20201685 Ver 1_20210326_NWP_39 _Optimized_20210329

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 #39
Regional General Permit #
Jurisdictional Determination Request No Permit Required
Revised 20150602
The project is located along S Turner Ave and Chamberlain Ave in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC
(35.243300 N, -80.867644 W).
2020-02248
Savona Mill Master Plan and Historical Development
Portman Holdings proposes future mixed-use development on a 28 acre site located at the intersection of Chamberlain
Avenue and South Turner Avenue in Charlotte, North Carolina (parcel ID 07111412, 07111403, 07111417, 07111209)
(Figure 1).
Portman Holdings
Chris Tinklenberg, PWS (Kimley-Horn)
07111412, 07111403, 07111417, 07111209
Mecklenburg
Charlotte
Stewart Creek
Lower Catawba (HUC 03050103)

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

March 26, 2021

Mr. Bryan Roden-Reynolds
Wilmington District, Charlotte Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
8430 University Executive Park Drive
Charlotte, NC 28262

Mr. Paul Wojoski
NC DWR, 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604

Re: Pre-Construction Notification (NWP #39)
Savona Mill Master Plan and Historical Redevelopment
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC

Dear Mr. Roden-Reynolds and Mr. Wojoski:

On behalf of our client, Portman Holdings, Kimley-Horn (KH) is submitting the enclosed Section 404/401 Pre-
construction Notification for the above-referenced project for your review pursuant to a Nationwide Permit #39.
The proposed project seeks to construct a mixed-use development, including historical redevelopment, on 28
acres. Authorization is requested under NWP 39 to impact 225 linear feet/ 0.02-acre of Stream 1 from
grading/earthen fill necessary for site development. The center of the project is located at 35.243300°N, -
80.867644°W. The following information is included as part of this application submittal:
⚫ Project Summary Sheet
⚫ Pre-Construction Notification Form
⚫ Agent Authorization
⚫ Permit Figures
◼ Figure 1 – Vicinity
◼ Figure 2 – USGS 7.5’ Topo (Charlotte W)
◼ Figure 3 – NRCS Soils (2019 Mecklenburg Co. Aerial)
◼ Figure 4 – Existing Conditions (2019 Mecklenburg Co. Aerial)
◼ Figure 5 – Proposed Conditions (2019 Mecklenburg Co. Aerial)
⚫ Permit Plans
⚫ Agency Correspondence
⚫ Compensatory Mitigation
◼ NCSAM Form
◼ NCDMS In-Lieu Fee Acceptance Letter
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Savona Mill Master Plan and Historical Redevelopment is a proposed 28-acre mixed-use development
located in the Historic West End neighborhood of Charlotte, NC. The project proposes renovating a 100+ year
old textile mill into +/- 200,000 square-feet of office and retail space, in addition to developing multifamily
residential buildings, totaling +/- 650 units. Additional development on-site includes the necessary parking and
infrastructure improvements to serve the site. The proposed project is located less than two miles from Uptown
Charlotte and the I-77, I-277 interchange and will provide direct access to the Irwin Creek and Stewart Creek
Greenway. According to the U.S. Census Bureau from 2018, over 100 people move to Charlotte every day. The
Savona Mill Master Plan and Historical Redevelopment will support the growing population through housing and
job opportunities.
Page 2
kimley-horn.com 200 South Tryon Street, Suite 200, Charlotte, NC 28202 704-333-5131

AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE
Cultural Resources
Kimley-Horn consulted the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) HPOWEB GIS service on
January 1, 2021. The Savona Mill (MK2211) was identified on the subject site. A request letter was submitted to
SHPO to determine the presence of archeological, cultural, or historic resources on March 1, 2021. At the time
of the report, a response has not been received. A copy of the request is attached.

Protected Species
A review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database on November 9, 2020, did not
indicate known occurrences of threatened or endangered species within the project boundary. Additionally,
pedestrian surveys conducted by Kimley-Horn on October 13, 2020, did not identify any occurrences of protected
species within the property boundary. A concurrence request letter was submitted to the USFWS on November
9, 2020. A response was received on December 9, 2020 and USFWS concurred with “a may affect, not likely to
adversely affect” determination. A copy of the request and concurrence are attached.
PROPOSED IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL WATERS
The proposed development consists of renovating an abandoned historic textile mill and the construction of 10
multifamily residential buildings. Authorization is requested under NWP 39 for stream impacts associated with
grading activities necessary to construct 2 multi-family buildings, associated parking facilities and underground
stormwater infrastructure associated with the mixed-use development. The proposed project will result in 225 LF
/ 0.02-ac of permanent impacts to Stream 1.

Overall, impacts associated with the construction of the mixed-use development will result in 225 LF/
0.02-ac of permanent impacts to potential non-wetland waters of the US.

AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
Unavoidable impacts to Stream 1 are necessary to accomplish the purpose and goals of the project. Stream
mitigation credits will be purchased to offset the permanent impacts necessary for this project.

COMPENSATORY MITIGATION
Compensatory mitigation is required to ensure minimal adverse environmental effects. The project area is located
within the larger Lower Catawba watershed (HUC 03050103) which is highly urban. An NCSAM assessment of
Stream 1 resulted in a quality rating of Low, likely due to the highly urbanized drainage basin. Compensatory
mitigation will be met by the purchase of credits through the NC Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) in-lieu
fee program. 225 LF of stream impacts will be mitigated through the purchase of stream mitigation credits. Based
on the NCSAM assessment of Low for Stream 1, mitigation is proposed at a 1.5:1 ratio. Since the proposed
impacts are within the Catawba 03 Expanded Service Area, the ratio doubles to 3:1, or 675 stream mitigation
credits. In total, 675 stream mitigation credits will be purchased from NCDMS to offset impacts associated with
this project. A copy of the NCSAM forms and the NCDMS In-Lieu Fee Acceptance Letter is attached.

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: Savona Mill Master Plan and Historical Redevelopment

Applicant Name and Address: Portman Holdings (POC: Marc Brambrut)
303 Peachtree Center Ave NE Suite #575
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone Number: 404-614-5073
Type of Request: Nationwide PCN (NWP #39) 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: Other:
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: Stewart Creek River Basin: Lower Catawba
H.U.C.: 03050103 USGS Quad Name: Charlotte W
Property Size (acres): 28 acres Approx. Size of Jurisdiction on Site (acres): 0.02 ac
Site Coordinates (in decimal degrees): 35.243300 °N -80.867644 °W
Project Location: The subject property is situated at the intersection of Chamberlain Avenue and South Turner Avenue
in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC.

Site Description: The subject property is an approximately 28-acre parcel, which currently is comprised of commercial
and industrial land. The subject property is bound by commercial land, industrial land, and residential developments.

Impact Summary (if applicable): The proposed project seeks authorization under NWP 39 to permanently impact 225
linear feet/ 0.02-acre of Stream 1. Stream impacts will result from fill associated with grading for the on-site mixed-use
development.

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
39 225 0.02
Total 225 0.02
Total Permanent (Loss) Impact to Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S. 0.02 ac

Kimley-Horn Contact: Chris Tinklenberg, PWS Direct Number: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Page 1 of 10
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: 39 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: Savona Mill Renovations
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: Portman Holdings, LLC
3b. Deed Book and Page No.
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): Marc Brambrut
3d. Street address: 303 Peachtree Center Ave NE, Suite 575
3e. City, state, zip: Atlanta, GA 30303
3f. Telephone no.: 404-614-5073
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address: [e-mail]

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

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: Agent Other, specify: Land Purchaser
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 10
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): 07111412, 07111403, 07111417, 07111209
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 35.243300 Longitude: -80.867644
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1c. Property size: 28 acres (Project Boundary)
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to proposed
project: Stewart Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: C
2c. River basin: Lower Catawba (HUC 03050103)
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 site is located at 500 S Turner Avenue in Charlotte, NC. The site is currently comprised of industrial buildings, including
The Mill, a 100-year-old textile mill, and associated parking lots. One stream enters the site through a 30” RCP culvert,
flows 225 LF, enters the storm drainage network via a 30" corrugated metal pipe, and flows into Stewart Creek located
along the western boundary. The site is surrounded by residential properties, a park, and industrial development.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0 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 225 linear feet.
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The Savona Mill Master Plan and Historical Redevelopment is a proposed 28-acre mixed-use development located in the
Historic West End neighborhood of Charlotte, NC. The proposed project is located less than two miles from Uptown
Charlotte and the I-77, I-277 interchange and will provide direct access to the Irwin Creek and Stewart Creek Greenway.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau from 2018, over 100 people move to Charlotte every day. The Savona Mill Master
Plan and Historical Redevelopment will support the growing population through housing and job opportunities.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The project proposes renovating a 100+ year old textile mill into +/- 200,000 square-feet of office and retail space, in addition
to developing multifamily residential buildings, totaling +/- 650 units. Additional development on-site includes the necessary
parking and infrastructure improvements to serve the site. Permanent stream impacts include 225 LF (0.02-ac) to Stream
1. General construction equipment including bulldozers, excavators, front-end loaders, etc. will be used for construction
purposes.
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: SAW-2020-02248
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):
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.
12/22/2020

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

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.

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
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)
2g. Total wetland impacts
2h. Comments:

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)
P T Grading/fill S1 – UT to
Stewart Creek
PER
INT
Corps
DWQ 4.5 225
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 225
3i. Comments:
The proposed development consists of renovating an abandoned historic textile mill and the construction of 10 multifamily
residential buildings. Authorization is requested under NWP 39 for stream impacts associated with grading activities necessary
to construct 2 multi-family buildings, associated parking facilities and underground stormwater infrastructure associated with the
mixed-use development. The proposed project will result in 225 LF / 0.02-ac of permanent impacts to Stream 1.

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

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)
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
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:
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)
P T Yes
No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments: The proposed project will not impact protected riparian buffers.
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Unavoidable impacts to Stream 1 are necessary to accomplish the purpose and goals of the project. Stream mitigation credits
will be purchased to offset the permanent impacts necessary for this project.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Stormwater and erosion control measures will be utilized to avoid sedimentation impacts to downstream waters and control
runoff from the construction site.

Page 6 of 10
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: 675 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: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments: Compensatory mitigation is required to ensure minimal adverse environmental effects. The project area is
located within the larger Lower Catawba watershed (HUC 03050103) which is highly urban. An NCSAM assessment of Stream
1 resulted in a quality rating of Low, likely due to the highly urbanized drainage basin. Compensatory mitigation will be met by
the purchase of credits through the NC Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) in-lieu fee program. 225 LF of stream impacts
will be mitigated through the purchase of stream mitigation credits. Based on the NCSAM assessment of Low for Stream 1,
mitigation is proposed at a 1.5:1 ratio. Since the proposed impacts are within the Catawba 03 Expanded Service Area, the ratio
doubles to 3:1, or 675 stream mitigation credits. In total, 675 stream mitigation credits will be purchased from NCDMS to offset
impacts associated with this project. A copy of the NCSAM forms and the NCDMS In-Lieu Fee Acceptance Letter is attached.
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 7 of 10
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)
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 8 of 10
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. Yes No
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 65%
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:
The SMP includes a proposed dry basin located adjacent to Stewart Creek to detain runoff for a portion of the site as needed
to meet pre-developed peak flows.
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 – Pending
Approval
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
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? Yes No

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

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.
The project is designed to construct 10 multifamily residential buildings and associated parking facilities and underground
stormwater infrastructure associated with the mixed-use development. A stormwater detention pond is also proposed. No
additional or cumulative impacts are anticipated due to the construction of the proposed project.
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:
Wastewater generated on site will be conveyed via a private sanitary sewer main that discharges to a public 36" sanitary sewer
main owned by City of Charlotte that follows Stewart Creek. The wastewater will be treated by the City of Charlotte's Irwin
Creek WWTF.

Page 10 of 10
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 9, 2020, did not indicate known
occurrences of threatened or endangered species within the project boundary. Additionally, pedestrian surveys conducted
by Kimley-Horn on October 13, 2020, did not identify any occurrences of protected species within the property boundary.
A concurrence request letter was submitted to the USFWS on November 9, 2020. A response was received on December
9, 2020 and USFWS concurred with “a may affect, not likely to adversely affect” determination. A copy of the request and
concurrence are attached.
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?
Kimley-Horn consulted the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) HPOWEB GIS service on March 1,
2021. The Savona Mill (MK2211) was identified on the subject site. A request letter was submitted to SHPO to determine
the presence of archeological, cultural, or historic resources on March 1, 2021. At the time of the report, a response has
not been received. A copy of the request is attached.
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 floodplain development permit and No-Rise/No-Impact certification
will be submitted to satisfy the Mecklenburg County permitting requirements for a floodplain development permit.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FIRM Panel 3710454400K

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.)

3/25/2021
Date

AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM

Name: Marc Brambrut, Portman Residential

Address: 303 Peachtree Center Ave NE Suite #575, Atlanta, GA 30303

Phone: [phone]

Email: [e-mail]

Project Name/Description: Savona Mill

Date: December 11, 2020

The Department of the Army
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District

Attention: Bryan Roden-Reynolds

Re: Wetland Related Consulting and Permitting

Portman Residential hereby designates and authorizes Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
to act in my/our behalf as my/our agent solely for the purpose of processing Jurisdictional
Determinations, Section 404 permits/Section 401 Water Quality Certifications
applications and to furnish upon request supplemental information in support of
applications, etc. from this day forward until successful completion o f the permitting
process or revocation by the owner.

In addition, I, the undersigned, a duly authorized owner of record of the
property/properties identified herein, do authorize representatives of the Wilmington
District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to enter upon the property herein
described for the purpose of conducting on-site investigations and issuing a
determination associated with Waters of the U.S. subject to Federal jurisdiction under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899.

Authorized this the day of , .

Authorized Representative Authorized Representative
(Print Name) (Signature)

FIGURES
Figure 1Vicinity MapSavona MillCharlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC
MecklenburgCounty
0 0.5 1Miles
Legend
Project Boundary
Mecklenburg County
±
Figure 2USGS Topographic Map (Charlotte W)Savona MillCharlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC
0 1,000 2,000Feet
Legend
Project Boundary
±
Ur
CuB
CuB
CuB
MO
MO
CeD2
CeD2
Figure 3SSURGO Soils and NWISavona MillCity of CharlotteMecklenburg County, NC
0 350 700Feet
Legend
Project Boundary
NWI
SSURGO Soils
Hydr ic Rating
Not Hydric (0%)
Hydric (5%)
±
S1 - Perennial (225 LF)Stewart CreekFigure 4Existing ConditionsSavona MillCharlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC
0 150 300Feet
Legend
Project BoundaryOn-Site StreamsOff-Site StreamsExisting Contours
±
Impact 1 (S1)Grading/Fill225 LF/0.02 ac - Permanent
Stewart CreekFigure 5Proposed ConditionsSavona MillCharlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC
0 150 300Feet
Legend
Project BoundaryOn-Site StreamsOff-Site StreamsProposed ContoursProposed BuildingSProposed Parking DeckProposed Edge of CurbProposed Retaining Wall
±

PERMIT DRAWINGS
E
E
E
A
7
E
ij
EX ROW
PROP.48' STORM SEWER TO
BYPASS OFF -SITE RUN-ON
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0 40 80 160

AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801

December 9, 2020

Chris Tinklenberg
Kimley-Horn
200 South Tryon Street, Suite 200
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

Dear Chris Tinklenberg:

Subject: Savona Mill Undisclosed Development; Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed your correspondence dated November
9, 2020, wherein you request our comments regarding potential project-mediated impacts to
federally protected species. The Service submits the following comments in accordance with the
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e); the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.); and section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).

Project Description
According to the information provided you anticipate that the proposed project will require
authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for impacts to jurisdictional streams
associated with the construction of an undisclosed development in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Project plans, a description of proposed impacts to jurisdictional features, and a description of
impact avoidance measures have not been provided at this time. The site was formerly an
industrial development. Onsite habitats are significantly disturbed and consist of undeveloped
successional forest, disturbed open space, paved areas, transitional habitats, and several
buildings. Stewart Creek borders the western portion of the site.

Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species
According to Service records, suitable summer roosting habitat may be present in the project
vicinity for the federally threatened northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). However,
the final 4(d) rule (effective as of February 16, 2016), exempts incidental take of northern long-
eared bat associated with activities that occur greater than 0.25 miles from a known hibernation
site, and greater than 150 feet from a known, occupied maternity roost during the pup season
(June 1 – July 31). Based on the information provided, the project (which may or may not
require tree clearing) would occur at a location where any incidental take that may result from
associated activities is exempt under the 4(d) rule.

Based on the information provided, suitable habitat (albeit low quality) for the federally
endangered Schweinitz’s sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), smooth coneflower (Echinacea
2

laevigata), and Michaux’s sumac (Rhus michauxii) occurs within the project’s action area 1.
However, targeted botanical surveys conducted during optimal survey windows did not detect
evidence for that species at that time.

Due to the presence of suitable habitat, but lack of onsite evidence for these species, we believe
the probability for project-mediated loss of these plants is insignificant and discountable.
Therefore, we would concur with a “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” determination
from applicable federal action agencies.

Based on the information provided we believe that suitable habitat is not present onsite for any
other federally protected species and we require no further action at this time. Please be aware
that obligations under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act must be reconsidered if: (1) new
information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical
habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a
manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is
determined that may be affected by the identified action.

We offer the following general recommendations for the Applicant’s consideration:

Erosion and Sediment Control
Grading and backfilling should be minimized, and existing native vegetation should be retained
(if possible) to maintain riparian cover for fish and wildlife. Disturbed areas should be
revegetated with native vegetation and/or organic material as soon as the project is completed.
Ground disturbance should be limited to what will be stabilized quickly, preferably by the end of
the workday. If erosion control matting is required, only natural fiber matting (coir) should
be used as synthetic netting can trap animals and persists in the environment beyond its
intended purpose.

Low Impact Development
The Service is concerned about potential stormwater-mediated impacts to streams and/or
wetlands that may occur onsite. Where detention ponds are used, storm-water outlets should
drain through a vegetated area prior to reaching any natural stream or wetland area. Detention
structures should be designed to allow for the slow discharge of storm water, attenuating the
potential adverse effects of storm-water surges; thermal spikes; and sediment, nutrient, and
chemical discharges. Since the purpose of storm-water-control is to protect streams and
wetlands, no storm-water-control measures or best management practices should be
installed within any stream (perennial or intermittent) or wetland. We recommend that
retention ponds be located at least 750 feet from small wetlands to minimize hydrologic
disturbance and ecological function.

1 Pursuant to 50 CFR §402.02, the Action Area includes all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal
action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action. Moreover, the Effects of the Action are all
consequences to listed species or critical habitat that are caused by the proposed action, including the consequences
of other activities that are caused by the proposed action. A consequence is caused by the proposed action if it
would not occur but for the proposed action and it is reasonably certain to occur. Effects of the action may occur
later in time and may include consequences occurring outside the immediate area involved in the action (see also 50
CFR §402.17)
3

Stream Crossings
If the proposed project requires stream crossings for site access, we recommend the use of
bridges or spanning structures. Structures should span the channel and the floodplain in order to
minimize impacts to aquatic resources, allow for the movement of aquatic and terrestrial
organisms, and eliminate the need to place fill in streams and floodplains.

Bridges should be designed and constructed so that no piers or bents are placed in the stream,
approaches and abutments do not constrict the stream channel, and the crossing is perpendicular
to the stream. Spanning some or all of the floodplain allows the stream to access its floodplain
and dissipate energy during high flows and also provides for terrestrial wildlife passage. When
bank stabilization is necessary, we recommend that the use of riprap be minimized and that a
riprap-free buffer zone be maintained under the bridge to allow for wildlife movement. If fill in
the floodplain is necessary, floodplain culverts should be added through the fill to allow the
stream access to the floodplain during high flows.

If bridges are not possible and culverts are the only option, we suggest using bottomless culverts.
Bottomless culverts preserve the natural stream substrate, create less disturbance during
construction and provide a more natural post-construction channel. Culverts should be
sufficiently sized to mimic natural stream functions and habitats located at the crossing site;
allow for water depth, volume (flow), and velocity levels that will permit aquatic organism
passage; and accommodate the movement of debris and bed material during bank-full events.
Widening the stream channel must be avoided.

The Service appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments. Please contact Mr. Byron
Hamstead of our staff at [e-mail], if you have any questions. In any future
correspondence concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-21-019.

Sincerely,
- - original signed - -
Janet A. Mizzi
Field Supervisor

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

November 9, 2020

Mr. Byron Hamstead
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801

Re: Savona Mill Site
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
T&E Species Survey Concurrence Request

Dear Mr. Hamstead,

On behalf of our client, Portman Holdings, Kimley-Horn (KH) is submitting this letter requesting
concurrence regarding the results of the pedestrian survey performed for the above-referenced
project in accordance with the methodologies recommended by USFWS. The pedestrian survey was
conducted by Kimley-Horn staff Chris Tinklenberg on October 13, 2020.

Background Information

The project is located on a parcel that consists of a former mill and associated parking areas in
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The area evaluated consists of undeveloped forested
land, a former mill, associated parking areas, and access roads.
Future authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) may be required to develop the
site within potentially jurisdictional waters of the U.S.; therefore, Portman Holdings contracted with
Kimley-Horn to perform the pedestrian survey within areas of potentially suitable habitat in the
project area to identify and document occurrences of federally listed threatened and/or endangered
species.

Methodology and Findings

As of July 17, 2020, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists five (5) federally protected
species for Mecklenburg County (Table 1). A brief description of each species’ habitat requirements
follows, along with the Biological Conclusion rendered based on survey results in the study area.

Page 2
kimley-horn.com 200 South Tryon Street, Suite 200, Charlotte, NC 28202 704-333-5131

Table 1: Federally protected listed species for Mecklenburg County
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status Habitat Present Biological
Conclusion
Myotis
septentrionalis
Northern long-
eared bat T Unknown
May affect, not
likely to
adversely affect
Lasmigona
decorata
Carolina
heelsplitter E No No effect
Rhus michauxii Michaux’s sumac E Yes No effect
Helianthus
schweinitzii
Schweinitz’s
sunflower E Yes No effect
Echinacea
laevigata
Smooth
coneflower E Yes No effect
*E = Endangered, T = Threatened

Northern Long-eared Bat
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: June 1 – August 15

Habitat Description: In North Carolina, the Northern long-eared bat (NLEB) occurs in the mountains,
with scattered records in the Piedmont and coastal plain. In western North Carolina, NLEB
spend winter hibernating in caves and mines. Since this species is not known to be a long-
distance migrant, and caves and subterranean mines are extremely rare in eastern North
Carolina, it is uncertain whether or where NLEB hibernate in eastern North Carolina. During
the summer, NLEB roost singly or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices of
both live and dead trees (typically ≥3 inches dbh). Males and non-reproductive females may
also roost in cooler places, like caves and mines. This bat has also been found, rarely, roosting
in structures like barns and sheds, under eaves of buildings, behind window shutters, in
bridges, and in bat houses. Foraging occurs on forested hillsides and ridges, and occasionally
over forest clearings, over water, and along tree-lined corridors. Mature forests may be an
important habitat type for foraging.

Biological Conclusion: May affect, not likely to adversely affect
Potentially suitable summer roosting habitat for the NLEB may be present within forested
areas in the project area. The Final 4(d) rule (effective as of February 16, 2016), exempts
incidental take of NLEB associated with activities that occur greater than 0.25 miles from a
known hibernation site, and greater than 150 feet from a known, occupied maternity roost
tree during the pup season (June 1 – July 31). Kimley-Horn conducted a review of the most
current maps of confirmed/known hibernacula and maternity sites for the NLEB at
http://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmls/project_review/NLEB_in_WNC.html. The action area
for this project is located outside of the highlighted areas/red 12-digit HUCs. There will be no
Page 3
kimley-horn.com 200 South Tryon Street, Suite 200, Charlotte, NC 28202 704-333-5131

blasting, pile driving, or other percussive activities associated with the construction of the
project; however, tree-cutting/removal may occur. Based on the review, the proposed
activities in the action area occur at a location where any incidental take that may result from
the associated activities is exempt under the Final 4(d) rule; therefore, the biological
conclusion of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” has been rendered for NLEB for this
project.

Carolina Heelsplitter
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: year round

Habitat Description: The Carolina heelsplitter was historically known from several locations within the
Catawba and Pee Dee River systems in North Carolina and the Pee Dee and Savannah River
systems, and possibly the Saluda River system in South Carolina. In North Carolina, the species
is now known only from a handful of streams in the Pee Dee and Catawba River systems. The
species exists in very low abundances, usually within 6 feet of shorelines, throughout its
known range. The general habitat requirements for the Carolina heelsplitter are shaded areas
in large rivers to small streams, often burrowed into clay banks between the root systems of
trees, or in runs along steep banks with moderate current. The more recent habitat where
the Carolina heelsplitter has been found is in sections of streams containing bedrock with
perpendicular crevices filled with sand and gravel, and with wide riparian buffers.

Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Known populations for the Carolina heelsplitter in Mecklenburg County occur only in the
Goose Creek and Duck Creek Watersheds within the Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin and the
Sixmile Creek Watershed within the Lower Catawba River Basin. This project is located within
Lower Catawba River Basin, however it is not located within the Sixmile Creek Watershed. The
on-site stream is degraded with poor supporting habitat conditions for mussels in general. No
mussels, of any species, were observed during the habitat assessment. Therefore, no suitable
habitat for Carolina heelsplitter is present within the study area. Additionally, according to
the NCNHP data record review updated November 4, 2020, there are no current occurrences
for this species within the project limits, or within a one-mile radius of the project. There is
historic occurrence within one mile from the project limits, but the last observation date is
prior to 1880.

Michaux's Sumac
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: May-October

Habitat Description: Michaux’s sumac, endemic to the inner Coastal Plain and lower Piedmont, grows
in sandy or rocky, open, upland woods on acidic or circumneutral, well-drained sands or sandy
loam soils with low cation exchange capacities. The species is also found on sandy or submesic
loamy swales and depressions in the fall line Sandhills region as well as in openings along the
rim of Carolina bays; maintained railroad, roadside, power line, and utility rights-of-way; areas
Page 4
kimley-horn.com 200 South Tryon Street, Suite 200, Charlotte, NC 28202 704-333-5131

where forest canopies have been opened up by blowdowns and/or storm damage; small
wildlife food plots; abandoned building sites; under sparse to moderately dense pine or
pine/hardwood canopies; and in and along edges of other artificially maintained clearings
undergoing natural succession. In the central Piedmont, it occurs on clayey soils derived from
mafic rocks. The plant is shade intolerant and, therefore, grows best where disturbance (e.g.,
mowing, clearing, grazing, periodic fire) maintains its open habitat.

Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Potentially suitable habitat for Michaux’s sumac is present on the subject property within the
right-of-ways and edges of forested areas that receives abundant sunshine and has minimal
competition in the herbaceous layer. A review of the NCNHP records, updated November 4,
2020, indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the subject property. Pedestrian
surveys were conducted by Kimley-Horn biologists throughout areas of potentially suitable
habitat on October 13, 2020. No individuals of Michaux’s sumac were observed. Due to a lack
of recorded occurrences and the absence of observed individuals on the subject property, the
proposed project will have no effect on this species.

Schweinitz’s Sunflower
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: late August-October

Habitat Description: Schweinitz's sunflower, endemic to the Piedmont of North and South Carolina.
The few sites where this rhizomatous perennial herb occurs in relatively natural vegetation
are found in Xeric Hardpan Forests. The species is also found along roadside rights-of-way,
maintained power lines and other utility rights-of-way, edges of thickets and old pastures,
clearings and edges of upland oak-pine-hickory woods and Piedmont longleaf pine forests,
and other sunny or semi-sunny habitats where disturbances (e.g., mowing, clearing, grazing,
blow downs, storms, frequent fire) help create open or partially open areas for sunlight. It is
intolerant of full shade and excessive competition from other vegetation. Schweinitz’s
sunflower occurs in a variety of soil series, including Badin, Cecil, Cid, Enon, Gaston,
Georgeville, Iredell, Mecklenburg, Misenheimer, Secrest, Tatum, Uwharrie, and Zion, among
others. It is generally found growing on shallow sandy soils with high gravel content; shallow,
poor, clayey hardpans; or shallow rocky soils, especially those derived from mafic rocks.

Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Potentially suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower is present on the subject property
within the right-of-ways and edges of forested areas that receives abundant sunshine and has
minimal competition in the herbaceous layer. A review of the NCNHP records, updated
November 4, 2020, indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the subject property.
Pedestrian surveys were conducted by Kimley-Horn biologists throughout areas of potentially
suitable habitat on October 13, 2020. No individuals of Schweinitz's sunflower were observed.
Due to a lack of recorded occurrences and the absence of observed individuals on the subject
property, the proposed project will have no effect on this species.
Page 5
kimley-horn.com 200 South Tryon Street, Suite 200, Charlotte, NC 28202 704-333-5131

Smooth Coneflower
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: late May-October

Habitat Description: Smooth coneflower, a perennial herb, is typically found in meadows, open
woodlands, the ecotonal regions between meadows and woodlands, cedar barrens, dry
limestone bluffs, clear cuts, and roadside and utility rights-of-way. In North Carolina, the
species normally grows in magnesium- and calcium- rich soils associated with gabbro and
diabase parent material, and typically occurs in Iredell, Wisenheimer, and Picture soil series.
It grows best where there is abundant sunlight, little competition in the herbaceous layer, and
periodic disturbances (e.g., regular fire regime, well-timed mowing, careful clearing) that
prevents encroachment of shade-producing woody shrubs and trees. On sites where woody
succession is held in check, it is characterized by a number of species with prairie affinities.

Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Potentially suitable habitat for Smooth coneflower is present on the subject property within
the right-of-ways and edges of forested areas that receives abundant sunshine and has
minimal competition in the herbaceous layer. A review of the NCNHP records, updated
November 4, 2020, indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the subject property.
Pedestrian surveys were conducted by Kimley-Horn biologists throughout areas of potentially
suitable habitat on October 13, 2020. No individuals of Smooth coneflower were observed.
Due to a lack of recorded occurrences and the absence of observed individuals on the subject
property, the proposed project will have no effect on this species.

Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act
USFWS optimal survey window: November through March

Habitat Description: Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forest in proximity to large
bodies of open water for foraging. Large dominant trees are utilized for nesting sites, typically
within 1.0 mile of open water. A desktop-GIS assessment of the project study area, as well as
the area within a 1.13-mile radius (1.0 mile plus 660 feet) of the project limits, was performed
on November 4, 2020 using 2019 color aerials. No large bodies of open water were identified
in the 1.13-mile radius. In addition, a review of the NCNHP database, updated on November
4, 2020, revealed no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. Due to the lack of
known occurrences, and the lack of observed individuals or nests, it has been determined that
the proposed project will not affect this species.

Biological Conclusion: No Effect

Page 6
kimley-horn.com 200 South Tryon Street, Suite 200, Charlotte, NC 28202 704-333-5131

Statement of Qualifications:

Investigator: Chris Tinklenberg, PWS
Education: B.A. Geography, 2007; Certificate in Geographic Information Systems, 2007
Experience: Environmental Scientist, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., 2007-Present;
Identified and confirmed Schweinitz’s sunflower community, York County, SC,
October 2016;
Performed numerous (30+) protected species habitat assessments and/or surveys
for protected species on various public and private projects.
Responsibilities: Natural communities assessments, threatened and endangered species habitat
assessments and surveys, wetland and stream delineations, GPS, GIS, stream and
wetland functional assessments, tree surveys

Please provide concurrence regarding the survey results and biological conclusions as well as any
other possible issues that might emerge with respect to protected species as a result of the proposed
project. Thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please email
([e-mail]) a copy of your reply to my attention and/or send an original
copy by mail. 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
Photo Page 1

Photo 1 – Maintained edge of developed areas located on edge of parcel.

Photo 2 – Disturbed herbaceous area around remnant foundations.

Title Photo Pages
Project Savona Mill
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Prepared By

Date Project Number
11/9/20 019292021

Photo Page 2

Photo 3 –Fenced in mainatained area of parcel.

Photo 4 – Fenced in mainatained area near edge of parcel, surrounded by offsite kudzo.

Title Photo Pages
Project Savona Mill
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Prepared By

Date Project Number
11/9/20 019292021

Figure 1Vicinity MapSavona MillCity of CharlotteMecklenburg County, NC
MecklenburgCounty
0 1,500 3,000Feet
Legend
Limits of D isturbance
Mecklenburg County
±
Figure 2USGS Topographic Map (Charlotte W)Savona MillCity of CharlotteMecklenburg County, NC
0 1,000 2,000Feet
Legend
Limits of D isturbance
±
_!_!_!_!1
2
4
3
Figure 3Species HabitatSavona MillCity of CharlotteMecklenburg County, NC
0 250 500Feet
Legend
Limits of D istu rb ance
Po tentia l T/E Ha bitat
_!Ph oto Loca tio ns
±
NCNHDE-13249
November 4, 2020
Addie Lasitter
Kimley-Horn
200 South Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
RE: Savona Mill
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
Savona Mill
November 4, 2020
NCNHDE-13249
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 - Stewart Creek
Greenway
Mecklenburg County Local Government
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Martin Luther
King Park
Mecklenburg County Local Government
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Seversville Park 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/help. Data query generated on November 4, 2020; source: NCNHP, Q3 October 2020.
Please resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 5
Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Savona Mill
November 4, 2020
NCNHDE-13249
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
Freshwater
Bivalve
7236 Lasmigona decorata Carolina Heelsplitter 1880-Pre X 3-Medium Endangered Endangered G1 S1
Vascular Plant 13743 Delphinium exaltatum Tall Larkspur 1800s Hi?5-Very
Low
---Endangered G3 S2
Vascular Plant 13382 Echinacea laevigata Smooth Coneflower 1900-Pre X 4-Low Endangered Endangered G2G3 S1S2
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 - Stewart Creek
Greenway
Mecklenburg County Local Government
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Martin Luther
King Park
Mecklenburg County Local Government
Mecklenburg County Open Space - L.C. Coleman
Park
Mecklenburg County Local Government
City of Charlotte Open Space City of Charlotte Local Government
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Frazier Park Mecklenburg County Local Government
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Bryant Park Mecklenburg County Local Government
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Seversville Park Mecklenburg County Local Government
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Five Points Park Mecklenburg County Local Government
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Enderly Park Mecklenburg County Local Government
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Wesley Heights
Greenway
Mecklenburg County Local Government
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Camp Greene
Connector
Mecklenburg County Local Government
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Biddleville Park Mecklenburg County Local Government
Stewart Creek Greenway Easement Mecklenburg County Local Government
Page 3 of 5
Managed Areas Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Name Owner Owner Type
Mecklenburg County Open Space - James Dennis
Rash Park
Mecklenburg County Local Government
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/help. Data query generated on November 4, 2020; source: NCNHP, Q3 October 2020.
Please resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 4 of 5
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Page 5 of 5

kimley-horn.com 200 South Tryon Street, Suite 200, Charlotte, NC 28203 704 333 5131

March 1, 2021

Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley
Environmental Review Coordinator
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-4617

Re: Savona Mill
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

Dear Ms. Gledhill-Earley,

Kimley-Horn is writing this letter on behalf of our client, Portman Residential, to request a review and comment on
any possible issues that might emerge with respect to cultural resource issues associated with the proposed
project in Charlotte, North Carolina.

The proposed project site is situated at the intersection of Chamberlain Avenue and South Turner Avenue in
Charlotte, North Carolina (Figures 1-3). The proposed project seeks to construct mixed-use development.

We request that you review the site based on the attached information to determine the presence of any
archeological, cultural, or historic resources. If a response has not been received within 30 days, we will assume
that you have reviewed the project area and that there are no issues to address at the present time.

Thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please email ([e-mail])
a copy of your reply and/or send an original copy by mail. If you have any questions regarding this request, please
feel free to contact me at [phone].

Sincerely,

KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

Taylor Kiker
Environmental Scientist

Figure 1Vicinity MapSavona MillCharlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC
MecklenburgCounty
0 0.5 1Miles
Legend
Project Boundary
Mecklenburg County
±
Figure 2USGS Topographic Map (Charlotte W)Savona MillCharlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC
0 1,000 2,000Feet
Legend
Project Boundary
±
Figure 3Aerial MapSavona MillCharlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC
0 1,000 2,000Feet
Legend
Project Boundary
±

AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE COMPENSATORY MITIGATION
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 a b
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).
B Not 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).
B Not 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
Savona Mill Renovations 10/13/2020
35.243607,-80.865724
S1 ~100 lf
Portman Residential 4. Assessor name/organization: Chris Tinklenberg / Kimley Horn
Mecklenburg
Catawba Stewart Creek
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
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.
NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
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
2
6
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).
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)
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************Check for TidalMarsh Streamsonly
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?
N N
16.Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction 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
F None of the above
18.Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19.Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100-feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50-feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30-feet wide
E E E E < 10-feet wide or no trees
20.Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21.Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22.Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23.Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10-feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24.Vegetative Composition – 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.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25.Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was 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 LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
LOW
HIGH
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
NO
MEDIUM
Stream Site Name Savona Mill Renovations Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
MEDIUM
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
LOW
LOW
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Chris Tinklenberg / Kimley Horn
10/13/2020
NO
NO
NO
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
MEDIUM
Pb1

March 22, 2021

Marc Brambrut
Portman Holdings
303 Peachtree Center Ave NE, Suite #575
Atlanta, GA 30303 Expiration of Acceptance: 9/22/2021

Project: Savona Mill 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 Impact Location
(8-digit HUC) Impact Type Impact Quantity
Catawba 03050103 Warm Stream 225

*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.
Thank you for your interest in the DMS in-lieu fee mitigation program. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact [e-mail].

Sincerely,

FOR James. B Stanfill
Asset Management Supervisor
cc: Chris Tinklenberg, agent