20190732 Ver 1_Corps Copy_PCN_Complete_20190531

Preliminary ORM Data Entry Fields for New Actions
ACTION ID #: SAW- Begin Date (Date Received):
Prepare file folder Assign Action ID Number in ORM
1. Project Name [PCN Form A2a]:
2. Work Type: Private Institutional Government Commercial
3. Project Description / Purpose [PCN Form B3d and B3e]:
4. Property Owner / Applicant [PCN Form A3 or A4]:
5. Agent / Consultant [PNC Form A5 – or ORM Consultant ID Number]:
6. Related Action ID Number(s) [PCN Form B5b]:
7. Project Location – Coordinates, Street Address, and/or Location Description [PCN Form B1b]:
8. Project Location – Tax Parcel ID [PCN Form B1a]:
9. Project Location – County [PCN Form A2b]:
10. Project Location – Nearest Municipality or Town [PCN Form A2c]:
11. Project Information – Nearest Waterbody [PCN Form B2a]:
12. Watershed / 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code [PCN Form B2c]:
Authorization: Section 10 Section 404 Section 10 and 404
Regulatory Action Type:
Pre-Application Request
Unauthorized Activity
Compliance
Standard Permit
Nationwide Permit #29
Regional General Permit #
Jurisdictional Determination Request No Permit Required
Revised 20150602
NoDa Sugar Creek
✔
Brand Properties proposes to develop the subject property into a multi-family development. (Figure 1).
NoDa Exchange LLC
Chris Tinklenberg, PWS (Kimley-Horn)
The subject property is located at 255 Matheson Ave., which is situated between Matheson Avenue and Cullman Avenue in
the City of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County (Figure 1). Project Coordinates (Decimal Degrees): 35.247920 N, -80.812634 W.
08303115; 08302101
Mecklenburg
Charlotte
Little Sugar Creek
Lower Catwaba (HUC 03050103)
✔

kimley-horn.com 200 South Tryon, Suite 200, Charlotte, NC 28202 704-333-5131

May 30, 2019

Mr. David Shaeffer
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006

Ms. Karen Higgins
NC DWR, 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604

Re: 404/401 Pre-Construction Notification (NWP #29)
NoDa Sugar Creek – Brand Properties, LLC
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC

Dear Mr. Shaeffer and Ms. Higgins:

On behalf of our client, Brand Properties, LLC, Kimley-Horn (KH) is submitting the enclosed joint
Section 404/401 Pre-construction Notification for the above referenced project for your review
pursuant to a Nationwide Permit #29 and General 401 Water Quality Certification number 4139.
This application is to request authorization for construction of a proposed multi-family
development. The following information is included as part of this application submittal:

 Project Summary Sheet
 Agent Authorization Letter
 Pre-Construction Notification Form
 Permit Figures
 Figure 1 – Vicinity
 Figure 2 – USGS Topo (Charlotte East Quadrangle)
 Figure 3 – NRCS Soils (2018 Meck. Co. Aerial)
 Figure 4 – Existing Conditions (2018 Meck. Co. Aerial)
 Figure 5 – Proposed Conditions (2018 Meck. Co. Aerial)
 Permit Plans – NoDa Sugar Creek Site
 Agency Correspondence
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The proposed project site is located at 255 Matheson Avenue, which is situated between Matheson
Avenue and Cullman Avenue, in Charlotte, NC. The site is a primarily undeveloped 16-acre forested
Page 2
kimley-horn.com 200 South Tryon, Suite 200, Charlotte, NC 28202 704-333-5131

tract and is bisected by Little Sugar Creek and a maintained power-transmission-line easement. It is
bounded by commercial and industrial development to the east and south, and commercial
development to the north and the west. Additionally, the southern boundary of the site borders a
Norfolk Southern railroad easement, preventing the opportunity for access from the south.

A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) request package was submitted on June 15, 2018
and field verified by Mr. David Shaeffer on August 31, 2018. The 404/401 (NWP #29) application
presents site conditions evaluated by Kimley-Horn staff (Beth Reed, PWS and Addie Lasitter, WPIT)
on June 6, 2018 as outlined in the PJD request. The PJD request package including applicable data
forms, additional figures and photos is available upon your request.

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.

AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE
Cultural Resources
Kimley-Horn consulted the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) HPOWEB GIS
service on November 5, 2018 and found no sites of architectural, historic, or archaeological
significance within or near the project boundary.

Protected Species
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 within the property boundary. (See attached NCNHP
Letter).

PROPOSED IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL WATERS
The proposed project seeks to install a 175 lf, 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 lf of
permanent stream impacts to non-wetland waters of the US. Installation of the culvert requires 40 lf
of temporary stream impacts for the construction activities necessary to work in dry conditions.

Page 3
kimley-horn.com 200 South Tryon, Suite 200, Charlotte, NC 28202 704-333-5131

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 lf 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 lf 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.

In total, the proposed development project seeks permanent impacts to 298 lf of non-wetland
waters of the US and 0.24-ac of wetland-waters of the US. A total of 60 lf of temporary non-
wetland waters of the US impacts are needed for construction activities necessary to work in dry
conditions. 0.16-ac of temporary wetland impacts are necessary for construction access and
construction of retaining walls. All temporary impacts will be restored to preconstruction
conditions following completion of the activities.

AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
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
Page 4
kimley-horn.com 200 South Tryon, Suite 200, Charlotte, NC 28202 704-333-5131

impacts. Initial site layout and grading plans proposed over 600 lf 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 lf 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 which 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 while 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.

COMPENSATORY MITIGATION
Compensatory mitigation will be met by the purchase of credits through the NC Division of
Mitigation Services (NCDMS) in-lieu fee program. 298 lf 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.

In total, 894 stream credits and 0.96 wetland credits will be purchased from NCDMS to provide
the appropriate compensatory mitigation for this project.
Page 5
kimley-horn.com 200 South Tryon, Suite 200, Charlotte, NC 28202 704-333-5131

Please feel free to contact me at [phone] if you have any questions or if additional
information is necessary.

Sincerely,

KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

Chris Tinklenberg, PWS
Environmental Scientist

Attachments

Project Summary Sheet
kimley-horn.com 200 South Tryon Street, Suite 200, Charlotte, NC 28202 704-333-5131

Project Name: NoDa Sugar Creek

Applicant Name and Address: Brand Properties
3328 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 100
Atlanta, GA 30326
Telephone Number:
Type of Request: Nationwide PCN (NWP # 29) Individual Permit Application

Jurisdictional Determination Other:
Included Attachments: Project Plans USGS Map NRCS Soil Survey
Agent Authorization Delineation Sketch Delineation Survey
Data Forms (Up & Wet) NCDWR Stream Forms USACE Stream Forms
NCDMS Confirmation Aerial Photo Site Photos
Agency Correspondence Other: NCSAM Forms Other: NCWAM Forms
Check if applicable: CAMA County Trout County Isolated Waters
Section 7, ESA Section 106, NHPA EFH
Mitigation Proposed ( NC EEP On-Site Off-Site Other)
County: Mecklenburg Nearest City/Town: Charlotte
Waterway: Little Sugar Creek River Basin: Catawba
H.U.C.: 03050103 USGS Quad Name: Charlotte East
Property Size (acres): 16.02 acres Approx. Size of Jurisdiction on Site (acres): 1.7 ac
Site Coordinates (in decimal degrees): 35.247920 °N -80.812634 °W
Project Location: The site consists of an approximate 16-acre mixed use tract located at 255 Matheson Avenue, which is
situated between Matheson Avenue and Cullman Avenue, in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County.

Site Description: The project area is currently undeveloped forest land. Existing land use in the vicinity of the project
includes, industrial and commercial development, and undeveloped forested/maintained properties.

Impact Summary (if applicable): The proposed project seeks to install a 175lf RCP resulting in 204lf of permanent stream
impacts. A proposed stream relocation will result in 94lf of permanent stream impacts. The project requires 60lf of
temporary stream impacts for the construction activities necessary to work in dry conditions in order to install the culvert
and perform the stream relocation. Additionally, 0.24-ac of permanent wetland impacts will result from the construction of
retaining walls and site grading. 0.16-ac of temporary wetland impacts are necessary for construction of retaining walls and
temporary construction access.

NWP
#
Open Water
(acres)
Wetland
(acres)
Stream Channel
Intermittent and/or Unimportant
Aquatic Function
Perennial and/or Important
Aquatic Function
Temp. Perm. Temp. Perm. Temp. Perm. Temp. Perm.
lf ac lf ac lf ac lf Ac
29 0.16 0.24 60 0.007 298 0.05
Total 0.16 0.24 60 0.007 298 0.05
Total Permanent (Loss) Impact to Waters of the U.S. 298 lf (0.32 ac)

Kimley-Horn Contact: Chris Tinklenberg, PWS Direct Number: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Dan Fitzpatrick
3328 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 100, Atlanta, GA 30326
770-822-2090
July 12, 2018

Page 1 of 14
PCN Form – Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no. _____________
DWQ project no. _______________
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps: Section 404 Permit Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 29 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? Yes No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
401 Water Quality Certification – Regular Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
401 Water Quality Certification – Express Riparian Buffer Authorization
1e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?

For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
Yes No
For the record only for Corps Permit:

Yes No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program.
Yes No

1g. Is the project located in any of NC’s twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1h
below.
Yes No

1h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? Yes No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: NoDa Sugar Creek
2b. County: Mecklenburg
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Charlotte
2d. Subdivision name: N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: N/A
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: BP Trail LLC / BP NODA LLC
3b. Deed Book and Page No. 33183 and 233, 239
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): Dan Fitzpatrick
3d. Street address: 3328 Peach Tree Rd NE STE 100
3e. City, state, zip: Atlanta, GA, 30326
3f. Telephone no.: 770.822.2090
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address: [e-mail]

Page 2 of 14
PCN Form – Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: Agent Other, specify:
4b. Name:
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: Chris Tinklenberg, PWS
5b. Business name
(if applicable): Kimley-Horn and Associates
5c. Street address: 200 South Tryon Street, Suite 200
5d. City, state, zip: Charlotte, NC 28202
5e. Telephone no.: 704-409-1802
5f. Fax no.:
5g. Email address: [e-mail]

Page 3 of 14
PCN Form – Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): 06156005B
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 35.247920 Longitude: - 80.812634
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1c. Property size: 16.02 acres (Project Boundary)
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to proposed
project: Little Sugar Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: Little Sugar Creek - Class "C"
2c. River basin: Catawba; HUC 03050103

Page 4 of 14
PCN Form – Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

3. Project Description
3a. 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. Existing land use in the vicinity of the
project includes industrial development, commercial development, and undeveloped forested/maintained properties.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
1.33 ac
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
The total length of all on-site streams is approximately 1,994 linear feet.
3d. 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.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including 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 lf, 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 lf of permanent stream
impacts to non-wetland waters of the US. Installation of the culvert requires 40 lf 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 lf
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 lf 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.

Page 5 of 14
PCN Form – Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the Corps
or State been requested or obtained for this property / project
(including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
Yes No Unknown
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type of
determination was made? Preliminary Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Chris Tinklenberg, PWS
Agency/Consultant Company: Kimley-Horn &
Assoc., Inc.
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
Field varication visit on August 31, 2018
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases) in the past? Yes No Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to “help file” instructions.

6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? Yes No
6b. If yes, explain.

Page 6 of 14
PCN Form – Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
Wetlands Streams - tributaries Buffers
Open Waters Pond Construction

Page 7 of 14
PCN Form – Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
Wetland impact
number –
Permanent (P)
or Temporary
(T)
2b.

Type of impact
2c.

Type of wetland
(if known)
2d.

Forested

2e.
Type of jurisdiction
(Corps - 404, 10
DWQ – non-404, other)
2f.

Area of impact
(acres)
WB – Impact 3
P T Grading Fill Riparian Yes
No
Corps
DWQ 0.15
WB – Impact 4
P T
Construction of
retaining wall Riparian Yes
No
Corps
DWQ 0.06
WB– Impact 7
P T Grading Fill Riparian Yes
No
Corps
DWQ 0.03
WC – Impact 8
P T Construction Access Riparian Yes
No
Corps
DWQ 0.06
WC – Impact 9
P T Grading Fill Riparian Yes
No
Corps
DWQ 0.06
WC – Impact 10
P T
Construction of
retaining wall Riparian Yes
No
Corps
DWQ 0.04
2g. Total wetland impacts 0.4
2h. Comments: 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
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
Stream impact
number -
Permanent (P)
or Temporary
(T)
3b.
Type of impact
3c.
Stream name
3d.
Perennial
(PER) or
intermittent
(INT)?
3e.
Type of jurisdiction
(Corps - 404, 10
DWQ – non-404,
other)
3f.
Average
stream
width
(feet)
3g.
Impact
length
(linear
feet)
SB – Impact 1
P T Installation of RCP UT to Little Sugar
Creek
PER
INT
Corps
DWQ 3 204
SB – Impact 2
P T
Impervious Dike and
Pumped Diversion
UT to Little Sugar
Creek
PER
INT
Corps
DWQ 3 40
SB – Impact 5
P T Stream Relocation UT to Little Sugar
Creek
PER
INT
Corps
DWQ 3 94
SB – Impact 6
P T
Impervious Dike and
Pumped Diversion
UT to Little Sugar
Creek
PER
INT
Corps
DWQ 3 20
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 358
3i. Comments: The proposed project seeks to install a 175 lf, 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 lf of permanent stream impacts to non-
wetland waters of the US. Installation of the culvert requires 40 lf 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

Page 8 of 14
PCN Form – Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

the property requires the relocation of a section of Stream B. The proposed stream relocation will result in 94 lf 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 lf of temporary
stream impacts for the construction activities necessary to work in dry conditions. In total, the proposed project seeks 298lf
of permanent stream impacts and 60lf of temporary stream impacts.
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number
– Permanent
(P) or
Temporary (T)
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c.

Type of impact
4d.

Waterbody type
4e.

Area of impact (acres)
O1 P T
O2 P T
O3 P T
O4 P T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.

Pond ID
number
5b.

Proposed use or purpose of
pond

5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
Yes No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:

Page 9 of 14
PCN Form – Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
Project is in which protected basin?
Neuse Tar-Pamlico Other:
Catawba Randleman
6b.
Buffer impact
number –
Permanent (P)
or Temporary
(T)
6c.

Reason
for impact
6d.

Stream name
6e.

Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f.

Zone 1 impact
(square feet)
6g.

Zone 2 impact
(square feet)
B1 P T Yes
No
B2 P T Yes
No
B3 P T Yes
No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing 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 lf 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 lf 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 which 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 while 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.

Page 10 of 14
PCN Form – Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

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?
Yes No

2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): DWQ Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this project?
Mitigation bank
Payment to in-lieu fee program
Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: 894 linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: warm cool cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: 0.96 acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments: Compensatory mitigation will be met by the purchase of credits through the NC Division of Mitigation Services
(NCDMS) in-lieu fee program. 298 lf 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.hol
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.

Page 11 of 14
PCN Form – Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) – required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
Yes No

6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)

Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).

6h. Comments:

Page 12 of 14
PCN Form – Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
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? Yes No
1b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
Comments: 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.
Yes No
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 45%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? Yes No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: N/A
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
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
location/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.
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
Certified Local Government
DWQ Stormwater Program
DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government’s jurisdiction is this project? City of Charlotte
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs
apply (check all that apply):
Phase II
NSW
USMP
Water Supply Watershed
Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
Yes No – Under review
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply
(check all that apply):
Coastal counties
HQW
ORW
Session Law 2006-246
Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? Yes No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? Yes No

Page 13 of 14
PCN Form – Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? Yes No
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
use of public (federal/state) land? Yes 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)?
Yes No
1c. If you answered “yes” to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.)
Comments:
Yes No
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
Yes No
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes No
2c. If you answered “yes” to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes No
3b. If you answered “yes” to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered “no,” provide a short narrative description.

4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Waste water directed to a Charlotte Water public sewer main adjacent to the project.

Page 14 of 14
PCN Form – Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

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? Yes No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
impacts? Yes No
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Raleigh
Asheville
5d. 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. (See attached NCNHP
Letter).
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? Yes No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact 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 (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
Yes 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.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? Yes 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

Chris Tinklenberg, PWS

Applicant/Agent's Printed Name

_______________________________
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)

05/30/2019

Date

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
10+0010+5011+0011+5
0LOG SILL (TYP)CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE (TYP)BEGIN CONSTRUCTIONSTA:10+25.38END CONSTRUCTIONSTA:11+32.16EXISTING STREAM CENTERLINEEXISTING STREAM CENTERLINESTREAM PROFILETHE EXCHANGE
PREPARED FOR
BRAND PROPERTIES
STREAM
RELOCATION PLAN
AND PROFILEC8-1©Know what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRNOR
T
H
THE EXCHANGE
PREPARED FOR
BRAND PROPERTIES
STREAM CROSS
SECTIONSC8-2©Know what'sbelow.before you dig.CallR
Not to Scale1CONSTRUCTED RIFFLENot to Scale2LOG SILLTHE EXCHANGE
PREPARED FOR
BRAND PROPERTIES STREAM DETAILSC8-3©Know what'sbelow.before you dig.CallR
Not to Scale4TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING - MUD MATNot to Scale5EROSION CONTROL MATTINGNot to Scale3WETLAND/MUD MATTHE EXCHANGE
PREPARED FOR
BRAND PROPERTIES
STREAM EROSION
CONTROL DETAILSC8-4©Know what'sbelow.before you dig.CallR
THE EXCHANGE
PREPARED FOR
BRAND PROPERTIES
STREAM PLANTING
DETAILSC8-5©Know what'sbelow.before you dig.CallR
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.gov/offices/Directory/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation
planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria
for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published
without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information
source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission.
Also please note that the NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional
correspondence if a Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Clean Water
Management Trust Fund easement, or an occurrence of a Federally-listed species is documented
near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance,
please contact Rodney A. Butler at [e-mail] 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 https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/help. 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
Group
EO ID Scientific Name Common Name Last
Observation
Date
Element
Occurrence
Rank
Accuracy Federal
Status
State
Status
Global
Rank
State
Rank
Sawfly, Wasp,
Bee, or Ant
37164 Bombus affinis Rusty-patched Bumble
Bee
1969-09-29 H 5-Very
Low
Endangered Significantly
Rare
G2 S1
Vascular Plant 13743 Delphinium exaltatum Tall Larkspur 1800s Hi?5-Very
Low
---Endangered G3 S2
No Natural Areas are Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Areas Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Name Owner Owner Type
Mecklenburg County Open Space Mecklenburg County Local Government
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/help. 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
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Page 4 of 4