20220833 Ver 1_ePCN Application_20220620

Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
For Nationwide Permits and Regional General Permits
(along with corresponding Water Quality Certifications)
April 13, 2022 Ver 4.3
Initial Review
Has this project met the requirements for acceptance in to the review process?*
OO Yes
O No
Is this project a public transportation project?*
OYes 0No
Change only if needed.
Pre -Filing Meeting Date Request was submitted on:
9/17/2021
BIMS # Assigned*
20220833
Is a payment required for this project?*
0 No payment required
O Fee received
O Fee needed - send electronic notification
Reviewing Office*
Mooresville Regional Office - [phone]
Information for Initial Review
Version#*
What amout is owed?*
O $240.00
0 $570.00
Select Project Reviewer*
Doug Perez:eads\djperez
la. Name of project:
Simatec Warehouse Development
la. Who is the Primary Contact?*
Danielle Clark
lb. Primary Contact Email:*
lc. Primary Contact Phone:*
[e-mail] [phone]
Date Submitted
6/20/2022
Nearest Body of Water
Unnamed tributary of Steele Creek
Basin
Catawba
Water Classification
C
Site Coordinates
Latitude:
35.113555
A. Processing Information
Longitude:
-80.959377
County (or Counties) where the project is located:
Mecklenburg
Is this a NCDMS Project
0Yes ONo
Is this project a public transportation project?*
0Yes ONo

la. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
EI Section 404 Permit (wetlands, streams and waters, Clean Water Act)
O Section 10 Permit (navigable waters, tidal waters, Rivers and Harbors Act)
Has this PCN previously been submitted?*
0 Yes
O No
1b. What type(s) of permit(s) do you wish to seek authorization?
O Nationwide Permit (NWP)
0 Regional General Permit (RGP)
0 Standard (IP)
lc. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
0Yes ®No
Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number:
NWP Numbers (for multiple NWPS):
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:
EO 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular
0 Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
0 Individual 401 Water Quality Certification
39 - Commercial/Institutional Developments
le. Is this notification solely for the record because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWR 401 Certification:
For the record only for Corps Permit:
If. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?*
O Yes O No
O 401 Water Quality Certification - Express
0 Riparian Buffer Authorization
lg. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
O Yes O No
1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
O Yes O No
lh. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties?
O Yes O No
1j. Is the project located in a designated trout watershed?
OYes 0No
B. Applicant Information
0Yes ONo
OYes 0No
Id. Who is applying for the permit?
O Owner O Applicant (other than owner)
le. Is there an Agent/Consultant for this project?*
0 Yes 0 No
2. Owner Information
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
Simatec Inc.
2b. Deed book and page no.:
36755-83
2c. Contact Person:
Reto Corbetti, President
2d. Address
Street Address
13900 S. Lakes Drive
Address Line 2
Unit C
City
Charlotte
Postal / Zip Code
28273
State / Province / Region
NC
Country
United States

2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2f. Fax Number:
2g. Email Address: *
[e-mail]
4. Agent/Consultant (if applicable)
4a. Name:
Danielle Clark, PWS
4b. Business Name:
4c. Address
Street Address
3921 Sunset Ridge Road
Address Line 2
Suite 301
City
Raleigh
Postal / Zip Code
27607
4d. Telephone Number:
[phone]
4f. Email Address: *
[e-mail]
C. Project Information and Prior Project History
State / Province / Region
NC
Country
United States
4e. Fax Number:
1. Project Information
lb. Subdivision name:
(if appropriate)
lc. Nearest municipality / town:
Charlotte
2. Project Identification
2a. Property Identification Number:
20320208
2c. Project Address
Street Address
13315 South Ridge Drive
Address Line 2
City
Charlotte
Postal / Zip Code
28273
3. Surface Waters
3a. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project: *
Unnamed tributary of Steele Creek
3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water: *
C
3c. What river basin(s) is your project located in?*
Catawba
3d. Please provide the 12-digit HUC in which the project is located.
030501030108
4. Project Description and History
2b. Property size:
2.06
State / Province / Region
NC
Country
United States
4a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this application: *
The Site consists of one parcel of land located at 13315 South Ridge Drive in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The Site consists primarily of forested land with a landscaped
area in the northwestem portion of the Site. Office use is to the north; light industrial, recreational, and office use is to the east; recreational use is to the south; and office and light
industrial use is to the west.

4b. Have Corps permits or DWR certifications been obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in the past?*
0 Yes ® No O Unknown
4f. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.38
4g. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property:
0
4h. Explain the purpose of the proposed project: *
The project proposes to develop an approximate 18,000-square foot office and warehouse building to serve the City of Charlotte and to accomodate an additional location for Simatec's
growing business.
4i. Describe the overall project in detail, including indirect impacts and the type of equipment to be used: *
The planned development area will be graded with heavy equipment to prepare a level building pad.
5. Jurisdictional Determinations
5a. Have the wetlands or streams been delineated on the property or proposed impact areas?*
Yes
Comments:
C> No
5b. If the Corps made a jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made? *
O Preliminary 0 Approved O Not Verified 0 Unknown 0 N/A
Corps AID Number:
SAW-2021-01329
5c. If 5a is yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known):
Agency/Consultant Company:
Other:
Julia McGuire & Danielle Clark, PWS
Hart & Hickman, PC
0 Unknown
5d. List the dates of the Corp jurisdiction determination or State determination if a determination was made by the Corps or DWR
The Corps conducted a desktop review and a PJD was issued by Bryan Roden -Reynolds on 6/23/2021 (SAW-2021-01329).
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?*
O Yes O No
Are any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or individual permits(s) used, or intended to be used, to authorize any part of the proposed project or related activity?
No
D. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
la. Where are the impacts associated with your project? (check all that apply):
OO Wetlands O Streams -tributaries
O Open Waters O Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
0 Buffers
2a. Site #* (?)
2a1 Reason (?)
2b. Impact type* (?)
2c. Type of W.*
2d. W. name
2e. Forested*
2f. Type of Jurisdicition*
(?)
2g. Impact
area*
WAA
Fill
P
Headwater Forest
Wetland Area "A"
Yes
Corps
0.290
(acres)
2g. Total Temporary Wetland Impact
0.000
2g. Total Wetland Impact
0.290
2g. Total Permanent Wetland Impact
0.290
2i. Comments:
The permanent wetland impact involves grading and fill required to construct a truck court to serve the Site's warehousing operations.
E. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization

la. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing the project:
Avoidance and Minimization
The proposed office and warehouse development is located at 13315 South Ridge Drive in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The Site
consists of one parcel (Mecklenburg County Parcel ID Number 20320208) that totals approximately 2.06 acres of land.
H&H reviewed State and Federal threatened and endangered species databases for the Site, and conducted a screening survey of the Site and
surrounding area for the presence of Federal threatened and endangered species or their suitable habitats, and none were identified. H&H also
reviewed the National Registry of Historic Places (NRHP) for Sites located in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina and the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office (NC SHPO) GIS viewer, and conducted a visual reconnaissance of the Site and surrounding area for the potential presence of
historic, cultural, and/or archeological sites. No recorded sites were noted on or adjacent to the Site. No significant structures were observed on -Site.
H&H requested comment on the Site from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NC WRC), and
NC SHPO in June 2022. Agency responses are pending; however, request letters are included in Appendix D.
To minimize Site impacts, the proposed Site plan was designed to avoid Waters of the US to the maximum extent practicable. The developer chose the
Site as an already disturbed property location within a highly developed area with no threatened and endangered species or cultural resource issues,
which further minimizes environmental impact within the surrounding area. The Site building, employee parking areas, and amenity areas have been
designed to primarily occupy upland areas. The developer considered shifting the office and warehouse building to the north to minimize impacts to
WAA. Although several parking spots were eliminated in the northeastern portion of the Site, this area is utilized for employee parking as required by the
City of Charlotte. Furthermore, the developer is proposing an approximate 0.3-acre tree save area along the southem and eastern portions of the Site,
which includes the remaining portion of WAA. The tree save area may serve as a buffer to treat and infiltrate stormwater runoff prior to entering WAA.
The developer is proposing to avoid approximately 0.09 acre of WAA. The area of WAA to remain is located in an area that will not be utilized by the
warehouse development and will remain undisturbed. Furthermore, the developer is also proposing to install continued drainage, in the form of a
drainage ditch or similar, along the southern portion of the Site that will discharge towards WAA to assist in maintaining hydrology in and to WAA. The
drainage feature is designed to capture drainage from an approximately one -acre area and bypass the perimeter of the Site to drain toward WAA.
Additionally, a manhole will be installed in the southeastern portion of the Site to continually direct drainage toward WAA.
During Site development, good erosion and sediment control practices will be followed. Extensive silt fencing will be used on the construction Site
perimeter and wetland boundaries to remain.
Mitigation
Mitigation is required by the USACE Nationwide Permit #39 for impacts greater than 0.1 acre of wetlands. Due to the planned impacts of 0.29 acre to
WAA, compensatory mitigation is proposed in the form of purchasing mitigation credits from the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) In -Lieu Fee program. Based on the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM), the wetland
quality of WAA is low. Based on the results of the NC WAM, the proposed mitigation ratio for the wetland impact is 2:1.
lb. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques:
Avoidance and Minimization
The proposed office and warehouse development is located at 13315 South Ridge Drive in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The Site
consists of one parcel (Mecklenburg County Parcel ID Number 20320208) that totals approximately 2.06 acres of land.
H&H reviewed State and Federal threatened and endangered species databases for the Site, and conducted a screening survey of the Site and
surrounding area for the presence of Federal threatened and endangered species or their suitable habitats, and none were identified. H&H also
reviewed the National Registry of Historic Places (NRHP) for Sites located in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina and the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office (NC SHPO) GIS viewer, and conducted a visual reconnaissance of the Site and surrounding area for the potential presence of
historic, cultural, and/or archeological sites. No recorded sites were noted on or adjacent to the Site. No significant structures were observed on -Site.
H&H requested comment on the Site from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NC WRC), and
NC SHPO in June 2022. Agency responses are pending; however, request letters are included in Appendix D.
To minimize Site impacts, the proposed Site plan was designed to avoid Waters of the US to the maximum extent practicable. The developer chose the
Site as an already disturbed property location within a highly developed area with no threatened and endangered species or cultural resource issues,
which further minimizes environmental impact within the surrounding area. The Site building, employee parking areas, and amenity areas have been
designed to primarily occupy upland areas. The developer considered shifting the office and warehouse building to the north to minimize impacts to
WAA. Although several parking spots were eliminated in the northeastern portion of the Site, this area is utilized for employee parking as required by the
City of Charlotte. Furthermore, the developer is proposing an approximate 0.3-acre tree save area along the southem and eastern portions of the Site,
which includes the remaining portion of WAA. The tree save area may serve as a buffer to treat and infiltrate stormwater runoff prior to entering WAA.
The developer is proposing to avoid approximately 0.09 acre of WAA. The area of WAA to remain is located in an area that will not be utilized by the
warehouse development and will remain undisturbed. Furthermore, the developer is also proposing to install continued drainage, in the form of a
drainage ditch or similar, along the southern portion of the Site that will discharge towards WAA to assist in maintaining hydrology in and to WAA. The
drainage feature is designed to capture drainage from an approximately one -acre area and bypass the perimeter of the Site to drain toward WAA.
Additionally, a manhole will be installed in the southeastern portion of the Site to continually direct drainage toward WAA.
During Site development, good erosion and sediment control practices will be followed. Extensive silt fencing will be used on the construction Site
perimeter and wetland boundaries to remain.
Mitigation
Mitigation is required by the USAGE Nationwide Permit #39 for impacts greater than 0.1 acre of wetlands. Due to the planned impacts of 0.29 acre to
WAA, compensatory mitigation is proposed in the form of purchasing mitigation credits from the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) In -Lieu Fee program. Based on the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM), the wetland
quality of WAA is low. Based on the results of the NC WAM, the proposed mitigation ratio for the wetland impact is 2:1.
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?
J Yes
2c. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
O DWR Corps
2d. If yes, which mitigation option(s) will be used for this project?
O Mitigation bank R Payment to in -lieu fee program O Permittee Responsible Mitigation

4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
Yes No
4b. Stream mitigation requested: 4c. If using stream mitigation, what is the stream temperature:
(linear feet)
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWR only): 4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
(square feet) (acres)
4f. Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
(acres)
0.58
4h. Comments
The applicant proposes 2:1 mitigation ratio for 0.29 acre of wetland impact.
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
(acres)
F. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWR)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
O Yes O No
If no, explain why:
The Site is located within the Catawba River basin and the development does not propose impact to an applicable riparian buffer.
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. Is this a NCDOT project subject to compliance with NCDOT's Individual NPDES permit NCS000250?*
0 Yes No
2b. Does this project meet the requirements for low density projects as defined in 15A NCAC 02H .1003(2)?
Yes No
2c. Does this project have a stormwater management plan (SMP) reviewed and approved under a state stormwater program or state -approved local government stormwater program?
(!) Yes O No
0 N/A - project disturbs < 1 acre
2d. Which of the following stormwater management program(s) apply:
O Local Govemment 0 State
Local Government Stormwater Programs
❑O Phase II OI NSW 0 USMP O Water Supply
Please identify which local government stormwater program you are using.
City of Charlotte
Comments:
An underground detention system is being utilized to collect on -site runoff and control the 1-yr/24-hr,10-yr/6-hr, and 25-yr/6-hr storms before outfalling to an existing swale.
G. Supplementary Information U
1. Environmental Documentation
la. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of public (federal/state) land?*
:J Yes : No
2. Violations (DWR Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWR Water Quality Certification Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), or DWR Surface Water or Wetland Standards or
Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)7 *
Yes O No
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWR Requirement)
3a. Will this project result in additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?*
O Yes O No
3b. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
The proposed Site plan will develop the majority of the Site and additional development is not anticipated. Additional phases and/or impacts to Waters of
the US are not planned or proposed. Furthermore, the wetland area to remain is being utilized as a required tree save area.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWR Requirement)

4a. Is sewage disposal required by DWR for this project?*
YesNo 0 N/A
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or habitat?*
O Yes O No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS conceming Endangered Species Act impacts?*
v Yes 0 No
Sc. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Asheville
5d. Is another Federal agency involved?*
Yes
5e. Is this a DOT project located within Division's 1-8?
OYes 0No
O No 0 Unknown
5f. Will you cut any trees in order to conduct the work in waters of the U.S
OYes 0No
5g. Does this project involve bridge maintenance or removal?
OYes ®No
5h. Does this project involve the construction/installation of a wind turbine(s)?*
0Yes ONo
Si. Does this project involve (1) blasting, and/or (2) other percussive activities that will be conducted by machines, such as jackhammers, mechanized pile drivers, etc.?
OYes 0No
5j. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat?
DEQ Natural Heritage Program and USFWS on-line datases along with on -Site reconnaissance.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as an Essential Fish Habitat?*
0 Yes O No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact an Essential Fish Habitat?*
https://www.habitat.noaa.gov/apps/efhmapper/
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation status?*
i Yes J No
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?*
The National Registry of Historic Places, NC State Preservation Office databases, and on -Site reconnaissance.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain?*
Yes • No
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?*
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map ID #3710451000K
Miscellaneous
Please use the space below to attach all required documentation or any additional information you feel is helpful for application review. Documents should be combined into one file when
possible, with a Cover Letter, Table of Contents, and a Cover Sheet for each Section preferred.
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
Simatec Warehouse Development PCN (SAW-2021-01329).pdf 17.96MB
File must be PDF or KMZ
Comments
Signature
OBI By checking the box and signing below, I certify that:
• The project proponent hereby certifies that all information contained herein is true, accurate, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief'; and
• The project proponent hereby requests that the certifying authority review and take action on this CWA 401 certification request within the applicable reasonable period of time.

I have given true, accurate, and complete information on this form;
I agree that submission of this PCN form is a "transaction" subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");
I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");
I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a written signature; AND
I intend to electronically sign and submit the PCN form.
Full Name:
Danielle Clark
Signature
Date
6/20/2022

Preliminary ORM Data Entry Fields for New Actions
ACTION ID #: SAW- 2021-01329 Begin Date (Date Received):
Prepare file folder ❑ Assign Action ID Number in ORM ❑
1. Project Name [PCN Form A2a]: Simatec Warehouse Development
2. Work Type: VPrivate ❑Institutional ❑Government ❑ Commercial
3. Project Description / Purpose [PCN Form 133d and 133e]:
The property developer is proposing an office/warehouse development on the Site and is seeking verification to use Nationwide Permit
#39 to impact an on -Site wetland.
4. Property Owner / Applicant [PCN Form A3 or A41: Simatec Inc.
5. Agent / Consultant [PNC Form A5 — or ORM Consultant ID Number]:
Danielle Clark, PWS - Hart & Hickman, PC
6. Related Action ID Number(s) [PCN Form 135b]: None
7. Project Location — Coordinates, Street Address, and/or Location Description [PCN Form B lb]:
13315 South Ridge Drive, Charlotte, NC 28273 (Lat/Long: 35.113555,-80.959377)
8. Project Location —Tax Parcel ID [PCN Form B 1 a] : 20320208
9. Project Location —County [PCN Form A2b]: Mecklenburg
10. Project Location — Nearest Municipality or Town [PCN Form A2c]: Charlotte
11. Project Information — Nearest Waterbody [PCN Form 132a]: Unnamed tributary of Steele Creek
12. Watershed / 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code [PCN Form 132c]: 03050103
Authorization: Section 10 ❑ Section 404 ❑✓
Regulatory Action Type:
Standard Permit
✓ Nationwide Permit # 39
Regional General Permit #
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Section 10 and 404 ❑
Pre -Application Request
Unauthorized Activity
HCompliance
No Permit Required
Revised 20150602

hart '� hickman
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
Sent Via Email
June 15, 2022
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Charlotte Regulatory Office
8430 University Executive Park Drive, Suite 615
Charlotte, North Carolina 28262
Attn: Mr. Bryan Roden -Reynolds, PWS
Re: Pre -Construction Notification
Simatec Warehouse Development
13315 South Ridge Drive
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
SAW-2021-01329
H&H Job No. SIA-001
Dear Bryan
On behalf of Simatec Inc., Hart & Hickman, PC (H&H) is submitting the attached Pre -Construction
Notification (PCN) application for the proposed construction of an office and warehouse development
in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The Site consists of one parcel (Mecklenburg
County Parcel ID Number 20320208) that totals approximately 2.06 acres of land. The Site consists
primarily of forested land with a landscaped area in the northwestern portion of the Site. The subject
Site is located in a light industrial and office building area in close proximity to S. Tryon Street. H&H
is submitting this PCN application in order to receive verification to use Nationwide Permit (NWP)
439.
H&H received a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) for the Site from the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE) Charlotte Regulatory Field Office on June 23, 2021. The PJD document is
included in Appendix E.
2923 South Tryon Street, Suite 100 3921 Sunset Ridge Rd, Suite 301
Charlotte, NC 28203 Raleigh, NC 27607 www.harthickman.com
704.586.0007 main 919.847.4241 main

Mr. Bryan Roden -Reynolds
June 15, 2022
Page 2
There is one wetland located on the Site: Wetland Area `A' (WAA). WAA is a headwater wetland
located in a depressional area in the southern portion of the Site. WAA drains in a generally easterly
direction towards an existing stormwater catch basin located on the adjacent property that appears to
drain toward a downgradient stream feature located off the Site to the east.
The developer is proposing to develop the Site with a light industrial development that will consist of
an approximate 18,000-square foot office and warehouse building along with appurtenant features such
as driveways, parking areas, landscaping, and amenities. The Site plan also utilizes an underground
stormwater system to maximize the Site area. As part of the warehouse development, the developer is
proposing to impact approximately 0.29 acre of WAA. The impact to WAA involves the construction
of the truck court to serve the Site's warehousing operations. The truck court includes the appropriate
swing radius to allow safe ingress and egress of tractor trailers along with required trailer parking. The
developer is also proposing to install continued drainage, in the form of a drainage ditch or similar,
along the southern portion of the Site that will discharge towards WAA to assist in maintaining
hydrology in and to WAA.
Mitigation is required by the USACE Nationwide Permit 939 for impacts greater than 0.1 acre of
wetlands. Due to the planned impacts of 0.29 acre to WAA, compensatory mitigation is proposed in
the form of purchasing mitigation credits from the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) In -Lieu Fee program. Based on the North
Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM), the wetland quality of WAA is low. Based on the
results of the NC WAM, the proposed mitigation ratio for the wetland impact is 2:1.
H&H is seeking an NWP 939 verification for this development. A copy of the PCN submittal
package, along with the application fee, has also been submitted to the North Carolina DEQ Division
of Water Resources (DWR).
ht4)s://harthick.shuepoint.com/sites/A4mterFiles-1/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/Simatec (SIA)/Wetlands/Permitting/Cover
Letter - Copy.doc
hart " hickman
01
SMARTER ENWRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

Mr. Bryan Roden -Reynolds
June 15, 2022
Page 3
Should you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact Danielle
Clark at 518-598-2862.
Sincerely,
Hart and Hickman, PC
Danielle Clark, PWS
Sr. Project Environmental Scientist
Attachments
• PCN Form
• Figure 1— Site Location Map
• Figure 2 — Preliminary Wetland Delineation Map
• Appendix A — Agent Authorization
• Appendix B — Wetland Disturbance Area & Site Plan Package prepared by Urban Design Partners
• Appendix C — Avoidance & Minimization
• Appendix D — Supplemental Documents
• Appendix E —Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
• Appendix F — Mitigation Acceptance Letter
• Appendix G — NC WAM Form
ht4)s://harthick.shuepoint.com/sites/A4mterFiles-1/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/Simatec (SIA)/Wetlands/Permitting/Cover
Letter - Copy.doc
hart " hickman
01
SMARTER ENWRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

Pre -Construction Notification
Simatec Warehouse Development
13315 South Ridge Drive
Charlotte, North Carolina
H&H Job No. SIA-001
June 15, 2022
hart �411 hickman
2923 South Tryon Street, Suite 100 3921 Sunset Ridge Rd , Suite 301
Charlotte, NC 28203 Raleigh, NC 27607 www.harthickman.com
704.586.0007 main 919.847.4241 main

0� VVA
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
❑X Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1 b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 39 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes ❑X No
1 d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
❑X 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
❑ Yes ❑X No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ❑X 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.
❑X Yes ❑ No
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 In
below.
❑ Yes ❑X No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Simatec Warehouse Development
2b.
County:
Mecklenburg
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Charlotte
2d.
Subdivision name:
N/A
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Simatec Inc.
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
36755-83
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
Reto Corbetti, President
3d.
Street address:
13900 S. Lakes Drive, Unit C
3e.
City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28273
3f.
Telephone no.:
704-588-3320
3g.
Fax no.:
3h.
Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a.
Applicant is:
❑ Agent ❑X Other, specify: Owner/Site Developer
4b.
Name:
Reto Corbetti, President
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
Simatec Inc.
4d.
Street address:
13900 S. Lakes Drive, Unit C
4e.
City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28273
4f.
Telephone no.:
704-588-3320
4g.
Fax no.:
N/A
4h.
Email address:
[e-mail]
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
Danielle Clark, PWS
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
Hart & Hickman, PC
5c.
Street address:
3921 Sunset Ridge Road, Suite 301
5d.
City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27607
5e.
Telephone no.:
518-598-2862
5f.
Fax no.:
919-847-4261
5g.
Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 10

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
20320208
1b.
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.113555 Longitude:-80.959377
1 c.
Property size:
2.06 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
Unnamed tributary of Steele Creek
2b.
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
C (Steele Creek Classification)
2c.
River basin:
Catawba
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 consists of one parcel of land located at 13315 South Ridge Drive in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The Site consists
primarily of forested land with a landscaped area in the northwestern portion of the Site. Office use is to the north; light industrial, recreational, and
office use is to the east; recreational use is to the south; and office and light industrial use is to the west.
3b.
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.38
3c.
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 0
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The project proposes to develop an approximate 18,000-sq ft office and warehouse building to serve the City of Charlotte.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The planned development area will be graded with heavy equipment to prepare a level building pads.
4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a.
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (includingall prior phases)in the past?
❑X Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
Comments: pJD issued by the Corps on 6/23/2021
4b.
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
❑X preliminary ❑ Final
4c.
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Julia McGuire
Agency/Consultant Company: Hart & Hickman, PC
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
The Corps conducted a desktop review and a PJD was issued by Bryan Roden -Reynolds on 6/23/2021 (SAW-2021-01329).
5.
Project History
5a.
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑Yes ❑X No ❑ Unknown
5b.
If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6.
Future Project Plans
6a.
Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ❑X No
6b.
If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑X 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
2d.
Forested
2e.
Type of jurisdiction
Corps (404,10) or
DWQ (401, other)
2f.
Area of
impact
(acres)
W1 P
Fill
Headwater Wetland
Yes
Corps
0.29
W2
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W3
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W4
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W5
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W6
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
0.29
2h. Comments:
The permanent wetland impact involves grading and fill required to construct a truck court to serve the Site's warehousing operations.
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
3f.
Average
stream
width
(feet)
3g.
Impact
length
(linear
feet)
S1
Choose one
S2
Choose one
S3
Choose one
S4
Choose one
S5
Choose one
S6
Choose one
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
3i. Comments:
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

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 indivi ually 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)
01
Choose one
Choose
O2
Choose one
Choose
03
Choose one
Choose
04
Choose one
Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, the 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
p1
Choose one
P2
Choose one
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 ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other:
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
Yes/No
B2
Yes/No
B3
Yes/No
B4
Yes/No
B5
Yes/No
B6
Yes/No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
6i. Comments:
Page 5 of 10

D.
Impact Justification and Mitigation
1.
Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
See Appendix C
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
See Appendix C
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?
❑X Yes ❑ No
2b.
If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑X Corps
2c.
If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
❑X 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: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Quantity:
Quantity:
Quantity:
3c. Comments:
4.
Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑X Yes
4b.
Stream mitigation requested:
0 linear feet
4c.
If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
Choose one
4d.
Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
0 square feet
4e.
Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
0 acres
4f.
Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
0.58 acres
4g.
Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
0 acres
4h.
Comments: The applicant proposes 2:1 mitigation ratio for 0.29 acre of wetland impact.
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 6 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

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
Yes X No
buffer mitigation?
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.
6c.
6d.
6e.
Zone
Reason for impact
Total impact
Multiplier
Required mitigation
(square feet)
(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 7 of 10

E.
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ❑X No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b.
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?
73
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑X Yes ❑ No
2c.
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative
description of the plan:
An
underground detention system is being utilized to collect on -site runoff and control the 1-yr/24-hr,10-yr/6-hr, and 25-yr/6-hr storms before outfalling
to
an existing swale.
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
Charlotte
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which localgovernment's jurisdiction is thisproject?
Charlotte
❑X Phase II
❑ NSW
3b.
Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑X Yes ❑ No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑Coastal counties
❑HQW
4a.
Which of the following state -implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ORW
(check all that apply):
❑X Session Law 2006-246
❑Other:
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑X Yes ❑ No
attached?
5.
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a.
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑X Yes ❑ No
5b.
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑X Yes ❑ No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
❑ Yes ❑X No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b.
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
El Yes ❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c.
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
❑ Yes ❑ No
letter.)
Comments:
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,
❑Yes ❑X No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
El Yes ❑X 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
❑Yes ❑X No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
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 proposed Site plan will develop the majority of the Site and additional development is not anticipated.
Additional phases and/or impacts to Waters
of the U.S. are not planned or proposed.
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
will enter Charlotte Water sanitary sewer infrastructure and will be piped to an off -Site Charlotte Water wastewater treatment plant.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑ Yes ❑X No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑X Yes ❑ No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
DEQ Natural Heritage Program and Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) on-line databases and on -Site reconnaissance (See information
in Appendix D).
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ❑X No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper/
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ❑X No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
The National Registry of Historic Places, NC State Preservation Office databases, and on -Site reconnaissance (See information in Appendix D).
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain?
❑ Yes ❑X No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
Reviewed FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map ID #3710451000K
�~
Danielle Clark, PWS
06-15-2022
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization
letter from the applicant isprovided.)
Page 10 of 10

OK
cz
an
Tan ,� J .•fl" *
cin
zar
cem
.6.4 SITE : =
A.
cl
1 6
�}SE NT PA �lr.�
r c_go_
Copyright:© 2013-National Geographic Society, i-cubed
0 2,000 4,000
iiiii
N SCALE IN FEET
U.S.G.S. QUADRANGLE MAP
FORT MILL, SOUTH CAROLINA 2013
G
s QUADRANGLE
7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC)

SID\V IS - 4aa�ewiS\s�afo�d �a�seW-tlVV\salid�a�se W\ Lps)yy\\

Appendix A
Agent Authorization

Agent Certification of Authorization
I, ' 46 C (b , representing the prospective developer of undeveloped land
located southwest of the intersection of South Ridge Drive and South Point Boulevard, which is
represented by Parcel Number 20320208 in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
(approx. 2.06 acres), certify that I have authorized Hart & Hickman, PC to act on the prospective
developer's behalf and take all actions necessary to the processing, issuance, and acceptance of a
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination and 401/404 permitting for this property.
Prospective Applicant's Signature
Name/Title: W6 61-c" l �� �riC� ZIJ
Company: -:Wj VV C tvtt sir.natec inc.
13900-C South Lakes Drive
Charlotte, NC 28273
WWW.Simatec.00m
Date
[e-mail]
704-588-3320
Agent's Signature
Danielle Clark, PWS
Hart & Hickman, PC
06-02-2021
Date

Appendix B
Wetland Disturbance Area & Site Plan Package prepared by Urban Design Partners

Q
Ld
�C,I�Nz Q< ono I I
ti Q P� I� I I Q C9 W
aQ Q � N Ld
w d
V/w� ro Z za
QC�
O Q OH I I Em
----\ Q (n dLd
Z F- OD
��� ----- o�
/ oF-
C �
— — — _ — 119 — - o o
U)
Q m
I o
7
5 � T w 7 I w —
x� w
m LL
7 \
�7
' rn
co
— — 6� F
7 a.
7 I I Z
w
v� z
y z
\ r C ¢
.-
LU
¢ F-
v �I. ice_ o
-_
7
7.
-
s
cz
ki
609�
N
d H
\ :2 Z
0 d
I
O
m Lu
a
Z
d W fn
Z
Y
OOf
W
_
Q
w
z m m n
d W
m
N
I
U ro w
o z
W W
¢
\
I
¢ w m
a w

0LZK ON euoPePO 111JO e6PIN gT10G SLCU
ELZ8ZON'euoP qO
Z z ad U ozwn'a�PO S-P GOosev SUOI}IpUO'J DUI}SIX3
cc LLU
°
J
h ,e:ms N
wo
LL U
�o w
.ou `oa
cc
3 S aa��uaiS a a v
euai
w
J
Q
O
o
O
a a= oa �p ga�p4y taa:
�" R o lg d 5 € tt Ial pi a p-
$ £ A g$5&g' j' s � �Sa t
Ego
°glz.s E
' g 1 i AM,iPill a .
ml
€ � § �H110121,
����S a'1 Ex
e3 ea 8a6 x tea _ �_ e
ES�a pAnn
g 9
a
o
Pp
v 14u,i1®_
^ S m"_.m b1B1@ W3i of
HIM
\.ti \�'e °g€.fie„n $t8
-�€ / ads: n3:sm3,ag9
ease_, �aee� ions 1
s `` £7q
- g`� " slxe-s auo.ee•MI lie
v� � .m.00•� —'— a ----- way �,— A - _,,
s
o�1'N
♦ �61
G 5'0 [ i g / R 2 •x
VA
8 g3 pa S 3° i sppEy
U �
q. a �..
p��g $€ �aa € p tea p psi',$$v
�a�f��•,a�y?�4
10,11sp�s�s5�$v
A
$€
3s6S as sang 33n8:�2,,,,,,x Y34Fzz zz

IbPl
: v:m ON eve \lid \
2;2\> ° �
ml'oel my
\ �
\ �
-;<
2.10E \}} \
RR
:��
: m
\
\�
a»/ ,
\ _ z
.y,
m

ELZEZ �N e
z z ;
o
006U
ozl��a�uasa�� EosEv
`tip
>o am
'oul 'oelew!s
z
_ _ G
nE o- ASV o 4 - - o
ELZEZ ON 'euolJBgO en Np e6pla gTlOE SLEEL
ue1d buipmc)
O
�2�L'lUls m= U
AN
�l s°=L
m�oE
0
5
yq
�V
0
s
No
�a

CLZK ON 'euol/eqO en Np e6pla qT IOS SLSS L
aSzO auol/eqO ue1d a6eulm(] WAOIS
z z ; ozl�na�uasa�e,SoosS/ 0
m":,ass oLO
.0ui 'Oalew!s
1
\ 1 P
�l 1
Poa`,g s

Z Z b
0LZK SN -411Pe4S
zwP a�uasage,S006U
'OUl `oelew1S
�a� o`=F
- a%.
-
a
m"a
o
ag3
o
"soswoe2
ae Us ex� ft
__ -
z_-no
- -
O
wbn go8maN oQrnosoa
e 0>
es
a¢6�maG
o83 p -
O
_<oL
PE
Z
a �m3s o�Goo oro<�3
p
� .d`:' � aew m8a9�w
A���
o
O
z
IL�J
L�JL
L�J
L- -JL
ii JL
JL
JL
JL
JL
L
JL�JL�JL�J
L�JL�JL
0LZK SN 'euolJe4S IIIJO e6Pl2 qT IOS 9L00 L
Mid dime
a LO
TI
NWI

0LZK ON 8401PBgO en PO e6PIN P}n\S SL\L
8z°N au°0.. ase - oa uo uoisoa
z z o ozwP°°PO°°�°,SPP6£L l 4d 13 3 p
On
�6�=moo=N P - -
O-
Z'd O s8< O & E o
O 0
_NmE �� x5
® �x
0
w
e
:w_
—
--
—
— .
-'- --= :
'--------------
s
--_ --
\ \ m

CLZK ON'OTTO yeyS en Np ebUla qT IOS SLSSL
CaSKON'-40PgO Z aseyd - 10AIU00 Uoisoa3
Z Z �^ �'o - ozwn a�i,a seesoose�
m H � ggyms m�eo�,a �
r p stih a
7
_ 'oUl `oB;EU11S Jv}G lM V &
26
s
00 � SSw�
� es w�o�
jo
w � �
-
w
m5 $ GwF Q - �o¢ � 1 �il�� � -
10
0 ox
7
0 0
v ,
a IouooQz
it
m�

CLZK ON 'euolJBgO en Np e6pla qT IOS SL££ L
CaBKO-401JegO ueId adeospue-j paamb% O
z zovl��a�uasa�e,Soosx�
m W � Imase b•• // I��
VJ
'oul'oeleualg �2�L'UJISm J
VVo$e
m;u
a az
e o Hsu= a
a
=x
z r §e
a � asae
€8
a g' V 2
M o ¢ Y �03
U h E o a a sa9 - vap6o
\ m d R a w
tl dYa
.g
pa
7d
_
w
\
o
ea
111 �l
--- II
sl/
m

CLZK ON 'euolJBgO en Np e6pla qT IOS SL££ L
�aBzONauolJeuO uLld adeospue-j pluauaalddng T
z z ;/l��a�uasa�e,Soos��
ti
W
//T�� VJ
M 10 \� -
mo
p m z
w o
-
o
�6
J o o o o o
0 o
,
111
ub
----------------------
a
/
1 e�
E /�
��ii���
��� v.•�����i ���— — — — —
II' 3rvnu�iv �
— — — — — — —
W z�s�.3rvnu�rvw
—- -----
Tom'
/
— —
\
— —
\ N
oS
s
r
6s
zs ea iwn�
---------------------------------------------------
o
yn„
\ ao
f'.d oA
a
&
e9
Lo�M�a„
�o
a a\

CLZK ON '840IJBgO en Np e6pla Wn°G SL££ L
a8z°"'a °l'ey° juawabAulu3 ueId adeospue� �ejuawajddnS N
z zua°°�°,Goose
m W � Imase b•• // I��
'oul'oelew!s �2�L'UJIS m J
.\\ Mg �-
rIV
mmot
Iz
az o
0
o
no
a � o
w o
a � �
Q
o �
a
0 0
i � a a 4Eo
U
F e tii
Q w-
ez
I � I
1 Y m
1 § I
---------
ae
IE
\ os
\ Yg oe
\ § d
\ T
U
W
m
0 n c

CLZK ON 'euolJBgO en Np e6pla qT IOS SLSS L
aSz°"'a °l'ey° juawa6aeju3 d ue�adeospue-j pluauaalddnSco
z z
•�� M5
mmot
Iz
az o
a
o
o
� � Q
p
a
a _ o a o a s
f z
0
U a
y I
tii _
Z w J
a
Q�Q�o
NWT
z��
m �\2
o Q
.
w
---------------
\,

Appendix C
Avoidance and Minimization

Appendix C
Avoidance and Minimization
Simatec Warehouse Development
13315 South Ridge Drive
Charlotte, North Carolina
H&H Job No. SIA-001
Avoidance and Minimization
The proposed office and warehouse development is located at 13315 South Ridge Drive in
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The Site consists of one parcel (Mecklenburg
County Parcel ID Number 20320208) that totals approximately 2.06 acres of land.
H&H reviewed State and Federal threatened and endangered species databases for the Site, and
conducted a screening survey of the Site and surrounding area for the presence of Federal
threatened and endangered species or their suitable habitats, and none were identified. H&H also
reviewed the National Registry of Historic Places (NRHP) for Sites located in Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina and the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NC SHPO)
GIS viewer, and conducted a visual reconnaissance of the Site and surrounding area for the
potential presence of historic, cultural, and/or archeological sites. No recorded sites were noted
on or adjacent to the Site. No significant structures were observed on -Site. H&H requested
comment on the Site from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NC WRC), and NC SHPO in June 2022. Agency responses are
pending; however, request letters are included in Appendix D.
To minimize Site impacts, the proposed Site plan was designed to avoid Waters of the US to the
maximum extent practicable. The developer chose the Site as an already disturbed property
location within a highly developed area with no threatened and endangered species or cultural
resource issues, which further minimizes environmental impact within the surrounding area. The
Site building, employee parking areas, and amenity areas have been designed to primarily
occupy upland areas. The developer considered shifting the office and warehouse building to the
north to minimize impacts to WAA. Although several parking spots were eliminated in the
northeastern portion of the Site, this area is utilized for employee parking as required by the City
1 hart hickman
https://huthick.shuepoint.com/sites/A4mterFiles-1/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/Simatec
(SIA)Metlands/Permitting/C - Avoid and Minimize.doc SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

of Charlotte. Furthermore, the developer is proposing an approximate 0.3-acre tree save area
along the southern and eastern portions of the Site, which includes the remaining portion of
WAA. The tree save area may serve as a buffer to treat and infiltrate stormwater runoff prior to
entering WAA.
The developer is proposing to avoid approximately 0.09 acre of WAA. The area of WAA to
remain is located in an area that will not be utilized by the warehouse development and will
remain undisturbed. Furthermore, the developer is also proposing to install continued drainage,
in the form of a drainage ditch or similar, along the southern portion of the Site that will
discharge towards WAA to assist in maintaining hydrology in and to WAA. The drainage
feature is designed to capture drainage from an approximately one -acre area and bypass the
perimeter of the Site to drain toward WAA. Additionally, a manhole will be installed in the
southeastern portion of the Site to continually direct drainage toward WAA.
During Site development, good erosion and sediment control practices will be followed.
Extensive silt fencing will be used on the construction Site perimeter and wetland boundaries to
remain.
Mitigation
Mitigation is required by the USACE Nationwide Permit 439 for impacts greater than 0.1 acre of
wetlands. Due to the planned impacts of 0.29 acre to WAA, compensatory mitigation is
proposed in the form of purchasing mitigation credits from the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) In -Lieu Fee program.
Based on the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM), the wetland quality of
WAA is low. Based on the results of the NC WAM, the proposed mitigation ratio for the
wetland impact is 2:1.
2
https://huthick.shuepoint.com/sites/A4mterFiles-1/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/Simatec
(SIA)/Wetlands/Permitting/C - Avoid and Minimize.doc
hart hickman
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUT1ON5

Appendix D
Supplemental Documents

hart '� hickman
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
Via E-Mail
June 7, 2022
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
Attention: Ms. Renee Gledhill -Earley
Environmental Review Coordinator
Re: Request for Courtesy Review
Proposed Simatec Facility
13315 South Ridge Drive
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
H&H Job No. SIA-001
Dear Renee
Hart & Hickman, PC (H&H) is requesting information concerning the potential presence of historic,
cultural, and/or archeological sites on or near the above -referenced property (hereafter referred to as the
"Site"). This request is submitted to satisfy property due diligence actions for land development, which
could involve Section 404/401 wetland/stream impact permitting. This request is not being submitted due
to the use of Federal funds.
The Site consists of one parcel of land (Mecklenburg County Parcel ID No. 20320208) that totals
approximately 2.06 acres of land. (see Figure 1). The Site is located at 13315 South Ridge Drive in
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The subject Site consists primarily of undeveloped
forested land with a landscaped area in the northwestern portion of the Site. A wetland observed by H&H
is located in the southern portion of the Site. The planned use for the Site is to construct an office and
warehouse building with associated roadways, parking, and stormwater management areas.
Adjacent properties consist of South Ridge Drive to the northwest with a multi -tenant office building
located beyond; the intersection of South Ridge Drive and South Point Boulevard to the northeast with a
2923 South Tryon Street, Suite 100 3921 Sunset Ridge Rd, Suite 301
Charlotte, NC 28203 Raleigh, NC 27607 www.harthickman.com
704.586.0007 main 919.847.4247 main

Ms. Renee Gledhill -Earley
June 7, 2022
Page 2 of 3
multi -tenant office building located beyond; a martial arts school to the east; a multi -tenant warehouse
building to the southeast; a swimming school to the south; and an office building to the west.
In order to investigate the potential presence of historic, cultural and/or archeological sites on the Site,
H&H conducted the following:
• reviewed the National Registry of Historic Places (NRHP) for historic properties registered in
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina;
• reviewed the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NC SHPO) geographic
information system (GIS) viewer for sites located in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina;
• reviewed the Mecklenburg County property record for the Site; and
• conducted a visual survey of the Site and the surrounding area.
National Registry of Historic Places & North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
H&H reviewed the NRHP website(http://nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/NC/mecklenburg/state.ht
ml) for properties registered in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina and the NC SHPO GIS viewer
(http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/) to obtain information and locations of historic, cultural, and/or
archeological sites on or adjacent to the subject Site. Based upon a review of the NRHP list, none of the
registered properties in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County are located on or near the subject Site.
Based upon a review of the NC SHPO GIS viewer, H&H did not identify on -Site or adjacent National
Register (NR) listings. The NC SHPO GIS viewer depicts Neely Slave Cemetery (MK2251) as a locally
landmarked "surveyed only" property located approximately 220 feet to the south of the Site. The GIS
viewer indicates that the Neely Slave Cemetery, once part of the Neely Plantation in the Steele Creek area
of southwestern Mecklenburg County, is a site that possesses local historic significance as a tangible
reminder of the use of slave labor on the county's large farms and plantations from the mid -eighteenth
century to the end of the Civil War. The Neely Slave Cemetery is also significant as one of the few
hard hickrnan
SMAUER ENViRONMEN-rAL 5,0LUT100A
https://hartluck.sharepoint.com/sites/MasterFiles-IlShared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/Simatec (SIA)/Wetlands/Agency Letters/SF]PO Letter.docx

Ms. Renee Gledhill -Earley
June 7, 2022
Page 3 of 3
vestiges of slavery remaining in Mecklenburg County and as one of the few known slave cemeteries in
the area. No other mapped properties were identified within 2,000 feet from the Site.
Mecklenburg County Property Record
According to the Mecklenburg County GIS website, no structures are located on the Site. Property details
are included as an attachment to this letter report.
Visual Survey
H&H conducted a visual survey of the Site on May 12, 2022. H&H observed naturally vegetated areas
throughout the majority of the Site that consisted primarily of wooded vegetation with a landscaped area
in the northwestern portion of the Site. H&H also observed an apparent wetland in the southern portion
of the Site. H&H did not observe obvious structures, artifacts, or ruins at the Site that appeared to be
historically, culturally, and/or archeologically significant.
Please review the above information and provide a written response as to the potential for this proposed
development to affect historic, cultural, or recorded archeological sites. If possible, please respond to this
request within 30 days. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Hart & Hickman, PC
Danielle Clark, PWS
Sr. Project Environmental Scientist
Attachments
Kayla Fox
Staff Environmental Scientist
hard hickrnan
SMAUER ENViRONMEN-rAL SOLUT10 5
https://hartluck.sharepoint.com/sites/MasterFiles-IlShared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/Simatec (SIA)/Wetlands/Agency Letters/SF]PO Letter.docx

d A�3Rr� - FSrinfCyUtl31HlVG I�1 NP hN.� I� A-_ � o, s
�F 1 r � s• �.
_ -tD
{
Y _
SAM Nf FLY RD -
CIR•A'l! R e7r
S. Y pRa SS
El
N.�
wAMit Grc
Chnuian S4
.- .
rgti�
A
x -
`r-
j f�
,E
yF
A6¢
p
l+r r1R7E C7R
' a
rC
USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP Elevation
Program, Geographic Names Information System, National Hydrography
Dataset, National Land Cover Database, National Structures Dataset,
and National Transportation Dataset; USGS Global Ecosystems; U.S.
Census Bureau TIGER/Line data; USFS Road Data; Natural Earth Data;
U.S. Department of State Humanitarian Information Unit; and NOAA'
National Centers for Environmental Information, U.S. Coastal Relief
Model. Data refreshed May, 2020.
TITLE
SITE LOCATION MAP
0 2,000 4,000
PROJECT PROPOSED SIMATEC FACILITY
SCALE IN FEET
= 13315 SOUTH RIDGE DRIVE
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
U.S.G.S. QUADRANGLE MAP 2923 south Tryon street- suite 100
''�• h i C k m a n Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
hart
FORT MILL, SC -NC 2020 704-586-0007 (p) 704-586-0373 (f)
SMARTER ENVfR0NMEN7AL SOLUTloNS License # C-1269 / # C-245 Geology
QUADRANGLE DATE: 7-16-21 REVISION NO: 0
7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) JOB NO: SIA-001 FIGURE NO: 1

•
.�is M1, Yr:•;.NS :� - i, •... r
.3 4 '„cr,.. ..
_ ,,..,_:. , . . ,„_.. ......,,.. . .,-. .F.,*i,,-.1t.',..‘414.,'"..'.rf -44.:C' . -' . -• ..."; -''''.
r ,akr. ni
r"5". •y; .su s
i ram ' _ . t.•'4. .;z' .. FI v �.
r; � :.:�' •:� _• ,„'mow vim_. -
_ j'Ve .. -h' • .:IA '.. ."''M. �•Ui;•„ � .:,•tom-.?
l .`leJRt.w.ilE/{•e F _ Y -;- • 'Y!
Photograph 1:General view of the forested area in the north-central portion of the Site
, ex. .
s..
0'c ,
:rS RYA. e.
Yak--r +�''' ' • J.•
'' Si�'Yf Via^.i _ : `�V:i9 � t-.•��q .r�.4r.,
�,-.. 7,.. _.:- -, i, _ -r.mow..; _S• ^': '—'`.-14
T • _ r
a"-,..g.....,. ...,;r4; 'IP.t. .=-14---` • ....,,v,...,. .,,,....,,, ,..........,..•'''. .r,t.'-'- '--','-'1V -7'47'-
"N-
" `;;sue - • am .i.;%,
��-•�,_y1e
40.230.
44
titer.0 %�w - r " z ;- ' r:�N ti`•"-.+: .,:4i_
wor
�. .. .r `"f< �' N".'EY— , •i3��iR• Rrvf
Photograph 2:General view of the wetland in the southern portion of the Site.
2923 S.Tryon Street, Suite 100 PROPOSED SIMATEC FACILITY
hart '' .1hickman Charlotte, NC 28203 13315 SOUTH RIDGE DRIVE
704.586.0007(p)704.586.0373(f) CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA

ry- i •r �� _ r -r w, r
■ .'� �•_: '' —, -'te G+.,i..s r �;_
44.
y" f
-..• Y fofie
low
r '•,.{. . �� , .% _ - £' may `
i.
'i" If1. '.I
'hey �.r•4-1 r
re'
" .. • • 4r,
Alla
' v7 �. �Yy� e` � I v,,,•';', , l,ij' ...0.;,i1 ti `' 41, , { r`. ; ! ' • •_ 1r � :%�( . � s� a 'r ;i� � .f .-p' ' 4isf{ .;a r'; ci' ..r_;
•
''� g"yyyy
Photograph 3:General view of the lawn area in the northwestern portion of the Site.
1111 2923 S.Tryon Street, Suite 100 PROPOSED SIMATEC FACILITY
hart ''s. hickman Charlotte, NC 28203 13315 SOUTH RIDGE DRIVE
704.586.0007(p)704.586.0373(f) CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA

Mecklenburg County '3roperty Record Card Property Search
Mecklenburg County - Property Record Card Property Search
PARCEL ID: 20320208 SIMATEC INC
13315 SOUTH RIDGE DR CHARLOTTE NC 13900 S LAKES DR UNIT
C
CHARLOTTE NC 28273
KEY INFORMATION
Land Use Code 1600
Neighborhood
IN04
Land Use Desc INDUSTRIAL
Land
89734 SQUARE FEET
Exemption /
Municipality
CHARLOTTE
Deferment
Last Sale Date 11/12/2021
Fire District
CITY OF CHARLOTTE
Last Sale Price $420,000
Special District
NA
Legal Description TR H-8 M35-63
ASSESSMENT DETAILS
2022 Real Estate Assessed Value
Total Appraised Value
$298,700
Land Value
I $298,700
Building Value
$0
Features
$0
Total
$298,700
LAND
USE UNITS
1600 89734
BUILDING
TYPE NEIGHBORHOOD
SQUARE FEET IN04
ASSESSMENT
$298,700

BUILDING (1)
Finished Area
Year Built
Built Use / Style
Story
Heat
Fuel
Foundation
External Wall
Fireplace(s)
0
Full Bath(s)
0
Half Bath(s)
0
Bedroom(s)
Total (SgFt)
No Photo Available
FEATURES
No data to display
RECENT SALES HISTORY

The sales history includes only qualified sales made since January 1, 2016. A sale is qualified when it has been verified, by the appraiser, as an arm's
length transaction for fair market value. Only qualified sales are considered in the appraisal process. For a complete history of sales and other
transfers, please visit Polaris. The Register of Deeds records, indexes, and stores all real estate related documents that are presented for
registration.
SALE LUC AT LEGAL SOLD AS
SALE DATE PRICE SALE REFERENCE DEED TYPE VACANT GRANTOR GRANTEE
11/12/2021 $420,000 1600 36755 SPECIAL WARRANTY Yes BUSHEL & PECK PROPERTIES SIMATEC
DEED LLC INC
VALUE CHANGES
The value change history shows only changes in appraised value; it does not show exemptions, exclusions or deferrals that could reduce a
property's taxable value. If any of these are in effect for a particular tax year, it will be shown on the property tax bill for that year. It is also possible
that some previous value changes might be missing from this list or listed in the wrong order. If you have any questions, please call the County
Assessor's Office at 704-336-7600.
DATE OF VALUE CHANGE
EFFECTIVE FOR TAX YEAR
REASON FOR CHANGE
NEW VALUE
01/15/2019
2019
COUNTYWIDE REVALUATION
$298,700
01/10/2015
2011
REVALUATION REVIEW - PEARSON
$179,500
03/17/2011
2011
COUNTYWIDE REVALUATION
$179,500
03/15/2003
2003
COUNTYWIDE REVALUATION
$179,500
PERMITS
For information on building, electrical, mechanical or plumbing permits issued for this property in the last six years, please visit Mecklenburg County
Code Enforcement's searchable permit site.
Union f
S uth
Ridg Drive
at outh
P� uley4
0 �{
N
i
n
20 ft

Disclaimer
Mecklenburg County makes every effort to produce the most accurate information possible. No warranties, expressed or implied, are provided for
the data herein, its use or interpretation.

hart '� hickman
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
Via E-Mail
June 7, 2022
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Asheville NC ES Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Attention: Ms. Rebekah Reid
Re: Request for Information and Comment
Proposed Simatec Facility
13315 South Ridge Drive
Charlotte, North Carolina
H&H Job No. SIA-001
Dear Rebekah:
Hart & Hickman, PC (H&H) is requesting information concerning protected species and habitats
on or near the above -referenced site (hereafter referred to as the "Site"). This request is submitted
to satisfy property due diligence actions for land development, which could involve wetlands
permitting. The anticipated permitting actions will not involve the use of Federal funds. The Site
consists of one parcel of land (Mecklenburg County Parcel Number 20320208) that totals
approximately 2.06 acres of land. The Site parcel is located at 13315 South Ridge Drive in
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (Site or subject Site; see Figure 1).
The Site consists primarily of forested land with a landscaped area in the northwestern portion of
the Site. A wetland observed by H&H is located in the southern portion of the Site. The subject
Site is located in a light industrial and office building area in close proximity to S. Tryon Street.
The planned use for the Site is to construct an industrial warehouse/office building with associated
roadways, parking, and stormwater management areas.
Adjacent properties consist of South Ridge Drive to the northwest with a multi -tenant office
building located beyond; the intersection of South Ridge Drive and South Point Boulevard to the
2923 South Tryon Street, Suite 100 3921 Sunset Ridge Rd, Suite 301
Charlotte, NC 28203 Raleigh, NC 27607 www.harthickman.com
704.586.0007 main 919.847.4247 main

Ms. Rebekah Reid
June 7, 2022
Page 2 of 6
northeast with a multi -tenant office building located beyond; a martial arts school to the east; a
multi -tenant warehouse building to the southeast; a swimming school to the south; and an office
building to the west.
In order to investigate the potential presence of protected flora and fauna on the Site, H&H
completed the following activities:
• contacted the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NC WRC) by a similar
letter;
• reviewed the Find a Species website for a list of federally -listed T&E species in
Mecklenburg County on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS) website
hlt2s:Hfws.gov/s]2ecies/search;
• reviewed the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) online database for records of federally -listed T&E species
occurrences for Mecklenburg County on the DEQ website
https://www.ncnhp.or /dg ata/species-communi . -search;
• utilized the DEQ NHP online Data Explorer tool to create a Project Review report for the
subject Site;
• reviewed the Federal Registry and the US FWS Critical Habitat for T&E Species online
mapping tool on the US FWS website http://crithab.fws.gov; and
• conducted an on -Site visual survey in order to field screen the Site and peripheral areas
for federally -protected species and/or their habitats.
NC WRC
H&H requested comment on the potential presence of protected flora and fauna on the Site from
the NC WRC by a similar letter. A response from NC WRC is pending.
https://huthick.shuepoint.coin/sites/MasterFiles-1/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/Simatec (S1A)/Wet1ands/Agency Letters/US FWS.docx
hart hackman
5MARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLL OMS

Ms. Rebekah Reid
June 7, 2022
Page 3 of 6
Federal Threatened and Endangered Species
H&H reviewed the US FWS Find a Species website for a list of federally -listed T&E species in
Mecklenburg County, which includes the following protected species:
• Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) — Threatened
• Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) — Endangered
• Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorates) — Endangered
• Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) — Endangered
• Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) — Endangered
H&H also reviewed the North Carolina DEQ NHP online database for records of federally -listed
T&E species for Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Other than the Atlantic pigtoe, the NHP
list includes the federally -listed species above. The NHP list also includes the Rusty -patched
bumble bee (Bombus afnis) as an endangered species that historically occurred in Mecklenburg
County. The list also includes the Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), which are federally -
protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA).
H&H also utilized the DEQ NHP online Data Explorer tool to create a Project Review report for
the subject Site. The Project Review report indicates that no records of rare species, important
natural communities, natural areas, or conservation areas were identified on the subject Site. The
report also indicates that no elemental occurrences of federally -listed T&E species were identified
on -Site or within a one -mile radius of the subject Site. The report indicates that natural areas,
which include the Neely Road Swamps and Good Shepherd Upland Depression Swamp, and
managed areas including the County -managed Polk Ditch Greenway areas and Open Space areas
are located within a one -mile radius of the subject Site. The Project Review report is attached to
this letter.
https://huthick.shuepoint.coin/sites/MasterFiles I/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/Simatec (SIA)/Wetlands/Agency Letters/US FWS.docx
hart hackman
5MARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUrIM5

Ms. Rebekah Reid
June 7, 2022
Page 4 of 6
Critical Habitats
H&H completed a review of federal registry information pertaining to federally -designated critical
habitats for the T&E species listed above on the US FWS critical habitats online mapping tool.
There are no federally -designated critical habitats located at the Site or in the area surrounding the
Site.
Visual Survey
On May 12, 2022, H&H conducted a visual survey of the Site to observe for individuals or stands
of T&E species and areas of potential habitat that would support federally -protected species known
or believed to occur in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina as listed above.
H&H did not observe evidence of the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorates), Atlantic pigtoe
(Fusconaia masoni), or their habitats on the subject Site. The Carolina heelsplitter and Atlantic
pigtoe exist in clean, stable, and silt -free streams, which was not observed on the subject Site. No
streams were observed on the subj ect Site. H&H has determined that the potential for the Carolina
heelsplitter or the Atlantic pigtoe to be present at the Site is low.
H&H did not observe evidence of the Rusty -patched bumble bee (Bombus afnis) or its habitat
within the project Site, which can include prairies, woodlands, marshes, and agricultural
landscapes that provide sufficient access to floral resources as food sources for the bee. According
to the US FWS and the North Carolina NHP on-line database, the Rusty -patched bumble bee was
historically present within Mecklenburg County. According to the US FWS Rusty -patched
bumble bee guidance on the endangered species act implementation website, the Rusty -patched
bumble bee has likely been extirpated from Mecklenburg County. Therefore, H&H has
determined that the potential for the Rusty -patched bumble bee to be present at the project Site is
low.
H&H did not observe evidence of Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii), Schweinitz's sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzii), and Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), or their habitats on the
https://huthick.shuepoint.coin/sites/MasterFiles-1/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/Simatec (SIA)/Wetlands/Agency Letters/US FWS.docx
hart hackman
5MARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUrIM5

Ms. Rebekah Reid
June 7, 2022
Page 5 of 6
subject Site. Michaux's sumac and Schweinitz's sunflower occur in areas of full to partial sun and
are often associated with periodic habitat disturbance, such as land clearing, fires, or grazing.
Smooth coneflower occurs in open wooded areas with abundant sunlight and is often associated
with areas of periodic disturbance to reduce the amount of competition in the herbaceous layer.
H&H evaluated the Site and did not identify occurrences of these species during the visual survey.
As noted above, on -Site habitat consists of primarily forested land and a landscaped lawn area in
the northwestern portion of the Site. The lawn area appears to be subject to regular mechanical
and/or chemical vegetation management, and therefore, could not serve as suitable habitat for these
species. The vegetated areas along the periphery of the wooded area are comprised of Poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), Highbush raspberry (Rubus argutus), Mock strawberry (Potentilla
indica), Heath aster (Symphyotrichum ericoides), English ivy (Hedera helix), and Muscadine (Vitis
rotundifolia). No individuals of the Rhus, Helianthus, or Echinacea genera were observed. Due
to the lack of observed occurrences of protected species, the lack of periodic disturbance on -Site,
and regular vegetation management that occurs on northwestern portion of the Site, H&H has
determined that the potential for Michaux's sumac, Schweinitz's sunflower, and Smooth
coneflower to be present at the Site is low.
H&H did not observe evidence of the Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) or its habitat on the
subject Site. The Bald eagle is typically found near large lakes and rivers, and in areas where fish
and other prey animals are abundant; none of which was observed on the subject Site. Therefore,
H&H has determined that the potential for the Bald eagle to be present at the Site is low.
Please review the above information and provide a written response as to the potential for this
project to affect protected species. If possible, please respond to this request within 30 days.
https://huthick.shuepoint.coin/sites/MasterFiles-1/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/Simatec (S1A)/Wet1ands/Agency Letters/US FWS.docx
hart hackman
5MARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLLJ11OH5

Ms. Rebekah Reid
June 7, 2022
Page 6 of 6
If you have questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Hart and Hickman, PC
Danielle Clark, PWS
Sr. Project Environmental Scientist
Attachments
Kayla Fox
Staff Environmental Scientist
https://huthick.shuepoint.coin/sites/MasterFiles-1/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/Simatec (S1A)/Wet1ands/Agency Letters/US FWS.docx
haft hackman
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLL OMS

d A�3Rr� - FSrinfCyUtl31HlVG I�1 NP hN.� I� A-_ � o, s
�F 1 r � s• �.
_ -tD
{
Y _
SAM Nf FLY RD -
CIR•A'l! R e7r
S. Y pRa SS
t,
N.�
wAMit Grc
Christian S4
.- .
rgti�
A
x -
`r-
j f�
,E
yF
A6¢
p
l+r r1R7E C7R
' a
rC
USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP Elevation
Program, Geographic Names Information System, National Hydrography
Dataset, National Land Cover Database, National Structures Dataset,
and National Transportation Dataset; USGS Global Ecosystems; U.S.
Census Bureau TIGER/Line data; USFS Road Data; Natural Earth Data;
U.S. Department of State Humanitarian Information Unit; and NOAA'
National Centers for Environmental Information, U.S. Coastal Relief
Model. Data refreshed May, 2020.
TITLE
SITE LOCATION MAP
0 2,000 4,000
PROJECT PROPOSED SIMATEC FACILITY
SCALE IN FEET
= 13315 SOUTH RIDGE DRIVE
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
U.S.G.S. QUADRANGLE MAP 2923South TryonStreet - Suite 100
''�• hickman Charlotte, North Carolina
hart
FORT MILL, SC -NC 2020 • 704-586-0007 (p) 704-586-0373 (f)
SMARTER ENVfR0NMEN7AL SOLO'noNS License # C-1269 / # C-245 Geology
QUADRANGLE DATE: 7-16-21 REVISION NO: 0
7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) JOB NO: SIA-001 FIGURE NO: 1

•
.�is M1, Yr:•;.NS :� - i, •... r
.3 4 '„cr,.. ..
_ ,,..,_:. , . . ,„_.. ......,,.. . .,-. .F.,*i,,-.1t.',..‘414.,'"..'.rf -44.:C' . -' . -• ..."; -''''.
r ,akr. ni
r"5". •y; .su s
i ram ' _ . t.•'4. .;z' .. FI v �.
r; � :.:�' •:� _• ,„'mow vim_. -
_ j'Ve .. -h' • .:IA '.. ."''M. �•Ui;•„ � .:,•tom-.?
l .`leJRt.w.ilE/{•e F _ Y -;- • 'Y!
Photograph 1:General view of the forested area in the north-central portion of the Site
, ex. .
s..
0'c ,
:rS RYA. e.
Yak--r +�''' ' • J.•
'' Si�'Yf Via^.i _ : `�V:i9 � t-.•��q .r�.4r.,
�,-.. 7,.. _.:- -, i, _ -r.mow..; _S• ^': '—'`.-14
T • _ r
a"-,..g.....,. ...,;r4; 'IP.t. .=-14---` • ....,,v,...,. .,,,....,,, ,..........,..•'''. .r,t.'-'- '--','-'1V -7'47'-
"N-
" `;;sue - • am .i.;%,
��-•�,_y1e
40.230.
44
titer.0 %�w - r " z ;- ' r:�N ti`•"-.+: .,:4i_
wor
�. .. .r `"f< �' N".'EY— , •i3��iR• Rrvf
Photograph 2:General view of the wetland in the southern portion of the Site.
2923 S.Tryon Street, Suite 100 PROPOSED SIMATEC FACILITY
hart '' .1hickman Charlotte, NC 28203 13315 SOUTH RIDGE DRIVE
704.586.0007(p)704.586.0373(f) CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA

ry- i •r �� _ r -r w, r
■ .'� �•_: '' —, -'te G+.,i..s r �;_
44.
y" f
-..• Y fofie
low
r '•,.{. . �� , .% _ - £' may `
i.
'i" If1. '.I
'hey �.r•4-1 r
re'
" .. • • 4r,
Alla
' v7 �. �Yy� e` � I v,,,•';', , l,ij' ...0.;,i1 ti `' 41, , { r`. ; ! ' • •_ 1r � :%�( . � s� a 'r ;i� � .f .-p' ' 4isf{ .;a r'; ci' ..r_;
•
''� g"yyyy
Photograph 3:General view of the lawn area in the northwestern portion of the Site.
1111 2923 S.Tryon Street, Suite 100 PROPOSED SIMATEC FACILITY
hart ''s. hickman Charlotte, NC 28203 13315 SOUTH RIDGE DRIVE
704.586.0007(p)704.586.0373(f) CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA

Roy Cooper, Governor
9" 0 INC DEPARTMENT OF
""i ■
WMk.M 1 NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
■-000
Kayla Fox
Hart & Hickman, PC
2923 S. Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28203
RE: Proposed Simatec Facility -
Dear Kayla Fox:
May 13, 2022
13315 South Ridge Drive; SIA-001
13. Reid Wilson, Secretary
Misty Buchanan
Deputy Director, Natural Heritage Program
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide
information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
Based on the project area mapped with your request, a query of the NCNHP database indicates that
there are no records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, and/or
conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary. Please note that although there
may be no documentation of natural heritage elements within the project boundary, it does not
imply or confirm their absence; the area may not have been surveyed. The results of this query
should not be substituted for field surveys where suitable habitat exists. In the event that rare
species are found within the project area, please contact the NCNHP so that we may update our
records.
The attached `Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that
have been documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these
records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area
if suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed areas within a one -mile
radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report.
If a Federally -listed species is found within the project area or is indicated within a one -mile radius of
the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for
guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here:
httr)s://www.fws.gov/offices/Directory/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation
planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria
for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published
without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information
source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission.
The NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a
Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Land and Water Fund easement, or Federally -
listed species are documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance,
please contact Rodney A. Butler at rod ney.butler�ncdcr.gov or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
121 1N. JON S STREET, RALEIGI I_ NC 27603 - 16Sl MAOL SERVICE CENTER. PAL EIGH. rkc 276�0
OFC 919.707.9120 • FAK 919.707.9421

/
CO \
2
s
s
®
s
\
/
©
/
/
\
CO\
±
\
4
t
3 /
4 \
\
\
\
CO CO(
/
%
®
9 %
Clc
±
e
ag
e
e
e
\
e
z
0
\:
§
\/
/\
CO
s CO>2
2
»
2
tt
G}
\
_
ee
/ /
\_
/
u
\
e
\
e
>
2
%
CO
\
s
\
s
±
2 a
cl
\
\./
/
Y
Y
ƒ /
\ /
\ \
\
x
&
x
&
\
§\
u
e
o e
3 3
> s
CO CO
°3
/9
u
/\
/\\
�_\
CO\
\\\
g
o
0
0
2
0
®
e
e
e
2
2
4
gso
/ j
\
e e c
0
§.z
a/
/%\ca
/�»/\
\
/
/
��
»>
i
CO
e 3
0
0
6
o
0
20
\ % / >
\ \
Co \
\
\
%
/
9
e u u e z
.
� \
CO 2 z
j 6
uL
°
\
\
CO
.\
%
e
±
> >
±
4
®
/
\ D
\ \
CO
\
\.E
j
/ /
/
\
2 2
-
® i
e
0 Ecn
0
CO
§ on
CO
C
\
\
\
//
CO
y
z
2
\ U
20
\ƒ
E
®
/
0
\ \
/
y
\
\
Eo
COCO
®
ye
e
e
COe
\\
\
~
\
\
u
®
y
e
CO
k
-
=
o
_
2
%
/
&
}
w
\
\%
3
? e
\
y
n cn
cn
}
y
CO
c
a
/°
\
\ (
\
\
\ \ \
\ (
z
e
COCO
L
�C�~�~�
\
\\
\\
co
°
}
\
/ /
/
\
\
z z
^
e
/
�
g
s s
\ /
\
\
\ \
D \
/
\
\
/ /
\ \
CO
®
c
©
=
e
\
e
E
z z
OO
z
%z
�
v
\
%
co
a
\
\
E
CO/
> >
\ /
( /
\
0)\
\
\
\
c
\ \
\�
/
\g
@,
\
/ e e
= \
> >
>2
\
gD-
<
\._
u
\ \
\
\
4
)
t \
z
/
E_ E=
=
E
e
5
/
\
/ /
2
2 / / /
\ \
e=
E}/
2
E 2 E
2 E/
2
Z>
g
3 0
CO
==
co 2 2=
u u}
> E
:<
/
/
CO
e
CO
CO / /
§
/ \
li 2
/
/ / /
/ /
/
/
Z /
§
\
c

p�18�pW
V'�es�t�gno�s�
f
f
F
4
�
o
v
a g'ya
o
Ne�ad
's
�nr
�s --
Genera4 Ur
v Maa�� aka a)s
K
..� Carowinds 6t4d
i
5 Paint Blvd
5 Ridge Dr
0
'r
Y
0
T_
Y
N
a
f
O�
Y�Uojg )ae4l
M
O
M

hart
hickman
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
Via E-mail
June 7, 2022
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
District 1 Wildlife Biologist
1722 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Attention: Ms. Olivia Munzer
Re: Request for Information and Comment
Proposed Simatec Facility
13315 South Ridge Drive
Charlotte, North Carolina
H&H Job No. SIA-001
Dear Olivia:
Hart & Hickman, PC (H&H) is requesting information concerning protected species and habitats
on or near the above -referenced site (hereafter referred to as the "Site"). This request is
submitted to satisfy property due diligence actions for land development, which could involve
wetlands permitting. The anticipated permitting actions will not involve the use of Federal
funds. The Site consists of one parcel of land (Mecklenburg County Parcel Number 20320208)
that totals approximately 2.06 acres of land. The Site parcel is located at 13315 South Ridge
Drive in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (Site or subject Site; see Figure 1).
The Site consists primarily of forested land with a landscaped area in the northwestern portion of
the Site. A wetland observed by H&H is located in the southern portion of the Site. The subject
Site is located in a light industrial and office building area in close proximity to S. Tryon Street.
The planned use for the Site is to construct an industrial warehouse/office building with
associated roadways, parking, and stormwater management areas.
2923 South Tryon Street, Suite 100 3921 Sunset Ridge Rd, Suite 301
Charlotte, NC 28203 Raleigh, NC 27607 www.harthickman.com
704.586.0007 main 919.847.4241 main

Ms. Olivia Munzer
June 7, 2022
Page 2
Adjacent properties consist of South Ridge Drive to the northwest with a multi -tenant office
building located beyond; the intersection of South Ridge Drive and South Point Boulevard to the
northeast with a multi -tenant office building located beyond; a martial arts school to the east; a
multi -tenant warehouse building to the southeast; a swimming school to the south; and an office
building to the west.
In order to investigate the potential presence of protected flora and fauna on the Site, H&H
completed the following activities:
• contacted the US Fish & Wildlife Service (US FWS) by a similar letter;
• reviewed the Find a Species website for a list of federally -listed T&E species in
Mecklenburg County on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS) website
hlt2s:Hfws.gov/sl2ecies/search;
• reviewed the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) online database for records of federally -listed T&E species
occurrences for Mecklenburg County on the DEQ website
hLtps://www.ncnhp.org/data/species-communily-search,
• utilized the DEQ NHP online Data Explorer tool to create a Project Review report for the
subject Site;
• reviewed the Federal Registry and the US FWS information pertaining to Federally -
Designated Critical Habitats at the US FWS website htt2:Hcrithab.fws.gov; and
• conducted an on -Site visual survey in order to field screen the Site and peripheral areas
for federally protected species or their habitats.
US FWS
H&H requested comment on the potential presence of protected flora and fauna on the Site from
the US FWS by a similar letter. A response from US FWS is pending.
19
hart hickman
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
https://huthick.shuepoint.com/sites/MasterFiles-1/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/Simatec (SIA)/Wetlands/Agency Letters/WRC Letter.docx

Ms. Olivia Munzer
June 7, 2022
Page 3
Federal Threatened and Endangered Species
H&H reviewed the US FWS Find a Species website for a list of federally -listed T&E species in
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina which includes the following protected species:
• Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) — Threatened
• Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) — Endangered
• Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorates) — Endangered
• Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) — Endangered
• Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) — Endangered
H&H also reviewed the North Carolina DEQ NHP online database for records of federally -listed
T&E species for Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Other than the Atlantic pigtoe, the NHP
list includes the federally -listed species above. The NHP list also includes the Rusty -patched
bumble bee (Bombus afnis) as an endangered species that historically occurred in Mecklenburg
County. The list also includes the Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), which are federally -
protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA).
H&H also utilized the DEQ NHP online Data Explorer tool to create a Project Review report for
the subject Site. The Project Review report indicates that no records of rare species, important
natural communities, natural areas, or conservation areas were identified on the subject Site. The
report also indicates that no elemental occurrences of federally -listed T&E species were
identified on -Site or within a one -mile radius of the subject Site. The report indicates that
natural areas, which include the Neely Road Swamps and Good Shepherd Upland Depression
Swamp, and managed areas including the County -managed Polk Ditch Greenway areas and
Open Space areas are located within a one -mile radius of the subject Site. The Project Review
report is attached to this letter.
19
hart hickman
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
https://huthick.shuepoint.com/sites/MasterFiles-1/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/Simatec (SIA)/Wetlands/Agency Letters/WRC Letter.docx

Ms. Olivia Munzer
June 7, 2022
Page 4
Critical Habitats
H&H completed a review of federal registry information pertaining to federally -designated
critical habitats for the T&E species listed above on the US FWS critical habitats online mapping
tool. There are no federally -designated critical habitats located at the Site or in the area
surrounding the Site.
Visual Survey
On May 12, 2022, H&H conducted a visual survey of the Site to observe for individuals or
stands of T&E species and areas of potential habitat that would support federally -protected
species known or believed to occur in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina as listed above.
H&H did not observe evidence of the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorates), Atlantic
pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), or their habitats on the subject Site. The Carolina heelsplitter and
Atlantic pigtoe exist in clean, stable, and silt -free streams, which was not observed on the subject
Site. No streams were observed on the subject Site. H&H has determined that the potential for
the Carolina heelsplitter or the Atlantic pigtoe to be present at the Site is low.
H&H did not observe evidence of the Rusty -patched bumble bee (Bombus afnis) or its habitat
within the project Site, which can include prairies, woodlands, marshes, and agricultural
landscapes that provide sufficient access to floral resources as food sources for the bee.
According to the US FWS and the North Carolina NHP on-line database, the Rusty -patched
bumble bee was historically present within Mecklenburg County. According to the US FWS
Rusty -patched bumble bee guidance on the endangered species act implementation website, the
Rusty -patched bumble bee has likely been extirpated from Mecklenburg County. Therefore,
H&H has determined that the potential for the Rusty -patched bumble bee to be present at the
project Site is low.
H&H did not observe evidence of Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii), Schweinitz's sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzii), and Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), or their habitats on the
subject Site. Michaux's sumac and Schweinitz's sunflower occur in areas of full to partial sun
hart hickman
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
https://huthick.shuepoint.com/sites/MasterFiles-1/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/Simatec (SIA)/Wetlands/Agency Letters/WRC Letter.docx

Ms. Olivia Munzer
June 7, 2022
Page 5
and are often associated with periodic habitat disturbance, such as land clearing, fires, or grazing.
Smooth coneflower occurs in open wooded areas with abundant sunlight and is often associated
with areas of periodic disturbance to reduce the amount of competition in the herbaceous layer.
H&H evaluated the Site and did not identify occurrences of these species during the visual
survey. As noted above, on -Site habitat consists of primarily forested land and a landscaped
lawn area in the northwestern portion of the Site. The lawn area appears to be subject to regular
mechanical and/or chemical vegetation management, and therefore, could not serve as suitable
habitat for these species. The vegetated areas along the periphery of the wooded area are
comprised of Poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Highbush raspberry (Rubus argutus), Mock
strawberry (Potentilla indices), Heath aster (Symphyotrichum ericoides), English ivy (Hedera
helix), and Muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia). No individuals of the Rhus, Helianthus, or Echinacea
genera were observed. Due to the lack of observed occurrences of protected species, the lack of
periodic disturbance on -Site, and regular vegetation management that occurs on northwestern
portion of the Site, H&H has determined that the potential for Michaux's sumac, Schweinitz's
sunflower, and Smooth coneflower to be present at the Site is low.
H&H did not observe evidence of the Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) or its habitat on the
subject Site. The Bald eagle is typically found near large lakes and rivers, and in areas where
fish and other prey animals are abundant; none of which was observed on the subject Site.
Therefore, H&H has determined that the potential for the Bald eagle to be present at the Site is
low.
Please review the above information and provide a written response as to the potential for this
project to affect protected species. If possible, please respond to this request within 30 days.
19
hart hickman
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
https://huthick.shuepoint.com/sites/MasterFiles-1/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/Simatec (SIA)/Wetlands/Agency Letters/WRC Letter.docx

Ms. Olivia Munzer
June 7, 2022
Page 6
If you have questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Hart and Hickman, PC
Danielle Clark, PWS
Sr. Project Environmental Scientist
Attachments
Kayla Fox
Staff Environmental Scientist
hart hickman
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
https://huthick.shuepoint.coin/sites/MasterFiles-1/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/Simatec (SIA)/Wetlands/Agency Letters/WRC Letter.docx

d A�3Rr� - FSrinfCyUtl31HlVG I�1 NP hN.� I� A-_ � o, s
�F 1 r � s• �.
_ -tD
{
Y _
SAM Nf FLY RD -
CIR•A'l! R e7r
S. Y pRa SS
t,
N.�
wAMit Grc
Christian S4
.- .
rgti�
A
x -
`r-
j f�
,E
yF
A6¢
p
l+r r1R7E C7R
' a
rC
USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP Elevation
Program, Geographic Names Information System, National Hydrography
Dataset, National Land Cover Database, National Structures Dataset,
and National Transportation Dataset; USGS Global Ecosystems; U.S.
Census Bureau TIGER/Line data; USFS Road Data; Natural Earth Data;
U.S. Department of State Humanitarian Information Unit; and NOAA'
National Centers for Environmental Information, U.S. Coastal Relief
Model. Data refreshed May, 2020.
TITLE
SITE LOCATION MAP
0 2,000 4,000
PROJECT PROPOSED SIMATEC FACILITY
SCALE IN FEET
= 13315 SOUTH RIDGE DRIVE
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
U.S.G.S. QUADRANGLE MAP 2923South TryonStreet - Suite 100
''�• hickman Charlotte, North Carolina
hart
FORT MILL, SC -NC 2020 • 704-586-0007 (p) 704-586-0373 (f)
SMARTER ENVfR0NMEN7AL SOLO'noNS License # C-1269 / # C-245 Geology
QUADRANGLE DATE: 7-16-21 REVISION NO: 0
7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) JOB NO: SIA-001 FIGURE NO: 1

•
.�is M1, Yr:•;.NS :� - i, •... r
.3 4 '„cr,.. ..
_ ,,..,_:. , . . ,„_.. ......,,.. . .,-. .F.,*i,,-.1t.',..‘414.,'"..'.rf -44.:C' . -' . -• ..."; -''''.
r ,akr. ni
r"5". •y; .su s
i ram ' _ . t.•'4. .;z' .. FI v �.
r; � :.:�' •:� _• ,„'mow vim_. -
_ j'Ve .. -h' • .:IA '.. ."''M. �•Ui;•„ � .:,•tom-.?
l .`leJRt.w.ilE/{•e F _ Y -;- • 'Y!
Photograph 1:General view of the forested area in the north-central portion of the Site
, ex. .
s..
0'c ,
:rS RYA. e.
Yak--r +�''' ' • J.•
'' Si�'Yf Via^.i _ : `�V:i9 � t-.•��q .r�.4r.,
�,-.. 7,.. _.:- -, i, _ -r.mow..; _S• ^': '—'`.-14
T • _ r
a"-,..g.....,. ...,;r4; 'IP.t. .=-14---` • ....,,v,...,. .,,,....,,, ,..........,..•'''. .r,t.'-'- '--','-'1V -7'47'-
"N-
" `;;sue - • am .i.;%,
��-•�,_y1e
40.230.
44
titer.0 %�w - r " z ;- ' r:�N ti`•"-.+: .,:4i_
wor
�. .. .r `"f< �' N".'EY— , •i3��iR• Rrvf
Photograph 2:General view of the wetland in the southern portion of the Site.
2923 S.Tryon Street, Suite 100 PROPOSED SIMATEC FACILITY
hart '' .1hickman Charlotte, NC 28203 13315 SOUTH RIDGE DRIVE
704.586.0007(p)704.586.0373(f) CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA

ry- i •r �� _ r -r w, r
■ .'� �•_: '' —, -'te G+.,i..s r �;_
44.
y" f
-..• Y fofie
low
r '•,.{. . �� , .% _ - £' may `
i.
'i" If1. '.I
'hey �.r•4-1 r
re'
" .. • • 4r,
Alla
' v7 �. �Yy� e` � I v,,,•';', , l,ij' ...0.;,i1 ti `' 41, , { r`. ; ! ' • •_ 1r � :%�( . � s� a 'r ;i� � .f .-p' ' 4isf{ .;a r'; ci' ..r_;
•
''� g"yyyy
Photograph 3:General view of the lawn area in the northwestern portion of the Site.
1111 2923 S.Tryon Street, Suite 100 PROPOSED SIMATEC FACILITY
hart ''s. hickman Charlotte, NC 28203 13315 SOUTH RIDGE DRIVE
704.586.0007(p)704.586.0373(f) CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA

Roy Cooper, Governor
9" 0 INC DEPARTMENT OF
""i ■
WMk.M 1 NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
■-000
Kayla Fox
Hart & Hickman, PC
2923 S. Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28203
RE: Proposed Simatec Facility -
Dear Kayla Fox:
May 13, 2022
13315 South Ridge Drive; SIA-001
13. Reid Wilson, Secretary
Misty Buchanan
Deputy Director, Natural Heritage Program
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide
information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
Based on the project area mapped with your request, a query of the NCNHP database indicates that
there are no records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, and/or
conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary. Please note that although there
may be no documentation of natural heritage elements within the project boundary, it does not
imply or confirm their absence; the area may not have been surveyed. The results of this query
should not be substituted for field surveys where suitable habitat exists. In the event that rare
species are found within the project area, please contact the NCNHP so that we may update our
records.
The attached `Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that
have been documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these
records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area
if suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed areas within a one -mile
radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report.
If a Federally -listed species is found within the project area or is indicated within a one -mile radius of
the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for
guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here:
httr)s://www.fws.gov/offices/Directory/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation
planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria
for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published
without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information
source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission.
The NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a
Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Land and Water Fund easement, or Federally -
listed species are documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance,
please contact Rodney A. Butler at rod ney.butler�ncdcr.gov or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
121 1N. JON S STREET, RALEIGI I_ NC 27603 - 16Sl MAOL SERVICE CENTER. PAL EIGH. rkc 276�0
OFC 919.707.9120 • FAK 919.707.9421

/
CO \
2
s
s
®
s
\
/
©
/
/
\
CO\
±
\
4
t
3 /
4 \
\
\
\
CO CO(
/
%
®
9 %
Clc
±
e
ag
e
e
e
\
e
z
0
\:
§
\/
/\
CO
s CO>2
2
»
2
tt
G}
\
_
ee
/ /
\_
/
u
\
e
\
e
>
2
%
CO
\
s
\
s
±
2 a
cl
\
\./
/
Y
Y
ƒ /
\ /
\ \
\
x
&
x
&
\
§\
u
e
o e
3 3
> s
CO CO
°3
/9
u
/\
/\\
�_\
CO\
\\\
g
o
0
0
2
0
®
e
e
e
2
2
4
gso
/ j
\
e e c
0
§.z
a/
/%\ca
/�»/\
\
/
/
��
»>
i
CO
e 3
0
0
6
o
0
20
\ % / >
\ \
Co \
\
\
%
/
9
e u u e z
.
� \
CO 2 z
j 6
uL
°
\
\
CO
.\
%
e
±
> >
±
4
®
/
\ D
\ \
CO
\
\.E
j
/ /
/
\
2 2
-
® i
e
0 Ecn
0
CO
§ on
CO
C
\
\
\
//
CO
y
z
2
\ U
20
\ƒ
E
®
/
0
\ \
/
y
\
\
Eo
COCO
®
ye
e
e
COe
\\
\
~
\
\
u
®
y
e
CO
k
-
=
o
_
2
%
/
&
}
w
\
\%
3
? e
\
y
n cn
cn
}
y
CO
c
a
/°
\
\ (
\
\
\ \ \
\ (
z
e
COCO
L
�C�~�~�
\
\\
\\
co
°
}
\
/ /
/
\
\
z z
^
e
/
�
g
s s
\ /
\
\
\ \
D \
/
\
\
/ /
\ \
CO
®
c
©
=
e
\
e
E
z z
OO
z
%z
�
v
\
%
co
a
\
\
E
CO/
> >
\ /
( /
\
0)\
\
\
\
c
\ \
\�
/
\g
@,
\
/ e e
= \
> >
>2
\
gD-
<
\._
u
\ \
\
\
4
)
t \
z
/
E_ E=
=
E
e
5
/
\
/ /
2
2 / / /
\ \
e=
E}/
2
E 2 E
2 E/
2
Z>
g
3 0
CO
==
co 2 2=
u u}
> E
:<
/
/
CO
e
CO
CO / /
§
/ \
li 2
/
/ / /
/ /
/
/
Z /
§
\
c

p�18�pW
V'�es�t�gno�s�
f
f
F
4
�
o
v
a g'ya
o
Ne�ad
's
�nr
�s --
Genera4 Ur
v Maa�� aka a)s
K
..� Carowinds 6t4d
i
5 Paint Blvd
5 Ridge Dr
0
'r
Y
0
T_
Y
N
a
f
O�
Y�Uojg )ae4l
M
O
M

Appendix E
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination

SAW-2021-01329
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW-2021-01329 County: Mecklenburg
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERNIINATION
Requestor:
Simatec, Inc.
Reto Corbetti
Address:
13900-C South Lakes Drive
Charlotte, NC 28273
Telephone Number:
not provided
E-mail:
reto.corbetti(&simatec.com
Size (acres) _2 Nearest Town Charlotte
Nearest Waterway Steele Creek River Basin Santee
USGS HUC 03050103 Coordinates Latitude: 35.113555
Longitude:-80.959377
Location description: The review area is located on the southwest site of S. Point Boulevard; approximately less than 0.1 miles
south of the intersection of S. Point Boulevard and S. Ridge Drive. PIN: 20320208. Reference review area description shown in
the Jurisdictional Determination Request package entitled "Figure 1, Site Location Mad' and dated 04/09/21.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
® There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The
waters, including wetlands have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently accurate
and reliable. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated 4/9/2021. Therefore
this preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the permit evaluation process, including determining compensatory
mitigation. For purposes of computation of impacts, compensatory mitigation requirements, and other resource protection
measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD will treat all waters and wetlands that would be affected in any
way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. This preliminary determination is not an
appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331). However, you may
request an approved JD, which is an appealable action, by contacting the Corps district for further instruction.
❑ There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403).
However, since the waters, including wetlands have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination
may not be used in the permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is
merely an effective presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction over all of the waters, including wetlands at the project area, which
is not sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have the waters,
including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland
delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the Corps.
B. Approved Determination
❑ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area/property subject to the permit
requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for
a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ There are waters, including wetlandson the above described project area/property subject to the permit requirements of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ We recommend you have the waters, including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be
able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that
can be verified by the Corps.

SAW-2021-01329
❑ The waters, including wetlands on your project area/property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by
the Corps. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated DATE. We strongly
suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once
verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided
there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
❑ The waters, including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the
Corps Regulatory Official identified below onDATE. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area/property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA).
You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to determine their
requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US, including wetlands, without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material, construction or
placement of structures, or work within navigable waters of the United States without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Sections 9 and/or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC § 401 and/or 403). If you have any questions
regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Bryan Roden -Reynolds at 704-510-1440 or
brvan.roden-reynolds(&u sace.army.mil.
C. Basis For Determination: Basis For Determination: See the preliminary jurisdictional determination
form dated 06/23/2021.
D. Remarks: None
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site
identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security
Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request
a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in B.
above)
If you object to this determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed
you will find a Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and Request for Appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this
determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Mr. Philip A. Shannin
Administrative Appeal Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Floor M9
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8803
AND
PHILIP.A. SHANNINgUSACE.ARMY.MIL
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal
under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you
decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by Not applicable.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence.**
Bryan Roden -Reynolds
Corps Regulatory Official: 2021.06.23 09:45:48-04'00'

SAW-2021-01329
Date of JD: 06/23/2021 Expiration Date of JD: Not applicable
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete our Customer Satisfaction Survey, located online at
https://re ug lator�.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/.
Copy Furnished:
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0
Copy furnished:
Agent: Hart and Hickman, PC
Danielle Clark
Address: 2923 S. Tryon Street, Suite 100
Charlotte, NC 28203
Telephone Number: 518-598-2862
E-mail: dclark(&harthickman.com
Property Owner: Bushel and Peck Properties, LLC
Not provided
Address: 13325 South Ridge Drive
Charlotte, NC 28273
Telephone Number: 704-366-0010
E-mail: not provided

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
W; REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: Simatec, Inc., Reto Corbetti File Number: SAW-2021-01329
Date: 06/23/2021
Attached is:
See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
A
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
B
PERMIT DENIAL
C
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
❑X
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at or http://www.usace.army.miUMissions/CivilWorks/ReaulatoryProgramandPenuits.asi)
OZI& Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of
this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed),
by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the
Corps to reevaluate the JD.
SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
appeal process you may contact:
also contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
MR. PHILIP A. SHANNIN
Attn: Bryan Roden -Reynolds
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL REVIEW OFFICER
Charlotte Regulatory Office
CESAD-PDS-O
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
60 FORSYTH STREET SOUTHWEST, FLOOR M9
8430 University Executive Park Drive, Suite 615
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8803
Charlotte, North Carolina 28262
PHONE: [phone]; FAX [phone]
EMAIL: PHILIP.A.SHANNIN(aUSACE.ARMY.MIL
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15-day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportum to participate in all site invest] ations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: Bryan Roden -Reynolds, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, North
Carolina 28403
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and Approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Philip Shannin, Administrative
Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: 06/23/2021
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: Simatec, Inc., Reto Corbetti, 13900-C South
Lakes Drive, Charlotte, NC 28273
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District, Proposed Simatec
Development, SAW-2021-01329
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The review area is located on the
southwest site of S. Point Boulevard; approximately less than 0.1 miles south of the intersection of S. Point
Boulevard and S. Ridge Drive. PIN: 20320208. Reference review area description shown in the Jurisdictional
Determination Request package entitled "Figure 1, Site Location Map" and dated 04/09/21.
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES
AND/OR AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County: Mecklenburg City: Charlotte
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Latitude: 35.113555 Longitude:-80.959377
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Steele Creek
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
® Office (Desk) Determination. Date: 06/23/21
❑ Field Determination. Date(s):
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES INREVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO
REGULATORY JURISDICTION
Feature
Latitude
Longitude
Estimated
Type of aquatic
Geographic authority to
(decimal
(decimal
amount of
resources (i.e.,
which the aquatic
degrees)
degrees)
aquatic
wetland vs.
resource "may be"
resources in
non -wetland
subject (i.e., Section 404
review area
waters)
or Section 10/404)
(acreage and
linear feet, if
applicable
Wetland WAA
35.113282
-80.959335
0.38 acre
Wetland
404
1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in the
review area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option to request
and obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an informed decision after
having discussed the various types of JDs and their characteristics and circumstances when
they may be appropriate.
2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a Nationwide
General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring "pre- construction
notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non -reporting NWP or other general
permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an AJD for the activity, the permit
applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit
authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an official determination of

jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the option to request an AJD before
accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and that basing a permit
authorization on an AJD could possibly result in less compensatory mitigation being
required or different special conditions; (3) the applicant has the right to request an
individual permit rather than accepting the terms and conditions of the NWP or other
general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can accept a permit authorization and
thereby agree to comply with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including
whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5)
undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without
requesting an AID constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the PJD; (6)
accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered individual permit) or undertaking
any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit authorization based on a PJD
constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the review area affected in any way by
that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and waives any challenge to such jurisdiction
in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement action, or in any administrative
appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD or
a PJD, the JD will be processed as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered
individual permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual permit
denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an
administrative appeal, it becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether
geographic jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an
official delineation of jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, the Corps will
provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This PJD finds that
there "may be" waters of the U.S. and/or that there "may be" navigable waters of the U.S.
on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the review area that could
be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:

SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply) Checked items are included in the administrative
record and are appropriately cited:
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map: Figures 1-2 and numerous unnumbered figures
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor. Datasheets:
® Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale:
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑USGS NHD data:
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps:
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad naive: Figure 1, Site Location Man (7.5-minute
quadrangle Fort Mill, SC)
®Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Hvdric Rating by Man Unit (Web Soil Survev of
Mecklenburg County)
® National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: Wetlands (USFWS NWI Mapper)
❑ State/local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): Figure 2, Preliminary Wetland Delineation Man (Dated 04/09/21) and
Polaris 3G Man (Dated 04/08/21)
or ® Other (Name & Date): Photographs 1-4
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify):
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily been verified by the Corps
and should not be relied upon for later iurisdictional determinations.
Bryan Roden -Reynolds
2021.06.23 09:45:18-04'00'
Signature and date of Regulatory
staff member completing PJD
06/23/2021
Signature and date of person requesting PJD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining the signature is
impracticable)1
1 Districts may establish timeframes for requester to return signed PJD forms. If the requester does not respond within the established
time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is necessary prior to fmalizing an action.

SID\V IS - 4aa�ewiS\s�afo�d �a�se W-tlVV\salid�a�se W\ Lps)yy\\

Appendix F
DEQ DMS In -Lieu Fee Program Acceptance Letter

ROY COOPER
Governor
ELIZABETH S. BISER
Secretary
MARC RECKTENWALD
Director
Reto Corbetti
Simatec Inc.
13900 S. Lakes Drive, Unit C
Charlotte, NC 28273
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
June 8, 2022
Expiration of Acceptance: 12/8/2022
Project: Simatec Warehouse Development County: Mecklenburg
This is a conditional acceptance letter.
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
Non -Riparian Wetland*
0.58
*DMS proposes to utilize the Catawba 03 Expanded Service Area to meet the mitigation requirement.
*Non -riparian wetland credit is not available in this service area. In accordance with the directive
from the February 8, 2011 IRT meeting, non -riparian wetland impacts located in the mountain and
piedmont areas of North Carolina can be accepted as requested, but mitigated utilizing riparian
wetland mitigation credits. Upon receipt of payment, DMS will take responsibility for providing the
compensatory mitigation. The mitigation will be performed in accordance with the In -Lieu Fee Program
instrument dated July 28, 2010 and 15A NCAC 02B .0295 as applicable. Thank you for your interest in the
DMS in -lieu fee mitigation program. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
FOR James. B Stanfill
Asset Management Supervisor
cc: Danielle Clark, agent
North Caraltna Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services �Aw
217 West Jones Street l 1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh. North Carolina 27699-1652
O MKntMems-11 , 919,707.8976

Appendix G
NC WAM Form

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5
USACE AID#: SAW-2021-01329 NCDWR #:
Project Name Simatec Warehouse Development Date of Evaluation 4/5/2021
Applicant/Owner Name Simatec Inc. Wetland Site Name Wetland Area 'A' (WAA)
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization DCC - H&H
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Steele Creek
River Basin Catawba USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03050103
County Mecklenburg NCDWR Region Mooresville
;Yes []No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude deci-de rees 35.113555,-80.959377
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? LYes [] No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? []Yes ENo If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Anadromous fish
F Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
F NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
F Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
F Publicly owned property
F_ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
F Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
F Designated NCNHP reference community
Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
[ ; Blackwater
[] Brownwater
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) [ ; Lunar [ ;Wind [ ; Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? EYes E No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? LYes [] No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? 'Yes s No
Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS VS
[]A []A Not severely altered
U B U B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only,
while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
L]A L;A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
Us B L; B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
L]C L;C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
3a. CA EA Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
D D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. EA Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
E B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
Us C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

Soil Texture/Structure - assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a. F,A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
Discharge into Wetland - opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
F,A F,A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
E B E B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
CC CC Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
Land Use - opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
I A R A F0 A >_ 10% impervious surfaces
F B F B F_ B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
F_ C F C F_ C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
F D F D F D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
F-0 E F"' E W E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F11_' F Fl,-' F W F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
F G F G F_ G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent dainage and/or overbank flow from affectio the
assessment area.
Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer - assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
CYes Ee:No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
r_ A >_ 50 feet
r: B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
C <- 15-feet wide C > 15-feet wide C Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
C Yes C No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
r_ Sheltered - adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
r_ Exposed - adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
Wetland Width at the Assessment Area - wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes
and Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp
Forest only)
Check a box in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and the wetland complex at the
assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
CA CA >_ 100 feet
C B C B From 80 to < 100 feet
rC EC From 50 to < 80 feet
E;D Lb]D From 40 to < 50 feet
C E E E From 30 to < 40 feet
F F E F From 15 to < 30 feet
E]G EG From 5 to < 15 feet
F H EH < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
L]A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
Le; B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
U C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
r* A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
L: B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
L:C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
CA CA CA >_ 500 acres
U B C B U B From 100 to < 500 acres
U C C C U C From 50 to < 100 acres
U D C D U D From 25 to < 50 acres
U E C E U E From 10 to < 25 acres
F C F O F From 5 to < 10 acres
G C G U G From 1 to < 5 acres
U H C H U H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I P I P I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
L;A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
LJ B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas —landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
Well Loosely
LA LA >_ 500 acres
B L; B From 100 to < 500 acres
L C L C From 50 to < 100 acres
L D L; D From 10 to < 50 acres
C E Le] E < 10 acres
F C F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
;Yes [ ; No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >_ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directiions? If the assessment area is clear-cut,
select option "C."
CA 0
U B 1 to 4
LC 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
;A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
[.J B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
[JC Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in
at least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity— assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
L;A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (<10% cover of exotics).
L• B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
L;C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (>50% cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment arealwetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
U* Yes [ ;No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
;A
>_ 25% coverage of vegetation
B
< 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each
column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider structure
in airspace
above the
assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA
WT
oLA
LA
Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
L• B
[r B
Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U
a
LJ C
L; C
Canopy sparse or absent
o
L?
B
PA
P A
B
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C
C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
A
`'A
Dense shrub layer
• B
• B
Moderate density shrub layer
U)
C
C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
UA
UA
Dense herb layer
a�
U B
U B
Moderate density herb layer
_
Us C
Us C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
L]A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12-inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
U B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
L]A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
L+] B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12-inch DBH.
UC Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
;A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
CE B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland typelopen water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
UA UB UC UD
22. Hydrologic Connectivity— assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization,
diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
UA Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
U B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
UC Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
U1. D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes
WAA is located within a highly urbanized area of the City of Charlotte. WAA is also located adjacent to buildings, parking lots, and roadways. The
drainage and hydrology of WAA appears to be significantly disturbed; the development of the downgradient adjacent property appears to have
created a berm located at the Site's eastern boundary and is blocking drainage of WAA.

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Wetland Area'A' (WAA)
Date
4/5/2021
Wetland Type Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
DCC - H&H
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Habitat Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW