20181608 Ver 1_PCN Form Submission_20181121

DWR
IDIOM n of Water Resources
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
September 29, 2018 Ver 3
tial 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?*
C Yes r No
Change only if needed.
BIMS # Assigned
20181608
Is a payment required for this project?*
r No payment required
r Fee received
r Fee needed - send electronic notification
Reviewing Office*
Mooresville Regional Office - [phone]
Information for Initial Review
1a. Name of project:
Piedmont Concord Lakes
1a. Who is the Primary Contact?*
Chris Tinklenberg
1b. Primary Contact Email:*
[e-mail]
Date Submitted
11/21/2018
Nearest Body of Water
OF to Cold Water Creek
Basin
Yadkin-PeeDee
Water Classification
C
Site Coordinates
Version# *
1
What amout is owed?*
r• $240.00
* $570.00
Select Project Reviewer*
Alan Johnson:eads\adjohnson1
1c. Primary Contact Phone:*
[phone]
Latitude: Longitude:
35.468358 -80.602637
AProcessing Information U
County (or Counties) where the project is located:
Cabarrus
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)
F- Regional General Permit (RGP)
F 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
F Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
F Individual Permit
29 - Residential Developments
r 401 Water Quality Certification - Express
r Riparian Buffer Authorization
1e. 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:
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
Piedmont Concord Lakes accept_20181120.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 r Applicant (other than owner)
1e. Is there an Agent/Consultant for this project?
r Yes r No
2. Owner Information
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
Carolina Development Services LLC
2b. Deed book and page no.:
Deed Reference: 7645, PG. 315
2c. Responsible party:
Johnathan McCall
2d. Address
Street Address
2649 Brekonridge Centre Dr.
Address Line 2
CKY
Monroe
Postal / Zip Cade
28110
2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2g. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
C. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Project Information
r Yes r No
r Yes r No
360.15KB
State / Rwince / fbgim
NC
Country
Cabarrus
2f. Fax Number:

1b. Subdivision name:
(d appropriate)
1c. Nearest municipality/ town:
Kannapolis
2. Project Identification
2a. Property Identification Number:
56222982940000
2c. Project Address
Street Address
Address Line 2
Cy
Postal / Zip Cade
3. Surface Waters
3a. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project:*
UT to Cold Water Creek
3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water:*
3c. What river basin(s) is your project located in?*
Yadkin-PeeDee
3d. Please provide the 12 -digit HUC in which the project is located.
03040105
4. Project Description and History
2b. Property size:
48.46
State / Rwinoe / legion
Gauntry
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 project corridor is located in the piedmont region of North Carolina. Topography is moderate within the project area
and roughly ranges from 700 to 750 feet in elevation (Figure 2; USGS).
The site is comprised mostly of undeveloped forested and open areas, with an abandoned single-family residence, and
multiple other associated detached buildings.
The project is located in the Yadkin Pee Dee River Basin. A field review by Kimley-Horn environmental scientists was
conducted on July 11, 2018. One (1) potential non -wetland water of the US (WoUS) and one (1) potential wetland WoUS
were identified within the project area.
Stream 1 is located along the western project boundary, flowing from north to south. Stream 1 enters the project area as
an intermittent stream and transitions to a perennial stream at approximately 543 If into the project area, where it
continues to flow south through the project area and offsite.
Wetland 1 is a non -riparian, freshwater emergent wetland, which eAsted historically as an open water pond. Based on
historic aerial imagery research, the pond dam appears to have been breached sometime between 2005 and 2006.
Currently, the dam continues to capture upslope drainage, possibly originating in residential areas to the north of the
project area. The area remains at least saturated for a long enough duration during the growing season to maintain an
emergent wetland community. The presence of the impoundment likely contributes to the absence of stream indicators
within the downslope drainage swale. This downslope drainage swale-feature is illustrated on the most recent version of
the USGS, however, no evidence of at least season flowwas observed and indicators of OHWM were largely absent
throughout. Organic debris and stems were also observed throughout the swale in the forested portion of the site, and
continuous bed and bank were not observed immediately below the breached pond dam or through other downslope
open areas.
Several prominent stormwater drainage features east within the project area, all originating near the northern site
boundary and continue southwest, downslope, towards Stream 1. These features lack stream indicators and evidence of
OHWM throughout the entire feature. Within the features, high amounts organic debris, such as pine needles and other
leaves were observed. Near the northern portion of the site, these features exhibit a defined bed and bank, most likely
due to the influx of concentrated stormwater runoff from offsite. As the features travel downslope, the bed and banks
quickly lose definition throughout forested hillslope and then regain little definition again shortly before their confluences
with Stream 1. No baseflow or pooled water were observed within the stormwater drainage features.
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 1/2X11 excerpt from the most recent version of the USGS topographic map indicating the location of the project site. (for DWR)
Concord Lakes_F ig2_USGS.pdf
1.34MB
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)
Concord Lakes_Fig3_SSURGOSoils.pdf 2.67MB
4f. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.208
4g. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property:
1,278
4h. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:*

The proposed project seeks to construct a new multi -use development, including associated parking, pedestrian
connections, and landscaping.
4i. Describe the overall project in detail, including indirect impacts and the type of equipment to be used:*
The proposed development project requires fill of 0.208 -acre of a non -riparian wetland for the purposes of site mass -grading.
Track hoes and other earth moving equipment is anticipated to be used
on this project.
4j. Please upload project drawings for the proposed project.
07_ConcordLakes Construction Dravdngs_11x17.pdf 20.24MB
07_Piedmont Concord Lake - Rezoning Site Plant lx17.pdf 453.1 KB
5. Jurisdictional Determinations
5a. Have the wetlands or streams been delineated on the property or proposed impact areas?*
r Yes r No r Unknown
Comments:
The delineation was conducted on July 11, 2018
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): Chris Tinklenberg, PWS
Agency/Consultant Company: Kimley-Horn
Other:
5d1. Jurisdictional determination upload
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?*
r Yes O No
7b. If yes, explain.
The project will be conducted in two phases. Phase I mass -grading includes wetland fill impact. No impacts associated with Phase II.
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?
D. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Where are the impacts associated with your project? (check all that apply):
W Wetlands r Streams -tributaries r Buffers
F Open Waters F Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
a. Site #* (?) 2a1 Reason (?) 2b. Impact type * (?) 2c. Type of W. * 2d. W. name * 2e. Forested * 2f. Type of 2g. Impact
Jurisdicition*(?) area*
_11
ite 1 Fill from mass gradingJP Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh Wetland 1 �Corps 0.208
(acres)
2g. Total Temporary Wetland Impact 2g. Total Permanent Wetland Impact
0.000 0.208
2g. Total Wetland Impact
0.208
2h. Comments:
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:
Avoidance and/or minimization of the on-site wetland is not feasible due to the mass -grading requirements on the site. This
impact is unavoidable, however, the on-site stream (Stream 1) has been avoided by the proposed development. Additionally,
a riparian buffer corridor will be maintained along the entire length of Stream 1.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques:
To prevent potential sedimentation of the avoided on-site stream, an approved sediment and erosion control plan is in place
and will be maintained throughout the life of the project. Upon completion of the project, all erosion control measures will be
removed.
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?
r Yes r No
2c. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
rJ DWR W Corps
2d. If yes, which mitigation option(s) will be used for this project?
F- Mitigation bank W Payment to in -lieu fee F 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)
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWR only):
(square feet)
4f. Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
(acres)
0.208
4h. Comments
4c. If using stream mitigation, what is the stream temperature:
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
(acres)
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
(acres)
6. Buffer mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWR
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires buffer mitigation? If yes, you must fill out this entire form - please contact DWR for more
information.
O Yes r No
F. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWR)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. 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:
Not identified within one of the 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
2d. Which of the following stormwater management program(s) apply:
V Local Government r State
Local Government Stormwater Programs
V Phase II r NSW f USMP r- Water Supply
Please identify which local government stormwater program you are using.
City of Kannapolis

Comments:
The project will be conducted in two phases and will provide a single BMP to serve the proposed phase I portion of the development.
G. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of public (federal/state) land?*
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)?*
f Yes r No
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWR Requirement)
3a. Will this project result in additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?*
r- Yes r No
3b. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
Surrounding property is already developed into residential areas.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWR Requirement)
4a. Is sewage disposal required by DWR for this project?*
r Yes r Nor N/A
4b. Describe, in detail, the treatment methods and dispositions (non -discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from the proposed project. If the wastewater will be treated
at a treatment plant, list the capacity available at that plant.
Proposed phase I will have standard gravity fed sewer discharge to public system.
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
5d. Is another Federal agency involved?*
r Yes r No r- Unknown
5e. Is this a DOT project located within Division's 1-8?
r Yes r No
5f. 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
5h. 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?
The project area and vicinity are not located in a Designated Critical Habitat. A reviewof the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program (NCNHP) database on November 14, 2018 did not indicate known occurrences of threatened or endangered species
within a 2 -mile radius of the proposed project. Potentially suitable habitat for SchweiniKs sunflower is present within the
project area, however, based on a pedestrian survey conducted on August 30, 2018 within areas of potentially suitable
habitat, no individuals of Schweinitts sunflower were observed. (See attached NCNHP Report.)
Consultation Documentation Upload
12_FWS_ConcordLakes.pdf 533.25KB
12_HPOWEB_SHPO_ConcordLakes.pdf 523.21 KB
12_IPaC_ConcordLakes.pdf 4.12MB
12_NCNHP_Concord Lakes.pdf 1.02MB
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?*
NCNHP element occurrence database did not indicate the presence of EFH Within the project boundary.
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?*
A reviewof the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) HPOWEB GIS Service on November 14, 2018
indicated that there were no properties currently listed or determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places within a one mile radius of the project. (See attached HPOWEB map.)
7c. Historic or Prehistoric Information Upload
12_HPOWEB_SHPO_ConcordLakes.pdf 523.21 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?*
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home - Firm Panel 5662
Miscellaneous
Comments
The compiled .pdf is included in hopes to prevent missing information. Additional information in the compiled .pdf not uploaded to this a-pcn include the following:
-ORM Data Entry for New Actions
-Cover Letter
-Project Summary Sheet
-Permit Figures
-PJD Request
-Field Data Forms
-Project Site Photographs
-DMS ILF Acceptance Letter
Please contact me if you have any questions or need anything else.
Thank you, -Chris
Miscellaneous attachments not previously requested.
00_Concordl-akes_Complete _FINAL.pdf 33.13MB
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:
Chris Tinklenberg
Signature
Sign
Date
11/21/2018

November 20, 2018

Johnathan McCall
Carolina Development Services, LLC
2649 Breckenridge Center Drive
Monroe, NC 28110 Expiration of Acceptance: 5/20/2019

Project: Piedmont Concord Lakes County: Cabarrus This is a conditional acceptance letter.
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 Impact Location
(8-digit HUC) Impact Type Impact Quantity
Yadkin 03040105 Non-Riparian Wetland 0.208

*DMS does not have non-riparian wetland credit available in this service area. In accordance with the
directive from the February 8, 2011 IRT meeting, non-riparian wetland impacts located in the mountains
and piedmont areas of North Carolina can be accepted as requested, but mitigated utilizing riparian
wetland mitigation credits. 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 and 15A NCAC 02B .0295 as applicable. 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]. Sincerely,

FOR James. B Stanfill
Asset Management Supervisor

cc: Chris Tinklenberg, agent
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/countyfr.html
In Reply Refer To:
Consultation Code: 04EN1000-2018-SLI-0572
Event Code: 04EN1000-2018-E-01533
Project Name: Concord Lakes

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/htmls/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/htmls/project_review/NLEB_in_WNC.html
Predictive Habitat Model for Aquatic Species
https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmls/Maxent/Maxent.html
July 03, 2018
07/03/2018 Event Code: 04EN1000-2018-E-01533   2

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/htmls/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://
07/03/2018 Event Code: 04EN1000-2018-E-01533   3

www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm;
http://www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/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
07/03/2018 Event Code: 04EN1000-2018-E-01533   1

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]
07/03/2018 Event Code: 04EN1000-2018-E-01533   2

Project Summary
Consultation Code:04EN1000-2018-SLI-0572
Event Code:04EN1000-2018-E-01533
Project Name:Concord Lakes
Project Type:DEVELOPMENT
Project Description:Development
Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://
www.google.com/maps/place/35.46797795871104N80.60209757755646W
Counties:Cabarrus, NC
07/03/2018 Event Code: 04EN1000-2018-E-01533   3

Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 3 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
Fisheries , 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.
1.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
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9045
Threatened
Clams
NAME STATUS
Carolina Heelsplitter Lasmigona decorata
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3534
Endangered
Flowering Plants
NAME STATUS
Schweinitz's Sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3849
Endangered
1
07/03/2018 Event Code: 04EN1000-2018-E-01533   4

Critical habitats
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.
07/03/2018 Event Code: 04EN1000-2018-E-01533   1

Migratory Birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act .
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
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention
because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types
of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626
Breeds Sep 1 to
Jul 31
Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
Breeds May 10
to Sep 10
1
2
07/03/2018 Event Code: 04EN1000-2018-E-01533   2

NAME
BREEDING
SEASON
Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
Breeds
elsewhere
Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
Breeds May 10
to Aug 31
Probability Of Presence Summary
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
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 ()
07/03/2018 Event Code: 04EN1000-2018-E-01533   3

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 ()
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.
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Bald Eagle
Non-BCC Vulnerable
Red-headed
Woodpecker
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Rusty Blackbird
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Wood Thrush
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/migratorybirds/pdf/
management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasures.pdf
Migratory Birds FAQ
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts
to migratory birds.
no data survey effort breeding season probability of presence
07/03/2018 Event Code: 04EN1000-2018-E-01533   4

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
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 E-bird Explore Data 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
07/03/2018 Event Code: 04EN1000-2018-E-01533   5

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
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 Loring.
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
07/03/2018 Event Code: 04EN1000-2018-E-01533   6

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.
07/03/2018 Event Code: 04EN1000-2018-E-01533   1

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 POND
▪PUBHh
RIVERINE
▪R4SBC
▪R5UBH
Concord Lakes
City of Charlotte, County of Cabarrus, State of North Carolina DOT,
Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, NGA, USGS
NR Points
NR Individual Listing
NR Listing, Gone
NRHD Center Point
NR Boundaries
National Register Boundary
Boundary of Destroyed/Removed NR Listing
SL Points
SL Individual Entry
SL and DOE entry
Study List Entry, Gone
SL and DOE, Gone
SLHD Center Point
July 3, 2018
0 0.25 0.50.13 mi
0 0.4 0.80.2 km
1:11,823
Concord Lakes
City of Charlotte, County of Cabarrus, State of North Carolina DOT,
Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, NGA, USGS
NR Points
NR Individual Listing
NR Listing, Gone
NRHD Center Point
NR Boundaries
National Register Boundary
Boundary of Destroyed/Removed NR Listing
SL Points
SL Individual Entry
SL and DOE entry
Study List Entry, Gone
SL and DOE, Gone
SLHD Center Point
July 3, 2018
0 0.25 0.50.13 mi
0 0.4 0.80.2 km
1:11,823
NCNHDE-6384
July 3, 2018
Chris Tinklenberg
Kimley-Horn
200 South Tryon St.
Charlotte, NC 28202
RE: Concord Lakes
Dear Chris Tinklenberg:
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:
https://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 [e-mail] or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Concord Lakes
July 3, 2018
NCNHDE-6384
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic
Group
EO ID Scientific Name Common Name Last
Observation
Date
Element
Occurrence
Rank
Accuracy Federal
Status
State
Status
Global
Rank
State
Rank
Vascular Plant 21130 Acmispon helleri Carolina Birdfoot-trefoil 1998-06-10 X?2-High ---Special
Concern
Vulnerable
G5T3 S3
No Natural Areas are Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
No Managed Areas are Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/help. Data query generated on July 3, 2018; source: NCNHP, Q2 April 2018. 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
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Page 3 of 3
±
0 1,000 2,000Feet
Figure 2: USGS Topo (Concord)Piedmont Concord Lakes Kannapolis, Cabarrus County, NCNovember 2018
Legend
Project Boundary
UV3
D a l e E a r n h a r d t B l v d
O p al StH o lla n d S t
Furman CtClemson CtFurman CtFlorida AveD a k o t a S t
C a l i f o r n i a S t
K a n s a s S t
T e n n e s s e e S t
Indiana St
R h o d e I sl a n d Av e
Unknow n Lake Concor
d RdY
o
s
t
A
v
eColiseum AveOnyx AveBernard AveConcord Lake RdCentergrove Rd
Jasper StCitadel CtLeroy StColiseum Ave
Unknown
Cambridge Dr
Concord Lake RdEnB
EoB
IdB
ChA
ChA
±
0 350 700Feet
Figure 3: SSURGO SoilsPiedmont Concord Lakes Kannapolis, Cabarrus County, NCNovember 2018
Le gend
Project Boundary
Hydric Rating
Not Hydric (0%)
Hydric (1 to 32%)