20190732 Ver 1_PCN Form Submission_20190531

DR
10riy1M of wiser R"O.rc"
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
September 29, 2018 Ver 3
Initial Review
Has this project met the requirements for acceptance into the review process?*
r Yes
r No
Is this project a public transportation project?*
r Yes r No
(image only if needed.
BIMS # Assigned *
Version#*
20190732
1
Is a payment required for this project?*
!' No payment required
What amout is owed?*
* Fee received
r $240.00
r Fee needed - send electronic notification
r $570.00
Reviewing Office* Select Project Reviewer*
Mooresville Regional Office - [phone] Alan Johnson:eads\adjohnson1
Information for Initial Review
1a. Name of project:
No Da Sugar Creek
1a. Who is the Primary Contact?*
Chris Tinklenberg
1 b. Primary Contact Email:*
[e-mail]
Date Submitted
5/31/2019
Nearest Body of Water
Little Sugar Creek
Basin
Catawba
Water Classification
C
Site Coordinates
Latitude:
35.247920
A. Processing Information
County (or Counties) where the project is located:
Mecklenburg
Is this project a public transportation project?*
r Yes r No
Longitude:
-80.812634
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
V Section 404 Permit (wetlands, streams and waters, Clean Water Act)
F Section 10 Permit (navigable ureters, tidal waters, Rivers and Harbors Act)
1 b. What type(s) of permit(s) do you wish to seek authorization?
P Nationwide Permit (NWP)
F- Regional General Permit (RGP)
r- Standard (IP)
1c. Primary Contact Phone:*
[phone]

1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
r Yes r No
Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number:
NWP Numbers (for multiple NWPS):
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:
V 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular
F Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
F Individual Permit
29 - Residential Developments
1e. 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:
F 401 Water Quality Certification - E)press
r Riparian Buffer Authorization
1f. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?*
r Yes r No
1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
r Yes r No
1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
f Yes r No
Acceptance Letter Attachment
No Da Sugar Creek — Brand Properties, LLC CAT03ESA Acceptance.pdf 89.23KB
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?
F- Owner 67 Applicant (other than owner)
1e. Is there an Agent/Consultant for this project?
r Yes r No
2. Owner Information
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
Dan Fitzpatrick
2b. Deed book and page no.:
33183 and 233, 239
2c. Responsible party:
BP Trail LLC / BP NODA LLC
2d. Address
Street Address
3328 Peach Tree Rd NE STE 100
Address line 2
l7ly
Atlanta
Ftstal / Zip Cade
30326
2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2g. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
3. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
3a. Name:
Chris Tinklenberg, PWS
State / Rovince / Fbgion
GA
Country
USA
2f. Fax Number:
r Yes r No
r Yes r No

3b. Business Name:
Kimley-Horn and Associates
3c. Address
Street Address
200 South Tryon Street, Suite 200
Address tine 2
atY
Charlotte
Rata) / Zip Cade
28202
3d. Telephone Number:
[phone]
3f. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
C. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Project Information
1b. Subdivision name:
(If appropriate)
1c. Nearest municipality/ town:
Charlotte
2. Project Identification
2a. Property Identification Number:
061560058
2c. Project Address
Street Address
Address Lire 2
aty
Charlotte
Fbstal / Zip Code
3. Surface Waters
3a. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project:*
Little Sugar Creek
3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water:*
C
3c. What river basin(s) is your project located in?*
Catawba
3d. Please provide the 12 -digit HUC in which the project is located.
03050103
4. Project Description and History
State / Frovince / Pagbn
NC
Country
US
3e. Fax Number:
2b. Property size:
16.02
State / Rovince / Region
NC
O�untry
4a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this application:*
The project area is located southeast of the intersection of North Tryon Street and Matheson Avenue, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The project area is currently undeveloped
forest land. Emsting land use in the vicinity of the project includes industrial development, commercial development, and undeveloped forested/maintained properties.
4b. Have Corps permits or DWR certifications been obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in the past?*
F Yes f No r Unknown
4c. If yes, please give the DWR Certification number or the Corps Action ID (exp. SAW -0000-00000).
SAW -2018-01201
Project History Upload
SAW -2018-01201 NoDa Exchange (Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination).pdf
524.91 KB
4d. Attach an 8 1/2 X 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the USGS topographic map indicating the location of the project site. (for DWR)
Fig2_%da_USGS TopoMap.pdf 1.29MB
4e. Attach an 8 1/2 X 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the published County NRCS Soil Survey map depicting the project site. (for DWR)
Fig3_Node _SSURGO_.pdf 904.56KB

4f. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
1.33
4g. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property:
1994
4h. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:*
The purpose of the project to construct a new multi -family development including buildings, associated parking lots, pedestrian connections, and landscaping.
41. Describe the overall project in detail, including indirect impacts and the type of equipment to be used:*
The site consists of a roughly 16 -acre tract located at 255 Matheson Avenue, which is situated between Matheson Avenue and Cullman Avenue, in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County. The
project site is currently two (2) separate parcels; PIN's: 08303150 and 08303151. The site is primarily wooded and bisected by a utility easement and Little Sugar Creek.
Development of the approximately 16 -acre residential parcel Will include four separate multi -story buildings consisting of 251 individual units, a leasing/amenity center, pool
area/courtyard, and associated parking lots. Access into the site includes a single private driveway off Matheson Avenue and a bridge crossing over Little Sugar Creek connecting the
disjointed site from north to south.
The proposed project seeks to install a 175 If, 30" reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) with flared end sections along Stream B. The culvert will be installed below the elevation of the stream
bed by 20% of the culvert diameter to allow low flow passage of water and aquatic life. Rip -rap dissipation is proposed at the inlet and outlet of the proposed pipe to reduce discharge
velocity and meet non-erosive design criteria. Both areas will be constructed using natural channel design techniques that include ensuring that the rip -rap is properly installed into the
channel bed and placed in a fashion to ensure aquatic passage. The culvert installation and inlet/outlet protections will result in 204 If of permanent stream impacts to non -wetland
waters of the US. Installation of the culvert requires 40 If of temporary stream impacts for the construction activities necessary to work in dry conditions.
Construction of a retaining wall and associated grading fill slopes necessary to facilitate construction on the northern portion of the property requires the relocation of a section of
Stream B. The proposed stream relocation will result in 94 If of permanent, no net loss impacts to non -wetland waters of the United States. Stream B will be relocated and rehabilitated to
no less than current conditions. A relocation plan, utilizing natural channel design techniques, including in -stream structures (constructed riffles), appropriately designed pattern, profile
and bank grading Will be implemented in order to provide the appropriate aquatic uplift. Coir fiber matting will be installed, and a temporary seed mixwill be applied immediately following
construction to provide initial stabilization. A planting plan including the application of a permanent seed mix and planting native riparian live stakes and bare roots will be conducted to
provide long-term stability. The stream relocation requires 20 If of temporary stream impacts for the construction activities necessary to work in dry conditions.
Additional impacts associated with the construction of the northern portion of the property include 0.18 -ac of permanent impacts to Wetland B at two separate impact sites. 0.06 -ac of
temporary wetland impacts are necessary to facilitate construction of the retaining wall within Wetland B.
Mud mats Will be utilized over a portion of Wetland B to provide temporary construction access and prevent wetland soil disturbance, resulting in 0.06 -ac of temporary wetland impacts.
Construction access will be located within a temporary construction easement and is not part of the overall development. A temporary stream crossing over Little Sugar Creek is
necessary to provide construction access to the southern portion of the property, prior to construction of the bridge. Timbers will be placed from top of bank to top of bank and Will not
result in temporary impacts below the ordinary high-water mark of Little Sugar Creek.
Construction activities on the southern portion of the property include 0.06 -ac of permanent wetland impacts to Wetland C from grading fill slopes necessary for construction of a
pedestrian footpath. 0.04 -ac of temporary wetland impacts are necessary to Wetland C to construct the retaining wall for the footpath.
General construction equipment, such as; bulldozers, back hoes, front end loaders, etc. will be used for construction purposes.
4j. Please upload project drawings for the proposed project.
The Exchange NoDa_11x17.pdf 61.26MB
06_NoDa_Figures_Complete.pdf 4.75MB
5. Jurisdictional Determinations
5a. Have the wetlands or streams been delineated on the propertyor proposed impact areas?*
r Yes
Comments
r No
5b. If the Corps made a jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made?*
r Preliminary G Approved r Not Verified r Unknown r N/A
Corps AID Number:
SAW -2018-01201
5c. If 5a is yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Chris Tinklenberg, PWS
Agency/Consultant Company: Kimley-Horn &Assoc., Inc.
Other:
4 Unknown
5d. List the dates of the Corp jurisdiction determination or State determination if a determination was made by the Corps or DWR
Field verification visit on August 31, 2018
Date of JD: 03/07/2019
5d1. Jurisdictional determination upload
SAW -2018-01201 NoDa Exchange (Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination).pdf 524.91 KB
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?*
r Yes r No
Are any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or individual permits(s) used, or intended to be used, to authorize any part of the proposed project or related activity?
D. Proposed Impacts Inventory

1. Impacts Summary
1a. Where are the impacts associated with your project? (check all that apply):
m Wetlands P, Streams -tributaries r Buffers
r Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
2g. Total Temporary Wetland Impact
0.160
2g. Total Wetland Impact
0.400
2h. Comments:
2g. Total Permanent Wetland Impact
0.240
0.18 -ac of permanent impacts to Wetland B are necessary at two separate impact sites. 0.06 -ac of temporary wetland impacts are necessary to
facilitate construction of the retaining wall within Wetland B. Mud mats will be utilized over a portion of Wetland B to provide temporary construction
access and prevent wetland soil disturbance, resulting in 0.06 -ac of temporary wetland impacts. Construction access will be located within a temporary
construction easement and is not part of the overall development. Construction activities on the southern portion of the property include 0.06 -ac of
permanent wetland impacts to Wetland C from grading fill slopes necessary for construction of a pedestrian footpath. 0.04 -ac of temporary wetland
impacts are necessary to Wetland C to construct the retaining wall for the footpath. In total, 0.24 -ac of permanent wetland impacts, and 0.16 -ac of
temporary wetland impacts are proposed.
3. Stream Impacts
2a1 Reason (?)
2b. Impact type * (?)
2c. Type of W.
2d. W. name *
2e. Forested*
2f. Type of
Jurisdicition*(?)
2g. Impact
area*
WB - Im act 3 P
Gradin Fill
9
P
Headwater Forest
WB
Yes
Both
0.150
(acres)
WB - I act 4
Construction of
T
Headwater Forest
WB
Yes
Both
0.060
Both
retaining wall
204
(acres)
WB - Impad 7
Grading Fill
P
Headwater Forest
WB
Yes
Both
0.030
Ui to Little Sugar Creek
Intermittent
Both
3
40
Diversion
(acres)
WC -Impact 8
Construction Access
T
Headwater Forest
WC
Yes
Both
0.060
Permanent
Relocation
UT to Little Sugar Creek
g
Intermittent
Both
3
94
(acres)
WC -Impact 9
Grading Fill
P
Headwater Forest
WC
Yes
Both
0.060
H
Impervious Dike and Pumped
Temporary
Other
UT to Little Sugar Creek
Intermittent
Both
(acres)
WC -Impact 10
Construction Of
Diversion
Headwater Forest
WC
es
Both
O4
Average (feet)
retatgIl JT
:::J
2g. Total Temporary Wetland Impact
0.160
2g. Total Wetland Impact
0.400
2h. Comments:
2g. Total Permanent Wetland Impact
0.240
0.18 -ac of permanent impacts to Wetland B are necessary at two separate impact sites. 0.06 -ac of temporary wetland impacts are necessary to
facilitate construction of the retaining wall within Wetland B. Mud mats will be utilized over a portion of Wetland B to provide temporary construction
access and prevent wetland soil disturbance, resulting in 0.06 -ac of temporary wetland impacts. Construction access will be located within a temporary
construction easement and is not part of the overall development. Construction activities on the southern portion of the property include 0.06 -ac of
permanent wetland impacts to Wetland C from grading fill slopes necessary for construction of a pedestrian footpath. 0.04 -ac of temporary wetland
impacts are necessary to Wetland C to construct the retaining wall for the footpath. In total, 0.24 -ac of permanent wetland impacts, and 0.16 -ac of
temporary wetland impacts are proposed.
3. Stream Impacts
3i. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square feet:
3i. Total permanent stream impacts:
298
3i. Total stream and ditch impacts:
358
3j. Comments:
3i. Total temporary stream impacts:
60
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
F
(?)
Jurisdiction*
length*
S7
Installation of RCP
Permanent
Culvert
UT to Little Sugar Creek
9
Intermittent
Both
3
204
Aver�e(feet)
(Nr�rfeet)
g2
Impervious Dike and
Other
Ui to Little Sugar Creek
Intermittent
Both
3
40
Diversion
Average (feet)
(lirrfeet)
S3
Stream Relocation
Permanent
Relocation
UT to Little Sugar Creek
g
Intermittent
Both
3
94
Average (feet)
(fryfeet)
H
Impervious Dike and Pumped
Temporary
Other
UT to Little Sugar Creek
Intermittent
Both
3
20
Diversion
Average (feet)
(lir�earfeet)
3i. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square feet:
3i. Total permanent stream impacts:
298
3i. Total stream and ditch impacts:
358
3j. Comments:
3i. Total temporary stream impacts:
60

The proposed project seeks to install a 175 If, 30" reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) with flared end sections along Stream B. The culvert will be installed
below the elevation of the stream bed by 20% of the culvert diameter to allow low flow passage of water and aquatic life. Rip -rap dissipation is
proposed at the inlet and outlet of the proposed pipe to reduce discharge velocity and meet non-erosive design criteria. Both areas will be constructed
using natural channel design techniques that include ensuring that the rip -rap is properly installed into the channel bed and placed in a fashion to
ensure aquatic passage. The culvert installation and inlet/outlet protections will result in 204 If of permanent stream impacts to non-watland waters of
the US. Installation of the culvert requires 40 If of temporary stream impacts for the construction activities necessary to work in dry conditions.
Construction of a retaining wall and associated grading fill slopes necessary to facilitate construction on the northern portion of the property requires
the relocation of a section of Stream B. The proposed stream relocation will result in 94 If of permanent, no net loss impacts to non -wetland waters of
the United States. Stream B will be relocated and rehabilitated to no less than current conditions. A relocation plan, utilizing natural channel design
techniques, including in -stream structures (constructed riffles), appropriately designed pattern, profile and bank grading will be implemented in order
to provide the appropriate aquatic uplift. Coir fiber matting will be installed, and a temporary seed mix will be applied immediately following construction
to provide initial stabilization. A planting plan including the application of a permanent seed mix and planting native riparian live stakes and bare roots
will be conducted to provide long-term stability. The stream relocation requires 20 If of temporary stream impacts for the construction activities
necessary to work in dry conditions. In total, the proposed project seeks 2981f of permanent stream impacts and 60If of temporary stream impacts.
E. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
Ia. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing the project:
Avoidance and minimization efforts during development planning and design were implemented to the greatest extents practicable in order to reduce
the overall impacts on the aquatic environment while staying within nationwide permit thresholds. Large retaining walls are proposed throughout the
entirety of the site to eliminate fill slopes which would result in additional stream and wetland impacts. Initial site layout and grading plans proposed
over 600 If of stream impacts and nearly 1 -acre of wetland impacts. Through multiple iterations of siting and the implementation of retaining walls, the
final plan demonstrates maximum minimization efforts by reducing the proposed stream and wetland impacts to 298 If and 0.24 -ac, respectively.
Rationale to support avoidance and minimization efforts include the following:
• Stream B — Impact 1 & Wetland B — Impact 3: One building, associated parking lot, public access road and bridge crossing over Little Sugar Creek
(required to provide access to the southern portion of the property Mich is inaccessible) are all necessary to meet the needs of the proposed
development on this portion of the property. There are no feasible alternatives which would avoid impacts to Stream B or Wetland B. The proposed
layout minimizes impacts to Stream B and Wetland B by implementing 15 to 25 -foot tall retaining walls around the north, east and southern boundaries
of development footprint.
• Stream B — Impact 5 & Wetland B — Impact 6: These impacts are necessary to facilitate the appropriate building footprint and access road. The
design maximizes the available space to construct the facilities Mile minimizing impacts to aquatic features. In lieu of encapsulating Stream B through
the retaining wall and fill slope via pipe, resulting in a total loss of stream function, the proposed project seeks to implement natural channel design
techniques to shift the channel slightly south. Improvements to the bedform, pattern and profile of the channel seek to provide functional aquatic uplift
over the existing condition and avoid additional loss of waters.
Wetland C — Impact 8: As part of the development plan and approvals by the City, the developer is required to construct a segment of the future
Cross -Charlotte Trail. The future multi -use trail segment is adjacent to the private street situated on the southern portion of the property. Impacts to
Wetland C are unavoidable due to this requirement, however, proposed impacts are minimized by replacing grading fill slopes with retaining wall.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques:
Temporary wetland impacts associated with construction of the retaining walls were limited to the areas necessary for the contractor to conduct the
construction activity. Construction activities associated with the stream location are limited to the areas within the top of bank of the new channel to
avoid additional temporary wetland impacts. All temporary impacts will be restored to preconstruction conditions following completion of the activities.
All temporary erosion and sediment control measures will be removed and disturbed areas will be restored following construction.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
f. Yes
f No
2c. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
DWR
W Corps
2d. If yes, which mitigation options) will be used for this project?
r Mitigation bank P Payment to in -lieu fee 'F Permittee Responsible
program Mitigation
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
s Yes r No
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
(linear feet)
894
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWR only):
(square feet)
4f. Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
(acres)
4h. Comments
4c. If using stream mitigation, what is the stream temperature:
warm
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
(acres)
0.96
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
(aures)

Compensatory mitigation will be met by the purchase of credits through the NC Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) in -lieu fee program. 298 If of
stream impacts will be mitigated through the purchase of stream mitigation credits. Based on an NCSAM assessment of intermittent Stream B,
mitigation is proposed at a 1.5:1 ratio. Since the project is located within the Lower Catawba watershed (HUC 03050103), credits will be purchased at
a 3:1 ratio; therefore, 894 SMUs will be purchased from NCDMS for impacts associated with the new development. 0.24 -ac of wetland impacts will be
mitigated through the purchase of wetland mitigation credits. Based on an NCWAM assessment of Wetlands B and C, mitigation is proposed at a 2:1
ratio. Wetland mitigation credits will be purchased at 4:1 based on the location of the project within the Lower Catawba watershed, therefore, 0.96
wetland credits will be purchased from NCDMS for wetland impacts.
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 subject to the NC Riparian Protection Rules; however, the project meets the City of Charlotte 30 -FT Post Construction Buffer & City of Charlotte 100 -FT Post
Construction Buffer requirements.
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. Is this a NCDOT project subject to compliance with NCDOT's Individual NPDES permit NCS000250?*
r Yes r No
2b. Does this project meet the requirements for low density projects as defined in 15A NCAC 02H .1003(2)?
r Yes r No
Comments:
Per City of Charlotte Post Construction Stormwater Ordinance and the Charlotte -Mecklenburg Storm Water Design Manual, the project will control peak discharge of the 10 -year, 6 -hour
storm event as well as detain the 1 -year, 24-hour channel protection volume in accordance with the transit -oriented development requirements. Though not required due to
ocation/zoning, the project has elected to treat a portion (+/-3.62 acres) for stormwater quality of the 1 -in, 6hr-storm event for 85% Total Suspended Solids (TSS) removal as mitigation
for buffer impact.
G. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of public (federal/state) land?*
r Yes r No
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 (15ANCAC 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.
No, the surrounding properties have already been developed with industrial or commercial development.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWR Requirement)
4a. Is sewage disposal required byDWRforthis project?*
r Yes r Nor N/A
4b. Describe, in detail, the treatment methods and dispositions (non -discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from the proposed project. If the wastewater will be treated
at a treatment plant, list the capacity available at that plant.
Waste water directed to a Charlotte Water public sewer main adjacent to the project.
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
Sf. 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
Sh. Does this project involve the construction/installation of a wind turbine(s)?'
r Yes r No
51. Does this project involve (1) blasting, and/or (2) other percussive activities that will be conducted by machines, such as jackhammers, mechanized pile drivers, etc.?
r Yes r No
5j. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat?
A review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database on November 5, 2018 did not indicate known occurrences of threatened
or endangered species within the project boundary. Additionally, pedestrian surveys conducted by Kimley-Horn in August 2018 did not identify any
occurrences of protected species.
Consultation Documentation Upload
project _report _ brand_noda_site_15319_15319.pdf 1.25MB
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as an Essential Fish Habitat?*
r Yes r No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact an Essential Fish Habitat?*
NCNHP element occurrence database did not indicate the presence of EFH within the project boundary.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation status?*
r Yes r No
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?*
A review of the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) HPOWEB GIS Service database on November 5, 2018 did not indicate any
cultural or historic resources within the project boundary.
7c. Historic or Prehistoric Information Upload
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain?*
r Yes r No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
A flood impact analysis report, no -rise impact certification, and individual floodplain development permit will be submitted to the City of Charlotte for
review and approval prior to construction/restoration activities. The results of the flood impact analysis show that there is no net increase in base flood
elevations.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?*
FIRM Panels 4555 and 4554
Miscellaneous
Comments
Miscellaneous attachments not previously requested.
00_NoDa_PCN_Complete. pdf
Noda_NC WAM Wetland B.pdf
Noda NCSAM_Stream B.pdf
Signature
V By checking the box and signing below, I certify that:
9.28MB
162.3KB
168.49KB
• I have given true, accurate, and complete information on this form;
• I agree that submission of this PCN form is a "transaction' subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act');
• I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act');
• I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a written signature; AND
• I intend to electronically sign and submit the PCN form.
Full Name:

Chris Tinklenberg
Signature
Date
5131/2019

Dan Fitzpatrick
3328 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 100, Atlanta, GA 30326
770-822-2090
July 12, 2018
Yadkin AveE 3
4th St
W
3
2
n
d St
N Davidson StE

3
6
t
h

S
t
N Brevard StW30thStBellefonteDr N Church StE 35th St
E 3
2
n
d St
N Myers StB e n a rdA veA
t
a
n
d
o
A
v
eCatalinaAveW 28th St
W 31st St Ritch AveNPoplarStE 3
3rd St
W 29th St
Faison Ave
Charles Ave
E 27th St
E 28th St
NAlexanderStM
ath
e
s
o
n
A
v
e
C u llm a n A v e
£¤29
£¤29
Figure 1Vicinity MapBrand Properties NoDa Sugar CreekMecklenburg County, NC
MecklenburgCounty
0 500 1,000Feet
Legend
Project Study Area
Mecklenburg County
±
Figure 2USGS Topo (Charlotte East)Brand Properties NoDa Sugar CreekMecklenburg County, NC
0 1,000 2,000FeetLegend
Project Study Area
±
Figure 3SSURGO Soils and NWIBrand Properties NoDa Sugar CreekMecklenburg County, NC
MS
Ur
Ur
0 200 400Feet
±
Legend
Project Study AreaNWI WetlandsSSURGO SoilsHydric Rating
Not Hydric (0%)
_!
_
!_!_!_!
_
!_!_!_!_!_!
!.
#0
#0!.
!.
#0
W 31st St
M
ath
e
s
o
n
A
v
e
£¤29
2 1
6
5
4
7
10
9
14
1211
0 200 400Feet
Legend
Project Study AreaStream (Potential Non-Wetland WoUS)Wetlan d (Potential Wetland WoUS)
_!Ph oto Locations
±
Figure 4PJD Field SketchBrand Properties NoDa Sugar CreekMecklenburg County, NC
3
8
13
WB
SA
WA
WC
SB
M
ath
es
o
n A
v
eN. Tryon St.0 200 400Feet
±
Figure 5Proposed ConditionsBrand Properties NoDa Sugar CreekMecklenburg County, NC
Stream B - Impact 240 lf TemporaryImpervious Dike andPumped Diversion
Stream B - Impact 594 lf Permanent Stream Relocation
Stream B - Impact 1204 lf Permanent Culvert Installation
Wetland C - Impact 90.06 ac Permanent Grading Fill
Wetland C - Impact 100.04 ac TemporaryConstruction of Retaining Wall
Wetland B - Impact 30.15 ac PermanentGrading Fill
Wetland B - Impact 80.06 ac TemporaryConstruction Access
Wetland B - Impact 40.06 ac TemporaryConstruction of Retaining Wall
Wetland B - Impact 70.03 ac PermanentGrading Fill
Legend
Project Boundary (Limits of Disturbance)BuildingsWetland ImpactsStream RelocationDrainageTemporary Crossing
Retaining WallsSite Plan LayoutGradingExisting StreamsExisting Wetlands
Stream B - Impact 620 lf Temporary Impervious Dike andPumped Diversion
Figure 3SSURGO Soils and NWIBrand Properties NoDa Sugar CreekMecklenburg County, NC
MS
Ur
Ur
0 200 400Feet
±
Legend
Project Study AreaNWI WetlandsSSURGO SoilsHydric Rating
Not Hydric (0%)
Figure 2USGS Topo (Charlotte East)Brand Properties NoDa Sugar CreekMecklenburg County, NC
0 1,000 2,000FeetLegend
Project Study Area
±
A ■EN Cooper. Governer
N! _r NC DEPARTMENT OF �LoSi Hamilton, Secretary
mm iiiiiiiii NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
0 MEN Walter Clerk, Director, Land and Water Stewardship
NCNHDE-7438
November 5, 2018
Addie Lasitter
Kimley-Horn
200 South Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
RE. Brand - NODA Site
Dear Addie Lasitter:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide
information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
A query of the NCNHP database indicates that there are records for rare species, important natural
communities, natural areas, and/or conservation/managed areas within the proposed project
boundary. These results are presented in the attached `Documented Occurrences' tables and map.
The attached `Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that
have been documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these
records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area
if suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed areas within a one -mile
radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report.
If a Federally -listed species is documented within the project area or indicated within a one -mile
radius of the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) for guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here:
https://www.fws.aov/offices/Directory/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation
planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria
for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published
without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information
source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission.
Also please note that the NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional
correspondence if a Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Clean Water
Management Trust Fund easement, or an occurrence of a Federally -listed species is documented
near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance,
please contact Rodney A. Butler at rod ney.butlerLncdcr.aov or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Intersecting the Project Area
Brand - NODA Site
November 5, 2018
NCNHDE-7438
No Element Occurrences are Documented within the Project Area
There are no documented element occurrences (of medium to very high accuracy) that intersect with the project area. Please note, however, that although the
NCNHP database does not show records for rare species within the project area, it does not necessarily mean that they are not present, it may simply mean that
the area has not been surveyed. The use of Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys if needed, particularly if the project
area contains suitable habitat for rare species. If rare species are found, the NCNHP would appreciate receiving this information so that we may update our
database.
No Natural Areas are Documented within the Project Area
Managed Areas Documented Within Project Area
Managed Area Name Owner Owner Type
Mecklenburg County Open Space Mecklenburg County Local Government
NOTE: If the proposed project intersects with a conservation/managed area, please contact the landowner directly for additional information. If the project intersects with a Dedicated Nature Preserve
(DNP), Registered Natural Heritage Area (RHA), or Federally -listed species, NCNHP staff may provide additional correspondence regarding the project.
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at httr)s://ncnhde.natureserve.ora/content/hely). Data query generated on November 5, 2018; source: NCNHP, Q4 Oct 2018.
Please resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 4

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Brand - NODA Site
November 5, 2018
NCNHDE-7438
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID
Scientific Name Common Name
Last I
Element
Accuracy
Group
Observation
Occurrence
Date
Rank
Sawfly, Wasp, 37164
Bombus affinis Rusty -patched Bumble
1969-09-29
H
5 -Very
Bee, or Ant
Bee
Low
Vascular Plant 13743
Delphinium exaltatum Tall Larkspur
1800s
Hi?
5 -Very
Low
No Natural Areas are Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Federal 'W State 44V- Global Stat
Status Status Rank Rank,
Endangered Significantly G2 S1
Ra re
--- Endangered G3 S2
Managed Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Name wne caner Typ
Mecklenburg County Open Space Mecklenburg County Local Government
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at httr)s://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/helr). Data query generated on November 5, 2018; source: NCNHP, Q4 Oct 2018.
Please resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 3 of 4

NCNHDE-7438: Brand - NODA Site
r
As. r, A,,
;
Creek
U o
1 WalrtwngN Ave v
✓0j"`�o,r rlo
Itoh
\ 0
,i`
"WMGreek
A1.110- Ave P*Arthur Ave
RallirrA
SDnreiv lev.'F2tl may,
c,\
N
t Sugar riiii
4n"
Justice Ave
Atando
m`
IW lla rq
ftc
�
- Junction
= - c•
\
r
- `
rt
r10rr15 A
®
Druid Hale
\
�, sugar Creak
N Tryon St ---,
S
Elemenlory /�
Frr \
NVQ tido Chertar
y ice!
x,01 Ave
/ /
` l�.4 Q` C
H- hb d
FLnaieen hbrth
3 Q� Mall
Academy f -r Tryon Curtis
rd Gn 0' 6c -
psu %
6
Doublt Oaks / ' It \ o St
Ni,wC hwnao` c � � o�~cT / °e o� �3 v� �rennstnr m Gafaz or
Z?
Druid Tmn
Tryon Hills \ �`r PW:
g
e Hills 7 y, 91. Pc s A Pve as Kaw In^ Sr m _ l Howie Or
r CD `vaq Kohicl Ave Sou lh 'S -
2 t c uble ➢ ier AvFlealWOotl Ave
OOaks ..
ark O Pre -K / o ie S/ u� 3l - - - _ - _ - z Red -.d Ave O P,ie
O � Q P's"k < �Orryy 5 \ WWOO
y� O Y Ova Q� S` NiarPS � aAnrtwre 5l ��
30th Card StSat
t,
16. hpr�I.J hnsron
Greenville 5. a°s, 3s G� r Ferry y :n ' a; a}a� �a P\a , r 14's d
NQ,O
wailer GFly—
Eli
WY
Elerrondryra m oY 'L Oak.. kWo �kMrVlan-
�� N 1. Plam
S< �' °S/ 5Q/ 7 Rd Par O
S aaa S/
J s
o.oan cr Pt V rks Ave Q 'Lfiauo
P° � A wlri
/�/ 5 I F ® .Wy h �Q rxYC rson Si L.M.'sti And
ascea 4, ° 411 North s y E,, a snamrock Peblit Es—
+ y Lockwood o' / ae` s e Charlotte ny`a are At Ganngm Hgh
Dallon Ave % hs Pc Rah Ave , my tr
r / / / F F� W°ods n ock Rp aro" Oi
rdeAve 3 F3sryrs
o�
Optimist Park
4 - - s,
C HegHa
C'✓✓:•retl 41 9re °O �Cr Q
kL a '��`' / Ebmentery O O` 41W ��°0
.7837 c y Cara•nha Ile It��h.o,
L, AlT PI Hills P
W Z''r`�\Sfraf! A CfOAa`�Pye %ford RS Genle�nak 'n Cheryl St /irrlra,U
oFR Fe 4o Elarrvnmryc
h W \�v,. �v,. �c. r er9/h n/hSr r9lcrye Avn o Folt S\ Sod o
S"
°4 �$ E/Brh n Mack h
November 5, 2018
Project Boundary
Buffered Project Boundary
E3 Managed Area (MAREA)
Page 4 of 4
1:22,725
0 0.175 0.35 0.7 mi
0 0.3 0.6 1.2 km
SourcesEsri, HERE, Garmin, Interni increment P Corp-, GEBCO, USGS,
ENO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan,
METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, © Oper-Streei contributors, and
the GIS User Community

USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
PROJECT / SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): 2. Date of evaluation:
3. Applicant/owner name:
5. County: 6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet):
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet):13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
valley shape (skip for ab
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 mi
2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi
2)Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed ( I 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 adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
BNot A
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 A.
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).
BNot A
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
7.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 the "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
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).
2
3'
NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2
Rating Calculator Version 2
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 any supplementary
SAW-2018-01201
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NoDa Sugar Creek Development April 4, 2019
35.247920, -80.812634
Stream B ~150'
Brand Properties, LLC 4. Assessor name/organization: C. Tinklenberg/Kimley-Horn
Meklenburg
Catawba Little Sugar Creek
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 F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) G Submerged aquatic vegetation
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent H Low-tide refugia (pools)
vegetation I Sand bottom
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) 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
11. Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b.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)
11c.In riffles 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 Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and 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 (including water pennies)
Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
Asian clam (Corbicula )
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans (true flies)
Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia ) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [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 include: 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?
NN
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 that passes some flow during low-flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom-release dam)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria 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 stream-side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************Check for TidalMarsh Streamsonly
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
BBBBFrom 50 to < 100-feet wide
CCCCFrom 30 to < 50-feet wide
DDDDFrom 10 to < 30-feet wide
EEEE< 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
BBNon-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
BBBBBBMaintained turf
CCCCCCPasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
DDDDDDPasture (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
CCNo 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 – First 100 feet of 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.
CCVegetation 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 a 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:
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall
MEDIUM
HIGH
Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 1
Rating Calculator Version 1
LOW
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
C. Tinklenberg/Kimley-Horn
April 4, 2019
NO
NO
YES
Intermittent
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
Pb2
Stream Site Name
MEDIUM
NA
NoDa Sugar Creek Development Date of Evaluation
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
MEDIUM
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
NA
YES
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NA
NA
OMITTED
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
YES
NA
NA
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
Date
Assessor Name/Organization
Nearest Named Water Body
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
Yes No
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
•
•
•
•
Is the assessment area intensively managed?Yes No
Regulatory Considerations (select all that apply to the assessment area)
Anadromous fish
Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect
Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
Designated NCNHP reference community
Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
Blackwater
Brownwater
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) Lu Lunar Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island?Yes No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver?Yes No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions?Yes No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS
A A Not severely altered
B B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub-Surface Storage Capacity and Duration – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub-surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. Refer to the current NRCS lateral effect of ditching guidance for
North Carolina hydric soils (see USACE Wilmington District website) for the zone of influence of ditches in hydric soils. A ditch
≤ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and ditch
sub-surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf
A A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief – assessment area/wetland type condition metric (answer for non-marsh wetlands only)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
3a. A A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
D D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees)
Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
Sub
VS
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Chris Tinklenberg / Kimley-Horn
04/04/2019Wetland Site Name
Wetland Type
NoDa Sugar Creek
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
35.247920 °N -80.812634 °W
Little Sugar Creek
03050103
Level III Ecoregion
River Basin
Piedmont
Headwater Forest
Cataw ba
C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
4. Soil Texture/Structure – assessment area condition metric
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a. A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon ≥ 1 inch
4c. A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland – opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
A A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use – opportunity metric
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (W S), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
A A A ≥ 10% impervious surfaces
B B B < 10% impervious surfaces
C C C Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
D D D ≥ 20% coverage of pasture
E E E ≥ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
F F F ≥ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
G G G ≥ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
H H H Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from hydrologic alterations
that prevent drainage or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer – assessment area/wetland complex condition metric
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of the wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? Descriptor E should be selected if ditches effectively bypass the buffer.
A ≥ 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
≤ 15-feet wide > 15-feet wide Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
Yes No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
Sheltered – adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
Exposed – adjacent open water with width ≥ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area – wetland type/wetland complex metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Check a box in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT)
and the wetland complex at the assessment areas (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
A A ≥ 100 feet
B B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C From 50 to < 80 feet
D D From 40 to < 50 feet
E E From 30 to < 40 feet
F F From 15 to < 30 feet
G G From 5 to < 15 feet
H H < 5 feet
9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
KKK< 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a.Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b.Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear-cuts.
Consider the eight main points of the compass.
A No artificial edge within 150 feet in all directions
B No artificial edge within 150 feet in four (4) to seven (7) directions
C An artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in more than four (4) directions or assessment area is clear-cut
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition. Expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species). Exotic species are dominant in
at least one stratum.
16.Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (<10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (>50% cover of exotics).
LooselyWell
WC
17.Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b.Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c.Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider structure
in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent
A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent
A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags – wetland type condition metric
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12-inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12-inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21.Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
ABCD
22. Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive
ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.Mid-StoryShrubHerbAA WT
Notes Canopy
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Sub-Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Particulate Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Soluble Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Physical Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Pollution Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Physical Structure Condition
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
Vegetation Composition Condition
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Hydrology Condition
Water Quality Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Conditon
Overall Wetland Rating
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
HIGH
YES
MEDIUM
NA
HIGH
Rating
HIGH
MEDIUM
NO
YES
NA
NA
HIGH
HIGH
YES
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Wetland Type
Wetland Site Name NoDa Sugar Creek
ris Tinklenberg / Kimley-HHeadwater Forest
Date
Assessor Name/Organization
04/04/2019
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
YES
LOW
NA
LOW
LOW
Rating
HIGH
MEDIUM
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
NO
ROY COOPER NORTH CAROLINA
Governor Env/ronmental Quality
MICHAEL S. REGAN May 31, 2019
secretary
TIM BAUMGARTNER
Director
Dan Fitzpatrick
BP Trail LLC / BP NODA LLC
3328 Peach Tree Rd NE STE 100
Atlanta, GA 30326
Project: NoDa Sugar Creek — Brand Properties, LLC
Expiration of Acceptance: 12/1/2019
County: Mecklenburg
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) is willing to
accept payment for compensatory mitigation for impacts associated with the above referenced project as
indicated in the table below. Please note that this decision does not assure that participation in the DMS in -
lieu fee mitigation program will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts.
It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact permitting agencies to determine if payment to the DMS will
be approved. You must also comply with all other state, federal or local government permits, regulations or
authorizations associated with the proposed activity including G.S. § 143-214.11.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not
received a copy of the issued 404 Permit/401 Certification within this time frame, this acceptance will
expire. It is the applicant's responsibility to send copies of the permits to DMS. Once DMS receives a copy
of the permit(s) an invoice will be issued based on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must
be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the in -lieu fee to be paid by an applicant is
calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed on the DMS website.
Based on the information supplied by you in your request to use the DMS, the impacts for which you are
requesting compensatory mitigation credit are summarized in the following table. The amount of mitigation
required and assigned to DMS for this impact is determined by permitting agencies and may exceed the
impact amounts shown below.
River Basin
Catawba
Impact Location
(8 -digit HUC)
03050103
Impact Type I Impact Quantity
Riparian Wetland 1 0.96
Catawba 03050103 Warm Stream 894
*DMS proposes to utilize the Catawba 03 Expanded Service Area to meet the mitigation requirement.
Upon receipt of payment, DMS will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. The
mitigation will be performed in accordance with the In -Lieu Fee Program instrument dated July 28, 2010 and
15A NCAC 02B .0295 as applicable. Thank you for your interest in the DMS in -lieu fee mitigation program.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at [phone].
cc: Chris Tinklenberg, agent
Stanfill
agement Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
217 W. Janes Street 11652 Mall Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27649-1652
919,707.8976