20190732 Ver 1_More Info Received_20190824

Strickland, Bev
From: Tinklenberg, Chris <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2019 8:00 PM
To: Shaeffer, David Leigh (Dave) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Johnson, Alan
Subject: RE: [External] RE: NoDA Exchange (SAW -2018-01201 & DWR#20190732 v1)
Attachments: 00_NODA_Revied PCN_20190724_SAW-2018-01201 & DWR-20190732.pdf;
NoDa_Wetland B & C - NC WAM Rating Calculator v5.0.xlsm
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to report. spa [e-mail]<mailto:report. spa [e-mail]>
Good evening Gents,
I've revised the documents accordingly based on the comments below. The permanent conversion impact associated
with the stream relocation resulted in 0.01 -acre permanent impact. The temporary impacts necessary to install mud
mats in order to perform the stream relocation resulted in 0.04 -acre temporary impact. Additionally, based on earlier
telephone conversations, I have revised the mitigation proposal to the following:
Stream (Total 706 stream credits)
1.5:1 ratio (doubled to 3:1) for impacts associated with the culvert installation and inlet/outlet protection: 204
If impact = 612 stream credits
0.5:1 (doubled to 1:1) proposed for stream relocation: 94 If impact = 94 stream credits
Wetland (Total 0.5 wetland credit)
1:1 ratio (doubled to 2:1) for impacts associated with minor discharges and associated roadway impacts: 0.25 -
ac impact = 0.5 wetland credit
Note: Modification to the proposed wetland mitigation is a result of originally utilizing an outdated NCWAM calculator
(v4.1) and identifying an oversight on metric 22 which was revised accordingly.
Included in the attached pdf are the following revised items which convey these changes:
-Cover letter
-PCN
-Fig 5 Proposed Conditions
-NC WAM Assessment Form
I also included the NCWAM excel spreadsheet for reference and QC of results.
Let me know if you have any other questions or need any additional info.
Thanks!
Chris
Chris Tinklenberg, PWS
Kimley-Horn 1200 South Tryon Street, Suite 200, Charlotte, NC 28202
Direct: 704 409 1802 1 Mobile: [phone]
-----Original Message-----

From: Shaeffer, David Leigh (Dave) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2019 9:13 AM
To: Tinklenberg, Chris <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: [External] RE: NoDA Exchange (SAW -2018-01201 & DWR#20190732 v1)
Sincerely,
David L. Shaeffer
Project Manager/Geographer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Charlotte Regulatory Office
Desk: 704-510-1437
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
https:Hnam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcorpsmapu.usace.army.mil%2Fcm_apex%2Ff%3F
p%3D136%3A4%3AO&amp;data=02%7C01%7CChris.Tinklenberg%40kimley-
horn. com%7C43405f99a651443fc8e408d 71039489b%7C7e220d300b5947e58a 81a4a9d9afbdc4%7CO%7CO%7C6369957
10532696257&amp;sdata=fgdkpPl u L%2BFpneMm IgQFBQOrFgx389w%2FZSLH 13%2FZYd4%3D&amp;reserved=0
-----Original Message -----
From: Johnson, Alan [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2019 9:11 AM
To: Shaeffer, David Leigh (Dave) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: [External] RE: NoDA Exchange (SAW -2018-01201 & DWR#20190732 v1)
Chris, get this too me as well and I will kick out the approval
The correct and/or new impacts.
Thanks
-----Original Message -----
From: Shaeffer, David Leigh (Dave) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2019 9:05 AM
To: Tinklenberg, Chris <[e-mail]>; Johnson, Alan <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: NoDA Exchange (SAW -2018-01201 & DWR#20190732 v1)
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to report. spa [e-mail]<mailto:report. spa [e-mail]>
Chris,
The stream is being relocated further into the wetland which is fine. However, I do need to know the wetland
conversion/temporary construction/etc. impact for the stream relocation. I didn't see that in the table. I am drafting this
now and trying to get it out today.
Sincerely,

David L. Shaeffer
Project Manager/Geographer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Charlotte Regulatory Office
Desk: 704-510-1437
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
Blockedhttp://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0
-----Original Message -----
From: Tinklenberg, Chris [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, July 1, 2019 8:08 PM
To: Shaeffer, David Leigh (Dave) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Johnson, Alan
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: NoDA Exchange (SAW -2018-01201 & DWR#20190732 v1)
Good evening gentlemen - hope you're both doing well.
Based on comments from Dave, minor revisions to the permit numbers have been made per my responses below. The
changes to the PCN are solely clerical and do not seek modifications to the original PCN submittal. All requested impacts
remain the same and no changes to the original plans are proposed.
Alan - I'm hopeful that this is something you can change on your end relatively easily to avoid resubmittal into the ePCN
system and the additional cost associated with the resubmittal; however, if it's required to resubmit into ePCN, please
let me know.
Thank you,
Chris
Chris Tinklenberg, PWS
Kimley-Horn 1200 South Tryon Street, Suite 200, Charlotte, NC 28202
Direct: 704 409 1802 1 Mobile: [phone]
From: Tinklenberg, Chris
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2019 3:49 PM
To: Shaeffer, David L SAW <[e-mail]>
Subject: SAW -2018-01201- NoDA Exchange

Hey Dave - thanks for talking over the NoDa site with me earlier. When we hung up, I went into GIS and brought in the
100 -yr floodplain layer and low and behold, most of the site is within the floodplain. I marked up the proposed
conditions figure with a few of the items we talked about regarding changing the NWP number and attached it to this
email. Here's a quick summary:
* Impacts associated with the roadway into the property and bridge over Little Sugar Creek would be permitted
under a NWP14
* Impacts associated with the roadway and multi -use trail on the south property would be permitted under a NWP14
* Impacts associated with the retaining wall and site grading on the west side of the northern property which
includes 0.3 -ac wetland impact and 981f of stream relocation would be permitted under a NWP18 since impacts are
minor.
If you're able to confirm the changes as soon as you can, I'll revise the appropriate documents and resend.
Let me know if you have questions,
Thanks,
Chris
Chris Tinklenberg, PWS
Kimley-Horn 1200 South Tryon Street, Suite 200, Charlotte, NC 28202
Direct: 704 409 1802 1 Mobile: [phone] BlockedBlockedwww.kimley-horn.com
<BlockedBlockedhttp://www.kimley-horn.com/>
Connect with us: Twitter <BlockedBlockedhttps:Htwitter.com/kimleyhorn> I Linkedln
<BlockedBlockedhttp://www.linkedin.com/company/kimley-horn-and-associates-inc-> I Facebook
<BlockedBlockedhttps://www.facebook.com/KimleyHorn> I Instagram
<BlockedBlockedhttp://www.instagram.com/kimleyhorn>
Celebrating 12 years as one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For <BlockedBlockedhttp://fortune.com/best-
companies/kimley-horn-and-associates-7/>

Kimley»>Horn
July 24, 2019
Mr. David Shaeffer
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Ms. Karen Higgins
NC DWR, 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re: 404/401 Pre -Construction Notification (NWP #14 &18)
NoDa Sugar Creek — Brand Properties, LLC
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC
Dear Mr. Shaeffer and Ms. Higgins:
On behalf of our client, Brand Properties, LLC, Kimley-Horn (KH) is submitting the enclosed joint
Section 404/401 Pre -construction Notification for the above referenced project for your review
pursuant to a Nationwide Permits #14 & 18 and General 401 Water Quality Certification numbers
4135 & 4139. This application is to request authorization for construction of a proposed multi -family
development. The following information is included as part of this application submittal:
• Project Summary Sheet
• Agent Authorization Letter
• Pre -Construction Notification Form
• Permit Figures
■ Figure 1— Vicinity
■ Figure 2 — USGS Topo (Charlotte East Quadrangle)
■ Figure 3 — NRCS Soils (2018 Meck. Co. Aerial)
■ Figure 4 — Existing Conditions (2018 Meck. Co. Aerial)
■ Figure 5 — Proposed Conditions (2018 Meck. Co. Aerial)
• Permit Plans — NoDa Sugar Creek Site
• Agency Correspondence
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The proposed project site is located at 255 Matheson Avenue, which is situated between Matheson
Avenue and Cullman Avenue, in Charlotte, NC. The site is a primarily undeveloped 16 -acre forested

Kimley»>Horn
Page 2
tract and is bisected by Little Sugar Creek and a maintained power -transmission -line easement. It is
bounded by commercial and industrial development to the east and south, and commercial
development to the north and the west. Additionally, the southern boundary of the site borders a
Norfolk Southern railroad easement, preventing the opportunity for access from the south.
A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) request package was submitted on June 15, 2018
and field verified by Mr. David Shaeffer on August 31, 2018. The 404/401 (NWP #14 & 18)
application presents site conditions evaluated by Kimley-Horn staff (Beth Reed, PWS and Addie
Lasitter, WPIT) on June 6, 2018 as outlined in the PJD request. The PJD request package including
applicable data forms, additional figures and photos is available upon your request.
Development of the approximately 16 -acre residential parcel will include four separate multi -story
buildings consisting of 251 individual units, a leasing/amenity center, pool area/courtyard, and
associated parking lots. Access into the site includes a single private driveway off Matheson Avenue
and a bridge crossing over Little Sugar Creek connecting the disjointed site from north to south.
AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE
Cultural Resources
Kimley-Horn consulted the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) HPOWEB GIS
service on November 5, 2018 and found no sites of architectural, historic, or archaeological
significance within or near the project boundary.
Protected Species
A review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database on November 5, 2018
did not indicate known occurrences of threatened or endangered species within the project
boundary. Additionally, pedestrian surveys conducted by Kimley-Horn in August 2018 did not
identify any occurrences of protected species within the property boundary. (See attached NCNHP
Letter).
PROPOSED IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL WATERS
The proposed project seeks to install a 175 If, 30" reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) with flared end
sections along Stream B. The culvert will be installed below the elevation of the stream bed by 20%
of the culvert diameter to allow low flow passage of water and aquatic life. Rip -rap dissipation is
proposed at the inlet and outlet of the proposed pipe to reduce discharge velocity and meet non-
erosive design criteria. Both areas will be constructed using natural channel design techniques that
include ensuring that the rip -rap is properly installed into the channel bed and placed in a fashion to
ensure aquatic passage. The culvert installation and inlet/outlet protections will result in 204 If of
permanent stream impacts to non -wetland waters of the United States (WoUS). Installation of the
culvert requires 40 If of temporary stream impacts for the construction activities necessary to work
in dry conditions.

Kimley»>Horn
Page 3
Construction of a retaining wall and associated grading fill slopes necessary to facilitate construction
on the northern portion of the property requires the relocation of a section of Stream B. The
proposed stream relocation will result in 94 If of permanent, no net loss impacts to non -wetland
WoUS and 0.01 -ac of permanent wetland-WoUS impacts for wetland conversion. Stream B will be
relocated and rehabilitated to no less than current conditions. A relocation plan, utilizing natural
channel design techniques, including in -stream structures (constructed riffles), appropriately
designed pattern, profile and bank grading will be implemented in order to provide the appropriate
aquatic uplift. Coir fiber matting will be installed, and a temporary seed mix will be applied
immediately following construction to provide initial stabilization. A planting plan including the
application of a permanent seed mix and planting native riparian live stakes and bare roots will be
conducted to provide long-term stability. The stream relocation requires 20 If of temporary stream
impacts and 0.04 -ac of temporary wetland impacts (installation of mud -mats) for the activities
necessary to construct the stream relocation.
Additional impacts associated with the construction of the northern portion of the property include
0.18 -ac of permanent impacts to Wetland B at two separate impact sites. 0.06 -ac of temporary
wetland impacts are necessary to facilitate construction of the retaining wall within Wetland B.
Mud mats will be utilized over a portion of Wetland B to provide temporary construction access and
prevent wetland soil disturbance, resulting in 0.06 -ac of temporary wetland impacts. Construction
access will be located within a temporary construction easement and is not part of the overall
development. A temporary stream crossing over Little Sugar Creek is necessary to provide
construction access to the southern portion of the property, prior to construction of the bridge.
Timbers will be placed from top of bank to top of bank and will not result in temporary impacts
below the ordinary high-water mark of Little Sugar Creek.
Construction activities on the southern portion of the property include 0.06 -ac of permanent
wetland impacts to Wetland C from grading fill slopes necessary for construction of a pedestrian
footpath. 0.04 -ac of temporary wetland impacts are necessary to Wetland C to construct the
retaining wall for the footpath.
In total, the proposed development project seeks permanent impacts to 298 If of non -wetland
WoUS and 0.25 -ac of wetland-WoUS. A total of 60 If of temporary non -wetland WoUS impacts
are needed for construction activities necessary to work in dry conditions. 0.2 -ac of temporary
wetland impacts are necessary for construction access and construction of retaining walls. All
temporary impacts will be restored to preconstruction conditions following completion of the
activities.
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
Avoidance and minimization efforts during development planning and design were implemented to
the greatest extents practicable in order to reduce the overall impacts on the aquatic environment
while staying within nationwide permit thresholds. Large retaining walls are proposed throughout

Kimley»>Horn
Page 4
the entirety of the site to eliminate fill slopes which would result in additional stream and wetland
impacts. Initial site layout and grading plans proposed over 600 If of stream impacts and nearly 1 -
acre of wetland impacts. Through multiple iterations of siting and the implementation of retaining
walls, the final plan demonstrates maximum minimization efforts by reducing the proposed stream
and wetland impacts to 298 If and 0.24 -ac, respectively. Rationale to support avoidance and
minimization efforts include the following:
• Stream B — Impact 1 & Wetland B — Impact 3: One building, associated parking lot, public
access road and bridge crossing over Little Sugar Creek (required to provide access to the
southern portion of the property which is inaccessible) are all necessary to meet the needs
of the proposed development on this portion of the property. There are no feasible
alternatives which would avoid impacts to Stream B or Wetland B. The proposed layout
minimizes impacts to Stream B and Wetland B by implementing 15 to 25 -foot tall retaining
walls around the north, east and southern boundaries of development footprint.
• Stream B — Impact 5 & Wetland B — Impact 6: These impacts are necessary to facilitate the
appropriate building footprint and access road. The design maximizes the available space
to construct the facilities while minimizing impacts to aquatic features. In lieu of
encapsulating Stream B through the retaining wall and fill slope via pipe, resulting in a
total loss of stream function, the proposed project seeks to implement natural channel
design techniques to shift the channel slightly south. Improvements to the bedform,
pattern and profile of the channel seek to provide functional aquatic uplift over the
existing condition and avoid additional loss of waters.
• Wetland C — Impact 8: As part of the development plan and approvals by the City, the
developer is required to construct a segment of the future Cross -Charlotte Trail. The
future multi -use trail segment is adjacent to the private street situated on the southern
portion of the property. Impacts to Wetland C are unavoidable due to this requirement,
however, proposed impacts are minimized by replacing grading fill slopes with retaining
wall.
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION
Compensatory mitigation will be met by the purchase of credits through the NC Division of
Mitigation Services (NCDMS) in -lieu fee program. 298 If of stream impacts will be mitigated through
the purchase of stream mitigation credits. Based on an NCSAM assessment of intermittent Stream
B, mitigation is proposed at a 1.5:1 ratio for impacts associated with the culvert installation and
inlet/outlet protection. Mitigation required for the stream relocation is proposed at 0.5:1. Since the
project is located within the Lower Catawba watershed (HUC 03050103), credits will be purchased
at 3:1 and 1:1 ratios, respectively; therefore, 706 SMUs will be purchased from NCDMS for impacts
associated with the new development. 0.25 -ac of wetland impacts will be mitigated through the
purchase of wetland mitigation credits. Based on an NCWAM assessment of Wetlands B and C,
mitigation is proposed at a 1:1 ratio. Wetland mitigation credits will be purchased at 2:1 based on
the location of the project within the Lower Catawba watershed; therefore, 0.5 wetland credit will
be purchased from NCDMS for wetland impacts.

Kimley>Morn
Page 5
In total, 706 stream credits and 0.5 wetland credits will be purchased from NCDMS to provide the
appropriate compensatory mitigation for this project.
Please feel free to contact me at [phone] if you have any questions or if additional
information is necessary.
Sincerely,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Chris Tinklenberg, PWS
Environmental Scientist
Attachments

Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Page 1 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 14 & 18 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
® Yes
❑ No
1d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
❑ Yes ® No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ® No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program.
® Yes
❑ No
1g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1h
below.
❑ Yes
® No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes
® No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
NoDa Sugar Creek
2b.
County:
Mecklenburg
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Charlotte
2d.
Subdivision name:
N/A
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
N/A
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
BP Trail LLC / BP NODA LLC
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
33183 and 233, 239
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
Dan Fitzpatrick
3d.
Street address:
3328 Peach Tree Rd NE STE 100
3e.
City, state, zip:
Atlanta, GA, 30326
3f.
Telephone no.:
770.822.2090
3g.
Fax no.:
3h.
Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 1 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
❑ Agent ❑ Other, specify:
4b. Name:
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
Chris Tinklenberg, PWS
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
Kimley-Horn and Associates
5c. Street address:
200 South Tryon Street, Suite 200
5d. City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28202
5e. Telephone no.:
704-409-1802
5f. Fax no.:
5g. Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
06156005B
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.247920 Longitude: - 80.812634
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1c.
Property size:
16.02 acres (Project Boundary)
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to proposed
project:
Little Sugar Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
Little Sugar Creek - Class "C"
2c.
River basin:
Catawba; HUC 03050103
Page 3 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

3.
Project Description
3a.
Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The project area is located southeast of the intersection of North Tryon Street and Matheson Avenue, Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina. The project area is currently undeveloped forest land. Existing land use in the vicinity of the
project includes industrial development, commercial development, and undeveloped forested/maintained properties.
3b.
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
1.33 ac
3c.
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
The total length of all on-site streams is approximately 1,994 linear feet.
3d.
Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of the project to construct a new multi -family development including buildings, associated parking lots,
pedestrian connections, and landscaping.
3e.
Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The site consists of a roughly 16 -acre tract located at 255 Matheson Avenue, which is situated between Matheson
Avenue and Cullman Avenue, in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County. The project site is currently two (2) separate parcels;
PIN's: 08303150 and 08303151. The site is primarily wooded and bisected by a utility easement and Little Sugar Creek.
Development of the approximately 16 -acre residential parcel will include four separate multi -story buildings consisting of
251 individual units, a leasing/amenity center, pool area/courtyard, and associated parking lots. Access into the site
includes a single private driveway off Matheson Avenue and a bridge crossing over Little Sugar Creek connecting the
disjointed site from north to south.
The proposed project seeks to install a 175 If, 30" reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) with flared end sections along Stream
B. The culvert will be installed below the elevation of the stream bed by 20% of the culvert diameter to allow low flow
passage of water and aquatic life. Rip -rap dissipation is proposed at the inlet and outlet of the proposed pipe to reduce
discharge velocity and meet non-erosive design criteria. Both areas will be constructed using natural channel design
techniques that include ensuring that the rip -rap is properly installed into the channel bed and placed in a fashion to
ensure aquatic passage. The culvert installation and inlet/outlet protections will result in 204 If of permanent stream
impacts to non -wetland waters of the US. Installation of the culvert requires 40 If of temporary stream impacts for the
construction activities necessary to work in dry conditions.
Construction of a retaining wall and associated grading fill slopes necessary to facilitate construction on the northern
portion of the property requires the relocation of a section of Stream B. The proposed stream relocation will result in 94 If
of permanent, no net loss impacts to non -wetland WoUS and 0.01 -ac of permanent wetland-WoUS impacts for wetland
conversion. Stream B will be relocated and rehabilitated to no less than current conditions. A relocation plan, utilizing
natural channel design techniques, including in -stream structures (constructed riffles), appropriately designed pattern,
profile and bank grading will be implemented in order to provide the appropriate aquatic uplift. Coir fiber matting will be
installed, and a temporary seed mix will be applied immediately following construction to provide initial stabilization. A
planting plan including the application of a permanent seed mix and planting native riparian live stakes and bare roots will
be conducted to provide long-term stability. The stream relocation requires 20 If of temporary stream impacts and 0.04 -
ac of temporary wetland impacts (installation of mud -mats) for the activities necessary to construct the stream relocation.
Additional impacts associated with the construction of the northern portion of the property include 0.18 -ac of permanent
impacts to Wetland B at two separate impact sites. 0.06 -ac of temporary wetland impacts are necessary to facilitate
construction of the retaining wall within Wetland B.
Mud mats will be utilized over a portion of Wetland B to provide temporary construction access and prevent wetland soil
disturbance, resulting in 0.06 -ac of temporary wetland impacts. Construction access will be located within a temporary
construction easement and is not part of the overall development. A temporary stream crossing over Little Sugar Creek is
necessary to provide construction access to the southern portion of the property, prior to construction of the bridge.
Timbers will be placed from top of bank to top of bank and will not result in temporary impacts below the ordinary high-
water mark of Little Sugar Creek.
Construction activities on the southern portion of the property include 0.06 -ac of permanent wetland impacts to Wetland C
from grading fill slopes necessary for construction of a pedestrian footpath. 0.04 -ac of temporary wetland impacts are
necessary to Wetland C to construct the retaining wall for the footpath.
General construction equipment, such as; bulldozers, back hoes, front end loaders, etc. will be used for construction
purposes.
Page 4 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a.
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the Corps
or State been requested or obtained for this property / project
®Yes El No El Unknown
(including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
4b.
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type of
®Preliminary ❑Final
determination was made?
4c.
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Agency/Consultant Company: Kimley-Horn &
Assoc., Inc.
Name (if known): Chris Tinklenberg, PWS
Other:
4d.
If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
Field verification visit on August 31, 2018
5.
Project History
5a.
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for this
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b.
If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6.
Future Project Plans
6a.
Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ® No
6b.
If yes, explain.
Page 5 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ❑ Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
Page 6 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number -
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P)
(if known)
DWQ - non -404, other)
(acres)
or Temporary
T
WB - Impact 3
® P El T
Grading Fill
Riparian
® Yes
El No
® Corps
® DWQ
0.15
WB - Impact 4
Construction of
Riparian
® Yes
® Corps
0.06
El ® T
retaining wall
El No
® DWQ
WB- Impact 7
® P El T
Grading Fill
Riparian
® Yes
El No
® Corps
® DWQ
0.03
WC - Impact 8
❑P®T
Construction Access
Riparian
® Yes
El No
® Corps
®DWQ
0.06
WC - Impact 9
®P❑T
Grading Fill
Riparian
® Yes
El No
® Corps
®DWQ
0.06
WC - Impact 10
Construction of
Riparian
® Yes
® Corps
0.04
El ® T
retaining wall
El No
® DWQ
WC - Impact 11
® P El T
Conversion
Riparian
® Yes
El No
® Corps
® DWQ
0.01
WC - Impact 12
El P ®T
Construction Access
Riparian
® Yes
El No
® Corps
® DWQ
0.04
2g. Total wetland impacts
0.45
2h. Comments: 0.18 -ac of permanent impacts to Wetland B are necessary at two separate impact sites. 0.06 -ac of temporary
wetland impacts are necessary to facilitate construction of the retaining wall within Wetland B. Mud mats will be utilized over a
portion of Wetland B to provide temporary construction access and prevent wetland soil disturbance, resulting in 0.06 -ac of
temporary wetland impacts. Construction access will be located within a temporary construction easement and is not part of
the overall development. Construction activities on the southern portion of the property include 0.06 -ac of permanent wetland
impacts to Wetland C from grading fill slopes necessary for construction of a pedestrian footpath. 0.04 -ac of temporary
wetland impacts are necessary to Wetland C to construct the retaining wall for the footpath. 0.01 -ac impact to Wetland B is
anticipated for conversion associated with the stream relocation and 0.04 -ac of temporary impacts to Wetland B (installation of
mud mats) is necessary for construction access. In total, 0.25 -ac of permanent wetland impacts, and 0.2 -ac of temporary
wetland impacts are proposed.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f.
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number -
(PER) or
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
Permanent (P)
intermittent
DWQ - non -404,
width
(linear
or Temporary
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
(T)
SB - Impact 1
Installation of RCP
LIT to Little Sugar
® PER
® Corps
3
204
® P ❑ T
Creek
❑ INT
® DWQ
SB - Impact 2
Impervious Dike and
LIT to Little Sugar
® PER
® Corps
3
40
❑ P ® T
Pumped Diversion
Creek
❑ INT
® DWQ
SB - Impact 5
Stream Relocation
LIT to Little Sugar
® PER
® Corps
3
94
® P ❑ T
Creek
❑ INT
® DWQ
SB - Impact 6
Impervious Dike and
LIT to Little Sugar
® PER
® Corps
3
20
❑ P ® T
Pumped Diversion
Creek
❑ INT
® DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
358
3i. Comments: The proposed project seeks to install a 175 If, 30" reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) with flared end sections
along Stream B. The culvert will be installed below the elevation of the stream bed by 20% of the culvert diameter to allow low
Page 7 of 14
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

flow passage of water and aquatic life. Rip -rap dissipation is proposed at the inlet and outlet of the proposed pipe to reduce
discharge velocity and meet non-erosive design criteria. Both areas will be constructed using natural channel design
techniques that include ensuring that the rip -rap is properly installed into the channel bed and placed in a fashion to ensure
aquatic passage. The culvert installation and inlet/outlet protections will result in 204 If of permanent stream impacts to non -
wetland waters of the US. Installation of the culvert requires 40 If of temporary stream impacts for the construction activities
necessary to work in dry conditions.
Construction of a retaining wall and associated grading fill slopes necessary to facilitate construction on the northern portion of
the property requires the relocation of a section of Stream B. The proposed stream relocation will result in 94 If of permanent,
no net loss impacts to non -wetland waters of the United States. Stream B will be relocated and rehabilitated to no less than
current conditions. A relocation plan, utilizing natural channel design techniques, including in -stream structures (constructed
riffles), appropriately designed pattern, profile and bank grading will be implemented in order to provide the appropriate
aquatic uplift. Coir fiber matting will be installed, and a temporary seed mix will be applied immediately following construction
to provide initial stabilization. A planting plan including the application of a permanent seed mix and planting native riparian
live stakes and bare roots will be conducted to provide long-term stability. The stream relocation requires 20 If of temporary
stream impacts for the construction activities necessary to work in dry conditions. In total, the proposed project seeks 2981f
of permanent stream impacts and 601f of temporary stream impacts.
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
4b.
4c.
4d.
4e.
Open water
Name of waterbody
impact number
(if applicable)
Type of impact
Waterbody type
Area of impact (acres)
— Permanent
(P) or
Temporary T
01 ❑P❑T
02 ❑P❑T
03 ❑ PEI T
04 ❑ PEI T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then com fete the chart below.
5a.
5b.
5c.
5d.
5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (feet)
Upland
Pond ID
Proposed use or purpose of
(acres)
number
pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
Page 8of14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
❑ Neuse El Tar -Pamlico El Other:
Project is in which protected basin?
® Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b.
6c.
6d.
6e.
6f.
6g.
Buffer impact
number —
Reason
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P)
for impact
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
or Temporary
required?
T
B1 ❑P❑T
El Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑P❑T
El Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑P❑T
El Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Avoidance and minimization efforts during development planning and design were implemented to the greatest extents
practicable in order to reduce the overall impacts on the aquatic environment while staying within nationwide permit
thresholds. Large retaining walls are proposed throughout the entirety of the site to eliminate fill slopes which would result in
additional stream and wetland impacts. Initial site layout and grading plans proposed over 600 If of stream impacts and nearly
1 -acre of wetland impacts. Through multiple iterations of siting and the implementation of retaining walls, the final plan
demonstrates maximum minimization efforts by reducing the proposed stream and wetland impacts to 298 If and 0.24 -ac,
respectively. Rationale to support avoidance and minimization efforts include the following:
• Stream B — Impact 1 & Wetland B — Impact 3: One building, associated parking lot, public access road and bridge
crossing over Little Sugar Creek (required to provide access to the southern portion of the property which is
inaccessible) are all necessary to meet the needs of the proposed development on this portion of the property.
There are no feasible alternatives which would avoid impacts to Stream B or Wetland B. The proposed layout
minimizes impacts to Stream B and Wetland B by implementing 15 to 25 -foot tall retaining walls around the north,
east and southern boundaries of development footprint.
• Stream B — Impact 5 & Wetland B — Impact 6: These impacts are necessary to facilitate the appropriate building
footprint and access road. The design maximizes the available space to construct the facilities while minimizing
impacts to aquatic features. In lieu of encapsulating Stream B through the retaining wall and fill slope via pipe,
resulting in a total loss of stream function, the proposed project seeks to implement natural channel design
techniques to shift the channel slightly south. Improvements to the bedform, pattern and profile of the channel seek
to provide functional aquatic uplift over the existing condition and avoid additional loss of waters.
Wetland C — Impact 8: As part of the development plan and approvals by the City, the developer is required to construct a
segment of the future Cross -Charlotte Trail. The future multi -use trail segment is adjacent to the private street situated on the
southern portion of the property. Impacts to Wetland C are unavoidable due to this requirement, however, proposed impacts
are minimized by replacing grading fill slopes with retaining wall.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Temporary wetland impacts associated with construction of the retaining walls were limited to the areas necessary for the
contractor to conduct the construction activity. Construction activities associated with the stream location are limited to the
areas within the top of bank of the new channel to avoid additional temporary wetland impacts. All temporary impacts will be
restored to preconstruction conditions following completion of the activities. All temporary erosion and sediment control
measures will be removed and disturbed areas will be restored following construction.
Page 9 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
® Yes ❑ No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ® Corps
❑ Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this project?
® Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
® Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
706 linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
® warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
0.5 acres
4f. Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments: Compensatory mitigation will be met by the purchase of credits through the NC Division of Mitigation Services
(NCDMS) in -lieu fee program. 298 If of stream impacts will be mitigated through the purchase of stream mitigation credits.
Based on an NCSAM assessment of intermittent Stream B, mitigation is proposed at a 1.5:1 ratio for impacts associated with
the culvert installation and inlet/outlet protection. Mitigation required for the stream relocation is proposed at 0.5:1. Since the
project is located within the Lower Catawba watershed (HUC 03050103), credits will be purchased at 3:1 and 1:1 ratios,
respectively; therefore, 706 SMUs will be purchased from NCDMS for impacts associated with the new development. 0.25 -ac
of wetland impacts will be mitigated through the purchase of wetland mitigation credits. Based on an NCWAM assessment of
Wetlands B and C, mitigation is proposed at a 1:1 ratio. Wetland mitigation credits will be purchased at 2:1 based on the
location of the project within the Lower Catawba watershed; therefore, 0.5 wetland credit will be purchased from NCDMS for
wetland impacts. In total, 706 stream credits and 0.5 wetland credits will be purchased from NCDMS to provide the
appropriate com ensator mitigation for this project.
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 10 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 11 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

E.
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ® 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.
Comments: The project is not subject to the NC Riparian Protection Rules; however,
® Yes ❑ No
the project meets the City of Charlotte 30 -FT Post Construction Buffer & City of
Charlotte 100 -FT Post Construction Buffer requirements.
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
45%
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
® Yes ❑ No
2c.
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: N/A
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
Per City of Charlotte Post Construction Stormwater Ordinance and the Charlotte -Mecklenburg
Storm Water Design
Manual, the project will control peak discharge of the 10 -year, 6 -hour storm event as well as detain the 1 -year, 24-hour
channel protection volume in accordance with the transit -oriented development requirements. Though not required due to
location/zoning, the project has elected to treat a portion (+/-3.62 acres) for stormwater quality of the 1 -in, 6hr-storm event
for 85% Total Suspended Solids (TSS) removal as mitigation for buffer impact.
® Certified Local Government
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
City of Charlotte
® Phase II
3b.
Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
❑ NSW
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ® No — Under review
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):
❑ Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other:
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5.
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a.
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
® Yes ❑ No
Page 12 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5b.
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
® Yes ❑ No
F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
❑ Yes ® 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
❑ Yes ❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c.
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
❑ 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 ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B.0200)?
2b.
Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes ® No
2c.
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a.
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes ® 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.
4.
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a.
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non -discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Waste water directed to a Charlotte Water public sewer main adjacent to the project.
Page 13 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑ Yes ® No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑ Yes ® No
impacts?
E] Raleigh
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?
A review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database on November 5, 2018 did not indicate
known occurrences of threatened or endangered species within the project boundary. Additionally, pedestrian surveys
conducted by Kimley-Horn in August 2018 did not identify any occurrences of protected species. (See attached NCNHP
Letter).
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NCNHP element occurrence database did not indicate the presence of EFH within the project boundary.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ® 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?
A review of the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) HPOWEB GIS Service database on November
5, 2018 did not indicate any cultural or historic resources within the project boundary.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain?
® Yes ❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: A flood impact analysis report, no -rise impact certification, and
individual floodplain development permit will be submitted to the City of Charlotte for review and approval prior to
construction/restoration activities. The results of the flood impact analysis show that there is no net increase in base flood
elevations.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FIRM Panels 4555 and 4554
Chris Tinklenberg, PWS
'
07/24/2019
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 14 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

�•.; ,M 5� ,, � � _ �;�� tip' N
Stream B - Impact-2 '< '� x�°�• Stream B -Impact 1
204 If Permanent
40 If Temporary Culvert Installation Q
Impervious Dike and
Pumped Diversion +};
Wetland B - Impact 3 Ne
0.15 ac Permanent
Grading Fill
Wetland B - Impact 8
0.06 ac Temporary
Construction Access
Wetland B - Impact 7
0.03 ac Permanent
Grading Fill
f
Ve
f
Wetland C - Impact 9
0.06 ac Permanent
~` t Grading Fill
s,
Wetland C- Impact 10
0.04 ac Temporary
Construction of Retaining Wall
Stream B - Impact 5 .
94 If Permanent
Stream Relocations
Wetland B - Impact 4
Wetland B - Impact 11 0.06 ac Temporary t,
0.01 ac Permanent Construction of Retaining Wall
Conversion
Stream B - Impact 6
Wetland B - Impact 12 20 If Temporary
0.04 ac Temporary Impervious Dike and
Stream Relocation Pumped Diversion
Legend - ==
V3 Project Boundary (Limits of Disturbance) Retaining Walls, yr
Buildings Site Plan Layout
2�6' Wetland Impacts Grading - 4
Stream Relocation Existing Streams" �.
Drainage CZ Existing Wetlands '' Feet
Temporary Crossing 0 200 400
Figure 5
Proposed Conditions
Kimley l)� H'©rn Brand Properties
1 NoDa Sugar Creek
Mecklenburg County, NC

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5
USACE AID#: SAW -2018-01201 NCDWR #: 20190732 v1
Project Name NoDa Sugar Creek Date of Evaluation 04/04/2019
Applicant/Owner Name Brand Properties Wetland Site Name Wetland B & C
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization Chris Tinklenberg/Kimley-Horn
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Little Sugar Creek
River Basin Catawba USGS 8 -Digit Catalogue Unit 03050103
County Mecklenburg NCDWR Region Asheville
f Yes f*' No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.247920, -80.812634
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? C' Yes f+' No
Regulatory Considerations -Were regulatory considerations evaluated? C' Yes C No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
F 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
F 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)
C' Blackwater
Brownwater
F Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) C' Lunar C' Wind C' Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? C' Yes C+ No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? C' Yes C+ No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? C' Yes C+ 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
C' A C' A Not severely altered
Co B C+ 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
C' A C' A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
' B f+' B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C' C C' C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
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. (—A C' A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
C' B C' B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
fo C C+ C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
r D C' D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. r A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet

r B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
io C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. 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. r A Sandy soil
f*' B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
r C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
r D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
r E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. r A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
f*' B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. fo A No peat or muck presence
r B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland - opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
r A f- A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
C: B I+ B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
r C i C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use - opportunity metric (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
(✓ A Fl A Fl A >_ 10% impervious surfaces
F B f- B f- B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
F C (- C F C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
F D (- D F D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
F E r E F E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F F F F f- F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
F1 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?
ft' Yes C` 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.)
f- A >_ 50 feet
i B From 30 to < 50 feet
f- C From 15 to < 30 feet
f+ 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.
f+ <_ 15 -feet wide i > 15 -feet wide i Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
f+ Yes i No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
(. Sheltered - adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
( Exposed - adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
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
r A f- A >_ 100 feet
r B f- B From 80 to < 100 feet
r C i C From 50 to < 80 feet
r D f- D From 40 to < 50 feet
r E I+ E From 30 to < 40 feet
r F f- F From 15 to < 30 feet
r G i G From 5 to < 15 feet
r H f- H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
C: A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
r B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
r 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.
C: B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
r 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)
r A C' A r A >_ 500 acres
r B C' B r B From 100 to < 500 acres
r C C' C r C From 50 to < 100 acres
r D C' D r D From 25 to < 50 acres
r E C' E r E From 10 to < 25 acres
r F C' F r F From 5 to < 10 acres
r G C' G r G From 1 to < 5 acres
C: H I+ H C: H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
r I C' I r I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
r J C' J r J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
r K C' K r K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
r A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
r 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
r A C' A >_ 500 acres
r B C' B From 100 to < 500 acres
r C C' C From 50 to < 100 acres
r D C' D From 10 to < 50 acres
r E C' E < 10 acres
C: F I+ F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
C' Yes C' 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."
C' A 0
C'B 1to4
Co C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
C' 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.
Co— B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C' C 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)
C' A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (<10% cover of exotics).
C' B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C' C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (>50% cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
i+ Yes C' 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.
r A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
r 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.
u) (— C
AA
WT
s r A
oC'
A
( A
Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
M
Co— B
i+ B
Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U
(— C
C' C
Canopy sparse or absent
o
r A
C' A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
ni
r B
C' B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C: C
i+ C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
s (— A C' A Dense shrub layer
Co B
i+ B
Moderate density shrub layer
u) (— C
C' C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
s r A
C' A
Dense herb layer
r B
C' B
Moderate density herb layer
C: C
i+ C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
r A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 -inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
C: B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
r A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
C: B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 -inch DBH.
r C 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.
r A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
C: B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
r
Y I
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.
r A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
r B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
r C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
ft' D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes
22: Incision, sedimentation and fill are all present in or within the vicinity of the assessment area.

Wetland Site Name
Wetland Type
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland B & C
Date 04/04/2019
Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization iris Tin klen berg/Kimley-Hi
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
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
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
Condition
LOW
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Hydrology
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
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5
USACE AID#: SAW -2018-01201 NCDWR #: 20190732 v1
Project Name NoDa Sugar Creek Date of Evaluation 04/04/2019
Applicant/Owner Name Brand Properties Wetland Site Name Wetland B & C
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization Chris Tin klenberg/Ki mley-Horn
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Little Sugar Creek
River Basin Catawba USGS 8 -Digit Catalogue Unit 03050103
County Mecklenburg NCDWR Region Asheville
r Yes r` No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.247920, -80.812634
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? r Yes r` No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? r Yes ` No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Anadromous fish
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
F 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)
r Blackwater
r" Brownwater
F Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) r Lunar r Wind r Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? r Yes r` No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? r Yes r` No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? r Yes r` No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS VS
r A r A Not severely altered
r" B r` B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. 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
r A r A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
r" B r` B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
r C r C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (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. r A r A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
r B r B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
r" C r` C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
r D r D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. r A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet

B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
* C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. 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. A Sandy soil
* B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
C" D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
r E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. r A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
r" B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. * A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
� A C A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
r' B r' B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C t' C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric (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
C A R A A >_ 10% impervious surfaces
F B F B B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
F C F C C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
F D F D F D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
F E f E E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F F F F F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
� G r 70 G 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.
7. 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?
* Yes 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.)
C A >_ 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
* D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
* <_ 15 -feet wide > 15 -feet wide Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
* Yes No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
* Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
Exposed — adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex 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
C A
C A
>_ 100 feet
r B
C B
From 80 to < 100 feet
r C
C C
From 50 to < 80 feet
r D
C D
From 40 to < 50 feet
r E
* E
From 30 to < 40 feet
r F
C F
From 15 to < 30 feet
r G
C G
From 5 to < 15 feet
r H
C H
< 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration - assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
(* A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
r B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
(' C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition - assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
(- A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
r' B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
r 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)
r A (- A c A >_ 500 acres
r B C B B From 100 to < 500 acres
r C r C C From 50 to < 100 acres
r D r D r D From 25 to < 50 acres
r E C E r E From 10 to < 25 acres
r F C F r F From 5 to < 10 acres
r G C G - G From 1 to < 5 acres
r' H H * H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
r I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
r r r From 0.01 to<0.1 acre
r K r K (m%- K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness - wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas - landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
Well Loosely
(�'- A ( A >_ 500 acres
r B C" B From 100 to < 500 acres
r C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
r D D From 10 to < 50 acres
r E r E < 10 acres
-* F ('* F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect - wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes 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."
C A 0
r B 1 to 4
re C 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.
* B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, 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)
(' A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (<10% cover of exotics).
r B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
(' C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (>50% cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
(*' Yes (' No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider structure
in airspace
above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA
WT
o'
A
A
Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
C:
co
B
' B
Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
v'
C'
C
Canopy sparse or absent
o'
A'
A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
C9
B
' B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
7'
C'
C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
A' A Dense shrub layer
E r B r B Moderate density shrub layer
c' C' C Shrub layer sparse or absent
A' A Dense herb layer
B' B Moderate density herb layer
C' C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
r A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 -inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
r' B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
r' B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 -inch DBH.
r C 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.
r A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
r' B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A' B' C' D
4
l
rt byl} c r f ' f r
I
'
Tl
lip
I. I 5 1C ti r
I�`Y
+
� ...� ;I�T • " ." ��"i17s..1�� ,.}�; i�r1`'-ri��' t � i �u+`4:111..��r��� I^i
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.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
r' D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes
22: Incision, sedimentation and fill are all present in or within the vicinity of the assessment area.

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Wetland 6 & C
Date 04/04/2019
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization
iris Tinklenberg/Kimley-Hi
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
YES
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
NO
Function Sub -function Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
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
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating
LOW