20180032 Ver 2 MODIFICATION WITH IMPACT TABLE_20201118

Staff Review
Does this application have all the attachments needed to accept it into the review process?*
r Yes r No
ID#*
20180032
Version* 2
Is this project a public transportation project?* r Yes
r No
Reviewer List:* Alan Johnson:eads\adjohnson1
Select Reviewing Office:* Mooresville Regional Office - [phone]
Does this project require a request for payment to be sent?*
r
Yes
r
No
How much is r $240.00
owed? * r $570.00

Project Submittal Form
Please note: fields marked with a red asterisk below are required. You will not be able to submit the form until all
mandatory questions are answered.
Project Type: * r
For the Record Only (Courtesy Copy)
r
New Project
r
Modification/New Project with Existing ID
r
More Information Response
r
Other Agency Comments
r
Pre -Application Submittal
r
Re-Issuance\Renewal Request
r
Stream or Buffer Appeal
Pre -Filing Meeting Information
Before submitting this form please ensure you have submitted the Pre -Filing Meeting Request Form as we will not
be able to accept your application without this important first step. The Pre -Filing Meeting Request Form is used in
accordance with 40 C.F.R. Section 121.4(a) "At least 30 days prior to submitting a certification request, the project
proponent shall request a pre -filing meeting with the certifying agency" and in accordance with 40 C.F.R. Section
121.5(b)(7), and (c)(5) all certification requests shall include documentation that a pre -filing meeting request was
submitted to the certifying authority at least 30 days prior to submitting the certification request. Click here to read
more information on when this form is needed prior to application submission or here to view the form.
Attach documentation of Pre -Filing Meeting Request here:
Lower LSC DWR Pre -Filing Meeting Request Form.pdf 55.5KB
Date for Meeting Request 9/30/2020
ID# 20180032
Project Contact Information
Name: Chris Tinklenberg, PWS
Who is subrritting the inforrration?
Email Address: [e-mail]
Project Information
Existing ID #:
18-0032
20170001(no dashes)
Version 2
Existing Version:
1
1
Project Name: Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway and Stream Rehabilitation (from S. Polk to
State Line)
Is this a public transportation project?
r Yes
r No
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
r Yes r No r Unknown
County (ies)

Mecklenburg
Please upload all files that need to be submited.
aick the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
00_20200921_NoPlans_LowerLSC_PCN FINAL.pdf 30.73MB
06 2020-06-05 LLSC Polk to State
33.83MB
Line_combined_Optimized_V2_Optimized.pdf
Only pdf or Ivrz files are accepted.
Describe the attachments
or comments:
The Pre -Filing Request was submitted for this project on 9/21; however, an responding email indicating that
the 30-day clock had be reached was not received. Please accept this Pre -Construction Notification
application for the above referenced project. PCN was submitted for this project in 2018, however, the project
was put on hold and the application was withdrawn. This PCN application incorporates minor comments
received in 2018 but generally remains unchanged from the original design. Please also refer to my email
reply responding to USACE's comments on 11/5/2020. Mr. Alan Johnson was cc'd on this email exchange. If
you have any questions or need any additional information, do not hesitate to contact me directly.
Thanks,
Chris Tinklenberg, PWS
Sign and Submit
W By checking the box and signing box below, I certify that:
■ I, the project proponent, hereby certifies that all information contained herein is true, accurate, and complete to
the best of my knowledge and belief.
■ I, 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 agree that submission of this online 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");
■ 1 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 online form.
Signature:
C�feV G�r�rr, t,�,
Submittal Date: Is filled in autorratically.

Preliminary ORM Data Entry Fields for New Actions
ACTION ID #: SAW- SAW-2020-01148 Begin Date (Date Received):
Prepare file folder ❑ Assign Action ID Number in ORM ❑
1. Project Name [PCN Form A2a]: Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway and Stream Rehabilitation (from S. Polk St. to Stateline)
2. Work Type: ❑Private ❑Institutional ❑✓ Government ❑ Commercial
3. Project Description / Purpose [PCN Form 133d and 133e]:
This application is to request authorization to conduct stream bank stabilization and in -stream enhancement activities for the purposes
of improving water quality, bank stabilization, and aquatic habitat and to construct a 12-foot multi -use trail (i.e. greenway). This
submittal is to request a PJD and submit PCN pursuant to NWP 13, 14, & 27 for the Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway and Stream
Rehabilitation project.
4. Property Owner / Applicant [PCN Form A3 or A4]: Charlotte -Mecklenburg Storm Water Services
5. Agent / Consultant [PNC Form A5 — or ORM Consultant ID Number]:
Kimley-Horn; POC Mr. Chris Tinklenberg, PWS
6. Related Action ID Number(s) [PCN Form 135b]:
7. Project Location — Coordinates, Street Address, and/or Location Description [PCN Form Blb]:
Located along Little Sugar Creek from the Polk Historic Site to the NC/SC state line, in Pineville, North
Carolina
8. Project Location —Tax Parcel ID [PCN Form Bla]: Multiple - Linear Project
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]: Little Sugar Creek
12. Watershed / 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code [PCN Form 132c]: Lower Catawba (H UC 03050103)
Authorization: Section 10 ❑ Section 404 ✓❑
Regulatory Action Type:
❑ Standard Permit
Nationwide Permit #13, 14, & 27
Regional General Permit #
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Section 10 and 404 ❑
::]Pre -Application Request
::]Unauthorized Activity
Compliance
No Permit Required
Revised 20150602

Kimley»>Horn
September 21, 2020
Mr. Bryan Roden -Reynolds
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 Branch
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re: Pre -Construction Notification (NWP #13, #14 & #27) Application &
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Request (SAW-2020-01148 and NCDWR #18-0032)
Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway and Stream Rehabilitation (from S. Polk St. to Stateline)
Pineville, Mecklenburg County, NC
Dear Mr. Roden -Reynolds and Ms. Higgins:
On behalf of our client, Charlotte -Mecklenburg (County) Stormwater Services, Kimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc. (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 #13, #14, & #27
and General 401 Water Quality Certification number 4087 and 4135. This application is to request
authorization to conduct stream bank stabilization and in -stream enhancement activities for the
purposes of improving water quality, bank stabilization, and aquatic habitat. This application is to also
request authorization to install one permanent stream ford crossing necessary to provide property
access for current land owners. The center of the project area is located at 35.072776°N, -
80.893387°W. 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 (Fort Mill)
■ Figure 3 — SSURGO Soils
■ Figure 4 — Existing Conditions
■ Figure 5 — Proposed Conditions
• Permit Drawings for Lower Little Sugar Creek Stream Restoration (From President James K.
Polk State Historic Site to the NC/SC Stateline)
• Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) Request
• Field Data Forms
■ NCDWR Stream Identification Forms
■ NCSAM Forms
• Project Site Photographs
• Agency Correspondence

Kimley>»Horn
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Page 2
Mecklenburg County proposes the construction of an approximately 2.47 miles of 12'-wide multi -use
path and an additional 0.57 miles of 10' and 12'-wide connections to adjacent points of interest along
the corridor. A PCN for this project was submitted in January 2018. A field review meeting was
conducted with Kimley-Horn staff, Chris Tinklenberg and Jason Diaz, and Mr. David Shaeffer with the
USACE on February 2, 2018, resulting in a request for additional information (RFAI). Shortly after the
RFAI was requested, the project was put on hold by Mecklenburg County due to funding. No
modifications to the originally submitted PCN are proposed.
The multi -use path will provide connectivity from to the proposed Little Sugar Creek Greenway
(currently under construction) just west of South Polk Street all the way to the North Carolina/South
Carolina state line. This multi -use path will also provide access to the President James K. Polk State
Historic Site, the Belle Johnson Park, Pineville Community Park and multiple residential
developments along the corridor. The project will support pedestrian and bicycle travel between
residential, commercial, and recreational facilities by providing an alternative transportation option.
In addition to the multi -use path, the County also proposes to stabilize segments of Little Sugar Creek
along the project corridor. The bank stabilization and stream enhancements seek to reduce bank
erosion, improve channel dimension, create localized bedform diversity and in -stream habitat, and
stabilize bank areas in close proximity to the proposed multi -use path. Stabilization includes bank
grading to a stable slope, rock toe protection, and native buffer enhancement/revegetation. Retaining
walls are necessary in areas of extreme bank erosion where existing infrastructure, parking lots,
buildings need protection as well as areas where the greenway is close to the top of bank. These
areas required an engineered solution, necessary in order to ensure safety of those using the
greenway. A Verti-block retaining wall system is proposed which is a very natural looking rock face
and allows for groundwater exchange by way of gravel infill cavities with lateral perforated drains
which also relieves hydrostatic pressure (sustainability). Walls are limited to those areas mentioned
above only and are avoided where bank grading with rock toe protection (including native riparian
vegetation planting) can be implemented. Generally, the walls will be 4'-5' tall, graded 3:1 above the
wall and planted with native riparian vegetation. The sizes of the retaining walls will be the minimum
necessary to maintain stability and provide protection to infrastructure. Installation of rock -toe
protection will consist of T-18" rip rap flush with the bank. The rock -toe foundation is necessary to
provide stability for the proposed bank grading proposed behind the rock -toe structure. A brush
mattress will be implemented along a section previously recommended by the USACE, which
replaces a section originally proposed as rock -toe protection.
Installation of a permanent stream crossing (ford) is proposed to accommodate current landowner
access to adjacent parcels. Construction of the permanent stream crossing consists of a geoweb
cellular confinement system including 2"-5" riprap and #57 stone mix as infill in the geoweb cells.
Natural channel design elements including rock sills and constructed riffles will be constructed
immediately upstream and downstream of the ford crossing to provide stability of the crossing and the
functionality of one continuous constructed riffle.
An existing UT to Little Sugar Creek will be relocated to remove the stream from a maintained utility
corridor and create separation from N. Polk Street. The existing condition of the UT consists of
vertical, exposed banks with limited bedform diversity and a riparian buffer dominated by invasive
species. Natural channel design techniques will be implemented in order to stabilize the channel bed
and banks, improve water quality and establish a native riparian a buffer area.

Kimley»>Horn
Page 3
The project corridor begins adjacent to Little Sugar Creek, 552 linear feet west of South Polk Street.
The path follows the north side of Little Sugar Creek for 6,350 linear feet where it crosses the creek
and continues south of the Creek for another 6,725 linear feet ending at the state line.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The project corridor is located in the piedmont region of North Carolina. Topography is moderate
within the study corridor and roughly ranges from 520 to 620 feet in elevation (Figure 2; National
Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929).
The project is located in the Catawba River Basin. A field review by Kimley-Horn environmental
scientists was conducted on July 2, 2014, August 16, 2015 and May 15, 2017. Little Sugar Creek, a
potential non -wetland water of the US (WoUS) as well as seven (7) additional unnamed tributaries
(potential non -wetland WoUS) are located within the project study corridor (Figures 4a & 4b). Little
Sugar Creek discharges into Sugar Creek approximately 0.6 miles southwest of the project study
corridor, which subsequently discharges into the Catawba River an additional (25.7 stream miles) 8.5
miles to the south.
Little Sugar Creek is rated by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR) Division of Water Resources (DWR) as Class C with the following DWR Stream Index #
11-137-8. Class C waters are protected for primary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption,
aquatic habitat and agricultural uses. Currently, Little Sugar Creek is classified as 303d listed (i.e.
"impaired") and is not meeting its water quality functions. Primary pollutants are heavy metals,
sediment, and bacteria. The project study corridor does not lie within a Water Supply Watershed and
there are no Outstanding Resource Waters or High Quality Waters within the study corridor.
Field investigations by Kimley-Horn environmental scientists also determined that there were no
potential wetland WoUS in the project corridor. One potential wetland WoUS is located upslope of
Stream 7 (S7), just outside of the project corridor (Figure 4b).
STREAM REHABILITATION APPROACH
Goals and Objectives:
The goal of the stream and buffer rehabilitation is to improve the hydraulic and geomorphic function of
LSC to create a foundation for potential improvements of water quality and aquatic/terrestrial habitat
of the site's streams and floodplain through the following objectives:
• Improve the hydraulic geometry to have a low -flow channel, inner berm, and bankfull channel
more representative of reference conditions with less active bank erosion.
• Create bank angles and hydraulic geometry that allow vegetation and root mass to extend
from the water's edge up to the top of the channel banks.
• Improve the stem and root density and species diversity of the riparian buffer immediately
adjacent to LSC.
• Reduce the BEHI scores along the reach from high, very high, or extreme to low.
• Reduce incision, erosive velocities, and high -shear stress by adding a floodplain bench
(where constraints allow).
• Create local slope and bed -depth variability (i.e. habitat transitions) by adding instream
structures like rock and log vanes, J-hook vanes, boulder and log riffles, and toe wood.

Kimley»>Horn
Page 4
• Increase dissolved oxygen concentrations through in -stream structures and the turbulence
they produce in pools.
• Stabilize stream banks using bioengineering and/or specific natural channel design
techniques for each reach based on constraints and opportunities.
• Reduce bank source sediment by implementing bank stabilization and natural channel design
techniques. We will retrofit some off -site sediment sources, such as point source outlets and
ditches, with pocket wetlands, level spreaders, or RSCs.
• Introduce woody structures such as log vanes, log sills, and toe wood by adding wood and
detritus into the system.
• Control the invasive exotics by pretreatment, removal during construction, and implementing
an invasive species control plan.
• Protect infrastructure
• Implement best management practice (BMP)/stormwater control measures (SCM)
opportunities to stabilize stormwater outfalls.
Improvements in the higher functions of water quality and biology may not be fully achievable given
the urban land use and point and non -point discharges that outfall into LSC. However, improving the
underlying stream hydraulic and geomorphic functions of the channel would better support these
improvements in higher functions if watershed conditions allow.
Based the objectives above, a specific detailed stream rehabilitation plan was completed. Each reach
has a tailored approach/plan that takes advantage of the opportunities to improve geomorphic and
hydraulic functions given the constraints.
In addition to the restoration activity occurring on LSC, the project proposes to relocate an 165 If
existing UT to Little Sugar Creek to remove the stream from a maintained utility corridor and create
separation from N. Polk Street. The existing condition of the UT consists of vertical, exposed banks
with limited bedform diversity and a riparian buffer dominated by invasive species. Natural channel
design techniques will be implemented in order to stabilize the channel bed and banks, improve water
quality and establish a native riparian a buffer area.
The project will result in 7,415 linear feet of permanent, no -net loss of potential non -wetland WoUS
from bank stabilization (NWP 13) activities and 1,450 linear feet of permanent, no -net loss of
potential non -wetland WoUS from in -stream enhancements (NWP 27) necessary to meet me the
goals and objectives described above.
The project will result in 46 linear feet of permanent of potential non -wetland WoUS from the
installation of a permanent stream ford (NWP 14) necessary to provide property access for current
land owners. This impact will not result in functional loss of Little Sugar Creek
Greater than 500 linear feet of bank stabilization is proposed for this project. Stabilizing the banks
with a mix of natural and hard -armoring techniques will greatly reduce stream bank erosion and
sediment pollution resulting in improved downstream water quality; therefore, discharges associated
with this activity will result in no more than minimal adverse environmental effects. We request that
the 500 linear foot limit for NWP 13 be waived for this project.

Kimley>»Horn
GREENWAY IMPACTS
Page 5
As part of the storm drainage network, culverts and associated outfalls are proposed at twenty-two
(22) locations perpendicular to the proposed greenway (Figure 5). Rip -rap outfall protection is
necessary at each culvert in order to meet non -erosive design criteria. Fourteen (14) outfalls will be
placed in areas of bank stabilization, contiguous with the proposed grade of bank stabilization, to
prevent future bank instability and erosion. Eight (8) outfalls will be improved along the existing bank.
Lengths and widths of outlet protection have been minimized to the greatest extents practicable. The
careful placement of the outfalls will impact Little Sugar Creek below the plane of the OHWM but is
necessary to prevent future bank instability and erosion. Rip -rap aprons at each impact location will
be installed so that the finished elevation of the rip -rap does not exceed that of the existing channel
bed elevation along Little Sugar Creek. 133 linear feet of permanent — no net loss impacts to
potential non -wetland waters of the US is proposed as a result of the rip -rap outlet protection.
Overall, impacts associated with the construction of the greenway will result in 133 linear feet of
permanent impacts to potential non -wetland waters of the US.
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
Construction of the stream side retaining walls, rock toe protection, brush mattress protection, stream
bank grading, constructed riffle installation, boardwalk installation, and/or pedestrian bridge
installation may require the contractor to temporarily work in the wet. Temporary low water ford
crossings may be implemented as well. All mechanized equipment operated in or near surface waters
will be inspected and maintained regularly to prevent contamination of surface waters from fuels,
lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials. Exposure of equipment to surface waters will be
minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Timber mat temporary stream crossings will be utilized as needed for construction equipment at some
locations where the greenway crosses existing tributaries to minimize impacts to the streams.
Special stilling basins and gravel construction pads will also be used during the bridge and boardwalk
construction for erosion control.
Because the project proposes to traverse through the Little Sugar Creek floodplain and cross Little
Sugar Creek and several tributaries to Little Sugar Creek, bridge and boardwalk options will be used
at these locations to avoid impacts to potentially jurisdictional non -wetland waters.
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION
Mitigation is not proposed as part of this project as the impacts result in a total of 133 LF to potential
non -wetland waters of the US, below the mitigation threshold. These impacts include rip -rap bank
stabilization/outlet protection which may result in some functional loss within the stream -side zone of
Little Sugar Creek; however, the impacts will not result in a total loss of waters of the US and are
necessary to prevent future bank erosion.

Kimley»>Horn
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
Cc: Karen Weston -Chien
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Storm Water Services
3205 Freedom Drive, Suite 101
Charlotte, NC 28202
Page 6

Kimley>>>Horn
Project Summary Sheet
Project Name: Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway and Stream Rehabilitation (from S. Polk St. to Stateline)
Applicant Name and Address: Karen Weston -Chien
Mecklenburg County Asset and Facili, Management
3205 Freedom Drive, Suite 101
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone Number: [phone]
Type of Request: ® Nationwide PCN (NWP # 13, #14, & #27) ❑ Individual Permit Application
® Jurisdictional Determination ❑ Other:
Included Attachments: ® Project Plans
® USGS Map ® NRCS Soil Survey
® Agent Authorization
® Delineation Sketch ❑ Delineation Survey
❑ Data Forms (Up & Wet)
® NCDWR Stream Forms ® USACE Stream Forms
❑ NCEEP Confirmation
® Aerial Photo ® Site Photos
® Agency Correspondence
❑ Other: ❑ Other:
Check if applicable: ❑ CAMA County
❑ Trout County ❑ Isolated Waters
❑ Section 7, ESA
❑ Section 106, NHPA ❑ EFH
❑ Mitigation Proposed (❑ NC EEP ❑ On -Site ❑ Off -Site ❑ Other)
County: Mecklenburg
Nearest City/Town: Pineville
Waterway: Little Sugar Creek
River Basin: Catawba; NCDWR 03-08-34
H.U.C.: 03050103
USGS Quad Name: Fort Mill
Property Size (acres): 102 acres
Approx. Size of Jurisdiction on Site (acres): 8.5
Site Coordinates (in decimal degrees): 35.072776
°N-80.893387 °W
Project Location: The proposed stream restoration and
egr enway2roject area is defined as Lower Little Sugar Creek
(LSC) from James K. Polk State Historic Site to the Stateline (NC/SC) located in the City of Pineville, North Carolina.
Site Description: The project boundary generally runs parallel with LSC consisting mostly of maintained utility
easements and maintained lawns. The watershed at the downstream end of the project area is approximately 48.40 square
miles. It is located in a developing watershed and partially drains parts of urban and sub -urban Charlotte, NC.
Impact Summary (if applicable): 7,415 linear feet of permanent, no -net loss impacts to potential non -wetland WoUS
from bank stabilization (NWP 13) activities and 1.450 linear feet of permanent. no -net loss impacts to potential non -
wetland WoUS from in -stream enhancements (NWP 27). The project will result in 46 linear feet of permanent impacts
to potential non -wetland WoUS from the installation of a permanent stream crossing (ford) (NWP 14) necessary to
provide property access for current land owners. 133 linear feet of permanent, no -net loss impacts to potential non -wetland
waters of the IJS is proposed as a result of the rin-ran outlet protection at 8 culvert outfalls (NWP 14).
NWP
#
Open Water
(acres)
Wetland
(acres)
Stream i
Intermittent and/or Unimportant
Aquatic Function
Temp.
Perm.
Temp.
Perm.
Tem
Perm.
if
ac
if
ac
13
14
27
Total
Total Permanent (No Net Loss) Impact to Waters of the U.S.
9,044 (8.26 ac)
Channel
Perennial and/or Important
Aquatic Function
Temp. Perm.
if I ac if I Ac
Kimley-Horn Contact: Chris Tinklenberg, PWS Direct Number: [phone]
Email: chris.tinklenberg&kimley-hom.com
7,415 6.8
179 0.16
1,450 1.3
9,044 8.26

OEIo�0F wa rF9o�
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Pre -Construction Notification PCN Form
A. Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 13, 14, & 27 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
1 e.
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 1 h
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:
Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway and Stream Rehabilitation (from S. Polk St. to
Stateline)
2b.
County:
Mecklenburg
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Pineville
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:
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Storm Water Services and Right of Entry Agreements
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
3d.
Street address:
3e.
City, state, zip:
3f.
Telephone no.:
3g.
Fax no.:
3h.
Email address:
Page 1 of 15
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a.
Applicant is:
❑ Agent ® Other, specify: Public Agency
4b.
Name:
Karen Weston -Chien
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
Mecklenburg County Asset and Facility Management
4d.
Street address:
3205 Freedom Drive, Suite 101
4e.
City, state, zip:
28208
4f.
Telephone no.:
[phone]
4g.
Fax no.:
4h.
Email address:
Karen [e-mail]
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 15
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
la.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Storm Water Services and
Right of Entry Agreements
Latitude:35.072776 Longitude: -
1 b.
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
80.893387
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1c.
Property size:
102 acres (Project Boundary)
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to proposed
Little Sugar Creek
project:
2b.
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
Little Sugar Creek - Class "C"
E2cRiver
basin: ��]
Catawba; NCDWR Subbasin 03-08-34; HUC
03050103
Page 3 of 15
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 corridor is located in the piedmont region of North Carolina. Topography is moderate within the study
corridor and roughly ranges from 520 to 620 feet in elevation (Figure 2; National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929).
The project is located in the Catawba River Basin. A field review by Kimley-Horn environmental scientists was
conducted on July 2, 2014, August 16, 2015 and May 15, 2017. Little Sugar Creek, a potential non -wetland water of
the US (WoUS) as well as seven (7) additional unnamed tributaries (potential non -wetland WoUS) are located within
the project study corridor (Figures 4a & 4b). Little Sugar Creek discharges into Sugar Creek approximately 0.6 miles
southwest of the project study corridor, which subsequently discharges into the Catawba River an additional (25.7
stream miles) 8.5 miles to the south.
Little Sugar Creek is rated by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Division
of Water Resources (DWR) as Class C with the following DWR Stream Index # 11-137-8. Class C waters are
protected for primary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption, aquatic habitat and agricultural uses. Currently,
Little Sugar Creek is classified as 303d listed (i.e. "impaired") and is not meeting its water quality functions. Primary
pollutants are heavy metals, sediment, and bacteria. The project study corridor does not lie within a Water Supply
Watershed and there are no Outstanding Resource Waters or High Quality Waters within the study corridor.
Field investigations by Kimley-Horn environmental scientists also determined that there were no potential wetland WoUS
in the project corridor. One potential wetland WoUS is located upslope of Stream 7 (S7), just outside of the project
corridor (Figure 4b).
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0 Acres
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 19,000 linear feet.
Page 4 of 15
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
Mecklenburg County proposes the construction of an approximately 2.47 miles of 12'-wide multi -use path and an
additional 0.57 miles of 10' and 12'-wide connections to adjacent points of interest along the corridor. A PCN for this
project was submitted in January 2018. A field review meeting was conducted with Kimley-Horn staff, Chris
Tinklenberg and Jason Diaz, and Mr. David Shaeffer with the USACE on February 2, 2018, resulting in a request for
additional information (RFAI). Shortly after the RFAI was requested, the project was put on hold by Mecklenburg
County due to funding. No modifications to the originally submitted PCN are proposed.
The multi -use path will provide connectivity from to the proposed Little Sugar Creek Greenway (currently under
construction) just west of South Polk Street all the way to the North Carolina/South Carolina state line. This multi -use
path will also provide access to the President James K. Polk State Historic Site, the Belle Johnson Park, Pineville
Community Park and multiple residential developments along the corridor. The project will support pedestrian and
bicycle travel between residential, commercial, and recreational facilities by providing an alternative transportation
option.
In addition to the multi -use path, the County also proposes to stabilize segments of Little Sugar Creek along the
project corridor. The bank stabilization and stream enhancements seek to reduce bank erosion, improve channel
dimension, create localized bedform diversity and in -stream habitat, and stabilize bank areas in close proximity to
the proposed multi -use path. Stabilization includes bank grading to a stable slope, rock toe protection, and native
buffer enhancement/revegetation. Retaining walls are necessary in areas of extreme bank erosion where existing
infrastructure, parking lots, buildings need protection as well as areas where the greenway is close to the top of
bank. These areas required an engineered solution, necessary in order to ensure safety of those using the
greenway. A Verti-block retaining wall system is proposed which is a very natural looking rock face and allows for
groundwater exchange by way of gravel infill cavities with lateral perforated drains which also relieves hydrostatic
pressure (sustainability). Walls are limited to those areas mentioned above only and are avoided where bank
grading with rock toe protection (including native riparian vegetation planting) can be implemented. Generally, the
walls will be 4'-5' tall, graded 3:1 above the wall and planted with native riparian vegetation. The sizes of the
retaining walls will be the minimum necessary to maintain stability and provide protection to infrastructure.
Installation of rock -toe protection will consist of 6"-18" rip rap flush with the bank. The rock -toe foundation is
necessary to provide stability for the proposed bank grading proposed behind the rock -toe structure. A brush
mattress will be implemented along a section previously recommended by the USACE, which replaces a section
originally proposed as rock -toe protection.
Installation of a permanent stream crossing (ford) is proposed to accommodate current landowner access to
adjacent parcels. Construction of the permanent stream crossing consists of a geoweb cellular confinement system
including 2"-5" riprap and #57 stone mix as infill in the geoweb cells. Natural channel design elements including
rock sills and constructed riffles will be constructed immediately upstream and downstream of the ford crossing to
provide stability of the crossing and the functionality of one continuous constructed riffle.
An existing UT to Little Sugar Creek will be relocated to remove the stream from a maintained utility corridor and
create separation from N. Polk Street. The existing condition of the UT consists of vertical, exposed banks with
limited bedform diversity and a riparian buffer dominated by invasive species. Natural channel design techniques
will be implemented in order to stabilize the channel bed and banks, improve water quality and establish a native
riparian a buffer area.
The project corridor begins adjacent to Little Sugar Creek, 552 linear feet west of South Polk Street. The path
follows the north side of Little Sugar Creek for 6,350 linear feet where it crosses the creek and continues south of
the Creek for another 6,725 linear feet ending at the state line.
Page 5 of 15
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
STREAM REHABILITATION APPROACH
Goals and Objectives:
The goal of the stream and buffer rehabilitation is to improve the hydraulic and geomorphic function of LSC to create a foundation for
potential improvements of water quality and aquatic/terrestrial habitat of the site's streams and floodplain through the following
objectives:
• Improve the hydraulic geometry to have a low -flow channel, inner berm, and bankfull channel more representative of
reference conditions with less active bank erosion.
• Create bank angles and hydraulic geometry that allow vegetation and root mass to extend from the water's edge up to the
top of the channel banks.
• Improve the stem and root density and species diversity of the riparian buffer immediately adjacent to LSC.
• Reduce the BEHI scores along the reach from high, very high, or extreme to low.
• Reduce incision, erosive velocities, and high -shear stress by adding a floodplain bench (where constraints allow).
• Create local slope and bed -depth variability (i.e. habitat transitions) by adding instream structures like rock and log vanes, J-
hook vanes, boulder and log riffles, and toe wood.
• Increase dissolved oxygen concentrations through in -stream structures and the turbulence they produce in pools.
• Stabilize stream banks using bioengineering and/or specific natural channel design techniques for each reach based on
constraints and opportunities.
• Reduce bank source sediment by implementing bank stabilization and natural channel design techniques. We will retrofit
some off -site sediment sources, such as point source outlets and ditches, with pocket wetlands, level spreaders, or RSCs.
• Introduce woody structures such as log vanes, log sills, and toe wood by adding wood and detritus into the system.
• Control the invasive exotics by pretreatment, removal during construction, and implementing an invasive species control
plan.
• Protect infrastructure
• Implement best management practice (BMP)/stormwater control measures (SCM) opportunities to stabilize stormwater
outfalls.
Improvements in the higher functions of water quality and biology may not be fully achievable given the urban land use and point and
non -point discharges that outfall into LSC. However, improving the underlying stream hydraulic and geomorphic functions of the
channel would better support these improvements in higher functions if watershed conditions allow.
Based the objectives above, a specific detailed stream rehabilitation plan was completed. Each reach has a tailored approach/plan
that takes advantage of the opportunities to improve geomorphic and hydraulic functions given the constraints.
In addition to the restoration activity occurring on LSC, the project proposes to relocate an 165 If existing UT to Little Sugar Creek to
remove the stream from a maintained utility corridor and create separation from N. Polk Street. The existing condition of the UT
consists of vertical, exposed banks with limited bedform diversity and a riparian buffer dominated by invasive species. Natural
channel design techniques will be implemented in order to stabilize the channel bed and banks, improve water quality and establish a
native riparian a buffer area.
The project will result in 7,415 linear feet of permanent, no -net loss of potential non -wetland WoUS from bank stabilization (NWP 13)
activities and 1,450 linear feet of permanent, no -net loss of potential non -wetland WoUS from in -stream enhancements (NWP 27)
necessary to meet me the goals and objectives described above.
The project will result in 46 linear feet of permanent of potential non -wetland WoUS from the installation of a permanent stream ford
(NWP 14) necessary to provide property access for current land owners.
Greater than 500 linear feet of bank stabilization is proposed for this project. Stabilizing the banks with a mix of natural and hard -
armoring techniques will greatly reduce stream bank erosion and sediment pollution resulting in improved downstream water quality, -
therefore, discharges associated with this activity will result in no more than minimal adverse environmental effects. We request that
the 500 linear foot limit for NWP 13 be waived for this project.
GREENWAY IMPACTS
As part of the storm drainage network, culverts and associated outfalls are proposed at twenty-two (22) locations perpendicular to the
proposed greenway (Figure 5). Rip -rap outfall protection is necessary at each culvert in order to meet non -erosive design criteria.
Fourteen (14) outfalls will be placed in areas of bank stabilization, contiguous with the proposed grade of bank stabilization, to prevent
future bank instability and erosion. Eight (8) outfalls will be improved along the existing bank. Lengths and widths of outlet protection
have been minimized to the greatest extents practicable. The careful placement of the outfalls will impact Little Sugar Creek below the
plane of the OHWM but is necessary to prevent future bank instability and erosion. Rip -rap aprons at each impact location will be
installed so that the finished elevation of the rip -rap does not exceed that of the existing channel bed elevation along Little Sugar
Creek. 133 linear feet of permanent — no net loss impacts to potential non -wetland waters of the US is proposed as a result
of the rip -rap outlet protection.
Overall, impacts associated with the construction of the greenway will result in 133 linear feet of permanent impacts to potential
non -wetland waters of the US.
Page 6 of 15
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 /
El Yes ®No El Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
4b.
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type of
El Preliminary El Final
determination was made?
4c.
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Agency/Consultant Company:
Name (if known):
Other:
4d.
If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
5.
Project History
5a.
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
El Yes ®No El Unknown
this 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.
When complete, the Cross -Charlotte Trail will include 26 miles of trail and connectors. Currently, half of the overall trail is in
design or under construction. Per coordination with USACE and NCDWR, any impacts associated with future phases of
the project require compensatory mitigation. The greenway trail design associated with this phase of the project has
avoided impacts to waters of the US by altering the trail alignment as well as proposing bridges over all stream crossings.
Mecklenburg County will continue to address future phases of the project and mitigation requirements associated with
those phases with USACE and NCDWR when necessary.
C.
Proposed Impacts Inventory
1.
Impacts Summary
1 a.
Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑
Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ❑ Buffers
❑
Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
Page 7 of 15
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) or
(if known)
DWQ — non-404, other)
(acres)
Temporary T
W ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
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) or
intermittent
DWQ — non-404,
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
LSC —Impact 1
NWP 13
PER
®Corps
®P ❑ T
Bank Stabilization (Grading
LSC
❑INT
®DWQ
40
6,210
and Native Plantings)
NWP 13
LSC — Impact 2
Bank Stabilization
LSC
® PER
® Corps
40
1,205
® P ❑ T
(Retaining Walls and
❑ INT
® DWQ
Grading)
LSC — Impact 3
NWP 27
® PER
® Corps
® P ❑ T
Constructed Riffles
LSC
❑ INT
® DWQ
40
330
LSC — Impact 4
NWP 27
® PER
® Corps
®P ❑ T
Stream Improvements (In-
LSC
❑INT
®DWQ
40
955
Stream and Banks)
LSC — Impact 5
NWP 14
® PER
® Corps
® P ❑ T
Installation of Ford
LSC
❑ INT
® DWQ
40
46
LSC —Impact 6
NWP 27
®PER
®Corps
®P ❑ T
Stream
UT to LSC
❑INT
®DWQ
5
165
Relocation/Restoration
LSC — Impact 7
NWP 14
® PER
® Corps
® P ❑ T
Rip -Rap Outfall Protection
LSC
❑ INT
® DWQ
40
12
LSC — Impact 8
NWP 14
® PER
® Corps
® P ❑ T
Rip -Rap Outfall Protection
LSC
❑ INT
® DWQ
40
12
LSC — Impact 9
NWP 14
® PER
® Corps
® P ❑ T
Rip -Rap Outfall Protection
LSC
❑ INT
® DWQ
40
12
LSC — Impact 10
NWP 14
® PER
® Corps
® P El
Rip -Rap Outfall Protection
LSC
El INT
® DWQ
40
12
LSC — Impact 11
NWP 14
® PER
® Corps
® P ❑ T
Rip -Rap Outfall Protection
LSC
❑ INT
® DWQ
40
30
LSC — Impact 12
NWP 14
® PER
® Corps
® P ❑ T
Rip -Rap Outfall Protection
LSC
❑ INT
® DWQ
40
25
Page 8 of 15
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

LSC — Impact 13
NWP 14
® PER
® Corps
® P ❑ T
Rip -Rap Outfall Protection
LSC
❑ INT
® DWQ
40
15
LSC — Impact 14
NWP 14
® PER
® Corps
® P ❑ T
Rip -Rap Outfall Protection
LSC
❑ INT
® DWQ
40
15
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
9,044
3i. Comments: The project will result in 7,415 linear feet of permanent, no -net loss impacts to potential non -wetland WoUS
from bank stabilization (NWP 13) activities and 1,450 linear feet of permanent, no -net loss impacts to potential non -wetland
WoUS from in -stream enhancements (NWP 27). The project will result in 46 linear feet of permanent impacts to potential
non -wetland WoUS from the installation of a permanent stream crossing (ford) (NWP 14) necessary to provide property
access for current land owners. 133 linear feet of permanent, no -net loss impacts to potential non -wetland waters of the US
is proposed as a result of the rip -rap outlet protection at 8 culvert outfalls NWP 14).
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
(if applicable)
Type of impact
Waterbody type
Area of impact (acres)
number —
Permanent
(P) or
Temporary
T
01 ❑P❑
T
02 ❑P❑
T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.
5b.
5c.
5d.
5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (feet)
Upland
Pond
Proposed use or purpose of pond
(acres)
ID
number
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
Page 9 of 15
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 ❑ Tar -Pamlico ❑ 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
for
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
(P) or
impact
required?
Temporary
T
131 ❑ P ❑
❑ Yes
T
❑ No
B2 ❑ P ❑
❑ Yes
T
❑ No
B3 ❑ P ❑
❑ Yes
T
❑ 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.
Because the project proposes to traverse through the Little Sugar Creek floodplain and cross Little Sugar Creek and several
tributaries to Little Sugar Creek, bridge and boardwalk options will be used at these locations to avoid impacts to potentially
jurisdictional non -wetland waters, therefore, no compensatory mitigation is proposed as part of this project.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Construction of the stream side retaining walls, rock toe protection, brush mattress protection, stream bank grading,
constructed riffle installation, boardwalk installation, and/or pedestrian bridge installation may require the contractor to
temporarily work in the wet. Temporary low water ford crossings may be implemented as well. All mechanized equipment
operated in or near surface waters will be inspected and maintained regularly to prevent contamination of surface waters from
fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials. Exposure of equipment to surface waters will be minimized to the
maximum extent practicable. Lengths and widths of outlet protection have been minimized to the greatest extents practicable.
Timber mat temporary stream crossings will be utilized as needed for construction equipment at some locations where the
greenway crosses existing tributaries to minimize impacts to the streams. Special stilling basins and gravel construction pads
will also be used during the bridge and boardwalk construction for erosion control.
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
❑ Yes ® No
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
Page 10 of 15
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
Type I Quantity
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached. ❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments:
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.
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 ® 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:
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
Page 11 of 15
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified within
❑ Yes ® No
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
Comments:
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
<5%
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ 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:
❑ 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?
❑ Phase II
❑ NSW
3b.
Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ USMP
(check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been attached?
❑ Yes ❑ No
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
5b.
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 12 of 15
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use
® Yes ❑ No
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 (North
❑ Yes ® No
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
letter.)
❑ Yes ❑ No
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, or Riparian
❑ Yes ® No
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.
Page 13 of 15
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?
❑ 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?
Per the report, a historic element occurrence for Carolina heelsplitter is present within Little Sugar Creek. No potentially
suitable habitat for Carolina heelsplitter was observed during field reviews. Additionally, an agency correspondence letter
from NCWRC was received on May 11, 2017, confirming that no known occurrences are present within the project
boundary. A review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database on April 13, 2017 did not indicate
known occurrences of threatened or endangered species within the project boundary.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NCNHP element occurrence database did not indicate the presence of EFH within the project boundary.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation status
® Yes ❑ No
(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 June 6,
2017 did not indicate any cultural or historic resources within the project boundary. Additionally, an agency
correspondence letter from NC SHPO was received on June 6, 2017 confirming that no known cultural or historic
resources are present 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 -impact certification, and individual
floodplain development permit will be submitted to Mecklenburg County for review and approval prior to
construction/restoration activities. The results of the flood impact anaylsis 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 4439 and 4438
Page 14 of 15
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

Chris Tinklenberg, PWS
Applicant/Agent's Signature
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name (Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is
ded.
9/21 /2020
Date
Page 15 of 15
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
Name: Ms. Leslie Johnson, Assistant County Manager
Address: Mecklenburg County, 600 East Fourth Street — 11 h Floor, Charlotte, NC 28202
Phone: [phone]
Project Name/Description: Lower Little Sugar Creek (LSC) Stream Restoration and Greenway
(Polk to Stateline)
Date: August 10, 2017
The Department of the Army
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Attention: David Schaeffer
Re: Wetland Related Consulting and Permitting
Ms. Higgins:
Mecklenburg County Storm Water Services hereby designates and authorizes Kimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc. to act in their behalf as their agent solely for the purpose of processing
Jurisdictional Determinations, Section 404 permits/Section 401 Water Quality Certifications
applications, and to furnish upon request supplemental information in support of applications, etc.
from this day forward until successful completion of the permitting process or revocation by
Mecklenburg County Storm Water Services.
Authorized this the lb day of pr,�Ccta ZG 11
La.-.- —\oµN8cx1
Mecklenburg County
Storm Water Services
Authorized Representative
(Print Name)
Cc: Karen Higgins
NC Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
M lent
torm Water Services
Authorized Representative
(Signature)

Z '
Stanley
0 Oq
Rd
IE P'tlo"'Ood
Mt Holly.
Hal n
Onno harlofte
MI
Hill
01
ar
,4"
51,3toll Rd W agips Rd
\z
Carolina
Pav it lio n
0 5 10
�,Roat IImmmmm=::= M i les
41
atv
/{ \ Jl �a Je
MR Park
51
Pineville­MaIthevv!-.;?d
piney ep%O
_6 C aro li
Pace
Mal
Catolin
Place
F;Lgent Park
Goff Club
VA
I> tEcAlpa
dill Rd 0 � \ �Goff C lub at
-0 B i1brityne
Bq.1 tvc I*Ballanne
a Country
21 ->00 ty
Club
r
V4
Springfield
o
ti Goff Cour� 7
RdIN
(L C I . p
A rd re
Kell Hog
-zr Kell Rd
deS
E [on
Park
E le rne n tary
Legend
o 2
Project Boundary Miles
Figure 1: Vicinity
Charlotte -Mecklenburg
Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway and
WATER Kimley))Horn Stream Rehabilitation - Polk to Stateline
Services Pineville, Mecklenburg County, SC
June 2020

NI
� - it - `�i � � � j •� i //``�,,� '� /f��„to
iT
,moo PinevlYer:,.
o
James X. PoBirthplace
1R ` ;r
\J�
� �\ 11;/� \.� j-/�o�•r�, _�`� , _-- ice^ .'•� �
Sewage
Disposal
Jo
_ � r_ � �.,/ice--- � � •
J�46r9
SK
VnIple
Legend
0 2,000 4,000
Project Boundary
Figure 2: USGS Topo (Fort Mill)
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway and
WAIER Kimley >> Horn Stream Rehabilitation - Polk to Stateline
Services Pineville, Mecklenburg County, SC
June 2020

Figure 4a: Preliminary JD Field Sketch
Charlotte-MecMenhurgITORM Little Sugar Creek Greenway and
-- WAER Kimley>>> Horn Stream Rehabilitation - Polk to State Line
Services Pineville, Mecklenburg County, NC
June 2020

Charlotte -Mecklenburg
STORM
WATER
Services
Kimley>>> Horn
Figure 4b: Preliminary JD Field Sketch
Little Sugar Creek Greenway and
Stream Rehabilitation - Polk to State Line
Pineville, Mecklenburg County, NC
June 2020

Legend
„'
r
�r
Project Area
Streams (Potential Non -Wetland WoUS)
8.
♦ NCSAM Assessment
u�, p
Stream 2 - Permanent Impact 6
Greenway Elements
165 If - Stream Relocation/Restoration
Greenway Edge of Pavement
,r
NWP 27
fo Bridge/Boardwalk
Proposed Rip -rap
Stream Rehabilitation Elements
�( NCSAM Reach 5
LSC - Permanent Impact 10
12 If - Riprap Outfall Protection
NWP 14
NCSAM Reach 1
4'
E
NCSAM Reach 2
LSC - Permanent Impact 11
30 If - Riprap Outfall Protection
NWP 14
LSC - Permanent Impact 9 '
12 If- Riprap Outfall Protection --�
` LSC -Permanent Impact 12
NWP 14 25If- Riprap Outfall Protection
p p
NWP 14
LSC - Permanent Impact 8�-��
12 1f - Riprap Outfall Protection Stream impact Type of imImpact length
NWP 14 pact Stream name
number linear feet
T F NWP 13- Bank Stabilization
`. LSC—Impact 1 (Gradingand Native Plantings) LSC 6,210
r®a gx S r NWP 13-Bank Stabilization
LSC— Impact 2 LSC 1,205
- (Retaining Walls and Grading)
LSC— Impact 3 NWP 27- Constructed Riffles LSC 330
NWP 27 - Stream
LSC — Impact 4 Improvements (in -Stream and LSC 955
Banks)
Stream 1 - Permanent Impact 5 01
46 If - Installation of Ford.
NWP 14
SNPII � E`
a►
0 450 900
'—M Feet
Figure 5a: Proposed Conditions
Charlotte-MecMenhurgITORM Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway and
-- vA ER Kimley>>> Horn Stream Rehabilitation - Polk to State Line
Services Pineville, Mecklenburg County, SC
June 2020

Figure 5b: Proposed Conditions
Charlotte-MecMenhurgITORM Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway and
-- WAER Kimley>>> Horn Stream Rehabilitation - Polk to State Line
Services Pineville, Mecklenburg County, SC
June 2020

rnoto rage i
Photo 1 - Stream 2 (S2) — Intermittent looking upstream
Photo 2 - Stream 2 (S2) — Intermittent looking downstream
Title Photo Pages
Prepared For Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway and Stream Rehabilitation Prepared By
Project Pineville, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
STORM
WATER Date Project Number Kimley>>Horn
Serviesr�^
12/29/17 015236030

rnoto rage L
Title
Prepared For
STORM
WATER -
Photo 3 — Stream 3 (S3) — Perennial looking downstream
.. ba
ts�'! J�F �?v rL�tie.
iA
Photo 4 — Stream 3 (S3) — Perennial looking upstream.
Photo Pages
Project Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway and Stream Rehabilitation
Pineville, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Date Date Project Number
12/29/17 1 015236030
Prepared By
Kimley�>>Horn

rnoto rage s
Title
Prepared For
STORM
WATER
Servi�es�--�l-
t,".. _ �, it ' .�■,*� �� �
Photo 5 - Stream 4 (S4) —Intermittent looking downstream
srsr .
Photo 6 - Stream 4 (S4) —Intermittent looking upstream
Photo Pages
Project Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway and Stream Rehabilitation
Pineville, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Date I Project Number
12/29/17 1 015236030
v'p
Prepared By
Kimley�>>Horn

rnoto rage 4
A
z,
S
f f.\
Photo 7 - Stream 5 (S5) — Perennial looking upstream
L�+vO[l: Sb "��,�r� �� � •4
y b
: Y
f
Sw"r
f
f
Photo 8 - Stream 5 (S5) — Perennial looking downstream
Title Photo Pages
Prepared For Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway and Stream Rehabilitation Prepared By
Project Pineville, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
STORM Kimley>>>Horn
WATER Date Project Number
Services F�-1�
12/29/17 015236030

rnoto rage z)
I'm
Photo 9 - Stream 6 (S6) —Intermittent looking upstream
a
"ki4.1
Photo 10 - Stream 6 (S6) —Intermittent looking downstream
Title Photo Pages
Prepared For Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway and Stream Rehabilitation Prepared By
Project Pineville, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
STORM Kimley>>>Horn
WATER Date Project Number
Services F�-1�
12/29/17 015236030

rnoto rage i
= I.
� _ `� � 't 't j6•e
Photo 13 - Stream 8 (S8) — Intermittent looking upstream
6 .l
A.
-ram • - A
1
Photo 14 - Stream 8 (S8) — Intermittent looking downstream
Title Photo Pages
Prepared For Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway and Stream Rehabilitation Prepared By
Project Pineville, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
STORM
WATER Date Project Number Kimley>>Horn
Serviesr�^
12/29/17 015236030

rnoto rage s
Photo 15 - Stream 1 — Little Sugar Creek (S1) — Perennial looking downstream
Y g %
Photo 16 - Stream 1 —Little Sugar Creek (S 1) —Perennial looking downstream
Title Photo Pages
Prepared For Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway and Stream Rehabilitation Prepared By
Project Pineville, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
STORM
WATER Date Project Number Kimley>>Horn
Serviesr�^
12/29/17 015236030

rnoto rage y
Photo 17 - Stream 1 — Little Sugar Creek (S1) — Perennial looking downstream
Photo 18 - Stream 1 —Little Sugar Creek (S 1) —Perennial looking downstream
Title Photo Pages
Prepared For Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway and Stream Rehabilitation Prepared By
Project Pineville, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
STORM
WATER Date Project Number Kimley>>Horn
Serviesr�^
12/29/17 015236030

rnoto rate iu
Photo 19 - Stream 1 — Little Sugar Creek (S1) — Perennial looking upstream
w,t
.4 �T
t
F
KI71l i
Photo 20 - Stream 1 —Little Sugar Creek (S 1) —Perennial looking downstream
Title Photo Pages
Prepared For Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway and Stream Rehabilitation Prepared By
Project Pineville, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
STORM
WATER Date Project Number Kimley>>Horn
Serviesr�^
12/29/17 015236030

urisdictional Determination Reauest
U5 Army Corps
of Engineers.
Wilmington District
This form is intended for use by anyone requesting a jurisdictional determination (JD) from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps). Please include all supporting
information, as described within each category, with your request. You may submit your request
via mail, electronic mail, or facsimile. Requests should be sent to the appropriate project
manager of the county in which the property is located. A current list of project managers by
assigned counties can be found on-line at:
http://www. saw.usace. army.mil/Missions/RegulatoryPertnitProgram/Contact/CountyLocator. aspx,
by calling 910-251-4633, or by contacting any of the field offices listed below. Once your
request is received you will be contacted by a Corps project manager.
ASHEVILLE & CHARLOTTE REGULATORY
FIELD OFFICES
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
INSTRUCTIONS:
WASHINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
2407 West Fifth Street
Washington, North Carolina 27889
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
WILMINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
General Number: 910-251-4633
Fax Number: [phone]
All requestors must complete Parts A, B, C, D, E, F and G.
NOTE TO CONSULTANTS AND AGENCIES: If you are requesting a JD on behalf of a
paying client or your agency, please note the specific submittal requirements in Part H.
NOTE ON PART D — PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION: Please be aware that
all JD requests must include the current property owner authorization for the Corps to
proceed with the determination, which may include inspection of the property when
necessary. This form must be signed by the current property owner(s) or the owner(s)
authorized agent to be considered a complete request.
NOTE ON PART D - NCDOT REQUESTS: Property owner authorization/notification for
JD requests associated with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
projects will be conducted according to the current NCDOT/USACE protocols.
NOTE TO USDA PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS: A Corps approved or preliminary JD
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 also request a certified wetland determination from the local
office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
Version: May 2017 Page 1

Jurisdictional Determination Request
A. PARCEL INFORMATION
Street Address: Polk Historic Site to NC/SC Stateline
City, State:
Pineville, NC
County: Mecklenburg
Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN): N/A
B. REQUESTOR INFORMATION
Name: Chris Tinklenberg, PWS
Mailing Address: 200 South Tryon Street, Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone Number: 704-409-1802
Electronic Mail Address: [e-mail]
Select one:
❑ I am the current property owner.
❑ I am an Authorized Agent or Environmental Consultant'
❑ Interested Buyer or Under Contract to Purchase
❑ Other, please explain.
C. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION'
Name: Mecklenburg County (POC:Bert Lynn)
Mailing Address: 3205 Freedom Drive, Suite 101
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone Number: [phone]
Electronic Mail Address: [e-mail]
' Must provide completed Agent Authorization Form/Letter.
2 Documentation of ownership also needs to be provided with request (copy of Deed, County GIS/Parcel/Tax Record).
Version: May 2017 Page 2

Jurisdictional Determination Request
D. PROPERTY ACCESS CERTIFICATIONS,4
By signing below, I authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) to enter upon the property herein described for the purpose of conducting on -
site investigations, if necessary, and issuing a jurisdictional determination pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. I, the
undersigned, am either a duly authorized owner of record of the property identified herein, or
acting as the duly authorized agent of the owner of record of the property.
Chris Tinklenberg
Print Name
Capacity: ❑ Owner Z Authorized Agents
6/24/2020
Date
Signature
E. REASON FOR JD REQUEST: (Check as many as applicable)
❑ I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which would be
designed to avoid all aquatic resources.
❑ I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which would be
designed to avoid all jurisdictional aquatic resources under Corps authority.
I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which may
require authorization from the Corps, and the JD would be used to avoid and minimize
impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources and as an initial step in a future permitting
process.
❑✓ I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which may
require authorization from the Corps; this request is accompanied by my permit application
and the JD is to be used in the permitting process.
❑ I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities in a navigable water of the
U.S. which is included on the district Section 10 list and/or is subject to the ebb and flow of
the tide.
❑ A Corps JD is required in order obtain my local/state authorization.
❑ I intend to contest jurisdiction over a particular aquatic resource and request the Corps
confirm that jurisdiction does/does not exist over the aquatic resource on the parcel.
❑ I believe that the site may be comprised entirely of dry land.
❑ Other:
3 For NCDOT requests following the current NCDOT/USACE protocols, skip to Part E.
a If there are multiple parcels owned by different parties, please provide the following for each additional parcel on a
continuation sheet.
s Must provide agent authorization form/letter signed by owner(s).
Version: May 2017 Page 3

Jurisdictional Determination Request
F. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD) TYPE (Select One)
❑✓ I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminary JD for the property identified herein.
A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) provides an indication that there may
be "waters of the United States" or "navigable waters of the United States"on a property.
PJDs are sufficient as the basis for permit decisions. For the purposes of permitting, all
waters and wetlands on the property will be treated as if they are jurisdictional "waters of
the United States". PJDs cannot be appealed (33 C.F.R. 331.2); however, a PJD is
"preliminary" in the sense that an approved JD can be requested at any time. PJDs do
not expire.
❑ I am requesting that the Corps provide an approved JD for the property identified herein.
An Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) is a determination that
jurisdictional "waters of the United States" or "navigable waters of the United
States" are either present or absent on a site. An approved JD identifies the limits of
waters on a site determined to be jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act and/or
Rivers and Harbors Act. Approved JDs are sufficient as the basis for permit
decisions. AJDs are appealable (33 C.F.R. 331.2). The results of the AJD will be
posted on the Corps website. A landowner, permit applicant, or other "affected
party" (33 C.F.R. 331.2) who receives an AJD may rely upon the AJD for five years
(subject to certain limited exceptions explained in Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-
02).
❑ I am unclear as to which JD I would like to request and require additional information
to inform my decision.
G. ALL REQUESTS
Map of Property or Project Area. This Map must clearly depict the boundaries of the
review area.
✓❑ Size of Property or Review Area 102 acres.
❑ The property boundary (or review area boundary) is clearly physically marked on the site.
Version: May 2017 Page 4

Jurisdictional Determination Request
H. REQUESTS FROM CONSULTANTS
Project Coordinates (Decimal Degrees): Latitude:
35.072776
Longitude:-80.893387
❑✓ A legible delineation map depicting the aquatic resources and the property/review area.
Delineation maps must be no larger than 11x17 and should contain the following: (Corps
signature of submitted survey plats will occur after the submitted delineation map has been
reviewed and approved).6
■ North Arrow
■ Graphical Scale
■ Boundary of Review Area
■ Date
■ Location of data points for each Wetland Determination Data Form or tributary
assessment reach.
For Approved Jurisdictional Determinations:
Jurisdictional wetland features should be labeled as Wetland Waters of the US, 404
wetlands, etc. Please include the acreage of these features.
Jurisdictional non -wetland features (i.e. tidal/navigable waters, tributaries,
impoundments) should be labeled as Non -Wetland Waters of the US, stream, tributary,
open water, relatively permanent water, pond, etc. Please include the acreage or linear
length of each of these features as appropriate.
Isolated waters, waters that lack a significant nexus to navigable waters, or non -
jurisdictional upland features should be identified as Non -Jurisdictional. Please
include a justification in the label regarding why the feature is non jurisdictional (i.e.
"Isolated", "No Significant Nexus", or "Upland Feature"). Please include the acreage
or linear length of these features as appropriate.
For Preliminary Jurisdictional Determinations:
Wetland and non -wetland features should not be identified as Jurisdictional, 404,
Waters of the United States, or anything that implies jurisdiction. These features can be
identified as Potential Waters of the United States, Potential Non -wetland Waters of
the United States, wetland, stream, open water, etc. Please include the acreage and
linear length of these features as appropriate.
F] Completed Wetland Determination Data Forms for appropriate region
(at least one wetland and one upland form needs to be completed for each wetland type)
6 Please refer to the guidance document titled "Survey Standards for Jurisdictional Determinations" to ensure that the
supplied map meets the necessary mapping standards. http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Repulatory-Permit-
Pro uam/Jurisdiction/
Version: May 2017 Page 5

Jurisdictional Determination Request
Completed appropriate Jurisdictional Determination form
• PJDs, please complete a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form' and include the
Aquatic Resource Table
• AJDs, please complete an Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form
14 Vicinity Map
L� Aerial Photograph
USGS Topographic Map
Soil Survey Map
Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site
Plan, previous delineation maps, LIDAR maps, FEMA floodplain maps)
Landscape Photos (if taken)
© NCSAM and/or NCWAM Assessment Forms and Rating Sheets
7 NC Division of Water Resources Stream Identification Forms
Other Assessment Forms
' www.saw.usace.annv.mil/Portals/59/docs/regulatory/readocs/JD/RGL 08-02 App A Prelim JD Form fillable.odf
8 Please see hM2://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-Prouam/Jurisdiction/
Principal Purpose: The information that you provide will be used in evaluating your request to determine
whether there are any aquatic resources within the project area subject to federal jurisdiction under the regulatory
authorities referenced above.
Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and local
government agencies, and the public, and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by federal
law. Your name and property location where federal jurisdiction is to be determined will be included in the
approved jurisdictional determination (AJD), which will be made available to the public on the District's website
and on the Headquarters USAGE website.
Disclosure: Submission of requested information is voluntary; however, if information is not provided, the
request for an AJD cannot be evaluated nor can an AJD be issued.
Version: May 2017 Page 6

Appendix 2 - PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: December 29, 2017
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: Bert Lynn, 3205 Freedom Dr. Charlotte, NC 28202
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR
AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC county/parish/borough: Mecklenburg city: Pineville
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat.: 35.072776 Long.:-80.893387
Universal Transverse Mercator: 17
Name of nearest waterbody: Little Sugar Creek
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
❑ Field Determination. Date(s):
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION.
Site
number
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
Estimated amount
of aquatic resource
in review area
(acreage and linear
feet, if applicable)
Type of aquatic
resource (i.e., wetland
vs. non -wetland
waters)
Geographic authority
to which the aquatic
resource "may be"
subject (i.e., Section
404 or Section 10/404)
See
attached
table

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 AJD 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 should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources
below where indicated for all checked items:
■❑ Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map:
0 Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
❑ 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 name:
1:24,000/ Fort Mill
FEW Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Mecklenburg County SSURGO Soils
■❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: NWI Digital Data
❑ State/local wetland inventory map(s):
■❑ FEMA/FIRM maps: FIRM Panel 4439, FIRM Panel 4438
❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: .(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
■❑ Photographs: ■❑ Aerial (Name & Date): 2017 Meck. Co. Aerial
or ■❑ Other (Name & Date): Site photos (see cover letter for dates)
❑ 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 jurisdictional
determinations.
Signature and date of
Regulatory staff member
completing PJD
Signature and date of
person requesting PJD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)'
' Districts may establish timeframes for requestor to return signed PJD forms. If the requestor does not respond
within the established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is
necessary prior to finalizing an action.

Latitude
Longitude
Estimated amount
Geographic authority to which
Type of aquatic
Site Number
(decimal
(decimal
of aquatic resource
the aquatic resource "maybe"
degrees)
degrees)
in review area
resource
subject
S1- Little Sugar
35.072776
-80.893387
18,000 If
Non -wetland
Section 404
Creek (LSC)-
waters
Perennial
S2 - Intermittent
35.079271
-80.884718
110 If
Non -wetland
Section 404
waters
S3 - Intermittent
35.076633
-80.889079
140 If
Non -wetland
Section 404
waters
S4 - Perennial
35.073742
-80.893635
86 If
Non -wetland
Section 404
waters
S5 - Perennial
35.069365
-80.887980
90 If
Non -wetland
Section 404
waters
S6 - Intermittent
35.068836
-80.887438
120 If
Non -wetland
Section 404
waters
S7 — Perennial
35.068953
-80.891896
202 If
Non -wetland
Section 404
waters
S8 — Intermittent
35.069665
-80.897571
331 If
Non -wetland
Section 404
waters

Accompanies User Manual Version 2
L,aicuiaror version c
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/ SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Lower LSC Greenway and Stream Rehab 2. Date of evaluation: March 1, 2018
3. Applicant/owner name: Mecklenburg County 4. Assessor name/organization: C. Tinklenberg/Kimley-Horn
5. County: Mecklenburg 6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: Catawba on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Little Sugar Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.007806,-80.887378
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): Reach 1 - Right Bank 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): -300'
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 20' r Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 90, 13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? r.Yes r.'No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow r,Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: r,Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ` f
valley shape (skip for r-,a ��� b
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 miZ) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 miZ) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 miZ) Size 4 (>> 5 miZ)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes r,No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
r Section 10 water F Classified Trout Waters F Water Supply Watershed ( I rill ��III HIV "V)
r Essential Fish Habitat r Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
r Publicly owned property F NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect r Nutrient Sensitive Waters
r Anadromous fish rv- 303(d) List F CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
r Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
r_ Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? .,Yes ,No
1. Channel Water - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
FjA Water throughout assessment reach.
E'jB No flow, water in pools only.
K-,C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
PA At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
B Not
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
rA A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
K',B Not A.
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
EA < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
•�C > 25% of channel unstable
6. Streamside Area Interaction - streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
r'A r.'A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction

B r,B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
FjC FjC Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
F A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
r B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
F C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
F D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
r E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
F F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
F G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
r H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
I Other: Trash/Debris Input (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
F J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
MC No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
Yes F," No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. FYes [—,No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
F_ A
Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
N F F
5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
m F G
Submerged aquatic vegetation
F B
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
d
w r H
Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation
Y t o r I
Sand bottom
r C
Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
CU r J
5% vertical bank along the marsh
D
5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
O 2 r K
Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
F E
Little or no habitat
REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11 a. Yes F," No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
F, A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11 c)
F B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
r C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffles sections, check all that occur belowthe normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged.
Check
at least one
box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) _
absent,
Rare (R) = present
but <— 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative
percentages
should
not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP
R C
A P
M
r, K,
K, K, Bedrock/saprolite
n
r� K� Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
M K,
r, K, Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
M
r, E,
r, E, Detritus
r,
r, r, Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. r,Yes
r,No
Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12. Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. '-,Yes ' 'No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. [—,No Water Other:

12b. Yes E "No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for size 3 and 4 streams.
F r Adult frogs
F F Aquatic reptiles
F F Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
F r Beetles (including water pennies)
F F Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
r r Asian clam (Corbicula )
F F Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
F F Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
F F Dipterans (true flies)
F, F Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
F F Megaloptera (alderfly, fishily, dobsonfly larvae)
r F Midges/mosquito larvae
F r Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
r r Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )
F F Other fish
F. F Salamanders/tadpoles
F11 F Snails
F r Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
F F Tipulid larvae
r r Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
E',A rA Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
K'jB K'jB Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
Fj'C FjC Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A K—,A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >_ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
r'Y r.'Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
r--,N r--,N
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
F A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
r B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
F C Obstruction that passes some flow during low -flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom -release dam)
r D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
F E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
r F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
F A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
r B Obstruction not passing flow during lowflow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
F, C Urban stream (>> 24% impervious surface for watershed)
r D Evidence that the stream -side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
F E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
r F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
MA Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
MB Degraded (example: scattered trees)
K7�C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded

LB
RB
LB RB
E—,A
rA
E—,A rA >_ 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
E0,B
1,B
MB 1,B From 50 to < 100-feet wide
r'jC
K'jC
rjC K'jC From 30 to < 50-feet wide
K—,D
F,'D
K—,D F,'D From 10 to < 30-feet wide
K—,E
K—,E
K—,E K—,E < 10-feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure
— streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider
for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB
RB
E—,A
E—,A
Mature forest
F]B
F,B
Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
E—,C
E—,C
Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
E—,D
E—,D
Maintained shrubs
E—,E
E—,E
Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: F
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
r',A r,A r,A r,A r,A r,A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
E ,A rA Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10-feet wide.
LB RB
F,A FA The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
�.�C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. CYes ENO Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. [—,No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
CA <46 r;B 46 to < 67 r;C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 ISE >> 230
Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 1
Rating Calculator Version 1
Stream Site Name Lower LSC Greenway and Stream Rehab
Stream Category Pa4
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Function Class Rating Summary
Date of Evaluation March 1, 2018
Assessor Name/Organization. Tin klen berg/Kimley- Horr
NO
NO
YES
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW
(4) Floodplain Access LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer LOW
(4) Microtopography LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(4) Channel Stability LOW
(4) Sediment Transport LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation MEDIUM
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat LOW
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat LOW
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat NA
Overall LOW

Accompanies User Manual Version 2
L,aicuiaror version c
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/ SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Lower LSC Greenway and Stream Rehab 2. Date of evaluation: March 1, 2018
3. Applicant/owner name: Mecklenburg County 4. Assessor name/organization: C. Tinklenberg/Kimley-Horn
5. County: Mecklenburg 6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: Catawba on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Little Sugar Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.007806,-80.887378
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): Reach 2 - Left Bank 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): -160'
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 20' r Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 90, 13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? r.Yes r.'No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow r,Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: r,Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ` f
valley shape (skip for r-,a ��� b
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 miZ) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 miZ) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 miZ) Size 4 (>> 5 miZ)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes r,No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
r Section 10 water F Classified Trout Waters F Water Supply Watershed ( I rill ��III HIV "V)
r Essential Fish Habitat r Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
r Publicly owned property F NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect r Nutrient Sensitive Waters
r Anadromous fish rv- 303(d) List F CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
r Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
r_ Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? .,Yes ,No
1. Channel Water - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
FjA Water throughout assessment reach.
E'jB No flow, water in pools only.
K-,C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
PA At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
B Not
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
rA A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
K',B Not A.
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
EA < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
•�C > 25% of channel unstable
6. Streamside Area Interaction - streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
r'A r.'A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction

B r,B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
FjC FjC Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
F A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
r B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
F C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
F D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
r E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
F F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
F G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
r H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
I Other: Trash/Debris Input (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
F J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
MC No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
Yes F," No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. FYes [—,No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
F_ A
Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
N F F
5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
m F G
Submerged aquatic vegetation
F B
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
d
w r H
Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation
Y t o r I
Sand bottom
r C
Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
CU r J
5% vertical bank along the marsh
D
5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
O 2 r K
Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
F E
Little or no habitat
REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11 a. Yes F," No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
F, A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11 c)
F B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
r C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffles sections, check all that occur belowthe normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged.
Check
at least one
box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) _
absent,
Rare (R) = present
but <— 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative
percentages
should
not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP
R C
A P
M
r, K,
K, K, Bedrock/saprolite
n
r� K� Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
M K,
r, K, Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
M
r, E,
r, E, Detritus
r,
r, r, Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. r,Yes
r,No
Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12. Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. '-,Yes ' 'No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. [—,No Water Other:

12b. Yes E "No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for size 3 and 4 streams.
F r Adult frogs
F F Aquatic reptiles
F F Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
F r Beetles (including water pennies)
F F Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
r r Asian clam (Corbicula )
F F Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
F F Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
F F Dipterans (true flies)
F, F Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
F F Megaloptera (alderfly, fishily, dobsonfly larvae)
r F Midges/mosquito larvae
F r Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
r r Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )
F F Other fish
F. F Salamanders/tadpoles
F11 F Snails
F r Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
F F Tipulid larvae
r r Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
E',A rA Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
K'jB K'jB Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
Fj'C FjC Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A K—,A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >_ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
r'Y r.'Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
r--,N r--,N
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
F A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
r B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
F C Obstruction that passes some flow during low -flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom -release dam)
r D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
F E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
r F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
F A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
r B Obstruction not passing flow during lowflow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
F, C Urban stream (>> 24% impervious surface for watershed)
r D Evidence that the stream -side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
F E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
r F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
MA Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
MB Degraded (example: scattered trees)
K7�C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded

LB
RB
LB RB
E—,A
rA
E—,A rA >_ 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
E',B
MB
E,B MB From 50 to < 100-feet wide
r'jC
K'jC
rjC K'jC From 30 to < 50-feet wide
F,'D
K—,D
F,'D K—,D From 10 to < 30-feet wide
K—,E
K—,E
K—,E K—,E < 10-feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure
— streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider
for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB
RB
A
A
Mature forest
B
B
Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C
C
Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D
D
Maintained shrubs
E
E
Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: F
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
r',A r,A r,A r,A r,A r,A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
,A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10-feet wide.
LB RB
F,A FA The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
�.�C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. CYes ENO Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. [—,No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
CA <46 r;B 46 to < 67 r;C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 ISE >> 230
Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 1
Rating Calculator Version 1
Stream Site Name Lower LSC Greenway and Stream Rehab
Stream Category Pa4
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Function Class Rating Summary
Date of Evaluation March 1, 2018
Assessor Name/Organization. Tin klen berg/Kimley- Horr
NO
NO
YES
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW
(4) Floodplain Access LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(4) Channel Stability LOW
(4) Sediment Transport LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation MEDIUM
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat LOW
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat LOW
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat NA
Overall LOW

Accompanies User Manual Version 2
L,aicuiaror version c
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/ SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Lower LSC Greenway and Stream Rehab 2. Date of evaluation: March 1, 2018
3. Applicant/owner name: Mecklenburg County 4. Assessor name/organization: C. Tinklenberg/Kimley-Horn
5. County: Mecklenburg 6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: Catawba on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Little Sugar Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.007806,-80.887378
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): Reach 3 - Right Bank 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): -400'
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 20' r Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 90, 13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? r.Yes r.'No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow r,Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: r,Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ` f
valley shape (skip for r-,a ��� b
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 miZ) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 miZ) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 miZ) Size 4 (>> 5 miZ)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes r,No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
r Section 10 water r Classified Trout Waters r Water Supply Watershed ( "I rill ��III HIV "V)
F Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area r High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
r Publicly owned property r NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect r Nutrient Sensitive Waters
r Anadromous fish r 303(d) List r CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
r Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
r- Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? .,Yes ,No
1. Channel Water - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
FjA Water throughout assessment reach.
E'jB No flow, water in pools only.
K-,C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
PA At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
B Not
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
rA A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
K',B Not A.
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
EA < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
•�C > 25% of channel unstable
6. Streamside Area Interaction - streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
r'A r.'A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction

B r,B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
FjC FjC Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
F A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
Fl B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
F C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
F D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
17-71 E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
F F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
F G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
F H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
F, I Other: Trash/Debris Input (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
r— J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
MC No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
Yes F," No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. FYes [—,No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
j— A
Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
E r F
5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
m r G
Submerged aquatic vegetation
F B
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
d
w r H
Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation
Y t o r I
Sand bottom
F C
Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
CU r J
5% vertical bank along the marsh
D
5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
O 2 r K
Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
F E
Little or no habitat
REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11 a. Yes F," No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
r A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
F B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
r C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffles sections, check all that occur belowthe normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged.
Check
at least one
box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) _
absent,
Rare (R) = present
but <— 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative
percentages
should
not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP
R C
A P
M
r, K,
K, K, Bedrock/saprolite
n
r� K� Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
M K,
r, K, Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
M
r, E,
r, E, Detritus
r,
r, r, Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. r,Yes
r,No
Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12. Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. '-,Yes ' 'No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. [—,No Water Other:

12b. Yes E "No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for size 3 and 4 streams.
r r Adult frogs
F F Aquatic reptiles
r r Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
F F Beetles (including water pennies)
F-1 r Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
r F- Asian clam (Corbicula )
F F Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
f r Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
F F Dipterans (true flies)
F7 r Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
r r Megaloptera (alderfly, fishily, dobsonfly larvae)
F, F Midges/mosquito larvae
r r Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
r r Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )
F r Other fish
F* r Salamanders/tadpoles
[, F Snails
r r Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
r r Tipulid larvae
r r Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
E',A rA Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
K'jB K'jB Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
Fj'C FjC Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage - streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A K-,A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >_ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
r'Y r.'Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
r--,N r--,N
16. Baseflow Contributors - assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
r A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction that passes some flow during low -flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom -release dam)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
r E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
r F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors - assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
F A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
r B Obstruction not passing flow during lowflow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
r C Urban stream (>> 24% impervious surface for watershed)
F, D Evidence that the stream -side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
r E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
r F None of the above
18. Shading - assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
MA Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
MB Degraded (example: scattered trees)
K7�C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded

LB
RB
LB RB
MA
MA
MA MA >_ 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
E',B
r,B
E,B r,B From 50 to < 100-feet wide
K'jC
K'jC
K'jC K'jC From 30 to < 50-feet wide
K—,D
K—,D
K—,D K—,D From 10 to < 30-feet wide
K—,E
K—,E
K—,E K—,E < 10-feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure
— streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider
for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB
RB
A
A
Mature forest
B
B
Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C
C
Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D
D
Maintained shrubs
E
E
Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: F
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
r',A r,A r,A r,A r,A r,A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
�C•�A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10-feet wide.
LB RB
F,A FA The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
�.�C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. CYes ENO Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. [—,No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
CA <46 r;B 46 to < 67 r;C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 ISE >> 230
Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 1
Rating Calculator Version 1
Stream Site Name Lower LSC Greenway and Stream Rehab
Stream Category Pa4
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Function Class Rating Summary
Date of Evaluation March 1, 2018
Assessor Name/Organization. Tin klen berg/Kimley- Horr
NO
NO
YES
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW
(4) Floodplain Access LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer HIGH
(4) Microtopography LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(4) Channel Stability LOW
(4) Sediment Transport LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat LOW
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Stream -side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat NA
Overall LOW

Accompanies User Manual Version 2
L,aicuiaror version c
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/ SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Lower LSC Greenway and Stream Rehab 2. Date of evaluation: March 1, 2018
3. Applicant/owner name: Mecklenburg County 4. Assessor name/organization: C. Tinklenberg/Kimley-Horn
5. County: Mecklenburg 6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: Catawba on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Little Sugar Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.007806,-80.887378
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): Reach 4 - Right Bank 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): -340'
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 20' r Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 90, 13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? r.Yes r.'No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow r,Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: r,Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ` f
valley shape (skip for r-,a ��� b
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 miZ) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 miZ) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 miZ) Size 4 (>> 5 miZ)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes r,No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
r Section 10 water r Classified Trout Waters r Water Supply Watershed ( "I rill ��III HIV "V)
F Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area r High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
r Publicly owned property r NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect r Nutrient Sensitive Waters
r Anadromous fish r 303(d) List r CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
r Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
r- Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? .,Yes ,No
1. Channel Water - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
FjA Water throughout assessment reach.
E'jB No flow, water in pools only.
K-,C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
PA At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
B Not
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
rA A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
K',B Not A.
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
EA < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
•�C > 25% of channel unstable
6. Streamside Area Interaction - streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
r'A r.'A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction

B r,B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
FjC FjC Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
F A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
Fl B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
F C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
F D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
17-71 E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
F F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
F G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
F H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
F, I Other: Trash/Debris Input (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
r— J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
MC No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
Yes F," No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. FYes [—,No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
j— A
Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
E r F
5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
m r G
Submerged aquatic vegetation
F B
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
d
w r H
Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation
Y t o r I
Sand bottom
F C
Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
CU r J
5% vertical bank along the marsh
D
5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
O 2 r K
Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
F E
Little or no habitat
REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11 a. Yes F," No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
r A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
F B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
r C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffles sections, check all that occur belowthe normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged.
Check
at least one
box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) _
absent,
Rare (R) = present
but <— 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative
percentages
should
not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP
R C
A P
M
r, K,
K, K, Bedrock/saprolite
n
r� K� Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
M K,
r, K, Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
M
r, E,
r, E, Detritus
r,
r, r, Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. r,Yes
r,No
Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12. Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. '-,Yes ' 'No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. [—,No Water Other:

12b. Yes E "No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for size 3 and 4 streams.
r r Adult frogs
F F Aquatic reptiles
r r Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
F F Beetles (including water pennies)
F-1 r Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
r F- Asian clam (Corbicula )
F F Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
f r Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
F F Dipterans (true flies)
F7 r Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
r r Megaloptera (alderfly, fishily, dobsonfly larvae)
F, F Midges/mosquito larvae
r r Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
r r Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )
F r Other fish
F* r Salamanders/tadpoles
[, F Snails
r r Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
r r Tipulid larvae
r r Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
E',A rA Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
K'jB K'jB Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
Fj'C FjC Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage - streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A K-,A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >_ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
r'Y r.'Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
r--,N r--,N
16. Baseflow Contributors - assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
r A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction that passes some flow during low -flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom -release dam)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
r E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
r F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors - assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
F A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
r B Obstruction not passing flow during lowflow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
r C Urban stream (>> 24% impervious surface for watershed)
F, D Evidence that the stream -side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
r E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
r F None of the above
18. Shading - assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
MA Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
MB Degraded (example: scattered trees)
K7�C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded

LB
RB
LB RB
MA
MA
MA MA >_ 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
E',B
r,B
E,B r,B From 50 to < 100-feet wide
K'jC
K'jC
K'jC K'jC From 30 to < 50-feet wide
K—,D
K—,D
K—,D K—,D From 10 to < 30-feet wide
K—,E
K—,E
K—,E K—,E < 10-feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure
— streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider
for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB
RB
A
A
Mature forest
B
B
Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C
C
Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D
D
Maintained shrubs
E
E
Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: F
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
r',A r,A r,A r,A r,A r,A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
�C•�A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10-feet wide.
LB RB
F,A FA The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
�.�C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. CYes ENO Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. [—,No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
CA <46 r;B 46 to < 67 r;C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 ISE >> 230
Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 1
Rating Calculator Version 1
Stream Site Name Lower LSC Greenway and Stream Rehab
Stream Category Pa4
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Function Class Rating Summary
Date of Evaluation March 1, 2018
Assessor Name/Organization. Tin klen berg/Kimley- Horr
NO
NO
YES
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW
(4) Floodplain Access LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer HIGH
(4) Microtopography LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(4) Channel Stability LOW
(4) Sediment Transport LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat LOW
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Stream -side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat NA
Overall LOW

Accompanies User Manual Version 2
L,aicuiaror version c
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/ SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Lower LSC Greenway and Stream Rehab 2. Date of evaluation: March 1, 2018
3. Applicant/owner name: Mecklenburg County 4. Assessor name/organization: C. Tinklenberg/Kimley-Horn
5. County: Mecklenburg 6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: Catawba on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Little Sugar Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.079238,-80.884850
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): Reach 5 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): -165'
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 4' r Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 6' 13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? r.Yes r.'No
14. Feature type: r,Perennial flow Intermittent flow r,Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: r,Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ` f
valley shape (skip for r,a ��� b
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 miZ) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 miZ) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 miZ) Size 4 (>> 5 miZ)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes r,No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
r Section 10 water r Classified Trout Waters r Water Supply Watershed ( "I rill ��III HIV "V)
F Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area r High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
r Publicly owned property r NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect r Nutrient Sensitive Waters
r Anadromous fish r 303(d) List r CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
r Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
r- Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? .,Yes ,No
1. Channel Water - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
E'jA Water throughout assessment reach.
E'jB No flow, water in pools only.
F,'C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
PA At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
EB Not
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
rA A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
K',B Not A.
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
EA < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
•�C > 25% of channel unstable
6. Streamside Area Interaction - streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
r'A r.'A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction

B r-,B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
['jC [jC Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
I A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
F B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
F C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
r D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
F E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
F F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
F G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
F H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
F I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
F J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
MC No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
Yes F," No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. FYes [—,No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
j— A
Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
E r F
5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
m r G
Submerged aquatic vegetation
F B
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
w r H
Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation
Y t o r I
Sand bottom
F C
Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
CU r J
5% vertical bank along the marsh
[— D
5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
O 2 r K
Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
r E
Little or no habitat
REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11 a. Yes F," No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
r A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
F B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
r C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffles sections, check all that occur belowthe normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged.
Check
at least one
box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) _
absent,
Rare (R) = present
but <— 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative
percentages
should
not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP
R C
A P
M
r, K,
K, K, Bedrock/saprolite
r, n
r� K� Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
M
r, K,
r, K, Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
M
r, E,
r, E, Detritus
r, r,
r-, r, Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. r,Yes
r,No
Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12. Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. '-,Yes ' 'No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. [—,No Water Other:

12b. r,Yes E-,'No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for size 3 and 4 streams.
r r Adult frogs
F F Aquatic reptiles
f F Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
F F Beetles (including water pennies)
r r Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
r rAsian clam (Corbicula)
F F Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
F r Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
F r Dipterans (true flies)
F r Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
r r Megaloptera (alderfly, fishily, dobsonfly larvae)
r r Midges/mosquito larvae
r r Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
F r Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )
f r Other fish
F r Salamanders/tadpoles
r F Snails
r r Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
r r Tipulid larvae
r r Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
E',A rA Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
K'jB K'jB Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
Fj'C FjC Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A K—,A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >_ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
r'Y r.'Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
r--,N r--,N
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
r A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
[ C Obstruction that passes some flow during low -flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom -release dam)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
r F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
F A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
r B Obstruction not passing flow during lowflow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
r C Urban stream (>> 24% impervious surface for watershed)
F, D Evidence that the stream -side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
r E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
r F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
MA Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
MB Degraded (example: scattered trees)
K7�C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded

LB
RB
LB RB
E—,A
MA
E—,A MA >_ 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
E',B
1,B
E,B 1,B From 50 to < 100-feet wide
Fj'C
K'jC
rjC K'jC From 30 to < 50-feet wide
K—,D
K—,D
F,'D K—,D From 10 to < 30-feet wide
K—,E
K—,E
K—,E K—,E < 10-feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure
— streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider
for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB
RB
A
A
Mature forest
B
B
Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C
C
Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D
D
Maintained shrubs
E
E
Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: F
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
r',A r,A r,A r,A r,A r,A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
,A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10-feet wide.
LB RB
K—,A FA The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
E—,B E—,B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
F,C E—,C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
�.�C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. CYes ENO Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. [—,No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
CA <46 r;B 46 to < 67 r;C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 ISE >> 230
Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 1
Rating Calculator Version 1
Stream Site Name Lower LSC Greenway and Stream Rehab
Stream Category Pb1
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Function Class Rating Summary
Date of Evaluation March 1, 2018
Assessor Name/Organization. Tin klen berg/Kimley- Horr
NO
NO
YES
Intermittent
USACE/ NCDWR
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
(2) Baseflow
(2) Flood Flow
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NA
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NA
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NO
OMITTED
NA
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NO
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
(2) In -stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In -stream Habitat
(2) Stream -side Habitat
(3) Stream -side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Overall
LOW
LOW

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Lower LSC-
Date: 8/12/2015
Project/Site: Stream 8 (S8 - Little Sugar
Latitude: 35.072776
Creek)
Evaluator: Chris Tinklenberg, PwS
County: Mecklenburg
Longitude:-80.893387
Total Points: 42.5
Stream Determination (ci
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral Intermitten Perennial
e.g. Quad Name: Fort MITI
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 21.5
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Score
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple-
pool sequence
0
1
2
3
2
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
3
5. Active/relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
2
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
0
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
0
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 11
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
1
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
1.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 0.5
1
1.5
1
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
3
C. Biology Subtotal = 10
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
1
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
0
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; Other = 0
1 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Banks are -20' tall and the channel is -30' wide

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 8/12/2015
Project/Site: Lower CSC
Stream 2 (S2)
Latitude: 35.079271
Evaluator: Chris Tinklenberg, PwS
County: Mecklenburg
Longitude:-80.884718
Total Points: 23.5
Stream Deter (circle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral ntermitte Perennial
e.g. Quad Name: Fort MITI
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 13
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Score
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
`
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
2
5. Active/relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
2
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
1
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
1
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
0
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
0
a artificial ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 5.5
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
1
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
0
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
3
C. Biology Subtotal = 5
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
2
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
0
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; Other = 0
0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 8/12/2015
Project/Site: Lower CSC
Stream 3 (S3)
Latitude: 35.076633
Evaluator: Chris Tinklenberg, PwS
County: Mecklenburg
Longitude:-80.889079
Total Points: 27
Stream Deter (circle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemera Intermitter erennial
e.g. Quad Name: Fort MIII
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 15
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Score
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
`
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
2
5. Active/relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
2
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
1
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
1
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
0.5
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
0
a artificial ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 7
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
0
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
3
C. Biology Subtotal = 5
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
2
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
0
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; Other = 0
0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 8/12/2015
Project/Site: Lower CSC
Stream 4 (S4)
Latitude: 35.073742
Evaluator: Chris Tinklenberg, PwS
County: Mecklenburg
Longitude:-80.893635
Total Points: 31
Stream Determination (cir JeaUe
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral Intermitten erennia
e.g. Quad Name: Fort MITI
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 16
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Score
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
'
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
3
5. Active/relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
1
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
1
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
2
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
0
a artificial ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 9
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
1
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
1.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
3
C. Biology Subtotal = 6
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
0
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; Other = 0
0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes
heavily eroded channel
approximately 30' vertical banks

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 8/12/2015
Project/Site: Lower CSC
Stream 5 (S5)
Latitude: 35.069365
Evaluator: Chris Tinklenberg, PwS
County: Mecklenburg
Longitude:-80.887980
Total Points: 36
Stream Determination (ci e)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral Intermitter Perennia
e.g. Quad Name: Fort MITI
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 20
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Score
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
`
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
3
5. Active/relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
2
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
0
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
0
a artificial ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 10
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
1
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
1.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
3
C. Biology Subtotal = 6
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
0
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; Other = 0
0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes
Heavily eroded perennial stream channel
no head -cut observed with study area, however, one is likely
present upstream

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 8/12/2015
Project/Site: Lower CSC
Stream 6 (S6)
Latitude: 35.068836
Evaluator: Chris Tinklenberg, PwS
County: Mecklenburg
Longitude:-80.887438
Total Points: 28.5
1
Stream Deter (circle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral ntermitten Perennial
e.g. Quad Name: Fort MIII
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 15
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Score
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
'
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
2
5. Active/relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
1
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
1
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
2
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
0
a artificial ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 7.5
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
1
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
3
C. Biology Subtotal = 6
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
0
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; Other = 0
0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes
orginates from a pipe near the adjacent development
large headcut downstream near LSC

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 8/12/2015
Project/Site: Lower CSC
Stream 7 (S7)
Latitude: 35.068953
Evaluator: Chris Tinklenberg, PwS
County: Mecklenburg
Longitude:-80.891896
Total Points: 32.5
Stream Determination (cir e)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral Intermitte Perennial
e.g. Quad Name: Fort MITI
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 17
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Score
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
`
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
2
5. Active/relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
2
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
1
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
1
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
1
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
0
a artificial ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 9.5
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
1
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
1.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
3
C. Biology Subtotal = 6
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
0
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; Other = 0
0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes
Beaver impoundments oserved upslope, beyond the study area
continuous baseflow observed below the beaver dam

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 8/12/2015
Project/Site: Lower CSC
Stream 8 (S8)
Latitude: 35.069665
Evaluator: Chris Tinklenberg, PwS
County: Mecklenburg
Longitude:-80.897571
Total Points: 29.5
Stream Deter (circle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral ntermittent erennial
e.g. Quad Name: Fort MIII
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 18
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Score
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
3
5. Active/relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
2
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
1
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
1
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
0
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
0
a artificial ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 5.5
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
1
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
0
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
1
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
3
C. Biology Subtotal = 6
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
0
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; Other = 0
0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
bedrock channel
moderate baseflow observed

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton
June 6, 2017
Adrienne Lasitter
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
200 South Tryon Street, Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 28203
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway, Pineville, Mecklenburg County, ER 17-0901
Dear Ms. Lasitter:
Thank you for your letter of May 8, 2017, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected
by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
environmental.review2ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
601(Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fas: [phone]/807-6599

Natural and
Cultural Resources
April 13, 2017
Chris Tinklenberg
Kimley-Horn
200 South Tryon St.
Charlotte, NC 28202
RE: Lower LSC
Dear Chris Tinklenberg:
ROY COOPER
SUSI H. HAMILTON
NCNHDE-3325
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide information
about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
A query of the NCNHP database indicates that there are records for rare species, important natural
communities, natural areas, or conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary. These
results are presented in the attached `Documented Occurrences' tables and map.
The attached `Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that have been
documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these records suggests that
these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area if suitable habitat exists and is
included for reference. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed area within a one -mile radius of the
project area, if any, are also included in this report.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation planning, project
review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria for regulatory decisions.
Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published without prior written notification to the
NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP
data may not be redistributed without permission.
Also please note that the NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a
Dedicated Nature Preserve (DNP), Registered Heritage Area (RHA), Clean Water Management Trust Fund
(CWMTF) easement, or an occurrence of a Federally -listed species is documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance, please
contact Rodney A. Butler at rodney.butler(d).ncdcr.gov or 919.707.8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
--�"othang Compares
State of North Carolina I Department of Natural and Cultural ReSaumn I Natural Heritage Program
121 W_JonesStreet I Raleigh, NC 276M
1551 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, NC; 276MI-1651
www_narhp,org 1919-7r77-9167

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Intersecting the Project Area
Lower LSC
April 13, 2017
NCNHDE-3325
Element Occurrences Documented Within Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID Scientific Name Common Name Last Element Accuracy Federal State Global State
Group Observation Occurrence Status Status Rank Rank
Date Rank
Vascular Plant 3575 Acmispon helleri Carolina Birdfoot-trefoil 1993-09-14 C 2-High --- Special G5T3 S3
Concern
Vulnerable
No Natural Areas are Documented within the Project Area
Managed Areas Documented Within Project Area
Managed Area Name Owner Owner Type
Mecklenburg County Open Space Mecklenburg County Local Government
Polk Memorial State Historic Site NC DNCR, Division of State Historic Sites and State
Properties
NOTE: If the proposed project intersects with a conservation/managed area, please contact the landowner directly for additional information. If the project intersects with a Dedicated Nature Preserve (DNP), Registered Natural
Heritage Area (RHA), or Federally -listed species, NCNHP staff may provide additional correspondence regarding the project.
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/help. Data query generated on April 13, 2017; source: NCNHP, Q1 January 2017. Please resubmit your
information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 4

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Lower LSC
April 13, 2017
NCNHDE-3325
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project
Taxonomic EO ID Scientific Name Common Name
Area
Last
Element
Accuracy Federal
State
Global
State
Group
Observation Occurrence
Status
Status
Rank
Rank
Date
Rank
Freshwater
13485
Lasmigona decorata
Carolina Heelsplitter
1918-Pre
X
3-Medium Endangered
Endangered
G1
S1
Bivalve
Vascular Plant
3575
Acmispon helleri
Carolina Birdfoot-trefoil
1993-09-14
C
2-High ---
Special
G5T3
S3
Concern
Vulnerable
Vascular Plant
13743
Delphinium exaltatum
Tall Larkspur
1800s
Hi?
5-Very ---
Endangered
G3
S2
Low
No Natural Areas are Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Protect Area
Managed Area Name i Owner Owner Type
NC Department of Transportation Mitigation Site NC Department of Transportation State
Mecklenburg County Open Space Mecklenburg County Local Government
Catawba Lands Conservancy Preserve Catawba Lands Conservancy Private
Polk Memorial State Historic Site NC DNCR, Division of State Historic Sites and State
Properties
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.ora/content/help. Data query generated on April 13, 2017; source: NCNHP, Q1 January 2017. Please resubmit your
information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 3 of 4

NCNHDE-3325: Lower LSC
al"n Rd
Si,i4iiW' IeRry
Park
51
K
51
Tower
The C�N-'
Place
Mall
Pin evil
Centrum
;Jr
b
Jack
FAx-el
0 Hughes
Pa
6
684 ft
I I AV pp,
Pineville
Elementary
Carolina
do
Place
Fry
Mail
W
Johns
Carolina
Pkvwy
Place
Regent
Park
Golf Club
I illfi- %,
Y
"gel B/1,
00
1 ch
73.
(-Olput�'
0 Rd
York S.-I
VN 6 -k
N
r
W+E
S
April 13, 2017
E) Project Boundary
E) Buffered Project Boundary
Managed Area (MAREA)
1:30,897
0 0.25 0.5 1 Mi
0 0.425 0.85 1.7 km
Sources: Esn, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS,
FAO,
NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esn Japan,
METI, Esri China (Hang Kong), �isstcpo, MapmyIndia, @ OpenStreetMap
contributors, and the
CIS User Community
Page 4 of 4

Lower LSC Restoration
¢d
9, Ramhl re
. ' •Ike:{,.
C
C-Dmuntr
}'
SS Rd
u
�
ral k
S
❑
C*
o
Ua
rF
¢
W Sb7u lul R4 iV
Q
�+rr
}' a l+nG Rd
kQO
nay
H'. H- k—
Q 9Plxllelo C6
se [
rril th40
6`1
QV
_� �1
4r
,?
Oil 7C
9:+edtl 33ulh
RI'!J...rr
I C+any
'
h1eC K6036M
P., h.
O t xt
o
3u9a cIrek
y ,
F fJr$k}ilYr B}'
V
TI
h
o
3r, Ok
rrdCla
ty
''n.Inrry
iy1 Farm ia IH l9C Rd
f k:°I IE CKLEN B URG
ftocx'HtUP
lawo-r
c
i Lwh
hI{2930 Pinevill--CDdrrErik iral-kxraws Rd hsl
e
L_
h+4<1246 YendIll HMK 9`4 PINEVILLE�ti Oh�1io1ERCIAL Dr
I`i; P+nevJlfa-111�gth
mot `
A GrooE 'NIK-3c44'I FH,I KPLR. ij0IST RIC'T 2011'
s
_ agrtxal
R+x o O
U
��4�
+�^.':.7 } Io,, Hausa
L'III.."-MIIagE orIGI b'Lt 1C09D! n°d r`v
va mrno�s 4
r
0 iY
li }{'hMK=1252itFINEUILLE' •.MILL 5
I.`# �G rig
°++n
e
ILL?4CE HISTORIC DISTRICT 2011 I
�yo
rue
akuaYe
h,11<01'I8 Jams K, Pik Ca
Belk-�9'rlhplaw 197.1 �$ �
� ��J"
#3glio!
# v� Plllevdk•
it C a io k na #'
Falk
Qg
11?01.
r H'aco
41'rlrrlY n tl k;.¢ ... % ; ips'y�
3
+fl15
fJagr, t f'. IF
rill •- Iil: 7
. e'
r
-4
Four Fdib C �k
Or�w y'
2
LP
Thringclan
1{
C Irdv
w
t i+
y+4 �+Cilk9
J n 8yL)3 i h
V'J08gr� 6 ly
I
4
it k a+l 6,
.. ',l2u f= G Maraln r
r
9r
+
6kMu1kn hlralpnp
Glaek Graok
eC
`! nr ?. '' �.r
�
L1
7 kiloanwaY Graenwa.
$ ^ia �J%ni
keClokQ
ORO
t'
York S
C.
� -
u+rl
o.
k. Y
Y
'?
J{
x 1
-3
k.!I r
# r }
}
tl
C d i -
�y b � bollanrvno
- \ Op t' �sUr:l's
i1r 3 �'�•
-
4, MK1221
HsrrisonChurdi-.' 3 a
�Jr
i F'f:EfTkE#Ei}'' ryC' C,�'w
k Ff %'
1k{t
_
Cr��lrf n yAL
'—•
' I `:pnlg 11 FF'
1, K
6OL
l
# i
vam Ti4'.
April 13, 2017
NR Points
NR Individual Listing
NR Listing, Gone
r- NRHD Center Point
NR Boundaries
National Register Boundary
Boundary of Destroyed/Removed NR Listing
SL Points
= SL Individual Entry
SL and DOE entry
1 Study List Entry, Gone
CI —1 nnG !•_r,r,o
1-44,570
0 0.5 1 2 mi
0 0.75 1.5 3 km
Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P,
NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri
(Thailand), Mapmylndia, NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors,
and the GIs User Community

9 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 9
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
11 May 2017
Ms. Addle Lasitter
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
200 South Tryon Street
Suite 200
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
Subject: Request for Environmental Review
Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway
Pineville, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Lasitter,
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) received your email on 5
May 2017 requesting review and comments regarding fish and wildlife concerns for the lower Little
Sugar Creek Greenway. Biologists with NCWRC have reviewed the subject information. Comments are
provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667e) and North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113-131 et seq.).
Mecklenburg County proposes to construct a new greenway trail along the lower Little Sugar Creek from
James K Polk State Historic Site in Pineville to the North Carolina (N.C.) — South Carolina border in
Mecklenburg County, N.C. Little Sugar Creek occurs in the Catawba River basin and is classified as a
Class C stream by N.C. Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). The proposed project will parallel the
lower Little Sugar Creek; thus, it will likely occur at least partially within the 100-year floodplain.
We have records of Carolina birdfoot-trefoil (Acmispon helleri), a state species of special concern, near
the proposed project. We also have historical records for Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), a
federal and state endangered species, and tall larkspur (Delphinium exaltatum), a state endangered
species, within or near the proposed project. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists
the endangered Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii), Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii),
and smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), and the threatened northern long-eared bat (Myotis
septentrionalis) as having the potential to occur within the proposed project, if suitable habitat is present.
As such, consultation with the USFWS may be required. The lack of records from the site does not imply
or confirm the absence of federal or state -listed species or state Species of Greatest Conservation Need
listed in the 2015 State Wildlife Action Plan(http://www.ncwildlife.org/plan); we are unaware of any
protected -species surveys having occurred within the vicinity of or in the project area.
Based upon the limited information provided, we offer the following recommendations to minimize
impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources.
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Page 2
11 May 2017
Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway
Mecklenburg County
1. The project footprint should be surveyed for wetlands and streams to ensure there are no impacts
to surface waters. In addition to providing wildlife habitat, wetland areas and streams aid in flood
control and water quality protection. United States Army Corps of Engineers Section 404
Permits and NCDWR Section 401 Certifications are required for any impacts to jurisdictional
streams or wetlands.
1. The NCWRC recommends maintaining a minimum 100-foot undisturbed, native, forested buffer
along perennial streams, and a minimum 50-foot buffer along intermittent streams and wetlands.
Maintaining undisturbed, forested buffers along these areas will minimize impacts to aquatic and
terrestrial wildlife resources, water quality, and aquatic habitat both within and downstream of the
project area. Also, wide riparian buffers are helpful in maintaining stability of stream banks and
for treatment of pollutants associated with urban stormwater.
2. Streams and wetland areas should be avoided where possible. Boardwalks should be used in
wetland areas. Bridges, rather than culverts, should be used for stream crossings. If culverts
must be used for stream crossings, then these should be designed to allow passage of aquatic life.
Furthermore, minimize development and fill in the 100-year floodplain.
3. Design the trail to reduce its impact on environmentally sensitive areas, such as wetlands and
floodplains. Avoid or minimize fragmentation of wildlife habitat. Further information can be
found at https://www.railstotrails.org/build-trails/trail-building-toolbox/trail-building-and-
de si gn/developing-trails-in-sensitive-are as/.
4. Sediment and erosion control measures should be installed prior to any land clearing, construction
or disturbance. The use of biodegradable and wildlife -friendly sediment and erosion control
devices is strongly recommended. Silt fencing, fiber rolls and/or other products should have
loose -weave netting that is made of natural fiber materials with movable joints between the
vertical and horizontal twines. Silt fencing or similar products that have been reinforced with
plastic or metal mesh should be avoided as they impede the movement of terrestrial wildlife
species. Excessive silt and sediment loads can have detrimental effects on aquatic resources
including destruction of spawning habitat, suffocation of eggs and clogging of gills.
Manage non-native, invasive species during all phases of the project. Avoid the removal of large
trees at the edges of construction corridors. Re -seed disturbed areas with seed mixtures or native
plants that are beneficial to wildlife. Avoid fescue -based mixtures because fescue is invasive and
provides little benefit to wildlife. In open areas, consider planting native, wildflower seed mixes
that will create pollinator habitat within the project boundary. In addition, consider adding other
habitat -enhancing features, such as permeable fencing, bat boxes, and brush piles that will
minimize impacts from habitat loss.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for this project. For
further information and free technical guidance from the NCWRC, please call [phone] or
email olivia.munzerkncwildlife.oM.
Sincerely,
Olivia Munzer
Western Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program

Total - Cubic Yards Per
Location
Length
Fill - Cubic Yards
Running Foot
STA 8-10 LEFT
TOTAL ASSESSED LENGTH (LF)
Fill
245 LF ROCK TOE
245
47.37
0.193346939
STA 16-20 RIGHT
TOTAL ASSESSED LENGTH (LF)
Fill
115 LF ROCK TOE
410
181.18
0.441902439
295 LF WALL
STA 25-30 LEFT
TOTAL ASSESSED LENGTH (LF)
Fill
77 LF ROCK TOE
495
68.56
0.138505051
160 WALL
258 ROCK TOE / BRUSH MATTRESS
STA 65-67 RIGHT
TOTAL ASSESSED LENGTH (LF)
Fill
185 LF ROCK TOE
185
9.39
0.050756757
STA 68-74 RIGHT
TOTAL ASSESSED LENGTH (LF)
Fill
660 LF ROCK TOE
660
313.96
0.47569697
STA 78-82 RIGHT
TOTAL ASSESSED LENGTH (LF)
Fill
300 LF ROCK TOE
300
101.25
0.3375
STA 78-82 LEFT
TOTAL ASSESSED LENGTH (LF)
Fill
300 LF ROCK TOE
300
221.48
0.738266667

DWR Pre-Fil ing Meeting Req u est Form
Contact Name *
Contact Email Addre ss *
Proje ct Owne r *
Proje ct Name *
Proje ct County *
Is this a transportation proje ct?*
Type (s) of approv al sought from the DWR:
Doe s this proje ct hav e an e xisting proje ct ID#?*
Ple ase list all e xisting proje ct ID's associate d with this proje cts.*
Do you know the name of the staff me mbe r you would like to re que st a me e ting with?
Ple ase giv e a brie f proje ct de scription be low.*
Chris Tinklenberg
[e-mail]
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services and Right of Entry
Agreements
Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway and Stream Rehabilitation
(from S. Polk St. to
Mecklenburg
Yes No
401 Water Quality
Certification - Regular
401 Water Quality
Certification - Express
Individual Permit Modification
Shoreline Stabilization
Yes No
SAW-2020-01148, NCDWR #18-
0032
Bryan Roden-Reynolds (USACE) and Alan Johnson
(DWR)
Mecklenburg County proposes the construction of an
approximately 2.47 miles of 12’-wide multi-use
path and an additional 0.57 miles of 10’ and 12’-wide connections
to adjacent points of interest along
the corridor. A PCN for this project was submitted in January 2018.
A field review meeting was
conducted with Kimley-Horn staff, Chris Tinklenberg and Jason
Diaz, and Mr. David Shaeffer with the
USACE on February 2, 2018, resulting in a request for additional
information (RFAI). Shortly after the
RFAI was requested, the project was put on hold by Mecklenburg
County due to funding. No
modifications to the originally submitted PCN are proposed.
The multi-use path will provide connectivity from to the proposed
Little Sugar Creek Greenway
(currently under construction) just west of South Polk Street all the
way to the North Carolina/South
Carolina state line. This multi-use path will also provide access to
Please give a couple of dates you are available for a meeting.
Ple ase attach the docume ntation you would like to hav e the me e ting about.
Carolina state line. This multi-use path will also provide access to
the President James K. Polk State
Historic Site, the Belle Johnson Park, Pineville Community Park
and multiple residential
developments along the corridor. The project will support
pedestrian and bicycle travel between
residential, commercial, and recreational facilities by providing an
alternative transportation option.
In addition to the multi-use path, the County also proposes to
stabilize segments of Little Sugar Creek
along the project corridor. The bank stabilization and stream
enhancements seek to reduce bank
erosion, improve channel dimension, create localized bedform
diversity and in-stream habitat, and
stabilize bank areas in close proximity to the proposed multi-use
path. Stabilization includes bank
grading to a stable slope, rock toe protection, and native buffer
enhancement/revegetation. Retaining
walls are necessary in areas of extreme bank erosion where
existing infrastructure, parking lots,
buildings need protection as well as areas where the greenway is
close to the top of bank. These
areas required an engineered solution, necessary in order to
ensure safety of those using the
greenway. A Verti-block retaining wall system is proposed which is
a very natural looking rock face
and allows for groundwater exchange by way of gravel infill
cavities with lateral perforated drains
which also relieves hydrostatic pressure (sustainability). Walls are
limited to those areas mentioned
above only and are avoided where bank grading with rock toe
protection (including native riparian
vegetation planting) can be implemented. Generally, the walls will
be 4’-5’ tall, graded 3:1 above the
wall and planted with native riparian vegetation. The sizes of the
retaining walls will be the minimum
necessary to maintain stability and provide protection to
infrastructure. Installation of rock-toe
protection will consist of 6”-18” rip rap flush with the bank. The
rock-toe foundation is necessary to
provide stability for the proposed bank grading proposed behind
the rock-toe structure. A brush
mattress will be implemented along a section previously
recommended by the USACE, which
replaces a section originally proposed as rock-toe protection.
9/25/2020
9/28/2020
9/29/2020
9/30/2020
Signature *
Submittal Date
02-Lower LSC-Polk to
Stateline_Corps_Submittal_Cover_Lette…
212.74KB
pdf only
By digitally signing below, I certify that I have read and understood that per the Federal Clean Water
Act Section 401 Certification Rule the following statements:

· This form completes the requirement of the Pre-Filing Meeting Request in the Clean Water Act Section
401 Certification Rule.
· I understand by signing this form that I cannot submit my application until 30 calendar days after this pre-
filing meeting request.
· I also understand that DWR is not required to respond or grant the meeting request.

Your project’s thirty-day clock started upon receipt of this application.  You will receive notification regarding
meeting location and time if a meeting is necessary.  You will receive notification when the thirty-day clock has
expired, and you can submit an application.
9/21/2020