20211113 Ver 1_ePCN Application_20210712

DWR
Dlrlslon of Water Resources
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
For Nationwide Permits and Regional General Permits
(along with corresponding Water Quality Certifications)
June 1, 2021 Ver4.1
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?*
r Yes r No
Change only if needed.
BIMS # Assigned
20211113
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
la. Name of project:
Perth Court Storm Drainage Improvement Project
la. Who is the Primary Contact?*
Kristen O'Reilly
1b. Primary Contact Email:*
[e-mail]
Date Submitted
7/12/2021
Nearest Body of Water
Brier Creek
Basin
Catawba
Water Classification
C (11-137-8-2)
Site Coordinates
Latitude: Longitude:
35.244463-80.749791
A. Processing Information
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
Pre -Filing Meeting Information
Version#*
1
What amout is owed?*
r $240.00
IT $570.00
Select Project Reviewer*
Alan Johnson:eads\adjohnson1
1c. Primary Contact Phone:*
[phone]
Is this a courtesy copy notification?*
r Yes r No

ID#
unknown (not provided)
Pre -fling Meeting or Request Date
6/10/2021
Attach documentation of Pre -Filing Meeting Request here:
pick the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
DWR Pre -Filing Meeting Request Form.pdf
File type rrust be FCF
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
W 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
IT 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?
IT Yes r No
Regional General Permit (RGP) Number:
RGP Numbers (for multiple RGPS):
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:
fJ 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular
r Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
r Individual 401 Water Quality Certification
Version
201600163 — Charlotte Stormwater Services
le. Is this notification solely for the record because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWR 401 Certification:
For the record only for Corps Permit:
48.96KB
r 401 Water Quality Certification - Egress
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
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?
W Owner r 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:
Charlotte Storm Water Services (owner of storm drainage easements)
2b. Deed book and page no.:
r Yes r No
r Yes r No
2c. Contact Person:
Kristen O'Reilly

2d.Address
Street Address
600 East Fourth Street
Address tine 2
(Sty
State / Province / f3gion
Charlotte
NC
Postal / Zip Code
Country
28202
USA
2e. Telephone Number:
2f. Fax Number:
[phone]
2g. 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
State / Province / fkgion
Charlotte
NC
Postal / Zip Code
Country
28273
USA
4d. Telephone Number: 4e. Fax Number:
[phone]
4f. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
C. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Project Information
1b. Subdivision name:
(d appropriate)
1c. Nearest municipality/ town:
Charlotte
2. Project Identification
2a. Property Identification Number:
2b. Property size:
easements on 10701104
0.88 Acres
2c. Project Address
Street Address
Perth Court
Address Une 2
City
State / Province / ftion
Charlotte
NC
Postal / Zip Code
Country
28215
USA
3. Surface Waters
3a. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project:*
Brier Creek
3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water:*
C (11-137-8-2)
3c. What river basin(s) is your project located in?*
Catawba
3d. Please provide the 12-digit HUC in which the project is located.

030501030102
4. Project Description and History
4a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this application:*
The current site is a straightened and riprap lined perennial channel that flows though a high density multifamily housing complex. At the cul-de-sac terminus of Perth Court, the channel
flows through a 113 foot long 9.5"X6' arched corrugated metal culvert. Currently, the upstream portion of the channel and much of the downstream channel is filled with unconsolidated
sediment, and the culvert is filled appro>mately 30 % With sediment. Substantial bank erosion and over -widening is present immediately upstream and downstream of the culvert, and
significant flooding of residences has been occurring at adjacent residential buildings. Land use in the adjacent and upstream vicinity is made up largely of single-family and multi -family
residential areas along With commercial facilities. See Site Photographs, Appendix II.
4b. Have Corps permits or DWR certifications been obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in the past?*
C Yes r No r Unknown
4f. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
4g. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property:
960
4h. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:*
The adjacent residences have experienced significant flooding. Current analysis indicates that, With the current channel sediment load, multiple adjacent properties are within the 2-year
floodplain. Based on the proposed sediment removal plan, these properties Will no longer be in the 2-year floodplain and additional adjacent properties Will no longer be within the 10-
year floodplain. Additionally, grade control structures (cross vanes) and bank reshaping will further stabilize the channel and prevent additional erosion and lessen flood risk. See
Appendix VI for Technical Memo describing sediment transport and flooding.
4i. Describe the overall project in detail, including indirect impacts and the type of equipment to be used:*
The project will involve removal of in -channel sediment between 1 and 1.6 feet in depth along 442 linear feet (LF) of channel upstream of the Perth Court culvert and 509 LF of channel
downstream of the culvert. Additionally, appropmately 1.5 feet of sediment will be removed from within the culvert. Four rock cross vanes and plunge pools will be installed in the
channel for grade stability. A riprapped area below the culvert Will be repaired and the riprap will be refreshed (no additional riprap will be installed in the bed of the channel).
Additionally, in two areas, channel banks will be reshaped to include floodprone bench areas, and these areas will be matted, live -staked, and seeded. See Appendix I for full design
plans.
5. Jurisdictional Determinations
5a. Have the wetlands or streams been delineated on the property or proposed impact areas?*
r Yes
r No
Comments:
See attached data forms in Appendix III
5b. If the Corps made a jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made?*
r Preliminary r Approved r Not Verified r Unknown f N/A
Corps AID Number:
5c. If 5a is yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Noah J. Meador
Agency/Consultant Company:
Other:
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?*
r Yes
Charlotte Storm Water Services
r No
C Unknown
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 U
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Where are the impacts associated with your project? (check all that apply):
r Wetlands W Streams -tributaries r Buffers
r Open Waters r Pond Construction
3. Stream Impacts
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* i length*

S1
sediment removal / channel
Temporary
Excavation
Stream 1
Perennial
Both
17
509
improvements, riprap repairs
Average (feet)
(lirrfeet)
(downstream)
S2
sediment removal / channel
improvements (upstream)
Temporary
P Y
Excavation
Stream 1
Perennial
Both
14
Average (feet)
442
(linearfeet)
31. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square feet:
31. Total permanent stream impacts:
31. Total stream and ditch impacts:
951
3j. Comments:
See Figure 4A and 4B; See design plans, Appendix I
3i. Total temporary stream impacts:
951
E. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing the project:
The project was designed to maximize flood risk reduction while minimizing the disturbance to adjacent upland and stream areas. The project has
been specifically designed to alleviate flood risks and improve channel conditions with the addition of more natural channel design elements (e.g.
cross vane grade control, flood -prone benches, and live stake planting) into a system which has previously been highly modified and disturbed, while
minimizing the addition of bank armoring.
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. Moving temporary impervious dikes and a
pump around along with a special stilling basin bag will be used so that work will occur "in -the -dry" and not release excessive sediment downstream of
the working area.
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:
Mitigation should not be required as temporary impacts will not result in the loss of channel bed; riprap is only being added in the locations of existing riprap fill, and removal of sediment
in the channel is also only in locations of existing riprap fill. Modifications to the channel bed, the addition of floodplain benches and grade control structures, and plantings represent a
potential ecological functional uplift for the channel.
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:
The project is not located along a buffered channel (it is not along 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 u
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
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 storm drainage improvement project which does not require NEPA/SEPA review
2. Violations (DWR Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWR Water Quality Certification Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), or DWR Surface Water or Wetland Standards or
Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)? *
r Yes r No
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWR Requirement)
3a. Will this project result in additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?*
r Yes r No
3b. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
The purpose of this project is flooding abatement in existing development in a fully built out area; there is no potential for the project to lead to
additional development.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWR Requirement)
4a. Is sewage disposal required by DWR for this project?*
C Yes r No r N/A
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or habitat?*
r Yes r No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act impacts?*
r Yes r No
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 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
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?
See Appendix IV; A NCNHP review indicated that no known federally protected species were present within a one -mile radius of the project. A USFWS
IPaC species list was generated; habitat for the listed plant species was not present at the site. IPaC review indicated that the project was consistent
with the 4(d) rule for northern long eared bat.
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?*
hftps://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?*
State Historic Preservation Office Historic Properties Map indicated no known historic properties within a mile of the project site (see Appendix V).
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?*
FEMA 100-year floodplains begin downstream of Milton Road- see FIRMETTE in Appendix VII
Miscellaneous
Please use the space below to attach all required documentation or any additional information you feel is helpful for application review. Documents should be combined into one
file when possible, with a Cover Letter, Table of Contents, and a Cover Sheet for each Section preferred.
dick the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach docurrent
PerthCourtPCNCoverLetterandAttachments.pdf 16.93MB
File mist be FDF a K,&
Comments
See attached PCN summary and cover letter for further discussion.
Signature
*
W 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 knowledge 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:
Kristen O'Reilly
Signature
Date
7/12/2021

PREPARED FOR:
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28801
PREPARED BY
S&ME, Inc.
9751 Southern Pine Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28115
July 10, 2021

July 10, 2021
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Attention: Crystal Amschler
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Mooresville Regional Office
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301
Mooresville, North Carolina 28115
Attention: Alan Johnson
Reference: Pre -Construction Notification/Regional General Permit 163
Perth Court Storm Drainage Improvement Project
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 212411C
Dear Ms. Amschler / Mr. Johnson:
On behalf of Charlotte Storm Water Services (CSWS), S&ME, Inc. (S&ME) is pleased to submit this application for
Department of the Army verification of impacts to Waters of the U.S. in accordance with Regional General Permit
(RGP) No. 163 and North Carolina Water Quality General Certification (WQC) 4147. CSWS will be considered the
applicant, and Kristen O'Reilly of CSWS will act as the signatory on the electronic Pre -Construction Notification
(PCN) for this project.
In accordance with electronic PCN requirements, we are submitting the accompanying supporting materials
pursuant to issuance of the aforementioned RGP / WQC authorization. This PCN is for authorization of impacts to
jurisdictional waters for a sediment removal / flood abatement project. This PCN is being presented for the record
only for the RGP as it falls under the required notification thresholds. It is being presented for written approval
under the WQC as it impacts channels in excess of the thresholds identified as requiring notification (permanent
impacts greater that 150 linear feet or temporary impacts greater than 500 linear feet of channel).
In addition to the brief project summary provided herein, please find the following enclosed:
Project Figures
Appendix I: 100% Design Plans
Appendix II: Site Photographs
Appendix III: Field Determination Forms
Appendix IV: Protected Species Documentation
S&ME, Inc. 1 134 Suber Road I Columbia, SC 292101 p 803.561.9024 1 www.smeinc.com

Pre -Construction Notification/Regional General Permit 163
Perth Court Storm Drainage Improvement Project
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 212411C
Appendix V: Cultural Resources Documentation
Appendix VI — Technical Memo (flood analysis and sediment transport model)
Appendix VII — FEMA FIRMETTE
By copy of this correspondence and completed PCN, we are requesting your written concurrence that this project
is approved under WQC 4147. If you need additional information or have questions, please contact Dave Homans
at 704-523-4726 or [e-mail].
Sincerely,
S&ME, Inc.
�r f
D. David Homans
Project Scientist
[e-mail]
Chris Daves, P.W.S.
Senior Scientist
[e-mail]
(Documents reviewed and approved by Kristen O'Reilly with Charlotte -Mecklenburg Storm Water Services)
July 10, 2021

Pre -Construction Notification/Regional General Permit 163
Perth Court Storm Drainage Improvement Project
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina III
S&ME Project No. 212411C S
Table of Contents
1.0 Project Information and Description............................................................................1
2.0 Purpose and Need.............................................................................................................2
3.0 Existing Jurisdictional Waters on Site..........................................................................2
4.0 Proposed Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters..................................................................2
5.0 Avoidance and Minimization.........................................................................................3
6.0 Protected Species and Historical and Cultural Resources........................................3
7.0 Floodplains.........................................................................................................................4
List of Tables
Table 4-1 Jurisdictional Impacts Summary............................................................................................. 2
Figures
Appendices
Appendix I -100%
Design Plans
Appendix II -
Site Photographs
Appendix III
- Field Determination Forms
Appendix IV
- Protected Species Documentation
Appendix V -
Cultural Resources Documentation
Appendix VI
- Technical Memo (flood analysis and sediment transport model)
Appendix VII
- FEMA FIRMETTE
July 10, 2021 iii

Pre -Construction Notification/Regional General Permit 163
Perth Court Storm Drainage Improvement Project
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina III
S&ME Project No. 212411C S
1.0 Project Information and Description
The approximate 0.88-acre project site is located at the terminus of Perth Court on the premises of the Park Creek
Apartments complex in the Charlotte, North Carolina. The project is located along a straightened and riprap-lined
perennial channel that flows though the apartment community. At the cul-de-sac terminus of Perth Court, the
channel flows through a 113 foot long, 9.5"X6' arched corrugated metal culvert. The upstream portion of the
channel and much of the downstream channel is currently filled with unconsolidated sediment, and the culvert is
currently filled approximately 30 percent with sediment. Substantial bank erosion and over -widening is present
immediately upstream and downstream of the culvert, and significant flooding of residences has been occurring
at adjacent residential buildings.
The project will involve removal of in -channel sediment of between 1 and 1.6 feet in depth along 442 linear feet
(LF) of channel upstream of the Perth Court culvert and 509 LF of channel downstream of the culvert. Additionally,
approximately 1.5 feet of sediment will be removed from within the culvert. Four rock cross vanes and plunge
pools will be installed in the channel for grade stability. A riprapped area below the culvert will be repaired and
the riprap will be refreshed (no additional riprap will be installed in the bed of the channel). Additionally, in two
areas, channel banks will be reshaped to include flood -prone bench areas, and these areas will be matted, live -
staked, and seeded. See Appendix II for full design plans.
On February 23, 2021, Alan Johnson of NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), Crystal Amschler of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Noah Meador, Kristen O'Reilly, and Jackie Deal of CSWS met at the project
location to discuss preliminary channel excavation plans. At this meeting, it was agreed that the proposed
impacts would be considered temporary, and that attempts should be made to install additional flood storage
benches, and grade control structures to improve sediment transport and prevent headcutting. CSWS also agreed
to investigate conducting a sediment transport model.
On June 7, CSWS provided agency personnel an updated design plan and a Technical Memo detailing the flood
reduction potential of the proposed project and the rate at which the channel is expected to refill with sediment.
Though these models indicate sediment is likely to refill the channel in the near term, they also predict immediate
flood relief for smaller storms. CSWS plans to implement this short-term solution while it is actively seeking long-
term solutions to excessive sedimentation in the channel and culvert and flooding during larger storm events.
During a subsequent field meeting on June 9, 2021 between CSWS and agency personnel, the USACE indicated
that the proposed project would be approved under RGP 163 without requiring notification, and that the
proposed plan would be approved under WQC 4147 following the PCN process.
Additional information regarding this project is contained in the body of the electronic PCN application. Refer to
Figure 1 (Vicinity Map), Figure 2 (Topographic Map), Figure 3 (Site Map / Approximate Waters of U.S.), Figure 4A
& 4B (Proposed Project Impacts) and Figure 5 (USDA Soil Survey Mapping) as well as Appendix 1 (100% Design
Plans) and Appendix II (Site Photographs) for additional site and project design information.
July 10, 2021

Pre -Construction Notification/Regional General Permit 163
Perth Court Storm Drainage Improvement Project
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina III
S&ME Project No. 212411C S
2.0 Purpose and Need
The overall purpose of the proposed project is to provide flooding abatement for adjacent residences while
improving channel conditions. The adjacent residences have experienced significant flooding in recent years.
Current analysis indicates that, with the current channel sediment load, multiple adjacent properties are within the
2-year floodplain. Based on the proposed sediment removal plan, these properties will no longer be in the 2-year
floodplain and additional adjacent properties will no longer be within the 10-year floodplain. Additionally, grade
control structures (cross vanes) and bank reshaping will further stabilize the channel and prevent additional
erosion and lessen flood risk. See Appendix VI for Technical Memo describing sediment transport and flooding
detailing the utility of the project in alleviating flooding in the area.
3.0 Existing Jurisdictional Waters on Site
The project site was delineated by Noah Meador of CSWS in February 17, 2021, and was re -confirmed by David
Homans of S&ME June of 2021. The following Jurisdictional Water was identified on site:
Stream 1: Approximately 960 linear feet (LF) of (a)(2) perennial tributary to Brier Creek. This is the main
channel where all project activity will be taking place along. The channel scored a 37 on the NC DWQ
Stream Identification Form ver. 4.11 and was rated "low" quality by the North Carolina Stream Assessment
Method (SAM).
Two additional channels enter Stream 1 from the east downstream up the Perth Court culvert; the project has
been designed to exclude these channels, and therefore they were not assessed. Data forms supporting this
delineation are included in Appendix III.
4.0 Proposed Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
The proposed project will require temporary impacts to Stream 1. Project impacts are shown in Figure 4 and in
the attached 100% Design Drawings in Appendix I. Refer to Table 4-1 below for a summary of tributary impacts.
The following impacts to jurisdictional waters are proposed:
Table 4-1 Jurisdictional Impacts Summary
July 10, 2021

Pre -Construction Notification/Regional General Permit 163
Perth Court Storm Drainage Improvement Project
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 212411C
Project -wide temporary impacts to jurisdictional tributaries will be limited to the 951 LF (0.341 acre).
5.0 Avoidance and Minimization
=0
The project was designed to maximize flood risk reduction while minimizing the disturbance to adjacent upland
and stream areas. The project has been specifically designed to alleviate flood risks and improve channel
conditions with the addition of more natural channel design elements (e.g. cross vane grade control, flood -prone
benches, and live stake planting) into a system which has previously been highly modified and disturbed, while
minimizing the addition of bank armoring. 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. Moving temporary impervious dikes
and a pump around along with a special stilling basin bag will be used so that work will occur "in -the -dry" and not
release excessive sediment downstream of the working area.
6.0 Protected Species and Historical and Cultural Resources
To comply with applicable sections of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531-1543, S&ME performed
a North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Database review to identify are species, important natural
communities, natural areas, and/or conservation/managed areas within the proposed project within a mile radius
of the project boundary. Additionally, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) IPaC (Information for Planning
and Consultation) online service was used to generate a list of federally protected threatened or endangered
species which may be present in the project area (See Appendix IV).
The NCNHP review indicated that no known federally protected species were present within a one -mile radius of
the project. The USFWS IPaC review identified the following federally protected species that may be in the project
area:
Northern long-eared bat - Myotis septentriona(is (Threatened)
Carolina heelsplitter - Losmigono decorato (Endangered)
Michaux's sumac — Rhus michouxii (Endangered)
Smooth coneflower — Echinacea (aevigato (Endangered)
Schweinitz's sunflower - He(ionthus schweinitzii (Endangered)
No known populations of Carolina heelsplitter exist within the Brier Creek watershed, and the highly degraded
and modified nature of the project channel does not present adequate habitat for this species; therefore, this
July 10, 2021

Pre -Construction Notification/Regional General Permit 163
Perth Court Storm Drainage Improvement Project
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 212411C
=0
III
project will have no effect on this species. Typical habitat for the three plant species listed is substantially different
than the highly modified urban riparian areas that make up the project area. Furthermore, no species superficially
similar to any of these species were observed on site; as such, the project was determined to have no effect on
these species. Based on standard USFWS guidance provided through IPaC, it was determined that the project
may affect northern long-eared bat, but incidental take of this species that may occur as a result of the project is
not prohibited under the ESA Section 4(d) rule adopted for this species (See Consistency Letter in Appendix IV).
In order to determine consistency with the Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, a one -mile radius
around the project site was reviewed for known historic properties using the NC State Historic Preservation Office
(NC SHPO) HPOWEB online mapping tool. Results indicated that there were no recorded historic properties within
a one -mile radius of the project site (See Appendix V).
7.0 Floodplains
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood Insurance Rate mapping, no regulated
floodplains exist along the project channel, with the nearest 100-year floodplain beginning well downstream of
the Milton Road culvert at the downstream end of the project area. Additionally, the project has been specifically
designed for the purpose of flood abatement. As such the proposed project is in full compliance with all FEMA
regulations. A FIRMETTE generated by FEMA showing the proximity of the nearest regulated floodplain in
included in Appendix VII.
July 10, 2021 4

Project Figures:
Figure 1 — Vicinity Map
Figure 2 — USGS Topographic Map
Figure 3 — Site Map / Approximate Waters of The U.S. Map
Figure 4A & 4B — Proposed Project Impacts
Figure 5 — USDA Soil Survey Mapping

n NFR[o- LN G 2 - oGp Creek a :Q
ISTlN DR
s �� ,/✓ Jo
_Gii
n *�
Cat. Mh
- CCII H1 11 _
x'
DIA
DIV
t vL
n ssrcads - a �
G,aner -
or, r a {1CC_A°" - Q. Ncnthridge
high - do Mcl
t
"JDUSMAL C1a
T r+E V f AZA
tj
� o
Lake Plaza - �F
Awd 'y¢ Tv2� _ ��.,` / 0��` LAkf obi.,-o
. Chaim.
Bnanxood y_ o
Q
Elem offf 5-
y -p r �
» MONTEGO DR i OFmil.i. i Q Delta Lake
r
1 Cochrane 1
' ���- Collegiate
l /� A�
Co�
-
_
aG P - PLRrH
Devc,nshue
Ele 3
_ CS�gY - GRATIQM DR K 7`
c
a nJ
�PyTya RANDY OR !, Z
� � JAKF5fGf 741
U \^
u s'y� np 1 ovN L
G
1,9
L Jr -0 •our Lady Of The
Ala
CathoN�cYSd,
V
N J - 0� VD
Si
0 2,000�
°
5 (FEET)
s REFERENCE: USGS USA TOPO STREAMING DATASET
a GIS BASE LAYERS WERE OBTAINED FROM USGS NATIONAL MAP. THIS MAP IS FOR
INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. ALL FEATURE LOCATIONS DISPLAYED ARE APPROXIMATED. * PROJECT LOCATION
THEY ARE NOT BASED ON CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION, UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE.
0
SCALE: FIGURE NO.
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP 1 r = 2,000 r
DATE:
I I PERTH COURT STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 6-22-21 2
PERTH COURT PROJECT NUMBER
CHARLOTTE, MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 212411C

VNIIO'dV7 Hi'dON A1NnOD E)'dn9N31)173W '31101'dVH7
III 12if107 Hl2i3d
173fO'dd 1N3W3AO'ddWI 39VNIV'dG vaois i'dnO7 Hi'd3d w ro v d
N � w
III tD w N l�
dVNi 'S'R FIH.L 30 S?IFI.LVM FI.LVNiIXO?IddV / dVNi F11IS
O
w �
0 Z
Y a, •�' `��� v 0 OZ w
OO Q - v
h v_ W
0 w o
- 0 p
jr
WN
,CIL
s r,
zaw /9 At
7-7
' / \
w w N E � I
� fi C lD �. '�✓ I �,
Y o o a o
aO `� a
Z <
m 0 !
w �n 4

VNIlO1V7 H12iON A1NnOD E)'dn9N31)173W'31101'dVH7
III 12if107 Hl2i3d w w
173fO2dd 1N3W3AO2ddWI 39VNIV2i0 vaois i'dnO7 H12d3d
V N U N
Izanin,;o uzeaz}sutAoQ
S.LJVdNII.LJHfOHd QHSOdOud
k D � „� ,
-�, � C7
`'� 1y�dQsyDP d t o m O
2 v
�Vsz°y�s t It. v w
nkm 0 w
tt a o ?
A a
0
o J
41,
�>'�\.ate\\
-
�
{a r
v r -a`
`1
ign
\ G
tea, } - f� iJ `114 I °'3..•-
� € v� = a o
xd H a -o m \
to§d m= a —0n °o ° o
mg
E o 0
`m o
„ a m -o m — _ d ' S rn I'
\ � 9

Appendix I -100% Design Plans

..'�.�u07�Vzjl.�
16-1 '. JNnNalloVo4� IN
slc lens '� apo,i tram oob
'� I'saaau 9uH A1S
saai.+a>•
lzoe�z�z
w,a
3lumId 8 Nb'ld
lVnOw3TJ 1N3wIO3S l3NNVHO
is
slo3road slN3w3noadwl
EIOVNIVHCI INHOIS
1}1nO3 HIHAd
ooi
;.yam
iiY�W1i�l
rvnrolus sr
lleo v�zus
...
[9 4VN
II I
ik
F i
I
n Y �V
1i
- -mom
i
�zz¢
u m
p
I a �uu
I /`�
t6eoj n�3
0o
AI
m_ -
w
I w
OAF
P
E o
L
'Fg
- _-_

� 1660—j ia9wnN azua�il JN
.. �11Q VI1�1 SlL a11nS - apoil lA
a I�saaam"uH.�1S
OOi �-
lam"
ear
�zoe�z��
woa
311dMIJ 8 NVlJ
Ti
saaurer
1VAON-M 1N-MIO3S 13NNVHO
KmsSlOEICOHd
qua
��'
S1N3NEMOH WI
s�NWusIM�+WN1+Ns4]
EIOVNIVHCI NHOlS
Z
Noroiu sv i?inOO Hl`J3d
_ re nhn�hn�h
MATCHLINE W STA. 11+00 SEE SHEET 6 " -3 -
a
w
z
J

� 1660 Z8Z JNnNalloVo4� �N
..U101 lVzM s« gins '� apo,i tram oob �zo,�z�z woa 31Ij02id8Nb'ld ii
'a I'saaauziuH AIS � aa!"'u?+ �H�OW3TJ 1N3WI03S l3NNHH� �_�
��T01, /� TC �jy7�����(y S1C3f0`dd S1N3W3A0",l WI
- Nn9uuryauiµq�oyeu,9 rvnroius sr iieo v�zus 3`JVNIH`Ja W`JOlS
;.yam ... I?InOO Hl`d3d
iw
is
S: �A
" 4
9s off,
_ o
r
v^,
ja
i
i
w3 ^�
i
_ �SerM190a�
p� W
I o ,
i
0
Z o ,I_j
VW�-3
i
�e
^
Y
9 "133HS 33S 00+I l 'H1S .V, 3NIIHO1HW
s a
F�
aces��

"-."uH AIS
0 lam�"
7�-p-,.T­ -,.­
z
<
z
>LU
0
RC
CL
__S1,1
............
i�inOO HIH71d
rx

16-1 '. JNnNalloVo4� IN
�,C,LOTlI�M ""s 11 a°°'� 1— — ao"a�� a s�roi3a 39VNIV ° I
'� I'saaau 9uH A1S saai.+a>• 7VnOw32i IN-MIO3S l3NNVH3
A r iiY�W1i�l slo3roadslN3w3noadwl
ooi - ��il � 1M'�K`NIBN` siry lleo v�zus EIOVNIVHCI INHOIS ZQ
;.yam ... I}InOO HIH3d
iw
w _ _
�a
- 3
:=ww: #
aC s
\;<; eeleee o Q
v/ e e e
w
e e e a LL z
- e - In
rl
3 _
_ rr _

16-1 '. JNnNalloVo4� IN
�,C,LOTlI�M ""s 11 a°°'� 1— — aoea�� a s�roi3a 39VNIV ° I
'� I'saaau 9uH A1S saai.+a>• 7VnOw32i IN-MIO3S l3NNVH3
A r iiY�W1i�l slo3roadslN3w3noadwl
ooi - ��il � 1M'�K`NIBN` siry lleo v�zus EIOVNIVHCI INHOIS £Q
;.yam ... I?InOD HIH3d
3:
iw
0
z
J a
Q w
.rya w
wa n
k k
- r4
p�
1
z z z z
0 ¢= O O O
W W W a W
LL � k r. o
Q Q Q ` Q
57
�0
a_ o tL 0_ +
+ ip
J O J O J O o J O
Oo] 00 Oa Oo
+ + +
W N Wco WC) W
of
HF—Lu
LLI
co
of
FI F H
n I) n n

..
1661-1 INnNalloVoyI IN
s« gins '� apo,i �aam oob
�zoe�z�z
w,a
SNOII SSO}JO
.107"M
'� I'saaau 9uH A1S
saai.+ar
IVnOW32i 1N3WIO3S l3NWHO
is
SlO3r0`Jd SIN 3w3nOH&NI
��T -
�r
a
L ,�wU
Nn9uuryauiµq�oye
3IOVNIVMCI INHols
ix
y
iieo v�zus
1}Jn,03 Hl`J3d
�z
\
d
1
1
1
d
e
1
1
1
e
M
n
z 1
M
m 1
1
w 1
m
m
1
1
1
1
s
M
1
1
\
M
U
z
Q
O
J
�
n
I
I
o
a I
I
a
o
N
N
m
0
LJ
I�
aY IRS
o<
�m
ww /
O
/
/
o
z
I
K
U
I �3
I w
I wN
Q
0
0
0
d
�
Y
O
O
G
z
O
V
O
U
Q
FQOMQ
N U�
—
rUQM
r JO
ZNZ
Q
Z N Dul
UOZ�
r r r
r
r r r
r
r r
r r < Z O w
QVIJ
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I!
I
I
1
I
IN
/
o
i
i
dY I
/
/
zw
ox
00
K
aN
Fm
wo I
XN
w
1
I
I
I
/
/
I
O
U
I
w
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
I
/
/
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
l
1
1
I
I
I
I
/
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1

..
1661-1 INnNalloVoyI IN
s« gins '� apo,i �aam oob
�zoe�z�z
w,a
SNOII SSO}JO
.107"M
'� I'saaau 9uH A1S
saai.+ar
7VnOw32i
1N3wIO3S l3NWHO
is -
slo3road slN3w3noadwl
��
��T - /�
y a
iieo v�zus
L ,�WU
Nn9uuryauiµq�oye
EIOVNIVH(l INHOIS
I}InOO HIH71d
zx
�O
iw
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
d
Y
O
O
If
G
z
O
V
w
o
Q
G w.
QOwQ
Z U
—
rUQw
+ JO
ZNZ
Q
Z N DU
UO Z�
r r r r
r r r r
r r
r
r r
r r < Z O w
QVIJ
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
aY \
Oz �
0]
WO
\
I
N
I�
I
I
d
/
/
/
pX
z¢
I
o
o
I
Oz I
•�
W
w
aw
�
j
az
I
oF�Q
I
I
Xw
7
(
1
1
1
1 !
11
1
10
�
I
I
/
za
/
OO
II
diN
a
dY I
OZ
w
ww II
Nw
O
I
Xl/i
w
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
aY I
OZ I
�m
w0
1
1
1
1
1!
I
I
l
b I
a
of
d
I
I
I
/
/
/ pwZIL
I
� diN
3a
W
w
FQ
m
O
I
az
0
I
�m
I
w0
I
1
1
!
�j
b
�
kp
�
0
I
z¢
Oa
I
I
I
dY
OZ
0]
Z
s
ww
I
Z
o
I (¢d'
m
.3
I w
w<n
I
p
O
I
I
�
w
I!
a
I
I !
I
1
1
1.
in
lap
o
1�
I
/
/
/
/
/
Q
I
N
I
Y
m I
I
w
O I
O
I
N
I
dY
I !
�
H
.m
W
/1
�
I
�
pW
ON
ZW
a(V
¢3
Nw
dY
�
�Q
W
m I
Ww
O

..
1661-1 INnNalloVoyI IN
s« gins '� apo,i �aam oob
�zoe�z�z
w,a
SNOU33S SSO}JO
.107"M
'� I'saaau 9uH A1S
saai.+ar
7VnOw32i 1N3wIO3S l3NWHO
is-
slo3road s1N3w3noadwl
��
��T - /�
a
L ,�wU
Nn9uuryauiµq�oye
EIOVNIVH(l s
W`JOl
Ex
y
iieo v�zus
1?1n03 Hl`J3d
�O
iw
o
O
�
�
a
d
I�
O
o
o
O
G
Z
0
Q
1
1
dY \
OZ
m
O
w

..
1661-1 INnNalloVoyI IN
s« gins '� apo,i �aam oob
�zoe�z�z
w,a
SNOU33S SSO}JO
.107"M
'� I'saaau 9uH A1S
saai.+ar
7VnOw32i 1N3wIO3S l3NWHO
is
sslN3w3noadwl
��
��T -
y,�r
a
L ,wU
Nn9uuryauiµq�oye
EIOVNIVH(l INHOIS
f7Xl�3road
y
iieo v�zus
I}InOO HIH71d
�O
iw
3�
o
�
N
o
N
0
� z
Y
O
O
G
z
0
N
N
o
U
Q
N QLJ
U�
Q
O V�Q
rUQN
�O
ZNZ
Q
Z N DU
UO Z�
r r r r
r r r
r r r
r r r r r < Z O w
QVIJ
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
o
w
I
1
1
1
1
^
1 m
I
I M
I
/
Q
l
1
1
a
O
1
1
1
1
wci
I
1
1
I
W
a
�
�
1
1
II �
I �
x
I
I
I
I
ow
�
I
I
a
I
I
1
1
1
1
O
H
1
1
1
Q
�
w
1
1
1
1
1
1
•
I a
I
I
I
a
aY
ozQ
,m
xw
I
�
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
1
1
1
1
a
O
1
¢
w
1
I
O
1
N
1
I
I
I N
I �
I
II
s
a
X
I
1
1
1
I
YI
Q
�
ml
1
al
w
0
�
1
1
^
1
1 m
I N
I
DX
Q
m
w�
I
I
KW
00
I
I
I
a�
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
1
I
a
0
II
1
1
W
1
1
I
\
I
I �
I
I �
30

..
1661-1 INnNalloVoyI IN
s« gins '� apo,i �aam oob
�zoe�z�z
w0a
SNOII SSO}JO
.107"M
'� I'saaau 9uH A1S
saai.+ar
B�L�M
7VnOw32i 1N3wIO3S l3NWHO
is
slo3road s1N3w3noadwl
��
��T -
a
L ,wU
Nn9uuryauiµq�oye
W`JOl
EIOVNIVH(l s
sx
y
iieo v�zus
1?1n03 Hl`J3d
�O
iw
3�
1
1
I
1
az
OFm
I
1
w0
1
1
1
o
o
I
I
o
M
�
OZ
~m
I
I
Z_
Y
O
O
G
zo
V
Ww
I
�
I
I
I
N
o
�
`II
I
I
Q
NUJ
FaoNQ
I
r
r
w QN
ZQ
zNOU
0 0 Z�
QUz>
I
I
I
I
�Y \
w0
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
J
dY
OZ
I
I
I
I
m
ww I
O I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Appendix II — Site Photographs

Perth Court Storm Drainage Improvement Project
Perth Court
Charlotte, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 212411C
1
d:
N
N
N
Remarks View looking upstream at riprapped lined channel
downstream of the culvert.
Location / Orientation ISee Figure 3
N
O
N
2View looking downstream at the upstream end of the culvert
Remarks as well as the residences adjacent to the culvert that are prone
o frequent flooding.

Perth Court Storm Drainage Improvement Project
Perth Court
Charlotte, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 212411C
N
Co
N
N
Q0
C
E
O
N
co
0
N
t
Q
O
CL
�• �` �. s
Location / Orientation See Figure 3
3 Remarks View of the inside of the culvert, which is nearly SO% filled
with sediment.
II'�I ill ll�l Ilk
4
Remarks looking upstream of typical conditions along the
�iew
roject channel downstream of the culvert.

Perth Court Storm Drainage Improvement Project
Perth Court
Charlotte, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 212411C
=0
Y 4,Y
4
3
Location Orientation I M. �M
UI LI It= U 101 11 It=1 anio. • • • •
7S feet upstream of the culvert.
If
� ' 4
L Sj
�' ` J-s � � " � REV • - -
el
i c
rt ,
Location Orientation
• Typical•the channel andsediment• •approximately
300feet upstreamof the culvert.

Appendix III - Field Determination Forms

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 2/17/21
Project/Site: Perth Court
Latitude: 35.244463
Evaluator: NJM
county: Mecklenburg
Longitude:-80.749791
Total Points:
Stream Determination (
Other
Stream is at least intermittent 37
Ephemeral Intermitten Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30`
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 19.5 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
2
Ltn
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
0.3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
Q.
1
2
8. Headcuts
0
1
3
9. Grade control
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
FeS=3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 10 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
tyes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 7.5 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
2
3
22. Fish
n
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
10
0.5
1 00
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL =
1.5
1 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Perth Court
3. Applicant/owner name: City of Charlotte
5. County: Mecklenburg
7. River basin: Catawba
Date of evaluation: 2/17/21
Assessor name/organization:
Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
NJM
Briar Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.24463,-80.749791
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): 1 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 500
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 2 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 8 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ®A El
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ®Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
®A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
❑B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
®A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
❑B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
®A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
❑B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
®C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
❑A ❑A
Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
®B ❑B
Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
❑C ®C
Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
®B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
®I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
❑J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ®Yes ❑No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach)
(skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A
Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
N
❑F
5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
F CD
❑G
Submerged aquatic vegetation
®B
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
o Y
❑H
Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation
Y rC
❑I
Sand bottom
❑C
Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
r
❑J
5% vertical bank along the marsh
❑D
5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
❑K
Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
❑E
Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11 a. ®Yes ❑No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
®A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
❑B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (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)

12
Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ®Yes ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water ❑Other:
12b. ®Yes ❑No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑ ❑Adult frogs
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑ ❑Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ❑Beetles
® ❑Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ®Crustacean (isopod/a mph ipod/crayfish/sh ri mp)
❑ ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
❑ ❑Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ❑Other fish
❑ ❑ Sala manders/tad poles
❑ ❑Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ❑Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑B ❑B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
®C ®C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >_ 6 inches deep
❑B ❑B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®C ®C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
❑Y ❑Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
®N ®N
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
®A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
❑E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
®C Urban stream (>_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
®D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
❑F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
❑A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
❑B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
®C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
®D ®D ®D ❑D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
❑E ❑E ❑E ®E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Mature forest
❑B ❑B Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
®C ®C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D Maintained shrubs
❑E ❑E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Medium to high stem density
®B ®B Low stem density
❑C ❑C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
®A ®A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
❑B ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
❑B ❑B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
®C ®C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity— assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes ®No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ❑No Water ®Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 ❑B 46 to < 67 ❑C 67 to < 79 ❑D 79 to < 230 ❑E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Perth Court Date of Assessment
2/17/21
Stream Category Pa3 Assessor Name/Organization
NJM
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All
Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
(4) Microtopography
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
MEDIUM
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall
LOW

Appendix IV — Protected Species Documentation

]I ■■■
■■ ■ NC DEPARTMENT OF
■■i■i NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
June 22, 2021
Ashley Bentz
S&ME, Inc.
3201 Spring Forest Road
Raleigh, NC 27616
RE: Perth Courth Storm Drainage Improvement Project; 212411C
Dear Ashley Bentz:
Roy Cooper, Governor
D. Reid Wilson, Secretary
Wager Clark
Director, Division of land and Water Stewardship
NCNHDE-14925
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, Land and Water Fund easement, or Federally -
listed species are documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance,
please contact Rodney A. Butler at rod ney.butler�ncdcr.gov or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
DEPAR7HEN7 OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
121 W. JONES STREET. RALEIGH. NC 27603 • 1691 MAIL SERVICE CENTER. RALEIGH. NC 27609
OFC 919.707.9120 • FAX [phone]

CO
/
CO
s 2
/
^
a a
\
0/
/
©
$
2
\
\
J D
%
0)/
0
2
9 %
_
O
}
=
/
/
\
\
\
�
\\
\\
CO
J CO
2
/s
\\
G}
\ \ \
\
3
§
>
/
% _
�
u
CO
>
% 4
= _ _
\ %
_
\ \
/
\
\ \ \
\
/ \
1
§ y
u
e
3 3 3
3
> s
CO CO CO
CO
\
\ \ \
u
\
\\\\u /
« ±
e
j_
\
\\
\\
\
» ®
\
2 \
\ E
e — 9 0 /
= e
_
ƒ /
a a y
/ / 6 d o
-
) /
9 z Z a o
e>
%
2/
e
2\
awe 2
_= g=
± m-
e m
m o
g/
/
2 2
`°DZ
n
<
�\
\
\ \
»
u
/
> > >
>
4 %
ƒ
\ \ \
\
\ \
/ y
c
t
o 0 0
0
e
o
e
e e e
e
-_
_
3
2
2 2 2
2
f `
% o
Z e
e
2 E
0
\
///
n
\\
e
:
\\
e
0
_ _ _
_
z
/t
\®
\
/®
/(
E
2
O
®
d
4 j j j
j
Z\
§
e
/
O x x x
x
�\
\
E
/
y
\/
/
\
\
t
O
E_
/
± a\
0
\
m
E
s\
=
3
m
}
E e e
\%
e
H
» e
o
=
2
O
/: %
=
o
$ƒ
\
\ o
/
`
/ / \
D
`
«\
/
©
\ 9
2
s
?
\
9 ^
ey
«
e
\
\
\ \ \
\
\ \
E.±
\
\
\
-
\\
_
//
\
z
C)
/
\
o o o
o
0\
%
\
±
/
> > >
>
\ G
/ c
\
e
o
°
t t t
t
\\
±®
/
000
/3
%E
§
±
/
c e e e
e e
\
/\
\ .g
\
\
<
x -D\
s-
:
m/
a a a
n
\ \
CO
\ / / /
(
\�
n
E © D
D
®
CO\
z
CO
CO u u u
\ \
) \
/ \ \=
\
/ / /
\ /
\
/
/
/
/
/
§
\
c

I.l
U
Z
o -
r _
ul tifl� _
a`
- Y O
u_
v
E
N�Il�ams liG
K
J Oat
�t o
G2o 0� fan
c? .lov, �o 'O Tpi mF c
'as
A
2�
U E nlaMalW q
_ =y
a
p�19�u�H:1•M�3r-U'
w - <
.:aar
_
o
-
-
Pyj AemSff
_
_
fat
r•
AN
/
"OF '
O6.
c>b
� !
\ta\a
0 W d O' cQp
pp,
A.
(¢ m Q\31
'o
P
JQ V�mq 0
0\
—
C
p C
go&
Cow` ..
x(1 a�h46ti, b aa'IUry ��¢
�E
c,
�
_ WV
t
vR 1k Ot ! o
COl7� ,. 441
d 43
F
M
O
M

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.p,ov/nc-es/es/coupiyfr.html
In Reply Refer To:
Consultation Code: 04EN1000-2021-SLI-0680
Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-01638
Project Name: Perth Court Storm Drainage Improvement Project
June 24, 2021
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location 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
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.

06/24/2021 Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-01638
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/windenerg_y/) 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;
http://www.towerkill.com; andhttp://www.fws.gov/migratoDbirds/CurrentBirdlssues/Hazards/
towers/comtow.html.

06/24/2021 Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-01638 3
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

06/24/2021 Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-01638
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]

06/24/2021
Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-01638
Project Summary
Consultation Code: 04EN1000-2021-SLI-0680
Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-01638
Project Name: Perth Court Storm Drainage Improvement Project
Project Type: DREDGE / EXCAVATION
Project Description: Channel excavation and bank stabilization project to abate flooding and
sedimentation problems
Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:
www. google.com/maps/(a)35.244551,-80.74975208909984,14z
C w1i i,auQ
Cochrane
hldd W
f'R� art i r
W
Counties: Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

06/24/2021 Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-01638 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.
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 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. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3534
Flowering Plants
NAME
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

06/24/2021 Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-01638
Critical habitats
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.

06/24/2021 Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-01638
Migratory Birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act! and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act2.
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 Treat. 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.
1►I_Iuhl
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 pines 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

06/24/2021 Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-01638 2
NAME
BREEDING
SEASON
Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulea 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 Breeds May 10
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA to Sep 10
and Alaska.
Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus Breeds
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA elsewhere
and Alaska.
Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina Breeds May 10
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA to Aug 31
and Alaska.
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:
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

06/24/2021 Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-01638 3
was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is
0.25.
2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of
presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum
probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence
in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12
(0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on
week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.
3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical
conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the
probability of presence score.
Breeding Season( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time -frame inside which the bird breeds across
its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project
area.
Survey Effort (1)
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys
performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of
surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.
No Data (—)
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant
information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on
all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.
probability of presence breeding season I survey effort — no data
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Bald
Non-BCCe Jill +++JillJ++++
++++ + JillJill+ +—"++—
VulnerableBlue-wi
Warbler
++++ ++++ ++++ ++*' 7777 ---+ + " + ++++
i +++ + ++—+ +++—
BCC-BCR
Cerulean Warbler
BCC Rangewide ++++ ++++ ++++ ++* + ++++ ++++ ++++ ++—+ +++—
(CON)
Kentucky Warbler ++++ ++++ ++++ ++0� "" "" "" 111
+ ++++ ++++ ++—+ +++—

06/24/2021 Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-01638 4
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Prairie Warbler ++++ ++++ ++++ t ++ ++++ ++ —+ +++—
BCC Rangewide ��,+ ++++ + +
(CON)
Prothonotary Warbler ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++—+ +++—
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Woodpecker I I I I' IIII IIII IIII II11
+ I I I ++++ ++—+ +++—
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Rusty Blackbird
BCC Rangewide ++++ ++-- ---+ ++++ +++++++—
(CON)
Wood Thrush
BCC Rangewide ++++ ++++ ++++ +„i ii+i -4-+ IIII +i1-4 ++++ ++—+ +++—
(CON) ---
Additional information can be found using the following links:
• Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/
birds-of-conservation-concern.php
• Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds http://www.fws.gov/birds/
management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/
conservation-measures.php
• Nationwide conservation measures for birds http://www.fws.gov/migratoDLbirds/pdf/
irds/pdf/
management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasures. pdf
Migratory Birds FAQ
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts
to migratory birds.
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize
impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly
important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in
the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very
helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding
in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures 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
(BCQ and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.

06/24/2021 Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-01638 5
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
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).

06/24/2021 Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-01638 6
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 Lorin.
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid
violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.
Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report
The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of
birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for
identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC
use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be
aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that
overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look
carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no
data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey
effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In
contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of
certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for
identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might
be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you
know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement
conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities,
should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell
me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory
birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.

06/24/2021 Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-01638
Wetlands
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers District.
Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to
update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine
the actual extent of wetlands on site.
FRESHWATER FORESTED/SHRUB WETLAND
• PF01C
RIVERINE
• R5UBH

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.p,ov/nc-es/es/coupiyfr.html
IPaC Record Locator: 924-103289546
June 24, 2021
Subject: Consistency letter for the 'Perth Court Storm Drainage Improvement Project' project
indicating that any take of the northern long-eared bat that may occur as a result of the
Action is not prohibited under the ESA Section 4(d) rule adopted for this species at 50
CFR §17.40(o).
Dear David Homans:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) received on June 24, 2021 your effects
determination for the 'Perth Court Storm Drainage Improvement Project' (the Action) using the
northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) key within the Information for Planning and
Consultation (IPaC) system. You indicated that no Federal agencies are involved in funding or
authorizing this Action. This IPaC key assists users in determining whether a non -Federal action
may cause "take"Ell of the northern long-eared bat that is prohibited under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (87 Stat.884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Based upon your IPaC submission, any take of the northern long-eared bat that may occur as a
result of the Action is not prohibited under the ESA Section 4(d) rule adopted for this species at
50 CFR §17.40(o). Unless the Service advises you within 30 days of the date of this letter that
your IPaC-assisted determination was incorrect, this letter verifies that the Action is not likely to
result in unauthorized take of the northern long-eared bat.
Please report to our office any changes to the information about the Action that you entered into
IPaC, the results of any bat surveys conducted in the Action area, and any dead, injured, or sick
northern long-eared bats that are found during Action implementation.
If your Action proceeds as described and no additional information about the Action's effects on
species protected under the ESA becomes available, no further coordination with the Service is
required with respect to the northern long-eared bat.
The IPaC-assisted determination for the northern long-eared bat does not apply to the following
ESA -protected species that also may occur in your Action area:
• Carolina Heelsplitter Lasmigona decorata Endangered
• Michaux's Sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered

06/24/2021 IPaC Record Locator: 924-103289546
• Schweinitz's Sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
• Smooth Coneflower Echinacea laevigata Endangered
You may coordinate with our Office to determine whether the Action may cause prohibited take
of the animal species listed above.
[1]Take means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to
attempt to engage in any such conduct [ESA Section 3(19)].

06/24/2021 IPaC Record Locator: 924-103289546 3
Action Description
You provided to IPaC the following name and description for the subject Action.
1. Name
Perth Court Storm Drainage Improvement Project
2. Description
The following description was provided for the project'Perth Court Storm Drainage
Improvement Project':
Channel excavation and bank stabilization project to abate flooding and
sedimentation problems
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://www.google.com/
maps/(a)35.244551,-80.74975208909984,14z
Cxh ra ne
Middle
14 L„-
Determination Key Result
This non -Federal Action may affect the northern long-eared bat; however, any take of this
species that may occur incidental to this Action is not prohibited under the final 4(d) rule at 50
CFR §17.40(o).
Determination Key Description: Northern Long-eared Bat 4(d) Rule
This key was last updated in IPaC on May 15, 2017. Keys are subject to periodic revision.
This key is intended for actions that may affect the threatened northern long-eared bat.
The purpose of the key for non -Federal actions is to assist determinations as to whether proposed
actions are excepted from take prohibitions under the northern long-eared bat 4(d) rule.
If a non -Federal action may cause prohibited take of northern long-eared bats or other ESA -listed
animal species, we recommend that you coordinate with the Service.

06/24/2021 IPaC Record Locator: 924-103289546
4
Determination Key Result
Based upon your IPaC submission, any take of the northern long-eared bat that may occur as a
result of the Action is not prohibited under the ESA Section 4(d) rule adopted for this species at
50 CFR §17.40(o).
Qualification Interview
1. Is the action authorized, funded, or being carried out by a Federal agency?
No
2. Will your activity purposefully Take northern long-eared bats?
No
3. [Semantic] Is the project action area located wholly outside the White -nose Syndrome
Zone?
Automatically answered
No
4. Have you contacted the appropriate agency to determine if your project is near a known
hibernaculum or maternity roost tree?
Location information for northern long-eared bat hibernacula is generally kept in state
Natural Heritage Inventory databases — the availability of this data varies state -by -state.
Many states provide online access to their data, either directly by providing maps or by
providing the opportunity to make a data request. In some cases, to protect those resources,
access to the information may be limited. A web page with links to state Natural Heritage
Inventory databases and other sources of information on the locations of northern long-
eared bat roost trees and hibernacula is available at www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/
mammals/nleb/nhisites.html.
Yes
Will the action affect a cave or mine where northern long-eared bats are known to
hibernate (i.e., hibernaculum) or could it alter the entrance or the environment (physical or
other alteration) of a hibernaculum?
No
6. Will the action involve Tree Removal?
Im

06/24/2021 IPaC Record Locator: 924-103289546
Project Questionnaire
If the project includes forest conversion, report the appropriate acreages below.
Otherwise, type `0' in questions 1-3.
1. Estimated total acres of forest conversion:
0
2. If known, estimated acres of forest conversion from April 1 to October 31
0
3. If known, estimated acres of forest conversion from June 1 to July 31
0
If the project includes timber harvest, report the appropriate acreages below.
Otherwise, type `0' in questions 4-6.
4. Estimated total acres of timber harvest
0
5. If known, estimated acres of timber harvest from April 1 to October 31
0
6. If known, estimated acres of timber harvest from June 1 to July 31
0
If the project includes prescribed fire, report the appropriate acreages below.
Otherwise, type `0' in questions 7-9.
7. Estimated total acres of prescribed fire
0
8. If known, estimated acres of prescribed fire from April 1 to October 31
0
9. If known, estimated acres of prescribed fire from June 1 to July 31
0
If the project includes new wind turbines, report the megawatts of wind capacity
below. Otherwise, type `0' in question 10.
10. What is the estimated wind capacity (in megawatts) of the new turbine(s)?
0

Appendix V — Cultural Resources Documentation

NCHPO HPOWEB
`{ ,,north Or 9
R \oV1WIN �q �#0)0 r
ts, 1' 4, ;
r T'A
y+a1\
�t ya
I ",IrY^nl,ly10
0Qrfj�i�'
All
' CI
bo
O #FEO
x.
�I�l]Ct
°IrJ-
ROth 0'
to
° V4a CAr
fi
�, i I
14
{
AdArTrS OF
s C411.kIFa t:1
I
{. 5
k � �'hd
i
Iv�+llal rlq
r b
Q
I�
nAlllaly 4
1j �" I'ME F LE!,
V+�r yV�,7Y Or
III
�
Shannon Park Grafton Dr
���lJ� pyaMr54 �r
Ildrnn
frfarkway
ffLA
I I
Cirl
Q*
*srorr" Dr
°:
Ili„14�I4�1
N'•FII.lI'.vk
II
061kVao Dr
4
isTrj
Gr
rr�s�
e� v
fxr�
C'ateac
UalOanY pry
5r
�l�
,g
c
�lanehraw�rr pr
, ..; aovIF
Dr 4'
a,nrr�uxr,
Ole
jtiard rYQw Dir
°Qr.
%,4L\
6/24/2021, 8:30:46 AM
PerthCourt - Project Parcel
■..: Local districts & boundaries
Local individual resources & centerpoints
Local Landmark
Local Landmark, Gone
Local HD Center Point
1:18,056
0 0.13 0.25 0.5 mi
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 km
City of Charlotte, County of Cabarrus, State of North Carolina DOT, Esri,
HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, NGA USGS
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
City of Charlotte, County of Cabarrus, State of North Carolina DOT, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, NGA USGS I Participating NC Counties, NCCGIA NC OneMap, US EPA I Esri, HERE

Appendix VI - Technical Memo (flood analysis and sediment
transport model)

Proposed Channel Modification
Analysis Technical Memo
Perth Court / Milton Road Storm
Drainage Improvements Project
City Contract No. 2020-000811
June 2, 2021
Final Submittal
Prepared for:
".STORM
WATER
Charlotte Mecklenburg
Storm Water Services
oFEss
fJ�AL ` 9.
038053
C.
,�11110'* � 06/02/21
Prepared by:
bb STV
STV Engineers, Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Background...................................................................................................................................................1
PurposeStatement........................................................................................................................................1
Methodology..................................................................................................................................................1
HydraulicAnalysis Results.........................................................................................................................2
Sediment Transport Analysis Results.........................................................................................................7
Conclusions...................................................................................................................................................8
TABLES
Table —1 Existing Conditions Channel Hydraulic Analysis Summary — Assuming 30% Culvert
Blockage
Table — 2 Proposed Conditions Channel Hydraulic Analysis Summary — Modify 951' of Channel
by Removing Sediment Between Channel Banks Within Apartment Complex
Table — 3 Proposed Channel Sediment Removal Quantity Estimate
Table — 4 Existing and Proposed Perth Court Culvert Performance
FIGURES
Figure — 1 HEC-RAS Profile Output for 2-year Storm Comparing Existing Channel Conditions
with 30% Culvert Blockage and Proposed Channel Sediment Removal for 951'
Figure — 2 HEC-RAS Sediment Transport Schematic Plot
Figure — 3 Existing Flood Map - Pre Channel Improvements
Figure — 4 Proposed Flood Map — Post Channel Improvements

Background
The Park Creek Apartment complex is located at the intersection of Perth Court and Milton Road in
Charlotte, North Carolina. A flooding event at the apartment complex was reported to the City of
Charlotte that occurred on August 23, 2019. A flooding event that occurred on July 12, 2010 was also
reported. The two storm events caused excessive flooding at the apartment complex. The storm flow
overtopped the road at the Perth Court culvert, overtopped the banks of the stream channel running
through the apartment complex, and caused the drainage systems within the complex to surcharge. In
response to the flooding situation at the apartment complex, Charlotte -Mecklenburg Storm Water
Services implemented a flood study for the Perth Court Storm Drainage Improvements Project. Kimley
Horn & Associates were tasked with providing an existing conditions assessment of the watershed. STV
Engineers, Inc. were tasked with providing an analysis within a technical memorandum (dated May 28,
2020) that included a potential attenuation site upstream of the Park Creek apartment complex to help
reduce the severity of flooding events. STV was subsequently tasked with analyzing the effect of
removing sediment from the stream channel through the apartment complex to determine if it will by
itself reduce the severity of flooding events. STV has submitted two previous technical memorandums
about channel sediment removal based on limited survey. This technical memorandum's analysis and
results are based on detailed field survey provided by Stewart Engineering and correspond with the
channel sediment removal design plans.
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this hydrologic and hydraulic technical memorandum is to assess the feasibility of
removing sediment buildup within the channel and culvert through the Park Creek apartment complex to
reduce potential flooding. This technical memo will serve as a prelude to the larger scope of work that
covers the planning level Survey, Existing Conditions Analysis, Level of Service / Capital Project Design,
Alternatives Analysis, and Selected Alternative project milestones.
Methodologv
Refer to the Perth Court Technical memorandum dated May 28, 2020 for the hydrologic and hydraulic
methodology and assumptions used to analyze the channels, culverts, and closed drainage systems within
the Park Creek Apartment Complex.
Refer to the Perth Court Technical memorandums dated December 1, 2020 and January 7, 2021 for
alternatives analysis of channel sediment removal with limited survey.
The existing conditions channel hydraulic analysis summary from HEC-RAS was included as the base
comparison for the level of service provided by the channel and culvert system adjacent to the apartment
buildings. A HEC-RAS model assuming a 30% blockage of the existing Perth Court 9.5' wide by 6.0'
tall arch corrugated metal pipe culvert was run and used as the base comparison. Field observations show
that the existing culvert is potentially blocked by sediment and reduces the capacity of the culvert by
approximately 30% (invert buried approximately 2.0'). The detailed survey provided aided in confirming
these assumptions regarding the Perth Court culvert.
Channel sediment removal plans were produced that propose removing sediment from the existing culvert
and approximately 951' of stream channel within the Park Creek Apartment Complex. Stream
improvement features were added such as a flood bench, rock cross vanes, and rip rap embankment
repair. The sediment removal from the stream bed ranges in depth at any given cross section with a
maximum depth of 2.7' and an average of 1.2'. The slope of the stream bed was set at 0.30% for most of
the reach with a steeper slope of 0.93% at the upstream tie-in point to the existing stream bed. The
Charlotte Storm Water Services Perth Court / Milton Road Storm Drainage Improvements Project
City Contract # 2020 000811 Proposed Channel Modification Analysis Technical Memorandum
STV Project No. 4020560 Page 1

assumed natural width of the stream bed varies from 6' to 12' and was maintained to the furthest extent
practical with minimal impacts to the stream banks. Where possible, the existing top of banks were
maintained. The proposed conditions HEC-RAS model was produced to reflect the channel modifications
design plans.
A sediment transport analysis using HEC-RAS was performed to determine if the sandy sediment
deposits would potentially fill in the stream bed over time. The quasi unsteady flow analysis was
performed based on the Yang Flume study on the deposition and erosion of sand performed at a North
Carolina State University HEC-RAS Stream Restoration and Sediment Transport Course. The sediment
data used to represent the stream bed gradation is based on field observations of the sandy sediment
deposits to be a mixture of fine, medium, and coarse sand (d50 = 0.5mm). The quasi unsteady flow
boundary conditions were set to use flow series at the upstream end of the reach and stage series at the
downstream end of the reach. A sediment data rating curve was provided with the flow series to represent
the assumed sediment loading from reaches upstream of the study reach. The sediment assumed depth
was set to one foot within the stream banks (sediment `moveable' cross section) assuming that there will
be some sand deposits remaining after construction. This allows the model results to show where
potential sediment deposition and degradation will occur. The flows were entered to represent bank full
condition to analyze a bank full storm event. The bank full storm event is the recommended hydraulic
scenario to simulate sediment transport occurring on a yearly basis.
Hydraulic Analysis Results
The results of the existing and proposed conditions hydraulic scenarios are as follows.
Table 1 summarizes the existing hydraulic performance of the existing stream channel in relation to the
top of bank and buildings located adjacent to the channel according to the HEC-RAS EXWA-Pre model.
For building 4539, the level of service provided by the channel & culvert system is less than the 2-year
storm for the LAG and the 2-year storm for the FFE.
Table 1. Existing Conditions Channel Hydraulic Analysis Summary - Assuming 30% Culvert
Blockage
HEC-RAS Cross
Section Station
Adjacent
Building
Number
Approximate
Lowest Adjacet
Grade Elevation
(ft)
Approximate
Finished Floor
Elevation (ft)
Water Surface Elevations (ft)
2-Year
10-Year
25-Year
50-Year
100-Year
250 / 300
2009
716.8
718.6
713.6
716.9
718.4
719.0
719.4
400 /450 / 500
4528
716.0
717.5
715.6
717.5
718.4
719.0
719.4
500 / 550 / 600
4532
716.0
719.0
715.9
719.1
719.5
700 / 750 / 775
4600
718.0
721.2
716.7
- -
' 19.7
650 / 700 / 750
4536
717.6
720.2
716.5
718.6
'19.6
925 / 950 / 1000
4539
718.0
719.8
719.8
720.0
720.3
720.5
925 / 950 / 1000
4601
719.2
722.2
719.0
719.8
1100 / 1150 / 1200
4619
719.2
723.5
719.0
1300 / 1350 / 1400
4629
720.9
724.3
719.4
Note: WSELs listed in orange indicate WSELs greater than the approximate lowest adjacent grade elevation.
Note: WSELs listed in red indicate WSELs greater than the approximate finished floor elevation.
Charlotte Storm Water Services Perth Court / Milton Road Storm Drainage Improvements Project
City Contract # 2020 000811 Proposed Channel Modification Analysis Technical Memorandum
STV Project No. 4020560 Page 2

Table 2 summarizes the proposed hydraulic performance of the proposed modified stream channel and
culvert cleared of sediment in relation to the top of bank and buildings located adjacent to the channel
according to HEC-RAS EXWA-Post model. The stream is modified for approximately 951' of channel
within the apartment complex (cross sections 286 to 1350) where a maximum of 2.7' of sediment is
removed at cross section 700 with a 1.2' average for the entire reach. For building 4539, the level of
service provided by the channel & culvert system is the 2-year storm for the LAG and the 10-year storm
for the FFE. The level of service improves for the LAG and FFE when compared with the results in
Table 1 for building 4539. The level of service does improve for other buildings within the apartment
complex (such as 4600 ant 4629) due to the decreased water surface elevations throughout the reach. See
Figure 3 Existing Flood Map - Pre channel improvements & Figure 4 for Proposed Flood Map - Post
Channel Improvements for approximate flooding limits.
Table 2. Proposed Conditions Channel Hydraulic Analysis Summary - Modify 951' of Channel by
Removing Sediment Between Channel Banks Within Apartment Complex
HEC-RAS Cross
Section Station
Adjacent
Building
Number
Approximate
Lowest Adjacet
Grade Elevation
(ft)
Approximate
Finished Floor
Elevation (ft)
Water Surface Elevations (ft)
2-Year
10-Year
25-Year
50-Year
100-Year
250 / 300
2009
716.8
718.6
713.6
718.4
719.0
719.4
400 /450 / 500
4528
716.0
717.5
715.2
718.5
719.1
719.4
500 / 550 / 600
4532
716.0
719.0
715.4
718.5
719.1
719.5
700 / 750 / 775
4600
718.0
721.2
715.8
717.7
718.6
-
' 19.6
650 / 700 / 750
4536
717.6
720.2
715.8
718.6
'19.6
925 / 950 / 1000
4539
718.0
719.8
717.4
720.0
720.2
720.3
925 / 950 / 1000
4601
719.2
722.2
717.4
720.0
1100 / 1150 / 1200
4619
719.2
723.5
717.7
1300 / 1350 / 1400
4629
720.9
724.3
718.4
720.6
Note: WSELs listed in orange indicate WSELs greater than the approximate lowest adjacent grade elevation.
Note: WSELs listed in red indicate WSELs greater than the approximate finished floor elevation.
Charlotte Storm Water Services Perth Court / Milton Road Storm Drainage Improvements Project
City Contract # 2020 000811 Proposed Channel Modification Analysis Technical Memorandum
STV Project No. 4020560 Page 3

Table 3. Proposed Channel Sediment Removal Quantity Estimate
Approx
Existing Stream
Proposed
Invert Elevation
Area of Cross
Sediment
Distance to
Existing Stream
Proposed
Hec-Ras Station
downstream
Invert Elevation
Slope between
Dredged Invert
Stream Slope
Change between
Section Cut
Removal
Notes
cross sections
between cross
existing and
Estimated
Estimated
cross section
(ft)
Elevation (ft)
sections(%)
proposed(ft)
Quantity (SF)
Quantity(CY)
ft
250
707.32
70732
0.00
0.0
Start Channel Sediment Removal at
Cross Section 25 0 - Upstream of
Milton Road Culvert
300
50
710.27
5.90%
709.50
4.35%
-0.77
11.4
10.6
350
50
710.59
0.64%
709.65
0.30%
-0.94
21.6
30.6
400
50
710.24
-0.70%
709.80
0.30%
-0.44
71.3
86.0
450
50
711.20
1.92%
709.95
0.30%
-1.25
22.2
86.6
500
50
711.24
0.08%
710.10
0.30%
-1.14
23.7
42.5
550
50
712.02
1.56%
71025
0.30%
-1.77
20.3
40.7
Approximate average channel
bottom width throughout this
section of channel varies between 6'
600
50
711.28
-1.48%
710.40
0.30%
-0.88
12.4
30.3
& 12'
650
50
712.96
3.36%
710.55
0.30%
-2.41
26.5
36.0
700
50
713.39
0.86%
710.70
0.30%
-2.69
44.7
65.9
750
50
713.37
-0.04%
710.85
0.30%
-2.52
43.3
81.5
775
25
712.70
-2.68%
710.92
0.30%
-1.78
38.6
37.9
Downstream end of Pertly Court
795
20
712.48
-1.10%
710.98
0.30%
-1.50
14.3
19.6
Culvert- Assume 1.5'of Sediment
removal through Culvert
Upstream end of Perth Court
908
113
713.49
0.89%
711.99
0.89%
-1.50
14.3
59.6
Culvert
Charlotte Storm Water Services
City Contract # 2020 000811
STV Project No. 4020560
Perth Court / Milton Road Storm Drainage Improvements Project
Proposed Channel Modification Analysis Technical Memorandum
Page 4

Table 3. Proposed Channel Sediment Removal Quantity Estimate (continued)
Approx
Existing Stream
Proposed
Invert Elevation
Area of Cross
Sediment
Distance to
Existing Stream
Slope between
Proposed
Stream Slope
Changebetween
Section Cut
Removal
Hec-Ras Station
downstream
Invert Elevation
Dredged Invert
Notes
cross section
(ft)
cross sections
Elevation(ft)
between cross
existing and
Estimated
Estimated
ft
N)
sections(%)
proposed(ft)
Quantity (SF)
Quantity (CY)
925
17
713.36
-0.76%
712.04
0.30%
-1.32
29.8
13.9
950
25
713.43
0.28%
712.12
0.30%
-1.31
27.4
26.5
1000
50
713.57
0.28%
71227
0.30%
-1.30
34.9
57.7
1050
50
713.45
-0.24%
712.42
0.30%
-1.03
10.3
41.9
Approximate average channel
bottom width throughout this
1100
50
713.26
-0.38 %
712.57
0.30%
-0.69
5.9
15.0
section of channel varies between 6'
& 10'
1150
50
713.61
0.70%
712.72
0.30%
-0.89
6.9
11.9
1200
50
713.42
-0.38%
712.87
0.30%
-0.55
5.1
11.1
1250
50
713.92
1.00%
713.02
0.30%
-0.90
7.5
11.7
1300
50
71432
0.80%
713.48
0.93%
-0.84
7.4
13.8
1350
50
714.03
-0.58%
714.03
1.10%
0.00
0.0
6.9
End Channel Sediment Removal
1400
50
714.00
-0.06%
714.00
-0.06%
0.00
0.0
0.0
Sub -Total (CY) 1 837.9
Add 10%(CY) 1 83.8
Total (CY) 1 921.7
say (CY) 1 930
Charlotte Storm Water Services Perth Court / Milton Road Storm Drainage Improvements Project
City Contract # 2020 000811 Proposed Channel Modification Analysis Technical Memorandum
STV Project No. 4020560 Page 5

Table 4 summarizes the existing and proposed hydraulic performance of the Perth Court 6.0' x 9.5' CMP
Arch Culvert. The existing culvert performance results assumes a 30% blockage of the culvert by
sediment. The proposed culvert performance assumes sediment is removed at a depth of 1.5' from the
culvert and from 951' of channel as described in the previous section of the report (Table 2). With the
sediment removed from the culvert and channel, the culvert's level of service increases from less than a 2-
year storm event to a 2-year storm event without overtopping the cul-de-sac.
Table 4. Existing and Proposed Perth Court Culvert Performance
Perth Court 6.9 x 9.5' CMP Arch Culvert
HEC-RAS
Water Surface Elevations (ft)
Crossing Condition
Station
2-Year
10-Year
25-Year
50-Year
100-Year
Existing Condition with 30% Sediment Blockage
925
719.0
719.8
720.0
720.2
720.4
Proposed Condition with Channel Sediment &
Culvert Sediment Blockage Removed
925
7173
719.6
719.9
720.1
7203
Overtopping Elevation Perth Court = 718.6
Note: WSELs listed in red indicate roadway overtopping.
Charlotte Storm Water Services Perth Court / Milton Road Storm Drainage Improvements Project
City Contract # 2020 000811 Proposed Channel Modification Analysis Technical Memorandum
STV Project No. 4020560 Page 6

Figure 1. HEC-RAS Profile Output for 2-year Storm Comparing Existing Channel Conditions
with 30% Culvert Blockage and Proposed Channel with 951' of Channel Sediment Removal Within
Apartment Complex
P.M Carl MECAAS mp"3 ti E� wear ?[ w..a Dm*d +.muse+
MbbFQ �
2-year Storm WSEL
with Modified Channel
2-year Storm WSEL
with Existing Channel
& Culvert 30% Blacked
T
Existing Channel Invert
Modified Channel Invert
Charlotte Storm Water Services Perth Court / Milton Road Storm Drainage Improvements Project
City Contract # 2020 000811 Proposed Channel Modification Analysis Technical Memorandum
STV Project No. 4020560 Page 7

Sediment Transport Analysis Results
The sediment transport simulation shows there is potential for sediment deposition upstream of the Perth
Court Culvert and within the culvert. The simulation shows sediment degradation downstream of the
Perth Court Culvert continuing through the Milton Road Culvert and reaching sediment equilibrium at
downstream end of the reach. Assuming one foot of deposited sand remains after construction allows the
model to simulate where the sand will potentially be deposited, degraded (eroded), or at equilibrium.
After construction, the sandy sediment is assumed to all be removed and the channel bed replaced with
natural on -site gravel and stone bed gradation. Erosion downstream of the culvert is not anticipated given
the coarser channel bed substrate. Deposition upstream and within the culvert is expected considering the
culvert is undersized and tends to trap sandy sediments over time. The estimated duration to deposit
enough sand to replace what is being removed during construction at a max depth of 1.3' at cross section
950 is approximately 3 years assuming one bank full storm event each year. See the schematic plot in
figure 2 below with the simulation results showing potential deposition, degradation, or equilibrium
potions of the reach.
Figure 2. HEC-RAS Sediment Transport Schematic Plot
Slue Sections of the
Plot Represent
Sediment Equilibrium
Milton Road Culvert
Conclusions
Red Portions of the
Plot Represent
Sediment Deposition
Perth Court Culvert
Purple Portions of the
Plot Represent
Sediment Degradation
Channel modifications and culvert sediment removal within the Park Creek apartment complex property
do offer some improvements in flooding conditions for the buildings adjacent to the channel. The
improvements in flooding conditions are most realized for the 2-year storm event or less. Channel and
culvert sediment removal for approximately 951' of channel within the apartment complex does offer
some improvements in flooding conditions for the buildings adjacent to the channel. The improvements
in flooding conditions are most realized for the 2-year storm event or less. When comparing the existing
channel with culvert blockage to the channel and culvert sediment removal the maximum drop in water
Charlotte Storm Water Services Perth Court / Milton Road Storm Drainage Improvements Project
City Contract # 2020 000811 Proposed Channel Modification Analysis Technical Memorandum
STV Project No. 4020560 Page 8

surface elevation for the 2-year storm event is 1.6'. This improves the flooding severity for up to nine
buildings and improves the level of service for four buildings. The Perth Court culvert's performance
also improves by increasing level of service from less than a 2-year storm event to a 2-year storm event
without overtopping the cul-de-sac. The stream sediment removal plan offers the most flood
improvement benefit with the least impacts to the stream.
For sediment deposition concerns after construction there is moderate to high potential for future sand
deposition upstream and within the Perth Court culvert. There is low potential for future sand deposition
downstream of the Perth Court culvert.
A jurisdictional determination will need to be performed for the potential stream channels and wetlands
within the project limits and submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and North Carolina
Department of Water Resources (NCDWR) for verification. The potential stream impacts will need to be
shown on permit drawings to be submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers for review and approval. The
stream sediment removal will need to be limited to less than 1000' to satisfy the stream maintenance
permit requirements.
Charlotte Storm Water Services Perth Court / Milton Road Storm Drainage Improvements Project
City Contract # 2020 000811 Proposed Channel Modification Analysis Technical Memorandum
STV Project No. 4020560 Page 9

Appendix VII - FEMA FIRMETTE

k
O
O
e
p e
cc
Q N C N
O e
x
N
C
LL
i N _6
a)
a)
c
N
co
L
U
m
t t E
co
3
C
=
a>
N J
-6
= a)
j LL
°— ¢
m W
o�3m
° o ° a
�x o
-o
m
m
o
O E—
°�
¢ a)
m
a) v
O O w
a)
Q O k
N _6
2
LLL O (6
C C
o O J
C
W T
-O N Co
LL l a)
a) a) C
a)
O v
o LLL �S
N
V
O
V 3
a) _O
YO
U Co O
N
O
LL
C O
L > O -C.,
-coo
° Q -6
LL O
t co L ° m
C 2
C m U
w
0'
E LL
3 W >
15 a a)
w O
U ° m
o V O O
a) a) YO
w a) a) a) T O
m
O
a) C m)
Co Q O T
m
Y N
C O a) LL
O L a) L
C O
C U Y
'� N V
°O
N a
~ m
W O
�¢m m
C w
¢mdN
LL
d�
N
6
_
o c
N=~
� mLL o
m W m
0.
�_
o m
3� 3
m a) m
m
co
w w
_°
N a)
N `_'i a) T
= d> d
d w
d Cow
° O N
O T
w
0 0 -a coLL
U Q J Q
Q W
Q U J
U U coJ
U a 2
w
LL
O W
u�Q
L
a
w a
a Z U
OLLI Q
Q
Q p
w C 7
LL
O
w O
= F-
as
LLI
=�
r
O "�
fn 2
r LL
O
a) �
a)
(6 �
E
a
a
z
2�
CL _
m N
E���
ao
E co
to
0
N
�3m
E= 0v2
Co
o0aa))Ev
o
°
°E
°QwoYm
-a -a
,
C
ate+ N
w W -OO U
T
a) O aT+
-0
m >
m p
E
-O m
a)-
LL T
° T C m
+�-' w 4
y
Q
a)NY
Ea)
o2 Emo
> m
Y a m
Nn0
v UQ
v-a � � E
°-
a
a) a) E-a
o
m o
o ��, °
-a awi w
w v aa)
c°> > o
am+ Q
CL
NCL 4 a)
m L
i O = E O
O a (a a1 N
wow
amm��m
E
°o -aU
Z
_6 O
O O-
O N E
a) L
w
Q
W
LL C
E
a) O a)
Cow N
Q d LL
w °
C m
w
a�+y„ U
i ��� T
co c
-6 a) aN V
oo-as °
❑❑®
t0C
r am
3 0 w
v
°3NE°'v
cJ�m 6 a)
�
0, - c
� m -
a
� o-t
CL co
v = ° m �
mZ-o
E = 0
u)
w
EEa�
�0
M
��m���
-a °
Z
O- 4 a) T
t.>_°3oz�
_O y O L a) w
co
a y N C a) 0'
a o
Q
a
cow o
E c,' 2
o ._ a o t m
° `o �r E
Com
E a) ° m
0
ax
a) t a) O
0
E m
¢
twotc�Co
°i
t
to wo��
�
c o r m
r m 3 r
r a LL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LO
0
LO
N
W

Contact Name*
Contact Email Address*
Project Owner*
Project Name*
Project County*
Owner Address:*
Is this a transportation project?*
D. David Homans / Kristen O'Reilly
[e-mail]
Charlotte Stormwater Services
Perth Court SDIP
Mecklenburg
Street Address
600 East Fourth Street
Address Line 2
aty
Charlotte
Postal / Zip axle
28203
C Yes c: No
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:
W 401 Water Quality Certification - F- 401 Water Quality Certification -
Regular Express
F- Individual Permit F- Modification
F- Shoreline Stabilization
Does this project have an existing project ID#?*
C Yes c: No
State / Province / Pegion
NC
Country
Mecklenburg
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 and include location information.*
The project involves sediment removal and channel improvements
upstream and downstream of a culvert under Perth Court that is
leading to extensive adjacent flooding concerns. Previous field
meetings regarding this site have occurred between Alan Johnson
and CSWS staff.
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 6/10/2021