
measures to minimize potential impacts resulting from the relocation of
West Boulevard on the Dr Richard A. Querr House (MKI373). Such
measures shall include providing a landscaped buffer area between the
roadway and the affected property.
B. Archeological Resources
1. The FAA shall ensure that the Airport prepares and implements on
archaeological data recovery plan for the Wynn Site (31MK811) and the
Ertel Site (31MK814). This pion will be consistent with the standards
included in the §ecretary of the Intgrior's Standards and Guidelines for
Archeology and Historic 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
identlfied research questions. The plan must be submitted to the FAA and
5HP0 for review and comment. Unless the SHPO objects within 15 days
M of ter receipt of the plan, the FAA shall ensure the plan Is implemented.
2. Prior to any disturbance of lands immediately surrounding the freeman
House (MK1369), the Airport will conduct an 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 consultation with the SHPO and in a manner consistent with
the "Standards and Guidelines". rf the site is determined eligible, a data
recovery plan 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 at the Wynn Site (31MK811), the Ertel Site (31MK8I4), and
any other sites investigated and determined eligible for the National
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 S.1 and 8.2
of this agreement, Such reports are to be prepared in accordance with
the SHPO's most current Specifications for Archaeological Field Reports
and "Standards and Guidelines".
3
JAN. Ul?'06U/20ttt? (FRI) x]9:31 4Og3b57o55??000IiLAS I(VI L AIAi`ANTA ADO 1bL:/U4 JJy 4UJU PAGE U
b 06
4. In the event previously unknown archeological resources are discovered
during construction:
a. The Airport will cease work in the immediate area of the previously
unknown archaeological resources and the FAA and SHPO will be
notif ied, The FAA and 5HPO will determine the eligibillty and
significance of any artifacts discovered.
b. If it is determined that the site is eligible for the NWP, the FAA, SNPO,
the ACHP, and Airport shall consult to determine appropriate mitigation
measures for the site.
C. Central stipulations
1. The FAA shall ensure that the work carried out pursuant to this Agreement is
carried out under the direct supervision of a person or persons meeting at
a rnlnimum the professional qualifications set forth in the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards and Guidelines.
2. Tf the 5HPO or FAA object in writing, within 15 days, to any plans,
SpeCi f iWiOhS or recornmendations submitted pursuant to the terms of
this Agreement, then the, FAA, the 5HPO, and the Airport shall consult to
resolve any objections which have been raised. If the FAA determines
that the ob jections($) cannot be resolved by such consultation with the
SHPQ, 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 a request in accordance with
the provisions of 36 CFR Port 8007(c)(4). This requirement shall be
applicable only to the matter which is the subject of the unresolved
objection. The FAA agrees that its responsibility to carry out all other
actions provided for under this Agreement, not the subject of on
unresolved Abjection, will remain unchanged.
3, If any of the parties to this agreement believe that an gmendment or an
addendum to the agreement is necessary, that party shall imrrediately
notify the other parities and request consultation to consider an
amendment or addendum to this agreement. The process of amending or
executing on addendum to the agreement shall be the same as that
exercised in creating the original agreement. In the event of an
amendment or an addendum, the FAA will comply with 36 CFR Part
q
JAN. -07'00(PRI) 09:54 CHARLOTTE/DOUGLAS INT'L AIRPORT TEL:[phone]U3U 1'.UU7
O1/d6/20dd 09::11 404305715 ATL4NfA ADO PAGE 07
H00. 6 (u) 471 .
4. Any consulting party to this agreement may terminate it by providing 30 days
written notice to the other parties, provided that the parties will consult
during the period prior to the tertination to seek agreement on
amendments or other actions 1 hat would avoid termination. In the event
of termination, the FAA will comply with 36 CFR Ports 800.7(a).
Execution of this Memorandum of Agreement 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 token into account the of f ects of the undertaking on historic properties.
FEDERAL AVIATTON ADMINISTRATION

Scott Seritt, Manager
Atlanta Airports District Office
•
Jef f r1y`Cro vG)
5tate Historic Preservation Officer
8/5
(Date)
(Date)
CONCUR:
1 W. 00
T. J. Orr, A iat on Director (Date)
Charlotte/D as International Airport
•
5
NORTH CAROLINA HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
C7
•

a
lt?
10
a
X
n
0
•
APPENDIX C
Protected Species Correspondence
•
•
Unitud States Department of the Interior
FISH k%i`D WjLt)I.n SFAVICE
AsOvIllt Fkid pf ficc
160 ziulms Suvid
AMerltl• 14cob C,roliap Mot
December 4, 1999
Ivtr. Robert D Acq+eslq?, &ologf st
> Mvim smmt & Azchxmlogy. LLC
6948 Oakwood Dcive, Suites 201 do 202
Flottsr rc. x=tucky 4104:
Dear Mr. grl,asky:
Subject ProposCd e,Pansjon of Chstlotte-no4U Intemadonel Airport, Chsr)otte,
Mccklcnbutg County, North Carolina
We received a copy of your letttr of November 3, 1998, w Dr. Willis Taylor, Oft3eo of
Eaviroruuzntal Policy and Cotmplianec, Department ofthe Wwior, Wasbingmn, D.C., reardhi8
odditiontl iii mma6on on the DrO Environtnewal Impact Statmem for the Cherlotio-Douglas
lntenutional Airport. Mccklcnbazg County. North Carolins. We xv Provides tht following
comment; in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of the EndmScrcd Species Act of 1973,
as ==ded (16 V.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
In your later you provldW the re-ults of intensive surveys for rate plants wiNn the projsct area,
nc pirvcyi tocumd, on existing rights-of-way glad woodlmd cde„ as Wcll u other potential
bee IS- . inii) and Georgia arty (Astor
habitat for Schweinitz t su f't?? (Hellanthus
'oorgicmrs), SurvcYe were p? 1999.
We have records of Schwciaitz'e sunflower eom nosrtheMecklenburg
rg o the presence or
nur letter of December 14,1995, we rccornmanded a field ttrv Y
ahRence of this species or it3 habitat. Jz our September 10, 1993, otter, we recommended
additional su n-eys to coincide with the tlowvring petiod for Kehaxrhus>chweinitzii, According
to your letter, neither Schwcinitz'a aanfiower:.or;ny of the Federal epeeies of concern were
located in the proposed mcpansimi area during the intensive sutvCys. The pho(orraphs inelud:d
with your Icitcr were hclptUl in discataing imps taut cha=sm of.(,rrerparvv. We theralare
now concur with your dctmmirladon that the proposed project will not atfett endangered or
tluoataned rpeties or their b*itats. We believe the requirements under Section 7 of the Ret are
fulfllled, Howevcr, obligations nadtT Section 7 of tho Act must be tecomidered it. (1) new
infurntation reveals impacts of this tdeuriFed active Out may affect listed epocies or critical

habitat in a =L=ncr not proviou'sly conx;d-rvd, (2) this action is rubtequsarly modi tied in a
n waive that was not considered its this review, or (3) a raw spec=ies is listed or critical habitat it
desrrminvl that rmy be atlected by the idwified action.
We appmciw Vie opportunity to provide than eotr=cuts. Ifwo east be of ally Wistaace or if
you have my questions, p!caae do not hccitatc to contact Mr. Marie A. Cantrell of our etaff at
82VI58.3939, Ext. 217. In any fat= c rvepndonce ooncernin: this project, plowo rafatasoe
our Log Number 4-2.96.021.
Sincere r Btiau P. Cole
We Suporvisvr
cc:
Dr. Willie R Taylur, Director, Office of Enviro=cntal Policy and ConTliwwr-
U.S. Deparnaent of the tnte»ior, Interior Building. 1849 C Sweet, :WV.,
Waahbigton, DC 20240
•
0

•
•
Y
c?
a
d
0
10-
APPENDIX D

Stream Evaluation Forms
NC DW) Stream Classification Form
Prujecl Name: C Q ?/'1 River Basin: C0.TtLW be,,- County:/llex kler b(( ,,J Cvulunlor: 6errs v k " l ydt>
DWQ Project Number. Nearest Named Stream: <<'rt Latitude: Sibmature: ledA
Date: 0.s,- 05,- 0 ) USGS QUAD: C korloik )?'>t Longitude: Location/Direclions: Str<cAm
• * P LEAS F NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree rhu(the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this farm is nor necessary.
Also, if in the besrprofesslomalJudpement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a otodifhed natural stream-this
rurinj system should nor be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (circle (,heNulnlnrPerLine)
o t Absent t M'aderate StronLy
I I Is Them A Rdnc l-ool Sequence? 0 b Z
2) Is The USDA Texture In Strenmbed
S) Is Them An Active (Or
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 U t o
' Swik Caw "a By D hrhlay And WrII / T 4inuarlhv j?tr rr'- h
-
r-
1V2 n1 Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On ToIM Man And/Or In Field) Present? Yes=1 Nano
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
0
Secondary Field Indicators: (circle one Hu"OherporLinel
J) Does Topography htdicote A
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.-
11. Hvdrolot_rv Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Lenflitter r
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 U 1.3
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 r 5 1 1.5
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
8) Arc Weiland Plants In Strenmbed? SAV Mustly 00L Mostly FACW ?-41ostly AC Mostly FACV Mostly UPI,
I • NOT81 ll ramUhrenre Of All Plnnu In &reandwd 1 1 .73 5 0 0
i, V.t dAl,..,,. Skin nr, ieu U4 Est1'.SAVPrnn'nhsl -
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
TOTAL POINTS (Primary +.Serondaryjs! (lfGreater Than Or F.yual To L Points The Stream it At Least Intertninenq
It. Hvdrolon Absent We•ik Moderate Slronu
1) Is There A Groundwater
Dis •'aaree Present" 0 1 3
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS. a1
•
!.
.r r
a, - B40L
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL - w
EVALUATION FORM
ACTIOKID a 00/30 3 yo APPLICANT NAME L DT A DATE o - 9- 01
PROPOSEWCtl;A&NEL WORK (i.e., eulveM rrelocation, eta.)
WATERBOBYMU ERBASIN S+rectvn;t L I LCL+4i W)0 C, COUNTY/CITYme-Gkje?,tht; o Lh4r ?pf?-?.
RECENT WEATHER CONDr•IONS (-- )e CSI'
•
Qbservatjon Comments or Descriotion
FisWShelLrulvCmaaomns Peen $OvKZ G ?c'` ' S It
Benthic Macro Invertbntn
Ami)hibiant PrrsenttBreedin; 1 /
$?/4INLihClt': i??T r Net'
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function)
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, faces, shells, others)
Federally Protected Species Present (Discontinue)
RiJ31NPool Structure yJ CA
Stable Streambanks k4 eoJ-
Chautel Substrate
i.e. vel. cobble, rock coarse sand
S Ooh e G OCA e-
S Ccrs?
Riparian Canopy Present (SP -/> 50% closure)
Undercut Banksilratream Habitat Structure
Flow In Channel
Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig, With Ch+mrel (Discontinue)
Persistent Pools/Saturated Bottom
Lune thru Sept)
Seepa/Groundwater Discharge (June thru Sept.)
Adjacent Floodplain Present
Wrack Material or Drift Lines
Hydrophytic Vegetation irvadjaeett to channel
e,, bjk,k- s,.. l ow> u.d,juc"'f 4-o c.la„xe,J
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? ®/ N Approz. Drainage Area: ae-r
Determination:
Perennial Channel (gyp) Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (P•d) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (nojd) (attach map indicating location of important/unimportant channel)
Ditch Through (nojd)
Upland
0
Evaluator's Signature:
(if other that C.O.E. project manager)
Illlll//llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll/ll/ll/l///lllllllllllll/lllllllll/lllllllllllll/l/llll/ll/llllllllllll//l1/lllJllll/ll/l//1/!/l/ll/lll/ll/l/lll/llll/l/ll/l/l/l/1/llll/lull/lll/lll/lllllllllll/llllllllll/lll/
P-Present SP,-Stongfy Present NP=Not Present
P SP NP
2 NCDW O Stream Classification Form y??
Project Name: QJ.rA River Basin: Lf?+A W County //lee-W ekobv?valuillor. ? ?rrl L ?'r' "yf' ?S
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Narned Slream:(A0 4y Latitude: Sibmature: MD"i'I•s //
Dale; /U-/V - GO USGS QUAD: LhQrkO h f k5tLotlgitude: Location/Directions: S t?ec( n, t?
*P LEASE NOTE: //rvuluaror and landowner agree that (be feuture lv a man-meth ditch, then wve ofrhis form is not nn•essory.
Also, if /n the best pmfes tonalJudgement of the evaluator, the feature Iva man-,node ditch and not a modified nuturui ttre.am-rloLv
rating system should not be used *
Primary Field Indicators: (Clrrle(MeHundwrPerLine)
o , Absent •t Moderate C ur r
1) Is There A u irne.Pool Segu ? 0 1 2 rl
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
•
5) Is Them An Active (Or
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2 0
Tt•'_ !'bed d Ban! Cotmd By Dlrrhtne And WITHOUT S/nuadrv Then Srare-04
rs A 2"t Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Toro Mgp,4nd/(Ir In Field) Present? Yes NO ,t,
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:5P A,
Secondary Field Indicators: tCtrfleOneNumberPerLine)
1) Does Topography bldicnte A
Nnntml Drainng ? 0 I / 1.5 1
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 5-
11, Hydrolot_ry Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Len litter
4) Is Water In Clumnel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 ?J
" r Skin This Sim And tlr .,..
5) Is Them Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1.5
Cond*l'nns Or Iq Growing Scnspn)?
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR
8) Arc Welland Plants In Slrenmbed? SAV Mostly UUL Mostly FACW Mostly PAC Mostly FACII Mostly UPI,
(' NOTEt I/Towl Aluenre U/All Plant, In Stremnbed 1 I .75 .5 0 0
sNiwed Alm-eSkin Thit Ge p UN - VSSAV Pr ,en,•1 ,
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.-!
TOTAL POINTS (Primary +Secondarv)sjL(IfGreater Than Or Equal Ta L Paints The Stream AAt Least Intermittent)
11. Hydrolon Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Mschargc ' 1
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
k
•
O
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL`
law
EVALUATION FORM
XmWrm x 0013oHo APPLICANT NAME &,0 TA DATE /U -/O -- 40
PROPOSED-CMASVNEL WORK (i.e.. Culvert, relocatiov% etc.) ry1 f / I
WATER5O9Y4UVEXW1N,S'freay. o G / Lcth wht? COUNTY/CITY Me-c'A A"bk!4 / &A taYh He
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS L I e cvr
P Sr NP Observation
Comments or Descriation
FiWShellfuh/Cnut.oew Prveat 51??A?? 111 NNOV 5
BenWe Maoro Invenbra ee

. /
Amphibians PrarnUBreeding
Alp" An&rjr Fu- f-.uw mulity fi-mi-I ??
Aroe 5
1 . .
.7
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? LJr N Approx. Drainage Area: 16 yl? ac lV-S
rllllllllllillllllllllllllllllllll/llllllllllllllll/l/lll/ll//l/l/lll/l/ll/llll/llllll/ll/lll/lllllll/lllll/ll/lllll/lllllllllllll//lll/ll//l/lll/lll//l/!/l/l//ll//l/l/l/l/llll/l/llllll/lllllllll/llllllllll//l/llllll/l/l/l
Determination:
Perennial Channel () 8 Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Interns ttent Channel (proceed) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (noJd) (aaach map indicting location of important/unimportant channel)
Ditch Through (nold)
Upland
•
Erslualor's S(puture:
(fodw dun C.O.E. project Manager)

P-Pr=nt SP-Stongly Present NP-Not Present
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
NCDWQ Stream Classification /Form /?
Project Name: 6 Q1 r-'+ /gy River Basin: +O W b4- Cuunty: M eLk- let" ?t'?yGvnluntur: n Q ((-:L // ls/P/f
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named lStream: LO't'tey&Nttitude: Signature: MW
Date://-00 USGSQUAD:(-' V/014 JNSrLungilude: LocnlionMirecliuns: 3A S-kreev-..
* P LEASE NO'T'E: If evaluator and landowner agree thur the feature is a nsan-mode ditch, then use oflhis form it not neretsury.
Also, if in the Aco pmfettional Judgement of the evaluator, the feunae is a man-made dilrh and not u modified natural oream-this
raring.tplem should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (CireleOheNumber Per Line)
9) Is A Conlinuuus Bed & Bank Present'? 0 T U 3
/'NOTE: !lard d Bank Cawed Be D1rh1na And WrIlOUTSlnumav Then Srare-04
10) Is A 2 Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Tnno Man And/Or In Field) Present? Yes=3 _ No?O )
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
C7
Secondary Field Indicators: (CrrrlrtlneNamherPer Line)
3) Does
•
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR
11, Hydroloey Absent Wenk Moderate Strone
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Lenllitt r _
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 1.5
Rain) Last Known c N .f lf,-Apr-l
5) Is There Wnler In Channel During Dry 0 C5) 1 1.5
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: S
TOTAL POINTS (P/Ilnarv +Secondary) ?(Iftreater Than or Equal Ta 1_2 Paints The Stream AAt Least Intermiltentl
Absent 1. Geornorpholoiry vt erate Strong
11 Is There A Riffle-Pool Seauencc'! 0 1 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed ?.
II. Hvdroloa Absent Wenk Moderate Strone
1) Is There A Gruundwaler
Flow/Dischare Present! Q
3
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
el Are WeUand 11Innts In Strenmbed:' SAV Mostly OUL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACII Mostly UPL
(• NOrSt IITna11 Ahrenre of All Plano In Oranrnl,rA 2 1 .75 .5 0 0
A.,Nd,d A1-wS ra rAL, Men N _VSSAYPrennt•1
y
•
•
0
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
ACTIow 0003o yo APPLICANT NAME
C,QTA
^ r ?
DATE 1 J3-0 0
PROPOSED-CBAStNEL WORK (i.e., culverl7relocadork etc.) h? r I
WATERBOBYMIXER.WIN.., Trepe,J0 I L ft ??i+J 0. COUNTY/CITY Alle&Ot 14 `?k!1 / &A ar/V
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS G e-o r
P SP NP Observation
Comments or Description
Fish/Shellfsh/Crustaeearo Present G-ray i s i,
Benthic Macro Invatbrates
F?
yt?D era
Amphibians Presad/Broediog Su )a rn u k Jers A-i s
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function)
/Yt 0d erw'l'e
Wildlife Charnel Use (i.e. tracks, feces, shells. others)
Federally Protected Species Present (Discontinue)
Riffle/Pool Structure
stable Strumbanks 1 5opie- e r0 s I o t+ O C G k rt 14
Channel Substrate
i.e. vet, cobble, rock coarse sand O!? ar$ C S O N
tai /" U d
Ri*an Canopy Preaent (SP -/> 50% closure)
Undercut BaokmInstreua Habitat Structure
? Flow In Channel
Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Charnel (Discontinue) 1 `t?? M F I
?J
? Persistent Poolslsatursted Bohan
June thru sent.)
Sec*Groursdwater Discharge (June thru Sept.)
l/ Adjacent oodplain Present
Wrack Material or DriftLines s D??.
Hydrophytic Vegetation iniadjacent to channel
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? a/ N Approx. Drainage Area: M6 &e rc$
lulluanul?a?alu?lnnnnnuiunulIonialaiuninilininliuiiailniiaiiulaaiiuialliuuiaiiiniliinininiuaainuaannlnimaimaliniuainnalnlaiuuianmiuliaanuliinil
Determination:
Perennial Channel (9017)Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (Pra'?d) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (-jd) (attach map indicating location of important/unimportant channel)
Ditch Through (Hold)
Upland
Evaluator's Slgraature:
(if other than C.O.E. project ffwager)

P=Present SP,-Stongly Present NP=Not Present
,Nu)?1y Ntream (jassillcation Form y?A {?
Project Name:L.D A River Basin: G..(.? &V64. County: //let., )eM??4Evaluator: D rr11il MYe'lr.5
DWQ Project Number. Nearest Named Stream: ' ° k- -Lntitude: J Signature: n4 4°
r 1 N
Date: of/S/V ) USCIS QUAD: (-k(kfI4C L)t?Lungitude: Location/Dircctions:.oreAsh A
*PLEASE NO'T'E: /f evaluator and landowner ugree that the feature is a miam-mule dheh, then use of ails form is not necessary.
Alto, If In the best pmfessionulludgement of the evaluator, the frature is a man-etude d/trh and not u modified nuturol mbeum-this
rating.system should not be used*
Primnry Field Indicators: (Circle Omellum.1w, Per Lima)
Geoniorpholoiry Absent e1 Moderate s s
I I Is There A Riffle-Pout Scqucnye? 0 ?n 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Strenmbed
Different From t
31 Arc Natural Levees Present'.' 0 1 2 3
41 Is The Channel Sutuous? 0 2 3
S) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is A Continuous Bed S Bank Present? 0 1 3
M (' t' 1/Bed 6 Ban! Canted By Ultrhkw And IV1T110VT Slmmadm Then Srnre-Vt
10) Is A 2m'I Order Ur Crcater Channel (As Indicated
On Tnpyi Map And/!)r In Fieldl ercscm? Yes-1 Nan
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS:
Ii. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strung
1) Is There A Groundwater ?
Flow/ ischitme Prescn(? (01 I 2 3
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle OneNumsher Per Lime)
.1) Does Topography Indicate A
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
fl, Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter _
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since CO) .$ 1 1.3
S) Is There Water In Channel During Dry ro) .$ 1 1.$
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS
8) Arc Wetland Plants In Strenmbed? SAV Mustly 00L Mostly FACW Mostly AC Mostly FACII Mostly UPI,
t' NOTE: If Towl Alnenre O/All Plants In Greaathed 2 1 .7$ 0 0
Aff Noted Almny Stta TMt S:eu UN EVS AY Prwem01.
. SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Seeondan-)42 f Greater Than Or Equal To L2 Points The Stream Is At Least Intermineno

.._TIOrr1De?00030)Y
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
APPlucANT NAME - D T A

DATE v
PROPOSED-CSASINEL WORK (i.e., Nlva% reloeatiatetc.) ,, A
WATERBOBY/RIVERWIN 5fmzt p, )A ' l / C. A1a W b COUNTY/CITY /Yle (,0,e t- b i. y-;,
RECENT WFATHER CONDITIONS G )e O -
P SP NP ObservadOn Comments or Description
V Fi%l?ShellfiahlCnutao=n@ Preet
Bendh c Macro Ittveetbrates
vel
Amphibians PranuBreeding
Algae And/Or Fungus (wane quality function) SO y,. e_ cLro a -? rocky-4- 14 +b
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. track% feces, shells, others)
Federally Protected Species Nvocat (Discontinue)
RifflejPool Structure
Stable Streambanks / rt ee ke area 5
Chumel Subauato
rse Sv h. e ? nu 2 / i' L oG r se Sol
i.e. cravel, cobble, rock hoasand)
Riparian Canopy Present (SP -/> 50% closure)
UndavLa BankA nsaean Habitat Structure
Flow In Channel
1 V-1 Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Chuml (Discontinue)
Pcr%L%crnt Poob/Satuntod Bottom
V June thm S
Svc*0 oundwater Disdwge (June Utru Sept)
AdjacentFloodplain Present
Wrack Material or Drift Lines W 2a
Hydrophytic Vegetation irvadjacent to charnel
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y /© Approx. Drainage Area: JQ a",
nlaiaa/n/ianmm?nlnuuluiuuutlltiiuvllaiulaaiinnuaiiamaiuuiinilulaunnnuaiaallauiuilniunmiiaainniinniliiianiiiaiiaaaaiauiuu<iiiltiiliiiiiuulaiiuiai
Deterntinati
Perennial Channel (gyp) Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (PrOOOed) EDVaimportant Channel: L.F
Ephemeral Channel (nojd) (attach map indicating location of importanth,nimportsnt chanel)
Ditch Through (nojd) '
Upland
Evdumoes Signamre:
(if other than C.O.E. project manager)
anaact,aualanaanu,uanaan,niuanu„nuauninanuuulaiiiuauuniiuumiunaaaann,auiaiauiiaal?aiiliiailarn„uai,,,iuniiia,anuanuuiuai,,,liunni
P--Present SP,-Stongiy Present NP=Not Present
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form ?
Project Nome: C P; A River Basin: &Ja W bc` County: 14eckleit h11e5 Evaluator: D err c k- [ r" ' yrrs
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named ??Strreom:",; ?ALntitude: Signature: n
Date: /0' ' V U USES QUAD:C? ArLik *Lonsitudc: Location/Directions: Sf/'e4011 /b
0 *P LEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the jetaure is a tnan-utade ditch, then asr o/thIs fn?m Is not necessury.
Also, i/in the best pmfeacionaijudgentent njrhe evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a rnodifted natural stream-this
rating system should nor be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Cirrld(laeHumsberPerLine)
Geontorpholon Ablent We k Moderate -Strom,
11 Is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence? 0 1 2 1
2) Is The USDA Texture In Strenmbed
31 Arc Natural Levees ? 0 1 2 3
41 Is The Channel Sinuous? 0 I 2 3
•
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present'! 0 1 V 3
t?NOT£? /(Bed d bans Con?rd By bnrhlne And rPlTIIOUT Sinuutite rhem Srnre-Oh
10) Is A 2"' Order Ur Greater Channel (As Indicated
oV2 Mop An&Or In Ficld) Prgiont? s-3 n 0
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators: (CirrleOneNundrerPerline)
3) Does Topogmphy Indicate A
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
IL Hvdrolo¢y Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Lenllittcr _
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since (V .5 1 1.5
w 18,40101
5) Is There Water In Chnnncl During Dry 0 .5 1 1.5

9) Are Welland Plants In Strenmbed? SAV Mostly OBI, Mostly FACW Mostlv?AC Mostly FACtt Mostly UPL
(• NOTEt I/Tata/Ahronre O/All Plants In Sireanhed 2 1 .75 5 0 0
?YmeAAlx,rrSkie lAbStea UNLFSSSAPPrwea•1
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS. _?
TOTAL POINTS (Prirnart, +Seennda ,)- t ` (if Greater Than Or Equal To a Points The Stream 1.s At Least Inferinifrent)
It. Hydroloey Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is There A Gruundwater
flow/Dischnrae Present? 0 2 3
PRIMAR Y HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: _J_
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: I, S
•
i.• t:'r.:
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL ?
EVALUATION FORM
xTiocrm,260130-?y0 APPLICANT NAME U- TA DATE I0- 3 -00
PROPOSED'CHANNEL WORK (i.e., Culvert, Mllocatio1% etc.) + p? J L/
WATERSOOVAUVEP.AASIN,_S><?.k ) 9 / 6 ti 4a W n C- COUNTY/CIT'Y /?'/G' ?L' ?el• ?Q r?1 / Q r ?a 7Y l°
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS LJekV
P SP NP Observation Comments or Description
1 1/1 F6h/ShelLfWVCrustaocar Fr..%
/ Ben hic Macro lnvenbrab
Amphibians PreserrUBreed
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function) ..
Wildlife Chatoel Use (i.e. tracks. faces, shells, others) '
O?? ';'I"GG?S
? Federally Protected Spectres Present (Discontinue)
l iHle/Pool Structure if r ?, ff le
t/ Stable Stmambanks
16k)f ; Sdw-c a'crca$
Channel Substrate
i.e. cravel. cobble, rock coarse sand)
rGt t1 C a!' L ?'? rf e S Cs?-?
Riparian `ar»'y Present (SP -n 50% closure)
? Undercut Banks/trotrearo Habitat Structure
Flow In Channel U e r- ?.• f f ?e fug [ e w P.? a• /Vov V'Ptc
Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig, With Chanel (Discontinue)
PcnLvmt PooLUSaturatcd Bottom
Lune thru S
Sa:pa/Groundwater Discharge (June thru Sept.)
Adjacent Floodplain Naeot
Wrack Material or Drift Linea
Hydrophytie Vegetation iwadjacent to charnel
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y
Approx. Drainage Area: S tsrP
ualalsari//alraarliirllilliurlllrlllrllllrliliaillllmllillliiilillJlll/iiiiiiilititiiiliiirll/iJillliliiriillii[l<iiillliilini/liilitillrlilllillnlliliilliiiiililillliillrill/illiiiliillllilllilrilnlillllai
Determination,
Perennial Channel (gyp) Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR Initials
Intermittent Channel (Pry) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (nojd) (attach map indicating location of importanuunimportant channel)
Ditch Through (nojd)
Upland
Evaluator's Sigrutnn:
(if other than C. 0. E. project manger)
ll/llJllllllllJll!l11/llllJllllllllllllllllllllll/lll/llllllll/ll/ll/lllllllllllJlllllll/l1/lll/lllllllllllllllllll/lllllllllllllllll/ll/!ll/llll/lllll!/llllllllll//lll/ll/llll/lllll/llll/lllll/ll/llllllll/llllllll/llllllll
P=Pncsent SP=Stongly Present NP=Not Present
NCllWO Stre/a?m Classification Form A^ / /
`y ao-S
Project Name: 6DT H River Basin: GJAW bC`" Cuwny: !/'?)e"L"fiEvaluator j0errr?l C-'r- {?/?
DWQ?Project -Number. Nearest Named Stream: ),--"EA-ratitude: Signntum: /Opt.,
Dater- ` 0 j USGS QUAI)6`0,'L+AC 1L StLongitude: Lucntion/Dimutiuns: p S-fnza H"`
* PLEASE NOTE: if evuluator and landowner agree thus the feature is a man-made din-h, then use afthis farm Is not neressury.
Also, if in the Aert pmferslnnul fuJRemenl of the evaluator, the fralure Is a man-made direh and nos u rmodlfied auroral sgeam-IhLr
rating system should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (orris oneNundxrPerUne)
•
•
Geoniorpholoa Absent eltk Moderate Stronv
I1 Is There A Riffle-Paul Sequence'' 0 1) 2 1
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
S) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is A Continuous Bed Se Bank Present? 0 2 3
!'NOTE: //bed ,E Bank Cnm,u/ bvUttrhlnnAnJ IY/T!/OUT SMrmtLv Then.Prnre?0•t
10) Is A 2" Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Tono Mnn And/Or In Field) Present? Yes-3 Nn
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators: (Clrr/r()neNumherPerUnr/
JJIS s 't S
21 Is There A Gmde Control Point In Channel? 0 )
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Way? 0 S
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
11,_Hydsnloey Absent Weak Modernte Strone
1) Is This Year's (Or Lnsl's) Len(liucr
Present In Strenmbed"
21 Is Sedim?nl On Plants fQr Debris) Present) p T 1.5
1 Present"
0 Ls 1.5
4) is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 1.5
f . , ..
S) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1.5
Condilinns C •t
6) Arc I Iydric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In tlendcull'' Yer / t N, ,(O
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
TOTAL POINTS (Pritnar , +Seenndam)-&(ifGreater Than Or Equal Tm L2 Points The Stream AAt Least In/ersnittenq
11. Hvdrolnev Absent Welk Moderntw tron
1) Is There A Groundwater
Elow/Dischnrec Present?_ no 1 2 3
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
(*NO M If Nal Ahsenre O/A11 P/nmr In Strumnh,d 1 1 .75 0 0
Ar Nated Ahnre Skin ab Sign /N _U eAV Par •m•1
6
•
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM

ACT> OrrID o?000 303?o APPLICANT NAME C. DI A DATE ?"S 0-/
PROPO-SED-CfllttNI49L WORK (Le., culvert. relocation. etc) I I 1 /
WATERs06Ym mR„ QA,SiN < ?re-o->, A (?at 4 w b c- COt1NTY/CITY z ?e,K 1P k b err v' e L 4 rya frr
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS rjeatr
•
Observation Comments oL Descriatjon
FishlShellfisWCnutaoew Prow*
B=Wc Macro Inveetbratw
Amphibians Pmervi/ ro ding
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function) ..
Wildlife Chuwel Use (i.e. tracks. feoes, shell; other) 4-raC.ks
odemlly Protected Species Preaeot (Disoorttinue)
R c/Pool Structure W e -'--
Stable Streambanks
Charml Substrue
i.e. cravel. cobble, rock. coarse sand
S Ot^- °? r?u e
Riparian Canopy Present (SP -/> 50% closure) l.) a c-k-
Undemv Banks/irntrea n Habitat Structure
Flow In Channel
WeUands Adjacent To/Contig; With Chwutcl (Discontinue)
Petaistatt PooWSawntod Bottom
Jura thm S
Soepa/Crrotsndwater Disatsarye (Jura thm Sept.)
Adjacent Floodpiain Present
Wrack Material or Drift Lines C
HydrWhytic Vegetation irvadjaoent to dunml
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y'V ApproiL Drainage Area: "26
?
Tunnelunnrnnmunllnuaauaunalnrlurualai/ulalalual/llulnnniriaiullanrnlmnliinnloiliaauilnrinill/ituaiinaaiaiinannauiainnl/nilllnlnnlnrallniarnnirni
Determination:
Perennial Channel (atQp> ? _Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Chaancl (Prod) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (co jd) (attach map indicating location of importsnt/unimponant channel)
Ditch Through (nojd)
Upland
Evaluator's sicnature:
(if other than C.O. E project marugcr)
/rlllll/!///l/llllllllrlllllll/lllllllllll1111111!/!/I/?lllll/llllllll?ll/llll/!!!l/l/ll/Illl111l/?!I!/??/llll!/llllll/llllll!/?llllll/11/llll/l/!/Il/ll/l/llllll/l?l/llll/l!!/ll?llllll/!l?llllllllll/llllll/llllll/lll?l/loll
P-Present SPrStongly Present NP=Not Present
P SP NP
NCD1 U Stream Classification Foorin
Project Name: 1, QT A River Basin: GCs. 7 a tJ 6c- Cuwuy: mza)ek 6u.!5cvnlwuor. l )er" c k M 7 e ir-s
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: "erJc- ftatitude: Sibmnture: A MM
Dale: /0 -3-ov USGS QUAD:L60`104 C W`StLongitudc: Locnlion/Direclions: sioreak•. A
PLEASE NOTE: !f evaluator and lundowneragrer that the feature is a trun-etude ditch, (hen u.se ofth/t fonts Ls not nec,esnury.
Alen, if /n (he bCft pMflsdonallYdRement of (he evuluumr, the feunoe /.to man-made ditch and not u otod/Iied natural atrrum-this
rating nyntem should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (OrcleOseNuotlmrPerLine)
1. Geomornholotty Absent Weak Moderate Strone
11_ls_There A Rifne-Pool Seauenec'.' 1 2 1
2) Is The USDA Texture In Stmambed
3) Art Nolaral Levees '' 0 3
4) 1s The Channel Sinuous? 0 1 ?
S) Is There An Active (Or Relic) .n
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 2 3
!'NOTE: //Bed d Bunk Canted Rv Ulerhinn And WITHOUT Sinuarhv Then Srnrr-Bh
10) Is A 2"' Order Ur Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Toon vjnp An /Or In Field) Pmsenl? Yes=3 1VAO
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
0 Secondary Field Indicators: (Ctr leUae,VumherPerline)
1) Does Topography bidicnte A ??
Natural Drunace Wry? 0 S 1 - (E"
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:-?,5
IL Hydrology Absent Wenk Moderate Strone
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leanitter _
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 5 1 1.5
Rain! Last Known •t r adow.
S) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1.5
Condilions Or In Growing Sensoo1
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS
8) Are Welland Plants In Strenmbed? SAV Mostly 0111, Mostly FACW ostly FAC Mostly FACII Mostly UK
(*NOTE. I/Total Ahlenre O/Alf Pfnna In .Plremnh,d 1 1 .75 0 0
Ar.Vn1ed AlxnXSkla nk Geu UNLK S• SAV PwenNI
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.-
TO TAL POINTS (Primary + Secoitdan), r -j Greater Than Or Equal To L9 Points The Stream /.t At Least Intermittent)
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is There A Groundwater ?
Fluw/Discharge Present'.' 0 1 (c2? 3
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
7
0
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL @-, -
EVALUATION FORM
ACTIOIYw(c 6Nd.303' o APPLICANT NAME LOT Ia DATE IO -3 -ay
PROP05ED'Cil/01NEL WORK (i.e., culvert relocation, etc.) / 1
WATER806Yl MR.WlNS?re& A ; ?.&+uwloe, COUNTY/CITY 44ec.kk&.4iti-L adoft-t
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS CJectv- NJ
l?
u
P SP NP Qbservation Comments or Descrintion
F6WSbelLfiWCrustacearn Preset
t/ BenWo Macro invertbntea
Amphibians Presend&eeding
r e re-se w+
Algae AodlOr Fungus (water quality function)
ti C+ r» ?4 L r'
Wildlife Cburoel Use (i.e. tracks, feces, shells, others)
GtGGdO?..
I/ Federally Protected Species Present (Discontinue)
? Pjmdpool Structure
1-11 Stable Streambanks
q,kL-S Ctrs
Channel Substrate
i.e. vet, cobble, rock mouse sand)
? P-ipNan Canopy Present (SP -/> 50% closure)
Ohl I K S Cl K.. a cc l-iea
i ? Undercut Banka/Itt:utam Habitat Structure

V1
Flow in Channel ff

It,O f ,-0 1-, k o wt
.tl'k,
Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Clwurol (Discontinue) 6"C- W Cry ja w
Persistent PooLs/Salturaled Bottom
June thru Sem)
V Steps/Groundwater Discharge (June Ovu Sept)
Adjacrnt Floodplain Present
Wrack Material or Drift Lines weak
? Hydrophytie Vegetation itvadjacent to chuuwl
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N /
Does Cbannel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? ©/ N Approx. Drainage Area: l '7? &LCes
uul!laulluaalaunniialullnlllualunllnlllanilitulualnailululaiuiiinnllnlnailanalaaaulainaaulllainaailiilaamilnniaaaainiauunuuliuiainirnuaiinnllnin
Deter minatjon:
RPerennial Channel (gyp) ETImportant Channel: LF PROJECT MGR Initials
Intermittent Channel (Pry) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (void) (attach map indicating location of importanVunirnportant channel)
Ditch Through (nojd)
Upland
Evaluator's Sigrtauin-
(if otha than C.O.E. project "wager)
lllll/llllllllllldllllllllllll/lllllll/llllllll/lll/ll/llllllllllllllllllllllllllll//llllllllll/lllll/lllll/l/l/lll/l/ll1/lllllllllll/lllllll/lll/llllll//l/llN/l/llll//1/llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll/llllll/l/ll/ll/lll/l
P--Present SPrStongiy Pt't:sent NP=Not Present
NC I)WO Stream Classification Form 11-- ?j?//??
PrujcctName: c-81A River Basin: G(,?,CC&tJ6c- Cuwsty:fileJd"biu??1 ,Humor: ber)?tLk04yelS
DWQ Project Number. Nearest Named St11ream:llL? • 4 PQkLntitude: Sibmnturc: j'j/? C
Date:?_S^d) USGSQUAD: GNkr1QftleSt ongilude: Locntion/Dirccuons: S?Y'GQ.,..,
*PLEAS F, NOTE: If evaluator and landowner ugree /hut the feature !s u noun-made. ditch, then use of this font is mat necessary.
Also, if fn the bete professional)udgemene of the evaluator, the fraturr is a man-made ofitch and not a modified natural stream-riots
ratinj spurn should not be used*
Primnry Field indicators: (ClrrleoneNmn/ar/Pe/Line)
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present'' 0 2 3
ONOTE: IfNed d bank Caaud AKbltrhlne And IYITIIOUT Slnunrlly Then Srnre-a•t
10) Is A 2"'I Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated /?
On Toon Mon And/Or In Field) Present? Yes-3 IV WO)
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
•
Secondary Field Indicators: (ClrcfeOneNund?rrPrrllne/
1) Does Topography Indicnte A
Mnluml Drninnee Way? 0 SJ I I S
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: _j
IL Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Lentliucr
4) Is Water In Chnnncl And >48 Hrs. Since 0 1 1.5
r t lodmr-)
is These Witter In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1,5
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS
8) Are Wellstnd Plants In Sircambed? SAV Mostly OOL Mostly FACW Mostly AC Mostly FACII Mostly tlPL
0 NOTE: If Fatal Ahrenre O/All Plants fn .BreambrA 2 1 1 .75 0 0
,ASNreed Alan•eS In Thtr tie• UN t't•t•AYPr renrel
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
TOTAL POINTS (Prilnan, +Seeondan-)°/k (If Greeler Than Or Equal Ta J2 Paints The Stream I.sAt Least intermittent)
o rt o t
I I Is There A Rif(le•Poul Scauenee'1 0 d 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
It, HvdColoev Absent Weak Moderate Strono
1) Is Then: A (;ruundwstter
Flow/Discharge Present'! (o) 1 2 3
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS., C)
0 @-
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL v '
Tl EVALUATION FORM
0
DATE 4/
orrrn200?6303t/o APPLIcANTrrAm &D-TA
PRbPOSMCE"REL WORK (i.e., Culvert, relocation. eta) 1 n? / /
,?ke-&,y% F e-k4 4 w70_ couisimcrry /rlecklett?kt's [ ??ttr/0hf-e-
WATERBOBV41VER.wil
RECENT WEATHER CONDMONS Cj -41r
r Sr NP Observation Comments or Descriotion
Fish/Sbellfish/Cma&a ns Peem
Benthic Macro Invenbralas
A m*biuu Pment/Breeding
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function)
I? Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, feces, shell% others)
FaderaVy Protected Species Present (Discontinue)
t/ Riffle/Pool Structure
Subic Streambanks
Chutnel Substrate
i.e. vel, cobble. rock hoarse sand
r-cw e j d' Loo r Se- Saki
Ripanan Canopy Present (SP -l> 50% closure)
Undemrt Bank 1raweun Habitat Structure
I/ Flow In Channel
t/ Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Cl uwel (Discontinue)
Persistent PooWSatunded Bottom
Lune thm S
Seeps/Cnoundwater Discharge (June thru Sept.)
Adjacent Floodplain Present
Wrack Material or Drift Lines tae AA-,
Hydrophytic Vegetation iWadjacent to channel

Important To Domestic Water Supply' Y I N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map' Y'LJ Approx. Drainage Area: ly&e-res
1/rlalrllanaiullmnlHaulluinlrrlllluiurnlallualnriiainalnirnnnniiiiruarlnllrlnlnauaniiualrnainarnmrannauilnriuirnnnimnniianaiiauanriuuaiaiinnurnun
Determination:
Perennial Channel (Stop) Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (Pr--ood) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (nojd) (attach map indicating location of important/unimportant channel)
Ditch Through (-jd)
Upland
0 Evaluator's Sigm ure:
(if other than C.O.E. project rrtattager)
llllllllll lllllllllllllllllllllll/11/lU/llllll/llllll/llllll!llllllllll/l!l1/llllllllllllllllllll/ll/llll/llllllll/llllllllllllllllllllllllll/l/lllllll/1/lll/llllllllllllllllllll/l/llllllll/llllllll//llll/ll/llll/l/l
Present SP*Ston* Present NP=Not Present
NCDW Stream Classification Form 1 ???,,,?? ,?A^ V
Project Name: LOI/' River Basin: (a+6L wbC- C'runty:it/teck)e livnlunlorlCJ`°mL?
"?
QWQ Project Number: Nearest Nutted//Stmarrl"4 Ak)Latitudc: Signature:
M&A
Date: ;0 -/0 -0o US GS QUAD: `k4'I.1 4t (JtS?ungilude: Luention/Dimctiuns: S?-O't-A
*P LEAS E NOTE: If evuluaror and landowner agree thus the feature is a man-nude diteh, then use of this form it nor nereuary.
Also, if in the bets profex..vlanul judgement of the evaluutar, the feature it a man-made ditch and not a modified naturul.ttream-t/rls
ruting.system should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle Une Nundwr Per Line)
Absent WInk o f StronL,
11 Is Them A Rifne-Pool Sequence? 0 1 2 1
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
11 Are Nnttral Levees Present? 0 2 3
4) Is the Channel Shwous. 0 1 2 3
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present'' 0 1 vT 3
l£' !/Bed d Bank Camed By DlrrAtnn And IVITWOUT Sfmhndty Then Srnra-Oh
frs A 2"F Ordcr Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On ToW Map And/Or Ip Fiel jl Present? Yes=? Na 0
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators: 110"1e0nirS therPer Linel
1) Does Topography Lidicate A
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
H. Hvdroloev Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is This Year's (Or Lesl's) Len litter '1%
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 1.5
' t
S) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 • 1 1.5
Conditions Or In Growing Sensgnl?
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAY Mustly UOL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACII Mostly IIPL
I' HOTEL If rowl Aluenre O/AU Plant, A Strenmhed 1 1 .75 .5 0 0
Af N ned Ahaty Skip Tha Sfe / UN . _U SAY &W-t' 1
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS. 5'
TOTAL PAINTS (Primary + Secondan-)-31,57
(If Greater Than Or Equal To a Paints The Stream /.s Ar Least Intermittent)
S) Is There An Active Or Relic v
If. Hydroloey Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Is Then: A Gruundwaler n2
Flow/Dischnryo Present? I 3
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
9
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL "`?-
EVALUATION FORM
note b-2110 3Y6 APPLICANTNAME 6DTA DATE l d -/6-OO
PROPOSED'MAKNEt. WORK (i.e., culver%rellocation.. cm) ?A I
WATER806YlUnP.RArSINS ?reCL L l 6 cJA 1.J ?j c, 000N W/CTrY /144-L,+? I<K b11,-? / kor oT[e
RECENT WEATHER CONDMONS C l p- & V-
P SP NP Observation Comments or Description
FL%WShcllf»h/Crustaoeans Present Uer
V BentWNc Macro Invertbrats
Amplubiaro MvenU&eeding
Algae An&Or Fungus (water quality function) -
Wildlire Cbwml Use (i.e. tracks. fooes, sholL% others)
5a r,.?Z us?a ?
eaerally Protaxed Specie Present (Discontinue)
PUMCIPool Structure
Stable Streambanks
/YIO?enifL°- l ? QL?+C Q ir1°Ct?
Charml Substrate
i.c. graveL cobble. rock coarse sand) I
G OIL tr$? See ri u e
Riparian Ca wpy Present (SP -/> 30% closure)
Undercut Barka Ummarn Habitat Structure
Flow In Channel
Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Chmwl (Discontinue)
Persistent Pools/Satutatod Bottom
Tune thru S I
? Seeps/Grourwlwater Dirdwgc (June Lieu Sept.) jLt Q 1 e rf?
G
Adjacent Fltwdpisin Frtseot
Voo, Wrack Material or Drift Lino
? Hydrophytic Vegetation irvadjacent to channel
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? O/ N
Approx. Drainage Area: ?? -
?lllla!llalllmm?l!lsalal/iiann/ulluiiilaniiianilanitltilitialn/<aritiilciiJilli/riliiaiiinnraillnails/munnnuaniiniiaiinuiiuiiiiiiillll?i?llallllaninliltlliaiiiullliliiiii
Determination:
Percaaial Channel ( ) important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
ntermittent Channel (1--ow) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (nojd) (attach map indicating location of 4Tg*rtant/unimportant channel)
Ditch Through (no jd)
Upland
Evaluator's SiCm a v:
(if other than C.O.E. project manager)
llllllllllll!lllll!lllllllllllJlllllllllllllJlll/llllllllllllllllllllllllllllJllllll/l1/lllllllllllllllJl/lllllllllllllllll/llllllllllllllllll/1/l1/l/ll/lll/lll/ll/llllllllllllll/llllllJllllllllllll/lllllJllllllllllllll/ll!
11=Present SP!^Stongly Present NP=Not Present
)0
•
•
NC LIWO Stream C;lassif"icatimn Form
Project Namc: GDTA River Basin: b,+ a.w 6c,
DWQ Project Number:
Nearest Named Strearril 4416 PQ 1,;La ti tude:
County: IY'eLkAN vnlualor:I'de-rr;fi`/Yt,per-S
Date: 0_- S--U) USGS QUAD: OVV'Ll?bLkSLungitude: Location/Directions: S tr« H.
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree thus the feature is u alum-etude ditch, then u.xe of thlr farm is oar necessary.
Also, if in the hem professionulludgemenl of the evaluator, the feature it a man-made ditch and not a modly ed natural stream-this
rating.sysrem should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle 0"s Number Per Lima)
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 I Q 3
LY40TE:' d d Bank Caured Bvbltrhlna AnJ IV/T/LOUT Slnumav Then Tcnre-O*)
10) IA 2"i Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Tono Mnn Andlor In Field) Prcsent? Yea=3 _ _ NnFO /
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators: (ClrrtrOneNunrherPerum,)
3) Does Topography Indicate A
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
IL Hydrolmy Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is This Years (Or Last's) Lea(luter
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 His. Since .5 1 1.5
Last Known Rain? I r r f Ndnii-l
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1.5
Sikmaturc: fiol
SECONDARYHYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS
8) Are Wetland Plants In Sireombed? SAV Mostly 011L
P NOTE: hf rota/Ahtenre O/All Plants hn Strsand,rd 1 I
At Nixed Abom Skin nhr iep N VS SAVPr NI
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.-
r FACW Mosil C Mostly FACII Mostly tIPL
75 5 0 0
TOTAL POINTS (Pritnanr +Seeondum)a,1 (,f Greater Than Or Equal To L Points The Stream Is At Least Interiniffeno
Gennirphuloiry e t Ve'1 Moderate r
I l Is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence? 0 }
21 It The USIA Teualre In Strenmhed
11, Hydrolon Absent Weak Moderate Strom
1) Is There A Groundwater -
Flo_w_/Dischurue Plcscnl.1 t0? I 2 3
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
lv
•
0-
MI"
r
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL ``---
EVALUATION FORM
ACT16rr1Di2W4 3 D-3yv APPLICANT NAME C, b1 A DATE,-?
PROPOSMLItAv"L WORK (i.e.. culvert, relocation, eta)
WATERBOaY4UVERWlt4. ? rre&i» A1 f Lwf1t W bC1 COUNTY/crrY Me.e.lel,-bk•t-S / L{'tQ ? IO M'e
RECEIPT WEATHER C0NDrrl0NS__&Ie-Qr
P SP NP Observation Comments or Description
I FisWShellFah/Crust&mww Prteer t
Benthic Macro invertbreles
Amphibian Ptnsait/&ned
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function) y? e c, -•
Wildlife Chwml Use (i.e. tracks feoM shells, other)
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y 10 Approx. Drainage Area: Q& CtcreS
ninllarilinnnunnnir/nrillluaillriiannininrruunrriuiiiarurnniiliaaiinniilllununiaaanailuiiiilaniiruaiirniuuiiniiiiaiiiuiinilnaniiaiiiiiuraniaiiiaaiiimnrunnr
Detecnvnation:
Perennial Channel (gyp) 7Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR Initials
Intermittent Channel (vr?) Unimportant Channel: L.F
Ephemeral Channel (noJd) (atfach map urdicating location of important/unimportant channel)
Ditch Through (-id)
Upland
0 Evelrutoes Slipwbue:
(if outer than C.O.E. projoR manager)
l/l/ll/llllllllllllllll/lllllll/Ill/llllll/l///llll/ll/l///l/ll/l//l/l/ll////l/l/l/ll//ll//l/l///r//lll//llll/l//l1/l/l/l//ll//l/ll/ll/l/lll/l/l/llll/////l/lllllllll/////lllllllll//1/l1/l/l//l111/lllll/ll/lllllllll/llll/lll
P-Present SP-Stongly Present NP=Not Present
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
ACTIOK'IDdLo 30 3 t?6 APPLICANT NAME ?- OI H DATE ;?'
PRbPO'SEffCf3A?IIMEI. WORK (i.e., Nlvert, Minced
on" lete.) N? j /
WATERBODYAUVE&ANSIN ST(?C4w? /v A,afaki be, COt11YTY/CITY At-- ?-le-A Lkrj 1C??q.1r?Of?e
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS L)e a r
P SP NP

Observation Comments or Description
FislvShellfulvCrustao=m Pr mart p
ra tl S
Benthio Marro Invenbews
Amphibians Preunt/Breeding CJ e4 .1"n k j Ear
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function)
Wildlife Churoel Use (i.e. tracts. fooea, shells, others)
Federally Protected Species Present (Discontinue)
RiHle/pool St Mrs
!?C
Stable Streambanks So I-, -e a rt°
Channel Substrate
i.e. travel. cobble, rock. Douse sand
G O- s a k?-
Itipuian Canopy Present (SP -/> 50% closure)
Undercut BaolstInsav un Habitat Structure
Flow In Channel LJf'_
Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel (Discontinue) l toetlakd
Persistent Poots/Sawmad Bottorn
tune thru S
Scepe/Oroundwaw Disdargo (June ftu Sept)
Adjacent Floodplain Present
t/ Wrack Material or Drift Linn
Hydrophytic Vegetation irvadjscent to durtnel
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y ON Approx. Drainage Area:
Dcterminadon:
Perenaial Channel
Intermittent Channel
Ephemeral Channel
Ditch Through
Upland
(gyp) Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR, Initials
(PaOed) Unimportant Channel: LF
(no jd) (attach map indicating location of important/unimportant channel)
(-jd)
Evaluator's Signature:
(if orbs than C.O.E. project rnar ager)
l/lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll/ll//llllll/l/l/llllll/ll/llll/lll/ll///lllll/llllll!llllllllll/l/lllllllllllllllllllll!l/lllllllllllll///lJl//l/l/ll//l/lllllllll/lllllll/l/lll/11//llllllllllll/l/llllllllllll
P-Present SPrStongly Present NF=Not Present
NCDNVO_Stream _Classilication Form
•
•
•
nT '^ - {{? yy?eGklr?b? Q `
Project Name: [? t?y I 1 River Basin: G.l?+a?V&- Cuwlty; vnlualor; ?/p? f???1 ?'• `IV
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream:C111C pp /Q41Lntitude: Signntum: 111
Dale:.2-5-O) USGS QUAD: LhOrbf 00rl-ongitude: Location/Directions: e- Irc .- Al
• PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the Jeanne is u man-made ditch, then use ofthls form is not necessary.
Also, if In the best professionaljudgement of the evaluator, the feature is u man-made ditch and not (t tnndl/led natural stream-this
rating .system should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (CAele0"tNundwrPerline)
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 0) 2 1
[•NOTE: //N,•J S Bunk Comed By bitrhlneAnd IVITIIOUT Slnuarlty Then Srnre- •t
10) Is A 2nd Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Tupo Map And/Or In Field) Press ° s=1
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators: (CWI,0ne,VumherPerpoe)
1) Does Topography Indicate A
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
11. Hvdrolnev Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Lenflitter
4) Is Water In Channel And X48 Hrs. Since 0 3 1.5
Las(Xnown Rain? s • ,, ..
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 f 5 1 1.5
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:-?t
TOTAL POINTS (Pri/narv + Secondary) (If Greater Than Or Equal To L Points The Stream It At Least Intermittent)
n n o0 Absent V •t o ate S r s
11 Is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence? 0 1 l
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
II. Hvdrolney Absent \Venk Moderate ?Strone
1) Is There A Groundwater ?
Flow/Disc arse Prescnt" 0 Lll 2
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
at rem weunna doors in Streamoea: SAY Mostly UBL Mostly FACW Mostlv?AC Mostly FACII Mostly IIPL
(' NOTEI II rata/ Altwnre O/All Plant. A Siremnh, 22 I .75 5 0 0
A-f-Sa Above StJa Th r Step UNLESS SA Y Presen(-I '
1 NCDW0 Stream Classification Form
Project Name: &[) A River Basin: &a4et- d bc- cuwty: /Y1ecklt*?4>y'?r:vnluntur: Derr,*
eer r, `, MY le $- S
DWQ Project Number. Nearest Named Stream: L11F? Raaatitude: Sibmatum: 1
?- Date: ?C'?"C)' US(iSQUAD:CthQ//0fk uQSr
Longitude: Location/Dimctions: R 57r?'?
*PI,EAS E NOTE: If evaluator and landowner over that the feature Is a niun-made ditch, then asr of this form 1.1 not aerrctury.
Also, lfln the bettPmfesslonulJudgememl ofthe evaluator, thefeulure is n roan-mode ditch and not n mndiJied natural stream-this
rating sy.?tem should not be used"
Primary Field Indicators, (circle oh,,ym.iv, Per Line)
•
9) Is A Continuous Bed Br Bank Present? 0 40 2 1
l`NU7E: llbed 6 bunk Caurpd by Uhrhlnr Anil IVIVIOU7Sinuadty Than Srore-0't
10) Is A 2"t Order Or Greeter Channel (As Indicated
On Tono Man AndRlr In Ficld) Present? Yes=1_ _ NW10
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators: (cirrieUnrNunhhrrPrrUneJ
1) Does
Y GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
8) Arc Wetland Plants In Strenmbed7 SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly AC Mostly FACII Mostly UPI,
(• NOU: // Tnho/Ahtenre OJAII Plants In Strennh4ad 1 1 .75 .5 0
0
Ar.VawlAhnre Skin ThU Sic ) UN _ttSAVPmt •nt•1 '
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.-115
TOTAL PAINTS (Primarn +Seeandan-)=JLO?L(If Greater Than Or Equal To L Paints The Strewn It At Lean Intermittent)
Geoniorpholoiry s Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is There A Riffle-Pouf Seuuence? 1 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Strenntherl
It. Hvdrolory Absent _ Weak Moderate Str n
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Disehuree Prescnl? C 1I 2 3
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS. Q
II, Hydrulory Absent Weak Moderate Strome
1) Is This Years (Or Last's) Lea(luler
1? ?; :1 rK +t?
L`'rt?1:
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
ACTIOKM.2060303 Y0 APPLICANT NAME _L Al A DATE a -5-0
PROPOSED-CHASINEL WORK (i.e.. culvert elocaacc% cm) n? /
WATERSOlaVAUKEP.WIN, SL &W JZ &0&06C, COUNTY/CITY Mel,k bi,!:4 / L L,por)-oyde-
RECENT WEATHER CONDrrIONS - L 1e 4r
•
P SP NP Observation Comments or Description
f F6h/ShelifWVCrustaoearn Present
9enWo Macro Invertkxaw
Amphibians Pracni/B coding
AJgao And/Or Fungus (water quality function)
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks. feoes. shells. other) r /
? Federally Prowaad Species Present (Discontinue)
Ri@leiPool Structure
Stable Streambanks
Char== Substrato
i.e. eravel. cobble, rock. coarse sand
GOCew S S a k)-
? Ripanan Canopy I ment (SP -/> 50% closure)
Undercut BaokVInstream Habitat Structure
Flow In Channel
Wetlands Adjacent To/ConUg. With Channel (Discontinue)
? Persistent Pools/Saturated Bottan
Lune thru ScpL)
Seeps/Groundwater D4dwge (June thru Sept.)
? Adjacent Floodplain Pmsent
Wrack Material or ' Line SOS Na k ??'Y t ct
? Hydrophytic Vegetation irvadjacwt to channel
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y ti Approz Drainage Area: Cec,r'?
lulnulul/!lluniuilluau/!lll!lunllnnllllnlnllnilallllllmnninnliulau!lluluulllu!lnllninlinlllllnnanllandnlllalallllllanNiamiinlnilulalniaulnailnan!!nullluanl
Determination:
Perennial Channel (stop) portant Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (I?rocood> Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (nojd) (&Mach map indicating location of important/unimportuu channel)
Ditch Through (-jd)
Upland
Evaluator's Signature:
(if other than C.O.E. project manager)
llllllllllll!lllllllllllllllNllllllllllll!lllllllll/llllll!ll/llllllll/l!lll//lllllll/lll!l//lllllllllllll/llllllllllllllll/lll/lllllllll/llllll/lll/////all//llll/llllll//llll/lll/lllllllll111/llllllllllllllllll/lllalll/
P=Present SP=Stongly Present NP=Not Present
?j NCQWU Stream Classification Form
1^ PrujcciName: Lp? River oasin:GA+4?ba nn Cuwtty:??L f?~ ?s vnluntor:?JG?rt`l yC'ls
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream:L;R/CY(IIJ Latitude: Signature: 1YV0(
Date: A-) US(iS QUAD: &Ilctr 10* 1'Je?Longitude: Location/Directions: 54're( 1?* 5
* P I.F,ASF: NOTE: if evuluator and landownerogrre (ha( the featurr Lr a elan-etude dltrh, (hen use oftlds form Is not neeeewry.
Also. Ifin the hec(pmfesrionaljudgement ofthe evaluator, thefrantrr isa man-made di(rh and not a umdlfied na/urul stream-this
rating slm(em should flat be used*
Primarv Field Indicators: (Ctrrle()teNulnberper line)
1. Geonjorpholgwy l'e Wvitk Moderate SlronL,
I I Is There A Riffl -Po I S a r n• •'t I
2) Is The USDA Texture In Strenmbed
n2 Differenl From Surrounding Terrnin? 0 I 3
31 Art Nnturid Lcyces 0 0 1 3
41 Is The Channel Sbi io fs's 0 1 z
3
5) Is Them An Active (Or Relic) 11
•
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 I 2
'A Baal sal •?l bybhrhtnr Ant(012THOUT•fln ntav Th•n Crnre art
10) Is A 2"d Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
0 o Jr In Field) Present? Yes-3 0
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators: (CbrleOoe,VandrerPerLine)
11 S S
21 Is There A Gaide (.nl I Point In hvi'ncP ?, I I S
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Nntural Drainage Wily'$ n S I i s
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
111
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since S I 1
.5
AlsSlegAnd r
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 " I 1.5
^-- - - . - .

SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:-t
TO TA L POINTS (Primary + Seeondarn)=X (/jCrrater Than Or Equal To L Paints The Stream Is Ar Least Inlrrmlirrno
II. Hvdrolorv Absent Weak Moderate Strom r
1) Is There A Groundwater
FlowID'scharg-c Present'? 0
PRIMAR Y HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
(l. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Ctrnne
1) Is This Years (Or 1.1151 's) I.enllltler
- -•••••• ••• anv mostly Ulsl. Mostly FACW Mostly AC Mostly FACII Mostly VPL
P NOM- //Tnml Ahreare (1f Ali Plants In Grennd+rd 2 1 .75 0 0
Af Nair / Alm-e Cl(n M, Bi •I UNIFPt' PAPPr •f •nl-i
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL '`-
EVALUATION FORM
ACTION'm APPLICANT NAME &1 L A DATE v'?? ^ UQ
PROPOSEWMA00INEL WORK culvert, relocation, eta)
WATER$OBY/R1KER9r1,SIN. r?Q+tl S ka4e wba C0UNW1CTrY Mec.Ljekbuvi A korWh
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS e:. )e'G V
•
P SP NP Observation Comments or Descripdon
Fish?Shellfishs/Crustaoeasr PrewR
8mthio Macro Invatbraks wt (ti
ArnpNbians PresrnvBrv ling
Algae Aod/Or Fungus (waw quality function) eG_ k
Wildlife Channel Use (i.L tracks. feces, shells, others) IJ e-r tA S4 e
Fedaally Protected Species Present (Discontinue)
Ri$IdPool Structure
Stable Stra mbanks
Charnel Substrata
i.e. zravel. cobble, rock hoarse sand OQ rs?. 4 k
? Rip-" Canopy Present (SP -/> 30% closure)
Undaaut Banks/Imrearo Habitat Structure
Flow In Channel / 41,9- 4-o !v o it -e
Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Chanel (Discontinue)
Persistent PooWSatutwW Bottom
Lune thru S
S-*Gmundwa -, Disci Y, (June thru SepL)
V1- Adjacent Floodplain Present
Wrack Material or Drift Liens
Hydrophytic Vegetation irvadjacent to chu»el
Important To Domestic Water Supply.' Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? ©/ N Approx. Drainage Area: Q crP
u!/u!a//auuuuun/n/naanauulraanaalannula//Jaiaaaiuanii/u/iirn/uraiuaiainaaai/iJUUniuuauin/r//niua/nm//niinin/r?ru/>/inii!/iun/iin//uan?uiuJ/adu/ui
Determination:
Perennial Channel (Xwp) Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (Pr--W) Unimportant Channel.: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no id) (attach map indicating location of irn; r vunimpott-t clwmel)
Ditch Through (-jd)
Upland
EvsJu.tor's Slgnatun:
(if other than C.O.E. project manager)
llllllllllll/llllllllllllllll/llll/llllllllllllllll/llllll/ill/ill//ll//lJll/l//llllll/ill/l/lllllll/lllllll/l1/lllllll!llllllll!llllllll!llll/l/ll1//l1/llllll/llll/ll/llll//!ll/l/llll/ill//lll!/lllllllllll/lllllll/l/llllll
P=Prescnt SPA-Stongly Present NP--Not Present
NCDWO Stream Classification Form
y ?r
i q Project Name: a River Dasin:t! (.IANbw county: : Med io H jvalunlor: ?Li
yi°r:5
DWQ••PP?roject Number: Nearest Named Stream: `AeP&Ijlatltude: Signature: A4
Date:,Z- 5'-0 J USGS QUAD:&44f 1040 00'Longitude: Location/Directions: 541'f4,1 V
*PLEASE NOTE: //'evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is u /nun-ulude ditch, then use ofthly for/" Le nal ns/... ary.
Also, (f in the best professional Judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a Inan-made dltell and not a modified natural.Ureanl-IhJX
rating system should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (ClrrleoneHundwrPerLine)
•
2) Is The USDA Texture In
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0( 2 }
['„d'Qre,Irx,d bent o,n••/?(vUfrr nn AndIYIT110LIrSlm,ntOvTh•nPrnr•-O•/
10) Is A 2"- Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated /
On Tone Mon AndlOr In Ficldl Present? Yrc=1 N10)
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: fcl_
Secondary Field Indicators: (C/r He One Nonsher Per Line)
E
J) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Dm'nnLe WaY? 0 ?? I 15
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
IL Hydrolol_7 Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Lcalliuer
4) Is Water In Channel And >4S Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 1.5
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1.5
Conditions Or In Orow' Sensop)?
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:. ?Z?
TOTAL POINTS (Prinlarr +Secondan,)-61(!fGreater Than Or Equal To L9 Points The Stream Is Al Least Intermittent)
11, Hvdrolon Absent Weak Moderate StronLy
1) Is There A Gruundwaler
Flow/Disc tube Present'! 0 0
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
al Are weuuna I`tants In SUCUInbca',' SAV Mustly OOL Mostly FACW MusttY C Mostly FACII Mostly IIPL
(• NOTE: If romLldtenre O/All Plants In S/ruamhed d 1 .75 0 0
-A-fNtnedJ1xpw_ ip aLI Prep UN _PYSAVIwen/•1
.r t
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
ACTIOtfMdo 136, &0 APPLICANT NAME G 8T,4 DATE -) -,57-61
PROPOSED'CtLWNEL WO"(i.e.. culva%mloeatior4 ew.)
WATERW9V4 VERAA,,SCn, Sjr'eA ow L) 1 Laf eL V ??•- COtnrw/crnr Neck e s, ? li r-? &A. 4d4ffe
RECENT WEATHER COKDrr1oNs G ? C c,&
r sr NP Observation Comments or Description
F6WShs1lfwWCrusuoeaio PMount r4 r Ina I ?(.? 1
BcnWe Macro InvwWraus
Amphibians h=aW3roediog J& ?k& k J 5 a ?? !?! ?? h
kg" AaWOr Fungus (want quality function)
W.Idlife Ch- 1 t ru A:. ?...?.. r .wit. ?.
J
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y I N Approx. Drainage Area: 1-5-aLres
Aunlulrl!lnluunuaaulauulunil!!an!/!a!n!anallnnilaiu!!!nl/nlulnlinauuiainnuianiuuinlianuauuiilauinnillliaiaiaunnnuialiniinlaiiuniiiaaniainulinluiili
Determination:
Perennial Channel (gyp) 7 Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR Initials
Intermittent Channel (Prod) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no1d) (attach map indicating location ofimportan?unimportsnt chanacl)
Ditch Through (nod)
Upland
0
Evaluator's sig"OUs:
(if othw than C.O. E. project manages)
l/INll1!l!all!llllll!llIll!lllllllllllllllllll!llllllllllllll!llll/lllll!l1/llllllllllllllllllllllll!llllllllllllllll!lllllllllllllllllllllll/l/llllllllllll/ll/all!/ll/llllllllll/lllllll/lllllllll/llll!l/lllll/lllll/lllll/
P=Pr=nt SPrStong+y Present NP=Not Present
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y I N
NC:DWO Stream Classification Form /? /?]/?
1 5 Projcut Name: L Q.1 q River Basin: L(At? w 16 c- County: ?eLk?r'6??Gvuluillor: berri C,? / e sye/S
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: PQ4)6(0e -Latitude: Signntum: W
Date: a - S- Q ) USOS QUAD: a0-r104e-"!5f Longitude: Local ion/Directions: Sf('CAhX
* PLEASE NOTE: lfevaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made disc/, then use ofthit form It not necessary.
Alto, !fin the best profestlanalludge went of the evaluator, the feature is n man-made ditch and not a mindiJled natural streumf -this
rating system, should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (CirrleOne Nun:berPer Line)
Ve,: o rate StronLy
11 Is There A Ril'Ilc-Pool Seguenec" 0 2 l
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
JI Are Nniural Levees Present? 0 I 1
11 Is The Channel Sutuous7 I
•
E ,1 jarred Ahare Skip Th[t Seep UNL -t't' QAV P(Lenr•I. _
S) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle Onr Nundber Per time)
S S
21 is There A (inlde Control Point In Channel? 0 ?S 1 I S
.l) Does Topognlphy Indicate A ??
Nntuml Driinnee Wnv7 0 (5? t i t
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
8) Are Welland Plants In Streambed" SAV Mostly UDL ostly FACW Mastlv AC Mostly FACU Mostly IIPL
t • NOTE: if road Abrenre Of'Ail rtanu In S:renaib,d 2 1 .75 0 0
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS. 02 r S
TOTAL POINTS (Primartr +Sermndam)_A(IfGreater Than Or Equal To L Points The Strewn AAt Least Intermittent)
10) Is A 2"' Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
I10 Nap /AndlOr In Field) ° Yrx-3 0
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
11._Hydrolon Absent Weak Moderate Strom
1) Is There A Groundwater ?
Flow/Dlschmme._Present2__ Q_ lo) 2 ]
PRIMAR Y HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: ?_
IL Hydrolozy Absent Weak Moderate Strane
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leallitier
,t; l rN
1 S c.???r,
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL 1-!
TP - ?"-
EVALUATION FORM
AcT wm.?OO/300o APPUCANTNAME LQZ'1? DATE-'?)-S-'Q/
PROPOISED-C'M& NNEL WORK (La.. quivery relocation. cv.) n? ?
WATER$O9V4UVE&AA,SIJV•?/?eQNt X1 L JcLw?c COUNTY/CITY lHejeje-,•a bUVr / C.?G? /d7 e
RECENT W&kTHER CONDMONS Jec'v-
P SP NP Observation Comments or Description
FisWSbellfiWCrustaoaarr Prsoarrt
Bcntluc Macro Invertbratss e
Amphibians hvaer /&aading
Algae Aod/Or Fungus (water quality function)
t/ Wildlife Cbanwl Use (i.e. tracks, faoa, shells, others) s v e-- re ce &t t LC` _ / S
Tr UL
t/ FoderaUy Protected Species PrcKnt (Discontinue)
RiSlerPool Structure
Stable SuvambarJts
I/ Channel Substrate
i.e. e. trvel, cobble, rock boarse sand SOlti.e J?Qctr' d G nli rf e 3 a
Riparian Canopy Present (SP -/> 50% closure)
1/ Unda vA Bmks/1nsu=m Habitat Structure
V Flow In ChNual G?r?
Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig, With Charnel (Discontinue)
Pcnistent PootatUturatod Bohan
June thm S
SecpsiC+roundwater Discharge (June Unru ScpL)
Adjacent Floodplain Pmcat
Wrack Material or Drift Lino (.L) e- Cc.L
Hydtophytie Vegetation iniadjamu to charnel
Important To Domestic Water Sypply' Y / N
Does Chancel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y / N
Approz Drainage Area:
aria,a,an„a„launi,,,n„uu,,,,,nnnnn/uiilalaiinuuaiuiinalilln„uinniiuiiaiiniiaaauaa,,,uuiuninaiianaiiaiiinniiiiiaiinuniaiauniiainiuuaui
Determination:
Perennial Channel (gyp) Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR Initials
Intermittent Channel (Prod) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (nojd) (attach map i"cating location of 4nportanUunimportant channel)
Ditch Through (no jd)
Upland
Evaluator's Signore:
(if other than C.O.E. projoct manager)
P=Present SPrStongfy Present NP=Not P=nt •
G
R;ctiis
' •wei ,q?i
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
;k mocrm,7001303yo APPLIcAP(TmAlis (- Ell A DATE/1-8-00
PROPOSED'CHANNEL WORK (Lg.. Culver% relocaLim% eta) t t1 //
WATERZObV4UVER,WIN Trfu.vr )-Z / k.TG Wb& COUNTY/CITY /Ve-e- -le116(,-q lUarlO He
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS t L4.lr'
P Sr NP
V
Observation Comments or Descriotion
Fishrshellf4WCrustaocarss Drs erst rj0 ??? +? r?? ?I S1?
Berithic Macro Invertbrasn
Amphibiw Pnscnt/&,,ding v er
,e
Alga, Aad/Or Fungus (wmw quality function)
wild! Channoi Uso (i.a.traces. tooa. s8ells. otters) I.sd vi e- +rA c kS
•ederaLly Praacwd Saociw Present (Diseontinuel
R1M JFOol Structure ) q,;t u C l: f
Stable Streaatbanks S O W+ a 4 r
Channel Suba ma
i.e, travel cobble. rock boam sand
tr O4?5 .SQk?
Riparian Canopy Dreamt (SP -p So% clomm) UC. G k
Undacan Banks/bmr.sn Habitat Structure
Flow In Channet i,.) e

? ', Wetlands AdlaCent T&Contlg. With Chmul (Mxcon4(lue)
v r ( /^' l
. i4, Ct {I/ w C.??x-C 9 e to 1? 6 eJr- d/ K r-
f Pasixrnt PooWSaturstod Bowan
lure 0av S
Svc*Crvuridwater Discharge (June thru Sept)
Adjacent Floodplsin Detect
Wr+ck Material or Drift Lim ?C! t
Hydrophytie Vegaatioo irvadjacent to chanricl
Important To Domestic Water Supply? YIN

Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y I N > / b
Approx. Drainage Area: - acne 5
auruaalulnruuln!lrnalJruralnululiuauullaallalllalnuaalninluuuauulllilllnn?uuaiuailnnullluilailllaauanaullaianlliiniaillnuaaliulnialllaiailnaiiaauu
Determination:
Perennial Channel (map) important Channel; I.F PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (p* ) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Chaanel (no jd) (attach map indicating location of importandunimportsnt channel)
Ditch Through (mid)
Upland
'
Evaluator
s S(
gnattire:
(if otter than C.O.E. prvjca marWtar)
rllllllll!llllll!ll!lllllllIIIIJIIIIIIIl1/llflllllllll/llll11llllllllllllllllllllllll/lll/ll/11111111111111l11/lllll/l/IIIIIIIII/II/l/ll/llllllll//lll/lllllllll/llll/lllllll?lllllllllllllllrl/Ill/llll!llll!!lllllllll/IJ/III
P=Prescnt SPrStongly Present NP=Not Present
1 NCDNVO Stream Classification Forln
Project Name. River Basin:CA+0.W 6k Cowly:/0BLVL'Hb4Y4 valuator: f,,e(/'??,n"(-k MyerS
DWQ Project Number` Nearest Named Stream r-4!f YAmitude: Signature: IA ^
Dntc: ) /- i3 -Oe13 USGS QUAD.6?10}4' WCyt Longitude: Location/Directiuns: s4rCLs K. ;L
*PLEASE NOTE: II'evaluaror and landownerugree that the feature is o neon•aiade ditch, then use ofthds form it not nevessary.
Also, ifin the best pmfessional/udgemen(of the evaluator, the frolitre is a man-mode ditch and not a inodilled natural stream-this
rating system should not be used*
Primary Field IndicatOrs: (CirrieOlreNuminrrPerUna)
1. Geomornholoev A Moderate Strone
I I Is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence'! `Q I 2 t
2) Is The USDA Texture In Stmambed
31 Arc Nglural Levees I A p)
Sinuous? 4) Is The Channel S) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 `r 1
PN07" t/Brd' bunt Caw d By Ditrhrnn And IV1T11011T Sin-div Then Srnrv?0't
10) Is A 2"t Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Topo Mop And/Or In Fib ) Prcscn(? Yes=3 Nn(01
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
40 Secondary Field Indicators: (Clrr(eOne,Yunll)erPerllnel
1) Does Topography Lldicnte A
Natural DminµLe Wny? (Sl I 1 S
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS,
11. Hvdroloey Absent Weak Moderate tron
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Lealliltcr
4) is Water lit ChunnclAnd >48 Hrs. Since 0 C-5) 1 !,S
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry U .5 1 1.5
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS
8) Arc Welland Plants In Slreambed? SAY Mostly OBI. Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACII Mostly VPL
0 NOTE: l/7owl Aluenre O/All Plnnu In Sweandn d 2 I 75 S 0 0
• Atd NWM.11Any Ski, TALr Si,,=.-S$AVPr=•nPl
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
TOTAL POINTS (Primary +SecondaMas-23(IjGreater Than Or Equal To Lp Paints The Stream Is At Least Interinitleno
It. Hvdroloev Absent Weak Moderate Rtrone
1) Is There A Groundwater ?
Flow/Discharee Prescnt? 0 (I1 2 3
PRIMAR Y HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.--J--
NiLDWO Stream Classification Form
/• l f,
) -7 Prujcu Name: 4D.TA River Basil): C4L+cx1-+-??6c, uanty:Wec-We ~?40cvalunlur: 8errlr(- `y-e
DWQ Project Number. Nearest Named Stream. /jLertferrqntitude: Signature: a4A
Date: 4j -0 9-00 USGS QUAD.aCLIAAC L) ? )t Longitude: Lucntion/Dirccliuns:.5+rCk ?(^ is NO'T'E: if evalautor and landoWneragrte that the ftatarr Is a nnun-laude ditch. then ase of that foran is not necessary.
Also, Vim she hem proftsslonalladlement of the evaluator, the frulare is a rnun-anode ditch and no( u mod(Iled natural stream-this
rallnr xylem should not he ated*
Primary Field Indicators: (Clrrle(h9eNundxrPer Lino)
Geortioriiholopy Absent a o I'llte S r
1) Is There A Riffle-Foul Sequence? 0 I Z
2) is The USDA Texture In Strenmbed
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present'! 0 1
I-NOTE- If Ned d bnn}Cuu.sABvbhrh/nnAnd WIT//OUTSlm,n,lrv Thep T or•-ah
10) Is A 2`J Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Toro MnF And/Or In Field) Present',' Y s 1 Nn=0
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POIN S:_ 7

Secondary Field Indicators: (ClrrltOntNunibtrPrrLnr/
J) Does Topography Indicale A
RY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
I1. Hydrolon Absent Weak Moderate Strove
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Lenflitlcr
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .3 I 1.3
Last Known Rain? • t .,..
S) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 I 1.5
Condkoons Or In Crowlna Scnsonl?
M) Are Welland Plants In Strenmbed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly IIPL
(• NOTEt If ronel Ah.tare Of All Plants In Srrrnadn4 2 1 .75 .S 0 0
-AS-Vrwr nprefjlln 7Mr Siea UAL&USAVPr'fem-1 '
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS. . )
TOTAL POINTS (Prim art) + Sernndan'1-3L(/f Greater Than Or Equal To L Points The Stream I.r Ar Least intermittent)
It. Hvdrolnev Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater /
Flow/Discharge Present? I 2 65
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:.S,
R;R t i Y:
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL e.
EVALUATION FORM
ACTIOPf m 2661303 yo APPLICANT rw a G U,,{- A DATE g " a 2- 60
PROPOSED'CRANNEL WORK (Lt., Nlvert, relocation, etc.)
WATERS06Y4MRt.WIN S reab-, l ? kc f-e- coutrrYicr" flileGlr,leklb&-, ; /L l•arlo1•-
-w bi, tlof
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS C e Gt 6-
P SP NP Observation Comments or Description
? FiWShellroh/Ctunaccasr Present
Sv t .4"
V Benthic Maao Invartbrates
Amphibians Prese 030 ding / D
Algae Aod/Or Fungus (water quality function) ..
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracker. foots, shells, others) vt? f?"C.G
Faderauy Nvtoctod Species Present (Discontinue)
i/ RiHleiPool Structure
j/ Stable Streambanks
Channel Substrata
cobble el, cobble. tuck hoarse sand
i.e.
?4tdS{/ /'QG4S 5U-e-
Riparian Canopy Present (SP -/> 50% closure)

UodcrvA Banks/Insaeam Habitat Structure
I h soy. e orecs
Flow In Channel
Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel (Discontinue)
Persistent PooWSatur"ad Bottom
Lune thru S
V Secpt/Choundwaw Discharge (June thru Sept.)
Adjacent Floodplain Pracat
t/ Wrack Material or Dtitt Lines
Hydrophytic Vegetation irvadjaoent to charnel
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? N Approx. Drainage Area: of acre
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll/llllllll/llll!lllllllllllllllllllll!lllllllllllllllll/l!llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll/lllllll/llllll!lull/!llll///llll/llllllll!llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll/
Determination-
Perennial Channel (gyp) Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR Initials
Intermittent Channel (prod) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (nojd) (attach map indicating location of importantluaimpon-t channel)
Ditch Through (nojd)
Upland
ptaane:
Evaluator's St
(if odw that C.O.E. prRic a manager)
llllllllll/llllllllll/llllll!l!llll!llll!lllllllllllll/lull/lIllll/ll/llllllll!ll/!l/lllllll/l!ll1/lull/llll/lllllllllllllll!lllllllllllll/!lllllllllll!lull/lllllllll!lll/l/l/!ll/llllllll!llll/llllllllllll!/IlIII//ll/lll
P--Present SP,-Stonef v Present NF=Not Present
tVC:UW Stream Classification Form
(?ff??"`
PrujcctNnmc; GUyt? River Basin: l-?+?wbc"? Cuwtty:McLkKN?CvulwUur:l,}2'/"? y?'?
DWQ Project Number. Nearest Numed SlreamLatitude: Signature: M&A
Date: 07 -57-c) I USGS QUAD4/1 ttI(r'o4-c I. eglongitude: Lucntinn/Dircelions: > lreCl N1.1
*P I.EASE NOTE: lI evaluator and lundowner agree rhos the feature it a oton-thole ditch, then use of this form is not nevessury.
Also, if in the burl professionalludgemens of the evaluator, she fratare is a Imam-made ditch and mat a modified natural sirfaw-this
raring systems should mat be needs'
Primnrv Field Indicators; (Circle Owe Mundwr Per V-4
1. Geornorpholoey Absent r 4 t r
i i is There A Mr+ie i'oul ScQuence" 0 2 1
2) Is The USDA Texture In Strearnbed
dl to The r'h-A Sinunue'1 I) _2 3
•
9) Is A Continuous Bed,te Bunk Present'! 0 I
^
10) Is A 2"+ Ordcr Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Topq Map And/Or In Fieldl Present? Y -3 r
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:--V--
Secondary Field Indicators: (ClrrleOneNuniberPer lJnq

3) Does Topography Indicate A
S S
Natural Dri1nage Way? 0
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
I1. Hvdroloev Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is This Ycni s (Or Last's) LenBitler M
4) Is Water ht Clutnncl And >48 Hrs. Since 0 C. 5) 1 1.5
5) Is There Water La Channel During Dry (0) 5 1 1.5
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 1,
TOTAL POINTS (Primary +Seenndum)'a{!f Greater Than Or Equal To 12 Paints The Stream AAI Least Inreemittenl)
rr HydrolorIv Absent Weak Moderate Strnne
1) Is There A Gruundwatcr
Flow/Discharge Present" 0 ( 1 2 J
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
8) Are Wc(htnd Plants In Sircurnbed'! SAV Mustly UBL Mostly FAr: W Mostly PAC Mostl)AACll Mostly UPL
(• NOTE: //Toro/Absenrs O/All Plana In tren:nbrd 2 1 .75 S ^ U0 0
Ar Nruml 4 Imove SAID 7ALt W UNL FSY SAY Pran m•t- '
MtQtl
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
ACTION-Mo?061363V0 APPLICANT NAME L D T A DATE -)-5-0(
PROPOSED-CUMMOEL WORK (La.. culvert. relocation etc) I t - - / /
WATER$06YANEIZB?A IN.?P•li?-, I? ZiLa4-0. o6c, COUN TY/CTTY Meck-ki-L v Zi rei / `L a ofpc
RECENT WEATHER COKDrrIONS L 1 e Ct r
•
r SP NP Observation Comments or Description
F6WShe WulvCn uaoew Posen

?
eenthic Macro Invertbratra L
11J, d: p k e 1
An*p biuns Ptn rWBrooding
Algae AadlOr FunV a (water quality function) u ear Vf 4 /-C _
Wildlife Chanel Use (i.e. tracks. faces, shells, odwrs)
Federally Protected Species Prssmt (Discontinue)
t/ RiBleiPool Suucauo
? Stable Streambanks

v Chanel Substrate
i.e. eravel. cobble. rock souse sand f-
5 C11,? ?r!? U t /'ti O 5 y
Riparian Canopy Present (SP a/> 50% closure)
? UoderaA BNkW1aVvaM Habitat Structure
Flow In Channel UeV ?.(
Wetlands Adjacent Ta/Contig. With Charml (Discontinue) W ?,{ k:a t' 10t? Df. fi
? Pe sutent Pool.VSanut lad Bottom
Lune thru S
t.? SoepdCrroundwater Discharge (June thru Sept.)
Adjacent Floodplain Praeat
Wrack Material or Drift Linea v er
Hy"hytie Vegetation Wadjspan, to chaa ncl
Important To Domestic Water Supply' Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y / N Approx. Drainage Area: /3 Cv. reS
u/rull/nlun/J/unluuauurualuulaluuluuaa/uunuuaau/uuln!/!a/!an//a/uaunn!/lunu/u//1uu/au/1 ////alcoca/nuu/ua/nn/i/lal/!/!>nu/uuuulnulnaunuaia/u/ui
Determination:
Perennial Channel (gyp) Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (pry) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no jd) (ouch map indicuing location of important/unimportant channel)
Ditch Through (-jd)
Upland
Evaluator's Slgmw v:
(if outs Uun C.O. E. Project manager)
IlJIIlIIIIIIIIIII!llllJllllllllll!!llllllllllll!llllllll!lllllllllll/l/llll!llllll!lllllll/llllllllll!llllll!l!llllllll/lll/llllllllllllll/llllllllll/lll!lllll/l/lllllllll//lll///lllllllllll/1111/!/lllllllllllllllllllllllll

NILDWO Streamclassification -burin r' 11 /? {?,?
1 I Prujcw Name: I` D.T A River Basin: 6A+a td ? Cuwuy: „„??'' /I ck"7k?vuluntur: JDerr/ ?C r" 'Yerf
I DWQ Project Number. Nearest Named Stream: I tCCo- Latitude: Sibmntum: /WAN'
Date: lo-3-'00 USOSQUAD: U011 #eldeSrLongitude: Location/Directions:
* Pt.EAS F NOTE: If fYaIMY/OI Ynd lumdoWmt/ap/fr Ihml Ihrl[YIU/f lr a onnun•nnunle ditch. them a.rr of shls farno is moo necessary.
Also. if in the best prafessionulludxement of oh[ eeulnutor, the fe/ltu[e is a nnum•nrmde ditch and not u onodllled autunvl strrunn-ohis
rudnt syatrmr should not be used*
Primnrv Field Indicators: J0nq 0meNumlwrPerL/me) 0.
t
o C o ,
i i Is There A It Me Poul Sci u«" 0 1 2 1
2) Is The USDA Tcxture In Strenmbed
Different From Surrounding TerraW 0 2 n3
31 Are Natural I evices Present" 0 1 2 ]-
d1 Is The rhmnnel Suwnus9 0 ?
•
S) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
r[ V[drolIL1 Assent Weak Moderate Scene
1) Is There A Uruundwater
Flow/QQjlchnrgc Pt " U l 2 n
PRIMARYHYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
Secondary Field Indicators: IC1rr1etl4eNumdnrPerllme/
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR
J) Does Tupugraphy Indicate A
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
II. Hvdrolon Absent Weok Moderate Strome
1) !s This Year's (Or Lnst's) Leofliucr /"'\
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .S 1 U
Last Knowg n c r A1.4 I
S) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .S 1 I.S
Conditinns Or In (irowinv Sensonl7
SECONDARY HYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS.
8) Are Wetland Plants In Strcnmbed.0 SAV Mustly OOL Mostly FACW Alostly FAC Mostly FACII Mostly tIPL
1110 TE: I/Twal Ahrenre O/All Planer in Smwdw 2 I 71 S 0 0
-A.t Mm,J Al.nv Slln W, Situ UNLEVS SAY Praa•nN 1.
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
TOTAL POINTS (Pr!^na?P +Seenndon,)4? lfGreater Than Or Equal To L2 Paints The Stream Is At Least InferoniftenO
9) Is A Cominuuus Bed do Bunk Present? 0 1 ! U
l0) Is A'2- Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Topo Mop And/Or In Field) Present'? YeaF 1 1 Ntt=0
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POIN/'S:
•

INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
ACTIOtfID t oo) 303Yy APPLICANT NAME &017A DATE J0 -3 - 00
PROPOSEWCUANNEL WORK (i.e., Nlva % retoc&Uoq etc.) ^,?
WATERSOBYlRlKER13A.SIN.,S+req&, , eA It! a.+a tub a- COUNTY/Crry /y12coeu-, krY z 6k ", ? k
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS ( 6C.t,t,
•
P SP NP QtSeryadU CommentS or Description
V 1 I F6WShsllfi WCru aaowss PtoaR SNt k t' /?t l N KUtJS
Bcnthio Macro Invettbraus
Amptubiw Pt wt/&ooding
OC
r/ Algae Aad/Or Fungus (waw quality function) ?.
t1 Wildlife Charmel Use (i.e. tracks. fors, shells, others) ?-? L L oOk ?/Yr e`S
FWcraUy Protocted Species Present (Discontinue)
RiSldpool Structure
t/ Stable Strtambutks
S D I e. S ?-t. ? z S o I•?-E u n s+4 r•
Charms Suban"
i.e. vet, cobble. rock roux sand
O L k T ?i0 r LJ /e
Riparian Canopy Present (SP -/> 30% closure)
UndcrcA Baoks/lrnaunt Habitat Structure
Flow In Chaorml
Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel (Discontinue)
Persistent PooWS&W%& d Boma
June thru ScpL)
Seeps/Groundwaw Disctwge (June tlvu Scpt.)
Adjacent Floodplain Praeat
Wrack Maunal or Drift Line
Hydrophytic Vegetation 4vaoisca t to cl uutel
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N (?
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? ApproiL Drainage Area: 3 g7Ct ores
!lllllllaulln!!laluual/auunulunulnululullal!!!!nu/l!lllallainilllii!hull/lllllnlullnlnnlilainnn!lllllu!/nllnunliuuuainllnllaanalnianullaanullunuuullllu!!!!li
Determination:
F erennial Channel (SWO Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
ntermittent Channel (Pr?Unimportant Channel: LF
phemeral Channel (nojd) (attach map indicating location of 4Twortant/unimportant clu mcl)
itch Through (nojd)
pland
Evalastor's S(ptatsrr+e:
(if orbs than C.O.E. proica rrunagcr)
!!lull/lllllllllllllllll/lllll/llllllllll /l/l/lllllllllll/ll/llllll n//lllllllllll/lll/llll/lll/Illllllllllll/llll/llll/lull!///llllllllll///l/lull //l/llllll/ll/ll/lll///l/llllll/l/llllllll//ll/lll//lll/ll/lllllll/llll/l
P---Present SPrStnnPW Pm-ent NP--Not Present
NC,1UWY Stream Classification burin
Pruject Name: River Basin: C.a+a)bC,_ C0w1(y:Mel.-"+.4wSrvn)un1UrAern.C L)gye4,:5
G?FF -??
O DWQ Project Number. Nearest Named Stream: ji ,e r Latitude: Signawre:
Date: `o_3-oo US()SQUAD: a4f I0*C 4kStLung)tude: Lucntion/Direcliuns:g1re_Cto,
*PI.FASF NOTE: If evuluntar and landowner NQree that Ihelfa(ure Is a Noun-noalle dlll•h. them use of Ihls fora is Not NN•essary.
Also. (f 111 IAe hest pmfessloNalludgrairm/ of trot evulualor, IAe frulure is a Man-lolude ditch and not u toodilled nuW1Ul slreu/N-this
ruling.spleM should Not be axed*
Primnry Field Indicators: (CYrrlr(areNaNJ?rPrrL/neJ
S a t
• Modermte
1. Geoniornholgirv t Weak r
II Is There A RMI .• ul Seguence"
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
9
31 Arc Nniurid Levees l 1
41 Is The Chnnnel S'
S) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is A Conlinuuus ned.tc Bank Present! 0 U Z J
(„(t'OlE•//N "'rL??fAyA AtYIT/IL/UT ?'?^••^•?•••?• Clir•^a•1 -
10) Is A 2' Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Tung Mop Andes In Fields Pres t•r Y -3 r Nip
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTY:
II Hvdroln" Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is There A Gruundwater //
Flow/Disehnrec Present" r 0 CP? 2
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.•
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle tine Wnd?er per liner
.1) Does Topography Indicate A
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
Il Hydrolofrv Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is This Vcar's (Or Last's) Latfliucr "-"%
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 tlrs. Since 0 I 1.1
S) Is There Water In Channel During Dry t/ 0 S 1 1.5
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:--,Q-
8) Are Wetland Plants In Sircambcd:' SAV Mustly UUL Mostly FAI.•W Mostly FAC Mostly FAC11 Mos11y tIPL
40 (s NOT£r if,, 41neare rlfAll Plants In Srsmdi,d 1 1 .75 0 0
A.,YaLlAdm,f, (n nLf S1- UNf•l VV SA V P,.,. .
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 2? S
TOTAL POINTS (Pr(/narv +Srenndarv)N+6r afGreater Than Or Equal Tit L2 Paints The Stream Ism Least InferrnineaO
4

ACTION-M 0?W/ 30.3 YO
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
APPUCANT NAME (- DIT 4
.wt•'
DATE 1Q-3-00
PROPOSEWCUKMNEL WORK (i.e.. fulvat, rsloeatloo. etc.) Or_
WATERBOOM lVEILAASt14 ?frea ?.-. ) z / L?i-a ?J C? COUNTY/CTTY / ?'t C c.?LIZ?- CJ[a raj ) (i CI /? RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS P 1 z4 r
•
P SP NP Observation (Comments or DmdZion
Fish/Shellfuh/Cnataowa Prs.aK
V Benthic Me= InvenbWm V eP' r f
Amphibians Praa?t/&ooding
Algae Aod/Or Fungus (water quality function)
Wildlife Chancel Use (i.e. tracks. fam, shells, others) f ?5
Federally Prwoctod Spocics Presrnt (Discontinue)
I/ Rit3ldpool Structure
Stable Sa-mnbanks ;11 Seju e- 6trCCt
Channel Substrate
i.e. travel, cobble. rock coax sand L oCl ? S C s C7. t,?
Ripanan Cawpy Present (SP -/> 50% closure)
e
Undercut BankA ssucun Habitat Structure
Flow In Channel
UL,r t.J C Ca-?
Wctlauds Adjacent T*IContig. With Charunel (Discontinue) 61o o L +
? Penisunt PooLt/Sanuatod Bottom
Junethru SepL)
Seepa/Crtoundwatsr Discluuge (June a" Sept.)
Adjacmt Floodplain Prsscut
l/ Wrack Matcrial or Dritt Lines l.1 ew?
Hydrophytie Vegetation iNadjaocnt to channel
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y/& Approx. Drainage Area: 40-e-
urrurararrrnurunrrpunurnrarnuuunrrruurrrrurrnaarrurrrnuaaunrrrnrrnruurnrrrururrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrurrrrrrrrnarinrnaniminrianrauauururuuniunurrriarairrmnrr
Determination:
Perennial Channel (gyp) Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (Pry) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (nojd) (attach map indicating location of impwant/unimportant channel)
Ditch Through (nojd)
Upland '
L_j Evdustoes sigm acre:
(ifodw than C.O.E projGa Mena&-)
rrurrrnuaarnurainrrrurrrrruanuuruularaarararurnpnnrrumunannumrrnuaarrnuramrrrnarruurrrrrrruraurninnrnirrnnuurrmnnurrunuulruuununruauruurual
NC.lJWQ Stream C:lassilleatioll burin
Pruject Nalne:C1•JJ• A River Basin: 6& t-a w6c- cuwttY: e&. -lek 1 /Ialuutur: [)e?cAyers
I -?^ M?(/? s
DWQ Project Number. Nearest NamedStream:liler Latitude: Signature: /tOk
57?rt4?a+ 111 P?
Date: P-,5--0j USRS QUAD:0h4fWkWe5T Luuuitude: Local ion/Dimctions:
Is P LEAST NOTE: I/ evalnuter and landowner agfrf that the feataff If 1111411-made dlfl'h. then u-tr of This form If not nft'rffary.
Also. Vin the bass prafemionalladgenlent of the rvulaafor, the fralure IY a nlan•llltide 1Nteh and not a sandllled nutarul slrfam-NIIa
rating syflent should ass be useds'
Primary Field Indicators: rclml.lJkrNti11•,rrPrrunrJ
h o S 1 r
1. Genniornholgivy t
i i Is Them A R'Me l'uul Seguenee" al I
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
5) Is There An Active (Or
9) Is A Conlinuous Bed Sr. Bunk Present? U I U
C•NCIl£ t/ lys•bu f rut ov j •r-•• A-•1 rvrrrlnuf ejpl Irv Th • cr r •-nh
10) is A Y' Order Or Oreater Channel (As Indicated
1 'l Yes-3 0
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
It. Hydroln" Absent Weak Moderate Strune
1) Is There A Gruundwater
PRJ UTARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
0 PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
E
Secondary Field Indicators: (Clrrl,O Oe.Y.Ndarr Per Line)
] 1 Ix Tilrre a I I. rl (Ail nrrsuu In Channel" 0 5 I S
21 Is hcrgA.iillldu L:1 1 ' jnl.in Ch"nnel? 0 S 1 1 I.$
J) Does Topugntphy Indicate A
NaltgalDmin11p.Wag? -r n r? ? ) t
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.-
11, Hydrulotcv Absent Weak M1lodernte Stronu
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Lcstllittcr
Present In StrenWbgd? 1.5
.•
1 Present" S S
4) Is Water Its Channel And >0 Hrs. Since 0 1 1.5
" . 1 Alf •. r f , ..
5) is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 I 1.5
Cond'dons Or In .q "
I;1 A- 11,.,1.:.. c•,:1. nr..-I 1. l':M. llrr9,...,.rrt Mr In rl-dow%'I Yrrr / S Na
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
TOTAL PQINTS (P?Itnan, 4-.Ser0n4.r, ss/ °I'tIf Crrarrr Than Or Equal To L Points The Stream Is.-It Least Inlerrnlnenq
8) Art Welland Plants In Stmambed? SAV Muscly UUL Mostly FACW Mostly AC Mostly FACII Mostly tlrt.
O NOM I/Taal A6fenre f1/All Planla In irwmllnvl 2 1 .75 0 0
oft
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
•
ACTIOK'ID02L)6I APPLICANT NAME L (11A DATE 0? +s-L) I
c
PROPO'SEWCSItt14EL WORK (i.e., vulvert, relocadon. et)
WATER$OBVAUVERt.Wll! ,4 re4.w. t- & a+a. wige, COUNTY/CITY Me L L )k" b i c l L Larfc,-f JF'C
RECENT WEATHER CONDRTRONS
P SP NP Observation Coffunents or Description
V- FisWShellfish/Cruuaoaww Prawn
R/ Bmthic Macro Invertbrates (1e O (,C• Rw? G,J r M / N e-
Arttphibiaro Prssatt/&ooding
AJgra And/Or Fungus (water quality function)

/
V
Wildlife Chuwel Use (i.e. tracks. races, shells. others) II
f PA tiIIL S
? Fodetally Protected Species Present (Discontinue)
RiHldPool Structure
Stable Streaatbanks
? Channel Substrata
i.e. vet, cobble. rock coarse sand SCI ?,
f
? Ripatiua Canopy Present (SP -p 50% closure)
Undermt Baak9b a m Habitat Structure
Flow In Chuvwl S Ot^• e- )Jccf U e r jr ff (e
Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Chwrel (Discontinue)
Pcniumt Poolt/Satuntad Bwm
Lune (tVu S
Sec*Ctroundwatar Disctwge (June sham Scpt.)
Adjacent Floodplain Present
Wr-Ck Matctiat or Dritt Lion
Hydrophytic Vegewiou irvadjaeatt to chuml
Important To Domestic Water Supply' Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map' YON Appro>L Drainage Area: Vaa a
u//unma//a//lmute/r/uuau/a/uula/n!/ulaaun!!uu!!uu//aaann/mulluunnnu!/ten/n!ulunauunn///ann/an/annia/rnnnm/iiillate/i/n/aalnnullaunaaia/laianni
Detcnnination:
Perennial Channel (nap) ?_Impottant Channel: LF PROJECT MGR Initials
intermittent Channel (mcced) L" Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (rojd) (attach map indicating location of imporutnt/uni nportant chuwcl)
Ditch Through (n oid)
Upland '
Evaluator's Slgrutun:
(if other than C.O.E. projex nwuger)
lI/llllllll ll!llllll llI/!ll1/llllll/lllllll!llll/llllll!l//l/ll1/I l/lllll/ll/lll/llll!!llll/l/l/lllll/llll/lllll//lll///l/l!llll/l/lllll/ll/llll/llll//ll/lll/lllllllll /1111/ll!/llllll!/llllllll/lllllllllllllll//llllllllllll
0-0--. M--Can.. L, Dr•.c.nt Wt---1Jnr Prrcrnl
im-I)WO Stream Classification burin ` (,,
? GC. C'uwrlY Il?le(.kkti`?"'Yfvuluutur:I-?C'VYIGi??r?
Prujcct Name: A River Basin: ACt 1
DWQ Project Number. Nearest Named Stream-'GCV" ?L-ntitude: Si}prnture: LL 1
Date: A) /0..00 USGS QUAD: ?Pe5'Lungitude: Luention/DimMons: STre&V-^ a
* P LEASE NOTE: l/evulaaror and landowner serer that the tature is a Nlun•nlude difelt. then use of lh/s form Is not neressury.
Also. I/In She ee rPm/e sional/udgeMent of the evaluator, the frature I#u Mum-etude dife); and not u Mind/fled natural stream -this
rurlne systens should not be used*
Primnry Field lndieatOrSS (CtrritOntNuWwrPerVow) 0.1
n Id Strom-,
Iyen
I I Is There A Rg l[ iloui Scguence" 0 1 2 i
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
S) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is A Cunsinuuus Bed .tt Bunk Present? 0 1 U o
rlr cl. .. Then Crar -V) -
10) Is A 2- Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Tapo Mop And/Or In Fieldl Present? Yrc=1 NI 0
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
11. HYdrolrrLV Absent Weak Modernfe Strtnte
1) Is There A Gruundwuter 1
r1-1n:..,k-,._ n.?.. rt n I ?2 1 J
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
0 PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
Secondary Field Indicators: (C1rrh0rr,Vaw4rrPrr(J?r/
1) Does Topography Indicate A
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.-
11. Hvdrolov-Y Absent Weak Nindernte Sfrone
1) Is This Ycor's (Or Last's) Lenllilter ,,k
4) Is Water In Ch+tnnel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .S & 1.5
I s f-.Y(4 rE- If Ditch Indira fed In 09 4 1- - A to 1h 11 S"I'd 11-11 S) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 US r 1 1.5
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mustly OUL Mostly FACW Willy FAC Mostly ACt1 Mostly VPL
NOTE. I/Tnal Alueere 0/AM Plaeer !n Ttreaodwd 1 l r •?S • S 0
f/Nr A'CC.CIVPr?ren/?l
• i. y,.....1 ?1.... CII.. nl, Ste$
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
TOTAL POINTS (Prbnarn +Secandarn),36 afGrearer Than Or Equal To L Paints The Stream is At Least Intermittent)
""``?
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
0-00
ACTiOKID O?oo) 3L); Yo APPLICANT NAME L Q.T A DATE 16--JL
PROPOSED'C'!DOMEL WORK (i.e., Nlva% relkwstimt. eta.)
WATERsooYA &AAA.SIN-7,-t-e ,.m,)tr I&Cja JbC, COUNTY/CrrY e?? N Lard L?4rJo e
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS Ct&-
lIl
p Sp NP Observation fbmments or Description
F6wSbollf6hvCn"%&o=m Prvatt
Bcndh c Macro tnvenbra&m
nlm*biam Prssau/Btoodi4
Algae Aa&Or Fungus (water quality function)
Wildlife Cbanwl Use (i.e. tracks. fooa. shelf', others) '
SC r? Ge40 ?' ?PCr Ti ?+ S
Federally Protected Species Present (Discontinue)
Ri8ldpool Structure
StableStreambanks SOk.L' 4 7.9 are S' e
? Chamxl Substrate
i.e. gravel. cobble, rock 6s- sand lo?ravef 9'" GC? Cars e SGs-S-2
Riparian Canopy Present (SP -/> 50% closure) ( ((J C4
Uwkrcut Baaks/lrtsaaua Habitat Structure
? Flow In Channel
Wetlands Adjacent TolContig. With Channel (Disoontinue)
Ptrsiumt PooWSaamLW Bohan
June thru S
Soepo/Groundwaw Discharge (June thru Scpt.)

Adjacent Floodplain Praeat
v Wrack Material or Drift Lion e 4..L--
Hydrophytic Vegetation 6va4jaoent to chancel
Important To Domestic Water Supply.' Y / N 7
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map' Y ApproL Drainage Area:
Ull/lrllll lrllllrlllrllllllll!llllllll/l/rlll/llllll/ll/llll//I/llll/l//ll/l/lllllll/llll/llll/ll!l!ll!llll/llllll?lllllll/r/Ill?llNlll/lllllll/lll/11111?1/Il/llllll/Ullll?l//l/lllll?l?lllll?llll?llll/?/llllrlNllll /ll/
Detcrminadon:
Pereaaial Channel (Swp) Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (Pfocacd) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no jd) (attach map indicating location of imponutt/unimportant channel)
Ditch Through (void)
Upland
Evaluator's Signature:
(if other than C.O.E. project manager)
rauuauu//uauuud/ru/lluu//au/roilitualuua/luaaualuuurllauanuluulnulululnulaiannlluunlaui/lauullulll/mllllulaua/saluarlrlululluuullrulrrrlaruuulun

Appendix E
NC Division of Water Quality Stream Evaluation
•
r?
•

Y
10
10
(D
13
ss.
Y
C,
0
11
Appendix A
Alternative Analysis
•
•
•
CHAPTER THREE -ALTERNATIVES
FINAL
"Jump Start" process included representatives from the airport, airlines, FAA, and
local planning agencies. The second phase evaluation was to examine the shortlisted
alternatives in greater detail and modify those alternatives based on additional
analysis.
The initial "jump-start" evaluation resulted in a shortlist of alternatives that satisfied
the following CLT (airport sponsor) criteria: meet the 20-year arrival and .departure
demand requirements, minimize off-airport impacts, minimize on-airport impacts,
and maximize runway use flexibility. The conclusions reached from this evaluation
were:
• New runway development to the east of the existing airfield would be more
disruptive to the neighboring community, has higher development cost, and
conflicts with the use of Runway 23 for arrivals.
• New runways less than 7,000 feet in length do not serve jet aircraft which is
the predominant aircraft using CLT. Shorter runways, which do not serve
jet aircraft, do not deliver sufficient capacity to serve future capacity needs
of the airport.
• New parallel runways which are spaced less than 2,500 feet from current
runways cannot serve as a third arrival or a third departure runway.
• While there is some need for additional departure runway capacity, the
predominant need for additional runway capacity is for arrivals.. Thus,
runway lengths in excess of 9,000 feet are not necessary, because this length
is sufficient to serve all aircraft in the airlines' fleets.
The result of the "jump-start" process was the selection of three airfield development
concepts that were proposed to be carried forward for further analysis. The shortlist
of alternatives included:
• New 9,000-foot runway spaced 2,500 feet west of existing
Runway 18R/36L
• New 9,000-foot runway spaced 3,400 feet west of existing
Runway 18R/36L
New 9,000-foot runway spaced 5,000 feet west of existing
Runway 18R/36L
All of the proposed runway development alternatives would require acquisition of all
the land west of the airport to the proposed Outer Beltway (I-485) in order to
accommodate the runway and associated parallel and connector taxiways.
Residential and commercial properties in this area would need to be acquired and
relocated.
CHARLOTTE/DOUOLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-20
November, 1999
CHAPTER THREE - ALTERNATIVES FINAL
i
The second phase of the evaluation process evaluated the selected alternatives on the
following criteria: additional peak-period capacity, acceptable taxiing distances and
times, development costs, aircraft noise impacts, long-range development
preservation (beyond the 20-year Master Plan horizon development requirements),
and compatibility with future FAA ATC technological advances.
In addition to the shortlisted alternatives, the proposed runway alternative from the
previous Master Plan was included as part of the evaluation process. This
alternative, a parallel runway at a separation of 1,200 feet from existing Runway
18R/36L, does not meet the airside facility requirements as identified. However, it
was necessary to draw a comparison to the shortlisted alternatives.
The three shortlisted alternatives were modified to account for separation
requirements associated with the runway threshold staggers. Also, the runway
separation standard was reduced by the FAA in 1996 from 5,000 feet to 4,300 feet.
Therefore, 4,300 feet of separation is the minimum separation that is required to
conduct triple independent instrument (IFR-instrument flight rules) operations. As a
result, the following alternatives were included in the detailed evaluation process:
• New 9,000-foot runway spaced 1,200 feet from existing Runway 18R/36L3o
• New 9,000-foot runway spaced 2,700 feet from existing Runway 18R/36L"
• New 9,000-foot runway spaced 3,700 feet from existing Runway 18R/36L32
• New 9,000-foot runway spaced 4,300 feet from existing Runway 18R/36L13
Exhibit 3-1 shows all of the runway configuration alternatives in the Sponsor's
Proposed Action evaluation. The close-in alternatives (1,200 feet and 2,700 feet
separation) were eliminated from further analysis because neither would provide the
capability of triple independent arrivals under IFR. Both alternatives would cause
operational delays for both arriving and departing traffic and result in noise events
occurring into the more sensitive nighttime hours.34 There would also be direct
overflights of three schools located south of the airport. In addition, neither
alternative would be compatible with future air traffic control technology advances
because it is not likely that future technology would allow triple independent IFR
arrivals at these proposed separations.
30 This alternative is referred to as "Alternative A" in the Charlotte/Douglas International Airport Master Plan
Study Update, Final, January, 1998, prepared by Landrum & Brown, Incorporated.
31 This alternative is referred to as "Alternative B" in the CharlottelDouglas International Airport Master Plan
Study Update, Final, January, 1998, prepared by Landrum & Brown, Incorporated.
32 This alternative is referred to as "Alternative C" in the Charlotte/Douglas International Airport Master Plan
Study Update, Final, January, 1998, prepared by Landrum & Brown, Incorporated.
33 This alternative is referred to as "Altemative D" in the Charlotte/Douglas International Airport Master Plan
Study Update, Final, January, 1998, prepared by Landrum & Brown, Incorporated.
34 Operational delays would increase the likelihood that the arrival and departure times of aircraft would be
deferred to the nighttime hours -- between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
CHARLOTTE/DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENviRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-21
November, 1999
CHAPTER THREE -ALTERNATIVES FINAL
•
The construction of a 9, 000 foot north/south parallel runway, spaced approximately
1,200 feet or 2,700 feet west of existing Runway 18RI36L would not meet the need
(as outlined in Chapter Two) of providing sufficient airfield capacity or reducing
delay during peak operating periods. Therefore, these alternatives are not carried
forward in the detailed assessment of environmental consequences provided in
Chapter Five.
9,000-Foot North/South Parallel Runway, Spaced Approximately 3,700 Feet
West of Existine Runway 18R/36L
This alternative provides additional peak-period capacity allowing for independent
arrivals and departures during VFR (visual flight rules); independent departures
during IFR, and dependent arrivals during IFR (instrument flight rules). Taxiing
distance and times would be longer than is currently experienced between the two
existing parallel runways. The development cost is estimated at $59.4 million,
which is in the mid-range of the alternatives to develop. This alternative provides for
delay reduction, thereby reducing delays into the night (noise-sensitive) hours."
The development of this option provides adequate area to locate a future parallel
runway between existing Runway 18R/36L and the proposed third parallel runway at
a 3,700-foot separation. This alternative would ensure adequate area to
accommodate long-range airport development and ensure compatible land use
planning near the airport.
This alternative would be compatible with future ATC technology advancements. It
is highly likely that future technology would permit triple IFR arrivals prior to the
requirement to develop a fourth parallel runway.
The construction of a 9, 000 foot north/south parallel runway, spaced approximately
3,700 feet west of existing Runway 18RI36L would meet the need (as outlined in
Chapter Two) of providing sufficient airfield capacity or reducing delay during peak
operating periods. Therefore, this alternative is carried forward in the detailed
assessment of environmental consequences provided in Chapter Five.
9,000-Foot North/South Parallel Runway, Spaced Approximately 4,300 Feet
West of Existing Runway 18R/36L
This alternative provides additional peak period capacity allowing for independent
arrivals and departures during. VFR, independent departures during IFR, and
independent arrivals during IFR. This alternative provides the highest delay
reduction benefits. The taxiing distance and times would be the highest of all
alternatives. The development cost is estimated at $63.2 million, which makes it the
highest cost of all of the alternatives to develop. In addition, this option would
0 35 See Footnote 31.
CHARLOTTE/DOUCLAs INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENYIRONMENT,IL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-22
November, 1999
CHAPTER THREE -ALTERNATIVES FINAL
e
require the westward relocation of the proposed I-485 Outer Beltway to
accommodate the applicable safety areas and satisfy FAA obstruction [FAR Part 77]
requirements. Noise impacts would be spread into areas west of I-485 and arrivals
would be routed directly over residential areas north of the airport. Ground noise
would be moved nearer residential areas west of airport.
Like the 3,700-foot alternative discussed in the previous section, the development of
this alternative provides adequate area to locate a future parallel runway between
existing Runway 18R/36L and the proposed third parallel runway. This would
ensure adequate area to accommodate long-range airport development and ensure
compatible land use planning near the airport. Also, a reconfiguration of the planned
Outer Beltway may delay the implementation of the new runway development
beyond the proposed phasing schedule (Phase I). This alternative is also compatible
with future ATC technology enhancements.
The construction of a 9, 000 foot north/south parallel runway, spaced approximately
4,300 feet west of existing Runway 18RI36L would meet the needs (as outlined in
Chapter Two) of providing sufficient airfield capacity and reducing delay during
peak operating periods. Therefore, this alternative is carried forward in the detailed
assessment of environmental consequences provided in Chapter Five.
3.3.1.2 Runway Extension Alternatives
•
The airfield requirement analysis performed in this environmental analysis resulted
in the recommendation of 12,000 feet of departure capability. This runway length
would enable a Boeing 747-200 to serve destinations on the Pacific Rim on a warm
summer day with no payload restrictions. All three existing runways (18L/36R,
18R/36L, and 5/23), as well as the proposed third parallel runway were considered as
candidates for a runway extension.
Extension of Runway 5/23
Extending Runway 5/23 would require an extension of 4,499 feet to provide
12,000 feet in departure capacity. It would not be feasible to extend this
runway to the northeast due to the proximity and location of Norfolk Southern
Railroad, Josh Birmingham Parkway, and Billy Graham Parkway. Extending
this runway to the southwest would create a runway intersection with Runway
18R/36L causing additional air traffic control coordination effort.
Therefore, the proposed extension to Runway 5123 was not carved forward for
further analysis in this FEIS.
Extension of Runwav 18L/36R
Extending Runway 18L/36R would require an extension of at least 3,800 feet
. to provide 12,000-foot departure capability. A 3,800-foot extension would be
necessary to provide the requisite safety area on Runway 18L. It would not be
CHARLOTTE/DOUCLAs INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-23
November, 1999
CHAPTER THREE -A LTERNATIVES FINAL
•
feasible to extend this runway to the north due to the proximity and location of
Norfolk Southern Railroad and the Josh Birmingham Parkway. An extension
to the south would require the relocation of West Boulevard, Byrum Drive, and
require the reconfiguration of the West Boulevard/Yorkmont Road intersection
and would require the airport to acquire a large amount of land to accommodate
the runway and affected roadways.
Therefore, the proposed extension to Runway 18LI36R was not carried forward
for further analysis in this FEIS.
Extension of the Proposed Third Parallel Runway
Four extension options were identified to achieve a 12,000-foot departure
capability on the proposed third parallel runway.36 None of these options were
considered for fiuther analysis because, from an airfield operational
perspective, departures should be conducted on the runway(s) closest to the
terminal area and the proposed third parallel runway would be located farthest
from the terminal area. In addition, there would be increased taxi time and
distance for aircraft to reach the departure ends of the proposed runway
particularly with any type of a runway extension.
For these two reasons, the proposed extension to the proposed new runway
was not carried forward for further analysis in this FEIS.
xtension of Runwav 18R/36L
Two alternatives to extend existing Runway 18R/36L to 12,000 feet were
identified.37 The first alternative proposed extensions of 1,294 feet to the north
end and 562 feet to the south end and required the use of declared distance
criteria to provide adequate runway end safety areas. However, with these
extensions, and by applying the declared distance criteria, only a maximum
take-off distance of 11,506 feet in each direction could be achieved. This
distance, however falls 494 feet short of the 12,000-foot requirement identified.
Therefore, the proposed extension to Runway 18RI36L was not carried forward
for further analysis in this FEIS.
The second alternative to extending Runway 18R/36L to 12,000 requires
relocating either West Boulevard or the Norfolk and Southern Railroad. Of
these two options, the Sponsor's Proposed Action determined that relocating
West Boulevard cost less than relocating the railroad. Therefore, the Sponsor's
36 These alternatives are referred to as "Alternative 1," "Alternative 2," "Alternative 3," and "Alternative 4" in the
CharlottelDouglas International Airport Master Plan Study Update, Final, January, 1998, prepared by
Landrum & Brown, Incorporated.
37 These alternatives are referred to as "Alternative 5" and "Alternative 6" in the CharlottelDouglas International
Airport Master Plan Study Update, Final, January, 1998, prepared by Landrum & Brown, Incorporated.
CHARLOTTEIDOUCLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-24
November, 1999
CHAPTER THREE- ALTERNATIVES FINAL
i
Proposed Action proposed extending Runway 18R/36L to the south by
2,000 feet." This extension would require the relocation of West Boulevard
around the south end of the airport initiating from the east near the Runway
36R end and tied into the I-485 interchange with West Boulevard. The most
notable benefit of the runway extension would be the increased operational
utility of the runway for Boeing 747-200 aircraft which would be able to depart
from this runway with minimal or no payload restriction on long stage-length
routes. Aircraft needing the extra length would not be required to cross a
runway and the extension would not have any impact on the existing
TVOR/DME facility. In addition, the runway extension and roadway
relocation would provide an area for additional air cargo or aviation-related
development east of the runway extension.
An additional benefit of the proposed runway extension would be its mitigating
effect on aircraft noise impacts. The extension would reduce noise impacts
because aircraft departing from Runway 36L would be at higher altitudes over
noise-sensitive areas to the north.
Therefore, this alternative, in conjunction with the relocation of West
Boulevard, was selected as the Sponsor's Proposed Project and was included
on the proposed revised ALP.
•
3.3.1.3 Summary - Runway Extension Alternatives
The runway extension alternatives represent one component of the Sponsor's
Proposed Project. The proposed construction of a 2, 000 foot extension on the
southern end of Runway 18RI36L would be the only alternative to meet the
need of providing sufficient runway length to accommodate potential air
transportation demand (long-range aircraft departures to destinations on the
Pacific Rim). The development of this project would result as a consequence
of implementing this alternative or as an element of the proposed action
alternative. Therefore, the alternatives which incorporate the proposed
2,000-foot runway extension on the south end of Runway 18R/36L together
with the required no-build alternative are carried forward in the detailed
assessment of environmental consequences provided in Chapter Five. The
landside projects are described in the Chapter 2, Section 2.5. These projects
are included in all airside alternatives including Alternative 2.
•
38 This alternative is referred to as "Alternative 5" in the Charlotte/Douglas International Airport Master Plan
Study Update, Final, January, 1998, prepared by Landrum & Brown, Incorporated.
CH,4RLOTTEID000LAs INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
November, 1999
Page 3-25
CHAPTER THREE -ALTERNATIVES FINAL
3.3.2 Landside Projects
3.3.2.1 Terminal Alternatives
Because the need to provide sufficient terminal gate capacity for commuter
aircraft, and domestic and international jet aircraft would result as a
consequence of implementing the development alternative, as presented in
Chapter 2, Purpose and Need, Section 2.5.1 there is no other reasonable,
prudent, feasible, or practicable development alternative that provides the
required functional design. The existing terminal facilities can be improved to
meet CLT's future needs, and thus it is more reasonable to improve the existing
facilities than to build new ones. Therefore, the recommendation would be to
implement the Sponsor's Proposed Project or to take no action (no-build).
Therefore, the terminal projects as outlined in the Sponsor's Proposed Project
and the No Action/No-Build Alternative are carried forward in the detailed
assessment of environmental consequences provided in Chapter Five.
3.3.2.2 Ancillary Facility Alternatives
Because the need to provide sufficient ancillary facilities to support the
potential increase in air transportation demand would result as a consequence
of implementing the development alternative, as presented in Chapter Two,
Purpose and Need, Section 2.5.1 there is no other reasonable, prudent, feasible,
or practicable development alternative that provides the required functional
design. The existing ancillary facilities can be improved to meet CLT's future
needs, and thus it is more reasonable to improve the existing facilities than to
build new ones. Therefore, the recommendation would be to implement the
Sponsor's Proposed Project or to take no action (no-build). Therefore, the
ancillary facility projects as outlined in the Sponsor's Proposed Project and the
No-Action/No-Build Alternative are carried forward in the detailed assessment
of environmental consequences provided in Chapter Five.
3.3.3 Approved Noise Abatement Air Traffic Actions and Associated Land Use
Compatibility Actions
This FEIS assesses environmentally the impact of implementing the Phase I and Phase II
noise abatement air traffic measures (previously approved by the FAA on regulatory,
non-environmental assessment grounds) that were contained in the 1997 Update of CLT's
Part 150 Noise Compatibility Plan. These actions are identified as "Phase I" measures
which abate the noise impacts of aircraft operations with the airfield in its existing
configuration, and "Phase II" measures which abate the noise impacts of aircraft operations
with the development of a new north/south parallel runway and a 2,000-foot extension to
Runway 18R/36L. The noise abatement air traffic measures to be environmentally
assessed are:
CHARLOTTE/DOUCLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTENV/RONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-26
November, 1999
CHAPTER THREE- ALTERNATIVES FINAL
w
Phase I Air Traffic Measures
• Continue periodic monitoring procedures (initiated as a result of the 1990
approved noise abatement air traffic actions and associated land use compatibility
actions) within the airport environs.
• Provide monthly reports on late night (11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) runway
utilization and variances from approved noise abatement and air traffic
assumptions to Air Traffic Control Tower management and frequent nighttime
operators.
• Designate Runways 18R or 18L as preferred for takeoffs by turbojet and large
four-engine prop aircraft between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. when, under the
current preferential runway use program, Runway 23 cannot be used for reasons
of wind, weather, operational necessity, or required runway length.
• Departing Runway 18R, turbojet and large four-engine prop aircraft maintain
runway heading to 4 DME south of the CLT VORTAC.
• Designate a location for US Airways maintenance run-ups on the company
maintenance apron, with orientations aligned with Runway 5/23.
• Departing Runways 36R and 36L, turbojet and large four-engine prop aircraft
initiate turns at the 2.6 and 2.5 DME north of the CLT VORDME, respectively.
Phase II Air Traffic Measures
• On commissioning a third parallel runway west of Runway 18R/36L, establish an
initial departure turn, as soon as practicable, by turbojets and four-engine prop
aircraft to a heading of 195 degrees from Runway 17.40
• On commissioning a third parallel runway west of Runway 18R/36L, establish an
initial departure turn, as soon as practicable, by turbojets and four-engine prop
aircraft to a heading of 315 degrees from Runway 35.41
Because the need to enhance the human environment by reducing noise impacts on
surrounding communities would result as a consequence of a build alternative, the
only alternatives are to implement the proposed noise abatement air traffic measures
or to take no action. The 1997 FAR Part 150 Study Update Record of Approval was
received on March 30, 1998.42
40 The proposed new runway is designated as Runway 17/35.
41 See Footnote 40.
42 Charlotte/Douglas International Airport FAR Part ISO Study Update, Final, August, 1997, prepared by
Landrum & Brown, Incorporated. To review the alternatives evaluation, see Appendix B, Noise Abatement and
Land Use Alternatives, of the Part 150 document. The FAA approved this Part 150 Study Update and issued its
Record of Approval dated March 30, 1998.
CNARLO77E/D000LAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENV/RONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-17
November, 1999
CHAPTER THREE - ALTERNATIVES FINAL

Therefore, both the alternative which incorporates the recommendations resulting
from the Part 150 Update process and the no action alternative are carried forward
in the detailed assessment of environmental consequences provided in Chapter Five.
3.4 Alternatives to be Environmentally Assessed
Based upon its systematic evaluation of the full range of potential alternatives, the City of
Charlotte, as airport sponsor, selected and requests FAA action and approval of the combination
of a new third north/south parallel runway and (Sponsor's Proposed Project Alternative C, a
9,000-foot runway spaced 3,700 feet from existing Runway 18R/36L) a runway extension to
create a runway 12,000 feet in length (Sponsor's Proposed Project Alternative 5, a 2,000-foot
extension to Runway 18R/36L). Along with the implementation of the 2001 approved noise
abatement air traffic and associated land use compatibility actions, and the landside and ancillary
facilities, these projects together represent the Proposed Federal Action. These development
alternatives provide a proposed project which best addresses the total composite of all the
airport's needs.
3.4.1 Proposed Federal Action
The Proposed Federal Action is to approve the Sponsor's Proposed Project which includes
the construction of the proposed third north/south parallel runway at a 3,700-foot
separation and the 2,000-foot southerly extension to Runway 18R/36L. The proposed
construction of the new runway is the airport's preferred way of achieving sufficient
airfield capacity and reducing delay during peak operating periods. The proposed
construction of the 2,000-foot runway extension is its preferred way of achieving sufficient
runway length to accommodate potential air transportation demand (long-range aircraft
departures to destinations on the Pacific Rim). Improved terminal gate capacity for
commuter aircraft, and domestic and international jet aircraft along with the necessary
supporting ancillary facilities would be accomplished through the expansion of the existing
terminal and upgrading of the existing roadway and parking systems.
A detailed description of the Sponsor's Proposed Project is listed below. Exhibit 3-2,
along with Exhibits 2-1 through 2-10 shown previously, illustrate the locations of the
Proposed Federal Action. The following paragraphs describe each of the airfield
development items included in the Proposed Federal Action.
• Construct a new 9,000-foot independent IFR approach runway, parallel to and
3,700 feet west of existing Runway 18R/36L to improve airfield operational
flexibility and result in increased capacity and reduced delay.
• Site, purchase, install, and flight check all necessary navigation aids and lighting
to support the proposed development
• Implementation of necessary air traffic control procedures to support the proposed
development
CNARLOTTEIDouGLAs INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-28
November, 1999
CHAPTER THREE - ALTERNATIVES FINAL
i
• Extend Runway 18R/36L from its current length of 10,000 feet to a length of
12,000 feet by constructing a 2,000-foot southerly extension with parallel and
connecting taxiways and associated lighting and navigational aids.
• Relocate West Boulevard around the south end of the airport from east of Runway
36R west to the proposed I-485 interchange and close Byrum Road to
accommodate the extension to Runway 18R/36L.
• Relocate Wallace-Neel Road, just east of and parallel to the proposed I-485 Outer
Beltway, on airport property purchased for the new third parallel runway project.
• Relocate Old Dowd Road to north of the new third parallel runway, keeping clear
of the Runway 18R Runway Safety Area (RSA) and Runway Object Free Area
(OFA) to accommodate the new proposed runway.
• Extend Concourse A to accommodate additional jet bridges and additional aircraft
parking positions in the near term for either current non-hub airlines or gates for
an additional carrier to introduce service to CLT.
• Extend Concourse B to provide 11 additional jet bridge positions (for a total of
27) capable of accommodating Boeing 757-size aircraft. The extension would
supplement hub operations and accommodate the potential for lost jet positions on
Concourse D associated with increased international demand.
• Relocate.the Federal Inspection Services facilities within Concourse D, east of the
expanded baggage claim area, to allow for the future expansion of the concourse.
• Expand Concourse D to allow for additional hold rooms and related facilities to
accommodate a larger seating capacity for wide-body international transoceanic
aircraft. The concourse expansion would require the relocation of commuter
aircraft parking positions currently located in this area.
• Develop two remote concourses accessible from Concourse D, via underground
passenger tunnels with moving walkways, to accommodate the increase in
commuter aircraft traffic associated with hub operations. Each concourse would
contain 17 parking positions (a total of 34).
• Extend the lower level roadway to the east in front of the newly relocated FIS
facility to expand the arrival-level curb frontage.
• Reconfigure the ingress/egress of the existing parking structures only if a new
parking structure and/or hotel is developed. This reconfiguration would require
the relocation of the short-term- and daily toll booths, development of hotel
parking areas (either surface lots br parking deck), and an egress roadway for hotel
patrons to bypass the toll booths.
CHARLOTTF?DouGLAS INTERN.1 TION,4L AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-29
November, 1999
CHAPTER THREE - ALTERNATIVES FINAL
•
• Develop approximately 1,050 new auto parking spaces between the existing
airport maintenance facility and the railroad right-of-way to accommodate
projected passenger traffic at the new commuter concourse. Access to these lots
can be maintained via the existing routes.
• Relocate 1,410 auto parking spaces in the "green lot" to west of existing Runway
End 18R and develop an additional 235 employee parking spaces. Access to the
new employee lot would be provided via a roadway from Old Dowd Road.
• Develop additional remote public parking facilities north of the terminal core area
to the west of the existing remote parking facility. This new lot would use the
existing toll plaza with minor expansion.
• Relocate all the rental car facilities due to the development of the remote jet
concourse. The area north of Wilkinson Boulevard would accommodate all
relocation requirements and long-term expansion needs. Access would be via a
connector road to Wilkinson Boulevard with airport access via Old Dowd Road.
• Develop approximately 360 additional employee parking spaces in the area near
the end of Runway 18R.
• Develop approximately 420 additional spaces for remote parking facilities directly
north of the terminal core area near the existing remote parking facilities.
• Develop an additional parking structure immediately north of the existing parking
decks. This development would be designed to either coincide with or be
compatible with development of a hotel located on top of the parking deck. The
development of an airport light rail system would be considered in the design of
the parking structures and hotel to ensure that access to the main terminal building
can be achieved.
Implement noise abatement air traffic actions and associated land use
compatibility actions approved in the updated Noise Compatibility Program.
NA4 Provide monthly reports on late night (11:00 p.m. to
7:00 a.m.) runway utilization and variances from NCP
assumptions to Air Traffic Control Tower management
and frequent nighttime operators. Conduct follow-up
with FAA and carriers to enhance voluntary adherence to
existing program. ' New measure.
NA-5 Designate Runways 18R or 18L as preferred for takeoffs
by turbojet and large four-engine prop aircraft between
11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. when, under the current
preferential runway use program, Runway 23 cannot be
used for reasons of wind, weather, operational necessity,
or required runway length. New measure.
CXARLOTTE/DOUCLAS INTERNATIONAL A1RP0RT ENYIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-30
November, 1999
CHAPTER THREE - ALTERNATIVES FINAL
NA-6 Departing Runway 18R, turbojet and large four-engine
prop aircraft maintain runway heading to 4 DME south of
the CLT VORTAC. New measure.
NA-7 Designate a location for US Airways maintenance run-ups
on the company maintenance apron, with orientations
aligned with Runway 5/23. Revision of existing
procedures.
NA-8 Departing Runways 36R and 36L, turbojet and large four-
engine prop aircraft initiate turns at the 2.6 and 2.5 DME
north of the CLT VORDME, respectively. Modification
of current operating procedures.
NA-9 On construction of a third parallel runway west of Runway
18R/36L, establish an initial departure turn, as soon as
practicable, by turbojets and four-engine prop aircraft to a
heading of 195 degrees from Runway 17. New measure.
NA-10 On construction of a third parallel runway west of Runway
18R/36L, establish an initial departure turn, as soon as
practicable, by turbojets and four-engine prop aircraft to a
heading of 315 degrees from Runway 35. New measure.
•
Acquire approximately 1,475 acres of land for airfield development that includes
the acquisition and relocation of approximately 123 residential structures and 32
businesses to accommodate the proposed new runway.
Compensate for impacts to approximately 2.0 acres of wetlands, 5,400 feet of
intermittent streams, 6,780 feet of perennial streams (a total of 12,180 feet), 4.2
acres of identified open water-ponds, and 10,900 feet of identified small drains
caused by the development of the Proposed Federal Action.
3.4.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Federal Action
This chapter has summarized various alternatives to the Proposed Federal Action.
Proposed Federal Action involves the proposed construction of a new 9,000-foot Runway
17/35 (future 18R/36L) with associated taxiway improvements, and the development of a
2,000-foot extension to existing Runway 18R/36L (future 18C/36C). This EIS also
assesses the Federal action (which is part of each alternative) regarding installation of
navigational aides, airspace use, and approach and departure procedures associated with the
airside development along with the implementation of the following identified elements
depicted on the proposed, revised ALP: terminal development projects to extend
Concourse A, construct a new commuter concourse, extend the terminal building to
relocate the Federal Inspection Services, extend the lower level roadway, extend Concourse
B to provide 11 additional jet bridge positions, expand Concourse D to allow for additional
hold rooms and related facilities, and develop two remote concourses accessible from
Concourse D; landside development projects to expand Loop Road, relocate the rental car
CHARLO7TEIDouGL,4s INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-31
November, 1999
CHAPTER THREE-ALTERNATIVES FINAL
area, reconfigure the hotel ingress/egress, relocate employee parking, develop additional
long-term parking; and roadway relocation projects for West Boulevard, Wallace Neel
Road, and Old Dowd Road, acquire approximately 1,475 acres of land for proposed airfield
development which includes the acquisition and relocation of approximately 123
residential structures and 32 businesses, and mitigate the potential impacts to
approximately 2.0 acres of wetlands, 5,400 feet of intermittent streams, 6,780 feet of
perennial streams (a total of 12,180 feet), 4.2 acres of identified open water-ponds, and
10,900 feet of identified small drains. As is noted, six feasible alternatives exist to the
Proposed Federal Action: 1) the implementation of the 1997 approved noise abatement air
traffic actions and associated land use compatibility actions (Alternative 1), 2)
implementation of No-Action/No-Build (Alternative 2), 3) the implementation of the 2001
approved noise abatement air traffic actions and associated land use compatibility actions
(Alternative 3), 4) the construction of a new third parallel runway at a 3,700-foot separation
along with implementing the 2001 approved noise abatement air traffic actions and
associated land use compatibility actions (Alternative 4), 5) the construction of a new third
parallel runway at a 4,300-foot separation along with implementing the 2001 approved
noise abatement air traffic actions and associated land use compatibility actions
(Alternative 5), and 6) construct a 2,000-foot extension to Runway 18RJ36L along with
implementing the 2001 approved noise abatement air traffic actions and associated land use
compatibility actions (Alternative 6). The following paragraphs describe the actions
considered under each of the alternatives.
• Alternative 1: Implementation of the 1997 Approved Noise Abatement Air
Traffic Actions and Associated Land Use Compatibility Actions Only: The
implementation of the 1997 approved noise abatement air traffic actions and
associated land use compatibility actions shown in Exhibit 3-3, would abate the
noise impacts generated by aircraft operations on the existing airfield
configuration. Implementing these actions would not contribute directly to
satisfying the need for sufficient airfield capacity, reduce delay during peak
operating periods, or provide sufficient runway length to accommodate potential
air transportation demand (long-range aircraft departures to destinations on the
Pacific Rim). The 1997 approved noise abatement air traffic actions and
associated land use compatibility actions are listed in Section 3.3.3, Approved
Noise Abatement Air Traffic Actions and Associated Land Use Compatibility
Actions, Phase I Measures.
Alternative 2: No-Build/No Action Alternative: The No-Build/No-Action
Alternative (2001 Baseline), shown in Exhibit 34, would result in the airport
runway configuration remaining as it is today. Therefore, future demand
requirements would not be satisfied, as identified in Chapter Two, Purpose and
Need. Also, any existing negative environmental and operational impacts of the
airport would not be reduced. Although this alternative may not be prudent, it is
feasible, and is one of the alternatives considered throughout this FEIS.
•
CHARLOTTE/DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENV/RONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-32
November, 1999
CHAPTER THREE - ALTERNATIVE FINAL
V
• Alternative 3: Implementation of the 2001 Approved Noise Abatement Air
Traffic Actions and Associated Land Use Compatibility Actions Only: The
implementation of the 2001 approved noise abatement air traffic actions and
associated land use compatibility actions shown in Exhibit 3-5, would abate the
noise impacts generated by aircraft operations on the existing airfield
configuration with future projected operations. Implementing these actions
would not contribute directly to satisfying the need for providing sufficient
airfield capacity, for reducing delay during peak operating periods, or for
providing sufficient runway length to accommodate potential air transportation
demand (long-range aircraft departures to destinations on the Pacific Rim). The
2001 approved noise abatement air traffic actions and associated land use
compatibility actions are listed in Section 3.3.3, Approved Noise Abatement Air
Traffic Actions and Associated Land Use Compatibility Actions, Phase I
Measures.
• Alternative 4: Construction of a New Third Parallel Runway with a 3,700 foot
Separation along with Implementing the 2001 Approved Noise Abatement Air
Traffic Actions and Associated Land Use Compatibility Actions: The
development program for this alternative, shown in Exhibit 3-6, would be almost
identical to that of the Proposed Federal Action. The primary difference is that
the 2,000-foot extension to third Runway 18R/36L would not be constructed.
This alternative would meet the stated need to provide sufficient airfield capacity
and reduce delay during peak operating periods. However, without the
development of the runway extension to provide for a 12,000-foot runway, the
need to provide sufficient runway length in order to accommodate potential air
transportation demand (long-range aircraft departures to destinations on the
Pacific Rim) would not be met. The 2001 approved noise abatement air traffic
actions and associated land use compatibility actions to be implemented are listed
in Section 3.3.3, Approved Noise Abatement Air Traffic Actions and Associated
Land Use Compatibility Actions, Phase I and Phase II Measures.
Alternative 5: Construction of a New Third Parallel Runway with a 4,300 foot
Separation along with Implementing the 2001 Approved Noise Abatement Air
Traffic Actions and Associated Land Use Compatibility Actions: The
development program for this alternative, shown in Exhibit 3-7, would be almost
identical to that of Alternative 4. The primary difference is that the third parallel
north/south runway would be separated from existing Runway 18R/36L by a
distance of 4,300 feet instead of 3,700 feet. The 2001 approved noise abatement
air traffic actions and associated land use compatibility actions to be implemented
are listed in Section 3.3.3, Approved Noise Abatement Air Traffic Actions and
Associated Land Use Compatibility Actions, Phase I and Phase II Measures.
• Alternative 6: 2,000-Foot Extension of Runway 18RI36L along with
Implementing the 2001 Approved Noise Abatement Air Traffic Actions and
. Associated Land Use CompaAility Actions: The development program for this
alternative, shown in Exhibit 3-8, would require considerably less land to be
acquired than the Proposed Federal Action -- 37 acres versus 1,475 acres (1,438
CHARLo77VDouGLAs INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENvIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-33
November, 1999
CHAPTER THREE- ALTERNATIVES FINAL
acres for the proposed runway development and 37 acres for the proposed runway
extension). There would be no residential or business construction impacts with
this alternative. The 37 acres which would need to be acquired is primarily
undeveloped/vacant or contains the right-of-way for West Boulevard. All other
development projects (landside and ancillary facilities, and approved noise
abatement air traffic actions and associated land use compatibility actions), as
identified in the Sponsor's Proposed Project, would be implemented. The 2001
approved noise abatement air traffic to be implemented are listed in Section
3.3.3, Approved Noise Abatement Air Traffic Actions and Associated Land Use
Compatibility Actions, Phase I and II Measures.
3.5 Regulatory Framework for the FAA's Consideration of Reasonable Alternatives
Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the FAA has a responsibility to
explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, including those beyond the
jurisdiction of the FAA and CLT. For major Federal actions in which the Federal Government,
as a proprietor, plans and develops a Federal facility, the scope of alternatives considered by the
sponsoring Federal agency is wide ranging and comprehensive. However, where the sponsor is
not the Federal Government, but is a local government or private applicant, the Federal agency
role is necessarily more limited with substantial deference given to the preferences of the local
sponsor.
Federal agencies may consider the applicant's purposes and needs and common sense realities of
a given situation in the development of alternatives. Federal agencies may also afford substantial
weight to the alternative preferred by the applicant, provided there is no substantially superior
alternative from an environmental standpoint.
3.5.1 Discussion
The FAA does not initiate airport development projects. Such projects require the
involvement of a local sponsor, which for the proposed action would be provided by the
City of Charlotte. It is, therefore, appropriate for the FAA to give substantial deference to
the recommendations of the sponsor in identifying reasonable alternatives and considering
whether alternatives meet both the national policy objectives expressed in the National
Transportation Policy (NTP) and the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991 (ISTEA), and the purposes and needs of CLT.
The FAA has identified and analyzed a wide range of both location and facility design
alternatives for meeting the purposes and needs presented in Chapter Two, Purpose and
Need. The FAA has applied a comprehensive range of operational, economic, engineering,
and environmental criteria in assessing whether alternatives would be feasible and prudent,
practicable, or reasonable. Through this process, the sponsor and the FAA identified the
Proposed Federal Action as its preferred alternative for meeting the purpose and need. The
FAA has independently reviewed the airport's process and has concluded that is was
acceptable and also appears consistent with the public policy objectives of the National
Transportation Policy Act and ISTEA.
CHARLOTTE/DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-34
November, 1999
CHAPTER THREE - ALTERNATIVES FINAL
4P
The FAA has selected its preferred alternative (2001 approved noise abatement air traffic
actions and associated land use compatibility actions with a third parallel runway at 3,700-
foot separation and a 2,000-foot extension on the south end of Runway 18R/36L) which
satisfies those considerations consistent with the stated purpose and need. The FAA has
also found this alternative to be the least environmentally damaging practical alternative, or
otherwise known as the environmentally preferred alternative.
Accordingly, the reasonable alternatives selected by the FAA for detailed analysis in this
EIS include:
• 1997 Noise Abatement Air Traffic Actions and Associated Land Use
Compatibility Actions Only (Alternative 1)
• 2001 Baseline (No-Build/No-Action) (Alternative 2)
• 2001 Noise Abatement Air Traffic Actions and Associated Land Use
Compatibility Actions Only (Alternative 3)
• 2001 Noise
Compatibility
(Alternative 4)
• 2001 Noise
Compatibility
(Alternative 5)
Abatement Air Traffic Actions and Associated Land Use
Actions with a Third Parallel Runway at 3,700-Foot Separation
Abatement Air Traffic Actions and Associated Land Use
Actions with a Third Parallel Runway at 4,300-Foot Separation
• 2001 Noise Abatement Air Traffic Actions And Associated Land Use
Compatibility Actions with 2,000-Foot Extension on the South End of
Runway 18R/36L (Alternative 6)
• 2001 Noise Abatement Air Traffic Actions and Associated Land Use
Compatibility Actions with a Third Parallel Runway at 3,700-Foot Separation and
a 2,000-Foot Extension on the South End of Runway 18R/36L (Proposed Federal
Action, Alternative 7)
9 S:\99CLT\FINAL_TO PRINTER NOV•1999\CHAP•J.DOC
CHARLOTTE/DouGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 3-35
November, 1999
CHAPTER THREE - ALTERNATIVES FINAL
•
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
•
•
CHARLomffiOUCLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
November, 1999
-? tea! ?? ?---?!? ? r?J??-?--•
4 s.-? ??- ?---?
O

C. , I
1 / / ,
l 1
1
I 1
1 f / I
1 I

c
E
1! - M

CL
o
ro
(D
C7
--?
?-
(
7

0 N
1T0 ,?;? ....
; ? ,?
. 1
1 f ? ------?r•
, 1
1 r .:^ =--ter-,
/ ,
1 r
no c ? 1 1 1
Q , , , ,
- F F
m FL-L LL u!

?c 0
o 0
0
Z = (D
W J C)
(p - O
0 N N
T- M cM
r- d'
1 /
j 1 1 ,
j 1 l 1
? 1 1 !
? 1
O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
to 7

W lu j W
p 1 / l 1 1 I l /

• -7--
C)
C 0 ?
o
?,,
C

0
O
C
) 1
1 ,
%
1 ,
j 1 I
1 I
j 1
1 I
1
/v C ' 1
1 1 1 1 1 , 1
E O N %
-r 1%

',
a
N N

U

U

U

U

---?r-?-' U

3 7

?

g 1 /

i 1 , 1
1

i 1 ! 1
1 r

? 1

r:l
/ 1
1 f
? 1
N ' 1 1 1 1
1 1

Em m m m i

/ 1
1 /
J ?
r I
1 t
I i /cam'
/ 1
1 /
I 1
I I
1 !
j 1
p
00

Q r
Q
?
Q _
? Q
10w
p
O O p
d
Ir-i (D r'
C)
N
?
cNi
T- FM'
T v
m
S
o
Z t
m
C
r:+
LU
L
Q
C
O
r+
v
V
d
N
O
CL
O
CL
O
N
C
O
a
Cl)
co
?i
m
pg yY
2Y
C?
J
a
o
i
A

EA 3-3 CDR WIwG
0 0 0
L. \?
is 1
C33 63
h? 1 r
' ` /
C84 6 515 a C3 S7 R. ,a
I' 1 C55
' ? 3 ? ? ? r ti'"t C2 , t
:.?: E r Tu c• r .??
29 74
Cez •, (.r?J Alla rPrrY SI ., / , /
o I I 9 i ?. c_ i
.4411b `T°urMmq O i 1 I I Ik I ,ice CS •\'; \,rSi`/' `? r < '?
1z,
C 4 !? <; 0444, ?•> , ,.
Z- -zzz n*
yy a , C4
cos c11
V ^ II -
?o?v Mt ?urcYlq ? ? /? 1? 18 ???' ? C3
C13 C
yx= f , _;s
r s
/ r ' -4 U f
r<cSfr _ t •r 1 1'';\ ?....•+?\ ,?r?`
((tSS(S5S( .
?Y •
1 ' Dikie River R\d`
k ?
t' .9
• ` 071 C7 8 ( c C70
row, S16 6
r qdi
' ,--C w+t' 7 4 c l
1 }, N2 ?•V•

..? ., ? ?,,. ? • ? 1. - J;•
I `.?; \?' % Y ?r •`,R. % Sub In Feet N
15 , ? t r' 1000 3000 5000 A?
r'°" ` „
t.,
M cklenburg Co., I C CI CharloVt)
- ^ 09/,8/99
- _..{.. rM••? CONTOUR: 5A4RRl
or 'L • .?. Soutcu: Lardront A 8rov'n, FIMPAH, 1808
•??,.+' •rn;"°?';,? • ` ;,% File. EXH3 4 Flight Track: RR_Count:2001FItTrkWORvry
EXHIBIT
Environmental Alternative 1 Flight Tracks and Noise Contours 3-3
Impact Statement
0 0 0
INTERSTATE 485 UNDER CONSTRUCTION At 4F v '
??
dpoai a RC,/osn
\a >ti
S?fiUry
efi
PROPOSED RELOCATION ~
Ir PROPOSED TERMINAL
OF OLD DOWD ROAD ?J8 (, ¦ EXPANSION
PROPOSED RELOCATION OF rl '
WALLACE-NEEL ROAD
• ' ?8?
? ?: I n
II ? ;
f
Q
1
%
I.
1 I
I a
3,700' I a0';'
I I ® ? alb .?
M 1 \?a ? ?? , o. ? . - ID
M e ? I I/
M I ? I D "
o D,.
o.+ I ° i s w
I I
I I
I I
a .?
I
PROPOSED NEW RUNWAY 36R
36L ? vot -p • e
?? a 1 1'I?,? a
a. I%^
PROPOSED TO BE CLOSED
•' ? .. M11111.. J1' f...•..• 'IJJJlJJ%%?
RELOCATION OF WEST BLVD. .,JJ• ' .•'j , / ?
J
J
NIJlNJJN ? 1
J
000 A.
A Not to Scale SOURCE: Landrum & Brown, 1998.
Environmental Alternative 4 EXHIBIT
Impact Statement - - 3??
%
EzM] 6 CDR WWRO
INTERSTATE 485 UNDER CONSTRUCTION ' V
11 ; o?a? a r? ? RC Josh
0
\d In afi 31
PROPOSED RELOCATION PROPOSED TERMINAL
OF OLD DOWD ROAD ?8 ?, ¦ EXPANSION
•' I
18 I? ti? I 1
n
1=' t •
Apk
K71 I 0
* i
1°I/?I I k O ' •
I
1 ?,.... r I D I
I Ivy )I
II I l ? • '
i I.? I I Q ,f Q
I -?---- 17300 a Q'I At.
11 I
?I
0 I
o
0 1 I ' ? 0 ' •
I: II , I
M 'I I? e-a jig I o?' r iD
M I ?? Y I .? a D I
M I• I ?.,4j? ?? Q?1
+`?' 1 4 I A
O
PROPOSED NEW RUNWAY I al
36R m?
+? 36L 9 ? 1% ?,,
PROPOSED RELOCATION OF
WALLACE-NEEL ROAD
PROPOSED TO BE CLOSED
RELOCATION OF WEST BLVD.
?? ¦
Brown 1998.
.-SOURCE: Landrum &
ANot to Scale ''
•' -
EnNronmentai Alternative 5 _ EXHIBIT 3.7
Impact statement -
%
EXH3 7.COR 0/1"t
I
U I
0 I
I ? p I
I
M a I o ?' ? DID
M tee- i . • I ?
I
I
0 D;.
a I I ,? 0
d`0 I 4 I
O I ? I t o
?i Qi ,
t
0y
PROPOSED EXTENSION
Ih II II d
w CD
10
?e5ke?,,a. Irv ??'??
r PROPOSED TO BE CLOSED
RELOCATION OF WEST BLVD. , • j / y
off....
A Not to Scale SOURCE: Landrum & Brown, 1998.
EXHIBIT
Environmental Alternative 6 $_g
Impact Statement _
% .?
kCDR WMW
•

Y
b
a
x'
0
0-
APPENDIX B
0-1
Memorandum of Agreement
Cultural Resources
JAN. -U1' 00 (FRI) 09:52
01/06/2000 09:31
•
Jamea B. Hunt Jr.. Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
•
•
August 11, 2999
Thomas M. Roberts
Program Manager
Federal Aviation Administration
Airpqrts District Office
1701 Columbia Avenue, Suite 2-249
College Park, GA 30337.2747
Re! MCA for Charlotte-Doit$las International Airport
Mecklenburg County, BR99.8616
Dear Mr. Roberts:
DiYision of Archives tnd History
kffay J. Glow, Director
Enclosed please find the Memorandum of Agreement for the improvements at Charlotte.
Douglas International Airport, I Kaye 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 Council'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 us when it has been
filed.
Thank you for your-cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Crow
State Historic Preservation Officer
Enclosure
cc: Advisory Council
Charlotte/ Mecklenburg HPC
GHARLU'f'I'E/UUUGLAS I NI" L A I Rl'UK'1
TE1,:]U4 359 4U3U N.UU7
PAGE 02
4043057155 ATLANTA ADO
AUG
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
rrti
JAN. -01' 00 (FR I ) 09:52 CHARLOTTE/ DOUGLAS I NT' L A I RPORT TEL:104 359 Wu PAGE . Uo3
01/06/2000 09:31 4043057155 ATLANTA ADO
Memorandum of Agreement
Between tho
Federal Aviation Administration and
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer
for the
Charlotte/Douglas International Airport
Mecklenburg County, North County
Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.6(b)(1)
WHEREAS, the Federal Aviation -Administration -(FAA) has determined that
implementation of development and/or air traffic actions (the Undertaking)
resulting from its approval of changes to the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) for the
Chqrlotte/Douglas International Airport, which include the construction of a third
parallel runway, a 2000-f oat runway extension, development of associated ancillary
f a6lities, and implementation of noise abatement measures and are described in
the Airport's Master Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement may affect
historic properties, including both structures and archeological 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 CPR Part 800, implemehting Section 106
of the Natlonal 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 hqs 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 wlth the following stipulations in
order to take into account the effect of the undertaking on historic properties,
STIPULATIONS
FAA will ensure that the following measures are carried out:
•
JAN. -01'00(FRI) 09:53 CHARL011V UOUGLAS iNI L AI URI ibb.luq JJ7 4VJU FAGS U04
bl/06/2000 09;31 4043057155 ATLANTA ADO
A. Historic Strpetures
The Airport in consultation with the 5HPO shall evaluate measures to allow
the Samuel Brown Farm (W1874) to remain standing. Such measures
shall Include options for adaptive reuse, 'stabilization and preservatlon,
and/or the possibility of moving the structure(s) to a new location. If,
after consultation with the 5HPo, no feasible and prudent rehabilitation,
adaptive reuse, and/or relocation of the property(s) is fotynd, 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 (s).
2. The following structures are located in areas subject to aircraft noise
exposure levels greater than 65dB based on the Day-Night Ayerage sound
level metric (DNL) and are not a compatible land use in accordance with 14
CFR Part 150, 5 A150.101, Table 1: or are located in an area that may be
subject to an increase of more than 3 d9 within 60 ONL resulting from the
proposed action and are also considered to be affected by the introduction
of new noise.
+ Or Richard A. Query House (MK1373);
_ john Dowlas House (.00361);
4 Asbury House (MK1873),,
+ Samuel Brown Form (MK1874); and
+ Sprott-brier Farmhouse and Slave House (AW875).
These structures are eligible for sound attenuation under the provisions of
the Airport's Noise Compatibility Program approved under the provisions
of 14 CFR Part 150 and, when sound attenuation i5 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 SNPO 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 Secretarx,of the Interior's
5tand4rds for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Ni.,storic
Buildings (U.S. bepartment of the Interior, National Park Service, 1992)
and in accordance with the plans and specifications agreed to by the
Airport and SHPO.
2
ADUTEL:104 359 4030 PA P.005
JAN. -01' 00(FRI) 0953 aeCHARLOTTE/DOUGLAS INT' L AIRPORT
01106/2000 09: 31
3, The Airport in consultation with the SHPO 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.
a. Archeological Resources
1. The FAA shall ensure that the Airport prepares and implements on
archaeological data recovery plan for the Wynn Site (31MK811) and the
Ertel Site (31AIX&4). This plan will be consistent with the standards
included in the ? ecrM[y of the Intgrior's Standards dnd Guidelines for
Archeology and Historic Preservation Projects (48 FR 44716-42).
Hereinafter "Standards and Guldelines". 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 pion must be submitted to the FAA and
5HP0 for review and comment. Unless the 5HP0 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 freeinaq
House (MK136.3), the Airport will conduct an 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 consultation with the SHPO and in a manner consistent with
the "Standards and Guidelines". rf the site is determined eligible, a data
recovery plan will be prepared and implemented In the some manner as
outlined in Stipulation 6.1,
3. The FAA agrees to ensure that all materials and records resulting from
excavations at the WrnT Site (31MK811), the Ertel Site (31MK814), and
any other sites investigated and determined ¢ligible for the Notional
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 8.1 and 8.2
of this agreement, Such reports are to be prepared in accordance with
. the SHPO's most current apr-cifications for Arphaeological Field Reports
and "Standards and Guidelines".
3
JAN. -07' 00 (FRI) 0954 CNARLO`I"I'EMUGLAS INf L AIKYUKI ItL: /U4 031 4UJu PAGE ue6
el/06/20UO 09:31 4043857155 MLANTA ADO
4. In the event previously unknown archeological resources are discovered
during construction:
a. The Airport will cease work in the immediate area of the previously
unknown archaeological resources and the FAA and SHPO will be
notified, The FAA and 5HP0 will determine the eligibility and
significance of any artifacts discovered.
b. If it is determined that the site is eligible for the NRHP, the FAA, 5HPO,
the ACHP, and Airport shall consult to determine appropriate mitigation
measures for the site.
C. Central 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
a rnlnimum the professional qualifications set forth in the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards and Guidelines.
2, If the 5HPO or FAA object in writing, within 15 days, to any plans,
speci f icatiohs or recommendations submitted pursuant to the terms of
this Agreement, then the FAA, the 5HPO, and the Airport shall consult to
resolve any objections which have been raised. If the FAA determines
that the ob jections(s) cannot be resolved by such consultation with the
SHPQ, 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 provlded in response to such a request in accordance with
the provisions of 36 CFR Part 8007(c)(4). This requirement shall be
applicable only to the matter which is the subject of the unresolved
objection, The FAA agrees that its responsibility to carry out all other
actions provided for under this Agreement, not the subject of an
unresolved Abjection, will remain unchanged.
3, If any of the parties to this agreement believe that an amendment or an
addendum to the agreement is necessary, that party shall immediately
notify the other parities and request consultation to consider on
amendment or addendum to this agreement. The process of amending or
executing on addendum to the agreement shall be the same as that
exercised in creating the original agreement. In the event of an
amendment or an addendum, the FAA will comply with 36 CFR Part
4
JAN. -07' 00(FRU 09:54 CHARLOTTE/DOUGLAS INT' L AIRPORT TEL: ]U4 3S9 4U3U N. UU7
01/06/2000 09::11 404305715 ATLANTA ADD PAGE 07
H00.6(c.) (7) .
4. Any consulting party to this agreement may 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 shat would avoid termination. In the event
of termination, the FAA will comply with 36 CFR Parts 800.7(a).
Execution of this Memorandum of Agreernent and implementation of its terms
evidence that FAA has afforded the 5HPO and the Council an opportunity to
comrnent an 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 ?9q
Scott Seritt, Manager (Date)
Atlanta Airports District Office
NORTH CAROLINA HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
en ?q
Jeffs y r (Date)
5tate Historic Preservation Officer
CQNCUR:
t. (p-Ofl
T, T. Orr, A iat on Director (Date)
Charlotte/t) as International Airport
•
5

•

Y
a
n
0
•
APPENDIX C
Protected Species Correspondence
•
•
' nitud States Department of the Interior
FISH 1's'D WILDLVE SERVICE
Aalvdir,1:Seid Offist
160 zjutcoa Strut
A&V1110 Nonb Carohm 21301
December 4, 1999
Mr. Hobert D Krrnsky, Ecologist
>:miro=cnt dz ktiueology. LLC
6948 oakwvod Drive, Suites 201 do 202
Florcnrc. Tcotucky 41042
Dear Mr. grraskY:
Subjcct; propo&W expaasioa of Charlotte•nouglas International Airport, Charlotte,
Mecklenburg County, Noah Carolina
Wr received a copy of yoar letter of November 3, 1998, w Dr. Willis Taylar, OR3ea of
• Ea,imtuuznW Policy 2nd C=pliancc, Department ofthc Inimior, Wasbington,'D.C.. ratirdbt8
additiontitl hiformation on the Draft EnAronmetrtal Impact Statement for the Cherlotto-Dougles
lntenutional Airport. Mcckl.obazg County. North Carolitu. Wo aro ptovidlcU Qtt following
cornments in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of the Eadu,gcrcd Species Act of 1973,
as ==ded (16 V.S•C.1531-1543) (Act).
In your Icncr you provided the re-ults of intensive aurveye for riue plants within the Project U VI.
The vin-cyn Jocuscd on existing rights-of-way rind woodimd cdee+ as well as other potential
and Gawgia aster (Aarer
habitat ror Schweiritz i sunflower Performed lianth s 1 ?. 1998.
g(oretcnus). SUNCYe p cre
We have records of Schwoinitz's sunflower from n rtheMeelcl n'u?o?o thrszenee or
our letter of December 14,1955, we rcco=andcd a Bctd ttnr Y
ahsencc of this sreciaa or its habitat. In our September 10, 1993, letter, we reeommeuded
additional surveys to coincide VAtb the flowwing period for Hehaxrhur rehweinitzii. Aeeord!U
to yota letter. neither Schweinitz'a 3urllvwcr :.or Amy of the Fodaml opeeie% of concern were
located ui the proposed vcpansivn area during the intersive surveys. The photozmnh5 includ_d
with your IMc;r wore helptUl in d1scatning important chamfers of •e rrer parvV. We thcrin=
now concur with your dctmmirtadon that the proposed project will not affect endangered or
tluoatancd species or thelr habitats. We h6eve the requirements under Section 7 of the Net tat
fulfilled, However, obligations under Scotion 7 of tho Act must be recomidevA if,. (1) new
infurntation reveals impaeu of this ldeatiFed active tbtn may afect listed species or critical
r?
LJ
habitat in a =turner not ptWiotisly co,uidsrvd, (2) this action is subsequsorty madlCed in a
nrsunW that was rat cut?sidercd io this review, or (3) drew spo6es is listed or critical habitat is
dcts:rtnincd that may be a Meted by the idwided action.
We appmciev the oppmTwity to provide them eommcuts. Ifw• eon be of vy ueiaha,ee or if
you have any questions, p!czae do not hccitatc to ccWzct Mr, Mark A. Cantrell of our ctaff at
82VJ59.3939, &t. 217. In any fat= eorrwpondcnee aoncmdag this project, p1ma rsfav%4
our Log Nwnbcr 4.2.96.021.
Sincere r "00
Brian P. Cole
We Supetviwr
cc;
Dr. Willie R Taylur, Director, Office ofF.rtviro=ental Policy and Conuouue.
D.S. Depattnent of the Interior, Interior Building. 1949 C Street, N. W.,
Washington, DC 20240
0
•
:s

•

Y
b
a
d
0
APPENDIX D

Stream Evaluation Forms

NC:llW ) Stream C;lassiticatioll Form „„?? „?
Project Name: C Q TA River Basin: Goa+?w bc? county:/!!e c k!ei' h"J Evaluator: b Q rfl `'k- lrl yc f5
DWQ Project Number. Nearest Named Stream: (_041Y Latitude: Signature: ledA
Date: OA- 65-- 0) USGS QUAD: Uorlolk b1e.5r Longitude: Location/Dimetions:.S.i roam ;?L
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that (he feature it a ntan-mmte ditch, (hen u.se of (hk form is nor neressury.
Alro, if in the bem profevrionuiJudgement of the evaluator, the feature it a man-made ditch and not a modttled natural stream-this
raring system should not be ased*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle OleNuodwrPerLine)
n t Absent t Modersite n
i i Is There A Rif fie i'oul S guenre'I 0 b 2
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
i) Are Natural Levq s F seni" j"I 2
Al le Th.. ('hnnn.l Cinum,e'I 0 ! __ 2 3
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is A Cunlinuuus Bed & Bank Present? U U
'(,d'OTE ! d A bunk Ca,Val by Lllrhin And, IFIVIOUT Sinamity Th o fr Pr•- • -
]0) Is A 2? Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicaled /?
On o Map AndlOr In Field) Present? Yes-3 No z
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
II_Hvt ro oey Absent Wenk Moderate Shona
1) Is There A Groundwater
rlow/Mscharve Present" 0 1 3
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: >
Secondary Field Indicators: (ClrrieoneNYndlerPtrLime)
L Geomornholoev Absent
3) Does Topography Indicate A
amrai DntippLe Wn?Y'1 0 t? I I S
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:-f-
II Hydroloev Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Lenllitter
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .S UI 1.5
AW%rTkip t r r•
S) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 5 I 1.5
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed7 SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW ?'f lastly AC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(' NOTE, I/Tomi ALlrnre O/All Plantr in StrenllJn•d 2 1 75 V 0 0
... As V..,..AAl.. a kin nl• 14..,, U F'1' SAV?fQetw_
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
TOTAL POINTS (Prilltarv +Sernndan,)- (If Greater Than Or F,qual Tit 19 Points The Stream It At Leas( Inrertninent)
•
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL ` w
EVALUATION FORM
ACTION'ID a 003 0 3 "/0 APPLICANT NAME L DT A DATE ;? - - " 01
PR0V0SEVCItPa4NEL WORK (i.e., culvert, reloeation, etc.)
WATEROODYgUYER.BASIN S+re4rn a L / L a.+k W bC,,-
COUNTY/Crryfi{eGwern b4
RECENT WEATHER COKDITIONS C_ Ie Clr
•
Qbservation Comments or Description
FiswShellfuwCnutaoeans PraerR SOvtt? G tee- ; s
Benthic Macro InveetbraLes
Amphibians Present/Breeding 1 SQ ?4Iv14 h Lf?.? w T?1 P We
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function)
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, races, shells, others)
Federally Protected Species Present (Discontinue)
Ri81e(Pool Structure
le-
In1 CA
Stable Stream nbanke
Channel Substrate
i.e. cravel. cobble, rock, coarse sand
S O?st e G OAtrS e- s C,
Riparian Canopy Present (SP -n 30% closure)
Undercut BarAwIroaeam Habitat Structure
Flow In Channel
Wedandt Adjacent To/Contig, With Channel (Discontinue)
Persistent Pools/Saturated Bottom
June thru SeK)
See*Gmundwaw Discharge (June thru Sept)
Adjacent Floodplain Present
Wrack Material or Drift Linea
Hydrophytie Vegetation irvadjacent to channel ew b lkc..L w. l Ow> c,LA J Aci,+ .0 1k.. s.e? J
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? ®/ N Approx. Drainage Area: 70,e-re?.
uluniinnnnuuun!lannulanllnnnimaumiauiiaiiinnuinaaiiiniiinniniainnaiunlaiuiilnuiniliunainiiuiaulaniilnnimliumaiiniill(inninnallniuilliaiilnliiuil
Determination:
Perennial Channel (gyp) Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (rm• ) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (nojd) (attach map Mcating location of importanbunimportant channel)
Ditch Through (nojd)
Upland
•
Evaluator's Signature:
(if other am C.O.E. project manager)
//llllllll/llllllllllllllllllllllllllll/llllllllllllllll/lll/lllll/l/llllllllllllll/lllll/lll/lllllllllll/lllllllll/lllllllllllll/l/llll/l/l/l/lll/ll/ll/lllllll/lllll/!ll/l/ll/l/lll/lllll/lll/ll/lllllllllllllll/lllll/l/llll
P-Present SPrSton* Present NP=Not Present
P SP NP
NCDW O Strrea/gym Classification Form
Project Name:L QL A River Basin: 6C%+(A W 6C%- County: //1 eGw'eMhV?valumor. 1) 0-rrl L L "ye rs
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Strearn:U?i't;y Latitude; Sibmnture: fth, 1
Date: lo-l o ~ Clo USGS QUAD: UQt'Iv h ?k5hongitude: Location/Directions: S tP?Lt e1`
40 *PLEASE NOTE: if evaluator and landowneragree that (he jea(ure is a ntan-toude dilr/t, then use ojthis form is not neeessury.
4/so, Ijin the best projessionai judgement of the evaluator, the feature lr a than-made ditch and not a nrod/lied nu(urul stream-this
rating systrnt should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle (>seVm#,dmr Per Line)
n 1 Absent 1'a Moderate C F,
I I Is There A Riffle-Pool See ence? 0 1 2
2) Is The USDA Texture In Strenmbed
•
S) Is There An Active (Or
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2 (J
CNOTEr I d & Bank Caused ByDitrh(ne And IVIT OUT Sinuadiv Then Srare-0
10)1 Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Tono Map Ana)r In Field) Present? Yer? No
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:??
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle O.,,V..Iper Per Doe)
1) Does
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
11. Hvdrolot_ry Absent Weak Moderate Strome
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Lentliucr
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .S I
'' •V . .? r t .,..
5) Is There Writer In Channel During Dry 0 .5 I 1.3
Conditions Or In Growing Sentonl'1
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
8) Are Welland Plants In Strenmbed? SAV Mostly OOL Mostly FACW Afostly FAC Mostly FACT Mostly UPI,
(r NOTBt )!Total Alarenre O/All Plants In Streawhrd ? I .7$ .S 0 0
k, 4,red j1ww Skin ThL Step Uly . Vt' VAV Pr renr•1
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
TOTAL POINTS (Primary +Seenndarvl-?(1fGrea(er Than Or Equal To L Polnly The Stream Is A/ Leasit Intermittent)
IL Hvdroloev Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/D'schargc ' 7
PRIMAR Y HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
k
•
M
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL `.--
EVALUATION FORM
XTIOrrm a001303yv APPLICANT NAME L pl A DATE ?U -/0 00
PROPOSEWCHANNEL WORK (i.e.. culvert. relocation, eta) ry?
WATERBODY« trVER.WIN Sf(-i?a Q f! Ct' e, &-jbc, CouNw/CITY Me-c k-Je-h bi t4 /Lit arld fie-
RECENT WEATHER COKDfrlOKS _t1_Ie ct,r
P SP NP ObservatiOR
Comments or Description
Fish/Shellfiah/Cnataoeam Presat 5 k /1 I ?1 H H O V ;i
t/ Benthic Macro Invatbrates
t/ Amplubtans PresaWBreeding t rC? 5
t/ Algae And/Or Fungus (waw quality function)
•
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? LJr N Approx. Drainage Area: /v y c'"Vs
lllllnnlnaninlnnuunnlanal/ulaluiuiiiniiuiinnlia/liiliiluia/iinnii/nlulinllniiainuinnluiaamilaninlillnninun/mnalil/il/nunuiailluinillllailliiaanlaunlinn/
Determination:
Perennial Channel (gyp) 8 Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR Initial
Intermittent Channel (pry) Unimportant Channel: L.F
Ephemeral Channel (nojd) (&U-h nap indicating location of important/unimportant charnel)
Ditch Through (nojd)
Upland
EvaJtutor's Slgnatun:
(if oUW U" C.O.E. project manages)
nl/ll//ll/ll///l////l//ll/ll/ll/ll/ll/lll/l/llllllllllllllllllllllll/l/lllll/llllll
PaPresent SP/=Stongfy Present NP=Not Present
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
NCDWO S/t?rea/gym Classification Forln
Project Name: („ Al A ,, /)
+ w lot'- County: Ill ,M,pp aLl- f!e" tit. ' eo
River Basin: G Y
/, ?( ryGv+lluator: IJ C-r'(^t t: /l `
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: (04Cy&htititude: Signature: "41
Date: It X3-60 USGS QUAD:Ck4r/041! We STLongitude: LocationMimetions: 3A S-kI"C4?h.
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree thus the feature It a man-tuude dheh, then u.te ofthIs farm it foot neretsury.
Also, if in the acre prnfextional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a madijied natural stream-this
rating sp.ttem should not be used's
Primary Field Indicators; (Clydro"ellumiserPerLine)
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present:' 0 t V 3
!`NOTE lltled 6ltnnk Cou nl BvUitrhintrAnd W1711OUT Slnuailty Then Srore-O'i
10) Is A 2 Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
00 T1po Mnp,4nd/Or In Field) Prcsent7 Yes=3 _ Nno
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
0 Secondary Field Indicators: (CtrrleOneNuadterPer Line)
•
3) Does Topography Indicate A
n
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
11, Hydroloey Absent Weak Moderate Strove
1) Is This Yenr's (Or Last's) Lenllitter _
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 I? 1.5
Last Known •'I AlmirSkin r of •, •.
5) Is These Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 I 1.5
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: S
TOTAL POINTS (Prlinari, +Secondary)?(IfGreater Than Or Equal To LP Paints The Stream Is At Least Intermittent)
Geornorpholotry Absent Weak o errite Strone
1) It There A Riffle-Pool Senuence7 0 1 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
IL HYdrolo)ry Absent Weak Modernte Strove
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/DischxreePresent'! 0 I (Zf 3
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.' 4A
al Arc W ctulno I-Innis rn'trenmbea7 SAY Mostly UnL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACII Mostly UPL
0 NOTE: //rainAhtenre O/All Plant., In blreambe4f 2 1 .75 .5 0 0
At Ntx.A Alxt,y Skin rA f Sreu UNL - S PAY Prenn1•1.
5
•
•
0
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
ACTIOKMOI ?QIYO APPLICANT NAME
OTT
.r?
DATE 103-00
PROPOSED'CH1rKKEL WORK (i.e.. Culvert, reyl?ocadon. etc.) Me WATERSOBYRti?LER,W1N, 5TreaVk b
I L 4 & 0 6 0. COUNTY/CITY , k e H? k !: ?j / ?- a r 1'O f'?C
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS C-/e0, lr
P Sr NP Observation
Comments or Description
Fwh/Sheltfah/CnLstaoew Present t-ra ; S I,
BenWc Macro Invertbretes
iyb?O 6 rLt f
Amphibians Present/Breeding Su t a rn k k e? PYS ?r s
Algae And/Or Fuagtu (wanes quality function)
/Lt t7? erc'fe
Wildlife Churoel Use (i.e. tracks. feces„ shells, others) go e- le_5
Federally Protected Species f c=t (Discontinue)
Riffle/Pool Structure
Stable Streambutks 1 500ne- t_ r0 S r 'o7 - O C G k rt k
Channel Substrate
i.e. vel, cobble, rock souse sand G 0e, r5 S O ti
d' !'Cc 0 v /
Riparian Canopy Present (SP -/> 30% closure)
Undercut Ban v1wtr=m Habitat Structure
? Flow In Channel
Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel (Discontinue) I `??, M F I
4
? Persistent Pools/Saturated Botmm
June thru S
Seepa/Groundwater Discharge (June thru Sept.)
Adja t oodplain Present
L Wrack Matsnal or Drift Liras .5
O?•
Hydrophytic Vegetation Wadjacent to channel
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? (9/ N Appro. Drainage Area: 106 &e reS
lamuannnlnuluannnlanrnlurlnainiuinaauiiilailsill/nuniiiiullumuuiainliuuinmalllJlulinminiJlrill/iiiiilmmaiainiiani/luniiiunilin/nilnmiainlliinuinml
Determination:
Perennial Channel (9017) Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (Proo-d)
Unimportant Channel: LF
19"?
Ephemeral Channel (nojd) (ad=h map indicating location of important/unimportant channel)
Ditch Through (nojd)
Upland
Evalustar's SlCm ure:
(if other than C.O.E. projetx manager)
llllllll/llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll/l/lllJllllllll/llll/ll/llll/ll/llllllll/lllllllll/llllll/llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll/l///l/l//llll/llll//1//ll/lllllllll/llllllllll/lllllllllllll!llllllllllllll/l
P=Present SPr-Stongly Present NP=Not Present
,NLli ?? V NttrTeam (jass111catlun Form
Project Name:L 41.1 A River Basin: LGt -a W b 6- II Cowity: 1I/CLI IeN6lti Cvaluntor: Oe' MLl MY ers
DWQ Project Number. Nearest Named Stream: I r ' k, -Latitude: J Signature: JYU M4 L A
Dale: a/s/e) USGS QUAD: tkt A?ot (jt'5rLungitude: Local ion(Directions:.p TreA s, A
* PL AS M; NOTE: If evaluator and landowner aZree Ihaf the feature Lr a nran•nim/e dl(eh, then use afthlt farm It not neressury.
ALm,1/fn the Acts pm/er.rlnnu/)udgen/ent of the evaluator, Ibe jruture is u imam-made dltrb and not a umdl. .fled natural stream-this
rafing.system shoo/d not be u.ted*
Primnry Field Indicators: (Clm/e fate Nand?rr Per L/noJ
t o s i I.
1) Is There A Riffle-Pool Sequences 0 o 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Strenmbed
3) Are Natural Levees Proem'! 0 1 2 3
41 Is The Channel Suruous7 0 _ 2 3
S) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present:' 0 1 U 3
[•NRT£: /lbrd A? ban! Cm.red by blirhine And IVITI/OUT Sinuadw Then Srnre-04
0) Is A'8 Order Or Grcaler Channel (As Indicated
??,,
n To i Mar And/Or In Field) emsent? Yes-3 NatO 1
O 1
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators: (Clrele(lneNUnrberPerLine)
1) Does Topography btdiente A
n
Natural DmInage Way?' 1.5
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
11. Hydroloev Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Lenniticr _
4) is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since CO) .5 1 1.5
S) Is Them Water In Channel During Dry C-0) .5 1 1.5
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR
8) Arc Welland Plants In Stmambcds SAV Mostly OOL Mostly FACW Mostly AC Mostly PACII Mostly IIPL
I• NOTE: l/sofa/Ahrenre U/Al! Plants In treanthed 2 1 .75 0 0
1t r .Yniwl Alnn•e Skip nU Sietr UNL EYS SAY Pre, ni• i '
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:it-
TOTAL POINTS (Primary +Seenndan')'alfGreater Than Or Equal To 12 Paints The Stream Is At Least Intermittent)
11. Hvdroloev Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) is There A Gruundwater ^
Flow/12ischarae Prescn('! to) I 2
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL ~??-
EVALUATION FORM
- --TIONrma0D03 03 20 APPLIcANT NAm:E L b T A DATE a -'5--01
PROPOSED-CHANNEL, WORK (i.e., Nlvert, rellocalion/etc,) L /
WATERBORY4UVERJI,A,SINST(?ctn, A l La'fctWbw COUNTY/CTTY eC ?et.bkycl C??4??Gt7F?E'
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS L I e 0.Y'

r SP NP Observation Comments or Description
V FiaWShellfislt/Cr utacearr Prrs+erK
Benthic Macro Invertbrates
Atnphibians PresrnUHroeding
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function) sp N. e- ck ro ue -? ro e k s- d- Imo, 6
Wildlife Chancel Use (i.e. tracks, feces, shells, others)
Federally Protected Species Present (Discontinue)
RiHldPool Structure
e
Stable Strcambanks ;h SO k-e reek 9
Channel Suba n,
i.e. Sravel, cobble, rock coarse sand
S? 1+.? r?(1 e / i' L o? v se SGT
Ripariao Canopy Resent (SP -/> 30•/. closure)
UnderoA Banka/Iroaeam Habitat Structure

vel Flow In Ch mtel
Wetlaods Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel (Discontinue)
Penuccrtt PooL31SAUWM d Bottom
June thru S
V1 Seeps/CRoundwaw Discharge (June thru Sept)
Adjacent Floodplain Pttsent
? Wrack Material or Drift Lino eLe
Hydrophytic vegetation irvadjacent to charnel
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y /© Approz Drainage Area: /Q a"2
a/unalnlmanulluulninaln/lalaunuuauaun/ul/iualaluiuluiiiiaiiilliaialnaaniiialaiaaallllinaninnilaaiinili/nliiaanniniiiiuininluniaiaunniaaiiiullaliilii
Determination:
Perennial Channel (gyp) Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (Pry) ED'taimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no jd) (atlach map indicating location of 4nportsnt/unimportant chancel)
Ditch Through (nojd)
Upland
Evviumoes sign.wre:
(ifotber than C.O.E. project manager)
ll1/llllllll/l/ll/llllllll!llllllllllllllll/llll/lllllllllll/lIlll!/ll!llllllllllllll/llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll/llllll/llllllllllll/lllllll/llllllllll/lllllllllll/lllllll/l/lllllllll/llllllllllllllllllllllllll/lll/ll
P-Present SPrStongfy Present NP=Not Present
NCDWQ Stream Classification Dorm
Project Nomc: C n;a River Basin: &CJa$4 be` County: / lec6 -lest 6,,3 cvalualor: 6 eJ/r?n''ck- Alyet-5
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream:", k,ALatitude: Signature: !/{.r/J4
Date: /0 -3 - V (, USGS QUAD: aan'krk 't1'--")t Longitude: Location/Directions: Stre-4-. I U
* P LEAS F. NOTE: if evaluator and landowner agree that the feature Is a man-made ditch, then use of this form Is not necessary.
Alm, if In the best pm/esrlanul judgement of the evuluator, she feature is a man-rondo flitch and not a modified natural strains-this
rating.system should mat be used's
Primary Field Indicators: (Cirrid (Ate Number Per line)
Geornorpholotry ? e•t Moderate Strono
11 Is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence" 0 1 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Strenmbed
Different From "
1 0 1
41 Is The Chnnnel Sinuous? 0 1 1 3
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 U 3
PNOTi_ /lard d bon! CeareA By li trhtee And IFIT11011T Slnuarlly Than Qrnre? 0h
10) Is A 2"'t Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On To,M Mup And/Or In riel Prc, enl*,' Yes-3 No On
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: r-i
0 Secondary Field Indicators: (C/reldOneMminberPerUnej
1) Does Topography Indicate A
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
11, Hydroloey Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is This Year's (Or Lnst'sl Leoflitier
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
tl) Are Welland Plants In Strenmbed:' SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostiw!?AC Mostly FACtl Mostly 11PL
0 NOTE: !/Total Ahrenre OfAll Plontr /n Strenmhed 1 I .75 (.?) 0 0
A.r Nowd Above.kta nhr a•. N sc cAFPrunnt•1. ' t•/
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.-, -
TOTAL POINTS (Prirnartt +SeenndaMus ? I (/f Creaser Than Or Equal To .L2 Points The Stream AAr Least Inlerinlnent)
It. Hydroloev Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is There A Groundwater
) low/Dischnfge Prescni? 0 ; i1 2 3
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:-J-
Last Knowlt ' w r t
S) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 S I I.5
•

INTERMITTENT CHANNEL -
EVALUATION FORM
xTiot,rm,2601363VO APPLICANT NAME 6-DI A DATE 10- 3 -OD
PROPOSEWCUP&NEL WORK (i.e.. Culvert, relocation, etc.)
WATERSORM IKEABASIN. Sire&.,, 19 / 6 et4a W 6 C` COUNTY/GTTY /Y/e cI l e.6 rq 1 UQ r )o Ye-
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS _ Cdek y

P SP 11P Observation Comments or Description
FuNShellfish/Cnutacearr Pnm nt
Benthic Macro Invertbrates V I t
Anq"bia s PresaWBteediog
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function) ..
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, foots, shells, others) '
? Federally Protected Species Pteaeet (Discontinue)
Rfflatpool Structure
lJer
1, 1?f je
t/ Stable Streannbanks
kl
J Sot.%?c 4rCed
Channel Substrate ,
i.e. cravel, cobble, rock eoam sand)
rQ o e' &.0arfe
Riparian y Present (SP -5 30% closure)
ooo' Uodcmut Banks/Inw=m Habitat Structure
t/ Flow In Chawwl u e- r At /oci L D ?.. e3 a Adv a V'Ptc 44
Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel (Discontinue)
Pmistett PooLVSaturatod Bottom
lung thru S
Seeps/Grouttdwater Discharge (June thru Sept.)
Adjacent Floodplain Present
Wrack Mumal or Drift Linn
Hydrophytic Vegetation irvadjaoent to channel
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y ? Approx. Drainage Area: S e:re
ulllHillaialitnuuuiilitulllitn/illlliuniiadllllitiiainlitiul111ulliliiallllnli!
Determination:
P
R erennial Channel (gyp) [4aimportant mportant Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (pry) Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no jd) (attach map indicating location of intportoot/unirnportant channel)
Ditch Through (nojd)
Upland
• Eralnutor's Siputure;
(if other that C.O. E. project manager)

P=Prrsent SPrStongly Present NP=Not Present
NCllWO Stream Classification Form / %
Project Name: GQl A River Basin: 6 JAW b CA- Cowlty: M" " LqD Evaluator: Oe-4T.
DWQ??Pffrojectt-Numberr. Nearest Named/ S`lream1:_?UeYk'Eitiwde: Signature: Al? 1
Date:eaC- / USOS QUAD:C.hN'+?f?4kStLongitude: Location/Dimclions: A .Orcavi-
a P LEAS E NOTE: if evaluator and landowneravrer that the feature is a nean-etude. dI(eh, then use oflhls farm Lt no(nerectury.
Also, If in /he best pnmfestlanalludgemenl of the evaluator, the fratare it a man-made dierh and not At modified natural serram-this
rating system should not he used's
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle Ore Huniher Per Line)
Gromornhology Absent Veiak Moderate Strone
I I Is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence'! 0 1? 2 t
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
.11 Arc NnIur l Levees Present'? (A 2 3
4) Is The Channel S' '1 0 J 2 3
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
11
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present'' 0 QI 2 3
C1yOTE? //B+vf d bank Cowed My bitrh/nnAnd IV)T)/OUrSlnandty 7h¢n .Tram-0•t
10) Is A 2"i Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Topo Map And/Or In Field I Present? Yea-3 &
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: °
Secondary Field Indicators: (C/rrlrOnrNundterpep. line)
•
1) Does Topography Indicate A
0 5
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
11, Hydroloey Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is This Years (Or Last's) Lenaauer _
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 0 1 1.5
t .,..
5) Is Then: Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 I 1.5
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.---91
IOTA L POINTS (Pritnarr +Secondan•)-&SajGreater Than Or Equal Tip IS Points The Stream Ism Least [Antermiffent)
II. Hydroloey Absent Weak Moderate Strnnu
1) Is There A Groundwater ?
Flow/Dischn(rePresent" (O) I 2
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
°t .,.. tr «++ow 6...111) to ouc+nnucu: 5A V Mmny UHL Mostly FACW Mostly AC Mostly FACII Mostly VIAL
(• NOTE. if roml Ahtenre O/All Plante In .virann+h,d 2 I .75 0 0
AsNaledAhm'eSkip bSu /N _VNSAVP •t'nN1
} •'q'.
C?t?f,
INTERNIITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
ACTIorfm o?C003o3V6 APPLICANT NAME ( T A DATE -?'S- 4l
PROPOSED-CUMMMEL WORK (i.e., vulvert, relocation, etc.) l /
WATERBORYlRitKE&.$ IN. 4?ea n A / ?-Gt.'rt4 wbc, COUNTY/cm ELK /e &,b 4V e L L• 4 rk f/-e
RECENT WEATHER CONDMONS L /Qatr
•
P SP NP Observation Comments or Description
FisNShelL&WCrustac=ns Prow*
BenWr Macro Invatbraks
Amphibians Presad/&eoding
Algae And/Or Fungus (wales quality function) ?.
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks. f-es, shells, others) LrGt C?75S
TT
I oderslly Protecw Spmice Present (Discontinue)
ltilite/Pool Structure we' 6-
Sable Streambanks
Channel Subsomw
i.e. vel, cobble. rack, coarse sand e rlau ?,
5 O ?^-
Ripanan Canopy Present (SP "n 50% closure) !.) e f?i-
Uodercvt Baaks/Inweam Habitat Structure
VI -Flow In Channel
Wetlands Adjacent To/Caruig. With Chuml (Discontinue)
Pasistatt Pools/Saturatod Bouorn
lures thru S
jlo? Soeps/Oroundwater Disda ge (June tlvu Sept.)
Adjacent oodplain Present
Wrack Material or Drift Lines C
Hydrophytic Vegetation irvadjao" to clue nel
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y 10 Approx. Drainage Area:
?lllamlunluullalalalunlalnlluaaunalnnlunlullnulallnine/ilnllulailiaulalinnnniaiilunionlalnnniiiaalanannanlliinilainuiannninlaunlamunlniunilnni
Determination:
Perennial Channel (map) ? _Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (P--ved) L"TUnimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (nojd) (attach map indicating location of important/unimportant channel)
Ditch Through (nejd)
Upland
Evaluator', Stpsature:
(if other lhan C.O.E. projod rtarager)
Gaul/uunnmuulaulnunuunananauulanlnrlnanmaululllanalnlunnunan/ainlllanaalulllluanla/nnnlanalauialnaunnlniaunalunuunulunuunainnniun
P--Present SPrStongfy Present NP=Not Present
f NC DWU Stream Classification Form
Project Name: 1, QT A River Basin: Ga TQ w be- county: I)')zck.JeK 6U!3Cvalun(or: J)p_ err, c,, - yep'-S
DWQ )Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: D?'rWerJc"Lotitude: Signature: /?M" "
Date:/ 0'3-oo USGS QUAD:C ctrio+4,C A!5;' Longitude: Locntion/Direct)ons:
*PLIKASE NOTE: Ifevaluator and landowner at!rer that the feature is a man•niude direh, then use of this form is not necessary.
Also, if in the beer pmferdonalludEement of the evaluator, the feanne Is a man-made dieva and not a modrlied natural ,stream-this
ratinj.system should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Cirr.le Number Per Line)
1. GertmornhnloLy Absent 1Venk Modrrote Strone
11 Is There A Riffle-Pool Seauence" I 2 ;
2) Is The USDA Texture In Strenmbed
3) Am Nottiral Levees '' 0
4) IsThe Channel Sinuous? 0 1 3
S) Is There An Active (Or Relic) .cam
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bunk Present? 0 1 3
CAOTE: /l/1rJ dr Bunt Caand Bvblarhinr And IVITIIOUTSinuadav Then Stare-Oh
10) Is A 1' Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
OnTono Man And/Or In Field) Present? Yes=3 _ Noa`0 )
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators: (ClrrleOne.VuanlrrPrrUne/
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Dmonage " S S
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
I(. Hydrolo¢v Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is This Years (Or Last's) Lcuflitter
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 1 1.5
Last Known ' at, s
S) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 S • I 1.3
r...,a:r.,.,. n. t., r:......;- Q........ VI
or nic .ecuanu ruuas in awcamoco: JAV Mustly UBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACII Mostly UPI,
(• NOTE. 1f rosa/Abtenre Of All Plants In Strenudud Z 1 .73 .3 0 0
dt .Vnled AlxnY Skin na Saes 11ALw s_AV Pretena- n '
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
TOTA L POINTS (Primary + Secatdar&,x -Greater Than Or Equal To L2 Points The Stream It At Least InterinUlent)
11, Hvdroloev Absent Weak Modernte Stron
1) Is There A Groundwater
' 0
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
SECONDAR Y HYDROLOGY INDICA TOR POINTS:--2_
7
t. • ;t
t:?t?i:
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL .-
EVALUATION FORM
ACTiot,rmt?604-?0- q0 APPLICANT NAME LOT A DATE IO -3'O0
PROPOSED-CM/O(KEL WORK (i.e., vulva% mlocatioc6 eta) /
WATER906WRIKER.JLA,S1NS7re&,-8 ; &&+uaJba cotrlr icrrY 44eje-kt.yur (? ar/W4
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIOKS G I e ct r-
Observation Comments or Descriotion
Fish/ShelLrulVCrustaoeans Prceast
Benthic Memo Iovertbralea
Amplubians Present/Brooding •t r- r re-se i,+
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function) ?.
ti e. tM l4 L
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, feces, shells, otters) GG v0:ti r'rL.G s
Federally Protected Species Present (Discontinue)
RiS)dPool Structure
Stable Streaatbanks
CtKLS
Charstel Substrate
i.e. cravel. cobble, rock hoarse sand)
Riparian Canopy Present (SP -/> 50% closure)
ohl 1K saK.e Ce.rneo
Undaw Banks/Insava n Habitat Structure
Flow In Channel h.0 f >< ??0 (? . O e.t
Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig, With Charuml (Discontinue) O N C W
Persistent PooLs/Sawratod Bowan
June thru S
Seepa/Groundwater Discharge (June Ovu Sept,)
Adjacent Floodplain Present
Wrack Material or Drilt Lino liJe?
Hydrophytic Vegetation irvadjacent to channel
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? ©/ N Approx. Drainage Area: Z/-11 7&,,re3
llaaaa!!lanalnaaaanlalnlaanaauni!!li/lnluu/iai!lalullluininuaiiiluiuauiluaainnlanauilullllulnlilliauniil/mniliilinnilaninilllnulllluaalaaiuiiulmnan!
Determination:
Perennial Channel (gyp) [Turmaimportant portant Channel: LF PROJECT MGR Initials
Intermittent Channel (Prc) Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (noid) (attach map irndicating location of importutUunimportant channel)
Ditch Through (-jd)
Upland
Evaluator's Sipsature:
(if now than C.O.E. Project manager)
lllll/llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!ll1/llllllll!l!ll!lllllllllllllllllll!llllllll!llllllllllllllllll!llll/ll/ll1/lllll/lllllllll!!llllllllllllll/lllll/lllllll//1/lllllllllll!lll!llllllllllllllllllllllll!llllllllll
?=Present SPrStong+y Present NP=Not Present
P SP NP
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Project Name: C,.DTA River Basin: t:a+ &w b(J6 p Cuwtty: fij" jut?Gvnluator: bem a 0 `,Y
DWQ Project Number, Nearest Named Stream: 040, PhAxntitude: •/Sipnture: nAVOA
Date: 2-S-0 US(1S QUAD: Gk4rJ4rff E kstLongitude: Location/Ditectiuns: S ?re4
*PLEASE' NO'T'E: If evaluator and landowner agree thus the feature Is a noun-inude ditch, then use ofthis fornt is ao( necessary.
Also, if in the best prafessional)udgement of the evaluator, the feature is a than-made ditch and not a modilled natural stream-tills
rating system should not be used*
Primary Field indicators; (Cl".1d0"eNumlwPer Line)
n ) Ablent 11 t Moderate
1) Is There A Wfle-Foul Sequence' 0 d 2 1
2) Is The USDA Texture In Stmarnbed
.1) Arc Natural Lcyces ° 7013 2 3
41 Is The Channel Sinuous! 0 , 2 3
S) Is There An Active (Or Relic) ^1
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Presern? 0 (y 2 3
[`NOTE: I/Brd A Hunk Canted By Ditrhine And WrIIOUT Sinumity Then Senre-atl
10) Is A 2- Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Tono Mon And/Or In Field) Present? Yet=i N114)
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
11._HydroloevAbsent Weak Moderate StronLr
1) Is There A Gruundwalcr
Flow/Discharge Present? 2 3
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: _0
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: - .5
Seconds Field Indicators: (Circle On,NamherPerLinel
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Non)ral DriinlgeWav? 0 (Sl I I
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
11, Hvdroloev Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leana(er
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs.
S) Is There Water In Channel During Dry V .5 1 1.5
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
8) Are Welland Plants In Stmarnbed? SAV Mostly OOL Mostly PACW Mostly A(: Mostly FACII Mostly IIPL
(• NOTE; If roral Ahtenes O/All Plants In 'Drvatnhed 2 1 .75 0 0
AsNneed Alnn•e Skip TALI Stea UNL VS SAY Pretem•) '
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: aR_
TOTAL POINTS (Priman, +Seeondan,)a` (if Greater Than Or Equal To Lp Paints The Stream Is At Least Intermittent)
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
0 EVALUATION FORM
Tlorrm:?oof63 03 t/o APPLICANT NAME L DS A DATE
PROPO'SEWCE"NEL WORK (i.e., culvert, re10eati0% etc.) 1 f I
WATERSORVA VER.wiN,?kca:v% F / Lk+4 W70__ COtINTY/CITY 1 Lkkrlotfe_
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS Glecl_ r
e Se Ive Observation Comments or Descriotion
F6NSbel1f6h/Cnuuoms Pre-A
BenWc Macro Invertbrates
Amphibians Preent(Breeding
Algae Aod/Or Fungus (water quality function)
Wildlife Cbanoel Use (i.e. tracks„ feoes, shells, others)
Federally protected, Species Present (Discontinue)
? RActPool Structure
Stable Streambanks
S O N..e.- C? r?.G.S N (?? 5 ?4 Ic
Charnel Substrate
i.e. vel, cobble, rock, coax sand
rewe d' (BOG r $ z sa kJ
Riparian Canopy Present (SP -/> 50% Closure)
Undercut Banks/Gutream Habitat Structure
? Flow In Charnel
t/ Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Chanel (Discontinue)
Persistent PooWSatunted Bohan
(June thru SeK)
Seepa/Crroundwater Discharge (June thru Sept)
Adjacent Floodplain Present
Wrack Material or Drift Lines i, a a,le,
Hydrophytic Vegetation uvadjacent to chamel

Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y'l.% Approx. Drainage Area: H<.,t-res
lalln?uall?nullinuii?llu?lulluuialanilnlHall/italiiulHill?aaiiaaiailniialllira////ill?ealitauiuinaaiuiluliaamailiiuliiminainniaainuilalimnriuanlia?anualai
Determination:
RPerennial Channel (gyp) Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR Initials
Intermittent Channel (P-000d) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no jd) (auach map indicating location of irnportant/unimportant channel)
Ditch Through (no jd)
Upland
Evaluator's Sigm u v:
(if other Utart C.O.E. project manager)
.lll/lllllllllllllllll/////!////////////////////////////!////////////////////1//////////////////////!//1///1/////1/////////I///llll/l/lll/lllllll/lllllll/lllll/llllllllllllllllllll/lllllllllllllllll/lllllllll/lllllllll
Present SPFStongiy Present NP=Not Present

NC WStream Classification Form
Project Name: River Basin: CA+???? Cuwlty: fileckk.44 ?[svnlunlotlD entC,? y??s
s
QWQ Project Number: Nearest NumedStream:?:me.!'LI.atitude: Sipature:
Mac: USCS QUAD:&kV)4 T4 Ot!srLungitude: Lucnlion/Directiuns: Sfir"c-A 1%
{ * P LEAS F NOTE: If evulualor and landowner agree that the feature lr a mun•tnude. ditch, then use of drlr form is mat necessary.
Alto, if in the bell pmfesslonulludgement of the evuluutor, the frature Is a man-made ditch and not a modyied natural s(reum-Utis
ruting.galem should mat be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (ClydeOneNumherPerLine)
n r i Absent V MLA Str"
11 Is There A Riffle-Foul Seouence? 0 I j? 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
11 Are Nolural Levees Present! 0 I 2 3
4) Is The Chnnnel Sinuous'! _ 0 _ I 2 3
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present'! 0 1 ?1
VOTE: '!fd d Bank C-sed By D dine And IP(THOUT SlnaarOv Thou Searo-O4
10) Is A 2"' Order Or Greeter Chnnnel (As Indicated
On Tvy2 Map AndlOr In re1il1 Present? Yet-) NnEO/
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
•
Secondary Field Indicators: (Ctrrh(lneNutaberperLlnr/
Indicate A
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR
11. Hydroloev Absent Weak Moderate Stron¢
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leallitter
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 1.5
l r Step And s Velow-1
Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1.5
Cond(lions Or In Growina Senson)?
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS
I) AR Welland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OOL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACII Mostly UPL
(• NOT& l/Tnal Ahrence O/All Plante In Sfreamhed 1 1 .75 .5 0 0
At Nfeed A bo l y Skip Th Lr re• N USAV&A-i 1. 1
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
TOTAL POINTS (Prlnlarv + Seenndar -) e (If Greater Than Or Equal To L2 Pointe The Stream I.t Ar Least Intermittent)
5) Is Theis An Active (Or Relic)
11. Hydroloev Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Mscharee Present'!, 0 I 3
PRIMAR Y HYDROLOGY INDICA TOR POINTS. tK
9
.r. t M
kt?rt' Li
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL "`'-?--
EVALUATION FORM
note t?C 3 3Y APPLICANT NAME CDIA DATE I d -/Q-OO
PR0P0SED-Cli/a4MEL WORK (i.e., Nlvett. relocation. etc.) Me
WATER500Y4tM&AASINS ? r e4 N. L / C.Ct.411,1 ?j C. COt1KPY/C'I'TY l, ? Jest b11.^q J L? 4r? /Te
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS Je h r
P SP NP Observation Comments or Description
FLWShellf WCrusucaaro Freest U 2C t`
V BenWc Macro Invertbrats
Amphibians Prcsertt/Brood
Algae And/Or Fungua (water quality function) ..
Wildlife Charnel Use (i.e. tracks. feoes, shells, others) s G yH L u S ?G '?
oderally Protected Species Prmmt (Discontinue)
Raripool Structure p ?u rtif?
Stable Str+e=banks
Charnel Substrate
I.e. travel. cobble. rock, bum sand)
G 0 c' $ $C1 N r&V I
Riparian Canopy Pramt (SP -D 50% closure)
Uodcrw BankdImtrmn Habitat Structure
Flow In Chaartel
Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Charnel (Discontinue)
Persistent PooWSaturated Bottom
June tltru SCPQ /
? Sceys/Caouodwater Disdwrge (June thru Sept) D 1 e ?,Ct F
G
Adjacent Floodplain Pmscnt
Wrack Material or Drift Linea
? Hydrophytic Vegetation irvadjacent to charvul
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? U/ N
Approx. Drainage Area: J -Q tt.Gt''
/llu/iilau!lnlnullllnllnl/iunlllnuallalanniulnal?allinanluninimalllroiliuliiii(anaiinllnaianurilimillllunniiaiil/nailHillaiiilmnualaniaiainlnaiilanl/luiil
Determination:
Perennial Channel
ntermittent Channel
Ephemeral Channel
Ditch Through
Upland
(") Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR Initials
(Pr-d) Unimportant Channel: LF
(no jd) (attach map indicating location of irnporunt/unimportant chancel)
(no jd)
Evsluator's Slptatsuv:
(if other than C.O.E. project manager)
Illlll/l//////!///ll/Illlllllllll/l/l!l /1/llll/lllllllllllll/lllllllllllllllllllllll//llllllllllllllllllllllllllll/llllllll/llllllllllllll/lllllllll/lllll /ll//l/ll/l/lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll/llllllllll/llll/lllllllll
P-Present SPrStongiy Present NP=Not Present
_I
JO NCDWO Stream Classification Form (??
Project Name:60 A River Basin: (-G-.+(.t.{}} 6&, county: ?et.?e'N ?valwuor.n kJef-r; G?/?? ,ers
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: L.;40e''P'C' h;-rLLntitudc: Signature: fi0 -,' N^
Date: 0-- S--U) USGS QUAD:(ikkt"L? "'yLongitude; Locntion/Directions:.5 fre- a w. /r(
*PLEASE NOTE: Ifevuluator and landowner agree that the feature Is a ratan-inude. ditch, then u.re afNrtt fans Lt not nerectury.
Alta, if in the dart pmfessionulludgement of the evaluutor, the feature is a roan-made ditch and not a modified naturul.stream-this
rating system should not be used's
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle 0"o Number Per Line)
Geonwrt)hul(wry Absent yea Moderate StronL,
I I_Is There A Riffle-Pool Seouence? 0 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
31 Are Natural Levees Present" 0 2 3
41 Is The Channel Sinuous? I 2 3
•
S) Is Them An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 I Q 3
CNOTE. lrbed d bank Carved Sy bitrhlna And frITIIOUT Sinaatirv Then Srnre-Vi
10) Is A 2" i Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Tono Map And/Or In Field) Prcicnl'.' Yes-.1
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators: (CirrleOneNlfnol)erPerUme)
Indicate A
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
II. Hydrolotty Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Landauer
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since t11J .5 I 1.5
List Known
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1.5
SECONDAR Y HYDROLOGY INDICA TOR POINTS.
8) Are Welland Plants In Strenmbed? SAV Mostly OOL
P NOTE., I/Toml Ahrenre Of All Plontt In Siremrd ed 2 1
At Nared.l1 ram Skin Tht 6•, UNLE SAYPrawnN1
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
Mostly FACW Mostly C Mostly FACII Mostly IIPL
.755 0 0
TOTAL POINTS (Priman, + Secondarr)-ilafGreater Than Or Equal To Lp Paints The Stream Is At Least Intermittent)

fi. Hydrtdoey AI?sent Weak Moderate Stronn
1) Is Them A Gruundwiuer ?-l
Flow/D'schnrge Pre%,gal" (01 1 2 3
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
lv
•
•
EMI
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL v``--
EVALUATION FORM
ACTIom-240430-00 APPLICANT NAME D?'A DATE ?-5=d 1
PROPOSED'CRANNEt. WORX (i.e.. vulva% eelocatiom etc,) uA I r / ?/
WATER906Y1ltlKER$A.SIIV rretcy. f ?G??Lt1-??C? COUNTY/t.'t'I'Y /Y(?ue??'l•?J?+?_/6K4?l /O#e-
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS __j? e0.#-
P SP NP Observation
Comments or Descrindon
I FisNShellf6WCrusuceam P, s
Benthio Macro Invatbrats
Arrrphibiaru Prnsent/&eeding
Algae Aod/Or Fungus (water quality function) ;0 e- c _
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks room shells„ others)
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y/(N) Approx. Drainage Area: a6 a4res
miniul?uunn?muniaaniiniuuiiiuinainnlniliailaaaaiaunuiauuninnauiululiniunniallaiaualulitaana/uaiaiinlanalainlnmaninuillauiiiNldiuilnluluilnil
Determination:
Perennial Channel (gyp) plu
mportant Channel: LF PROJECT MGR Initials
Intermittent Channel (pry) n
important Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no jd) (attach map indicating location of important/unimportant channel)
Ditch Through (nojd)
Upland
Evaluator's Shgrutsrre:
(if other than C.O.E. project M"Lager)
inuuliinuauiniainaaaanlnnaiinniiunuauuulmmianiinianiiluiuliiailuaniululiiuiiniuaaiilunlnilinmliiuua/iailitainnulllilannlnunuliannnilaniinnlnaii
P-Present Vr-Stongfy Present NP=Not Present
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
11
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL "''-`"?""r•wRp
EVALUATION FORM
xCTIOCrmaooL303 ?0 APPLICANT NAME (AT A DATE
PROPO'SElYCHKKNEL WORK (i.e., culvert, relocationk cm) 1
WATERBODYAUVER.WIN, S?rCCU*% /v /C-G.fetti be, COUNTY/CITY /N? aleJe-JeA bitr4 J&ka.doft e
RECECR' WEATHER CONDITIONS d e a y
r SP NP Observation Comments or Descriation
F6WSheltfish/Cnuuoeww Pre,=A
Benthic Macro Invertbrstes
Amphibians PrczenuBreeding
??Cc ?er
ogre And/Or Fungus (weer quality function)
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, moss, shells, others)
Federally Protected Species Present (Discontinue)
f Rifle/Pool Structure od e,-4+e-
Stable Streambanks
Chanrxl Substrate
i.e, vel, cobble, rock rouse sand
G O ft t/1fe, S cl, k
Riparian Canopy Present (SP -/> 30% closure)
VIT Undercut Banksnraswca n Habitat Structure
Flow In Channel
WeUaods Adjacent TolContig. With Charwel (Discontinue) S lst r. , ZJ t' '?4:td below
pa f
R Oihf"
Pasirunt Pools/Sanrnted Bottom
tune thru S
Soepa/Groundwaw Discharga (tune thru Sept.)
Adjacent Floodplain Present
r/ Wrack Material or Drift Linea
Hydrophytic Vegetation irvadjacent to channel
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y ON
Approx. Drainage Area:
ulaaulumallauraliaaiurrlnrarl/iaailiaaannnnliuliiuilllnmanii/iairaaillnniiailiialuauluaurauianl/iimilman/alrlmiiiimanlaaauiunnnulnlraliiirulul/lni
Determination:
Perennial Channel (gyp) Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR Initials
Intermittent Channel () Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (nojd) (attach map indicating location of Unporunt>unimporunt channel)
Ditch Through (no jd)
Upland
• Evalwtor's Signature:
(if other than C.O.E. project rrtuuger)
/lllll/lllll/lllllllllllllll/llllll/llll/llllllllllll//ll//llllllllll/lll/l/ll/lllll///lllll/llll/lllll/llllllll/l/llllllll/llllllllllll/lllll/lllllll/1/l!l//lll/ll//l/lllllllllllllllllll//l//l/llll/llll/llllll/ll/l!llllll/
i
P=Present SP,=Stongly Present NP=Not Present
i NC LIWO Stream Classification Form
nT _ { rVlet;?lek•bLtr,? Q `
vnlualor: C?nf.? ?yer-S
Prujcct Name: tJL A River Basin: ?.Gl+0.wV? pp Cuw1tY
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream:011C(Q 6)Lntitude: Sibmnture: [1Y?
Date: a-9-0) USGS QUAD: Lktlkrbfk 00rLungitude: Location/Directions: s n- ^r
. • P LEASF: NOTE: If evalumar and landowner agree that (he feature is a moan-umade ditch, then uxr ofthi.s form is not nereetury.
Also, if In the Bert prafesslonul judgemenr of the evaluator, the feurure is a man-etude ditch and not a nmdljied natural streano-this
ruling.ryuem .thou/d not be ameds'
Primary Field indicators: (Cirrie()neNutpoerPer Line)
Geornfornholoirry Absent V't M3021) S I r
11 Is There A Ril'llc-Pool Sequence" 0 I 1
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
.1) Arc Natural Leyees '' 0
41 Is Thy Channel Sinuous? 0 2
91 It Thrre An Active Mr Rrl:rl
Secondary Field Indicators: (circle omemaoihtr Per Line)
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 1 I 1.5
Last Known ' s •,••
S) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 f 5 1 1.5
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS
•
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR PO/NTS:-?l
TQTA L PO/1VU (Pri{narn + Seenndon-)-v2OI (If Greater Than Or Equal To.U Paints The Stream Is At Least Intermittent)
L•NOTE: 1/Bcd d Bunk Caus,rl BvDitr nrAnd IV1T11011T Unuadw Then Srnre-Oh
10) Is A 1"i Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated //??
On Torn Mnp And/Or In Field) Prescnt" Yes=3 " 04
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: --L-
11, 11. Hvdroloev Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is Them A Groundwater
Flow/Discharee Present? 0 2 J
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.-
IL Hvdrolot_ry Absent tVeltk Moderate Strong
1) Is This Yenr's (Or Last's) Lenniucr _
of Arc wcuono rinnts to wenmoea7 SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly AC Mostly FACII Mostly UPI,
(• NOT6i If rntal Ahsenre Of All Plants In Sireatnh,d 2 I .75 S 0 0
ll.s .yet • Ahm•e Skin n is Sim L/NI,&U SAV Prmenl• 1 '
a1 NCllWO Stream Classification Form
Project Name: & A River Basin: La+4iw bey- (cony: /YIejje kv?iifjvnlunlur: exr3 t,? ?/+PrS
DWQ Project Number. Nearest Named St11ream: `;A?PQiXotitude: Signatum: "IYR 1
?- Date: arc' O) US(iSQUAD:LHAIIOi uey-rLongitude: Locnlion/Dimc(iuns: R Sireo'
"P LEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree thus rhr frature Ls a inun-atade ditch, then use of this farm Ls not nrcctaury,
Also, If in she Deti professional Judgement of rhr evaluator, the frtaure is it man-mnde ditch and not a atndified natural stprow-this
rating.sy.item should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
Genniorpholoiry I Vet Moderate Strone
I I Is There A RilAe-Foul SeQuence° 1 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Strenmbed
7 2 3
3 Nnittrid I.cvces '' 0 3
4) Is The Channel Shluous? 0 1 2 3
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic) i r\
•
9) Is A Conlinuuus Bed dt Bank Presenl" 0 2 3
!'NOTE: I/Bed 6 bunk CmoW Be Ditching And IYITIIOUT Sinuatity Then Srore•0•I
10) Is A 1" Order Or Greater Channel (As Indiented
On Tuno Mnn AndfOr In Field) Present" Yes-3-_- - MAI
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle OneYuniher Per Line)
s .` .
2) is There A (;radc Control Point In Channel:' 1 1 S
3) Dues Topography Indicnte A
Natural )minnoe iy'n 151 _ ? 1.5
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
8) Are Welland Plants In Strenmbed? SAV Mostly OHL Mostly FACW Mostly AC Mostly FACU Mostly UPI,
I• NOTEr //'Tow/Aluenre Of All Plant. In Vremnhcd 1 1 .7$ 0 0
dr,Vrertkxwe Skip Th it le UN -VSPAYPr iew-1 '
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.-
TO TAL PQINTS (Primarlt + Setvlndan')=?(If Greater Than Or Equal To L Paints The Stream Is At Least Intermittent)

IL Hvdrolnrv_ Absent Weak Moderate Stront!
1) Is There A Groundwater ?-
Flow/Discharge Present? (0? 1 2 3
PRIMAR Y HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINT'S: _Q
11, Hydrolo¢v Absent Weak Moderate Rtrontr
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Lutlliucr _
!a
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL "''??
EVALUATION FORM
ACTIOCrma06e303 Yo APPLICANT NAME L A TA DATE
PROPOSIMT11 414EL WORK (i.e., quivem clocaaW4 etc.)
WATERSOBYAUVZR.BA,SIN,. StrCct an R L t +4 tJb C. eotmTY/CITY 1 VJeL 1-' /e ?. b:, w ?t L L G ? otoLe
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS t?lec.r
•
P SP NP Observation Comments or Description
V -- j Present
[3enWo Macro InvettbraLm
Amphibians Present/ reeding
Mgas And/Or Napa (water quality function) ?.
wildlife eharml use (i.e. tracks. feces, shells, others)
??i
? FederaLly Protected Species Present (Discontinue)
? RiHldPool Swore
Stable Streambanlu
Chancel Substato
i.e. eravel. cobble, rock boarse sand
GOC(-?' s S a
? Riparian Canopy Present (SP -/> SO% closure) i ? f' a
Undermn Bamks/Instrmtm Habitat Structure
Flow In Channel
Wetlands Adjacent To/Cottig, With Channel (Discontinue)
? Persistent PooLVSatu wW Bottom
lure thru Sept)
Sceps/Cioundwater Disdwge (lute Uvu Sept)
? Adjacent Floodplain Present
Wrack Material or brift Lines
Hydrophytic Vegetation irvadjaeent to charnel
Important To Domestic Water Supply' Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map' Y AN ApproL Drainage Area: D aLres
uranannnr!/nrainluaiu/uluJnJnlulin/a/alaiinauni//a/in/aini/JUa/WWIIln/niuiaranialr/ninilaruJiiai/anuanniiiJliiunnnuailla/lJUiinaiaJ//iiiuu/aiuiuJ/nnJ/a
Determination:
Perennial Channel (nop) portant Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (Fend) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (nojd) (attach map indicating location of important/unimportant chancel)
Ditch Through (-jd)
Upland
Evaluator's SiVtawre:
(if other Uwe C.O.E. project manager)
llrllll/l/Ill!lllllllllJlllll!l!lllllllllllllllUIIIIIIaIa?JJJUaJJJI?I?InI?J?JJ/l1?IJ?l??Jl?II?JI?I/II??JI?a??lUnl???ll?dJllN?/?l?Jl?lJl??l??/???lllll?Jlll??l/?J?I???JIIIIauJJa?allrJJnJUIUJNIUJU???Jllnl
P=Prrsent SPrStongfy Present NP=Not Present
NCDWO Stream Classification Form
Project Name: (, p1 A River DasinZA+4 tj?a n Cuw:ty:ll 1 ?'? ?? N ??t .?vuluatur: ??rt r - ?yG'ls
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named S1ream:L;41c Y(EIJ Latitude: Signature:
Date: /0 -A.) ' 0.0 USCiS QUAD: Lk4kr10* (je>tLongitude: LocationMirectiuns: Sl/'r't.4t". 5
* P IA'ASF. NOTE: If evuluuosr and hrndowneragree that the jeuturr is u man-prude dlich, then use afthis farm is not necessary.
Also, ?f in the best pmjrsrlnnal/udFemenl ajthe evaluator, the jrawre Ls u man-made ditch and not u nrodlied nuturul sirruna-shis
rutine.systein should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (0rr1#O"rNundwrPerL1ne)
e Moderate Strone
11 Is There A Riffle-Pool Seguence? 0t
1 1
2) Is The USDA Texture In Strenmbed
Different From '3) Arc Nntural Levees Present! Al 1 3
41 Is The Channel Sinuous? 0 I 2 3
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic) 11
•
9) Is A Continuous Red & Bank Present? 0 1 2 ?
12"07£: NB A Bank (` ../ by Qtr hM Ang IY( Hr or r• ini arlrv Th • Prnre-0*,
10) Is A 2"' Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
n o / ,-1 0
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators: ( W/eOneNealberPerllne/
Present In Channel)
21 Is There A Grade C nt I Point In 'harmer, 0 rte. 1 15
1) Does Topography Indicate A
t1fitunal Drainage Wily'! 0 / S J a r<
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 5 1 1.5
LastKaoign " , 41r SienAnd Of
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 2 1 1.5
' nta A rrenrr r)/Afl Planes M Strramhrd j 1 .75 dt MwedAlrnrSkin TPre, /N - SlPAYPrreni-i S Q Q
,
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:-S
TOTAL POINTS (Primary +Seenndaril a(1f(;rearer Than Or Equal To 19 Paints The Stream Ls At Least Intermittent)
11 Hydrolo" Absent Weak Moderate trun r
1) Is There A Gruundwater
Flow/Dkyhurug Present?
0 1 2 3
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
11. Hydruloey Absent Wenk Moderate Strontt
1) Is This Years (Or Lost s) LcnlLuer
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:

.?N
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
ACTION'ID y0 APPLICANT NAME & OIA DATE M-16-00
PROPOSEWC't MIKEL WORK (i.e., Nlvem relocation, etc.)
WATERSOBY4UYEP,AA.SIN,,?TrC4M S &a4liw6, COUNTY/CITY e1_Ljek_ 6u? 1&k6r?41-
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS L I eCj?
P SP NP Observation Comments or Description
FL WShelWu1VCnuaoeasn PnomA
BenWo Macro 4rvonbrates
rimohibiatu Prescnl/&eodina
AJgaa Acd/0r Fungus (water quality function) w eG_ k
Wildlife Chance) Use (i.e. tracks, foots, shelLs' others) V er
FWcraUy ProwcW Spa6co Present (Discontinue)
Channel Substrate
i.e. vel, cobble, rock
Ripe iaa Cattvpy Presestt
l"" Undercut Banku1naueam
Flow In Channel
coeAl-se. s4 tee! j- vCt y 1.we roc'k_
r.irl 1
. ? ?r•?- ? v N c
Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Chanel (Discontinue) b ofd o w+
Persistent PooLt/Satutawd Bottom
Junethru S
f S«ps/Orwurdwater Dischargo (June tlvu Sept.) oe &
I/ Adj&=L Floodplain PrescrA
Wrack Material or Drift Lirwr
Hydrophytic Vegdm4oe irvadjacent to charnel
Important To Domestic Water Supply.? Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? ©/ N Approx. Drainage Area: QGre
/////uaaua/a/u/a{uauuu//aun/a/{JHatt{alsun/analassn/diiaaai!/unJ/u/u/uJiu{luuiauiiuiia/ai//uaiai/iuu/nmiu/Ni///ii/ra/iiuni{aaiu/uian{nmm{niun{Niu
Determination:
Perennial Channel (gyp) Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR, Initials
Intermittent Channel (Pry) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no id) (attach map indicating location of important/unimponant charmel)
Ditch Through (nojd)
Upland
Evaluator's Signature:
(if other than C.O.E. project nw ager)
Ill/llllll!ll{llllllllllllllll!lIllllllllll/Jlllll/lllllllllll/llll//ll/lIllllll!ll/llllllllllllllll/lllllll/lJlllll!lllllll!lllllllllllllllllllllll!llllllllllllllll/lllllllllll!lllllll/l!/lllllllll/llllllllllllllll/lllllll
P=Present Z=Stongiy Prmsent NP=Not Present
NCDWU Stream Classification Form
i q Prujccl Name: IL IJT Iq River Basin: G0.+0. w 'wrr /? County: Meck Ito N bur_jvaluator:0er fi? kyL°?
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Numed Stream:`r 4,ekln alitude: Signature: A4 14t
Date: rZ? c7 ~ 0? USCS QUAD:( lof-k 0611.0ngilude: Location/Directions: !;4fL4i-, u
*PLEASE NOTE: /f evaluator and landnwneragrre that the featurr Is u man-made ditch, then use ofthls form Ls not neresrory.
Also, V01 the best profffslanatludgement ofthe evaluator, the feature is a man-tuade dia'lh and not a modlyled natural sirrant-this
rutinr system should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (0".1, (Me Number Per Line)
•
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Prescm? 0 2
!•NOTE•//bvd .E bank Caurut Nv Olhr nnAndlVirliOUTSInnnrOv Th•n Prnr•-O•t
10) Is A 2"i Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated /?+?
On Tnnn Mao AmPOr In FieldI Present? Ys?a=7 IV/0)
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators_(C1rrleoneNureherPerLine)
J) Does Topography Indicate A
0
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
H. H rdrohrgry Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is This Yenr's (Or Last'sl Lea(luter
4) 1s Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1.5
'' r S r Stet, Aput r e,..
S) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 5 I 1.5
Condkinns Or In Grow'na Seas 07
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:-J-5
TOTAL POINTS (Primary +Seenndrn-)42 I-fGreater Than Or Equal To L Points The Stream Is At Least Intermittent)
I. Geomornholocrv Absent 1Veak Moderate Strom L,
I I Is There A Riffle-Pool Seouence'h 0 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
IL Hvdroloey Absent Weak Moderate Strome
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Discharee Present" 1 Z
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: ?J
5) Are Welland Plants In Slrcumbed? SAV Mustly OBL Mostly FACW Mustly C Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
11 NOTE; if rbial Ahrenrs OL111 Plamer in Shreambed 2 1 .75 0 0
. -, Niaed Almny. in Lr Cren 1 -1't' SA V Prmrrnh' 1
IH
rEll

w e4 4--
sv?e roc- s
1.?G41?
Uevy w e ? 1?
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL '-
EVALUATION FORM
ACTI0PfID0?00/ 303 VQ APPLICANT NAME G A- TA DATE
PROPOSED*01MINEL WORK (i.e., rulvert? rciocatiov% etc.) y?, /
WATERSOBYAUVZ&AA,SIIVS'TT_ kiw U l LQ1fawhc+- COUNTY/CTTY Ne c kje s, C. ,C0411fe
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS G I C C 9-
r Sr NP ObSCryatlon Comments or Descriodo
V" I FL%WShslLf6WCrwtaoearo Pre.art (-/ WA 1 Ke--f-
I [ienWo Maao Invertbrats
Amplubiaro PrrxndBroodinE tt A r
t/ Algao And/Or Fungus (water quality function)
? I Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, faces, shells, other) I I
Stable Suv=bu
Chutnel SubWU
(i.e.
Ripar+&+ CA-0py
UodcmA Bank
Flow En Channel
? Wetlands Adjacent
Pasiaertt PooWSan
(June tw Sept)
? Soepe/t%tvurtdwater
Adjacent Floodplain
I/ Wrack Material or [
(SP -A so% closure)
Habitat Structure
ntig. With Chuutel (L
Boaam
ji; (June thru Sept)
S
itus
ad &cad to chasu?el
no
W

,' If
Ve.-v /,W e Kos-t4, COL
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y / N Approx. Drainage Area: rP
ana?alalnuu??aul/il/l?au?uauninnu?luli/lialnaliilluulniuniluuaaiuauuuuninlniiiuluniliiiulnluiua/aannilaii/uii/a/iuinilaanialniiianau/aniluiiaiilnna
Determination:
Perennial Channel (gyp) Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR Initials
Intermittent Channel (pr*c*cd> Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no id) (aaach map indicating location of importsnt/unimportsnt chuwcl)
Ditch Through (no jd)
Upland
Evaluator's Sigmas e:
(ifodw than C.O.E. project nwtager)
luuunnlunnn/nn/a/uun/u/uu/u/unulnunlnl/lulauillluuulnalalnn/ululluna/nnnnlnniuianuuanillnulnlailnuiianullain/uiiauniliulanullula?ulnauiltiiuu
P'=Present SPrStongiy Present NP=Not Present
NCDWO Stream Classification Form
) ,5
•

Project Name: L t,J.L f-1
DWQ Project Number.
Date: a - S- 01
River Basin: La.fa w b a County: file( .k?"9 ?Gwlluator: berf (-?- / r ?yters
Nearest Numed Stream: PW&CeIGLntitude:
USOS QUAD: alLdAe- w15r Longitude:
* P LEASE NO'T'E: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature Lr a nian•tuade. dUrh, then use of thlt form Is mat necessary.
Also, (f (n the btrt pmfes ional/udgement of the evaluator, the fruntre is a inan-made ditch and norm modified sutural stream-this
rating system should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (OrrleOneNuaiberPerLime)
o V t o
I I Is There A Riffle-Paul Sequence? 0 1 2 l
2) Is The USDA Texture In Strenmbcd
5) Is There An Active (Or
Secondary Field Indicators: (Girth Onr .Yuwbrr Per Lima)
Sipature: ,v&"`
.l) Does Topography Indicate A ?
Natural Dndnnee Wny? 0 (5? I j S
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
11, Hydrolouv Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Lcaniuer
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 0 1 1,5
' n t
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 • 1 1.5
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS
8) Are Welland Plants In Strenmbcd? SAV Mustly OUL
I • NOTE: l?Tom/ Alarener O/Aff Planar /n Svamnh,0 2 1
d.1YlNed AhnreSkio nLi ei ro UNLEYS ¢ArP,rw•nt•1
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.--!2 -Y
ostly FA(''W Mastly,.?AC Mostly FAC.U Mostly UPL
.75 U 0 0
Location/Dircctions: 5- rC4KX
TOTAL POINTS (Prirnarp + Secondary)-Alf Greater Than Or Equal To L Points The Stream I.s At Least Intermittent)
10) Is A 2' Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
ow Map /AndlOr In Field) Present? =1 -0
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:-40-
11. Hydrolozy Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Is There A Groundwtucr
Flaw/Discharge Present'!_ _ Q 2 s
PRIMARYHYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
?_

Acnorrm X00/30 s --o
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
APPLICANT NAME L bTA

DATE -??- S- Q/
PROPOSED'C ANNEL WORK (i.e.. qulvat, relocation, am) yy?1A II/
WATERSOBYAUVE& A,SIN ?regy?t X L AfcLw6_ COUNTY/CPIY /YI?GK?E'r. ?tc?G GrkY44e
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS t..,iect(-
P SP NP Observation Comments or Description
F6lVSbellfish/Cn"r.oc.n PrseorSt
Benthic Micro tnvertImUse
?lew?
Amphibians Presen?Brv ding
Algae And/Or Fungus (waw quality function) !.
Wildlife Charnel Use (i.e, tracks. 600011. Shells. OUK111) r
Sv w. t? re t e K t L Tr &cLs
t/ Federally hvwctod Spociea Present (Discontinue)
RiSldpool Structuro L.1 eC:t k-
Stable Streambanks
ChwrclSubmus
i.e, vet• cobble, rock boarse sand) SOt, a lrattef (/"Golirse- 3(24t,G
I
Riparian Canopy Present (SP -A 30% closure)
1/ Undemn Baoku1narvam Habitat Structure
V Flow In Channel GJe° ??
Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel (Discontinue)
? Pa tistant PooWSatuntod Bohan
Lune thru S
f/ SwWGroundwatet Disdt c (June tfnru Scpt.)
Adjacent Floodplain Prsaent
Wrack Material or Drift Lino e- et
? Hydrophytie Vegetation 4vadjamu to channel
Important To Domestic Water Sypply' Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y / N

ytu,,
Approx. Drainage Area: )3a
anal//rahaluluuluallnllllllallulllululu!/lrlnll/la//ulla!/luaiiililiaalnular/loin/!i/landaualnmlrrrulniuulniamiuinianniuuuiuiaaainauiialllliiuiil?aiau/ llnl
Determination:
Perennial Channel (gyp) F7 F important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (Pry) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (nojd) (attach map irndicating location of important/unimportant channel)
Ditch Through (nojd)
Upland
Evaluator's S(
ptat+ue:
(if other than C.O.E. project mat-gar)
/ll/lllll/llllll/llllllrlllllll/Ill/l//l!lllll/l/llll/l/l//l//l/Ill//l//l/l////l/ll/ll/l/Ill/lllllllllllllll!l/!/lllllllllllllllllllllll/l/l/l//ll/llll//lllll//lllll///l////Ill////Ill/llllll/1111/l//ll/llll/l/l/llll/l/lllll
P=Pr=nt SP,-Stongiy Present NP=Not Present
G
?took
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
0 EVALUATION FORM
ACTIOP(IDa001303V& APPLICANTrwa LO1- A DATE P43-06
PROPOSED-VV 414EL WORK (La., culve% mlocatiort, etc.)
WATERBOBY/ VER.WIN.Art uaYC\ )-Z ?fi- , r•_wbe' CotmrYicrry f19??l?lek fatt?-g ?L??ct?'lo ff?e
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS L l?
P Sr NP Observation Comments or Descrindon
Fish/ShallFiaWCnulaooara Preod rj0 iba 'L ( ft ?? S
Benthio Macro InvwUw%Les
Atnphibiam PramvBrvoding v Or 1 fl' I
Alps Aod/Or Fuagus (water quality function)
w11Gllte %:Dannol U" (I.e. trswt loop, f IL% oUM%)
SOl^..e. -?-r?L?S
Federally hvL= ed Spocies Preaeat (Disoontinue)
? liiInd oot stru=m ) 0 c r li f e
Stable Streamhanks S O i.., a LCe
Charmcl Subaru*
i.e. vel, cobble. rock. boarm sand)

G o4r5 Sa w?
v' JLpariao Canopy Present (SP -/> 30% closure) L) C C, I_
!C?
UDdavA Banks/! n emn Habitat Structurv
Flow In Channel e a
? Wcdaads Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel (Disoontinue) '
? Persistent Poob/Satuntad Bottom
June 0ru SCPL)
Socps/Crtvundwater Discharge (June Uvu Scpt.)
t/ Adjacanl Floodplain Prsseat
Wrack Material or Drill Lines We 4 ?-
? Hy*Whytic Vegetation inradjama to ctwutel
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N

Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y / N ) /
Approx. Drainage Area: ., b Qt- re- 5
aiuninnuinuuuanulnl/ula/inuailnllulaluiuinlnllluulauannaalullinuulllnlun/amuulaiuinnunlnnlniiulimanunl/ainiaanaanaunimuinuldnuauuanaa

Determination-
Perennial Channel (SWO Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR Initials
Intermittent Channel (arm) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no id) (attach map indicating location of irnporum/unimporunt ctwwcl)
Ditch Through (-jd)
Upland

Evaluator's sivwaue:
(irot)cr Iltut C.O. E. project rrtaruger)
aiual??lnnuuuulunanllullmnaalitul?allinmlllnluiunuauunlaluialalituuaiuliauluuillnlitiulaalllllcallcalullalllnulcaluialuaulll?aualllaualnluulliuual
P=Present SPrStongly Present NP=Not Present •
J NC D WU Stream Classification Form
Project Name: L1? 1? River Basin: C+41J 64 Co.,,: ,?A f eUlek 6 y;valuntor: 6,?,rn?c k M
yeF5
DWQ Project Number. Nearest Named Slreum.- fjGer(.rVkMitude: Signature: n "
Date: ) /- 13 -&-,) USGS QUAD:0W10+4 WC St Longitude: Location/Dircelions: -S41'CA 4- 12
• * PLF.ASF. NOTE: //'evaluator and landowner agree that the feature Is u plan-,etude ditch, then use of this font is not necessury.
Also, if In the best pmfessionu1 judgement of the evaluator, the feature Au man-fonds ditch and not a modified natural sireatf-dde
raling spiem should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Huinlvr Per Line)
1. Geomornholon AWN Weak Moderate Strone
I I Is Them A Riffle-Pool Scauence? v0 1 2 l
2) Is The USDA Texture In Strenmbed
Different From Surround 'no Tcrrn'n9
31 Arc Nglund Levees Present'? 0 1
4) Is The Channel ?
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is A Continuous fled de Bunk Present'! 0 T 3
!-NOTE: //bvd .4 bunk Caw d By Ultr Inc And IVITROUT Slnuadrv Th •n G•nr •-0•I
10) Is A 2nd Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated /?
On Topo Mnn And/Or In Field) Present? Yes-3 Noh-)
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
0 Seconds Field Indicators: le OneNumeher Per Line)
3) Does Topography Indicate A
•
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
11, Hvdroloev Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Len(liticr _
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 1.5
5) is Then- Water In Channel During Dry U .5 1 1.5
8) Are Welland Plants In Strenmbed." SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FAC W Mostly FAC Mostly FACII Mostly UP!,
P NOTE::/'rata:Ahnnre OfAU Plana In Stranmhed 2 1 .75 .S 0 0
dt Naaul Alen•e Ski, rhLr Siyt l N EVVSAVP-,,ni't
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
TOTAL POINTS (Prlmarp + Secnndana)?23(jf Greater Than Or Equal To Lt? Points The Stream Ls Al Least Intermittent)
IL Hvdroloev Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Disehamc Present? 0 (? / 2 3
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:-4_
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: ca
NC D)vV0 Stream Classification Forin
I / PrujectName:. D.TA River Basin: &cj4tM-??6c, cuwtly:h4eck/ei'?40Gvaluatur8e-rrl(-LM yYs-S
DWQ Project Number Nearest Named/S,ircam: /iiLes tferkatitude: Signature: a4A
Date: g '"?9_0 0 USGS QUAD.UCIi`IG1 'f-L) >f Longitude: Lucation/Dircctiuns: S'> rc4 ?c' I
* PI.F:ASF NOTE: If evaluutor and lundowner ugrer that the feature Is a niun-made dItch, then use of this farm is not Res-essory.
Also, if In the best professional Judgement of the evaluator, the fraturr is o moan-etude ditch and not a a modified natumsd strewn-this
rating system should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (ClrrldomeNundxrperune)
•
9) Is A Continuous Bed &. Bunk Present" 0 I 2`(, 3
f•NOTE /pled 6 bent Crowed by ULrhtnn And WI TIIOUT SM,dwhe then Prnr •-0 h
10) Is A 2" Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Tup2Mop And/Or In Field) Present? Ye 1 Nn=O
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POIN S:
Secondary-Field Indicators: (Cirri., OneNwaher Per Lime)
3) Does Topography bidicote A
i 0 (If S 5
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
P-.?
IL Hydrolnt_ry Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is This Yenr's (Or Last's) Lerttliticr
4) Is Water In Chiutnel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 I 1.5
r r ,..
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 I 1.5
Conditions Or In Growine Season)')
8) Arc Wetland Plants In Strenmbed! SAV Mustly OBL Mostly FAI:W Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly l1PL
O NOTE. NOTE: I/Towl Ahrenre O/All Paws In Siren„ dntil 1 I .75 .5 0 0
dr Named A/M,Pe Slip TAIr SI¢u =KVNSAV Prmr •m•1 '
f r'
SECONDAR Y BIOLOGY INDICA TOR POINTS. TOTAL POINTS (Prl nanm +Secnndan,)-&(/f Greater Than Or Equal To 12 Points The Strearn Ism Least Intermittent)

Geoniornholory Absent Weak o S (1r
I I Is There A RiI* lc-Foul Sequence') 0 1 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Strenmbed
If. Hydroloev Absent Weak Moderate Strom
1) Is There A Groundwater /
Flow/Discharge Present? 0 1 2
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.?.
1-7
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
ACTIOrfID 260,13123Vo APPLICANT NAME CATA DATE g - L_ DD
PROPO'SEWCUMINEL WORK (Lt.. vulvae. relocation, etc.) N
WATERSOBViR1?C &WIN ? Le 4 V- ) k- /LcLIt w 6z, CotllrtY/cTrY Mee k_1e kbi r•6, f L ? qr k Y?e_
i r
RECENT WEATHER CONDMONS G /e u
P Sr NP Observation Comments or Description
? F6WShell£uh/Cnutaoean PreaerR ?? J L
SvH. ? T; h ?Ct t 4 '
V Benthie Macro tnvatbruu
Atrtphibisrts Prcsettt/&ooditt? ?G
Algae And/Or Fuagus (water quality function)
Wildlife Chartoel Use (i.e. tracks. foots. shells. othm) ?G le
Fc&TLUy protected Species Preasnt (Discontinues)
i/ RawPool Structure
j/ Stable Streambanks
Chuml Substrate
i.e. eravel, cobble. rock coarse sand It?tpsfl /'QG4 s 5 U r+- e LO ?L/t°
Riparian Canopy Ptesent (SP _p 50% closure)

Undercut Baaks/4s:trcato Habitat Structure
it, SUh.E' C(frC.tis
Flow In Channel
Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel (Discontinue)
Peni u nt PooWSattuatod Bottom
June thru S
V SecWGroundwater Discharge (June thru Scpt.)
Adjacent Floodplain Praeat
t/ Wrack Material or Dntt Liam
i?t v ? res. f-?e
Hydrophytic vegetation iniadjacent to channel
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? N Approx. Drainage Area:1 1,04e.
tallllllll!llllll!!rllllllllllllllll!llllllllllllllllllllllllllll/1llllllllllllllll/lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll/ll//llllll/lNl?lll///lll/l///l///llllll/l/l/llllllNlll111ll11/llalllllllllllll?lllllll/l
Determination:
Perennial Channel (Stop) Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (proceed) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no jd) (attach map indicating location of intportant/uni;nP-%ant ch"wel)
Ditch Through (nojd)
Upland
Evaluator's Slputstre:
(if other than C.O.E. project manger)
/!/llllll/Ill/lIl/Illl/lllll rll/ll/lll/lllllllllllllll/lllll//11111/lll/llllllllllllll/lll/l//I1111lllllll/lll/l1/lll/llllll/llll/Ill//llllll//ll/lll/lll/llll/1 l/lllllllll ///l11/I/l/llH?llllllll/llllllll/ll //llllll//l//lll
P--Present SPrStoneiv Pm,.--nt NP Not Prrsent
NCDWO Stream C:lassiticatimi Form
f / n t
//ieLk ~?Cvuluulot: f l?n?'?ly??
Project Name: River Dusin:C?+awDc`- (uwtty: M
DWQ Project Number. Nearest Notned Strearj?_e#r Latitude: Sibmnture:
p-Lc: a -S 01 USES QUAD,(, sttflo 4-e C jTLongitude: Lucalinn/Direel Ions: > Ire 4'. )
• I,F.AS E NOTE: !j'evalmotor and landowner agrer that the f r sure it a wan•utade ditch, then use of this form; Is not nerescury.
Alva, if in the Aext pmfexxional judgemsent of the evaluator, the feature ism imam-trade ditch undo ofm
ruling .systems A amid not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: iCirrle(heNuudnrPerLiiw)
•
1. Genniornholon Absent WM t S e
I i is There A Rifne fool Segueage" 0 2 1
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is A Continuous Bed.ts Bunk Present'! 0 I CV J
f/T!•' d A Bunk Canted fiv •i•_ _ And WIT110nt Sim nr/rv Then G•nr ••0 r:
Is A 2"' Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Tipp Map And/Or In Ficldl Present? Yer=1 IV,, 0
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle OneNumherPerlYne)
•
J) Does Topography Indicate A
S S
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
Il. Hydroloiry Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Lenlliuer
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 U 1 1.5
Lnsi Known " • , . • C t SievAnd s .....
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1.5
Condili!ns Or-In Grow'no Season 9
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.-_
L POINTS (Prltnart, +.Secondarr)?f treater Than Or Equal To LY Points The Stream Is At Least Intermittent)
rr Hydr In a Absent Welk Moderate Strone
1) Is There A Gruundwawr ^
Flow/t)isrhnrge rpc •r 0 2 3
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
8) Are Welland Plants In Slrenmbed? SAV Muscly OUL Mostly FACW Mosdv 9AC Mosrl ACII Mostly UPL
1 • NOTE: if raid Ahtenre OIAII Plantr In Stremnb,vl 2 I .75 .5 CO) 0
Ar Vre vl
AlxnX Skin TAlf l,g UNL(''Q'SAYPrea•nr•1. '
lio INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
Acn0Kma06)36 3 `/o APPLICANT NAME L DT A DATE a- S- of
PROPOSED'CIdANNEL WORK (La., Nlva% relocadon. etc.) H r • ?K"' 1
WATERSODY4UVEFt.AA$m.. -51re-&L'? )K /6&4-&4-a-tj6c,- COUKTY/CTTY Me-cLNbkrcl /6kGiJOfPc
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS c.I e4 r
•
P SP NP Observation Comments or Descrind9n
!/ FisWShellfL WCrustaoeans Prwent
? Bmthic Macro Inveribraus l.J + c P tv 1
AmpWbia w humi/&ooding
Algae ArWOr Fungus (water quality function)
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracksv rocs. shells. other:) 7j/0.c K S
FodenLy Protected Species Present (Discontinue)
t/ Ri131dPool Structure f'JC?
? Stable Streambanks

v Channel Substrate
i.e. vel, cobble, rock coarse sand f
5 t71, l- rr G? N e N `O 5? Y
Riparian Canopy Present (SP -p SOY. closure)
t/ UodorM BankAnwvmn Habitat Structure
Flow Lt Chmnel l/t'..tr
Wctlatda AdjacentTo/Contig. With Ctmutel (Discontinue) tj ej-I4 A e.)OC? DC4 f'& 0.1'Lfi
Penim=t PooWSatuntod tiotwm
Lune thru S
Soepa/C oundwawr Discharge (June thru Scpt.)
l/ Adj&=L Floodplain Pmcot
Wrack Material or DM Liam
I ?•?? ??,
very
Hydrophytic Vegetation irvadjacent to channel
Important To Domestic Water Supply' Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map' Y / N Approx. Drainage Area: -3cy,reS_
lnuuululal?lllrlullaalaunauanal/l/lu/llllHalla/allllnllln!lsill//ulluuuuunllaliialliunlsoil/ullallllnlllunnillllnilaiininlnnnuiainululunliaililauaainlguuu
Detcrnvnation:
Perennial Channel (SWO Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR Initials
Intermittent Channel (praOOd) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Charnel (nojd) (attach map indicating location of important/unimportant chuwel)
Ditch Through (-jd)
Upland
•
Evdu.lors Signature:
(if other than C.O. E. Project mar-&-)
lI lllllllllllll!!1l llll/I!ll!l!!lllllllllll!llllllllllllllll lllllll/ll/lllllllllll!llllllllll/llllllllllllll/llllllllllllllllllllllllllll/llll/llllll/llllll/lllllll/l/lll///l11/ill/l!l!lull/l!!l/lllll/l/Illllllllllllllllll
D?D.....nr CD-t`,.,....L. D...,...., An??AIn1 Dn.c.n?
NCI)WV Stream Classification burin
1 Prujecl Name: LQ1- A River Basin: 6&+0. W?h&- Cuw+ty:II1eJ"641vuluatur: 1??•J?e'.rnc-k MYerf
DWQ Project Number. Nearest Named Strearn / IGCe- Latitude: Sibmnturc: /+ 4114
Date: 10-3-M USGS QUAD: Uttfr l-kSl Longitude: Location/Dirccdons:
* PLEASE NOTE: IJ [[a/YYfar Ynd IandoWntl Ygf[f !liar lhf J[Ylarf Lr o nlan•nlude ditch. then a.rr of Ihls form Is not ntressury.
Also. if in rln[ best professionalladgrm[nt of the evuluulor. the frature is a mun•n+ude din'lr and not a modillyd natural srreum-Ihlr
ruling sysrfnr should not be Alsed*
Primary Field Indicators: torriefAi[Nu,alxrPerVw) l
n S a •
n,+ Tti • uvn o tc •+ n 1 2 1 _
2) Is The USDA Texture InnSStrenmbed v
•
5) Is There An
(Or Re
9) Is A Continuous Bed.ts Bank Present'! 0 1 2 U
f•NL,T!' Irb ff ?• y - _ _ _ , ,u+runur?q ?? Cr r •?0•i
10) !s A 2`' Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated /?
On Top2 Mnp And/Or In Field) Prescnl'' YraF'1 1 N11=0
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
Ir Hydr.+. ;, Ahsent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Q'scharus P '+ 0 1 2 n
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR
Secondary Field Indicators: (ClrrleUarNuadrrrPrrDw)
1) Does Topography Indicate A
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
11. Hydrolo(ty Absent Weak Moderate Stront,
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Lenllilier ?-•
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1
Last KRgwg U
Rain" Skin 7hif A-1, A IN r
S) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 I.5
is
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
TOTA L POINU (PrImart+ +srconrfurn)4± ff Greater Than Or Equal 7`o 12 Points The Srrrarn It At Least Intermittent)
8) Arc Welland Plants In Strenmbed'1 SAV Mustly 081, Mostly FAC W Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly urt.
P NOTE. If ro+ol,(hvivrr O/AU Plaau Ia Sr[aad?rd 2 1 .75 .5 0 0
Af,VtA,JAln+r SUn W Sou UNL A'f9'? Pr.cn•n,?)-
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
AcTlotfwy?OWO`f O APPLICANTNAME LDT A DATE YO-3-o)
PROPOSED-CHICINEL WORK (_i.e.... Wive,% mlocation. gta)
WATER$OBYAUVER.A&SSIN,.5+ eai,., a-6 /L(,t,+aw6c- COUNTY/CITY McLk lewbt?rG I G?ar?'1?>?
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS < eay-
•
P SP NP Observation Comments or Descriodon
F61VShellfiahlCrustaomns Present
Benthie Macro Invettbreles
Amphibians Prcmu'Broading
r/ AJgao And/Or Fungus (water quality function) -
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks. foots, shells, others) /'Q G G OV K +rn a-5
FcderaUy Protected Species Present (Discontinue)
RiHldpool Structure
Stable SwcamhAnki
Channel Substrate
i.e. vel, cobble, rock bomse sand
0 L k- T ?i0 LJ /Q
Riparian Canopy Present (SP -/> 50% closure)
UnderWt BankwInxt cam Habitat Structure
Flow In Channel
Wetlands AdjacattTo/Contig. With Channel (Discontinue)
PeraLumt PooWSatuntod Bottom
Lune thru S
Secps/Cho utdwater Discharge (June tlvu Sept,)
Adjacent Floodplain Present
Wrack Material or [loft tines
Hydrophypc Vegetation irvadjacent to clunnel
Important To Domestic Water Supply' Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? 1/ N Appro3L Drainage Area: 3
uau?lJUUUnlnu/na/ua,u//n/!u/uaulJ////uulsoul/il,l/ll/alllunilsill/1,n1/un,nalll„llauannlln!!!/llnnllaaaaJUinnuunaiian/aluuua!!aillau/inll,ulliilullu
Determination:
Perennial Channel (gyp) 0 Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no jd) (attach map indicating location of important/unimportant charnel)
Ditch Through (nojd)
Upland
Evtltsator's Slps.ture:
(if other than C.O. E. project manager)
l!l/lllll/llIll111lJllllllllllllllllllllllll!llllJllll/lllllll/llllllll/llllll/llll/JlIIII!ll!l/!Jll1/llllllll!!lJ/lllllll!lllll/lllll!llllllll!/ll!l/llllll/lllllll/l/lll/l/llllllll/l/llllllll/ll/llll/lll/lllllll/llll/ll/l/
P=Pre-ex nt SP,^Stnnt4v Present NP=Nnt Present
N(.1JWW Stream C:lassificatim, burin
?'j'' ?a+utJb« Cuwuy:??*ebGlSfswtlu:itur:l?e G?i)?yt'?s
Pruject Natne: G(ilY River Basin: -?
O DWQ Project Number. Nearest Named Stream: /iGe e- Latitude: Sipature: 7 L"t
7 rect ts` l
Date: It') -3--0U USGS QUAD:C-kAf 110ikoe5tLunghude: Location/Directions: s1
*PLEASE NO'T'E- If evaluator and landowner ajrer shut the f[ature is a Nlun•Nluste dhrh. then uxr olthls forms Is ool orcessury.
Alto. Vin she heft pro/essionol fudgearent of the evaluator, she feature IJ u Man•urade dltrh and nor a /nodllled nulunal slrrWn-this
radns sytlenr should net he used*
,
Primary Field Indicators; IClrclsOwe HumbrrPrrVow)
r
a Moderate S o r
i i Is Therr A Rifne i'uui ScQuence'O 0 I 2 1
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
9
31 Arc Natural Levees r 1
41 Is The Channel o
S) 1s There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is A Continuous Bed dt• Bunk Present'.' 0
•_w rv T110117' t- r6r Th•nP •-0.1 ---
10) Is A 2"' Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Topo Map An jMr In Field) Present'? Yes-1 a o
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:.
•
Secondary Field Indicators: IC/rrlr0nr.VNNrhrrPrrll?r/
J) Does Topography Indicate A
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
11, HydroI4 Absent Weak Moderate Strono -
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaaittcr 111%
4) Is Water In ClusnnclAnd>48 firs. Since 0 ! 1.3
S) Is Then: Water In Channel During Dry 1/0 .S 1 1.3
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICA TOR POINTS:--,R_
8) Arc Wellund Plants In Sireambed" SAY Muscly O01 Mostly FM: W Mostly FAC Mousy FACU hfosdy VPL
1' NOTEt IlTolol Ahreare O/All Plants to Strearrdad 1 1 .75 Q 0 0
?.t,?rr ••/Alnrr c !n Th lr Cnr. 1N •l'C cAYYr •n•n/rl
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: S
TOTAL POINTS (Prirnort, +Seenndon,)-& of Greaser Than Or Equal Tit L Points The Strewn !s At Least Inreronhrent)
11, Hydroloey Absent Weak Moderate Strune
1) Is Thcre A Groundwater
flow/Discharl 'r 0 2
PRIMAR Y HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.,
41
MI
ncTiolrm o?W j 36 .3 y0
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
APPUCArrr NANM &D14
•t?l
IMMS-4 0"'Y
DATE 1Q-3-o0
PROPOSED-CRAVREL WORK (i.e., Nlvat, telo?caaa % etc.) y? f ) I
WATERW06YRtlKER BA.SIN,?S,Tl?cL1v. )L I LC?f"tt ?JbC? COUNTY/CITY /?'tCc-?LI?+?t7? ??] / C?/??
RECEIPT WEATHER CONDITIONS t" I ea r
•
P Sr NP Observation Comments or DescrlDllOtt
F6WShellPtsh/CmM&o ana hum*
l/ Bentwo Macro lnv=Vx m Ucr f
Amphibians Presenl/Broediag
Algae AnWOr Fuagus (waw quality function) -
Wildlife Chancel Use (i.e. tracks. fooa. shelf otlwn) ?S
Federally Protoctod Species Present (Disoontinua)
RiHlopool Structure
Stable Suvactbanks e
j h Sure (l r
et
Channel Subsvue
i.e, vel, cobble, rock bonne sand ""
??
L Oct ? S $ G hG
Ripa ian Canopy Present, (SP -/> 30•/6 closure) e C
? Undativt Banks/Ltsu=m Habitat Structure
Flow In Channel UL?r t.J C G,
Wetlands Adjacent To/Conti& With Channel (Diseonlinue) hoU <' DC.f4 ' ?-
? Pasistertt PooltlSattrnlod Bottom
June thru ScPL)
Socpa/Grwrndwater Disohargc (June Oru Sept.)
Adjacent Floodplain Prssent
l/ Wrack Material or Drilt Liam (J jL
Hydrophytic Vegetatioauvadjscent to channel
Important To Domestic Water Supply' Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map' Y 6 Approx. Drainage Area:
uruannrurrrnaarrrrarrrrnnraaaaanauaarrurrrrnarrarrrarrrrrrrrrurnaanruunarannrrararnraananranrnarnaarrnnrrnnanaanaaaainraiaananaaarrarrninrrnr
Deterrninadon:
Perennial Channel (gyp) ?inpoctant Channel: LF PROJECT MGR Initials
Intermittent Channel (PC ) ?v Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (nojd) (attach map indicating location of unponandunirnportant channel)
Ditch Through (nojd)
• Upland '
Evdustoes Slceauuv:
(if odwr than C.O. F- project nturager)
rrnraarrurrruunararannuaaanrurnr//aar///rruanarnarr/rrnr//nramnaamrlnraaialuaruauiminaamaiauallIranlulrcuraninrnrrunuuuarnuarururrnuruular rl
,Nco o stream Classification Form y?A I,,
Project Name: V?I.JJ River Basin: (.(y •? wpb - cowtty: ?„ eGk ^' ? ??' *aiuatur:
I DWQ Project Number. Nearest Named Stream: I tll?e-r Latitude: Sibmatum: /?'?s` f? /?
Date: a-S 01 USGS QUADL 4fk+k"sTLungitude: Local ion/Dircel Ions: 54re4K, of t*?
* PLEASE NOTE: II eealumsor and landowner oZfer Mut theTeatare lr a a/an•alulte ditch, then use of this faro/ 11 no/ nrl'e.?lYry.
Also, If In the Acre prefessional)uslZrartnt of the evaluator, the fratare Is a laan•nlade dine// and not a alYdllled nuturrll stremni-tills
ratlat system should not be used
Primnry Field Indicntors: tarebOneNYYJwrPerVow) 1. Geornorpholo /
h o r
iismsar . rn ensc'! o 1 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Strenmbed
5) Is There An
(Or Relic)
9) Is A Continuous Bed do Bunk Present! U I U
PNO 141,- yt,k unrrll By L?? _.. i_e wrTIlaur c( a dw Th • Fnr •?a•/
10) Is A 2,J Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Tuno Mnn And/Or In Fieldl Present'? _ ?'cr.3 N, O 1
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
jjxrjXidrulnry Absent Weak Moderate Strmte
1) Is There A Groundwater
Clow/Disghnree Present'! 0 1
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
0 PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
Secondary Field Indientors: (C/rrlrUweNuearrPrrU?y
J) Does Topography Indicate A
Nauu g Wnx:_- O r5 ,11? 1 S
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS. ?-
II Hydrology Absent Wenk Moderate Strone
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leallitter /.,
4) Is Water lit Channel And >411 Hrs. Since 0 © 1 l.S
Rain" • . Sievelpid t .,..
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 S I I.S
Conditions Or IrL(lro in C nsonl''
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICA TOR POIN'T'S.
n) Are Welland Plants In Streambed7 SAV Muscly UUL Mostly FAC W Mostly AC btostly FACII Mostly UPL
1 s NOTrrr 1I Toal.Ihrenre U/All Plnur /n GrwtuJ,,d 1 I , 75 0 0
A Mma(AlelreSkda TAlrSdeu UNLt-T Ur ' gen/•l
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTSI?
TOTAL PQINTS (Priman, +.SPrnndarrl -a!1 Gf erecter Than Or Equal Ta L Points The Stream Ix.4t Least Inter/niftenO
2'
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
•
Amorrm-Z61303 0 APPLICANT NAME L 0.1 A DATE a'S` O I
PROPOSED-CIMMNEL WORK (i.e.. wivert, relocatio% era/) N,? r
WATERBOBVANER.RA,S(N4TreQ?', lC-!?`?CCI.uVJI? C0[!MY/('11'Y /?"f'L??t` 4??1. (?? l•?'?UfT?
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS e l e Ca
P SP NP Observation Comments or Description
Fiah/ShellFul?Cnastaooaro Preset
Benthic Mact» Invertbratee C 314-e- 0 (,C• k? t.J M A e
Amphibians PrssaWBrvod4
Algae AvWOr Fungus (water quality function) -
? Wildlife Chumel Use (i.a tracks, foxes, shells, others) I
I-rA c1 s.
Fodcrally Protected Species Present (Discontinue)
RitndPool Strucuuv
Stable Suvambanks
? ChamelSubstraso
i.e. gravel, cobble. rock hoarse sand rave
1
Riparian Canopy Present (SP -!> 30% closure)

vo- Undcrw BaokAnsrream Habitat Structure
Flow In Channel s at^- )jr c-f U e r ?? f? f e
Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel (Discontinue)
Persistent PooWSatusuW Boaam
June d ru ScpL)
Sm-*Croundwater Discharge (June thru ScpL)
Adjacent Floodplain Pnscrt
Wrack Material or Drift Lino
Hydrophytic Veputiou isvadjacatt to cJwml
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / N
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? YON Appror- Drainage Area: a f°
rrrunranruruuuuuarruururunarrrrararunuiauurruurunrauaiianrrnuunarrrpaiarnuiuararanaunnnrnnrarunnannuirnniiimiianuuiunniiuurnrrunnuauuuu
Dctermjnauon:
Perennial Channel (gyp) FLImportant Channel: LF PROJECT MGR, Initials
Intermittent Channel (Pry) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (nojd) (attach map indicating location of importsnvununporrant channel)
Ditch Through (nojd)
Upland '
EvsJuator's Signawre:
(if other than C.O.E. project manager)
runuanrrraauurauuurnurrrrnuruuurnrrrrrrrmrrmpniurrurrrruprnnuaumrpuupnuruuurrnuuuuurnrrrurnrnururruirrnruunniuraauruuarunuuaauuiuuirruui a
0-0--t co--ep .. a- D-V.nt MT>--Arnr Procnnt
;NCI)W Stream C:lassiticatiun 1+orin
Cry (zAat,) bc? coway:MeL-L b"Y. Istutur: f)ei'?lv?' Qlrf
Project Name: H Rivcr Duxin: 1
`
DWQ Prujccl Numbcr. Nearest NamedStreum--LCV- Lnlitude: Signature: aA,-
ST?Ck s" ? r
Datc:ly 0 USES QUAD: 6 kW V?< IJeAungitude. Locntion/Dimclions:
' ' P LEASE. NOTE: II evalumiar amd 1undowmer agree thus the feature h a neun•alalle disch. then are of this fora) is oar aeressa'•.
Also. If is the brst professionw1 judgetaent of the evaluator, the feature Is a /van-made ditch and not a modified natural slrram-this
sling ryateal should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (CurhlUuNualherPeruae) 4'
I
I Cestmornhalnev Absent Weak Mndenate Strove
I i Is There A itiltie i'uuI Seguen 0 I i
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
Different From Rurrnundinv o
31 Arc NnIULM Lcyccs n 1
2 3
Sinuous? 4) Is The Channel
S) Is Them An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is A Continuous Red.ts Bunk Present'! 0 I U
??'. Icy _ l _ _ And IyIVIOU t•(n a /ly n1 •n G' r•-O fl
10) 1,A 2- Order Or GmAlCr Channel (As Indicated
On Tupo Mnp And/OT In Eield) Present's Yes=1 / 0
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
et H'vdruiniy Absent Weak Moderate Strove
1) Is There A Uruundwotcr ??
Flow/D'schjimc Present' 0 I 1
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS. __
0 PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
Secondary Field Indicators: /Cirri, rlae.Vumbor Prr time)
21 Is There . "m le Control Point in Channel" U S yj I S
J) Does Tupugmphy Indicate A ?.
Natural DriinnLcWny'a 0 S / 1 1 --1 5
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
11, Hydrolol_rv Absent Weak Moderate Strone -
1) Is This Year's (OrLasi's) Lentlittcr
Present In 0
Present" 21 Is RediMent On PlUnis (Or Debr6vl Present" 31 Am Wrack 1- 0 ney S S
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 S c1.S
Rain" Last KARwn 41*,%)L Skin MiSwoAnd s
S) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 5 • I 1.3
r'nne1;l;-e nr In (:raur;no Sensnnlo)
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
8) Are Weiland Plants In Sireombcd" SAY - Mostly 001. Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Moult' ACII Mostly tl?L
(I NOTE: !I Tnal Ahfeare 0/All Plaatf In irwlndud I 1 / .73 S 0
Ar.V.yn.l lly...e Plln 711, le,9=11cv.c.tY11(LfleIII.
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
TOTAL POINTS (Prlrnarrl +.Srenndan•)"L(If Greater Than Or Equal Ta L Points The Streattt Is At Lrarl Intrrrnlnen0
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
AcTiorfm 000) 303 yo APPLICANT NAM L Q? A DATE Ll>-?l ??OO
PROPOSEDTCS"NEL WORK (i.e., culvert, reloead-s. etc.)
WATERBOBYAMPLA01rq. -?-h-eL•.y?1 e? G /LG.T4Ij COUNTY/CITY e-c L lejb, (+l?G LkccrJU e
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS a )e act
P SP NP Observation Comments or Descriotion
F6h/Shelif6WCrustao=m Pr=wK r li
Benthic Macro Invertbrates
Amphibians Present/Brvo 14 Ir0
? Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function)
Wildlife Charnel Use (i.e. tra" faces, shells. whets)
S? Ir. /?(,L?,000I? ?PGr ?o'a CAS
FcderaUy ProLacW Species Present (Disoontinue)
? RiSidpool Suucwrv
Stable Sureambartks 5'pts.L' CC (-?'s Cl #-e- S' e
? Chwunt Subswate
i.e. vel, cobble, rock boarse sand rc v e I qL Gat c,?s e Sreased
Ripariaa Canopy Present (SP -n 50% closure) ? ? L(r Cli.
Undaw Banka/Irweam Habitat Structure
Flow In ChANNl
Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Charutel (Discontinue)
PenLAmt PooL%ISaturatod Bottom
Lune Uvu S!pjL
Sus*Ciaundwaw Discharge (June thru Scpt.)
AdjacentFloodplain Present
Wrack Material or Drilt Lisa LCi?
Nvdrmhvlic Veeeratioo inadiaaerut b clwur?el
Important To Domestic Water Supply' Y / N
Does Cbannel Appear Oa A Quad Or Soils Map' Y /S Approx. Drainage Area: 13 ??°S
uuluuuaunu/anonlluulu/amua!l/l/a/n!lnulla/nl/nu/aalanunnuuua!llWaalit/lllaunul/italllsacs/lees///u/slats//!/nal/llaailulluanlllilnun/inli/auln/haul
Dctcrrninauon:
Perennial Channel (Stop) Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR Initials
Intermittent Channel (Pry) "Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no jd) (attach map it""Ling location of importanvunimpo tau chamcl)
Ditch Through (n°jd>
Upland
Evslssstoes Signature:
(ifodur Uun C.O.E projaa Manager)
l!llllllll/!/l/Illlllllllllllllllllll!llllllllll!llIllllllllll!llllllll/lllll!llllllllllll/1/lll/llllllll/llllllllllllllllll/lllllllllllllll/llllllll//l1///l/llllll!/ll/Ill//lllllllll/llllllllll/llllll/lll/llllllllll/lllll!
•
Appendix E
NC Division of Water Quality Stream Evaluation
•
0