The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20001195 Ver 2_Individual Application_20050907Received 9/7/05 DWQ # 20001195 Ver 2 Charlotte-Douglas International Airport Expansion _ .. r , Y ec ion 40416, dividual Permit Arid 401 Water Quality Certification C,harle"te/Dor't]as Intelrn?itxfi ,?.. Aia August 29, 2005 AM! 0 'Environmental Consultants, Inc 224 South Grove Street, SuiteF Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792 Tel: (828) 698-9800 Fax: (828) 698-9003 www.clearwaterenvlronmental.com 0 m il? I I I I I II I 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 to 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 a lications 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 Mecklenbertr 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. Q LyC v D 4 4 1 L )t_r I c.Uua DENR - WATER QUALITY VVETW4W AN[) STORMWATER BRANCH • • 0 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) or impac g: 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 1 possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent of the applicant. 'g-27-05- SIGNATURE mle LICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE The application 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 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 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 0 r''m k a, rhf ? Ft .., ?' W,Vgh 4` s r ; c s i dual I M er + plity Oei 4telDiglas Intro Airporak :4 Aun us tA W, :harlotte•Douglas p INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT inmeniil C6AU1talh , ln6 h Grove?Sfrout, Sult6T, i lw3,! Ibrth Cafollnq-20792 1?80k1 ir?X;'($28?;?9$?9003 l W vaww'?t' rohniontal.dbm 4. . 1? Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................... ................ Sit ................................. 1 ...................................2 1.1 1 2 e ............................................................ Project Project Purpose .................................................................... ....................................2 . 3 1 ........................................................ Public Involvement ....................................2 . 0 2 ...... PROPOSED ACTIVITY (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) .. ....................................4 . 3 0 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS ................................................. ....................................6 . 4 0 HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS ................................................... ....................................9 . 4 1 Oak-Pine-Hickory Forest ..................................................... ....................................9 . 2 4 ............................................................ Bottomland Forests ..................................10 . 4 3 .. Old Field and Scrub/Shrub ................................................... ..................................11 . 4 4 Urban-Industrial-Turf .......................................................... ..................................11 . 4 5 Disturbed - Unvegetated ...................................................... ..................................12 . 4.6 4 7 Wetlands .............................................................................. en Water/Ponds ............................................................... O ..................................12 ..................................12 . 4.8 p Streams ................................................................................. ..................................13 0 5 FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES ........................................... ..................................15 . 6 0 MITIGATION PLAN .............................................................. ..................................16 . 6.1 6.2 6 3 Avoidance ............................................................................ Minimization ........................................................................ Compensatory Mitigation .................................................... ..................................16 ..................................16 ..................................17 . 7.0 8.0 STORMWATER ...................................................................... SUMMARY ............................................................................. ..................................18 ..................................19 Figures Appendix A Alternative Analysis Appendix B Memorandum of Agreement Dept of Cultural Resources Appendix C Correspondence with US Fish and Wildlife Service Appendix D 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. • 0 • 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 0 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 • 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 (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 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. C7 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 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. 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. 0 z 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 0 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 0 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 ITI uc' • 0 f.../ r t i \ . I i ?r y proximate Pro eat BOOB x-- - j • + ? \ , ? r/ ??IIQa • Chobdopotg1w J11M \ ' + r )1 \ • ! ?? / lone (CL !\ 4 t t 11¦ I ¦ 1? I? z / EWlDfi.M v 6 `?,r .? BASE MAP BY DeLORME 3-D TOPO QUADS 1989 WEST EXPANSION MASTER PLAN PAGE F" IMI& flrr WWr d..~A" M= IQJ 73100109 rMrtox a?aa?aom rwic wn BASE MAP FROM USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS 'CHARLOTTE WEST' 1983 WEST EXPANSION MASTER PLAN PAGE Charlotte•Dauglas rwtorurt?on?t araroat FlIOKC't MDJ 7/t00ta? LEGEND 4 • w,. PROJECT BOUNDARY r- 74 • ?' - - - - PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS) t '// ?' ?' i? ?+ • '? ... _ IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT STREAM CHANNEL(IIS) • .. ... •• ..,. _•,;,. , - - - _ : UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT STREAM CHANNEL (UI) PONDS b ? WETLANDS LF LINEAR FEET 00 11 • I i O a : COMOD w A oO YNgp O O _ g 0 o? O b ,. O 6 t 0 f? 16 i ------------ ---- ------------ 4 L N? WEST 8 i 2005 PERMIT 1 PAGE ....r• 1 ?? FILE NAME: WETLANDS12008 PERMIT 1\2005 FINAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT -PAGE 03 ON 8 x 1 1.MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2008 SCALE: 1- = 2.000' 3 j L I LEGEND I 4 5 u PROJECT BOUNDARY ? "" 6 7 ----- PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS) - - - - • IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT 8 9 STREAM CHANNEL (IIS) UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT 10 11 12 STREAM CHANNEL (UI) PONDS 13 14 16 15 WETLANDS LF LINEAR FEET 421 Vi 1 . 1 ' 1 ; 1 ' 2E UI - ? 1198 LF 3 ? 2B (Ticer Branch) PS ? 1671 LF (1) ? ` % / 1Z IIS / L2195 LF (2) / / / 1 `% / % 1 1L IIS 1K IIS 3218 LF (7) 1 786 LF 13 )j ( 1 ? %? 1M IIS 393 LF (10) •' 1 / % -' ? 1L UI 1 . 540LF(13) 911-1 1Q UI ? 311 LF (8)? ? 1 ? y, r 2005 PERMIT 1 PAGE ??r? // ??ark*te-Dp1/? eriAl AlI1rSa RLE NAME: WETLANDS\2005 PERMIT 1\2005 FINAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT - PAGE 04 ON 8 x 11.MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2005 SCALE: 1' = 400' 4 • u • LEGEND 4 5 ® PROJECT BOUNDARY ----- PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS) ----- IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT 8 9 STREAM CHANNEL (IIS) UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT STREAM CHANNEL (UI) 10 1 1 12 ® PONDS :16] ® WETLANDS [1! 3 14 15 LF LINEAR FEET ?ti? o cl 2C UI ; 45LF(4) - - I ~ I \ I 2A IIS 2D & 2F IIS 844 LF (5) 2210 LF (6) 1Y WETLAND ? 0.153 AC (1) . ? 1P IIS CONSTRUCTION 369 LF (14) LIMITS 1T POND 1.384 AC (1) l u IIS 167 LF (16) _ 1V WETLAND 1R UI 0.983 AC (4) 39 LF (15) 2005 PERMIT 1 PAGE Cillairlotte IMTM •TIONI IIIT AT FILE NAME. WETLAND&2005 PERMIT 1\2005 FINAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT - PAGE 05 ON 8 x 11.MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2005 SCALE: 11- = 400' 5 L 1S UI 230 LF (9) 1N UI 376 LF (12) ` 10 WETLAND ` 1 0.031 AC (2) 1 2Z U ` 556 LF (11) 1 - 3B POND 4 5 1.521 AC (2)." i 6 7 3A WETLAND 0.086 AC (3) 8 9 CONSTRUCTION 10 11 12 ? LIMITS 16 [:13 14 15 3C POND 0.188 AC (3) 1 I 1 1 1 1 LEGEND 1 1 PROJECT BOUNDARY 1 1 ----- PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS) x1 l P1 POND ----- IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT IIS STREAM CHANNEL 0 170 AC 4 u ( ) . ( ) 1 181 LF (20) Y1 UI ------ UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT 1 _ 227 LF (21) STREAM CHANNEL (UI) 1 1 y PONDS WETLANDS 1 1 LF LINEAR FEET 1 ? W1 IIS 1 1 930 LF (19) V2 UI - 1 1 345 LF (25) 1 1 , 2005 PERMIT 1 GE PA (? ?? hart tte' 1 ?IIILIT FILE NAME: WETLANDS\2005 PERMIT 1\2005 FINAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT - PAGE 06 ON 8 x 17.MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2005 SCALE: t' = 400' V 0 • • l w 1IS 4 5 136 LF (17) 6 T 8 9: 10 11 12 1W WETLAND 1 0.458 AC (6) 13 14 15 1 X PS ?I 484 LF (18) I Rp p,0 O 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 ClImlatt,-Do, Do FILE NAME: WETLANDS12005 PERMIT 112005 FINAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT • PAGE 07 ON 8 x 1 1.MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2005 SCALE: 1- = 400' • • E - J? 4 5 T1 POND 6 7 11 1 2.214 AC (5) V1 IIS 1 1 700 LF (24) 8 9 1 1 -- -_ 10 11 12 1 13 14 15 . ' 1 1 -- 1 1 1 U1 UI 463 LF (23) vELL R 1 1 1 S2 IIS 694 LF (22) V NE 1 I R1 UI 1 1 235 LF (29) 1 1 1 1 --- Q1 WETLAND 1 1 1 1 0.221 AC (5) I 1 1 ; 1 11 IIS _ 1 1 2127 LF (26) N1 UI ---- M1 UI 1 1,042 LF (31) 472 LF (30) - - 1 r? ` F RO 1 1 '- - O 1 ? M1 IIS % ,. 629 LF (30) % ? 1 1 1 Q 1 ` , i % LEGEND ' UI 01 PROJECT BOUNDARY _ L1 IIS 5 LF (32) ----- PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS) 260 LF (28) + N1 IIS ----- IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT ! 254 LF (31) STREAM CHANNEL (IIS) - _____' UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT STREAM CHANNEL (UI) K1 IIS J1 WETLAND 20 LF (27) 0.409 AC (12) ® PONDS ® WETLANDS J1 POND LF LINEAR FEET 2.045 AC (6) 2005 PERMIT 1 PAGE 1 Chafk*te.a5 I-1-TIOMA, A a FILE NAME: WETLANDS12005 PERMIT 112005 FINAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT - PAGE 08 ON 8 x 11.MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2005 SCALE: 1' =400' V -1 • • 4 5 r 7' 6 . 8 9 7 ? r .i I ?p O 10 11 ' 12 13 14 15 16 p P 2-9 22 upP ROPp C? opO 4 T O -AA LEGEND ® PROJECT BOUNDARY ----- PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS) - - - - • IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT STREAM CHANNEL (IIS) UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT STREAM CHANNEL (UI) ® PONDS ® WETLANDS Q LF LINEAR FEET 2005 P ERMIT 1 PAGE Chwilofte CMr ?i o .DOu" FILE NAME: WETLANDS12005 PERMIT 1\2005 FINAL PERMIT 1 EXHIB IT- PAGE 09 ON 8 x 11.MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2005 SCALE: 1' =400' 9 1n u 0 0 1 4 5 1 1 6 7 1 8 9 1 1 1 H1 UI 10 11 12 1 40 LF (33) 16 13 14 15 ll? _ _% F1 IIS 1 % 1277 LF (34) 1 1 • -- 1 F1 UI 552 LF (34) 1 1 1 G WETLAND 1 1 0.012 AC (7) 1 1 DIXIE R,V 1 , - - -- ER RpAD e 1 1 1 - J 1 1 1 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 jille 2005 PERMIT 1 PAGE INTI ?I AIRPWRT FILE NAME: WE LANDS\2005 PERMIT 1\2005 FINAL PERMIT 1 EXH IBIT - PAGE 10 ON 8 x 1 1.MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2005 SCALE: 1' =400' 10 • U r --l L_J LEGEND 4 5 PROJECT BOUNDARY F T _ r?? • PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS) f 8 9 1 IMPORTANT T EAM CHANNELn(IIS)ENT S I T 37)____= UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT (236 10 il 12 - STREAM CHANNEL (UI) 1:6] ® PONDS 13 14 15 ® WETLANDS LF LINEAR FEET 1 `. 2U IIS 1541 LF (37) ? ? ? 2V WETLAND ?? 0.140 AC (8) S1 L ?t 68LF 2R1 IIS 231 LF (36) 2T WETLAND 0.057 AC (9) 2Y U l 2X UI 273 LF (45) 300 LF (44) 2Y IIS - 57 LF (45) \ I ` II 2X IIS 1,564 LF (44) ? _ I 2005 PERMIT 1 PAGE CIlarlotte-Dou¢iu IMTt k*t NCI •III FILE NAME: WETLANDS\2005 PERMIT 1\2005 FINAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT -PAGE 11 ON 8 x 11.MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2005 SCALE: 1' =400' 11 • u J LEGEND PROJECT BOUNDARY ----- PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS) -- IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT STREAM CHANNEL (IIS) UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT STREAM CHANNEL (UI) E PONDS I ® WETLANDS LF LINEAR FEET I Z G) l D m HANGAR ROAD ! " f I STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREA I 4 5 1 2Q-2P-2N PS 3,352 LF (58) 6 7' 1 8 9 ' 10 11 12 CONSTRUCTION LIMITS 1 13 14 15 1 I 1 2005 PERMIT 1 PAGE 11 ? loft IMTI¦ !- ou l FILE NAME: WETLANDS\2005 PERMIT 1\2005 FINAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT -PAGE 12 ON 8x 11.MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2005 SCALE: 1'=400' 12 n u • 0 1 Al PS D1 UI 126 LF (38) B1 UI 951 LF(41) 49 LF (40) Al UI C1 UI 493 LF (41) 70 LF (39) ? O 1 1 1 1 E1 IIS I E1 UI 210 LF (4)j 320 LF (42) 1 1 LEGEND 0PO IF - PROJECT BOUNDARY 0 ----- PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS ) - - - - • IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT STREAM CHANNEL (IIS) 1A 1B UI 264 LF UI (46) ====== UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT STREAM CHANNEL (UI) 171 LF (47) PONDS 1 ® WETLANDS LF LINEAR FEET 1B IIS 418 LF (47) ' 1 r r ? ? - 1 r ? 1 r ? 1 .' 8 r r 1A IIS 4 5 -- -- ?r 1,220 LF (46) i 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,i 16 13 14 15 2005 PERMIT 1 PAGE Chadotte-Dou lNT1ANATWNAIAlly •T FILE NAME: WETLANDS\2005 PERMIT 1\2005 FINAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT- PAGE 13 ON 8x 11.MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2005 SCALE: 1' = 400' 3 U • • r ? - I STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREA 2w 11S 892 LF (43) CONSTRUCTION 1 LIMITS 4 5 I 6 7'. =n 8 9 60 3F WETLAND 1 1 410 AC (11) L . ? 10 11 j 12 Sl 13 14 15 16 ", 3G WETLAND 0.165 AC (10) ? STORMWATER 3E MANAGEMENT 94 L IIS F (52) AREA 11 4 CONSTRUCTION LIMITS m IDRwE YRUM LEGEND o -- _ _ B •. -- ,, , ` -_ ® PROJECT BOUNDARY ---- PERENNIAL STREAM C HANNEL (PS) IMPORTANT INTERMITT ENT STREAM CHANNEL (IIS) UNIMPORTANT INTERM STREAM CHANNEL (UI) ITTENT y ® PONDS TLANDS WE /7 LF LINEAR FEET _e 2005 PERMIT 1 PA-E 1 t4e- ? MTaxw?T10M?1 ?1mp ?T I =400' FlLE NAME: WETLANDS\2005 PERMIT 1\2005 FINAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT -PAGE 14 ON 8 x 11.M%0 PRIMED AUG U5T 2005 SCALE: 1- 1 T 0 r-l L ' STORMWATER MANAGEMENT VD AREA WEST BL - 2G (Coffey Creek) PS 386 LF (48) ' - 10 0.0 --- 010 2L I is Ln 1,295 LF (50) C U7 l STORMWATER I z MANAGEMENT P j ? _ 2 K (Coffey Creek) S • - • • m 1,592 LF (49) AREA I 2H & 3D IIS - - - - - 1,468 LF (51)1 ; 1 J 1 POND ' 0.232 AC (7) - No ID POND '? EVE - - 1 F ? 513 LF 55 BYRUM DR 0.849 AC (8) I 11 WETLAND ` 00 - 1 D IIS 0 0.048 AC (13) 517 LF (53) X, LF (57) 1G IIS 0 45 LF (506)111 ' - , LEGEND _ 1 E (Coffey CreeK) PS, 4 5 PROJECT BOUNDARY 1,642 LF (54) O - - - - PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL ( PS) 6 7 B - - - - IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT STREAM CHANNEL (IIS) ??? T 8 9 UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT STREAM CHANNEL (UI) 10 11 ; 12 _ PONDS ® WETLANDS 13 14 15 16 LF LINEAR FEET .e 2005 PERMIT 1 PAGE iTir e?,irS? FILE NAME: WETLANDS\2005 PERMIT 1\2005 FINAL PERMITIEXHIBIT-PAGE150N8x11.MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2005 SCALE: 1'=400' 15 • • 4 5 ?- 6 7 o - 8 9'; O 10 11 12 Z? 16 1 13 14 5 Q I ?. O /j F Q 2 ? ? - SSNP ?2 ? .. ' O I R ?PNE ' ?, ° ? IP LEGEND PROJECT BOUNDARY gYR01 --- ----- PERENNIAL STREAM CHANNEL (PS) '"` `- - - - - • IMPORTANT INTERMITTENT ,,44 . STREAM CHANNEL (IIS) ------ UNIMPORTANT INTERMITTENT y t ?. STREAM CHANNEL (UI) PONDS WETLANDS LF LINEAR FEET 2005 PERMIT 1 PAGE 16 J? aurlotte•Douflas IMT[AMATIOMI I¦T ILE NAME: WETLANDS\2005 PERMIT 1\2005 FINAL PERMIT 1 EXHIBIT -PAGE 16 ON 8x 11.MXD PRINTED AUGUST 2005 SCALE: 1'=400' • (r F 4 5 7 8 ? tl 14 15 GRADE :REEK BED WEST EXPANSION MASTER PLAN PAGE Ch arlatte•Douglas =FuwAm nrw,kwm&v PN=lN)a77,00100 /Allenovarim roomy 17 CROSS SECTION A-A TYPICAL ROAD CROSS SECTION n n? non ?n 4 b a 7 tf 14 15 PROPOSED FIL( GRADE (?J I? WEST EXPANSION MASTER PLAN I ` Charlotte-Douglas ,tawA,. , wwa.l&L#6k*V 1118 INTfkM1IlOM11 CROSS SECTION C-C PROPOSED RUNWAY & TAXIWAY ELEV_ 710'+