20090854 Ver 1_401 Application_20090809

??? ??lln/?ruc
09 0 854
August 3, 2009
???adc
Mr. Steve Chapin
Asheville Regulatory Field Office AUG .6 2009
United States Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, North Carolina 28801-5006 pEW.WATERWAILITY
WETlANOS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
RE: Charlotte-Douglas International Airport
Danga Lake Maintenance Project t x
Charlotte North Carolina
Dear Mr. Chapin:
HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas (HDR), on behalf of the Charlotte-Douglas International
Airport (CDIA) (Agent Authorization Form, attached), is requesting Verification of Jurisdictional
Waters, Nationwide Permit 3, and the associated Water Quality Certification No. 3687 for the
Danga Lake Maintenance project in Charlotte, North Carolina (Figure 1).
Protect Description
Danga Lake is. located immediately west of I-485 and downstream of the CDIA. The CDIA
received a Notice of Deficiency regarding the Danga Lake dam (dated September 24, 2008). An
engineering study was conducted and it was determined that the existing earthen dam needed to
be replaced in order to protect human life and property downstream at 4344 Rockwood Drive. In
addition, it was found that significant sediment accumulation had occurred in the pond from
construction activities upstream (including the construction of 1-485 and the Charlotte-Douglas
International Airport runway expansion immediately). CD1A proposes to return the pond to its
original contours by removing the sediment and stabilizing the pond banks. The proposed project .
will improve the aquatic habitat within Danga Lake and provide secure storm water retention
from expanding impervious areas upstream at the CDIA, including the. new runway (18R-36L).
Note that all tributaries upstream of 1-485 crossing have already been piped due to the runway
expansion project at the CDIA.
Jurisdictional Water of the U.S.
A pedestrian survey for jurisdictional waters of the U.S. was conducted on April 16, 2008 within
the CDIA's property (parcel ID: 11314601). Jurisdictional waters were delineated and identified
according to the methodology described in the USACE 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual and
recent USACE Rapanos guidance. HDR identified on-site jurisdictional features as three stream
channels or Relatively Permanent Waters (RPWs), one jurisdictional open water (Danga Lake),
and forested wetland at the confluence of streams and Danga Lake. (Figure 4). Table 1.1
summarizes the jurisdictional features within the CDIA property.
HDH Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas
128 S Tryon Street
Suite 1400
Charlotte, NC 28202-5004
Phone: .[phone]
Fax: [phone]
mvwhdrinc.com
Table 1.1 Jurisdictional Waters Summary
f DV1Q
Score Us CE
Score " ."
ClasStfication Length
Ofileal feet)' `Area
(square feet)' Area
(acres)'
Stream A 44.5 74 RPW with Perennial Flow 231 - -
Stream C 41.0 50 RPW with- Perennial Flow 169 - -
Stream D 32.0 56 RPW with Perennial Flow 96 - -
Stream Total: 496
Wetland A Forested Wetland - 46,609 1.07
Danga Lake Open Water - 158,994 3.65
Open Water/Wetland Total: - 205,603 4.72
RM with Perennial Flow
Streams A, C, and D are perennial tributaries that have an indirect or direct hydrological
connection with Lake Wylie, a Traditional Navigable Water (TNW). The riparian buffers range
from 10 feet to greater than 50 feet in width and are primarily forested with hardwoods.
According the NCDWQ classification, these stream channels exhibit moderate to strong
geomorphic, hydrologic, and biological characteristics to receive a perennial classification or a
score greater than or equal to 30. Representative photographs of Streams A, C, and D are
included as Photographs 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
Danga Lake
Danga Lake is an open water system having depths ranging from 1 inch to 12 feet. The water is
turbid and actively filling with sediment due to upstream construction activities. No submerged
aquatic plants were identified during the site visit. Soils were saturated and exhibited low chroma
colors within the upper 12 inches of the soil profile. A representative photograph is included as
Photograph 4.
Forested Wetland
Forested wetlands are located along the fringe of Danga Lake, notably in areas where RPWs flow
into the pond. Vegetation within the forested wetlands consisted of tag alder (Alnus serrulata),
black willow (Salix nigra), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), arrow arum (Peltandra virginica)
jewel weed (Impatiens capensis), and Nepal grass (Microstegium spp). Hydrology indicators
included inundation and saturation within the upper 12 inches. Soils were saturated and exhibited
low chroma colors within the upper 12 inches of the soil profile. A representative photograph is
included as Photograph 5.
Proposed Impacts
The pond maintenance will be conducted in phases as depicted in the plans attached. After
temporary erosion control measures are installed, a portion of the dam will be breach and the
pond will be drained through a pass through channel. Sediment will be cleared cleanly from the
pond bottom to restore the original pond bottom (see cross sections attached). Temporary
impacts include rock check dams in Stream A and Wetland A and the draining of the pond.
Permanent impacts include approximately 42 linear feet (If) of fill in Stream A from the dam
improvement and approximately 50 feet of rip rap apron in Stream A at the dam pipe outfall.
There will be no permanent impacts to the adjacent wetland areas, and no impacts at all to the
Streams C and D and the forested wetlands adjacent to them. Danga Lake will have the same
t Jurisdictional features were flagged in the field and recorded using a sub-meter GPS receiver.
HEIR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas 128 STryon Street I Phone: [phone]
Suite 1400 Fax: [phone]
Charlotte, NC 26202-5004 www.hdrinc.com
water surface area following the completion of this project as before the sediment removal. All
temporary erosion control measures will be removed and the grade returned to pre-construction
conditions.
Agency Correspondence
Cultural Resources
Correspondence (dated July 22, 2009) was sent to State Historic Preservation Office
requesting information on any cultural resources that may be impacted by the proposed
construction. To date, no response has been received.
Protected Species
A pedestrian protected species survey was conducted on July 16, 2009 to determine the
potential for the occurrence of animal and plant species formally proposed or listed as
endangered or threatened by current Federal regulations [Federal Endangered Species Act
of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)] within the proposed project area. No protected species
were identified within the project limits. HDR also consulted the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) Element Occurrence database and GIS layer. According to the
NCNHP data, no federally protected species have been reported within I mile of the project area.
HDR provided the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with correspondence (dated July 22, 2009)
detailing the results of the survey and requesting comment on the proposed project. To date, no
response has been received.
We are hereby requesting verification for on-site jurisdictional waters and written authorization to
construct this project under Nationwide Permit No. 3 and Water Quality Certification No. 3687.
Enclosed herein are:
? Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
? Agent Authorization Form
? Notice of Deficiency
? Project Location Map (Figure 1)
? USGS Topographic Quadrangle Map (Figure 2)
? NRCS Soils Map (Figure 3)
? Aerial Photography of the project area with estimated jurisdictional waters (Figure 4)
? Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters (Figure 5)
? Construction Design Plans
Wetland Determination Data Sheets
? Jurisdictional Determination Form
? USACE Stream Quality Assessment Forms
NCDWQ Stream Identification Forms
Representative Photographs
HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas
Thank you in advance for your assistance. If you have any questions or require additional
information after your review of the enclosed information, please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Eric Mularski
Environmental Scientist
Enclosures
Cc. Ms. Cyndi Karoly, NC Division of Water Quality
Mr. Jerry Orr, Aviation Department - Charlotte-Douglas International Airport
Mr. Brian Cole, Field Supervisor - United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Mr. Ronald Geiger, Water Resources Manager - HDR
Ms. Andrea Hughes Cook, Environmental Scientist - HDR
HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas
0 Q -0 35 4
' OF
\0? WATF9
pG Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
-i
o < DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification PCN Form
A. Applicant Information 0 AL
1. Processing AL k _XL_
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the

Corps:
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 3 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ® Yes ? No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ? Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
? Yes ® No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes ® No
1 f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ? Yes ? No
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below. ? Yes ® No
1h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Danga Lake Maintenance Project
2b. County: Mecklenburg
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Charlotte
2d. Subdivision name:
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: Charlotte-Douglas International Airport
3b. Deed Book and Page No.
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
3d. Street address: 5501 Josh Birmingham Parkway
3e. City, state, zip: Charlotte, NC 28208
3f. Telephone no. 704.359.4000
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address:

Page 1 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ? Other, specify:
4b. Name: Mr. Jerry Orr
4c. Business name
(if applicable): Charlotte-Mecklenburg International Airport, Aviation Department
4d `Street address: 5501 Josh Birmingham Parkway
4d' `t4ty',-state, zip: Charlotte, NC 28208
71 elephone no.: 704.359.4000
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address: [e-mail]
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: Eric Mularski
5b. Business name
(if applicable): HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas
5c. Street address: 128 S. Tryon Street
5d. City, state, zip: Charlotte, NC 28202-5004
5e. Telephone no.: 704.338-6700
5f. Fax no.: 704.338.6760
5g. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 2 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): 11314601
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 35.214 Longitude: - 80.971
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1 c. Property size: 18.43 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to Little Paw Creek (Danga Lake)
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: DWQ Class C
2c. River basin: Catawba
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The general land use of the proposed project area is mostly open and forested. The project area is dominated by one
open water system, Danga Lake.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
4.72 acres
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
Approximately 496 linear feet of perennial stream is located on the property.
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The CDIA received a Notice of Deficiency regarding the Danga Lake dam (dated September 24, 2008). An engineering
study was conducted and it was determined that the existing earthen dam needed to be replaced in order to protect
human life and property downstream at 4344 Rockwood Drive. In addition, it was found that significant sediment
accumulation had occurred in the pond from construction activities upstream (including the construction of 1-485 and the
Charlotte-Douglas International Airport runway expansion immediately). CDIA proposes to return the pond to its original
contours by removing the sediment and stabilizing the pond banks. The proposed project will improve the aquatic habitat
within Danga Lake and provide secure storm water retention from expanding impervious areas upstream at the CDIA.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
®Yes ? No ? Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
? Preliminary ? Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company: HDR Engineering of the
Name (if known): Eric Mularski Carolinas, Inc.
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ? Yes ® No ? Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
Page 3 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 4 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ? Buffers
® Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary T
W1 ? P ®T Fill (check dam) bottomland
hardwood forest ® Yes
? No ® Corps
® DWQ 0.003
W2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W4 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W5 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W6 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts 0.003
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - or
(PER)
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ - non-404, width (linear
Temporary (T) (INT)? other) (feet) feet)
S1 ®P ? T Fill (rip rap) Stream A (Little ® PER ® Corps 12 30
Paw Creek) ? INT ® DWQ
S2 ? P ® T Fill (check dam) Stream A (Little
Paw Creek ® PER
? INT ® Corps
® DWQ 12 20
S3 ®P ? T Fill (dam Stream A (Little ® PER ® Corps 12 42
improvement) Paw Creek) ? INT ® DWQ
S4 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S5 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S6 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ?DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 92
3i. Comments:
Page 5 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number - (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ? P ®T Danga Lake Draining open water 3.94
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4f. Total open water impacts 3.94
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, the n complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or purpose (acres)
number of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ? No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. ? Neuse ? Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number -
Reason
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
Temporary T impact required?
?Yes
61 ?P?T ? No
? Yes
B2 ? P ? T ? No
?Yes
B3 ?P?T ? No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 6 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
All permanent impacts to wetlands have been avoided. Sediment accumulation in wetlands has naturally stablized with
natural vegetation. Dam footprint was moved downstream to avoid altering surface area of pond. Impacts have been limited
to those that are absolutely unavoidable for the maintenance of the pond.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
No construction equipment will be allowed in the wetlands. No woody vegetation will be removed from the wetlands. Will
schedule construction to be conducted during the drier summer months.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State? ? Yes ® No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps

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

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

Zone 6c.
Reason for impact 6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier 6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 8 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ? Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
? Yes ? No
Comments:
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 0%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ? Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: This project does not require a
Stormwater Management Plan because the project it is a maintenance and rehabilitation of an existing facility.
Additionally, the project area and drainage area are less than 24% impervious.
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
? Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ? DWQ Stormwater Program
? DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? Mecklenburg County, NC
® Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? NSW
? USMP
apply (check all that apply): ? Water Supply Watershed
? Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ? No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties
? HQW
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ? ORW
(check all that apply):
? Session Law 2006-246
? Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? ? Yes ? No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ? Yes ? No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ? Yes ? No
Page 9 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ® Yes ? No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ? Yes ® No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
? Yes
? No
letter.)
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ? Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a . Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
This project is not anticipated to generate any additional wastewater.
Page 10 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ? Yes ® No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ® Yes No
?
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted. El Raleigh
® Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
USFWS - North Carolina's Threatened and Endangered Species counties list http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/es.htmi
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) GIS coverage and database search
Pedestrian survey
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
Essentail Fish Habitat is not applicable in the piedmont region of North Carolina.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ? Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ® Yes ? No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? Located in FEMA Flood Zone X, confirmed by
designated 100-year floodplain GIS converage and North Carolina's floodplain mapping program website
hftp://www.ncfloodmaps.com
Eric Mularski
6
te
l
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Applicant/Agent's Signature Daat
e
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
Page 11 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
DANGA LAKE MAINTENANCE PROJECT
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT NO. 01 PLAN NO.
PARCELID: 11314601
STREET ADDRESS:
Please print:
Property Owner #1: Charlotte Douglas International Airport; P 0 C • Jerry Orr
Property Owner #2:
The undersigned, registered property owners of the above noted property, do hereby authorize
Eric Mularski of HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas
(Contractor/Agent) (Name of consulting firm)
to act on my behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance and acceptance of this
jurisdictional determination request, permit and/or certification and any and all standard and special
conditions attached.
Property Owner's Address (if different than property above):
Jerry Orr
Charlotte Douglas International Airport
Aviation Director's Office
5501 Josh Birmingham Parkway
Charlotte, NC 28208
Telephone: [phone]
We hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate to the best of
our knowledge.
Authorized Pro a Owner #1 Signature
Date:
Authorized Property Owner #2 Signature
Date:
SEP-08-2008 14:04 FROM:CLT AIRPORT 7043594950 TO:7043386760
. *9Ar-
N DENR
North Carolina Department o Environment and Natural Resources
Division o Land Resources
Land uality Section
James D. Simons, PG, PE
Director and State Geologist
September 4, 2008
CERTIFIED MAiL 7007 1490 0004 4509
RETURN RECUPT REOUESTED
Mr. T. J. Orr, Jr., Aviation Director
Charlotte-Douglas International Airport
Post Office Box 19066
Charlotte, North Carolina 28219
RE: Dan.ga Lake Darn
Mecklenburg County
lNE, CICL-022
Dear Mr. Orr:
P.2/3
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
SEP - -,ors
rs: .
696
The Dun Safety Law of 1967 provides fort a certification and inspection of dams in the intefest
of public health, safety, and welfare, in orde to reduce the risk of failure of dams, to prevent
injuries to persons, damage to downstream operty, and to ensure the maintenance of strean
Mows.
An inspection of the rel:ereuced dam was cc) ducted on August 28, 2008 by staff of the Land
Quality Section Mooresville Regional Offic During this inspection, the following conditions
were noted:
1_ Two skimmer dewatering devices ha e been installed through the dairy enibanknient.
This work within the dam embankm t was performed without submitting an application
to this Division #irr review and ainnro aI.
2_ The emergency spillway channel alai g the left downstream toe of the dam embatnlctnent
is eroding severely.
These conditions appear serious and jw;tily Iirther engineering study to determine appropriate
remedial measures. In the event of a dun fa, lure, human life and significant property would be
endangered because of the downstream local An of a private residence at 4344 Rockwood Drive.
This residence is situated immediately adjac nt to the strewn channel downstream of the suklect
d31n-
610 East Center Avenue, Suitt 301, Mooresville, North Carolina 28115
704-663-1691'91 FAX: [phone]
An Equal Opporturilly 1 Affirmative Action mpfoyer - 501% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper
-88-214j OLT ABWM 70435$49% M; i'ce'! p4e
Mx, I J. Ok% k,, AviAOM ViFcOm
Se0am 4,
fi rL64 4=ibW a bon = and 1 W,,NW, offills °ir%Tom.
i, RMIAR'?1C,&iJP v, s t a* docuumenmipni.j"wmvi jot "lgthe
at i ` 5i nliaiat nT and t k rill a i 'iIc7 Sr nit "m L16dam
rtc?L, prt?y?,G? 1?i?s i?a?risiun r 'fir' m?vil. ?+a?rcpli? ??i
vain Lbe Dtm Lfoty ],: 4-Y f 19 1F i &te imtin.
2• T}a ?Itln r7F s,iliay ehr„tsl laesae ux
atuC 1[l t l 5 t i t = sir the dam's
z?ality to im?mund wuLer.
In a]r&r Eii tris„=c lhiz Lmt tI of Ws Liam, )wiu, dira:;-,td vers.In tl?v ?rc&mfe
f luL i is in r u . cxp+cricn;:sd i e firm. [4 =kv C atud ,3f the coaad?om
ouLlmed In thin bAia. Pt:mz [ s{ >ri ca r fur- rtfwit base m rhg m of Wit.
b CLd Aii}t t I}i yi3 ion L and J c n+ for rs Yptu-eal puriu= isr the NC<ffi t=arni;-Tta
.IkdminIFtmlvt dt. "filic A, Subchapter 2Jw - Otim ;-holy (O.-h h'CAC 2K), T of
trrm f=lan for tbip d ft It bc nbm1ttd TC t 6 i ca by [ utaher ;t i;,
In adEt= La ft nUve, * Nk-wi Aat at iiaa , WL reqLdfimp, = €it ?ts5. 1, slu alcl
bc ct pictcai by bcr 3 1R 70(4. ' s4 i is slims trite fa llovi%,
ktwtovul all brush arm * 'hy w"lipm tm t1 n. ;yin ambits n Lli.mt,cict Rum thg
dam =1&6mma.
.?,? up?Ii ?n?c@cc?. ?? ?ilurt ?a?il 'fxe recd t1u? ,lout ;f oN:? i? rL?a elrr<=a????? fiifi? if'
en cxistiq EANNO nol hecn tT*J 0 in llw A ym Imo: dokvustreim II ?c kc4
and alb ?e+I1 .L'1 'i i {t 7 ui h ??? iti l: 'i`•? tien o, the hs fwd ftCIJ TTO, d?c
Qi.` ,m of [AM mv-c _, and a ' AA f t pun,, i A to the F ?l
0fGcam
P oupWlf t at 611 FAM Cdr .ti'crtut Su!W `?.'D 1. mawmilF?, rnr+ ramjl?(" 3] 15" or at
x1ph bot 7N-663.1699 a advise A pfyrur it Ldd m im tEs mftr, if *Ae Wt
xccJvc noOadto am or bebm September 16, R, v iv ??Im i -nc I!'-c "Sc iut'unaltiua fm
?? rca??crrrl??1 ssctiL?q. if?,rettte?k n a?i ??luL:? of cix?ii ?;?•L??'t€?
S5{ O- Per 4xy of vio limit, , n r Loin of* lArn S&fly Order requEling th-c €Li>R
rcrm'#?,A aid (l i ti, iL uns isrc fir ? s raa?r'- 3 ,
sir"rely,
30as f
.1 X-ha
Rtsioml lr
ec Kob be,, Vf QuA11 Rq?mndi Cc ri c
Rubut f L Ha '*1im, Pr" P1 I LIP 3a'fOty'Erum7=

21
'
oresvirr

.
} _ ...
.
15 ?
`
Z 14
Meckl
b.rg County, North Carolina ,

Linco
lntan
Lake Norman (11 \
01 j -
`

? Westport (7
`
\ X
3 460 !
01
7
C73 29 rd
27

l - 73)
21
\??
- I
Mo;untaih`I sland Lake.
?75 / a7
- ' 7
r

7) 49
Y2o1 ,
Gastonia

277 29
X24
-J,27
?
Chxlotte Dor 'ru 24
??
- 6nterna6onat
Charlotte

/ ?i
s 74
Lake Wylie
5
?
16)
55, i
(49 .16gi
51)
i
.
?
21
t
_ l
C)
.12

1 inch = 5 miles 521
^
l °.
0
Miles - - ?'
X07
,75_
0 2.5 5 10 -- -
-? Project Location
Figure 1
ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions
Charlotte - Douglas International Airport I Danga Lake Dam Improvements I Request for Nationwide Permit 3
-? Charlotte West USGS Quadrangle
Figure 2
ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions-
Charlotte - Douglas International Airport Danga Lake Dam Improvements I Request for Nationwide Permit
-? NRCS Soils for Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Figure 3
ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions-
Charlotte - Douglas International Airport I Danga Lake Dam Improvements I Request for Nationwide Permit 3
C 8wJad apinwoitieN jo; jsanbaa sjuawanojdwj wed ajej ebuea I liodny leuogewajul selbnoa - agoljeyo
. s oynjos'(UPN I ANIVdWO3 9N O
q aanBi?
sialeM leuoi43ipsianr palewIS3 YCLI

?Il? ??til ??\\ ? 1 ti 1\\ 1 1 1 1 1! ?` ?
`? ? `\\`ilt\1r/1/} \ ?I 111'tytltillll -
' A I ? Ill/1//l11 ? I1 1 1 ' ! f}t III '
I I y l tl r ,' l/i1/1 /il 11 1 Ll r\ !\ O \\H
t\\t\` c i l y
i +j 1j 1f }y , + + ' 1 r ' 1111/ 1 l 11 I y \ \ \ \ ?` 1 ? ! y I
I + I + I 1 I\I\I\ t? ',, ? ? , f /1/ i r Ir rl r! ? ?_??\\\ \ \ }I+11 ? ?t\I\\
CLV
\ 1 \ ` \ \ ?E0 t , \\I\\\ ?\ 11 t ?1\\\\1
\ \ \ \ ' \ c \ \\?? \ \\\\ 1\\\
Ij ? \ }y } ICI 111/l l r ??
_ ? ? \ \ \ } ! I II I I+ ', \ I } I ? + t} } % 11 / 1 l Il j ( I
\` ? ? 1\ 1,? t\ ? 1 t } o '? \, ? t 1 1 1 1 f tl (! l II +t I ! /r? j ?/;
\ \ I \\11}I? \\\1\\1 (111,1 }! ++?I11?
? 1 ? 1 \? 1 \ \ \ `? ?\`\\\\\ tl \ ? it ? ` I\ s i I y r
00
f( I ? r 1 f (++' tit\\1} \\\\
'J 1 ? 1 1 1 Ij ?) f l l l f 1; It } `\ I t }?, •\I \ \? \\ ?.?
/ ? J +rlj l +111'1 t tt11t \ ?
i?? ? i? % 1 JI ? ll /1 + I I f! f '? ? ? v,tt ?\ 1It ? II? \ \\ \ ???
c .6 F,
t V
dUm a? Uo
E O
o
E
i `- a?
+ \ m
w' R rL V
c LL 4)
2 L)
1 r 1? / / i
CL LL
I ? 1 1 I I+/ /? _
s I ? ?w ° 1 - -
LL. In
l I
?° a Eo' 1 j1
I t a ;a 1! `%
CL c I 1 + t J r Z'R ° cal
f I I E 0 M
"m E 0. W,
.. m
c a + 1 I / _III t( t ?.
CL
O L° I f 1711/, i',? 1! \`II/ 1
U(-_.; ? /1 111 1r1?1? o ,-;, j?''y1'Iflt\1\\\\\? it
4
60-VZ-ZO :PeteP Il lse-l sloe wl leuopoiPsunp gam i-\ave?e ue4 £dMN\Pxw\soop ew\?lselsaoiniagleuopiPPWIOJ 0LL61\po ,,
VlluIsel noQallol'e40 L90UOlASha?m?nSlrn.n 77 x aoinnc

z
o
U
w
z
0
m
0
0
0
m
U
S 6002 Aim :03n551 31V0 1 V O d 11 I V l V N O I 1 V N 1131 N I NMOHS SV :31VOS OMO.3SVB-9010 :3WVN 3114
4 SVf :AS 03N03HO sej2noa•a:}ope4, ON188MAID I ONIMID aNV NMOaMVdO 3IV1
C 2dr :AS NMVNO '93unavin 1Od1NOO NOIGOU3 IVWNI - 138VHd X X
'
a ON lo3roNd
9OL016OL9
I 13d :'ON3 103roNd GIN3MAOMMI 3ONVN31NIVW WVO/3W41 VONVO
`
31VO SNOISIA38 13d :AS C13NDIS30 190-M kVMNnd UOd dWMS N o
INTERSTATE 485
77
,
/
?E
;
\ ? I
32 4?
/2
I'
'a \
,
/ V
l1
%
._ •? 4 I I I I o
1 ' - \?' .?'11?:? -.,% %/bob ?t`"???I'.II I - I• \?G?do'd .. Q.+Jnd????
it ?.I?? ?w IfI?
\ °
I
\ I E ?z
' I1
1=?•?=;,, ,, , ` ?., ? \ III,. 0\1,,
`
t i
xt ,
? •z ?
o
W-z
_co
J
7 /
I?
c z
o, I ?. -
{ s4` I a
s, e
20
t6& w. : ` / / r.r N ! j / _ -._-fi."'^ .'? > S`.j-: '1 `•„ T"°-_. ,-r-'? _.
Tie Llntl
i
23871'I
6 \ Y: I h REP3
Gam' 1 1 1 I \ ? \ I 1 o ? `?> a? 1 ?? ??,? / ? U• '
tit. a Cz \ `? t., Y o ° z g a
iD,
_ . v- \ \ \?\ \ \ \
J
1
I ?
o
10
,
eN y ?j
\ \ low
S2
\ \\ `<p `..\\ ? ..•. \'? r , VIN
Vii \ \ .. \ \ ?? .. 1 /.•. ' ? 0

S
6002 Alflf 03f1551 31V0 lb JVIV 1VNOI1VNM31N1
NMOHS SV :31VOS OMO'3SV8-SOLO :3VNVN 311A
4 SVf :A8 03N03HO //I??
[ ¦.a}}olaey,
sel no DNIUMMU 1N3WI435 3)IM1 dNV H3V3HG WVd
£ 8df :A8 NMV8G ?# II 3SVHd X k
Z 9OL0160[9 :'ON 1O3f08d
l Ad :'ON3 103f08d S1N3W3A0ddWI 30NVN31NIVri WVd/3NVl VONVa
'
IWO SNOISV3H 13d ?AB 03NOIS30 les-M AVMNna UOzl MMS N o

I

,
j
m

X \

\?
? Z
=
O
O I
. ,
•
` \
.
\ ` ...
......... I ' N
Z lLj
00

\
00

N ?
Y ? - .. ? % / % ?V1 V1

i z?<
5z
0.

.,

`
O

oz .;
awa I
I ...
o
:., _.
• \
<nz
.4

-

W X O Y\ N
?
a

.... a

17-

1 a

i
a?
_.

w
C'
D z
}

.. .. .. ._.

-
l?
Z
L- x
.
?
y
... _.
?
?O1
j
l c:
?
' ? _.
... ..,
?.. .._ .__ ..._. .__. ._..._ ...__ _.. - -- ___.. adz
• _- ..._ rn i, l ?
gyn. e
.." ....
..... _.. . .
_
0 1 ?
O Z y ..... .. , ... ...
i
N

i, -7 CA

9c, -

W
T

1
1

l

C
y\

S 6002 ),w V ?03f5S1 31tl0 11dVIV IVNOI1VNV31N1
NMOHS Stl :31V05 OM035tlB-SOLO BWVN all!
6 SVf :A8 03N03HO sel nod.a}}olapy' (a d0 L 133HS)
f 8df :A8 NMV80 9lIV13a -IOa1NOO NOISOa3 X x
z SOL016OL9 :'ON 103rO8d
l 13d ; ON3 103M0Jd
C
9 S1N3W3AOadWI 30NVN31NIVW WVa/3)IVl VDNVd
'
31tl0 SN0151A3iJ 13d AG 03N01530 je las-aaL AvnnNna aoA dwnns N O
S am zo e? iw °w
O aSov°i0Z0= u¢ 2 O F O OU ?WN??Ltb
u mw?£"'?""<mm??J F` d w ? ??? ? ?m aN w w?'za?o3y^°
# ?o rca?°az? ? a wK ???a? ?W O?? '^pd U n? F°w2
FviwzZY-
a:;?Y?<wawww zw 'mow - °'??= 2
?? aowaa?a°aowm? <o a? ??a?w? uw ? mi?° k'°N
?m°
W8
a 9
?F ..???i?"'??8`=g < ? jrc ]FQ?YSO <ppm ou? ?y.`. '" .O' owaZT«w
<Z pO ZFFW<????2°° ..M1 Kg Q_-y-{{ 0????mjj i< wa? ?°?yj K?K vw°i? ¢?CiZ?Uw?w?
O ?VF'~?a Om_n Z ?i?>ws XIw ZrcFw O F OF?Z-OOZ<
11ZZ 22VdZ AA ==
<Fan¢<?a}iv=i ?? ~i ma??OF 3a? 9 m???mw. OU
9 d< a - ? ao
K 'o
4a i o o pia -
49
off"-$ a8 M& ?? ?_ sib 1k S8 ??Rw:
Pwm w r<
wooaw Nz? 'D n? °aou s ?i
m$=? sz ?- w 5ww ° ?9a? °? S
< 3 <<z? a -
° o` ffs<ff- o ogN
momYi
z, AS w.
o? Imo<i<$ i?cv=ios awl? &o m?'N
?'6a°?: ?¢p¢- ? !? $YSo <<2??aw szZZ? k'K? w?'??
OF OFZ 43 SaFO?gO?<rt`f<M1?m?a W?UN?miZ..imj
? -rz
os a ?aais ??ffomI -z E-o3 u b?w
?3?a<wiidnaaq<???mab?rcrco???o?z
?_ ??d m mob= ? J??w?s' ?z &aza
wi =_=?w ms mY?wLL< w am
40 6?
Z ti Y
U= ?w rc
?m r N
U
? ?m m
8? S m
O
$ a° ? 2 d
< G< Z?
w <? FOF
wZZ ? ? W
OS w?
N F Z °UZ U
V ? ? 6
Z
?a O
?

lsod laoddns ims

sew lz

?w z SS

t; ?9
e
9

O
E ?
s
Z
z
i ?
? m
ff
m O
2
Y g
3
8
i ?
ay
bl< ?>
d
a ? ?
o?
m5??56WR
m <?. FLm?2FW
zs<mo?o?
" I
_ zw=wc
a?o?q
9
W
U
Z
W
U.
J a
I
N
>- 1
o
Z
O
a
I w
V OZ<WI ?o VU?
?i ??CZWO U7ji ???
0? Vt(^O Lmw
Wa
z S,
Sft
_ 9°6 P ?
m `.'<w <k
'o m8o???mm?3 ag?z i?
?.p
°<aN ?a???i?= ff?ww
W?mww'?°O$ w?;
'Ho
13 Z?
is 4
;Rd
Q
U
0
z
`3 n
? g?ju€
°z?
Y =o
* U 3
x
Ne
I I 11V

OX p 16 ; 9;A
5A8 HI's ON
g1u
-89 ?zl
=?o
o€o?
aw
?s
?zo
J m<?O
pd
°IQa
z. z<6 ?YS ?F
j
F ?OZZ°
O?pu
HA. ont
015 ?ffl-h Hin

z
< ?O
Q
?' O Z
go
98
€3
a
Lu <
VI -
O
N ?PjO
J
U<
W `^
U0
U?
Y°
„ z
u \ ?1
? z /
S 600Z AIM !03nSSI 31V0 i a o d a I V, V N o L1 V N a 31 N NMOHS SV :3IVOS OMO'1300SIW-90LO :3WVN 3IId
4 SVr :AB 03N03HO sejlnoV-ajjopey, (3 dO l 133HS)
f Bdr :,k@ NMVNG SlIV130Sf1O3NVIMOSIW X X
Z 9010160L9 I'ON 103f021d
l Ad :'ON3 103r08d S1N3W3AOIddWI 3ONVN3INIVW WV(3/3)V1 VONVa
31V0 SNOISIA3I1 13d :AB 03NOIS30 79£-d$L AVMNnu UOd dWMS N o
Ppq
H
?d
NX-
1
?s
f ??1Nan•"??'?''?
1j. J
(n t
off ?',,
oy
0
d
0 0
o?
°o
s
"o
s
w
wl
w
N
W
? ¢ In
eU
0-w w
0 Z J
>
Vow oa 1w
V OE O LL>..
w U ¢ ? O
aoC, a ? 0g0 W
rv?ll ??O co
MII II ? w
wwx
Y
x
X X<
?a Q =
Zw °oS z
O O w Y N Q
W O 0
00 N QN ?>? A
n 3W 0
0 II z 0 ¢ a w'NIM
jV ?? N? II
N Z
f w
U
I,- O
Z K II ? In
S ?O Zw
> o¢
E
w
............................ o
w II
@00
zo
"w?
0
111= v
a ?
Z00
z 11111??1ll1ll? U w
U W
a
2 _ ? Asa U
41 -4 ,p p L1++1 y O
o 111 c o
III ??[U
0 ? ~ ?lll-LLl-IN? ? z
.,.'.r t 0 0 W T - Z
m
zo S2
ni
Jw W < w ??
Xxa aJ °
aam w
??rc o
¢a? Q = o
o
N O O 0
O O >
op O Z_ w
Y N
h N W w
II II ?ZO
O ? O
w w awa
0
N?II
9 6002 kinr :03nSSI 31v0 I V O J V I V l V N O I 1 V N 131 N I NMOHS SV :31 OS OMO'103SX-9010 3AVN 3113
4 SVr :A9 03N03HO se }no •a11o ae
' T)
' Q
(t d0 L 133HS)
f 9dr :A9 NMV90 TT SNOI1039 SSOaO 3HVl X
z 9OL016OL9 :'ON 1O3rOHd x
I Ad :'ON3 103r09d
(!2) S1N3w3AOddwl 30NVN3iN[Vw wVa/3NV1 VONVa
31VO _SNOISIA38 13d :A9 03NDIS30 `Ise-aeL AVnnNna aozl dwnns o
b 0 N N p Y Y
b b m b p b 00
m
b i0C `Ui N < d Y
n e m m m e m
V dE
46
?b
e N n ? a g
.n ?o m m m ?o g
N
N
N
OI'449, o
I tr>9
!I
0
I
p o .n N
?D ?O N m
m m m m m m
O
CI
T
LC)
9
m 0
N
O
N
N
ZZ
0 O
Fp Z
w? d w
wa oZ
a Wz
F pmo
?2 >Z d
wa ?a ?
m h w d
wa a
a? z? o
O ¢O N
o> ??
F
zi >
m
0m
F S N S W m
>R.i m? ?j0
w ?i a{?coi aio? 'I
wQOaoom?o
Q} N W} N W N N
?o l?o I?z 1
m? ww <F
za
k''m?m 5? ow
W30 IN 1=/1 OW
O
Z,: (V M
O
h
O
ti
1- G
LL V w O
? w N
d
w o
w 2
V II U ?
? II
O O
O
N
O
N d
m m m p p
m ?o ?o m
p O m N a0 p J i III
m a o ?o N m x °a I
m w pm m mo E
O ••
N >I
\ px
O .? :S, V1- 2V O:
s: Z a
1 Z
O W
1 0 W
p Zw
3 pI aw¢
Owl Ja VfJ
F <0 II /
JW
W V=1 {.?
z2
?
K
O
x
O I 09'949 0 m
'? 9 9b9 u Y
r\ a 5
I
W W ?
p ¢ ?b
> O
?
O
0 w w
0
I
p O N w m p o
? p p p
e ? m m m m m
31VO I SNOISIA38
600Z Alnr :03ns51 31V0
SVr
:A8 03NO3H3
9dr
-A8 NMVUO
90L0160L9
:'ON 133r08d
13d
;'ON3 1OWO0ld
13d
:A8 03NOIS30
1 1 O d k I V i V N O I 1 V N a 31 N i NMOHS SV 31VOS I OMO'103SX-90LO :3WVN 3l1d
sej}no(yDP0Iae4:) (l dO 3133HO)
SNO11039 SSOaO 3)IV'l x x
S1N3MA08dWl 30NVN31NIVr4 WVU/3)IV1 VONVd
�► `19£-bl% AVMNnm W0J MMS N o
b b N N d < O O N W V b N N a
.O .O �O b b X00 iD b tp b b O b b b b b 0
0
0
N
R
O
/
0
_O
z
N_
N'..
O_ Z
z
h
< O
O
Q O tp
N
N
Zw5a
� %n
w a
z
�nz
F
>z
¢O
w
wa �a

Z
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Danga Lake Maintenance Project - Streams A, B, C, and D.
Wetland A
State: North Carolina County/parish/borough: Mecklenburg City Charlotte
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.214° k?, Long. -80.971°
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Danga Lake, Little Paw Creek, and unnamed tributaries.
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Lake Wylie (Catawba River)
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Catawba - 03050101170
Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date: July 2009
Field Determination. Date(s): 7/16/2009
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There ,navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There' "" "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): t
TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent waters: (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 698 linear feet: width (8) and/or acres.
Wetlands: 4.73 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on I"91??,Dcneattal
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
0 Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
' Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
I . 7
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and
and Section III.D.I.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section IILC below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions
«r.
Watershed size: 23.24 si?1{,tt111eS
Drainage area: 230 *00
Average annual rainfall: 43 inches
Average annual snowfall: 6 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 1-2 ri%cr miles from TNW.
Project waters are I (or less) river miles from RPW.
Project waters are I (or less) aerial (straight) miles from TNW
Project waters are I (or less) aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5: Unnamed tributaries flow into Danga Lake and out into Little Paw Creek which flow into
Lake Wylie (Catawba River), a TNW.
' Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
e.
Tributary stream order, if known:
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ® Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 4 feet
Average depth: 2 feet
Average side slopes: Z .
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
® Silts ® Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/%cover:
? Other. Explain: Rip Rap.
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: areas of erosion.
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes Explain:
Tributary geometry: WOW 191A
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): <2 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for $i444"
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: i4.9,
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: _ i >?;and I ilk. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
® OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank
? changes in the character of soil
? shelving ?
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
High Tide Line indicated by: ? Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects ? survey to available datum;
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ? physical markings;
? physical markings/characteristics ? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain: Surrounding land use is foreset. Stream B (seasonal RPW) contributes sediment to Danga Lake .
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
,s
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): f.
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: 4.73 acres
Wetland type. Explain: Danga Lake is open water. Forested wetland areas are present were RPWs flow into Danga
Lake .
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Floe R,_l tnonship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Perennial flow. Explain:
Surface flow is:
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
® Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are river miles from TNW.
Project waters are ,Ole aenaIstraight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from f Ods"W, ?v g [e iv f.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the 20 ='5©-year floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain: The reddish brown water indicates that the lake is receiving sediment from an upstream
source..
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):>50 feet.
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
® Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
® Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis:
Approximately ( 4.73 ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Yes 4.73
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
n TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Our onsite visit indicated that Streams A, C, and D are perennial according to current ACOE and
NCDWQ guidance.
Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally: Our site visit indicated that Stream B exhibited the crucial hydrological, geomorphic, and biological characteristic
to provide "seasonal" flow into Danga Lake.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: 698 linear feet varies width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
E Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
0 Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW: RPWs with perennial flow (Stream C and D) and a RPW with seasonal flow (Stream B)
flow directly into Wetland A (Danga Lake and adjacent forested wetlands) providing a distinct biological and
hydrological connection.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 4.73 acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
12 Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
0 Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters!
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
Q Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
Q Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):"
which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
El from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
'See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
? Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
udgment (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply -checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
Corps navigable waters' study:
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
? USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Charlotte West 24K Quadrangle.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Mecklenburg County.
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: NWI GIS Data.
? State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIRM maps:
? 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):Mecklenburg County Ortho Imagery.
or ® Other (Name & Date):Site photos taken during delineation.
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
Applicable/supporting case law:
Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
Other information (please specify):Field delineation.
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Dan a Lake Maintenance Project Date: 07/16/09
Applicant/Owner: Charlotte Douglas International Airport County: Mecklenbur
Investigator(s): Eric Mularski State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: WA
If needed, explain on reverse.) I
VFr;FTATION
Dominant Plant S ecies Stratum
1 Alnus serrulata herb Indicator
FACW+ Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9
2 Salix nigra tree/shrub OBL 10
3 Cornus amomum shrub FACW+ 11
4 Sambucus canadensis shrub FACW+ 12
5 Peltandra virginica herb OBL 13
6 Impatiens capensis herb FACW+ 14
7 Microstegium vimineum herb FAC+ 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
86%
Remarks:
Hydrophytic vegetation is dominant.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
X Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
X Water Marks
X Drift Lines
Field Observations: X Sediment Deposits (on leaves)
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0-2 (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: surface (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: surface (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Wetland hydrology indicators are present.
Danga On-Site Wetland Data Forms Page 1 of 2 7/24/2009
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 % slopes (CeB2) Drainage Class well drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic T is Kanha ludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Des cription:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-2 A 10YR 2/1 N/A N/A clayey sand
2-14+ A Gleyl 6/10Y 7.5YR 5/6 Many/Distinct clayey sand
Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List (Inclusions)
X Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Indicators of h dric soil are resent.
W1=T1 ANn nFTFRMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Ye No (Circle)
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Data point is representative of a forested jurisdictional wetland area adjacent to Danga Lake, an
open water system. Surrounding wetland area is actively gjl n with sediment from upstream
construction activities.
Approved by HQUSACE 2192
Danga On-Site Wetland Data Forms Page 2 of 2 7/24/2009
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Dan a Lake Maintenance Project Date: 07/16/09
Applicant/Owner: Charlotte Douglas International Airport County: Mecklenburg
Investigator(s): Eric Mularski State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: WA
If needed, explain on reverse.) I
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant S ecies Stratum Indicator
1 Salix nigra tree/shrub OBL Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9
2 Sambucus canadensis shrub FACW+ 10
3 Alnus serrulata herb FACW+ 11
4 12
5 13
6 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
100%
Remarks:
No aquatic vegetation was noticed in this open watersystem. Hydrophytic vegetation was present on
the edges of lake.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
X Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: X Sediment Deposits (on leaves)
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 12-36 (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: surface (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: surface (in.) X FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Open water
Danga On-Site Wetland Data Forms Page 1 of 2 7/24/2009
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Wilkes Drainage Class well drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic U is Ha ludalfs Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Descri tion:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-4 A 5YR 4/6 N/A N/A silty clay loam
4-15+ B Gleyl 6/10Y 7.5YR 5/6 Many/Distinct silty clay loam
Histosol X Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List (Inclusions)
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Indicators of hydric soils are present.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (Circle)
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Data point is representative of an open water jurisdictional wetland area.
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92
Danga On-Site Wetland Data Forms Page 2 of 2 7/24/2009
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Dan a Lake Maintenance Pro'ect Date: 07/16/08
Applicant/Owner: Charlotte Douglas International Airport County: Mecklenburg
Investigator(s): Eric Mularski State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: UPl
If needed, explain on reverse.) I
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
1 Liriodendron tulipifera Stratum
tree Indicator
FAC+ Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9
2 Liquidambar styracii lua tree FAC+ 10
3 Elaeagnus angustifolia shrub FAC 11
4 Ligustrum sinense shrub FAC 12
5 Toxicodendron radicans vine FAC 13
6 Lonicera japonica vine FAC- 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
80%
Remarks:
More than 50% of the dominant
plant sp
ecies are FAC or wetter.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits (on leaves)
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No indicators of wetland hydrology are present.
Danga On-Site Wetland Data Forms Page 1 of 2 7/24/2009
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 % slopes (CeB2) Drainage Class well drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic T is Kanha ludults Confirm Mapped Type? es No

Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-5 A 5YR 4/6 N/A N/A sand clay loam
5-13+ B 10YR 4/4 N/A N/A sand clay loam
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List (Inclusions)
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No indicators of hydric soils are present.
WFTI ANn nFTFRMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ?N?o (Circle)
Hydric Soils Present? Yes Ils this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Data point is representative of a non-jurisdictional upland area.
Approved by HQUSACE 2192
Danga On-Site Wetland Data Forms Page 2 of 2 7/24/2009
USAGE AID# DWQ # Site # SA (indicate on attached maps
LM STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: Charlotte-Douglas International Airport 2. Evaluator's Name: Eric Mularski
3. Date of Evaluation: 4/16/2008 4. Time of Evaluation: 9:30 AM
5. Name of Stream: Little Paw Creek (Stream A) 6. River Basin: Catawba
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 230 acres 8. Stream Order: 2 nd
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 230 linear feet 10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Site Coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.214 Longitude (ex. -77.55.66.11): -80.972
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS her: Fi ld surve
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
(See attached map)
14. Proposed Channel Work (if any):
15. Recent Weather Conditions: sunny, low 60°s
16. Site conditions at time of visit: sunny, low 60°s
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? (a NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: 3.75 acres
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? ES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? ES NO
21. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 10 % Residential % Commercial 10 % Industrial % Agricultural
70 % Forested 20 % Cleared / Logged _% Other
22. Bankfull Width: 12-15' 23. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 4'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) _X _Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous _Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of
100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 74 Comments: Downstream from Danga Lake spillway
Evaluator's Signature h _ Date 4/16/2008
This channel evaluation rm is intende to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Stream A
i
STI EC'()1 E;( ON POINT RANCE ?
?
SCORE
CHARACTERI
CS 1 -
tpp Coastal Piedmont Mountain

t Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
4
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong-, flow = max points)

1
2 Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
4
1 (extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max hints)
Riparian zone
0'- G
0 - 4
0 - 5
4
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points) f

}
`
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4'
0-4
3
1 (extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
j j Groundwater discharge
0 -
0 - 4
0 - 4
3
I (no discharge = 0; s prings, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)

...
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0'=4
0-2
4
i
' (no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain -- maLoints)

7 Entrenchment / floodplain access
1
0-5
0-4

0-2

2
i
C6, (deeply entrenched= 0; frequent flooding = max points)

$ Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points') `

Channel sinuosity _
0-5
0- 4
0- 3
2

l (extensive channelization = 0; natural meander= max points)

1\ a
10 Sediment input
0-5
0-.4
0-4
2
K... (extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)

II Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
Nth ?
0-4
0-5
4
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
?

I2 Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5 0-4 0-5 3
j (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
'f
13 Presence of major bank failures

.?

0-5

0-5

0-5

4
a (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banns = max points)
--
-
L?1 1 1 -
--
Root depth and density on banks 0-1
0-4
0-5
3
' (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)

IS Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
0-4
( 0-5
3
• (substantial im act =0; no evidence = max points) E

ib Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
4
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)

17
Habitat complexity

0- 6

0-6 -

0-6

5
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)

1$ Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
4
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
i

19 Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
3
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure _ max)
20 Presence of stream invertebrates 0-4 0-5 0-5 4
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

?
21 Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
3
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types max points)
22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4 2
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) _
,.
2
23)
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-
5
0-5
4
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points) -
Total Points Possible 100 1 100 too
-

TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 74
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

I USACE AID# DWQ # Site # SC (indicate on attached maps 1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: Charlotte-Douglas International Airport 2. Evaluator's Name: Eric Mularski
3. Date of Evaluation: 4/16/2008 4. Time of Evaluation: 11:30 AM
5. Name of Stream: Little Paw Creek (Stream C) 6. River Basin: Catawba
7. Approximate Drainage Area: acres 8. Stream Order: 2nd
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: - 258 linear feet 10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Site Coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.215 Longitude (ex. -77.55.66.11): -80.969
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS her: Fi ld survey
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
(See attached map)
14. Proposed Channel Work (if any):_
15. Recent Weather Conditions: sunnv. low 60°s
16. Site conditions at time of visit: sunny, low 60°s
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known:
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluati
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO
21. Estimated Watershed Land Use: % Residential
-Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
cm point? ES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: 2 acres
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? ES NO
% Commercial _% Industrial % Agricultural
10 % Forested 90 % Cleared / Logged % Other
22. Bankfull Width
23. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 1.5'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (> 10%)
25. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous _Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of
100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 52 Comments: Channel flows into Danga Lake. Channel carves through areas with
Evaluator's Signature Date 4/16/2008
This channel evaluation )drm is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Stream C
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
- ?
O
CII<ARACTERISTICS
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain RE
SC

1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
3
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max oints) !
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
1
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points) - -
Riparian zone
0-6
04
0-5
1

= ax points)
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer m

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
(extensive discharges = 0. no discharges = max points)

5? Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0--4
2
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)

'.."
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
4
: 0, extensive flood lain max
(no flood
Lain

7` _
_
points) Entrenchment / floodplain access f
0-5
0-4
0-2
3
' t (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points) _

g Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
4
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)

g _
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
2
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)

10 Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
0
(extensive deposition- 0; little or no sediment = max points) -

11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
??
4- 4
0-5
1
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = inax points}
Evidence of channel incision or widening
5
0
0-4
0' - 5
3
12 (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = inax points -

1
13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
4
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks - max points)

14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 4
0-5
2
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
Impact by agriculture or livestock production 0
5 0-4 0-5 2
f I (substantial impacts-0; no evidence = max points) -
lb Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0--6 3
(no riffles/ripples or ools = 0; well-developed = max points) v
1
1 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0--6
3
r ! (little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5 2
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)

19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0--4 0-4 0
? (deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)

20 Presence of stream invertebrates
0-4
0--5
0-5
2
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
ibi
21 ans
Presence of amph p -4 0-4 0-4 2
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

22 Presence of fish

.
0-4
0 -4
0-4
1
ts)
(no evidence = 0, common, numerous types = _max o
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0- 5 0-5 3
(no evidence - 0; abundant evidence max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
_
TOTAL SCORE; (also enter on first page)
.'
.W... 50
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # SD (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: Charlotte-Douglas International Airport 2. Evaluator's Name: Eric Mularski
3. Date of Evaluation: 4/16/2008 4. Time of Evaluation: 12:30 AM
5. Name of Stream: Unnamed tributary (Stream D) 6. River Basin: Catawba
7. Approximate Drainage Area: acres 8. Stream Order: 2nd
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: - 210 linear feet 10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Site Coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.216 Longitude (ex. -77.55.66.11): -80.970
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS her: _Fi ld survey
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
(See attached map)
14. Proposed Channel Work (if any):
15. Recent Weather Conditions: sunny. low 60°s
16. Site conditions at time of visit: sunny, low 60°s
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known:
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluati
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO
21. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 10 % Residential
-Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
:)n point? ES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: 2 acres
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? ES NO
% Commercial _% Industrial % Agricultural
30 % Forested 60 % Cleared / Logged % Other
22. Bankfull Width: 4' 23. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 1'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (> 10%)
25. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous _Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of
100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 56 Comments: Stream and adjacent floodplain wetlands are actively filling with sediment
from upstream construction activities.
Evaluator's Signature Date 4/16/2008
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Stream D
1 ECOREGION POINT RANGE !
1 CHARACTERISTICS -T -__ SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
i 1 Presence of flow /
persistent pools in stream
0
5
0
-4
0
5
3
1 (no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points) - -

2 Evidence of past human alteration
0-
6
0
-5
0'
-5
3
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration _ max points)

3 Riparian zone
0-
6
0
-4
0
-5
2
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)

?4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-
5
0'
-4
0
-4
3
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
_
s Groundwater discharge 0- 3 ? 0 -4 0 -4 2
k (no discharge = 0; springs, see s, wetlands, etc. = max oints)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0- 4 0 - 4 0 2 4
(no flood lain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
_
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-
5
0
--4
0
-2
4
, (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent floodmo _max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0- 6 0 -4 0- 2 4
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
Channel sinuosity
0-
5
0
-4
0
-3
2
(extensive channelization = 0, natural meander = max points)

10 Sediment input
0-
5
0
-4
0
-4
0
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)

li Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA
0
-4
0
-5
1
(fine; homogenous = 0- large; diverse sizes = max points)
j
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-
5
0
-4
0
-5
3
1 -
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)

13 Presence of major bank failures
0-
5
0
-5
0
-5
5
+ i (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0- 1
0
-4
0
-5
1
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)

t5 Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-
5
0
- 4
0
-5
2
(substantial impact =0, no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0- 3
0
-'S
0
-6
2
(no riffles/ripples or pools =- 0; well-developed = max points)
r'
17 Habitat complexity
0-
6
0
--6
0
-6
2
(little or no habitat 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0--
5
0
-5
0
-5
2
(no shading vegetation = 0, continuous canopy= max points) _

19 Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0
--4
0
-4
1
{
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
(

l t
20 Presence of stream invertebrates
0-
4
0
-5
0
-5
1
(no evidence = 0- common, numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians
0-
4
0
-4
0
-4
3
0 (no evidence = O; common, numerous types = max points)

22 Presence of fish
0-
4
0
--4
0-
-4
2
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-
6
0
-5
0
=5
4
(no evidence 0, abundant evidence max points)
is
Total Points Possible
100
I 1
00
100
,.° 'T'OTAL SCORE (also eater on first pag e) 56

* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
I Date: 4/16/2008 Project: Danga Lake Latitude: 35.214 I
Evaluator: Eric Mularski Site: Stream A Longitude: -80.972
Total Points: Other Charlotte
Stream is at least intermittent 44.5 County: Mecklenburg
if>_ 19 or perennial if>_ 30 e.g. Quad Name: West
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= 23.5 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 S
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 S
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes = S
- Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R Hvrtrnlnnv (Suhtntal = R 5 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 1 2 S
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Bioloov (Subtotal = 12.5 )
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21b. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 b Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Items zu ana '21 Locus on the presence of upland plants, item 29 tocuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
I Date: 4/16/2008 Project: Danga Lake Latitude: 35.215 I
Evaluator: Eric Mularski Site: Stream C Longitude: -80.969
Total Points: Other Charlotte
Stream is at least intermittent 41.0 County: Mecklenburg
if>_ 19 or perennial if>_ 30 e.g. Quad Name: West
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =_23.5 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 S
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 S
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 S
9 a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes = S
- Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R Hvrtrnlnnv (Suhtntal = 8.01
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = O Yes = 1.5
C. Bioloqv (Subtotal = 9.5 )
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 b. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 O.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
nems zu ana [i Locus on the presence of upland plants, item 29 tocuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
I Date: 4/16/2008 Project: Danga Lake Latitude: 35.215 I
Evaluator: Eric Mularski Site: Stream D Longitude: -80.969
Total Points: Other Charlotte
Stream is at least intermittent County: Mecklenburg
if? 19 or perennial if>_ 30 32'0 e.g. Quad Name: West
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 16.0 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes = 3
- Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R_ Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 70)
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal = 9.0 )
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 b. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 b Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Items zu and 11 focus on the presence of upland plants, item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
Vin:; r• ??
r
44
4 .e
• e
?J • r
The
Photograph 1--stream A (RPW with Perennial Flow)
9
'??
9
4 ; 1
fl
` t .::: ?f •: 3 ?. X47 '?.
s •'?
f ?? ti?SN+. ?4.<ru? 1
Photograph 2 - Stream C (RPW with Perennial Flow)
?j
ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions- Site Photographs
Charlotte-Douglas International Airport I Dan a Lake Maintenance I Request for Nationwide Permit 3
s ?, rv <
?f esq.,
.r' S It 'f? ,?...- ? '?. .?' • ? ? 'a' f^- .? ?F °•? "4?j ? ,D?-_rµ, Y_ ?. ?pFi b
Photograph 3 - Stream D (RPW with Perennial Flow)
c
y '1
s' -
Photograph 4 - Wetland A (Open Water)
ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions- Site Photographs
Charlotte-Douglas International Airport I Dan a Lake Maintenance I Request for Nationwide Permit 3
i
W.
5 - Wetland A
f aq
ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions-
Charlotte-Douglas Intemational Airport I Danga Lake
Site Photographs
quest for Nationwide Permit 3