20201634 Ver 1_ePCN Application_20210104

DWR
mrlslon of Water Resources
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
October 26, 2020 Ver 3.3
Initial 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
20201634
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:
Water Oak Storm Drainage Improvement Project
1a. Who is the Primary Contact?*
Helen Simonson
1b. Primary Contact Email:*
[e-mail]
Date Submitted
1/4/2021
Nearest Body of Water
McMullen Creek
Basin
Catawba
Water Classification
C (11-137-9-5)
Site Coordinates
Latitude: Longitude:
35.178388-80.790811
Pre -Filing Meeting Information
ID#
20201634
Pre -fling Meeting or Request Date*
11 /19/2020
Attach documentation of Pre -Filing Meeting Request here:*
DWR Pre -Filing Meeting Request Form.pdf
Version#*
1
What amout is owed?*
r $240.00
r $570.00
Select Project Reviewer*
Alan Johnson:eads\adjohnson1
1c. Primary Contact Phone:*
[phone]
Version
1
52.88KB
A. Processing Information C^U
County (or Counties) where the project is located:
Mecklenburg

Is this a NCDMS Project
r Yes r No
Is this project a public transportation project?*
r Yes r No
la. 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)
Has this PCN previously been submitted?*
r Yes
r No
1b. What type(s) of permit(s) do you wish to seek authorization?
r Nationwide Permit (NWP)
W Regional General Permit (RGP)
r Standard (IP)
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
r Yes r No
Regional General Permit (RGP) Number: Other
RGP Numbers (for multiple RGPS):
2016-00163 (RGP 163)
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:
W 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular
r Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
r Individual Permit
le. Is this notification solely for the record because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWR401 Certification:
For the record only for Corps Permit:
r 401 Water Quality Certification - E)press
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
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
B. 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:
Storm Drainage easements owned by Charlotte/Mecklenburg Storm Water Services
2b. Deed book and page no.:
2c. Responsible party:
Charlotte Storm Water Services
2d.Address
*
r Yes r No
r Yes r No

Street Address
600 East Fourth Street
Address tine 2
City
Charlotte
Postal / Zip Code
28202
2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2g. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
3. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
3a. Name:
Charlotte Storm Water Services
3b. Business Name:
3c.Address
Street Address
600 East Fourth Street
Address tine 2
City
Charlotte
Postal / Zip Code
28202
3d. Telephone Number:
[phone]
3f. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
4. Agent/Consultant (if applicable)
4a. Name:
D. David Homans
4b. Business Name:
S&ME, Inc.
4c.Address
Street Address
9751 Southern Pine Blvd.
Address Line 2
City
Charlotte
Postal / Zip Cide
28273
4d. Telephone Number:
[phone]
4f. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Agent Authorization Letter*
AgentAuthNote.pdf
C. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Project Information
1b. Subdivision name:
(i appropriate)
1c. Nearest municipality/ town:
Charlotte
2. Project Identification
State / Rwince / Rion
NC
Country
USA
2f. Fax Number:
Slate / Rwince / tllegion
NC
Country
USA
3e. Fax Number:
State / Rwince / Pegion
NC
Country
USA
4e. Fax Number:
70.82KB

2a. Property Identification Number:
Multiple CSWS Easements
2c. Project Address
Street Address
Water Oak Rd / Stafford Cr / Emory Ln / Addison Dr
Address Line 2
City
Charlotte
Postal / Zip Code
28211
3. Surface Waters
3a. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project:*
McMullen Creek
3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water:*
C (11-137-9-5)
3c. What river basin(s) is your project located in?*
Catawba
3d. Please provide the 12-digit HUC in which the project is located.
030501030106
4. Project Description and History
2b. Property size:
1.63 acres (Project Area involving JD
Features)
State / Province / Region
NC
Country
USA
4a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinityof the project at the time of this application:*
The project watershed is an urban / suburban residential neighborhood (Cotswold) made up primarily of single family homes as well as the Cortland Cotswold multi -family apartment
community. Project disturbance areas are located within roadside and residential lawn areas, as well as within small wooded fringe areas dominated by invasive vegetation.
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)
2_usgstopo.pdf
1.01 MB
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)
3_soils.pdf 908.61 KB
4f. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.071 acres in Project Area
4g. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property:
793 LF (94 intermittent, 699 perennial) in Project Area
4h. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:*
The purpose of the project is to upgrade wasting undersized and degraded stormwater infrastructure with structures that are compliant with current engineering requirements. Upgrades
will also address roadway flooding concerns and improve channel conditions in channels that are currently experiencing excessive erosion and threatening adjacent buildings. Channel
will also be daylighted to generate stream habitat along areas where piping was no longer deemed necessary. Please see attached Impact Table for further discussion of project
purpose for individual impact areas.
41. Describe the overall project in detail, including indirect impacts and the type of equipment to be used:*
Please see attached Impact Table for detailed discussion of project impacts to jurisdictional waters. In addition to the the project activities involving jurisdictional features detailed in the
Impact Table, the project will include upgrades to the wasting piped system running between Water Oak Rd. and Walker Rd. (see Plan Sheets 6 through 12) and along Stafford Cr.
(Plan Sheet 16) and Addison Drive (Plan Sheets 14 and 15). As the project is improving existing infrastructure, no indirect impacts are likely to occur. Typical construction equipment
and techniques are to be used, including dump trucks, excavators, trench boxes, etc.
4j. Please upload project drawings for the proposed project.
WaterOakPlanSet_99% Submittal_2020-09-25.pdf 35.57MB
Impactmapping.pdf 7.7MB
5. Jurisdictional Determinations
Sa. Have the wetlands or streams been delineated on the property or proposed impact areas?*
r Yes r No r Unknown
Comments:
JD was performed by D. Homers in November, 2020
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): D. David Homans
Agency/Consultant Company: S&ME Inc.
Other:
5d1. Jurisdictional determination upload
JDParts.pdf 3.15MB
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?*
f^ Yes r No
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 projector related activity?
D. 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 Buffers
r Open Waters r Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
r
Reason (?) 2b. Impact type * M 2c. Type of W. 2d. W. name * 2e. Forested * 2f. Type of 2g. Impact
Jurisdicition*(?) area*
WX01 channel dredging ��P Headwater Forest Wetland A Both 0.071
(acres)
2g. Total Temporary Wetland Impact
0.000
2g. Total Wetland Impact
0.071
2h. Comments:
See attached Impact Table
3. Stream Impacts
2g. Total Permanent Wetland Impact
0.071
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
stabilization
Tem orar
P Y
Stabilization
Stream 1
Intermittent
Both
2
64
Average (feet)
(lir�rfeet)
3Y
riprap apron
Permanent
Rip Rap Fill
Stream 1
Perennial
Both
4
10
Average (feet)
(lir�rfeel)
S3
construction disturbance
Tem orar
P Y
Stabilization
Stream 1
Perennial
Both
10
15
Average (feet)
(linearfeet)
S4
bank grading, riprap refresh
Permanent
Rip Rap Fill
Stream 1
Perennial
Both
12
22
Average (feet)
(linearfeet)
S5
bank grading / matting
Temporary
Bank Stabilization J
Stream 1
Perennial
Both
7
397
Average (feet)
(linearfeet)
S6
riprap apron / newuffall
Permanent
Rip Rap Fill
Stream 2
Intermittent
Both
4
13
Average (feet)
(linearfeet)
S7
riprap stabilization at ouffall
P P
Permanent
—]
Bank Stabilization
Stream 1
Perennial
Both
8
8
Average (feet)
(linearfeet)
SS
bank grading / vane
9 9
Tem orar
P Y
Stabilization
Stream 1
Perennial
Both
8
54
installation
Average (feet)
(liriearfeet)
gg
7P6aLcS daylighting*no
Permanent
Other
Stream
Perennial
Both
1Average
0(linea
(fee)
fcet)
S10
stabilize former outfall
Permanent
Stabilization
Stream 3
Perennial
Both
13
17
Average (feet)
(lin�rfeet)

S11 outfall stabilization Permanent Stabilization Stream 3 Perennial Both 26 11
Average (feet) (linearfeet)
31. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square feet:
3i. Total permanent stream impacts:
81
3i. Total stream and ditch impacts:
611
3i. Total temporary stream impacts:
530
3j. Comments:
See attached Impact Table for more detailed enumeration. 56 LF of permanent impact will not result in the loss of channel bed (bank stabilization,
etc.). Only 23 LF of permanent channel loss is proposed. Daylighting (SX09) will result in the addition of 176 LF of channel and grading within Wetland
A (WX01) will result in the addition of 130 LF of defined channel.
E. Impact Justification and Mitigation U
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing the project:
Revisions to design plans were made to reduce the extent of riprap fill shown in stream beds. Riprap aprons have been limited to the extent required
for stabilization, and frequently are in locations where riprap is already present. Where possible, natural channel design techniques have been used
for bank and channel grade stabilization.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques:
During construction, appropriate sediment and erosion control practices equaling those outlined in the most recent version of the "North Carolina
Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual" will be used to minimize impacts to the stream. Temporary coffer dams and a pump-
arounds will be used so that work will be performed "in -the -dry".
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
2b. If this project DOES NOT require Compensatory Mitigation, explain why:
The proposed project is expected to increase waters and improve the functional values of the waters present. Permanent loss of channel (23 LF) is substantially exceeded by additional
channel that is daylighted (176 LF). Wetland losses are also minimal (less than 1/10th of an acre) and will result in the addition of functional channel; therefore they would not be
considered a loss of waters requiring mitigation. Impacted features have been evaluated with the NC WAM and INC SAM and are considered to have low functional ratings (forms
included in attached JD information).
I F. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWR) u
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:
Catawba basin buffers only apply to the main channel of the Catawba River.
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 15ANCAC 02H .1003(2)?
r Yes r No
Comments:
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?*
r Yes
r No
u
1b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State (North Carolina)
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?*
r Yes
r No
Comments:*
Project is a local municipal stormwater improvement project that is not state funded and thus exempt from NEPA/SEPA.

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 21-1.1300), 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?*
r Yes r No
3b. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
The project is located in a fully built -out urban area and is upgrading extsting infrastructure; as such it will not increase capacity in a way that could
result in additional development.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWR Requirement)
4a. Is sewage disposal required by DWR for this project?*
r Yes r No r WA
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?
(- Yes r No
5f. Will you cut any trees 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
5i. 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?
USFWS IPaC report and NCNHP report. No extant element occurrences of federally protected species have been recorded within a mile of the project
site. Habitat present at the site (wooded urban lots, heavily maintained urban yards, riparian areas dominated by invasive vegetation) is not consistent
with the acceptable habitat for the federally protected plant species that might be present in the project vicinity and no protected plant species or
potential habitat was observed by S&ME biologists during field visits. Proposed clearing for the project is minimal and any disruption of northern long
eared bat would be exempt from ESA protection under the 4D rule.
Consultation Documentation Upload
NCNHP_project_report_water_oak_storm_drainage.pdf 1.08MB
Species List Asheville Ecological Services Field Office.pdf 779.53KB
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?*
NOAA Essential Fish Habitat Mapper: https://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper/
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?*
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office HPOWEB GIS Service : http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpov4eb/
No federally recognize historic properties are located within the project vicinity.
7c. Historic or Prehistoric Information Upload

HPOWEB.pdf 481.4KB
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year flood plain?"
r Yes r No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
Project is being undertaken by the local agency responsible for flood mitigation (Charlotte Storm Water Services) and has been designed explicitly for
the sake of flood alleviation.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) GIS data for Mecklenburg County.
Miscellaneous
Comments
See attached Impact Table for a clear explanation of the proposed project impacts, as well as for representative photos of project impact areas. Impacted jurisdictional features scored a
low rating on functional assessments (SAM/WAM).
Miscellaneous attachments not previously requested.
photos.pdf
Impact Table.pdf
2.6MB
104.27KB
Signature u
fJ By checking the box and signing below, I certify that:
• The project proponent hereby certifies that all information contained herein is true, accurate, and complete to the best of my knoWedge and belief; and
The project proponent hereby requests that the certifying authority review and take action on this CWA 401 certification request within the applicable reasonable period of time.
• 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:
Helen Simonson, PWS
Signature
Helen .F�+o�rsasr, phis
Date
1 /4/2021

Memorandum
To: USACE / NCDWR
From: Dave Homans
Cc: Helen Simonson, City of Charlotte
Date: December 10, 2020
Subject: Water Oak SDIP Agent Authorization / Responsibility
Regarding agent authorization for this project:
S&ME has been contracted by the Charlotte Storm Water Services (CSWS) to assist in the preparation of the
preconstruction notification and agency consultation. Though S&ME is functioning as a consultant on this project,
we are not operating as a signatory agent, and actual document submittal will be conducted by Helen Simonson
of CSWS, the responsible party for the project. Therefore, formal Agent Authorization for S&ME is not required.
Thank you.
D. David Homans
Project Scientist
1

S h
6d IND EPENDp,
a
l
r✓
-
Al
a q Bdhngs ille
sch
Oakhurst
..,
Stearn Arad
c
C r F, -
O D v .N
f /SgLf WP �P
BJLLlNGS(F✓ R'J Z 6FP'
tR
-
a
R ando
Q /
MidS
k •'
C. rt _ PF-
- 'D -„ \ . i McClintock
q
Mid Sch
.r,.oRc` Cotw—id
E ',
x
O OR
_ _ N - _- ' 4Elem Sch :,-1:n,ti-a
--
p y0 Llirvu.m
C ---
I's'13
X
t
P, V1FRf GP
L I' ✓F, {:OOA. tZ�fF
l ti�U1,1
4k
a
p SairtGabriel - x
Rama Road
ElemSch gQ
`�Q
y Catholic sth
V
PEE
l\�
v��i O�cC ���� EpVE
U _ 4 y 4VpN PERwOpi1'l
RdtL
Ojl
O �t
� � _ "` •� T
m z a
� m c
b c4t
Pr ovrdenie �s'
9
D.r, sdrLl
N
F
0 2,000 4,000°s
-
o
5 (FEET)
z r
s REFERENCE: USGS TOPO USA STREAMING DATASET
a BASE MAPPING OBTAINED FROM ESRI / THE NATIONAL MAP. THIS MAP IS FOR
INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. ALL FEATURE LOCATIONS DISPLAYED ARE APPROXIMATED.
©APPROXIMATE PROJECT WATERSHED
THEY ARE NOT BASED ON CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION, UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE.
0
SCALE:
FIGURE NO.
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
1 r = 2,000 r
DATE:
2
I I
12-10-20
PROJECT NUMBER
WATER OAK STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
CHARLOTTE, MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
4335-20-083

f - - r —
— �. ,n,_c+�t • . IY {'- - t.. , ail_-'—, .\-�F--a`--- __.
PROP: Do - - - - - STREAM ASSESSMENT POINT _
- - - - - _ = T _- -- - - — EXISTING CULVERTS
r
�REPLA� 49 LP -.. � ._ .. - yam^.' �.: � �k
K. OI SEWER PIPE: _ -
50.k =
Wrrt-pF nol< Road
WATtER,OAK RD F , RETAIN = EXISTING STREAM BANKS
- n` - 1 - - ----NON-JURISDICTIONAL DRAINAGE _
- REPncF28LF - _ _ _ _ - - _ JURISDICTIONAL STREAM (INTERMITTENT)
of CDOC 2 �..., 1 - \
f' CURB ay OUTTIF— - - -- Er -; raE - — --
CL _— sue; >--- JURISDICTIONAL STREAM (PERENNIAL)
LIII REPLACE lO SY of c.CNC.RrT1 S-E WAIN-
ry'� PERMANENT IMPACT (LOSS OF CHANNEL BED)
P Cr CONCRETE RET
RELCkYAIR RAM° I --
o = EE 5AoE,NALK RAMP ORTAIL TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACTS
SEES STREAM IMPACT SX01
" PROJECT AREAS INVOLVING JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES
�L �
A.64 LF of Temporary Impact to Stream 1
MN5 AA*«� Due to channel stabalization with natural channel
design; regrading, matting, and installation of cross - - z
(_0I ,r„ vanes to prevent erosion and property damage 4 J Q
J '
UQ f , - (See Plan Sheet 20) 1- LU
z
_ Headcut origin I `I O O
U
Z (REMOtiEi INSTALL UVE ' I o_ <
4 STAKES. TEMP ARY Q (n Q
K yI w I - MnmNi;, AND -'r ,� Np a'0°' n. / C ~
f %EVNC. SEE 5 E5 q_otl ..l_
s 01 FOR OETAfL. - saoa Pc �sT 1 I _ U z =
J '.
c
W �
w o
RETAIN REt�4N �•�, •:. i z �j' t • ,
�\ w� nE� 0 z
oa rsa. 1/
¢ fAAB -.� j dWG I-�1 Cisuf
a } ca H
STRUy`,i Her cc
SEE CE
reuPOR �, caNTxc -_ ucr w O
SEi SnEF.'S -p2- '-�o eci,
EASE
FROP A: : r; 9 _ - r ^� X ZCl:f �
JJ
LU
rti� a' �• +{Ut'4 • • .� ,. p r. -,° is �'[ I� , -I. co
uf U
Ira 4
O
S2� 'o -}ram •jc — i_�,.��''i ` �< `I Q Q
ram' �. r�• ., l �'S:` .xl. - / _ ,�
/ f \
ciJ _
LLJ 0 l
STREAM IMPACT SX02 z
J „ J
10 LF of Permanent Impact
_ (Loss of Channel Bed) to Stream 1 _
Due to installation of riprap apron _ SCALE:
W (See Plan Sheet 19) 1 " = 40 '
DATE:
12-22-20
PROJECT NUMBER
c
4335-20-083
t
FIGURE NO.
REFERENCE: 2019 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
GIS BASE LAYERS WERE OBTAINED FROM MECKLENBURG COUNTY. TWO FOOT CONTOURS WERE DERIVED FROM 2017 t • 1''
LIDAR DATA. THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. ALL FEATURE LOCATIONS DISPLAYED ARE 0 40
APPROXIMATED. THEY ARE NOT BASED ON CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION, UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE. cr „� _ - /� ��'-\
c _.

ny STREAM ASSESSMENT POINT
�a�. UPLAND DATA POINT
"JI 'e�'i1y r WETLAND DATA POINT
_ 1 � III
EXISTING CULVERTS
EXISTING STREAM BANKS
JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND
JURISDICTIONAL STREAM (INTERMITTENT)
>--- JURISDICTIONAL STREAM (PERENNIAL)
'd STREAM IMPACT SXx PERMANENT IMPACT (LOSS OF CHANNEL BED)
— ,
— PERMANENT IMPACT NO LOSS OF CHANNEL BED
15 LF of Temporary Impacts to Stream 1
Due to disturbance and minor bank grading WETLAND IMPACT WX01 TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACTS
associated with installation of new headwall 0.071 Acres of Permanant Impact (Dredge) to Wetland A
j PROJECT AREAS INVOLVING JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES U z_
1V11 ai. oo � W
(See Plan Sheet 05) Due to channel dredging to reestabish
e p r WETLAND IMPACT o 0 0
NIala I� `'{ w $ k channel habitat and add additional flow capacity- \ Xuf
Rx
Will result in the addition of 130 LF of stream channel \
(See Plan Sheets 05 and 17) STREAM IMPACT SX06 :- U ,z
13 LF of Permanent Impact "eoNH— - w O
(Loss of Channel Bed) to Stream 2 Y o 0O
Due to installation of riprap apron ,3"h1V3N ' e�2 " N3ac
(See Plan Sheet 17)
w O
o
— -3- -- - ---- ------ ,-----
- n - -- -
690---� La La,� iIvBa _s Cif Q
i ---- Y w smo rowQu l7
iy a 1 WA -- - A♦ 4!'.�._=s-.-� `� S;IB,_
LU
�-,�I �Ha _♦7 � _ �� � ��♦ I __ � 1 � Chi �
I LU
C)Ld
Cis
a
ww �
iin3a "� Le �Ns 33s %m n L 5l 1d3 l QL c cc+r^. �..-3 S '=,�s- w
rvYiNv,W A 9Nu1sk AN O !. 40"A art . ?tviikl Z3NNYN� �'� WNYfI - - t �y
�m SJ 93AQM3�/ �rvrn, av 38J U
NIGHT HERON LN �p a] STREAM IMPACT SX04
owa 22 LF of Permanent Impact (No Loss of
a } a Channel Bed) to Stream 1
�w STREAM IMPACT SX05 `
�o Due to bank grading and installation / refresh �n 397 LF of Temporary Impact to Stream 1
of riprap apron in existing riprap fill area Due to bank grading /matting for improved
p (See Plan Sheet 05) stabilization and additional flow capacity Rr`
z (See Plan Sheet 17)
SCALE:
z I y 1, =50
DATE:
f 12-22-20
n 1 5 •'' PROJECT NUMBER
• 4335-20-083
FIGURE NO.
REFERENCE: 2019 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
GIS BASE LAYERS WERE OBTAINED FROM MECKLENBURG COUNTY. TWO FOOT CONTOURS WERE DERIVED FROM 2017 + l
LIDAR DATA. THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. ALL FEATURE LOCATIONS DISPLAYED ARE 0 50 100 ?'
APPROXIMATED. THEY ARE NOT BASED ON CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION, UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE. (FEET) ,

N� =t EXISTING CULVERTS
�.; EXISTING STREAM BANKS
f >--- JURISDICTIONAL STREAM (PERENNIAL) —
6 �= jIII - i _
DAYLIGHTING
_ PERMANENT IMPACT (NO LOSS OF CHANNEL BED)
47 Bd 7�
Qu` �� •�v TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACTS
STREAM IMPACT SX08 *:•y
s �� PROJECT AREAS INVOLVING JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES
: 54 LF of Temporary Impacts to Stream 1 9�•
.ydSLr �+C4� = _ �� Due to bank grading and installation of _,, ,y10
jy
cross vane and base flow diversion bench ' � - Wyk3. n ' 1
f ni +rr (See Plan Sheet 04)
STREAM IMPACT SX09
}
< *;�*r
176 LF of New Bed Created Along Stream 1 ,
` r Due to daylighting of previously piped system U z
(former piped system to be removed)
�>'--->--tom �. �'• �;
- �'►>� '�' aK�"�u ,r ` �`�� (See Plan Sheet 04) uf uf
I/er.4o#'# gas,/ ��'r.. E �, , ,e ...a.,...r.- .,�,•..,,.Y•..� emu. } ' x <.. ; . L}_ � Z
0-4
uf
STAFFOR'D �� � , ,� �, ..k� , , .,� � ...,,-,,.,"„"„•,�.,..,..,... .......-��-•-,•�`- . ~�.�,,.�.,..,.., r, ; `: U � �
r t «ate iw—, U
�i:l� r� �a,} +,;'. �' - ....+..y.S"`..:'"..,,...-... �! N •,-..« , tit ..,?R{ 41 '`¢,. _.Y i ♦ '' '1:.' /'1 I1 Z
Ld
SJ Z*t ♦ O
'QO►a '�.. � ♦ Q Q
�: ♦., _
�`�i• STREAM IMPACT SX10
17 LF of Permanent Impact (No Loss of
Channel Bed) to Stream 3
Due to installation of riprap bank SCALE:
stabilization at location of former outfall x` 1 " - 30 '
_ (See Plan Sheet 04) DATE:
12-22-20
a: PROJECT NUMBER
s�9 4335-20-083
i' FIGURE NO.
REFERENCE: 2019 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
GIS BASE LAYERS WERE OBTAINED FROM MECKLENBURG COUNTY. TWO FOOT CONTOURS WERE DERIVED FROM 2017
LIDAR DATA. THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. ALL FEATURE LOCATIONS DISPLAYED ARE 0 30 60 0.
APPROXIMATED. THEY ARE NOT BASED ON CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION, UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE. (FEET)

ZZ PROJECT AREAS INVOLVING JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES
r ti r ;L •"
EXISTING CULVERTS
IW
A 3L3.+.1403 30 9 EXISTING STREAM BANKSIII E
+ % >--- JURISDICTIONAL STREAM (PERENNIAL)
ur� �I�71
~ z3J�� RW10 �S 4> PERMANENT IMPACT (NO LOSS OF CHANNEL BED)
SNV `VA
\ D d3�1'
,J S ,�S
ti b� y O cn
1 \ �0 = oR,, o O `gyp �''d• \ `
STREAM IMPACT SX07
8 LF of Permanent Impact (No Loss ofO
Channel Bed) to Stream 1
Due to installation of ri ra stabilization along banks 0" .P + `"�`'���,N ti�;�,a S� p •O� �� o�° �` �n \
riprap g
at upgraded outfall (no riprap fill in bed of stream) p�yO�y f� �d� J� �,\ 190 S Q
(See Plan Sheet 16) S Nli xG- t fvv' '/J 6, N S :. \ �t� b�� \ \ U z_
�\Lu
ST ; uf uf
fr c �O�i�, 6 0. \ \ \ \ ,.
Q
�'� ♦� )I 3dA1 LOCONr 4v \ \ ULU
AS QLr1 \ a \ \ 2
,I. ss'W-'0. 14�' C\ \ti��do� \. C% 0
W rZ w
42L 1 :\� O o Q
' STREAM IMPACT SX11 Z �' I �d 1 \,' \ z
%., 31 *1 11 LF of Permanent Impact (No Loss of ) \ o w
P \ et A
a r 3�6+3N w
�-_ l Channel Bed) to Stream 3 `� 9 l Q. 2
N-"LLI.5'KL! Due to installation of riprap bank o {co �\ �\ O w
=_
* stabilization at new outfall
. ' `1 �3� (See Plan Sheet 13)`p�G Q
Ld
LIC'i}a �1 w Q
S 0 rJ. 1
R'K S:7D j] (i� �, * w �' p�flE o o���' ci
6a e
' n Sri
it b'13 �` _ 4 Mo !* O
�'1�'4,tfSr y `� �\l'
1
1 ` i SCALE:
Ji cx DATE:
12-10-20
Y / PROJECT NUMBER
'c• �' 1 4335-20-083
1
FIGURE NO.
REFERENCE: 2019 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH %' ♦ 1, • �' 1
GIS BASE LAYERS WERE OBTAINED FROM MECKLENBURG COUNTY. TWO FOOT CONTOURS WERE DERIVED FROM 2017 1
LIDAR DATA. THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. ALL FEATURE LOCATIONS DISPLAYED ARE 020— 40 Q
�' APPROXIMATED. THEY ARE NOT BASED ON CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION, UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE. (FEET) 1 v

51�77i
ej
FST, IM �"1!7 ;-Ifm I 1�1 il "1 1 1917 F V 9 -0.!V 11 il Mr - -7 1! T
;A I- NI MAW
p

6. Streamside Areaffa itb-at4-fsfxeavmsi*threfaimgethtion is less than 1 foot
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
VEUTATI&(Four-Strata) -Use scientific, -names of, plants.
®B ®B
Tree (Pi si
e
1. Ulmus ru ra
2. t
3. infni
4. rhai
5
Moderate evidence of
W)ns,
tion Sampling Point: UM
ng, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affec
i0 bR @r14>�k�throu,ggh streamside area
Arf1' �qm� Ybj; ii ito ditching])
I_ _ jAWrtidal zone acres:
(811s till sMeam nV9ion
zone access [examples
or assessment ream) is
7 Water 11@ @MgMUMN��itY3-B 1i1�1�sljfis�
6. a thbi*19119 .,id G&R ,�it l �jeReFalper . F :" 33.101. (A/B)
7. I -IA DisW"t{jNW14 I ®�wM f� foam)
�MrbwLy
®B Ex yi r I° C vrn)r Multiply by:
❑C Not �e i� � �n g s ���� s . i I�roe❑D Od # 44
�'c e Lt t#�II� t)1 5
Sap ji (lllShrubCStr �gdi� �( i�tj�{��aj pq�te�rq�lj ]jr� gel hf �p �e in "NA�s/Sketch
1. Ltr.��• (c leterminat•on Of •Urjsd jonal a Igatjc reg&Mes, (2% TwdppIjcant3has the< 3 = 90
2 nr; Exi:2 I� d�cce tp ing the terms an is� of thapermit4 = en
3. ❑H remelt 658
4. :I ift N�r'b �e iPr iffer rho& dakgondbws; ((A) the 308 (B)
PA '5. p I a the right to request an individual permit rather tharp,@ &iWethedgrEts 9.62
86. Recent
�J@.F@F."im
ig e3r is considered <
7. drou ht. r O d tt ins Vegetation
6. ❑A Drdta i r�r{� _ d rl l ofni i t �4�gt �k k79VV"§n�ereQt%P,§ -. S
9 r ��It IP�iP3ll�revaelenegnders �SI�ject
t �JL77CU s' U "e li ant' c tan e
s-- oT' Pal�ove 4 - N`�1c�r o ogicalSA�ap 21oons (Provide supporting
9. Large or Da e6f�sll eAdnt-rasp a erml{ authorizati I r
g ° =6*RqVrqW4
ciat r�ar`�sr� ea sP2 arate sheet). .
❑Yes ENndivild �Qi� 0 �(gtf inrils ft�sr j rface Condition).
Herb Stratum P P ti ro i tion� (Explain)
1n--�rtn-��ir Ilsoad>7 ezenshii1tttes agreement th t-al+ a���i �u� s� irk �
1. yg j -Ig thaWbfi, t�hka&* �digdleggw ilw
2. Carex 1urida D ff i I r 4cand snagging
3. Ohiopogon spr anfnrr. man ar. inn1Znr inoa �! ar�in's �p rn aalsk gpmrYev>,tisnot(ity:
4. 10b. Check*( M
�e 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
LJAu i e a ua i acr a n a ua is mpS s t
5. aS I r 015 a C E e I �rdless of
6. ®B arfUdu(iiQl #biai�tl3�l ct�e rmi/6 e6%f t�id w ° r i er i' ubt�f0le Yp atively
7. a �ftursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. 111 r
` I it I Its exclhuding vines, less
8. ISZIn b r a in r del at o i� 0 or equal to 3.28 ft
9. jurj,SMfik t@tavosrr��IwAicdrpgrwtcps In the review r�' ' fllt0 provide an official
10. N E delliftaticmWilarisdIctiona aq�lc resources jn t�vj \f4A6'q,Il fcPSQP(rWLoody) plants, regardless
** ****************prQ a* I 1G t MARS
here ma e wa e S O e i t o �PI n i tt 4te
r ")than 3.28 ft in
11. Bedform an u to - sass ant r ach . f I c s6 i 4 oas a a n TTT
e n su ect�r I entl le I a py#6a ures In review
11 a. ❑Yes 0�° ofdal_ cov °_df fp 1 ov rr.
Wood Vine Stratar o atZ r%1CS{7
1. ,gt .e . or UDnCt7e>rk-the a�ro��ox(es). Yes FWaU
Ic_n in ccr4inn lnvalia4n 41C�
2. WisteRBinensiRool-glide section (evaluate 11d) 15 Yes UPL
3. Vitis difoliaNatural bedform absent (skip to WWc 12, Aq�799c Life) FAC
4. 1A�pJtapAEbrW0j9WcGh#§k all that occur below$he normal tatted periUWer of the assessment reach - whether or not submerged
5 L;neCK at leastone 13ox in each row SKIP Tor iz7e 4 Coasfal a�fre s and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP)
_ G&R; EE) s/o,,- „da8t( )Hydr60ff)ft?6, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative
percentages should not exceed 100% for ead"asses_fn*CWaeh. Vegetation
NP R 50°/Pof total Aver: R® 20% of total cover: 16 Present? Yes X No X
Remarks: ®Iclude p®to numt0e s here rc[ bn
a seQa ate she€toulder (256 - 4096 mm)
®
❑
®
❑
❑
Cobble (64 - 256 mm)
®
❑
®
❑
❑
Gravel (2 - 64 mm)
❑
®
®
❑
❑
Sand (.062 - 2 mm)
❑
❑
®
®
❑
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
Detritus
❑
❑
®
®
❑
Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes
❑No
Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

12. AAquAdILTfwtudSb&wW et-reastsomtrit4sAap:(=diideirh%tri h Streams)
12a. big ft@m e4VhsqAr%hd_ktr@@ffi*ArRWft @g@I4@§rhMgYf er169fi@d mfl@d6rtb@cdwh n@ht9@pm@mftlt?area landscape
SOIL f o�s�1 �11ol�arvtgth �?aitt�l t!dsMetOottBQe®Nat1 bTe®4bd*Committee for Hyd amoils g4idagce for.,,,,,,
Depth
(inch
0-8 ❑ t' E
' A
t+ J3
4 +" A
❑ B
nmp
Lns: M Loamy/Clayey
xa" for Size 3 Aeams.
concentrations
Prominent redox concentrations
c
ck a (8fc6jjgl%_f%lf) 6fgh4)-p.aJ13c?eRgl6i SPr discharges (Sub).
mp es s c r nc� �,g�r t�ic n un r run s orage an , e c.
f Su
ega �r I C �mylr�� ll�e r 78
e o. (MOP t i •
I InU tlanrl and ctrp..,; but not nvarwhalming tha
1
Type: C ncent d Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric S .. ndic� ala a rs tad o Ts.
o en{�a oue min e tr�a�-.t,i}�n-er�t capacity of the wetland ((water discoloration, ea vege a ion excess iv
Histosa�ll (A1) 4 � W fell l�l�w Surface (S8) (MLRA'147, 148) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
— tone y`Iarvae
_Histic ipedo Thin D r S rf ce SIN LRA 147, 148) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
gg U W@h ca rv^e� ciro�o c "� a, h
�la�u tad �n GIs effort with field 1MMA71 Mticler sources
_ H dr I I h 1� and ,t1, t @ t s (Fig)
a �ecf d� th�ei as�sea $ml�n area q��MaF�,e Yers
on i er s ra e c i wrt re p�C� flow and.0 Ian
A 8TW&Prgi ) e wd t n or gionsg c�%8�e t wide in M1k'N�F�2g� ecoregio�i.
cai� quaff' n e:
X L%pl EW—i ark rfac ( 01). De I ted Dark Surface (F7) (outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
'f g 11 �1ea lb�yat�F/ •� t � Rhallnnt rlgrk Ri irfgra (F77)
B B o date<' I Pale, a ca it ov j r ty�off the streamsHem
<r y � r rle� 4i " ma c1�T 4i#rctP�f�14� r�Fa� afR I{ 'ar4khes, fill, sc
San( �C�le a V� ri J r1monngs, pipes.
n< F�F r >- 20% coverage ( e ) a
e o i�°1 Indi rs ofh dro is v et tion a d
I S$€'re �ejktr� 1RQa liQ o' r 51ze'1 ShYeams, Tidal Marsha. reamsy alfS va�l t es�
— f )cM Banle(ip�, @I e
—IBrk Ff B "7{) r^ P✓LFti19M rfXil hE@f2%M�L@rAtJRc1i jdWt&8P7af ffic*Nty may
^� YI'I Qi` CV'CY'!C^l`YI Y4'I V4•V1'IWgYRI'QY'IR'WIVtl4 Y4K'IIYI VFII�GtlLII`I'y°l C"Q SJ�J'�IY'I'CHY meat'
e _ IVe rI M Wd 8ilIia I �9ftt$gns able to pond w ter 3 to 6(i idakrGeodetic Vertical Datum of
Rer(�ah%ider fRlstt l4 ��@�d 11 ��i�d i� w�ma#la sgl &1�ar�fat l�#r si r3�artravi##�tf��tla�n rT
wetted peril{�,e jgf�ggnp�c`g/s;(§�r�p�gCR}�Fy�}(i( }4pI ee�.b�ufff rr ha
($ ee pmo�v(e�d oprnd(i j$t�l �{r�b}pd.
LB 7b. 'F40WimuCf OFl2'fTtSSJV'fCE[Tr0111TfT�`pBR�SW213T1q'?'DE`3Ci1piD7C'SRCUICI17�S212CteQ7C1TCC�l2.ccffcr+ivcl�l}gccthahiiffar
❑Y ❑YA > Mtlia,�n{ds present in the streamside area?
®N ®r❑F �td %%% t}ion (please specify):
16. Baseflow C&ntri&df&s15 tis`SA4ffr�nt reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check alL t s i uvdgtetf(m klrf8lrfiogft h1"no*snwbwQWJI
oB7c.­11- r risdictional
I.W❑C ` fovZ AMflbt I'6W*ow pef S srJaRPl� ra��@ tY �Ei aver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, wei
®D 7d. ff0d&g6%c6f ft i3�ta ���s �)IA�� ' � i i�al at /open water?
®E 9trbed olHBank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F 7e.dgyeo�r open water sheltered or exposed?
. Sheltered - adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
17. §ht-wfl ac.
Check all
�A Wet f; v9tifRara�K4>��I��SirFL �f f^U�iaRii14�fVlation)
❑g Che Ifs ild )�ibc�riit�ditl4 i t dam, sediment deposit)
®C and bt l:ftg ��at&-qbJ gt'ler&@dYser Manual TE �r VR'EDo� iss obtaining
®D WT Evi ce that the streamside area has been modified resulting in reach
❑E r AAsCeAmer#}@@dRgtelocated to valley edge
❑F r B Node bf thLFW%4 to < 100 feet
C r C From 50 to < 80 feet
18. Sha ' %- asstssn 1gTq gggY pii0r,(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
ConEoe� aspect Cga�gyoegdlji�*gp"f@@pdition.
®A F-�ea am category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
❑B its fF6 §6 requestor to return signed PJD forms. If the requestor does not respond
❑C f- ea�es4 -A@@ram IRWW *@"6ict may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is
necessary prior to finalizing an action.
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

9. In d ion uratioq — assessm nt r � c nd��t��on tric
19. BuffeA�oree����ea�Iach��f Tidff
al'arsh Streams)
ConVAr "v � �� "dui iori�i �f i ct3�r irSi ydf jeft bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to th"st blPOnce of saturation, without evidence of inundation
VBge Rt E %f long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
DA 100satoratDOsition? of the watershed
®B Bider �nt ipositiorFcWg *tplahtlQO)fdbt-okidedeposition).
❑CtEYG SOQeEfpositiE�OgbWdQc(�,,f&keALWid%pproximatelynatural levels.
®D t ElD SOd IAer:RpositiEi Ogla 9�i&63,Q)fft Wfarwhelming the wetland.
❑E rZbz- S0lipeEfipositi6nlig bM" 2b6%ttRWwheIming the wetland.
20. BA.11[fgIVSl4€ Wm@e-sJl' 11AtmntrWd1*11)(woW illRbMmi0i&treams)
ConsWmfcar heft baPhJLBOdmahrightAwska(RB) 46orM,ettiddl9 #WR*etaUedPhkdWilddAhJ@tes three aspects of the wetland area: the
LB size fflhe wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
❑A Mane See MOUE-I09MMal for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
®B WT ®E*/C Npyr WWOrA6WQgy vegetation or modified vegetation structure
❑C - -- A ❑� A I-*Kace@WW%OL4ion with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D , -- B ❑P-- B Wietain it*to < 500 acres
❑ E , -- C ❑ F C LMIfLor r1q YM99d4Q-n 100 acres
21. BuffC-Pires 66 — Qr6m4BffAar� Prrha&& ip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
CheCk ch aee��f
pri9te%ox&Pf6r16'R � M� and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is wit�inF30 sfe§m (<F e p &lk 1)(99een 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If noneof the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: ❑
_
Abuts h { <I30 f6etl rrsIy_ 6ngb" i acre
LB 1_Rb -LIB qd FrEg 0.'Jg < 0.5 acre
❑A A {* nA (C]A Fr 0." < 0.1 F%W crops
®B CM f-[IB C6 < M aOErass"gqj%I�Wfuipfclear-cut
Hg andftcin-w
tj:LQr — we> d co)d� �e�I �Ve s use b�",,gylture
a full nt _ 0 /" o egG aFlte� �a rS e.
22. Stem 3@nsitq iliOfOOK ffifdbremit(Aiff for mwwl mafp oars)
WROWAROJ RPSi B96AWK WgRiU QR8ded" Buffer Width).
L 13a. eck arQo kr
iate p es�Qa box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
❑AIuate Wh� i og"I iPARRUnnected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
®B ric na yrvail veme a%sd Xre and open wa er (if a ro ri to . Boundaries are f rmed b fo r-lane roads, regularly maintained utility
❑C o ooc� n n n 1�an er or �rec orr�inaFi FieFreIceous sgeFde or are roianci g y y
e corri ors t e wi h gtaa our- ane Ava or wider, ur an an scapes, ie spas ure den and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
23. Conti nui"lVe 11 Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider a 6ther(_ve2etatbh6%%f re% continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB R13B k— B From 100 to < 500 acres
®A ®,AG CTGe toEablerftltcoi HdJfrdDmaks is < 25 percent.
❑B ®ED (7De toFabIan1*hoof5ffftTbveaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
®C 0E (7 ie totan lbagAtbsof buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
g e P F . Wetl1pnd A�e�as a spoor �r. no
conpn ctiglp to o er wtgtaeamspts
24. Ve etative om osition — s rea A e are me nc skA or A al are
EvaluV4-&4�18R%N MrbRPAYthin 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment kPAK—hh&tat. Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
la Ed fect — etland type condition metric (s ' for all. marshes r o t cies,
LLJJ Mag Ive a9�>Pfyii frt'c�ea r7' �srfPat'c�i4ar�dlt�r@ 9�AiRfj�to �aftVfi@fa�dsPNtiRca�g@� I?iglu
non -Wed ayy�'Aq 30 Y is S�icy����ss� alas �s4 � �i ,�"Fgads re Iarl aintained u Alit ling orrid r nd c ear -cuts.
❑B Ve�efation An is s disfur ancb in ems o� specibs iverysi y or proponioXs, eu� is s�i largely composed of native
Con er the ei main p s o e comp ss.
e ie � is intc1 .8 dcommunities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
k— A No arti i iaFedS wi in IWfee m a irec Aons
a m %tie with o ati a in Ave s ecJ pre ent but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
B No artiFGl$i�ngei p�A�ti� Ass
i r �1 j pi;IFiii��L�����i efesns P1�1
®C f* C❑ �n artivegetailon Is severeIy dis Ur a In elms 1 `s'pe I s r �versll y�'rOfproportions. r a ure canopy is absent or communities
15. Vegetative CoWiib9Rhbflatigysj@?AlILt�t�o�@RitS>a�5i�i1`Rf (31%5g�rf1t11trgF�@>�FEASit communities composed of planted
`A Vegetaiifc4�fts�rr�i€Jfclif�6iiPss�bC�iE��Ii�PIW�EP�FiMdrS�nl�@rang@i��i@pyetation.
25. Conductivitfpe�s�e�tiFe�trls9EEfiilSea� �iiaaE��iit
e on i f f i i s diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
25a.fi
es ��i F ig RR
PeTb ��
If No, s��� �SstR tI�ebn l�ce ��&pities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
c Baring. It also inc u es ommunitiexotics present, bu expected strata.
25b. (I&-ck (planted stands of non -
❑A (4h4lacteristE]f�ec4&oA�a6Zast onEDCCatdW to il7r8priately®idipUdo6fZ50ngle sWFes)? 2)Vic species are dominant in
at least one stratum.
NoteslSkeWgetative Diversity— assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
[3 >i(efl(5aandrf� 1&��11 tind SX02.
k B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
f* C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (>50% cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure —assessment are diWgt18Aqy� MnilNS#ffleRting Sheet
17a. Is vegetation present? Accompanies User Manual Version 1
f+ Yes k` No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c
for non -marsh wetlands.
Stream Site Name rc9akA®61?vegetation Date of Assessment 11/6/2020
k` B < 25% coverage of vegetation D. David
Homans, S&ME
Stream Category Pb2 Assessor Name/Organization
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the meld for non -marsh wetlands.
Consider structure
in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
Notes of Field Asses4snent.VP%rm /N) YES
a A `. ano ed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps assoc�l processes
Presence of reyula4rg co{nsrgera • •resent, but
ano y opened more than natural gaps
Additional stregm iEVoEna r�lsupeMOWI$gfjptp§ggqR?ents included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM featuLe tyeAper vial, dense mecpstoryry,,al n rT yertream) IiFterermttExht
k` B k` B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
f+ C f+ C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent USACE/
NCDWR
k— A FuE!S%on @ Molq,§Nmmary All Streams
Intermittent
k— B (1 )(Hy0rolUMerate density shrub layer LOW
LOW
U) f+ C f+ q2) 4f]4;yer sparse or absent MEDIUM
MEDIUM
f+ A f+ F(2) FEJeoebFFie* layer LOW
LOW
k` B k` B M"r A�W
89*� Arttenuation MM EDW
MEDIUM
` C` C Herb layerqprloodp�ain �ccess MEDIAIM
MEDIUM
18. Snags —wetland type condition mW%ooded Riparian Buffer MEDWM
MEDIUM
k` A Large snags (more than r one1 isible �> 12-in hes DBH, or large relatives
(crotoograp�iy
NA
stability).
f+ B Not A
(3) Stream Stability LOW
LOW
• •
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetl d e co rtrRR����l1nnetric
MEDIUM
k` A Majority of canopy trees have ��i�5frit�iameter at breast height (iy i=
hes DBH) are
present. (4) Sediment Transport MEDWM
LOW
k B Majority of canopy trees hav�q�Sftbffi"NA&Wes DBH, few are MWVaWPBI-
MEDIUM
f+ C Majority of canopy tre E§Tre<a-m/mte1faaH�rO�i� tlrWaction NA
NA
20. Large Woody Debris — wetl jp� LtMR@ifiR gNgritiifflgtr&v NA
NA
Include both natural debris a I ed ral de s
�� MFarsb�i re1�m lability. NA
`
NA
A Large logs (more tha ne� are visa e > inc es in diameter, or large relaeo-spcsies
cape stability).
f+ B Not A (3) Tidal arsh Channel Stability NA
NA
21. Vegetation) 3) Ti I sh tream omor to(ev
NA
ater
Marsh only) (1) Water Quality LOW
LOW
Select the figure that b(Q t Besuromthe amount of interspersion between vegetation WtF5ID#Wwati
MEDIUM
eason. Patterned
areas indicate vegetatio)adRgaM i18(sgkFwdht)�eq�RibVicate pen water. MEDIUM_
MEDIUM
k— A _ (3) Up�and Pollutant Filtration C MEPW
MEDIUM
(3)m Fhbr oregulation
HIGH
(2) indicators oy'SJt es6ors .VMS
NO
(2) Atpatic Li6_llerahce �] OV1h
NA
L.
(2) Intertidal oie.R[Vati,
NA
22. Hydrologic Coin*d"OL assessment area condition metric (evaluate for ripaANQWI&ds
MEDIUM
Examples of activitiel2f 4hrggt§pyV@brt@lter hydrologic connectivity include intgylg MM
LOW
ditching, fill, sedimentation,��r�l, diversion, man-made berms, beaver s
` A Overbank and overla low are not severely altered in the assessment area.
MEDIUM
k` B Overbank flow is sevgrr))%%OOWrthe assessment area. MEDWM
LOW
k` C Overland flow is seveft3ttemchiiStabd4essment area. MEDWM
MEDIUM
f+ D Both overbank and o\ ffJq dsf{p&fffRgb(ftrSJy altered in the assessment are+AEDWM
LOW
Notes (2) Stream -side Habitat MB®ISM
HIGH
Wetland was impacted primarily b oS KdWygglbigyq§6glegetation, sanitary sewer withigEot", an
MEDIUM trol maintained / altered
rHh the tland.was within 50 feet of an open HIGH suffer wetland as it was
by stormwater infrastructure. Q7)fkeeraferdrTyrea9ouall'Termthat it had �....__ _^� to the
downslope the to the
of open water and extent
pond. (2) Tidarsh In -stream Habitat NA
nection upslope
NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA NA
(2) Intertidal Zone NA NA
Overall LOW LOW

Wetland Site Name
Wetland Type
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Water Oak SDIP
Headwater Forest
Date 5/7/2020
Assessor Name/Organization D. Homans, S&ME
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function
Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat
Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Habitat
Conditon
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

Pre -Construction Notification
Water Oak Storm Drainage Improvement Project
Charlotte, North Carolina
4
S&ME Project No. 4335-20-083
December 10, 2020

q
n14-440
if s�a 1 I 11".- i'"'-...
i w-
E
PAS'
Y ski"' i6Y�
r

�f i
�,-�
� t.� •I: ,fir
4 i

` /
\\
_ /51
.;�,.
6^
, [
�
2
\
/
�
Location Z Orientation S oelooking ups rem
Remarks ye of perched outlll origin of Stream

477 r t
max. • � •;�_a1E �� � � 4 . .� �
0 Aid-
-2f
} .:
1
sY �,

IMPACT TABLE
Impacts
Water Oak SDIP
4335-20-083
U.
v
J
�
..�
c
r
N N
J
�.
o
LL
Z
N
a
f0
i
Impact
JD Feature
Plan
L_
�v
�
LL
LJ Q
c
Impact Description
Purpose / Need
Number
Name
Sheet
c
a
v m
c
v
.
E
M '0
E o
E
M S
N i
v
a
a
u
� C
Channel improvements and minor
The channel is actively degrading which has resulted
channel relocation using natural
in substantial erosion along the left back and
channel design, including the
threatens the foundation of an adjacent residence.
SX01
Stream 1
20
64
installation of cross vanes for
The channel transitions from a non jurisdictional
vertical grade transitions, and bank
riprap-lined feature to a jurisdictional channel within
grading and matting
the improvement area.
Installation of riprap apron
The existing pipe system was causing driveway
downstream of upgraded pipe
flooding and did not meet current engineering
SX02
Stream 1
19
10
system
standards. The riprap apron was reduced to the
minimum amount needed to limit the potential for
channel degradation.
Construction disturbance and minor
An existing undersized 30" RCP is being replaced with
bank tie-in associated with the
dual 42" and 48" culverts which necessitates the
SX03
Stream 1
5
15
installation of a new headwall
installation of a headwall and tying the headwall into
existing channel banks.
Bank widening / grading and
The pipe system that currently runs between Water
installation / refresh of a riprap
Oak Rd. and Walker Rd. is being shifted to outfall
apron in an area with existing riprap
downstream of Sharon Amity Rd., rather than into the
SX04
Stream 1
5
22
fill
undersized system running under the apartment
complex (which outfalls to Stream 2). This requires
additional stream stabilization and additional stream
capacity.

IMPACT TABLE
Impacts
Water Oak SDIP
4335-20-083
U.
v
J
�
..�
c
r
N N
J
�.
o
LL
Z
N
a
f0
i
Impact
JD Feature
Plan
L_
�v
�
LL
Li Q
c
Impact Description
Purpose / Need
Number
Name
Sheet
c
a
v m
c
v
.
E
M '0
E o
E
M S
N i
v
a
a
u
� C
Bank grading, matting and seeding
Bank grading is proposed in areas where banks are
for improved stabilization and
currently unstable, and also to increase channel flow
SX05
Stream 1
17
397
additional flow capacity
capacity where storm outfalls have been shifted
upstream.
Installation of riprap apron
Currently, the outfall into Stream 2 is very perched
and actively degrading the channel. A manhole and
SX06
Stream 2
17
13
new outfall will be installed to eliminate this perching,
and a riprap apron will be installed to dissipate storm
flows and discourage further downcutting.
Installation of riprap stabilization
In order to dissipate storm flows at the outfall of an
along banks at upgraded outfall (no
upgraded storm system, riprap stabilization will be
SX07
Stream 1
16
8
riprap fill in bed of stream)
installed along the bank containing the outfall pipe,
as well as on the opposite bank. Riprap will not be
added to the bed of the stream.
Bank grading and installation of
In order to alleviate road flooding at Emory Ln., an
cross vane and base flow diversion
undersized pipe system is being replaced with a
bench (natural channel design)
double 5'X7' and 3'X7' box culvert. The lowering of
the inlet invert requires the installation of a cross
SX08
Stream 1
4
54
vane for effective grade transition. Additionally, a
diversion berm will be installed to direct flow at the
lower -elevation culvert and the channel will be
widened to properly transition into the new culvert.

IMPACT TABLE
Impacts
Water Oak SDIP
4335-20-083
U.
v
J
�
..�
c
r
N N
J
�.
o
LL
Z
N
a
f0
i
Q
Impact
JD Feature
Plan
L_
�v
as LL
�
c
Impact Description
Purpose / Need
Number
Name
Sheet
c
a
v m
c
v
.
E
M '0
E o
E
a
M S
N i
L.
v
L.a
u
� C
Daylighting of previously piped
As the existing pipe system is undersized and no
system (former piped system to be
longer necessary due to floodplain buy-outs in the
SX09
Stream 1
4
176
removed)
area, the culvert under Emory lane is now proposed
to outfall into a daylighted section of channel. The
existing pipe system will be removed.
Installation of riprap bank
Riprap is proposed to stabilize backfill that will be
SX10
Stream 3
4
17
stabilization at location of removed
placed in the location of the former pipe outfall.
outfall on the right bank
Installation of riprap bank
The new outfall is proposed to redirect and reduce
stabilization at new outfall
flow in an existing undersized storm system located
SX11
Stream 3
13
11
along Addison Drive while helping to alleviate road
flooding in the area.
Dredging / excavation of a channel
Excessive sedimentation and associated vegetation
within the wetland in order to
growth within Stream 1 has resulted in the formation
reestablish channel habitat
of Wetland A, where a clear central channel is no
WX01
Wetland A
5 & 17
130
0.07
longer present. Dredging of this sediment is
necessary to properly transition from modified
upstream grades, as well as to increase channel
capacity where storm system outfalls have been
Totals 1 530 1 58 1 23 1 306 10.07 1

■ ■■■ Roy Cooper. Governor
00 0 NC DEPARTMENT OF Susi Hamilton, Secretary
■■L■■ NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
IN won Walter Clark, Director, Land and Water Stewardship
NCNHDE-13456
December 8, 2020
Ashley Bentz
S&ME, Inc.
3201 Spring Forest Road
Raleigh, NC 27616
RE. Water Oak Storm Drainage Improvement Project
Dear Ashley Bentz.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide
information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
A query of the NCNHP database indicates that there are records for rare species, important natural
communities, natural areas, and/or conservation/managed areas within the proposed project
boundary. These results are presented in the attached `Documented Occurrences' tables and map.
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 documented within the project area or 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.
Also please note that 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 an occurrence of a Federally -listed species is 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 rodney.butlerLncdcr.gov or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOVRCES
121 W. JONES STREET. RALEIGH. NC 27603 • 16S1 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH. NC 27699
& OFC g19.707.9120 • FAX [phone]

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Intersecting the Project Area
Water Oak Storm Drainage Improvement Project
December 8, 2020
NCNHDE-13456
Element Occurrences Documented Within Project Area
Group
Bird 32260 Nyctanassa violacea
Name Las Element
Observation Occurrence
Ne
Date Rank
Yellow -crowned Night- 2008 C?
Heron
No Natural Areas are Documented within the Project Area
Managed Areas Documented Within Project Area
'accuracy Federal State
Status Status
3-Medium --- Significantly
Rare
Global State
Rank Rank
G5 S2B
Managed Area Name Owner Owner Type
Mecklenburg County Open Space - McMullen Creek Mecklenburg County Local Government
Greenway
Mecklenburg County Open Space Mecklenburg County Local Government
NOTE: If the proposed project intersects with a conservation/managed area, please contact the landowner directly for additional information. If the project intersects with a Dedicated Nature Preserve
(DNP), Registered Natural Heritage Area (RHA), or Federally -listed species, NCNHP staff may provide additional correspondence regarding the project.
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at httr)s://ncnhde.natureserve.org/helr). Data query generated on December 81 2020; source: NCNHP, Q3 October 2020.
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 4

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Water Oak Storm Drainage Improvement Project
December 8, 2020
NCNHDE-13456
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID Scientific Name Common Name Last 'Or Element Accuracy Federal Mate Global State
Group servation Occurrence Status S s Rank Rank
a & Date Rank
Animal 2109 Waterbird Colony --- 2008 D 3-Medium --- --- GNP S3
Assemblage
Bird 32260 Nyctanassa violacea Yellow -crowned Night- 2008 C? 3-Medium --- Significantly G5 S213
Heron Rare
Vascular Plant 13743 Delphinium exaltatum Tall Larkspur 1800s Hi? 5-Very --- Endangered G3 S2
Low
No Natural Areas are Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Name
Owner
Owner Type =
Mecklenburg County Open Space -
McMullen Creek
Mecklenburg County
Local Government
Greenway
Mecklenburg County Open Space -
Grayson Park
Mecklenburg County
Local Government
City of Charlotte Open Space
City of Charlotte
Local Government
Mecklenburg County Open Space -
Oakhurst Park
Mecklenburg County
Local Government
Mecklenburg County Open Space
Mecklenburg County
Local Government
Mecklenburg County Open Space -
McMullen Creek
Mecklenburg County
Local Government
Tributary
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at httr)s://ncnhde.natureserve.ora/heir). Data query generated on December 81 2020; source: NCNHP, Q3 October 2020.
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 3 of 4

NCNHDE-13456: Water Oak Storm Drainage Improvement Project
U
�V-.
Feddman
Y
0
Community
Elll °
_�
Park
Q
i?
Carolinas
�11,411
S
tvledical Ce r
?
-Rand ph
w
0)
rift
Vt'f
m��
\�1
i`�
Co,o
RaryO Ur
?
Wt: TKIo
I
C.hllTro%\ REA
�L
N
C
Sharon
a
��
9 Memorial
y
�� Park d
}`\"?2
Randolph y
Cemetery
kN`P
Middle ti
aV"
�s McClintock
`fT�
i Middle
Rd
�
7
ca
o
Ct�
o
Pn��jt
`�6
� `^�
°
o
Cotswold
t�aTo
µ 5
�
Triangle
t
10
Mall
.
v\yeTl
Fast
Mecklenburg
High
�i
, 787 N
rs Park
untry
:lub
utlo n�pod UT
4Zc
=
b
flv4�LL
it
F� o
v
<o
a
vet
ZV+E
R
Prov' nce
�e Alexander
s
T
ay
h ild a n' _.
December 8, 2020
Project Boundary
Buffered Project Boundary
Managed Area (MAREA)
1:27,700
0 0.225 0.45 0.9 mi
0 0.375 0.75 1.5 km
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS,
FAO, NIPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NIL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan,
METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS
User Community
Page 4 of 4

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: December 08, 2020
Consultation Code: 04EN1000-2021-SLI-0182
Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-00395
Project Name: Water Oak Storm Drainage Improvement Project
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

12/08/2020 Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-00395
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;

12/08/2020 Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-00395
http://www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov/migrato!ybirds/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

12/08/2020 Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-00395
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]

12/08/2020 Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-00395 2
Project Summary
Consultation Code: 04EN1000-2021-SLI-0182
Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-00395
Project Name: Water Oak Storm Drainage Improvement Project
Project Type: ** OTHER **
Project Description: Local storm drainage infrastructure improvements to reduce flooding and
improve channel conditions
Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:
www.google.com/maps/place/35.17519207832874N80.78758826260582W
f+{i
Counties: Mecklenburg, NC

12/08/2020 Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-00395 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

12/08/2020 Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-00395 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.

12/08/2020 Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-00395
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

12/08/2020 Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-00395
NAME
Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulea
BREEDING
SEASON
Breeds Apr 28
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA to Jul 20
and Alaska.
https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/297
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.

12/08/2020 Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-00395 3
How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:
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( )
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 I I I I I I I I I I I I++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ +++. ++++ ++++ ++.+ ++++
Non -BCC Vulnerable

12/08/2020 Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-00395 4
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Blue -winged ++++ ++++ ++++ + ++++ +++— +"' ++++ ++.+ ++++
Warbler ■
BCC -BCR
Cerulean Warbler ++++ ++++ ++++,++t I I 1 F •••+ +++. ++++ ++++ ++.+ ++++
mom
BCC Rangewide (COIF _ A..` 010M
Kentucky Warbler ++++ ++++ ++++ +d I I I 1 7+ +,!P RIP PW ++++ ++++ ++.+ ++++
BCC Rangewide (COI)
Prairie Warbler ++++ ++++ ++++ +�11 I 1 F+
BCC Rangewide (CO++IF-4--4- +++— +11+ ++++ ++.+ ++++
IF
Proth
Warbler notary ++++ ++++ ++++ I 1 I I I -+ ++++ Lb++ +++. ++++ ++++ ++.+ ++++
WarblM ---,
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Woodpecker 11+11+11 IIN *011 ++1+ ++ +—1++11+++ ++-11111
BCC Rangewide (COI) Im MMM�LEE `'�I
Rusty Blackbird ,+++ +'+, ,++' +. ++++ ++++ ++++ +++. ++++ ++++ ++-1 1,1,
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Wood Thrush ++++ ++++ ++++ +���+� +++ 1++-111111++ ++.+ ++++
BCC Rangewide (COI)
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/migrator3Lbirds/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?

12/08/2020 Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-00395
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern
(BCQ 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 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

12/08/2020 Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-00395 6
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
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

12/08/2020 Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-00395
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.

12/08/2020 Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-00395
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
• RSUBH

WATER OAK NCHPO HPOWEB
G. Y, - rys. trr° * �
N N f L, C Q Pe
� V
I gd Beal 5t B°Y'p� Lai ¢
Grayson c� OS ��. �.' U° F�aer Q om
WUhborhood Nay 4r Aber ve �o
Park
ti 4 11 ❑
dl Psl%'140 . GP` � ��ep °°��d `ri � ,�C� C
Mill rt7 Ci 8
— 99 '
71to 4 a� tre�'S rynshen p 0 r
A p4r�e
�T'ilfq Rd t�°° Fandc,lph ��tePath �P�e 4e� y Ra
IVIrid p � a 0
Castes s G100
t twm Cotswold 4L
t to ro
tti❑t 0 rr, ❑��
Gna saw � � atG
a(id Queer
Heathplo° r a Tan4f1 q 40sr�r
07
ti i me ray � ` F MEjlCKLENBURG
o c f;
°k
sag
itH Rd �faf1°r ❑ y� LRT E
55X'at '��,Ab 4� ^ Clrarr?lapeg Ave r
�uSlei9r 4n
F �ti�l ai r Rc Gn'tl����°ttn
P i
NUrtet.r
o
Uviay W11deC�° d
o G��e
iP
P z Providence Park
12/8/2020, 10:02:13 AM
WaterOakSDIP - LOD
■..: Local districts & boundaries
Local individual resources & centerpoints
Local Landmark
Local Landmark, Gone
Local HD Center Point
5,oady Bluff�t rYi
a
hOpn" Lrr ° caster Dr a Lyrybr
Ho�tirr ❑ 'o
7fr gfrdrr� 0" 0 W
R
>:. -1 Robi/I h °od Rd hrarr Ne
n� ory Ar br rn
r
rrIrk.
1 drrr
c�
-n
w
1:18,056
0 0.13 0.25 0.5 mi
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 km
City of Charlotte, Union County, State of North Carolina DOT, Esri, HERE,
Garmin, INCREMENT P, NGA USGS
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
City of Charlotte, Union County, State of North Carolina DOT, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, NGA USGS I Esri, HERE

ID#* 20201634
Version* 1
Regional Office * Mooresville Regional Office - [phone]
Reviewer List* Alan Johnson
Pre -Filing Meeting Request submitted 10/29/2020
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Contact Name* Dave Homans / Helen Simonson
Contact Email Address* [e-mail]
Project Name* Water Oak SDIP
Project Owner* Charlotte Stormwater Services
Project County* Mecklenburg
Owner Address: Street Address
4735 Water Oak Road
Address Line 2
aty
State / Province / Pegion
Charlotte
NC
Postal / Zip axle
Country
28211
USA
Is this a transportation project?* r Yes (' No
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:
* 401 Water Quality Certification - F 401 Water Quality Certification -
Regular Express
* Individual Permit F Modification
F Shoreline Stabilization
Does this project have an existing project ID#?*
C Yes (-- No
Do you know the name of the staff member you would like to request a meeting with?
Alan Johnson
Please give a brief project description below.*

The Water Oak Storm Drainage Improvement Project will Involve storm
system upgrades, culvert replacements, minor channel modifications, and
channel daylighting to a storm drainage system over an approximately 115
acre watershed in the Cotswold neighborhood of Charlotte. The project is
expected to be authorized under Regional General Permit 201600163 and
Water Quality Certification 4147 for impacts associated with Charlotte
Stormwater Services storm drainage improvement projects. Precise impacts
have not been finalized, but 99% project designs have been completed,
and are attached.
Please give a couple of dates you are available for a meeting.
11 /19/2020
11 /20/2020
11 /23/2020
Please attach the documentation you would like to have the meeting about.
WaterOakPlanSet 99% Submittal 2020-09-
35.57MB
25.pdf
pdf only
By digitally signing below, I certify that I have read and understood that per the Federal Clean Water Act Section
401 Certification Rule the following statements:
This form completes the requirement of the Pre -Filing Meeting Request in the Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification
Rule.
1 understand by signing this form that I cannot submit my application until 30 calendar days after this pre -filing
meeting request.
I also understand that DWR is not required to respond or grant the meeting request.
Your project's thirty -day clock started upon receipt of this application. You will receive notification regarding meeting location
and time if a meeting is necessary. You will receive notification when the thirty -day clock has expired, and you can submit an
application.
Signature
Submittal Date 10/29/2020