20191431 Ver 1_PCN Form Submission_20191017

DWR
IDIOM n of Water Resources
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
September 29, 2018 Ver 3
21nitial Review
Has this project met the requirements for acceptance
in to the review process?*
r Yes
r No
Is this project a public transportation project?*
G Yes r No
Change only if needed.
BIMS # Assigned *
Version#*
20191431
1
Is a payment required for this project?*
* No payment required
What amout is owed?*
* Fee received
r $240.00
r Fee needed - send electronic notification
r $570.00
Reviewing Office*
Select Project Reviewer*
Mooresville Regional Office - [phone]
Alan Johnson:eads\adjohnson1
Information for Initial Review
1a. Name of project:
Beam Road Warehouse
1a. Who is the Primary Contact?*
Paul Seefried
1b. Primary Contact Email:*
1c. Primary Contact Phone:*
[e-mail]
[phone]
Date Submitted
10/17/2019
Nearest Body of Water
Sugar Creek
Basin
Catawba
Water Classification
C
Site Coordinates
Latitude: Longitude:
35.187711-80.931289
FA. Processing Information U
County (or Counties) where the project is located:
Mecklenburg
Is this project a public transportation project?*
r Yes r No
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
* Section 404 Permit (wetlands, streams and waters, Clean Water Act)
r Section 10 Permit (navigable waters, tidal waters, Rivers and Harbors Act)
1b. What type(s) of permit(s) do you wish to seek authorization?
rJ Nationwide Permit (NWP)
r Regional General Permit (RGP)
r Standard (IP)

1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
r Yes r No
Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number:
NWP Numbers (for multiple NWPS):
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:
W 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular
r Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
r Individual Permit
39 - Commercial/Institutional Developments
le. Is this notification solelyfor the record because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWR 401 Certification:
For the record only for Corps Permit:
r 401 Water Quality Certification - Express
r Riparian Buffer Authorization
1f. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?*
r- Yes r No
1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
r Yes r- No
1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
r Yes r- No
Acceptance Letter Attachment
Beam Road Development DIMS CAT03ESA Acceptance.pdf
1h. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties?
r^ Yes r No
1j. Is the project located in a designated trout watershed?
r- Yes r No
FB, Applicant Information
1d. Who is applying for the permit?
r Owner W Applicant (other than owner)
le. Is there an Agent/Consultant for this project?*
r Yes r No
2. Owner Information
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
South 36R, LLC
2b. Deed book and page no.:
2c. Responsible party:
Mid South Realty
2d. Address
Street Address
440 Silas Creek Parkway, Suite 302
Address Line 2
city
Winston Salem
Postal / Zip Code
27127
2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2g. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
3. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
3a. Name:
Paul Seefried
State / Province / legion
North Carolina
(buntry
Forsyth
2f. Fax Number:
87.4KB
r Yes r No
r Yes r No

3b. Business Name:
Seefried Industrial Properties, Inc.
3c.Address
Street Address
3333 Riverwood Parkway, Suite 200
Address Line 2
CKY
Atlanta
Postal / Zip Cide
30339
3d. Telephone Number:
[phone]
3f. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
4. Agent/Consultant (if applicable)
4a. Name:
Patrick Korn
4b. Business Name:
Terracon
4c. Address
Street Address
2701 Westport Road
Address Line 2
City
Charlotte
Postal / Zip Code
28208
4d. Telephone Number:
[phone]
4f. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Agent Authorization Letter*
PCN Beam Road_print.pdf
C. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Project Information
1b. Subdivision name:
(if appropriate)
1c. Nearest municipality/town:
Charlotte
State / FYwinre / R�gion
Georgia
Country
Cobb
3e. Fax Number:
State / Ftwince / Pagim
North Carolina
Country
Mecklenburg
4e. Fax Number:
[phone]
455.87KB
Project Identification
2a. Property Identification Number:
14312201-02, 14312204-08, 14312210-17,
2b. Property size:
14312220
50.369
2c. Project Address
Street Address
Beam Road at Westoak Drive
Address Line 2
City
State / Ftwir ce / Ibgion
Charlotte
North Carolina
Postal / Zip Code
Cauntry
Mecklenburg
3. Surface Waters
3a. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project:*
Sugar Creek
3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water:*

C
3c. What river basin(s) is your project located in?*
Catawba
3d. Please provide the 12-digit HUC in which the project is located.
030501030103
4. Project Description and History
4a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this application:*
The Site consists of multiple parcels comprising approximately 50.369 acres of wooded terrain, historically used for agricultural and residential uses. Land use to the east and south of
the proposed project area consist of business and commercial structures. Land use to the west and north consist of wooded parcels.
4b. Have Corps permits or DWR certifications been obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in the past?*
r Yes r No r Unknown
4d. Attach an 8 1/2 X 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the USGS topographic map indicating the location of the project site. (for DWR)
71197469_USGS Topo_20190705.pdf 832.65KB
4e. Attach an 8 1/2 X 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the published County NRCS Soil Survey map depicting the project site. (for DWR)
Soils Map.pdf 808.66KB
4f. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.11
4g. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property:
288
4h. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:*
To maintain profitability, meet the required logistical needs, and provide a minimum satisfactory level of customer service; Seefried Properties is proposing the construction of a
warehouse and distribution center, at the proposed location, to meet the forecasted growth and service projections for their client.
4i. Describe the overall project in detail, including indirect impacts and the type of equipment to be used:*
The proposed project would be constructed in a fashion and using equipment and materials similar to previously constructed warehouses and distribution centers in the area. Land
clearing and construction equipment would be those typically used for this type of project. Grading and filling activities would create terrain suitable for construction of multiple cargo
storage buildings. Grading would also serve to bring land elevation similar to existing road grade.
4j. Please upload project drawings for the proposed project.
Engineers Wetland and Stream Impact Exhibits 9.24.2019.pdf 937.81KB
5. Jurisdictional Determinations
5a. Have the wetlands or streams been delineated on the propertyor proposed impact areas?*
r Yes r No C Unknown
Comments:
5b. If the Corps made a jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made?*
r^ Preliminary r Approved r Not Verified r^ Unknown r N/A
Corps AID Number:
5c. If 5a is yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Patrick Korn
Agency/Consultant Company: Terracon Consultants, Inc
Other:
SM. Jurisdictional determination upload
Beam Road AJD Determination Form 101619.pdf 7.72MB
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?*
r Yes C No
7b. If yes, explain.
The initial phase of construction would consist of constructing multiple warehouse buildings with an option to expand these warehouses as needed. The potential expansion area is
included in the proposed design.
Are any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or individual permits(s) used, or intended to be used, to authorize any part of the proposed project or related activity?
WA

[Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
la. Where are the impacts associated with your project? (check all that apply):
W Wetlands W Streams -tributaries
r Open Waters r Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
r Buffers
Reason (?) 2b. Impact type * (?) 2c. Type of W. * 2d. W. name * 2e. Forested* ��2f. Type of 2g. Impact
Jurisdicition*(?) area*
Wetland 177] [Parsl.,ng
IoUroad P Headwater Forest Wetland 1 Yes Corps 0.110
ing (acres)
2g. Total Temporary Wetland Impact
0.000
2g. Total Wetland Impact
0.110
2h. Comments:
WA
3. Stream Impacts
2g. Total Permanent Wetland Impact
0.110
❑ 3a. Reason for impact (?) 3b.lmpact type * 3c. Type of impact* 3d. S. name* 3e. Stream Type * 3f. Type of 3g. S. width * 3h. Impact
(?) Jurisdiction* length*
S1
Parking lot/road crossin 9
Permanent
Fill
RPW 1
Intermittent
Corps
2
Average (fee[)
135
(lir:ear feet)
g2
Parking lot/road crossing
Permanent
Fill
RPW 2
Intermittent
Corps
2
Average (feet)
153
(linear feet)
31. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square feet:
0
3i. Total permanent stream impacts: 3i. Total temporary stream impacts:
288 0
31. Total stream and ditch impacts:
288
3j. Comments:
WA
E. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing the project:
The chosen site was the only site that met economic, buildability, and safety criteria for the project. Once the site was chosen, alternative site designs
were evaluated to minimize impacts to wetlands and WOTUS. The current site configuration is the only layout that maintains economy of scale,
viability, and profitability for the proposed project.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques:
The selected contractor would implement best management practices during construction to reduce potential temporary, minor construction related
effects from the proposed project. These could include the use of silt fences, phased grading and earth moving activities, gravel and rocked
entrances to site, dust control, and the immediate application of seed and matting/straw upon completion of earth moving activities.
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?
F Yes r No
2c. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
r DWR W Corps
2d. If yes, which mitigation option(s) will be used for this project?
r Mitigation bank fJ Payment to in -lieu fee r Permittee Responsible
program Mitigation

4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
r Yes r No
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
(linear feet)
288
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWR only):
(square feet)
4f. Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
(acres)
0.11
4c. If using stream mitigation, what is the stream temperature:
warm
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
(acres)
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
(acres)
4h. Comments
WA
F. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWR)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
la. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
r Yes r No
If no, explain why:
The project is located in the Catawba Buffer Zone, but in not situated on the main stem lakes or river, so is not subject to NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules.
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. Is this a NCDOT project subject to compliance with NCDOT's Individual NPDES permit NCS000250?*
r Yes r No
2b. Does this project meet the requirements for low density projects as defined in 15A NCAC 02H .1003(2)?
r Yes r No
2c. Does this project have a stormwater management plan (SMP) reviewed and approved under a state stormwater program or state -approved local government stormwater
program?
r Yes r No
3. Stormwater Requirements
3a. Select whether a completed stormwater management plan (SMP) is included for review and approval or if calculations are provided to document the project will not cause
degradation of downstream surface waters.*
r Stormwater Management r Antidegradation
Plan Calculations
3b. Stormwater Management Plan
3c. Antidegradation Calculations:
BEAM ROAD WET POND HYDROGRAPHS.pdf 373.7KB
BEAM ROAD WET POND CALCS.pdf 194.82KB
Comments:
G. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation
la. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of public (federal/state) land?*
r Yes r No
2. Violations (DWR Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWR Water Quality Certification Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), or DWR Surface Water or Wetland Standards or
Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?*
r Yes r No
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWR Requirement)
3a. Will this project result in additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?*

C Yes r No
3b. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
Stormwater piping will be installed throughout the site to manage stormwater runoff. Runoff would be directed towards the on -site ebsting City of
Charlotte stormwater management pond where suspended solids would be allowed to settle and surface water pollutants would be allowed to volatilize
off the surface water. Piped stormwater will drain onto riprap aprons prior to collecting in the pond further reducing water velocity. Discharge from the
ebsting stormwater pond would be into a reinforced concrete pipe that daylights onto a riprap apron. Discharged stormwater pond flow would be to the
west and into a culverted and piped unnamed intermittent stream that flows to the south of the dam.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWR Requirement)
4a. Is sewage disposal required by DWR for this project?*
c Yes r No r N/A
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or habitat?
r Yes r No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act impacts?*
r Yes r No
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Asheville
Sd. Is another Federal agency involved?*
C Yes r No r Unknown
5e. Is this a DOT project located within Division's 1-8?
C Yes r No
Sf. Will you cut anytrees in order to conduct the work in waters of the U.S.?
r Yes r No
5g. Does this project involve bridge maintenance or removal?
r Yes r No
Sh. Does this project involve the construction/installation of a wind turbine(s)?*
r Yes r No
51. Does this project involve (1) blasting, and/or (2) other percussive activities that will be conducted by machines, such as jackhammers, mechanized pile drivers, etc.?
r Yes r No
5j. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat?
Terracon contacted the NCNHP and IPaC and requested a reviewfor of the proposed project site. In a response letters dated 09/11/19 and 9/25/19
respectively, NCNHP and IPaC stated that no threatened or endangered species epst for this location.
Consultation Documentation Upload
NCNHP.pdf 1.06MB
IPAC List Beam Road.pdf 718.33KB
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as an Essential Fish Habitat?*
r Yes r No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact an Essential Fish Habitat?*
Terracon reviewed the National Marine Fisheries Service Habitat Protection Mapper. No essential fish habitat were present for the proposed project
location.
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 status?*
r Yes r No
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?*
Terracon contacted the SHPO on 9/11/19 and requested a reviewfor of the proposed project. In a response letter dated 10/14/2019 the SHPO stated
that there were no historic resources present on the proposed project location. Terracon also conducted an online review using the NCHPO on line
mapper, there where no listings for the proposed area.
7c. Historic or Prehistoric Information Upload
SHPO response.pdf 95.61 KB
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain?*
r Yes r No

8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?*
Terracon reviewed the FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer for the proposed project. The NFHL indicates the proposed project location
is within an area of minimal flood hazard, Zone X
WIscel laneous
Comments
WA
Miscellaneous attachments not previously requested.
PCN Beam Road_print.pdf 455.87KB
Signature
W By checking the box and signing below, I certify that:
• I have given true, accurate, and complete information on this form;
• I agree that submission of this PCN form is a "transaction" subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");
• I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act');
• I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a written signature; AND
• I intend to electronically sign and submit the PCN form.
Full Name:
Patrick Korn
Signature
�PCIGG>`rrt.6��otw
Date
10/17/2019

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
TIM BAUMGARTNER
Director
Paul Seefried
Seefried Industrial Properties, Inc.
3333 Riverwood Parkway, Suite 200
Atlanta, GA 30339
Project: Beam Road Development
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
October 16, 2019
Expiration of Acceptance: 4/16/2020
County: Mecklenburg
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) is willing to
accept payment for compensatory mitigation for impacts associated with the above referenced project as
indicated in the table below. Please note that this decision does not assure that participation in the DMS in -
lieu fee mitigation program will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts.
It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact permitting agencies to determine if payment to the DMS will
be approved. You must also comply with all other state, federal or local government permits, regulations or
authorizations associated with the proposed activity including G.S. § 143-214.11.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not
received a copy of the issued 404 Permit/401 Certification within this time frame, this acceptance will
expire. It is the applicant's responsibility to send copies of the permits to DMS. Once DMS receives a copy
of the permit(s) an invoice will be issued based on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must
be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the in -lieu fee to be paid by an applicant is
calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed on the DMS website.
Based on the information supplied by you in your request to use the DMS, the impacts for which you are
requesting compensatory mitigation credit are summarized in the following table. The amount of mitigation
required and assigned to DMS for this impact is determined by permitting agencies and may exceed the
impact amounts shown below.
River Basin
Catawba
Catawba
Impact
03050103
Impact Type
Riparian Wetland
03050103 Warm Stream
Impact Quantity
0.11
288
*DMS proposes to utilize the Catawba 03 Expanded Service Area to meet the mitigation requirement.
Upon receipt of payment, DMS will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. The
mitigation will be performed in accordance with the In -Lieu Fee Program instrument dated July 28, 2010.
Thank you for your interest in the DMS in -lieu fee mitigation program. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at [phone].
cc: Patrick Korn, agent
Sincerely,
Ja eB Stanfill
Ass' anagement Supervisor
O, E
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
217 W. Junes Street 11652 Matt Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.107,8976

N
AW
low.
OF
X -311111110e. I
N
;000,ft9.
X
r`
s a
1
J
E
a
J
1
`EN.
�»
x
N
Y • r
A
r
�
—
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
Legend
Feet
0 200 400 800
.z
N 4 32�32` �34 1�OC�
33
10138
0 Parcel Boundary
'
. Charlo
X Points of Interest
DATASOURCES:
T (
ESRI WMS - World Aerial Imagery, OpenStreetMap
� ¢
i I
0 � ^''�r
Project No.: y
No.: 69 USGS Topographic Map Exhibit
4
Date:
Irerracon
4�
3 77
:
43� US 21
Jul2019
Drawn B y
Beam Road Warehouse
�r� =
TPo
2701 Westport Road
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC
Charlotte, NC 28208 A 1 N
r
© O,penStreetMap (and)
Reviewed By:
contributors, CC -BY -SA
JAR I PH. [phone]
terracon.com 2
z

10 �
ri
A iro^.
a
h
A, A
ip fit
r lk
F,
t
a
J
Project Manager:
Project No.
LEGEND:
Approximate site boundary
PRK
71197469
Irerracon
NRCS WEB SOIL SURVEY MAP
Exhibit
Drawn by:
Scale:
Beam Road Industrial Park
JCW
NTS
Indicates parcel Owned
Checked by:
File Name:
Exhibit 4
Beam Road at Westoak Drive
4
by the City Of Charlotte.
PRK
2701 Westport Road
Charlotte, North Carolina
pprovedby:
PRK I
Date:
September 2019
Charlotte, NC

MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI)
0
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special
Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
0
Landfill
A.
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
o
Sodic Spot
Soil Map —Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
MAP INFORMATION
Spoil Area
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Stony Spot
th
Very Stony Spot
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Wet Spot
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
4�
Other
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
Special Line Features
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Transportation
—
Rails
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
. 0
Interstate Highways
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
US Routes
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
Major Roads
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Local Roads
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
Background
Aerial Photography
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 17, Sep 10, 2018
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Apr 23, 2014—Nov
28, 2017
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 9/3/2019
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3

Soil Map —Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
CeB2
Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 8
224.8
66.9%
percent slopes, moderately
eroded
CeD2
Cecil sandy clay loam, 8 to 15
41.8
12.4%
percent slopes, moderately
eroded
MO
Monacan loam, 0 to 2 percent
2.0
0.6%
slopes, frequently flooded
PaE
Pacolet sandy loam, 15 to 25
58.7
17.5%
percent slopes
PaF
Pacolet sandy loam, 25 to 45
1.8
0.5%
percent slopes
W
Water
6.7
2.0%
Totals for Area of Interest
336.8
100.0%
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 9/3/2019
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3

Hydric Rating by Map Unit —Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
In in
In in
506100 506200 506300 506400 506500 506600 506700 506800
35° 11' 28" N \� 35° 11' 28" N
� y
+4■� + 'F
0. 1F
5� AIN
RA
�R K
Tot
- i
�; •I r ,f Ni
4
5
r
Soil Malvin not Ise valiel.at this scale.
350 10' 54" N - I - - 350 10' 54" N
506100 506200 506300 506400 506500 50660D 506700 506800
m
Map Scale: 1:5,140 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
Meters
$ N 0 50 100 200 300 $
Feet
0 200 400 �0 1200
Map projection: Web Mercator Conermordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 17N WGS84
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 9/3/2019
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 5

Hydric Rating by Map Unit —Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI)
0
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating
Polygons
W
Hydric (100%)
0
Hydric (66 to 99%)
0
Hydric (33 to 65%)
0
Hydric (1 to 32%)
0
Not Hydric (0%)
0
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating
Lines
~
Hydric (100%)
r 0
Hydric (66 to 99%)
r 0
Hydric (33 to 65%)
r 0
Hydric (1 to 32%)
r r
Not Hydric (0%)
r 0
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating
Points
Hydric (100%)
Hydric (66 to 99%)
0
Hydric (33 to 65%)
0
Hydric (1 to 32%)
Not Hydric (0%)
0
Not rated or not available
Water Features
x
Streams and Canals
Transportation
i--1-+ Rails
­0 Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
MAP INFORMATION
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 17, Sep 10, 2018
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Apr 23, 2014—Nov
28, 2017
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 9/3/2019
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 5

Hydric Rating by Map Unit —Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Hydric Rating by Map Unit
Map unit symbol
Map unit name
Rating
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
CeB2
Cecil sandy clay loam, 2
to 8 percent slopes,
moderately eroded
0
46.3
67.4%
PaE
Pacolet sandy loam, 15
to 25 percent slopes
0
20.1
29.3%
W
Water
0
2.2
3.3%
Totals for Area of Interest
68.6
100.0%
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 9/3/2019
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 5

Hydric Rating by Map Unit —Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Description
This rating indicates the percentage of map units that meets the criteria for hydric
soils. Map units are composed of one or more map unit components or soil
types, each of which is rated as hydric soil or not hydric. Map units that are made
up dominantly of hydric soils may have small areas of minor nonhydric
components in the higher positions on the landform, and map units that are made
up dominantly of nonhydric soils may have small areas of minor hydric
components in the lower positions on the landform. Each map unit is rated based
on its respective components and the percentage of each component within the
map unit.
The thematic map is color coded based on the composition of hydric
components. The five color classes are separated as 100 percent hydric
components, 66 to 99 percent hydric components, 33 to 65 percent hydric
components, 1 to 32 percent hydric components, and less than one percent
hydric components.
In Web Soil Survey, the Summary by Map Unit table that is displayed below the
map pane contains a column named 'Rating'. In this column the percentage of
each map unit that is classified as hydric is displayed.
Hydric soils are defined by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils
(NTCHS) as soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding
long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the
upper part (Federal Register, 1994). Under natural conditions, these soils are
either saturated or inundated long enough during the growing season to support
the growth and reproduction of hydrophytic vegetation.
The NTCHS definition identifies general soil properties that are associated with
wetness. In order to determine whether a specific soil is a hydric soil or nonhydric
soil, however, more specific information, such as information about the depth and
duration of the water table, is needed. Thus, criteria that identify those estimated
soil properties unique to hydric soils have been established (Federal Register,
2002). These criteria are used to identify map unit components that normally are
associated with wetlands. The criteria used are selected estimated soil properties
that are described in "Soil Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 1999) and "Keys to Soil
Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 2006) and in the "Soil Survey Manual" (Soil Survey
Division Staff, 1993).
If soils are wet enough for a long enough period of time to be considered hydric,
they should exhibit certain properties that can be easily observed in the field.
These visible properties are indicators of hydric soils. The indicators used to
make onsite determinations of hydric soils are specified in "Field Indicators of
Hydric Soils in the United States" (Hurt and Vasilas, 2006).
References:
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 9/3/2019
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 5

Hydric Rating by Map Unit —Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric
soils in the United States.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18.
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for
making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources
Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436.
Soil Survey Staff. 2006. Keys to soil taxonomy. 10th edition. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Rating Options
Aggregation Method: Percent Present
Component Percent Cutoff.- None Specified
Tie -break Rule: Lower
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 9/3/2019
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 5 of 5

EXIST.
PROPERTY
BOUNDARY
%
APPROX.
50.4 AC
'
FIELD LOCATED RPW 1
SEE SHEET 2
T
=1
PINE OAKS
DRIVE
FIELD LOCATED
RPW 2
SEE SHEET 3
CITY OF
CHARLOTTE
FIELD LOCATED
O
PIN:
143-122-19
WETLANDS 1
SEE SHEET 3
10,
/
�G 4
0
150 300 600
IN FEET
I inch = 300 ft.
KEY:
mill
SEEFRIED PROPERTIES
INTERMITTENT STREAM
IMPACTS
D
BNU RETRONN
BEAM ROAD
CHARLOTTE, NC
WETLANDS IMPACTS
°mom
,Ro,�NI" eEl
OVERALL WETLANDS EXHIBIT
WETLAND AND STREAM DELINEATION PROVIDED
BY TERRACON
019.]86.001
DATe
JULY 2019
09/24/2019
SHEET I OF 3

S`T / / \ \ qt
\�/PF,�0BERtYUNE\
z�
I I
I I I I I \
_ � �" w _ FIELD LOCATED RPW 1
�
_
(INTERMITTENT) AS `
ELINEATED BY TERRACON
\ ROJECT #71197469 DATED
JULY 2019
\ 135 LF OF PERMANENT
I i STREAM IMPACT
i 10.025 ACRES OF PERMANENT
IMPACT
` \ \EEC\f `��SANITARY 10.0 CY OF FILL
\S�ER LIN I I
I I I
II
\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ I II11 II ,1�11`\ \\ \ \ / I 1 I I II II
I I \\ r II�� IIIII \\ I \\
I
I I I\\\\
II I\\\\\\\ I
`,\�I\\\\\I
\ \ \ \ \ ^I I IR \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I I I I I I 1\I 'xis ^ \ \ \\ \ \ \\
\A1 \ \ \
\ \
lit \ \``\\\ \ 1 \\ \ \\ \t\ \ \\ \\ \ \\ \\ \
I \\ \ \\\ \\\ \\ \\\ \ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \ \I 111\Il\I \l IIIII\
\ \ \\ \\\ \\\\ \\ \I II II I Ij11111111i11I \ \ \
I \ III 01, \ \ \ u
I 11 II 11 11 1111111I11
II \I
1
\� \\
0 20 40 80
SEEFRIED PROPERTIES
KEY: `
( IN FEET) B U R T O N BEAM ROAD
N.
ENGINEERING CHARLOTTE, INC
INTERMITTENT STREAM I inch = 40 ft.
IMPACTS m'o oseaa
o,�N�MEER WETLANDS EXHIBIT 2
WETLANDS IMPACTS . 019.786.001 INTERMITTENT STREAM IMPACT RPW I
nre 09/24/2019 SHEET 2 OF 3

oil
/
T SANITARY
WER LINE
FIELD LOCATED RPW 2_
(INTERMITTENT) AS'
DELINEATED BY TERRACON-' \�
PROJECT #71197469 DATED
ill\
\I\\��/
153 LF OF PERMANENT' , ,"` \ ` %'�'^---/l-\ III
STREAM IMPACT/ / / j \I\ \\ \ \\\\
0.033 ACRES OF PERMANENT; l i l ' '�-�: - °''�_-__ EXIST. \�\\
IMPACT % l` l'-- a'j _, , j %'PROPERTY LINE
13.3 CY OF FILL�� /
/ S
OF
/QITY
° m HARLOTTE
: 143-122-19
EXISTING
STORM WATER
WET POND
FIELD LOCATED WETLANDS
AS DELINEATED BY
TERRACON PROJECT
\
#71197469 DATED JULY 2019 `
0.11 ACRES OF PERMANENf
IMPACT
44.4 CY OF FIL
0 50 100 200
SEEFRIED PROPERTIES
KEY:
( IN FEET) B U R T 0 N BEAM ROAD
EN CHARLOTTE, NC
INTERMITTENT STREAM I inch = 100 ft. J
—
°FARVEoRD100
IMPACTs nF"c °'° WETLANDS EXHIBIT 3
WETLANDS IMPACTS D OfECT o.. sc.00i INTERMITTENT STREAM IMPACT RPW 2
FIELD LOCATED WETLANDS IMPACT I
-F°"2"2°" SHEET 3 OF 3

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary Susi H. I Ia nilton
October 14, 2019
JC Weaver
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
2701 Westport Road
Charlotte, NC 28208
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Commercial Development, Beam Road & Westoak Drive, Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, ER 19-2777
Dear Mr. Weaver:
Thank you for your email of September 11, 2019, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
environmental.review&ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
tf,Ramona
Bartos, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

■ ■■■ Roy Cooper. Governor
ME NC DEPARTMENT OF Susi Hamilton, Secretary
women NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
0 son Walter Clark, director, Land and Water Stewardship
NCNHDE-10212
September 11, 2019
Katie Talavera
Environmental Services, Inc. (ESI)
4901 Trademark Drive
Raleigh, NC 27603
RE. 71197469, Beam
Dear Katie Talavera:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide
information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
Based on the project area mapped with your request, a query of the NCNHP database indicates that
there are no records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, and/or
conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary. Please note that although there
may be no documentation of natural heritage elements within the project boundary, it does not
imply or confirm their absence, the area may not have been surveyed. The results of this query
should not be substituted for field surveys where suitable habitat exists. In the event that rare
species are found within the project area, please contact the NCNHP so that we may update our
records.
The attached `Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that
have been documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these
records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area
if suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed areas within a one -mile
radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report.
If a Federally -listed species is found within the project area or is indicated within a one -mile radius of
the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for
guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here:
httr)s://www.fws.gov/offices/Directory/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation
planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria
for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published
without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information
source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission.
The NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a
Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Clean Water Management Trust Fund
easement, or Federally -listed species are documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance,
please contact Rodney A. Butler at rod nev.butlerWncdcr.gov or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
DEPAR71MENT OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOVRCES
Q 121 W. JONES STREET. RALEIGH. NC 27603 • 1651 MAIL SERVICE CENTER. RALEIGH. NC 27699
OFC 918.707.9120 • FAX [phone]

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
71197469
Project No. Beam
September 11, 2019
NCNHDE-10212
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic
EO ID
cientific Name
Common Name
Group
Observation
Date
Freshwater
13485
Lasmigona decorata
Carolina Heelsplitter
1918-Pre
Bivalve
Freshwater
7236
Lasmigona decorata
Carolina Heelsplitter
1880-Pre
Bivalve
Vascular Plant
13743
Delphinium exaltatum
Tall Larkspur
1800S
No Natural Areas are Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Element
Accuracy Federal State
Global
State
Occurrence
StatuStatus
Rank
Rank
RankL
AL III
X
3-Medium Endangered Endangered
G1
S1
X
3-Medium Endangered Endangered
G1
S1
Hi? 5-Very --- Endangered G3 S2
Low
Managed Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Name wner ier Type
Sugar Creek Greenway Mecklenburg County Local Government
Renaissance Park Mecklenburg County Local Government
Coffey Creek Greenway Mecklenburg County Local Government
Irwin Creek Greenway Mecklenburg County Local Government
Former Charlotte Correctional Center NC Department of Public Safety State
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at httr)s://ncnhde.natureserve.ora/content/heir). Data query generated on September]], 2019; source: NCNHP, Q3 Jul 2019.
Please resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 3

N C N H D E-10212 : 71197469
ntN Post Jameo -
r cyy N4° Pre-K
G =
q� L
Pon rlerosa Amay Jamez
9 I Wingate C�Parka
olley c
4 : 1
r d t
�� Pipar xn ?Greek
evru M m
" 4& oak N E q O /-
..<. r.0 L O of
oo Pl
rv+r°or y o
y =
F
�� O mot A•�y N rags v`
0
Q�R
M, e
E �2t.
ape Lake
0` v
..r �P\PrM c Qe9
...( ueY Point O` `Y
N r- Gro9ti Neam
�^ - Py4,iya�e=vim wuco me
e �`4 ` pax
f "'1r
Pax 4r
,Opton Gmr.n Pak r "Mer a
ri W E
Gor Coura
September 11, 2019
Project Boundary
Buffered Project Boundary
Managed Area (MAREA)
E
twy
oodrt �
P x'eV
a
� a
QT ,r
�a
'Po
Yorkmlamorial 4 `Vea�
5
York M1lamoral
Carrereiy
Yorkmont Park
�l
M1
1:25,185
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 mi
0 0.325 0.65 1.3 km
Sources' Esri, HERE, Garmia, Intermap, increment P Carp_, GEBCC,, USGS,
FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan,
METI, Esn China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS
User Community
Page 3 of 3

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801-1082
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/couMfr.html
In Reply Refer To: September 25, 2019
Consultation Code: 04EN1000-2019-SLI-0767
Event Code: 04EN1000-2019-E-01953
Project Name: Beam Road
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The attached species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as
well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your
proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. Although not required by
section 7, many agencies request species lists to start the informal consultation process and begin
their fulfillment of the requirements under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
This list, along with other helpful resources, is also available on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) Asheville Field Office's (AFO) website: https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/
cntylist/nc counties.html. The AFO website list includes "species of concern" species that could
potentially be placed on the federal list of threatened and endangered species in the future. Also
available are:
Design and Construction Recommendations
https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmis/project review/Recommendations.html
Optimal Survey Times for Federally Listed Plants
https://www.fws.gov/nc-es/plant/plant survey.html
Northern long-eared bat Guidance
https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmis/project review/NLEB in WNC.html
Predictive Habitat Model for Aquatic Species
https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmls/Maxent/Maxent.html

09/25/2019 Event Code: 04EN1000-2019-E-01953
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could require modifications of these lists.
Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act,
the accuracy of the species lists should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be
completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be
completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website or the AFO website (the AFO website dates each
county list with the day of the most recent update/change) at regular intervals during project
planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be
requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the
enclosed list or by going to the AFO website.
The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the
ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the
Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to
utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered
species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or
designated critical habitat.
A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having
similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)
(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a Biological
Evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may
affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended
contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12 and on our office's website
at https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmis/project review/assessment guidance.html.
If a Federal agency (or their non-federal representative) determines, based on the Biological
Assessment or Biological Evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be
affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to
50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species, and
proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the
regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license
applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: http://
www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF.
Though the bald eagle is no longer protected under the Endangered Species Act, please be aware
that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16
U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require additional consultation (see
https://www.fws.gov/southeast/our-services/permits/eagles/). Wind energy projects should follow
the wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to
migratory birds (including bald and golden eagles) and bats.
Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications
towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http://
www. fws. gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdlssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm;

09/25/2019 Event Code: 04EN1000-2019-E-01953
3
http://www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov/migratoI3Lbirds/CurrentBirdlssues/Hazards/
towers/comtow.html.
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages
Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project
planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in
the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project
that you submit to our office.
Attachment(s):
• Official Species List
• Migratory Birds
• Wetlands

09/25/2019 Event Code: 04EN1000-2019-E-01953
Official Species List
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".
This species list is provided by:
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801-1082
[phone]

09/25/2019 Event Code: 04EN1000-2019-E-01953 2
Project Summary
Consultation Code: 04EN1000-2019-SLI-0767
Event Code: 04EN1000-2019-E-01953
Project Name: Beam Road
Project Type: DEVELOPMENT
Project Description: Development of approximately 50-acres for commercial warehouse and
distribution facility.
Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:
www.google.com/maps/place/35.186216750540694N80.93000257347673W
i1M
Counties: Mecklenburg, NC

09/25/2019 Event Code: 04EN1000-2019-E-01953 3
Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 5 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species
list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA
Fisheriesi, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the
Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially
within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office
if you have questions.
NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an
office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
Mammals
NAME
STATUS
Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis
Threatened
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9045
Clams
NAME
STATUS
Carolina Heelsplitter Lasmigona decorata
Endangered
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3534

09/25/2019 Event Code: 04EN1000-2019-E-01953 4
Flowering Plants
NAM L- STATUS
Michaux's Sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5217
Schweinitz's Sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3849
Smooth Coneflower Echinacea laevigata Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3473
Critical habitats
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECTAREA UNDER THIS OFF ICE'S
JURISDICTION.

09/25/2019 Event Code: 04EN1000-2019-E-01953
Migratory Birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act! and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Actz.
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to
migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider
implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.
1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
3. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS
Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location.
To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see
the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that
every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders
and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data
mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For
projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative
occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional
information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory
bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found
below.
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures
to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE
SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and
breeding in your project area.
NAME
BREEDING
SEASON
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Breeds Sep 1 to
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention
Jul 31
because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types
of development or activities.
https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626
Blue -winged Warbler Vermivora pinus
Breeds May 1
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions
to Jun 30
(BCRs) in the continental USA

09/25/2019
Event Code: 04EN1000-2019-E-01953
BREEDING
NAME SEASON
Kentucky Warbler Oporornis formosus Breeds Apr 20
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA to Aug 20
and Alaska.
Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor Breeds May 1
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA to Jul 31
and Alaska.
Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea Breeds Apr 1 to
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA Jul 31
and Alaska.
Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
Probability Of Presence Summary
Breeds May 10
to Sep 10
Breeds
elsewhere
Breeds May 10
to Aug 31
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be
present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project
activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the
FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting
to interpret this report.
Probability of Presence (■)
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your
project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week
months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see
below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher
confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.
How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:
1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in
the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for
that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee

09/25/2019 Event Code: 04EN1000-2019-E-01953 3
was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is
0.25.
2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of
presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum
probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence
in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12
(0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on
week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.
3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical
conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the
probability of presence score.
Breeding Season( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time -frame inside which the bird breeds across
its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project
area.
Survey Effort (1)
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys
performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of
surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.
No Data (—)
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant
information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on
all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.
■ probability of presence breeding season I survey effort — no data
SPECIES
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL
AUG
SEP OCT NOV DEC
Bald Eagle
]111 JillJillJill JJ--
1—
-4-iij
—111 JillJiio
Non -BCC Vulnerable
Joll
n4-
Blue- inged
WarbBCC
++++ +++— — — — — ++'�
Jill
Jill
--�—
+---
—+-- ---+ +��+ +—++
-BCR
Kentucky
++++ +++— — — — — ++�I
lill
lill
lill
IIV
+-- ---+ +�—+ +—++
darbleer
BCC
Prairie Warbler ++++ +++— — — — — +,,, !1111 m""", 4-- —4 — — 4- 4-4- +—++
BCC —g—e (COI)

09/25/2019 Event Code: 04EN1000-2019-E-01953 4
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Prothonotary + ++ -- +� ���— �"""' +� +�— —�—+ +��+ +—++
Warbler +++
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Red-headed
Woodpecker
BCC Rangewide (COI)
Rusty Blackbird ++++ +++— �'�— ++++ ++-- — — — — +--- —+-- ---+ +—'+ +—++
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Wood Thrush ++++ +++— — — — — ++10 +�""""""' +-- ---+ +��+ +—++
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Additional information can be found using the following links:
• Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/
birds-of-conservation-concern.php
• Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds http://www.fws.gov/birds/
management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/
conservation-measures.php
• Nationwide conservation measures for birds http://www.fws.gov/migratoDLbirds/pdf/
irds/pdf/
management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasures. pdf
Migratory Birds FAQ
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts
to migratory birds.
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize
impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly
important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in
the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very
helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding
in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures and/or
permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of
infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.
What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified
location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern
BCC and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian
Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding-,
and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as
occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as
warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act

09/25/2019 Event Code: 04EN1000-2019-E-01953
5
requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or
development.
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your
project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list
of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the AKN Phenology Tool.
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds
potentially occurring in my specified location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data
provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing
collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets .
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information
becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and
how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me
about these graphs" link.
How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my
project area?
To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding,
wintering, migrating or year-round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab
of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or (if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of
interest there), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Neotropical Birds guide. If a bird on your
migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your
project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds
elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern
throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);
2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation
Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and
3. "Non -BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on
your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non -eagles)
potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities
(e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made,
in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC
species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can

09/25/2019 Event Code: 04EN1000-2019-E-01953 6
implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles,
please see the FAQs for these topics.
Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects
For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species
and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the
Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides
birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird
model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical
Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic
Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.
Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use
throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this
information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study
and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Lorin.
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid
violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.
Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report
The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of
birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for
identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC
use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be
aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that
overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look
carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no
data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey
effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In
contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of
certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for
identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might
be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you
know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement
conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities,
should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell
me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory
birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.

09/25/2019 Event Code: 04EN1000-2019-E-01953
Wetlands
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers District.
Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to
update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine
the actual extent of wetlands on site.
FRESHWATER FORESTED/SHRUB WETLAND
• PF01A
FRESHWATER POND
• PUBHh
RIVERINE
■ R.Sf TRH