20210190 Ver 1_BP10.R013_Permit_CoverLetter_With_Attachments_20230901

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Roy COOPER ERIC BOYETTE
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
September 1, 2023
Mr. Steve Brumagin
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
8430 University Executive Park Drive, Suite 615
Charlotte, North Carolina 28262
SUBJECT: Pre -Construction Notification Pursuant to Regional General Permit 50
NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement Project
Bridge No. 165 on SR 5469 Shopton Road over Coffey Creek (Class C),
Mecklenburg County, NC
WBS Number: BP10.R013 (formerly 17BP10R.138)
Dear Mr. Brumagin:
We are requesting a Section 404 Regional General Permit (RGP) 50 for work associated with the
replacement of Bridge No. 165 with a new bridge at the same location over Coffey Creek (Class C) on SR
5469 in Mecklenburg County. There will be 154 linear feet (LF) of permanent impacts and 166 LF of
temporary impacts necessary for installation of bank stabilization along Coffey Creek. There will be
0.098 acre of permanent fill impact and 0.025 acre of hand clearing impact to Wetland B, 0.005 acre of
permanent fill impact to Wetland A, and 0.002 acre of permanent fill impact and 0.021 acre of
mechanized clearing impact to Wetland C for the roadway and associated fill slopes. There will be 7 LF
of permanent impacts to Stream B and 7 LF of permanent impacts to Stream C for installation of bank
stabilization at drainage outfalls. There will be 13 LF of temporary impacts to Stream B, 14 LF of
temporary impacts to Coffey Creek, and 12 LF of temporary impacts to Stream C for dewatering and
installation of a 12-inch water line. Total project wetland impacts include 0.105 acre permanent wetland
fill impact, 0.021 acre mechanized clearing impact, and 0.025 acre hand clearing impact. Total project
stream impacts include 168 LF of permanent bank stabilization impacts and 205 LF of temporary impacts
of which 154 LF overlap with permanent impacts and are excluded from temporary impact totals
(Attachment A). A delineation of Waters of the U.S. was conducted for the project and delineation
materials are included in Attachment B. As part of the environmental review, a Minimum Criteria
Determination Checklist was completed for the project and is included in Attachment C. Due to
unavoidable permanent wetland impacts mitigation is being proposed for 0.105 acre and a Mitigation
Acceptance Letter is included in Attachment D.
The proposed bridge and roadway improvements will consist of two I F travel lanes, an I V turning lane,
two 5' bike lanes with 3' buffers, 2' 6” curb & gutter and 7' sidewalks on both sides. The existing bridge
structure will be removed. There are roadside ditches that flow towards the bridge on both sides of the
structure, the first of which will remain in place, while the second will be replaced. Class -II riprap
abutment protection on both banks of the stream is proposed to prevent future erosion and stream
Mailing Address: Telephone: [phone] Location:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Fax: [phone] WEST MAIN STREET
DIVISION 10 Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968 ALBEMARLE, NC 28001
716 WEST MAIN STREET
ALBEMARLE, NC 28001 Website: www.ncdot.gov

migration. No deck drains will be required. Impervious dikes will be used to dewater the stream for
installation of a 12" water line as well as for installation of bank stabilization.
Protected Species
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaQ
website lists Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) and
smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) as endangered, and tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) as
proposed endangered within the study area. There is habitat in the study area for Schweinitz's sunflower,
smooth coneflower, and Michaux's sumac. No Schweinitz's sunflowers, smooth coneflower or
Michaux's sumac, were found during field surveys of the study area conducted on October 5, 2018, May
21, 2019, October 10, 2019, September 30, 2021, and April 13, 2023. A search of the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database, accessed August 7, 2023, found no occurrences of
Schweinitz's sunflower, smooth coneflower, or Michaux's sumac within 1.0 mile of the study area. A
biological conclusion of "No Effect" was reached for smooth coneflower, Michaux's sumac, and
Schweinitz's sunflower. On September 14, 2022, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced a
proposal to list the tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus - PESU) as endangered under the Endangered
Species Act. If listed, NCDOT will resolve Section 7 prior to let as appropriate. Construction activities for
this project will not take place until NCDOT (in coordination with our lead federal agency) satisfies
Endangered Species Act compliance for PESU. Due to the anticipated future listing the project has a
biological conclusion of `Unresolved' for tricolored bat (Attachment E).
Bald eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. A desktop-GIS assessment of
the project study area, as well as the area within a 1.0 mile radius of the project limits, was performed on
August 7, 2023, using the latest ESRI ArcGIS color aerials. The study area, crossing over Coffey Creek,
falls within 1 mile of the border of Moody Lake, a 7-acre Class C surface water; Johnson Lake, a 5.9-acre
Class C surface water; and a 2.2-acre unnamed/unclassified pond. Although these water bodies are
potentially large enough, the foraging habitats were determined to be of low quality for bald eagle
foraging. Due to the low quality foraging habitat, a survey of the study area and the area within 660 feet
of the project limits was not conducted. Additionally, a review of the NCNHP database on August 7,
2023, revealed no known occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the study area. Due to the lack of
habitat, known occurrences, and minimal impact anticipated for this project, it has been determined that
this project will not affect this species.
Section 106
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires Federal agencies to take into
account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. NCDOT Cultural Resource staff reviewed
the project for Historic Architectural and Archeological Resources. A Historic Architecture and
Landscapes No Survey Required Form was provided by a NCDOT Architectural Historian on February
11, 2019. A No Archaeological Survey Required Form was provided by the NCDOT Archaeologist on
December 12, 2018 (Attachment F). A letter was sent to the Catawba Indian Nation informing them of the
proposed bridge replacement project on February 18, 2020 (Attachment F). No response was received
from the Catawba Indian Nation. A letter was sent to the Cherokee Nation informing them of the
proposed bridge replacement project on February 18, 2020 (Attachment F). NCDOT received a response
from the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma on March 17, 2020. The Cherokee Nation did not foresee this
project imparting impacts to Cherokee cultural resources.

If you have any questions, comments, or need additional information after reviewing this material please
contact me at [phone]. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Joel Howard,
NCDOT Division 10 PDEA Engineer
Attachment A — Permit Drawings with Stormwater Management Plan
Attachment B — Delineation Materials
Attachment C — Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist
Attachment D — DMS Mitigation Acceptance Letter
Attachment E — T & E Supplemental Information
Attachment F — No Archaeological Survey Required Form; Historic Architecture And
Landscapes No Survey Required Form; The Cherokee Nation Coordination
Response Letter

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement
Bridge No. 165 on SR 5469 over Coffey Creek — PCN for RGP 50
Attachment A
Permit Drawings with Stormwater Management Plan

k li¢;t� North Carolina Department of Transportation * �° °,
Highway Stormwater Program
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
(Version 2.08; Released April 2018) lw:: FOR NCDOT PROJECTS 16
WBS Element: BP10.R013.3 TIP No.: County(ies): Mecklenburg Page 1 of 1
General Project Information
WBS Element:
BP10.R013.3 ITIP Number: Project Type: Bride Replacement Date: 8/14/2023
NCDOT Contact:
Garland Haywood
Contractor / Desi ner:
STV Engineers, Inc. / Carlos Owens
Address:
716 W Main St.
Albemarle, NC 28001
Address:
900 West Trade Street, Ste. 715
Charlotte, NC 28202
Phone:
704 975-2795
Phone:
704 285-6593
Email:
[e-mail]
Email:
carlos.owens
stvinc.com
City/Town:
Charlotte, NC
Count ies :
Mecklenburg
River Basin(s):
Catawba
CAMA County?
No
Wetlands within Project Limits?
Yes
Project Description
Project Length (lin. miles or feet):
0.289 miles Surrounding Land Use: Urban, Residential
Proposed Project
Existing Site
Project Built -Upon Area ac.
1.6 ac.
0.6 ac.
Typical Cross Section Description:
Bridge : Two I V lanes, one 11' turning lane, two 5' bike lanes, 3' buffers, 2' 6" curb &
gutter and 7' sidewalks on both sides
Approach: Two I V lanes, one 11' turning lane, two 5' bike lanes 3' buffers, 2' 6" curb &
gutter, and 7' sidewalks on both sides
Bridge: Two 11' lanes, 3' shoulders
Approach: Two 1 V lanes, road narrows from having a middle 11, turning lane towards
bridge from both sides, variable shoulders
Annual Avg Daily Traffic (veh/hr/day):
Design/Future: 12200 Year: 2025
Existing: 6100 Year: 2014
General Project Narrative:
(Description of Minimization of Water
Quality Impacts)
The existing 90' 6", 3 span bridge over Coffey Creek on SR 5469 (Shopton Road) is being replaced with a 2 span bridge with a span arrangement of 1 @50' (Girders), 1 @85'
(Girders). The bridge will have 1.5:1 sloping abutments. The bridge will be superelevated at 4% with two 11' travel lanes, an 11' turning lane, two 5' bike lanes with 3' buffers, 2'
6" curb & gutter and 7' sidewalks on both sides, 70'-7" clear width and 70.58' OTO width. The existing bridge structure will be removed. There are roadside ditches that flow
towards the bridge on both sides of the structure, the first of which, will remain in place, while the second will be replaced. On the begin side of the bridge, multiple traffic bearing
grated drop inlet with double frame and grates (03F) was placed on the left side of the roadway in the shoulder berm gutter to pick up runoff from the bridge. Class -II rip rap
abutment protection on both banks of the stream is also proposed to prevent future erosion and stream migration. No deck drains will be required to meet spread criteria.
Waterbody Information
Surface Water Body 1 : Coffey Creek
NCDWR Stream Index No.:
13-17-31-5-5
NCDWR Surface Water Classification for Water Body
Primary Classification:
Class C
Supplemental Classification:
None
Other Stream Classification:
None
Impairments:
None
Aquatic T&E Species?
No Comments:
NRTR Stream ID:
Buffer Rules in Effect: N/A
Project Includes Bridge Spanning Water Body?
iYes
I Deck Drains Discharge Over Buffer? INo
Dissipator Pads Provided in Buffer? INo
Deck Drains Discharge Over Water Body?
No
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)
(If yes, describe in the General Project Narrative; if no, justify in the
General Project Narrative)
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative) I

•
O
M
C,
L
c
a
T
rr
E
L
.3
0
0
E
L
0
w
See Sheet to For Index of Sheets
See Sheet 18 For Standard Symbology Sheet
I IN
r
VICINITY MAP
DETOUR
BEGIN PROJECT WBS BP10.R013.3
-L- STA.13 + 81.76
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
LOCATION: BRIDGE #590165 COFFEY CREEK ON SR 5469 (SHOPTON RD)
TYPE OF WORK: GRADING, PAVING, DRAINAGE, & STRUCTURE
WETLAND AND SURFACE WATER IMPACTS PERMIT
BEGIN BRIDGE
-L- STA. 20+91.75
i
SITE 2
i
� I
\\ 1
THIS PROJECT IS WITHIN—THi MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE.
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE PERFORMED TO THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD II.
GRAPHIC SCALES
20 10 0 20 40
PLANS
20 10 0 20 40
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
4 2 0 4 8
PROFILE (VERTICAL)
DESIGN
DATA
ADT 2014 =
6,100
ADT 2025 =
12,200
K =
N/A
D =
N/A
T =
7%
V =
45 MPH
FUNC. CLASSIFICATION:
SUB REGIONAL TIER
COLLECTOR
PROJECT LENGTH
END PROJECT WBS BP10.R013.3
-L- STA. 30 + 43.05
0
SITE 4
/ BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
/ —DRI— STA. 10+00.00
SITE 3
i
END BRIDGE
"•'••:':' iL— STA. 22+26.75
LENGTH OF ROADWAY PROJECT WBS BPIO.R013.3 = .315 MILES
LENGTH OF STRUCTURE PROJECT WBS BPIO.R013.3 = .026 MILES
TOTAL LENGTH OF PROJECT WBS BPIO.R013.3 = .289 MILES
NCDOT CONTACT: GARLAND HAYWOOD, PE
Division Bridge Manager
SITE 2
Pt
O;�
S� 5p69 \SN�
1Z
9Q
NORTH CAROLINA
0-1
2
END CONSTRUCTION WBS
-L- STA. 31 +17.00
Bo BO Permit Drawing
GRAPHIC SCALE DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
Sheet 1 Of 7 UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
PLANS PREPARED FOR THE NCDOT BY.•
STV Engineers, Inc.
900 west Trade 20 suite 715
cneLotte, NC b,,
StN NC License Number F-0991
2018 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
NIKKI T. HONEYCUTT, PE
RIGHT OF WAY DATE.
MAY 1, 2023
PROJECT ENGINEER
ASHLEY N. BOUCHARD, PE
LETTING DATE.
MARCH 5, 2025
PROJECT DESIGNER
HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER
KVHIJ WAY
DESIGN
ENGINEER
P.E.

DETAIL E
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE
PLAN VIEW PERMANENT SOIL REINFORCEMENT
MATTING (PSRM)
INSTALL LEVEL AND FLUSH
X X A F WITH NATURAL GROUND.
PIPE OR DITCH
OUTLET —
SQUARE PREFORMED
SCOUR HOLE (PSH)
(RIP RAP IN
BASIN NOT SHOWN
FOR CLARITY)
SECTION
A -A
S'0'°F
STND. ROLL WIDTH
INFLOW
PSRM
(MINUSTUCK)NATURAL
LD
1ooaaa
GROUND
LINER: CLASS B RIPRAP
I T B
IN.1' TUC
WITH GEOTEXTILE
f�
N
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
ON STV Engineers, Inc. p p p
900 West Trade St., Suite 715 U/ U 1013.3 5
Charlotte, NC 28202
NC License Number F-0991 RAN SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER ENGINEER
i
r
0CA
STANDARD BASE DITCH �
STANDARD
STA. D + A TO Z DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
-L- STA. 23 + 15 LT M� UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
v j IMPACTS IN SURFACE EST. 50 CY DDE
WATER 7 FT O (DETAIL C) = p
��
CITY OF CHARLOTTE �jO 2
DB 20570 PG 273 j �Q PS
4 'ere ��
S4C TEMPORARY �� O D. ,\0
—L— STATION 22+50 (RT.) — IMPACTS IN SURFACECI)\P .�G�
WETLAND C \ S2A = WETLAND RIPRAP AT EMBAN MENT WATER 12 FT �, k
MECHANIZED -L- STA 21 + 95 TCLEAO CITY OF CH R TTE
\ ,�, � 0.021RACRE ING IMPACTS -L- STA 22 + 10 LT �
✓S STREAM B EST. 10 TON C L—I RIP P
E g l ✓S \ _
EST.15 SY GEOTEXTILE
\� - (DETAIL D)
$ S3A PERMANENT S46 = TEMPORARY
J$ WATER IMPACTS IN SURFACE IMPACTS IN SURFACE
F F �E'� ` WATER 14 FT
\ 2 4� F \� ✓S STREAMBANK ST ATION (TYP.) 2.,
S4A = TEMPORARY s \ _ _ _ EST. 140 T CL-11 RIPRAP s
.y E IMPACTS IN SURFACE ✓S ✓S, C'��
WATER 13 FT ET "�) .<.
R 0-0�
— R
0510 �,�
F i
F S
RIPRAP AT EMBANKMENT 3 ism-__ is
-L- STA. 2 0 + 64 LT S
5 TON CL-I RIPRAP m
O S2A = WETLAND 10 SY GEOTEXTILE w
FILL IN IMPACTS k
0.002 ACRE (DETAIL D)
CB
� w
(V
DETAIL A
SPECIAL LATERAL BASE DITCH
(Not to Scale)
Natural 10Fill
Ground 4• j `L'e< Slope
D Flo
d
B
Min. D=1.5 Ft.
Max. d = 1.5 Ft.
Type of Liner= Grass 13=2 Ft.
FROM -L- STA. 23+15 LT TO -L- STA. 25+50
DETAIL C
STANDARD BASE DITCH
( Not to Scale)
Natural Natural
Ground ? j D Ground
d
B Min. D=1.5 Ft.
Max. d =1.5 Ft.
*When B is < 6.0' B=2 Ft.
Type of Liner= Grass
FROM —L— STA. 22+10 LT TO —L— STA. 23+15 LT
DETAIL B
BANK STABILIZATION
(Not to Scale)
2 ft.
10 ft.
1
Natural
o m
round
7 ft.
I� 4: t Existing
Eroded Banks
Key Into Stream B
Length = 32
Ft. Existing Channel Bed
Type of Liner=
CL-II Rip -Rap - Keyed -In
AT —L—
STA. 21 + 58 — 65' LT AND 75' RT
AT —L—
STA. 21 + 78 — 75' LT AND 75' RT
O
CITY OF CHARLOTTE
DB 20570 PG 273
IN
1 1 �■
1_ 1 mum
1 1
F0
_`
_%
s3 C
-�—
ce
c
00
`
F
CB 506
P(�
-
CO
O
q � —rFo—
P UE
—---
NNY ,,LUISA
_
EIP
TEJEDA
1220 PG 605
P UE
S 6 qo0? —F
\
THANG DINH TRAN
_X
X(::�THUY
HUE TRUONG
DB 16326 PG 74
��
\
L-11 RI PRA�\
d
/ \
E01- UNABLEQTOnIIF PVE
F
�- .c>
I �
I �
I W
I W
I W
I /
(n
I O
I �
I M �
I N f6
O L
I N�
0oW
I
DETAIL D
RIP RAP All EMBANKMENT
( Not to Scale)
10'min.
\ Ditch 1.0'min•
Grade 2
GEOTEXTILE
Type of Liner=CL I Rip -Rap
Js —L— STA. 20 + 64 LT
FROM —L— STA. 21 + 95 LT TO —L— STA. 22 +10 LT
S313 = PERMANENT
A L 0 SQL
1 1 � DB 20570 PG 273 SOloP��"
S213 = WETLAND FILL
IMPACTS 0.005 ACRE
Qj E E E
1 WL 12" WL 12" WL 12" WL
>� PDE
_ E PDE
WETLAND A
­K
SPECIAL LATERAL
BASE DITCH _ -
-L- STA. 2 3 + 15 TO _ — -
-L- STA. 25 + 50 LT —
(DETAIL A)
II
3-
50
CB
TREELI E \ \ _
CB \EIP
G� i
o—

n
Q
E
L
Q
00
cI)
E
L
i
In
3
L
0
i
a�
E
I`
L
0
C
w
w
L_
i
In
CV �
oL
CVO
OOCL
DETAIL E
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE
PLAN VIEW PERMANENT SOIL REINFORCEMENT
MATTING (PSRM)
INSTALL LEVEL AND FLUSH
WITH NATURAL GROUND.
PIPE OR DITCH
OUTLET —\
A A
TN OLL T
MINU UCKI
SQUARE PREFORMED
SCOUR HOLE (PSH)
(RIP RAP IN
BASIN NOT SHOWN
FOR CLARITY)
Ayz X SECTION A -A
l0
DETAIL A
SPECIAL LATERAL BASE DITCH
(Not to Scale)
Natural D 1 at Fill
Ground 4•� ) Slope
d Fla
B
Min. D=1.5 Ft.
Max. d = 1.5 Ft.
Type of Liner= Grass B=2 Ft.
FROM -L- STA. 23+15 LT TO -L- STA. 25+50 LT
D
PSRM STND.ROLLWIDTH
FROM -L- STA. 22+10 LT TO -L- STA. 23+15 LT
INFLOW I
r
(MINUS TUCK)
NATURAL
GROUND
000000
CN
LINER: CLASS B RIPRAP _
.
.1' TUCK
B
WITH GEOTEXTILE
-L- STATION
22 + 50 (RT.)
WETLAND C
S2A = WETLAND
MECHANIZED
CLEARING IMPACTS
0.021 ACRE
41
41
41
+ 41
F
�E�
DETAIL B
BANK STABILIZATION
(Not to Scale)
2 ft.
10 ft.
cn Natural
cm round
x,
m
a 3
N 7 ft.
v
4:1 Existing
Eroded Banks
Key Into Stream Ban
Length= 32 Ft. Existing Channel Bed
Type of Liner= CL—II Rip —Rap — Keyed —In
AT -L- STA. 21 +58 - 65' LT AND 75' RT
AT -L- STA. 21 + 78 - 75' LT AND 75' RT
O
CITY OF CHARLOTTE
DB 20570 PG 273
F 2„
S4A = TEMPORARY
.y IMPACTS IN SURFACE
WATER 13 FT
F
F
�o
09
� S2A = WETLAND
I
FILL IN IMPACTS
0.002 ACRE
7841
S19
O
NNY �LUISA
TEJEDA
1220 PG 605J�n
O7
THANG DINH TRAN
THUY HUE TRUONG
DB 16326 PG 74 —
LEGEND
DENOTES TEMPORARY
SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
N
S DENOTES SURFACE
WATER IMPACTS
DENOTES MECHANIZED
CLEARING (GRUBBING)
F DENOTES FILL IN WETLAND
DENOTES HAND CLEARING
IN WETLAND
00,
STREAM B
S3A = PERMANENT
IMPACTS IN SURFACE
WATER 7 FT
r2„
w< 2` /
F
RIPRAP AT EMBANKMENT
-L- STA. 2 0 + 64 LT
5 TON CL-I RIPRAP
10 SY GEOTEXTILE
(DETAIL D)
>
00
50
(STING R/
F
All,
RIPRAP AT EMBAN MENT
-L- STA 21 + 95 TO
-L- STA 22 + 10 LT
EST. 10 TON CL-I RIP P
EST.15 SY GEOTEXTILE
(DETAIL D)
S46 = TEMPORARY
IMPACTS IN SURFACE
WATER 14 FT
STREAMBANK ST ATION (TYP.)
EST. 140 T CL-11 RIPRAP
Ej"t)
3
O
m
J
w
3
CAI
0510
WA
DETAIL D
RIP RAP AT EMBANKMENT
( Not to Scale)
10'min.
Ditch 1.0'min.
Grade 2
GEOTEXTILE
Type of Liner=CL I Rip —Rap
-L- STA. 2 0 + 64 LT
FROM -L- STA. 21 + 95 LT TO -L- STA. 22 + 10 LT
STREAM C
S313 = PERMANENT
IMPACTS IN SURFACE
WATER 7 FT I O
CITY OF CHARLOTTE
DB 20570 PG 273
S4C = TEMPORARY
IMPACTS IN SURFACE
WATER 12 FT
WETLAND A
STV Engineers, Inc.
900 West Trade St., Suite 715
Charlotte, NC 28202
NC License Number F-0991
st:\
l
OCA
2 Ot
MCA ,
J STANDARD BASE DITCH
C-L- STA. 22 + 10 TO
-L- STA. 23 + 15 LT
EST. 50 CY DDE
(DETAIL C)
C
�1
CITY OF CHARLOTTE
1 N DB 20570 PG 273
S213 = WETLAND FILL
IMPACTS 0.005 ACRE
6°
-----------
9 - C
o _ I
-------
EP
59 -
E01 - UNA TO 670
o � ACCESS ARD
T OCKED
�° O X_
<0 \�
.4
o - o0 10
ANDRES PEREZ MELGAR 10 IMPACTS RINANENT SU FACE WATER
ALICIA YAMILETH 154 FT (BANK STABILIZATION)
RODRIGUEZ REGA BAN STABILIZA ION \` CL-II RIPRAP
DB 31217 PG 725
0511
0
EST. 1 S 60 TONS L-11 RIP
�519 (DET IL
s�
A S1 = TEMPORARY
I� cp° IMPACTS IN SURFACE WATER
C� Permit Drawing 166 FT
Sheet 3 of 7 �� O
- AYSHIRE GLEN
HO DB 6 8R PGA 070C
ISFD boo 401 0' \,
o
SITE 1 L
BLANCA M. LAZON GRAPHIC SCALE
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
BFUR033 5
RAN SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER ENGINEER
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
O
10
S `� P�
C P
12" WL 12" WL
� a
t,;U
0
c
F
o
U
SPECIAL LATERAL
BASE DITCH
-L- STA. 23 + 15 TO
-L- STA. 25 + 50 LT °C_�
(DETAIL A)
�q
O
•600 V
--- - - 9 -
---
F �o �11,
F F �������•� �g
B F F F F
FF F �F
F
�F F F
4
41 _14/ 41 �. b0 FE
41
41 41
,� 41
41
441
41 41 +
41 41
41 41 41 41
4
S2C = WETLAND HAND
CLEARING IMPACTS
0.025 ACRE
LL
1
S2C = WETLANDS FILL
IN IMPACTS
0.098 ACRE

IIIIII 111 11 111
HE
moommom MENEM
roll
som
Mai In I v!
ONEENEEMILUXIA

PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMESIh ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES
ADDRESS
I EASTGROUP PROPERTIES ERTI]ES LP % 2730 SH®P°] ON RD
CITY OF CHARLOTTE CHARLOTTE, NC 28217
6 DENNY ILUISA T EJlEDA 2605 BRAHMAN MEADOWS ]LN
CHARLOTTE, NC 28273
7 °I`HANG DINH TRAN 2611 BRAHMAN MEADOWS 1LN
°I`HUT HUE TRU®NG CHARLOTTE, NC 28273
8 ANDR ES P ER EZ M]E1LGAR 2615 BRAHMAN MEADOWS 1LN
CHARLOTTE, NC 28273
9 AYSHIR E GLEN HOMEOWNERS PO BOX 221037
CHARLOTTE NC 28222
10 MIECK LIENBURG COUNTY 2630 MASON MILL PL
CHARLOTTE NC 28273
Permit Drawing
Sheet 6 of 7
IDIVISION OF ]HIGHWAYS
M ECK LIENBU[$G COUNTY
PROJECT: BPIO.RO13.3
BRIIDGIE # 590165 OVER
CO F]F]EY CREEK
ON SR 5469
(SHOPTON R D)
SHEET 6 OF 7 8% ®9 % 2023

WETLAND AND SURACE WATER IMPACTS SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
Site
No.
Station
(From/To)
Structure
Size / Type
Permanent
Fill In
Wetlands
(ac)
Temp.
Fill In
Wetlands
(ac)
Excavation
in
Wetlands
(ac)
Mechanized
Clearing
in Wetlands
(ac)
Hand
Clearing
in
Wetlands
(ac)
Permanent
SW
impacts
(ac)
Temp.
SW
impacts
(ac)
Existing
Channel
Impacts
Permanent
(ft)
Existing
Channel
Impacts
Temp.
(ft)
Natural
Stream
Design
(ft)
1
21+52.47/ 21+88.68
Bank Stabilization
0.014
0.045
154
12
2A
18+33.75/ 19+00.59
Roadway
0.002
0.021
2B
22+00.07/ 22+17.90
Roadway
0.005
2C
22+14.24/ 23+81.50
Roadway
0.098
0.025
3A
20+61.22/ 20+67.92
Bank Stabilization
0.001
7
3B
21+83.84/ 21+90.98
Bank Stabilization
0.001
7
4A
1 20+33.81/ 20+55.57
12" Water Line
0.002
13
4B
21+27.82/ 21+56.36
12" Water Line
0.005
14
4C
21+95.86/ 22+08.89
12" Water Line
0.001
12
TOTALS'7
1 0.10
1 0.00
1 0.00
1 0.02
1 0.02
1 0.01
1 0.05
1 168
1 51
1 0
*Rounded totals are sum of actual impacts
NOTES:
1: Temp Impacts length total =205 ft (154 of which are covered under Permanent Impacts)

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement
Bridge No. 165 on SR 5469 over Coffey Creek — PCN for RGP 50
Attachment B
Delineation Materials

SR 5469 (Shoptott Rd)
f APl.irr,.rr .
� 4r
011
Rod of God
Y _ -
Ch F1St1.VJ
hfvndy Lake -
� 1 orvr[.�fFn�nuti
4
0 500 11000
2,000
Feet!
;rf,ih,ryriF
Division 10
Bridge Replacement
Legend
SR 5469 Over Coffey Creek
Bdge
�
aF
a
Stud Area 8.6 acres
y ( )
No.13
Bridge No.165
OF,,,,
Mecklenburg County, NC
Thursday, August 31, 2023
StNr
FIGURE 1
Charlotte West Quad
STV Engineers, Inc. Project No.
4019567
Ref. USGS7.5Minute Topography
Quadrangle Map [Charlotte West, NCI
USES TOPOGRAPHIC
MAP
Drawn By:
Checked By:
Approved By:
CJS
JLK
JLK
USGS The National Map Topo Base Map

Hydric Rating by Map Unit
Nonhydric (0%)
Predominantly nonhydric (1 to 32%)
Partially hydric (33 to 65%)
Predominantly hydric (66 to 99%)
Hydric (100%)
Not rated or not available
W�
L. . -J
CeB2
,1
CeD2
�o 121 zso 500
Peet
norm
�t
r
QFT
Ft
Sty'
STV Engineers, Inc. Project No.
4019567
Drawn By: Checked By: IApproved By:
TPO I CJS I JLK
MO
Legend
Project Study Area (-8.6 acres)
National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)
MeB
MeD
WkE
MeB
Mapped Soil Units Within the PSA
CeB2 Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, moderately eroded
MO Monacan loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
MeB Mecklenburg fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
PaE Pacolet sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
WkE Wilkes loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
9 Division 10
Bridge Replacement
29 SR 5469 Over Coffey Creek
01 BP10.R013
Ch a Bridge No. 165
Mecklenburg County, NC
Thursday, August 31, 2023
Mecklenburg County, NC FIGURE 2
Sources: NC OneMap, NC Center for NRC S SOIL SERIES
Geographic Information and Analysis,
NC 911 Board; NRCS Soil Series Data MAP
Mecklenburg County, NC (2014)

F.
Potential Wetland �' 1
Waters of the US Potential Non -Wetland
Wetland C (- 0.037 acre) Waters of the US
Stream B (- 265 If) 4.
Potential Wetland _
Waters of the US
Stream C (-- 99 If)
Potential Wetland
t SAS Waters of the US
Q69 Wetland A (- 0.011 acre) _
i c
Potential Non -Wetland
1 Waters of the US !
`.� Coffey Creek ( 320 If)
or
y
V IL
Potential Wetland
Waters of the US r `'
} c �,* '�' it 1■•�`. Wetland B (- 0.235 acre) IL
Vfk
.
� 1 t
Ir
0 125 250 500
r-, J
"otea: Division 10
1. Potential waters of the U.S. were delineated
11aR71r by STV Engineers, Inc. during field reviews Bride Re lacement
Legend conducted on October 5, 2018, May 21, 2019, g p
F
October 10, 2019, September 30, 2021, and SR 5469 Over Coffey Creek
April 13, 2023. Potential boundaries have been
Project Study Area (- 8.6 Acres) marked in the field with blue and white striped BP10.R013
tape and mapped using a Trimble Geo7X
,c hand-held GPS unit capable of subfoot Bridge No. 165
Perennial Stream accuracy. This map is intended for planning
°""" Intermittent Stream purposes only. Mecklenburg County, NC
2. Boundaries of the potential waters of the Thursday, August 31, 2023
Wetland U.S. have not been verified by the U.S. Army
�i�■ L Corps of Engineers and are subject to change o Data Point Location following verification. FIGURE 3
APPRXIMATE
STV Engineers, Inc. Project No. Photograph Location POTE TIALWATERS
4019567 Source: NC OneMap, NC Center for OF THE U.S.
Drawn By: Checked By: Approved By: Geographic NC 911 Board
Drawn AND WETLANDS
CJS JLK JLK I BOUNDARY MAP

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement Program
Bridge 165 on SR 5469 (Shopton Road) over Coffey Creek - PCN for RGP #50
Photograph 1 — View of the SR 5469 bridge over Coffey Creek looking to the southeast.
Photograph 2 — View of Coffey Creek from the SR 5469 bridge, looking upstream to the north.

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement Program
Bridge 165 on SR 5469 (Shopton Road) over Coffey Creek - PCN for RGP #50
K
Photograph 3 — View of Coffey Creek from the SR 5469 bridge, looking downstream to the
south.
44.
Photograph 4 — View of Stream B, an unnamed tributary to Coffey Creek, looking downstream to
the east.

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement Program
Bridge 165 on SR 5469 (Shopton Road) over Coffey Creek - PCN for RGP #50
Pho
Photograph 6 View of Wetland B, east of Coffey Creek and south of Shopton Road, looking to
the west.

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Mecklenburg Br. 165 on Shopton Rd.
Project/Site: over Coffey Creek (R. 138) City/County: Charlotte/Mecklenburg Sampling Date: 05-21-19
Applicant/Owner: NCDOTDiv 10 State: NC Sampling Point: DP#1
Investigator(s): Brandon Phillips, CHMM Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR-P Lat: 35.163377 N Long: -80.930355 W Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Monacan loam NWI classification: PFO1/EM
Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks
DP#1 is representative of Wetland A, adjacent to the Mecklenburg bridge 165 (See Figure 3 entitled Approximate
Potential Waters of the U.S. and Wetlands Boundary Map for approximate location of DP#1).
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that arrly)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al) _
True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
X High Water Table (A2) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
g Drainage Patterns (B10)
-y_ Saturation (A3) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
X Water Marks (B1) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132) _
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No x Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes x No
Depth (inches): 0
Saturation Present? Yes x No
Depth (inches): o
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Wetland Hydrology Indicators are present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP41
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30'radius }
1. Acer neoundo
4
6.
7.
Absolute Dominant Indicato
% Cover Species? Status
1)n VA UA.
20 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 10 20% of total cover: 4
SaolinalShrub Stratum (Plot size: 10' radius )
1. Platanus occidentalis 10 Yes FACW
3.
4.
6.
7.
8.
9.
50% of total cover: 5
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 meter )
1. Pontederia cordata
10 = Total Cover
20% of total cover—2
25 Yes OBL
2.
Boehmeria cylindrica
25 Yes FACW
3.
Juncus ef%usus
25 Yes FACW
4.
Microstegium vimineum
25 Yes FAC
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
100 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 50 20% of total cover: 20
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'radius )
1.
3.
5.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Hydrophytic vegetation is present.
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
(B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(AIB)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multioly by:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x 2 =
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x 4 =
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals:
(A)
(B)
Prevalence Index = B1A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
X 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is =50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree —Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
SaplinglShrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Herb —All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydroplytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: DP#I
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tuoe' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-3 10 YR 4/3 100 Silt loam
3-18 10 YR 3/2 80 10 YR 5/6 20 C PL Silt loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lininq, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (Al0) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (SS) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
!_
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A 10) (LRR N)
X Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) [LRR N,
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric
Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks
Hydric Soil Indicators are present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (B10)
_ Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point:
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: }
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata:
(B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(AIB)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
= Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
OBL species x 1 =
Saolina/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
FACW species x 2 =
1
FAC species x 3 =
2
FACU species x 4 =
3
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A)
(B)
4
Prevalence Index = BIA =
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7. _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
_ 2 -Dominance Test is =50°J°
9. _ 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
= Total Cover 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
)
1. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
3.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
6
Tree —Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7.
height.
8.
SaplinglShrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
10.
m) tall.
11.
Herb —All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
= Total Cover
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
hei ht.
3.
4.
Hydropliytic
5. Vegetation
= Total Cover Present? Yes No
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tuoe' Loc2 Texture Remarks
e. =ecru erivaucri, L)=Ue iencri, rave=Kecauceo iviauix, ivies=iviasKeu sari a �71airis.
LUcaucri. ururi , ivi=iviauix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
!_
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) [LRR N,
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control#: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT.
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority. AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: Mecklenburg Br. 165 on Shopton Rd. over Coffey Creek (R.138) City/County: Charlotte/Mecklenburg Sampling Date: 4/13/23
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Div 10 State: NC Sampling Point: DP3
Investigator(s): Josh Kotheimer PWS, Chris Sheldon Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 3
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 35.162965 Long:-80.930091 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Monacan loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded NWI classification: None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Wetland point for Wetland B.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
—Surface Soil Cracks (136)
—Surface Water (Al) _True
Aquatic Plants (1314)
—Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
X High Water Table (A2) —Hydrogen
Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
X Saturation (A3) _Oxidized
Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_Moss Trim Lines (B16)
—Water Marks (131) —Presence
of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132) _Recent
Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_Drift Deposits (63) _Thin
Muck Surface (C7)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
—Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Other
(Explain in Remarks)
—Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (65)
X Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
X Water -Stained Leaves (69)
_Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches): 1
Saturation Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches): 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP3
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
50% of total cover:
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
50% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
1. Juncus effusus
2. Carex lurida
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 30
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Absolute Dominant Indicatc
% Cover Species? Status
_=Total Cover
20% of total cover:
_=Total Cover
20% of total cover:
40 Yes FACW
20 Yes OBL
60 =Total Cover
20% of total cover: 12
=Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species 20 x 1 = 20
FACW species 40 x 2 = 80
FAC species 0 x 3 = 0
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 60 (A) 100 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.67
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
X 3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP3
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-7 10YR 4/2 70 7.5YR 4/6 30 C M Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
7-12 10YR 4/2 90 7.5YR 5/6 10 C M Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
Hydric Soil Indicators..
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Black Histic (A3)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
—Stratified Layers (A5)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
—Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
—Sandy Redox (S5)
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
—Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
—Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
? Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
? Piedmont Flood plain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
—Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control#: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT.
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority. AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: Mecklenburg Br. 165 on Shopton Rd. over Coffey Creek (R.138) City/County: Charlotte/Mecklenburg Sampling Date: 4/13/23
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Div 10 State: NC Sampling Point: DP4
Investigator(s): Josh Kotheimer PWS, Chris Sheldon Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): hillside Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 6
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 35.162992 Long:-80.930097 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Monacan loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded NWI classification: None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
Upland point for Wetland B.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
—Surface Soil Cracks (136)
—Surface Water (Al) _True
Aquatic Plants (1314)
—Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
_ High Water Table (A2) —Hydrogen
Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
_Saturation (A3) _Oxidized
Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_Moss Trim Lines (B16)
—Water Marks (131) —Presence
of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132) _Recent
Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_Drift Deposits (63) _Thin
Muck Surface (C7)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
—Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Other
(Explain in Remarks)
—Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (65)
—Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water-Stained Leaves (69)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP4
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
50% of total cover:
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
50% of total cover: _
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
1. Geranium carolinianum
2. Houstonia caerulea
3. Prunella vulgaris
4. Lonicera japonica
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 44
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Absolute Dominant Indicatc
% Cover Species? Status
_=Total Cover
20% of total cover:
_=Total Cover
20% of total cover:
70 Yes
UPL
10 No
FACU
5 No
FACU
3 No
FACU
88 =Total Cover
20% of total cover: 18
=Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0.0% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
FAC species 0 x 3 = 0
FACU species 18 x 4 = 72
UPL species 70 x 5 = 350
Column Totals: 88 (A) 422 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.80
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No X
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP4
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-14 7.5YR 4/4 100 Loamy/Clayey
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
Hydric Soil Indicators..
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Black Histic (A3)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
—Stratified Layers (A5)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
—Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
—Sandy Redox (S5)
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Roadway fill.
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
—Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
—Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
—Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
—Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control#: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT.
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority. AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: Mecklenburg Br. 165 on Shopton Rd. over Coffey Creek (R.138) City/County: Charlotte/Mecklenburg Sampling Date: 4/13/23
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Div 10 State: NC Sampling Point: DP5
Investigator(s): Josh Kotheimer PWS, Chris Sheldon Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 35.163785 Long:-80.931244 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Pacolet sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes NWI classification: None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Wetland point for Wetland C.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
—Surface Soil Cracks (136)
—Surface Water (Al) _True
Aquatic Plants (1314)
—Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
X High Water Table (A2) —Hydrogen
Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
X Saturation (A3) _Oxidized
Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_Moss Trim Lines (B16)
—Water Marks (131) —Presence
of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132) _Recent
Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
X Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_Drift Deposits (63) _Thin
Muck Surface (C7)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
—Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Other
(Explain in Remarks)
—Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (65)
X Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water-Stained Leaves (69)
_Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches): 1
Saturation Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches): 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP5
Absolute
Dominant
Indicatc
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
% Cover
Species?
Status
1.
Acer rubrum
10
Yes
FAC
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
10
=Total Cover
50% of total cover:
5 20% of total cover:
2
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15
)
1.
Alnus serrulata
5
Yes
OBL
2.
Quercus phellos
3
Yes
FAC
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
8
=Total Cover
50% of total cover:
4 20% of total cover:
2
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
1.
Microstegium vimineum
40
Yes
FAC
2.
Carex crinita
20
Yes
OBL
3.
Juncus effusus
15
No
FACW
4.
Lonicera japonica
10
No
FACU
5.
Rubus allegheniensis
5
No
FACU
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
90 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 45 20% of total cover: 18
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
=Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species 25 x 1 = 25
FACW species 15 x 2 = 30
FAC species 53 x 3 = 159
FACU species 15 x 4 = 60
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 108 (A) 274 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.54
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
X 3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP5
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-2 2.5Y 5/1 60 7.5YR 4/4 40 C M Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
2-12 2.5Y 5/1 80 7.5YR 4/2 20 C M Loamy/Clayey Distinct redox concentrations
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
Hydric Soil Indicators..
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Black Histic (A3)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
—Stratified Layers (A5)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
—Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
—Sandy Redox (S5)
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
—Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
—Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
? Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
? Piedmont Flood plain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
—Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control#: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT.
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority. AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: Mecklenburg Br. 165 on Shopton Rd. over Coffey Creek (R.138) City/County: Charlotte/Mecklenburg Sampling Date: 4/13/23
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Div 10 State: NC Sampling Point: DP6
Investigator(s): Josh Kotheimer PWS, Chris Sheldon Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Hillside Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 6
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 35.163711 Long:-80.931288 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Pacolet sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes NWI classification: None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
Upland point for Wetland C.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
—Surface Soil Cracks (136)
—Surface Water (Al) _True
Aquatic Plants (1314)
—Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
_ High Water Table (A2) —Hydrogen
Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
_Saturation (A3) _Oxidized
Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_Moss Trim Lines (B16)
—Water Marks (131) —Presence
of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132) _Recent
Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_Drift Deposits (63) _Thin
Muck Surface (C7)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
—Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Other
(Explain in Remarks)
—Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (65)
—Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water-Stained Leaves (69)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP6
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1. Juglans nigra
2. Pinus taeda
3. Juniperus virginiana
4. Celtis laevigata
5.
6.
7.
50% of total cover: 9
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 )
1. Liquidambar styraciflua
2. Acer negundo
3. Elaeagnus umbellata
4. Quercus phellos
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
50% of total cover: _
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
1. Microstegium vimineum
2. Galium aparine
3. Lonicera japonica
4. Prunella vulgaris
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
HDSOluie
uominam
Inaicaic
% Cover
Species?
Status
5
Yes
FACU
5
Yes
FAC
5
Yes
FACU
3
No
FACW
18 =Total Cover
20% of total cover: 4
15 Yes
FAC
10 Yes
FAC
3 No
UPL
1 No
FAC
29 =Total Cover
15 20% of total cover: 6
50% of total cover: 42
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
60 Yes
FAC
10 No
FACU
10 No
FACU
3 No
FACU
83 =Total Cover
20% of total cover: 17
=Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 6 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66.7% (A/B)
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
FACW species 3 x 2 = 6
FAC species 91 x 3 = 273
FACU species 33 x 4 = 132
UPL species 3 x 5 = 15
Column Totals: 130 (A) 426 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.28
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP6
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-12 7.5YR 4/2 100 Loamy/Clayey
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
Hydric Soil Indicators..
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Black Histic (A3)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
—Stratified Layers (A5)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
—Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
—Sandy Redox (S5)
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Roadway fill.
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
—Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
—Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
—Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
—Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies user rvianuai version om
USACE AID #
NCDWR#
Project Name
R.138 SR 5469 over Coffey Creek
Date of Evaluation
5/21/19
Applicant/Owner Name
NCDOT Div 10
Wetland Site Name
Wetland A
Wetland Type
Floodplain Pool
Assessor Name/Organization
B. Philli s/STV
Level III Ecoregion
Piedmont
Nearest Named Water Body
Coffey Creek
River Basin
Catawba
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
03050103
County
Mecklenburg
NCDWR Region
Asheville
❑ Yes ® No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Longitude (deci-deqrees)
35.037269;-80.476142
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ❑ Yes ® No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HOW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ® Yes ❑ No
Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
❑A ❑A Not severely altered
®B ®B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
❑A ❑A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
®B ®B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®D ®D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

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

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

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
o ❑A ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
®B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ❑C ®C Canopy sparse or absent
>,
o ❑A
❑A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
®B
❑B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
❑C
®C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
Dense shrub layer
1= ®B
❑B
Moderate density shrub layer
U) ❑C
®C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
.0 ®A
®A
Dense herb layer
_ ❑B
❑B
Moderate density herb layer
❑C
❑C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
®B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
❑C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
❑A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
®B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Wetland A Date of Assessment
5/21/19
Wetland Type Floodplain Pool Assessor Name/Organization
B. Phillips/STV
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
LOW
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention Condition
NA
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
HIGH
Veqetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies user rvianuai version om
USACE AID #
NCDWR#
Project Name
R.138 SR 5469 over Coffey Creek
Date of Evaluation
4/13/23
Applicant/Owner Name
NCDOT Div 10
Wetland Site Name
Wetland B
Wetland Type
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Josh Kotheimer PWS/STV
Level III Ecoregion
Piedmont
Nearest Named Water Body
Coffey Creek
River Basin
Catawba
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
03050103
County
Mecklenburg
NCDWR Region
Asheville
® Yes ❑ No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Longitude (deci-deqrees)
35.162960,-80.930090
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ® Yes ❑ No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ❑Yes ®No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HOW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ❑ Yes ® No
Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
❑A ❑A Not severely altered
®B ®B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
❑B ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®D ®D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

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

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

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
o ❑A ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
❑B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ®C ®C Canopy sparse or absent
>,
o ❑A
❑A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
❑B
❑B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
®C
®C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
Dense shrub layer
1= ❑B
❑B
Moderate density shrub layer
U) ®C
®C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
.0 ®A
®A
Dense herb layer
_ ❑B
❑B
Moderate density herb layer
❑C
❑C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
❑B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
®C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ®D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
®A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Wetland B
Date of Assessment 4/13/23
Josh Kotheimer
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization
PWS/STV
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
NA
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention Condition
NA
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Particulate Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Physical Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat
Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
HIGH
Vegetation Composition
Condition
HIGH
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies user rvianuai version om
USACE AID #
NCDWR#
Project Name
R.138 SR 5469 over Coffey Creek
Date of Evaluation
4/13/23
Applicant/Owner Name
NCDOT Div 10
Wetland Site Name
Wetland C
Wetland Type
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Josh Kotheimer PWS/STV
Level III Ecoregion
Piedmont
Nearest Named Water Body
Coffey Creek
River Basin
Catawba
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
03050103
County
Mecklenburg
NCDWR Region
Asheville
® Yes ❑ No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Longitude (deci-deqrees)
35.163785;-80.931247
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ❑ Yes ® No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ❑Yes ®No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HOW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ❑ Yes ® No
Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
®A ®A Not severely altered
❑B ❑B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
❑B ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®D ®D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

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

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

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
o ®A ®A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
❑B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ❑C ❑C Canopy sparse or absent
>,
o ❑A
❑A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
❑B
❑B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
®C
®C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
Dense shrub layer
1= ❑B
❑B
Moderate density shrub layer
U) ®C
®C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
.0 ®A
®A
Dense herb layer
_ ❑B
❑B
Moderate density herb layer
❑C
❑C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
®B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
❑C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
®A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Wetland C
Date of Assessment 4/13/23
Josh Kotheimer
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization PWS/STV
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Ratina Summa
Function Sub -function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition NA
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention Condition NA
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Particulate Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Physical Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
HIGH
Vegetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies user manuai version z.-i
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
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 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:
R.138 SR 5469 over Coffey Creek
1. Project name (if any): (Stream B) 2. Date of evaluation: 10/14/2019
3. Applicant/owner name: NCDOT Div 10 4. Assessor name/organization: B. Phillips/STV
5. County: Mecklenburg 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: Catawba on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Coffey Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.163425;-80.930515
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): Stream B 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 265'
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 2 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 6 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ❑Perennial flow ®Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ®A ❑B
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ®Size 1 (< 0.1 mil) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>- 5 miz)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑I ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? []Yes ®No
1. Channel Water- assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
®A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
❑B Not
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).
®A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

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

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

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

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name R.138 SR 5469 over Coffey
Creek (Stream B)
Stream Category Pal
Date of Assessment 10/14/2019
Assessor Name/Organization B. Phillips/STV
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Intermittent
USACE/
NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Microtopography
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Stream Geomorphology
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
HIGH
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
HIGH
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Substrate
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
HIGH
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
NA
Overall
MEDIUM
HIGH

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies user manuai version z.-i
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
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 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:
R.138 SR 5469 over Coffey Creek
1. Project name (if any): (Stream C) 2. Date of evaluation: 10/10/19
3. Applicant/owner name: NCDOT Div 10 4. Assessor name/organization: B. Phillips/STV
5. County: Mecklenburg 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: Catawba on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Coffey Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.163569;-80.930329
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): Stream C 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 99,
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 2 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 6 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ®A El
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ®Size 1 (< 0.1 mil) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>- 5 miz)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑I ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? []Yes ®No
1. Channel Water- assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not
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).
®A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

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

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

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

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name R.138 SR 5469 over Coffey Date of Assessment 10/10/19
Creek (Stream C)
Stream Category Pal
Assessor Name/Organization B. Phillips/STV
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access
HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
HIGH
(4) Microtopography
HIGH
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
(4) Channel Stability
HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport
MEDIUM
(4) Stream Geomorphology
HIGH
(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
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(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
NA
Overall
MEDIUM

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement
Bridge No. 165 on SR 5469 over Coffey Creek — PCN for RGP 50
Attachment C
Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist

DocuSign Envelope ID: AA5D354D-915B-4E1C-B4F0-B5CD1698D543
MINIMUM CRITERIA DETERMINATION CHECKLIST
WBS No.: BP.10.R.013.1
Project Location: Bridge No. 165 on SR 5469 (Shopton Road) over Coffey Creek in
Mecklenburg County
Project Description: The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT),
Division 10, plans to replace Bridge No. 165 carrying SR 5469 (Shopton Road) over
Coffey Creek in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
The existing bridge structure was built in 1975 and is approximately 91 feet in length and
30 feet in width consisting of two 11-foot travel lanes and no shoulders. At present, there
is a seven -foot sidewalk on the south side and five-foot bike lanes on both sides of the
road. The existing right-of-way along SR 5469 (Shopton Road) is approximately 65 feet.
Bridge No. 165 has a posted single vehicle weight of 17 tons and a truck tractor
semitrailer weight limit of 23 tons. SR 5469 (Shopton Road) is classified as a collector
with a posted speed limit of 45-miles per hour.
The proposed project would replace the existing, two-lane bridge structure on the same
roadway alignment with an approximately 70-foot wide structure with three 11-foot
travel lanes, including a three-foot buffer between the travel lane and bike lane, to tie into
the existing three lanes on the approaches. The approach roadway would extend
approximately 710 feet to the west and approximately 816 feet to the east of the proposed
bridge. The roadway approaches will include three, 11 -foot travel lanes with a three-foot
buffer between the travel lane and the five-foot bike lane. The total length of the project
is 0.32 miles.
The proposed right-of-way would vary and would extend 185 feet at its widest point. The
project would require approximately 2.05 acres of right of way acquisition and 0.93 acre
of easements. Residential and business relocations are not anticipated. The project is
scheduled for right-of-way in Spring 2023 and project letting is on February 7, 2024.
Purpose and Need: NCDOT Bridge Management Unit records indicate that Bridge No.
165 has a sufficiency rating of 4 out of a possible 100. The bridge's status is identified as
`Structurally Deficient' in the Structure Safety Report published by Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) on 04/06/2018. The purpose of the project is to replace the
structurally deficient bridge.
Anticipated Permit or Consultation Requirements: Since the project involves
replacing an existing bridge with a bridge in the same location, a Nationwide Permit
(NWP) No. 3 Maintenance from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) would
most likely be applicable. Minor temporary impacts to the waterway may result from the
demolition of the existing bridge and dewatering efforts. If the NWP No. 3 is required,
then a corresponding State Water Quality Certification (No. 4239) pursuant to Section

DocuSign Envelope ID: AA5D354D-915B-4E1C-B4F0-B5CD1698D543
Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist Bridge No. 165 on SR 5469 (Shopton Road) over Coffey Creek
Mecklenburg County; WBS BP. 10.R. 013.1
401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) from the N.C. Division of Water Resources
(NCDWR) would also be required. If impacts to streams exceed 40 linear feet, then an
Individual Water Quality Certification would be required along with the NWP No. 3. If
the proposed project requires a new horizontal alignment, or involves a temporary onsite
detour, then a NWP No. 14 Linear Transportation Projects from the USACE could be
applicable. If a NWP No. 14 is required, then a corresponding State Water Quality
Certification (No. 4246) or an Individual Water Quality Certification pursuant to Section
401 of the CWA from the NCDWR would also be required. In the event that project
impacts to waters of the U.S. exceed NWP thresholds of 0.05-acre of streambed or 1/2
acre in area of combined waters of the U.S. then a Section 404 Regional General Permit
(RGP) No. 201902350 (RGP 50) may be utilized. This RGP authorizes NCDOT
permanent impacts of up to 500 linear feet of stream and/or up to one acre of
wetlands/open waters for each single and complete linear project. Should compensatory
mitigation be required, it is anticipated that the N.C. Division of Mitigation Services
(DMS) in -lieu fee program will be utilized.
Cultural Resources: NCDOT Cultural Resources staff reviewed the project for Historic
Architectural and Archeological Resources. A `Historic Architecture and Landscapes No
Survey Required Form' was completed by the NCDOT Architectural Historian on
02/11/2019. A `No National Register or Archaeological Sites Present Form' was
completed by the NCDOT Archaeologist on 12/12/2018.
Threatened and Endangered Species: STV conducted field reviews of the study area
on September 30, 2021, October 10, 2019, and October 5, 2018. Prior to the field
reviews, STV reviewed U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) online databases for information related to the
occurrence of federal and state protected (threatened or endangered) species in the study
area. The USFWS IPaC protected species database reviewed October 24, 2022, lists three
federally protected species as occurring or having the potential to occur in the study area,
namely smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus
schweinitzii), and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). Additionally, the USFWS IPaC
database also lists the tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) as Proposed Endangered and
while it is not currently protected it is expected to be listed in the near future. As of
August 2, 2022, the NCNHP lists no occurrences of federally protected species within
one mile of the study area.
Suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower is present in the study area along the SR 5469
roadside shoulders and woodland edges. Plant by plant surveys were conducted
throughout areas of suitable habitat on September 30, 2021, October 10, 2019, and
October 5, 2018. No sunflowers were observed, and the field reviews were conducted
during the optimal survey window. Review of the NCNHP records on August 2, 2022,
revealed no documented occurrences or populations of Schweinitz's sunflower in the
study area or within one mile of the study area. Based on the literature review and field
surveys it is determined that the project would have `No Effect' on Schweinitz's
sunflower.
03/22/23 2 of 10

DocuSign Envelope ID: AA5D354D-915B-4E1C-B4F0-B5CD1698D543
Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist Bridge No. 165 on SR 5469 (Shopton Road) over Coffey Creek
Mecklenburg Countv; WBS BP. 10.R. 013.1
Suitable habitat for smooth coneflower is present in the study area along roadside
shoulders and woodland edges. Plant by plant surveys were conducted throughout areas
of suitable habitat on September 30, 2021, October 10, 2019, and October 5, 2018. No
individuals of smooth coneflower were observed, and the field reviews were conducted
during the optimal survey window. A review of NCNHP records on August 2, 2022,
indicates no known occurrences within one mile of the study area. Based on the literature
review and field survey conducted during the flowering season, it is determined that the
project would have `No Effect' on smooth coneflower.
Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac is present in the study area along roadside
shoulders. Plant by plant surveys were conducted throughout areas of suitable habitat on
September 30, 2021, October 10, 2019, and October 5, 2018. No individuals of
Michaux's sumac were observed and the field reviews were conducted during the optimal
survey window. A review of NCNHP records, on August 2, 2022, indicates no known
occurrences within one mile of the study area. Based on the literature review and field
surveys conducted during the optimal survey window, it is determined that the project
would have `No Effect' on Michaux's sumac.
Review of the NCNHP records obtained on August 2, 2022, revealed no known
occurrences of tricolored bat within the study area or within one mile of the study area.
Currently there is not a protocol for the tricolored bat as it is proposed for listing and is
not yet afforded protection under the Endangered Species Act. The tricolored bat was
proposed for listing as Endangered by the USFWS in September 2022. If required, the
tricolored bat will be revisited under new guidance set forth by the USFWS. NCDOT is
committed to completing a bat assessment of appropriately sized structures within 30
days of removal. Due to the anticipated future listing the project has a biological
conclusion of `Unresolved' for tricolored bat.
Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act: The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
Act is enforced by the USFWS. Golden eagles do not nest in North Carolina. Habitat for
the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forests in proximity to large bodies of open
water for foraging. Large dominant trees are utilized for nesting sites, typically within 1.0
mile of open water.
A desktop-GIS assessment of the study area, as well as the area within a 1.0-mile radius
of the project limits, was performed on August 2, 2022, using the latest color aerials. No
water bodies large enough or sufficiently open to be considered potential feeding sources
were identified. Since there was no foraging habitat within the review area, a survey of
the study area and the area within 660 feet of the project limits was not conducted.
Additionally, a review of the NCNHP database on August 2, 2022, revealed no known
occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the study area. Due to the lack of habitat,
known occurrences, and minimal impact anticipated for this project, it has been
determined that this project will not affect this species.
03/22/23 3 of 10

DocuSign Envelope ID: AA5D354D-915B-4E1C-B4F0-B5CD1698D543
Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist Bridge No. 165 on SR 5469 (Shopton Road) over Coffey Creek
Mecklenburg Countv: WBS BP. 10.R. 013.1
Special Project Information:
Floodplain: The bridge and associated floodway of Coffey Creek is located within a
Zone AE floodplain as designated on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Flood Insurance Rate Maps. As defined by FEMA, Zone AE floodways are special flood
hazard areas subject to inundation by the 1% annual chance flood or 100-year flood. The
project is being designed in accordance with Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain
Management) and Section 23 CFR 650A of Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
guidelines and would not result in any impacts to floodplains regulated by FEMA.
The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (IMP), to
determine status of project with regard to applicability of NCDOT'S Memorandum of
Agreement, or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and
subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).
This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated stream(s).
Therefore, the Division shall submit sealed as -built construction plans to the Hydraulics
Unit upon completion of project construction, certifying that the drainage structure(s) and
roadway embankment that are located within the 100-year floodplain were built as shown
in the construction plans, both horizontally and vertically.
Farmland: There are no Voluntary Agricultural Districts (VADs) or Enhanced VADs
within the study area. There are approximately eight acres of "all areas prime farmland"
within the Project Study Area. Preliminary design plans indicate that proposed right-of-
way acquisition and easements would impact approximately 0.42 acres of "all areas
prime farmland".
Environmental Commitments: Greensheet Commitments are located at the end of the
checklist.
Estimated Costs (FY 2023):
Utility: $1,800,000
R/W: $600,000
Construction: $2,000,000
Total: $4,400,000
Traffic Information:
Current (2015)
9,800 vpd
Year (2040)
18,500 vpd
TTST
1.0%
Duals
6.0%
(Source: STV INC., November 2022)
Design Exceptions: There are no anticipated design exceptions for this project.
03/22/23 4 of 10

DocuSign Envelope ID: AA5D354D-915B-4E1C-B4F0-B5CD1698D543
Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist Bridge No. 165 on SR 5469 (Shopton Road) over Coffey Creek
Mecklenburg Countv; WBS BP. 10.R. 013.1
Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations: There is existing sidewalk to the east and
west of the bridge on the south side. NCDOT plans to accommodate a sidewalk on the
south side of the bridge and tie to existing sidewalk. SR 5469 (Shopton Road) is not an
NCDOT bike route. The Mecklenburg County Greenway Master Plan proposes a future
greenway along Coffey Creek, terminating south of Bridge No. 165; this project is
currently not funded in the County Capital Improvement Plan.
Alternatives Discussion:
No Build — A No Build alternative would not replace the structurally deficient
bridge and thus is not considered to be a viable option.
Rehabilitation — Rehabilitation would not provide a new facility up to current
designs standards and would not resolve the geometric and safety issues
associated with the current bridge structure.
Onsite Detour — An onsite detour was not considered feasible for this project due
to the proposed alignment of the new bridge; an offsite detour will be used.
Replace on Existing Alignment with Offsite Detour — The proposed alternative
would replace Bridge 165 on the existing alignment. Traffic would be detoured
offsite during the construction period. The offsite detour for this project would
include South Tyron Street, West Arrowood Road, Brown Grier Road, and Steele
Creek Road. The proposed detour route is approximately 4.5 miles long
Replace on New Alignment — Replacing the existing bridge with a new bridge
adjacent to the current structure would allow for use of the existing structure
while the new structure is being built and would eliminate the need for a detour.
Once the bridge is complete the traffic would be routed onto the new alignment
and the old bridge structure would be removed. This alternative was evaluated
however, replacing the existing bridge on a new alignment would have a higher
cost and would have more impacts to streams and wetlands.
Agency Comments:
Input Forms containing questions related to potential project impacts were sent to the
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Planning Director, Charlotte -Mecklenburg Schools Director of
Transportation Operations, and Mecklenburg County Emergency Medical Services
(EMS) Support Services Manager in an effort to obtain comments and concerns on the
project.
The Planner Input Form was sent to the Planning Director on 05/08/2019, 08/27/2019,
and 09/18/2019. No comments were received.
03/22/23 5 of 10

DocuSign Envelope ID: AA5D354D-915B-4E1C-B4F0-B5CD1698D543
Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist Bridge No. 165 on SR 5469 (Shopton Road) over Coffey Creek
Mecklenburg Countv; WBS BP. 10.R. 013.1
The EMS Input Form was sent to the EMS Support Services Manager on 05/08/2019,
08/30/2019, and 09/18/2019. No comments were received.
The Schools Input Form was sent to the Director of Transportation Operations on
05/08/2019 and comments were received on 05/15/2019. The Director stated that there
were approximately 65 bus trips that cross the bridge daily as well as heavy carpool
traffic in the mornings and afternoons. It was stated that if the bridge was to be closed for
up to a year, there would be a high impact on school transportation. The Director
expressed his concern of the impact that closing the road would have without knowing
the detour route.
Tribal Coordination letters were sent to Cherokee Nation on 02/18/2020 and Catawba
Indian Nation on 02/18/2020. Neither the Cherokee Nation or Catawba Indian Nation
have any concerns with regard to traditional cultural properties, sacred sites or Native
American archaeological sites within the boundaries of the proposed project areas.
However, both nations are to be notified if Native American artifacts and / or human
remains are located during the ground disturbance phase of this project.
Public Involvement:
Public involvement was not required for this project.
03/22/23 6 of 10

DocuSign Envelope ID: AA5D354D-915B-4E1C-B4F0-B5CD1698D543
Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist
Bridge No. 165 on SR 5469 (Shopton Road) over Coffey Creek
Mecklenburg Countv; WBS BP. 10.R. 013.1
PART A: MINIMUM CRITERIA
� to be completed by the Engine YES NO
1. Is the proposed project listed as a type and class of activity allowed under ® ❑
the Minimum Criteria Rule in which environmental documentation is not
required?
If the answer to number 1 is "no", then the project does not qualify as a
minimum criteria project. A state environmental assessment is required.
If yes, under which category? #9 (Reconstruction of existing crossroad
or railroad separation and existing
stream crossings, including, but not
limited to, pipes, culverts, and bridges.
If either category #8, #12(i) or #15 is used complete Part D of this checklist.
PART B: MINIMUM CRITERIA EXCEPTIONS
Items 2 — 4 to be completed by the Engineer.
YES
2. Could the proposed activity cause significant changes in land use
❑
concentrations that would be expected to create adverse air quality
impacts?
3. Will the proposed activity have secondary impacts or cumulative
❑
impacts that may result in a significant adverse impact to human health
or the environment?
4. Is the proposed activity of such an unusual nature or does the proposed
❑
activity have such widespread implications, that an uncommon concern
for its environmental effects has been expressed to the Department?
Item 5-8 to be completed by Division Environmental Office
5. Does the proposed activity have a significant adverse effect on wetlands; ❑
surface waters such as rivers, streams, and estuaries; parklands; prime or
unique agricultural lands; or areas of recognized scenic, recreational,
archaeological, or historical value?
6. Will the proposed activity endanger the existence of a species on the ❑
Department of Interior's threatened and endangered species list?
7. Could the proposed activity cause significant changes in land use ❑
concentrations that would be expected to create adverse water quality or
ground water impacts?
I
5
3
�/
/1
03/22/23 7 of 10

DocuSign Envelope ID: AA5D354D-915B-4E1C-B4F0-B5CD1698D543
Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist Bridge No. 165 on SR 5469 (Shopton Road) over Coffey Creek
Mecklenburg County; WBS BP. 10.R. 013.1
YES NO
8. Is the proposed activity expected to have a significant adverse effect on ❑
long-term recreational benefits or shellfish, finfish, wildlife, or their
natural habitats
PART C: COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS
Items 9-12 to be completed by Divisio Environmental Officer: 1
YES NO
9. Is a federally protected threatened or endangered species, or its
® ❑
habitat, likely to be impacted by the proposed action?
10. Does the action require the placement of temporary or permanent
® ❑
fill in waters of the United States?
11. Does the project require the placement of a significant amount of
❑
fill in high quality or relatively rare wetland ecosystems, such as
mountain bogs or pine savannahs?
12. Is the proposed action located in an Area of Environmental
❑
Concern, as defined in the coastal Area Management Act?
Items 13 — 15 to be completed by the Engineer. M
13. Does the project require stream relocation or channel changes?
❑
Cultural Resources
14. Will the project have an "effect" on a property or site listed on the
❑
National Register of Historic Places?
15. Will the proposed action require acquisition of additional right of
❑
way from publicly owned parkland or recreational areas?
Response to Question 9:
The USFWS IPaC protected species database lists three federally protected species as
occurring or having the potential to occur in the study area: the smooth coneflower,
Schweinitz's sunflower, and the Michaux's sumac. Additionally, the USFWS IPaC
database also lists the tricolored bat as Proposed Endangered and while it is not currently
protected it is expected to be listed in the near future.
Suitable habitat for smooth coneflower is present in the study area along roadside
shoulders. Plant by plant surveys were conducted throughout areas of suitable habitat and
no plants were observed. Based on the literature review and field surveys, it is determined
that the project would have a biological conclusion of `No Effect' on smooth coneflower.
Habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower is present at the site along roadside shoulders. Plant
by plant surveys were conducted throughout areas of suitable habitat and no sunflowers
03/22/23 8 of 10

DocuSign Envelope ID: AA5D354D-915B-4E1C-B4F0-B5CD1698D543
Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist Bridge No. 165 on SR 5469 (Shopton Road) over Coffey Creek
Mecklenburg Countv; WBS BP. 10.R.013.1
were observed. The Schweinitz's sunflower has not been recorded within one mile of the
site. Based on the literature review and field surveys, it is determined that the project
would have a biological conclusion of `No Effect' on Schweinitz's sunflower.
Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac is present in the study area along roadside
shoulders. Plant by plant surveys were conducted throughout areas of suitable habitat and
no individuals of Michaux's sumac were observed. A review of NCNHP records
indicates no known occurrences within one mile of the study area. Based on the literature
review and field surveys, it is determined that the project would have a biological
conclusion of `No Effect' on Michaux's sumac.
Review of the NCNHP records revealed no known occurrences of tricolored bat within
the study area or within one mile of the study area. Currently there is not a protocol for
the tricolored bat as it is proposed for listing and is not yet afforded protection under the
Endangered Species Act. If required, the tricolored bat will be revisited under new
guidance set forth by the USFWS. NCDOT is committed to completing a bat assessment
of appropriately sized structures within 30 days of removal. Due to the anticipated future
listing the project has a biological conclusion of `Unresolved' for tricolored bat.
Response to Question 10:
Project impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. will be avoided or minimized to the
maximum extent practicable. Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), a
Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 3 Maintenance from the USACE is anticipated to be
required for the discharge of fill material into waters of the U.S. associated with the
project. Based on preliminary project design and impact calculations, the project would
result in impacts to approximately 177 linear feet of streams or surface waters including
Coffey Creek and 0.014 acre of wetlands. Approximately 90 LF of temporary impacts are
anticipated from utility crossings. Minor temporary impacts to Coffey Creek may also
result from the demolition of the existing bridge. No stream relocations and/or channel
modifications are anticipated. Should a Section 404 NWP be required, a corresponding
State Water Quality Certification (No. 4239) pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA from
the NCDWR would also be required.
03/22/23 9 of 10

DocuSign Envelope ID: AA5D354D-915B-4E1C-B4FO-B5CD1698D543
Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist Bridge No. 165 on SR 5469 (Shopton Road) over Coffey Creek
Mecklenburg Countv; WBS BP. IO.R. 013.1
DocuSigned by:
Prepared b 1352389BE9lD684BGS� W"KAW
t' y' _
Joshua Kotheimer, PWS
STV Engineers, Inc., Environmental Scientist
ocuSigne by:
Reviewed by:F;Lt f�bWA4
fE oeowaa
Division 10 PDEA Engineer
DocuSigned by:
C'�IQ.VIIQ.VL� `dj'1Q.UWOO�Q
°'dBvood, PE, CPM
Division Project Development Engineer
Date: 3/22/2023
Date: 3/22/2023
Date: 3/22/2023
03/22/23 10 of 10

DocuSign Envelope ID: AA5D354D-915B-4E1C-B4F0-B5CD1698D543
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Bridge No. 590165, SR 5469 (Shopton Road)
over Coffey Creek
WBS No. BP.10.R.013.1
FEMA Coordination
The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program
(FMP), to determine status of project with regard to applicability of NCDOT'S
Memorandum of Agreement, or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision
(CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).
This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated
stream(s). Therefore, the Division shall submit sealed as -built construction plans
to the Hydraulics Unit upon completion of project construction, certifying that the
drainage structure(s) and roadway embankment that are located within the 100-
year floodplain were built as shown in the construction plans, both horizontally
and vertically.
School Director of Transportation Operations
NCDOT will coordinate with School Director of Transportation on any
disruptions to bus routes during construction.
Section 404 Mitigation
If mitigation is required for unavoidable impacts to waters of the U.S., then it is
anticipated that the Department of Mitigation Services (DMS) will be used.
Tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus)
The USFWS IPaC protected species database reviewed on October 24, 2022 lists
the tricolored bat as Proposed Endangered and is not yet afforded protection under
the Endangered Species Act. The tricolored bat was proposed for listing as
Endangered by the USFWS in September 2022. If required, the tricolored bat will
be revisited under new guidance set forth by the USFWS. NCDOT is committed
to completing a bat assessment of appropriately sized structures within 30 days of
removal.

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement
Bridge No. 165 on SR 5469 over Coffey Creek — PCN for RGP 50
Attachment D
DMS Mitigation Acceptance Letter

ROY COOPER
Governor
ELIZABETH S. B1SER
5errefory
MARC RECKTENWALD
Director
Mr. Joel Howard
NCDOT Division 10 PDEA Engineer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
716 W. Main Street
Albemarle, North Carolina 28001
Dear Mr. Howard:
Subject: Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
August 21, 2023
Division 10 Project — Replace Bridge 165 on SR 5469 (Shopton Road) over Coffey Creek, Mecklenburg County;
WBS BP10.R013.3
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality — Division
of Mitigation Services (NCDEQ-DMS) will provide the mitigation for the subject project. Based on the information
received from you on August 15, 2023, the impacts are located in CU 03050103 of the Catawba River basin in the Southern
Piedmont (SP) Eco-Region, and are as follows:
Catawba 03 ESA
Stream
Wetlands
Buffer (Sq. Ft.)
Cold
Cool
Warm
Riparian
Non -Riparian
Coastal Marsh
Zone 1
Zone 2
Impacts (feet/acres)
0
0
0
0.105
0
0
0
0
The impacts and associated mitigation needs were not projected by the NCDOT in the 2023 impact data.
NCDEQ-DMS commits to implementing sufficient compensatory mitigation credits to offset the impacts associated with
this project as determined by the regulatory agencies using the delivery timeline listed in Section F.3.c.iii of the In -Lieu Fee
Instrument dated July 28, 2010, and consistent with the Guidance for Expanded Service Area for Mitigating Impacts within
the Lower Catawba River basin approved by the IRT. If the above referenced impact amounts are revised, then this
mitigation acceptance letter will no longer be valid and a new mitigation acceptance letter will be required from NCDEQ-
DMS.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth Harmon at 919-707-8420.
Sincerely,
1&4"01
for James B. Stanfill
DMS Deputy Director
cc: Mr. Monte Matthews, USACE — Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Mr. Steve Brumagin, USACE — Charlotte Regulatory Field Office
Ms. Amy Chapman, NCDWR
Mr. Brad Chilton, NCDOT — EAU
File: SR 5469 — Bridge 165 — Division 10
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation ServiCes
aD E 217 West Jones Street 1 1652 Mail Service Center 1 Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
.,�+a.�n� r 919.0TS976

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement
Bridge No. 165 on SR 5469 over Coffey Creek — PCN for RGP 50
Attachment E
T & E Supplemental Information

Threatened & Endangered Species and Critical Habitat
NCDOT Division 10 — Bridge No. 165 on SR 5469 over Coffey Creek, Mecklenburg
County, NC
WBS Number: BP10.R013.1
STV Engineers, Inc. (STV) conducted field reviews of an approximate 8.6-acre study area on
October 5, 2018, May 21, 2019, October 10, 2019, September 30, 2021, and April 13, 2023. Prior
to the field reviews, STV reviewed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) online databases for information related to the
occurrence of federal and state protected (threatened or endangered) species in Mecklenburg
County. The USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaQ was used to obtain an
official species list on August 7, 2023. IPaC lists three federally protected species as occurring or
having the potential to occur in Study Area (Table 1) as well as the bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus) which is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Additionally,
the tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) has been proposed endangered and is included although
the species is not currently protected. As of August 7, 2023, the NCNHP lists no occurrences of
federally protected species within one mile of the study area. A brief description of each species,
including habitat requirements and physical characteristics, and biological conclusion rendered
based on surveys of the study area follow. Habitat requirements for each species are based on
current available literature and/or the USFWS.
Table 1. ESA federally protected species listed for the Study Area'
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal
Status
Habitat
Present
Biological
Conclusion
Echinacea laevigata
Smooth coneflower
E
Yes
No Effect
Helianthus schweinitzii
Schweinitz's sunflower
E
Yes
No Effect
Perimyotis subflavus
Tricolored bat
PE
Yes
Unresolved
Rhus michauxii
Michaux's sumac
E
Yes
No Effect
' IPaC data checked on August 7, 2023.
E — Endangered
T — Threatened
PE — Proposed Endangered
Smooth coneflower
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: late May -October
Habitat Description: Smooth coneflower, a perennial herb, is typically found in meadows, open
woodlands, the ecotonal regions between meadows and woodlands, cedar barrens, dry limestone
bluffs, clear cuts, and roadside and utility rights -of -way. In North Carolina, the species normally
grows in magnesium- and calcium -rich soils associated with gabbro and diabase parent material,
and typically occurs in Iredell, Misenheimer, and Picture soil series. The plant grows best where
there is abundant sunlight, little competition in the herbaceous layer, and periodic disturbances
(e.g., regular fire regime, well-timed mowing, careful clearing) that prevents encroachment of
shade -producing woody shrubs and trees. On sites where woody succession is held in check, it is
characterized by a number of species with prairie affinities.
Supplemental Information — Mecklenburg 165

Suitable habitat for smooth coneflower is present in the study area along roadside shoulders. Plant
by plant surveys were conducted by STV Environmental Scientist Joshua Kotheimer, PWS,
throughout areas of suitable habitat on October 5, 2018, May 21, 2019, October 10, 2019,
September 30, 2021, and April 13, 2023. No individuals of smooth coneflower were observed, and
the field reviews were conducted during the optimal survey window. A review of NCNHP records,
updated August 7, 2023, indicates no known occurrences within one mile of the study area. Based
on the literature review and field surveys conducted during the flowering season, it is determined
that the project would have `No Effect' on smooth coneflower.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Schweinitz's sunflower
USFWS optimal survey window: Late August - October
Schweinitz's sunflower is a perennial herbaceous plant species limited to the Piedmont regions
and counties of North and South Carolina. The plant grows from one to two meters tall originating
from a cluster of tuberous roots. The plant's flower consists of yellow disk and ray flowers formed
on small heads less than 1.5 centimeter (cm) in diameter. The petals, or modified leaves, are two
to three cm long. The lanceolate leaves are arranged in an opposite pattern within the lower two-
thirds of the stem transitioning to alternate within the upper third. The typical habitat for
Schweinitz's sunflower includes periodically maintained roadsides and utility line rights -of -way
(R/Ws), old pastures, edges of upland woods, and other disturbed open areas. Soils associated
with suitable Schweinitz's sunflower habitat generally include thin upland soils clayey in texture
(and often with substantial rock fragments) which have a high shrink -swell capacity. Flowering
occurs from August to the first frost of the year.
Suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower is present in the study area along the SR 5469 roadside
shoulders and woodland edges. Plant by plant surveys were conducted by STV Environmental
Scientist Joshua Kotheimer, PWS, throughout areas of suitable habitat on October 5, 2018, October
10, 2019, and September 30, 2021, during the flowering season and USFWS-designated optimal
survey window. The surveys observed no sunflowers. Review of the NCNHP records on August
7, 2023, revealed no documented occurrences or populations of Schweinitz's sunflower in the
study area or within one mile of the study area. Based on the literature review and field surveys it
is determined that the project would have `No Effect' on Schweinitz's sunflower.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Tricolored bat
USFWS optimal survey window: Undetermined
The tricolored bat is one of the smallest bats native to North America with a body length of 3-3.5
inches. The tricolored bat is distinguished by its unique tricolored fur that is dark at the tip and
base and lighter in the middle. Tricolored bats often appear orange to a pale yellow but may also
appear black, chocolate brown, or silvery -gray. Young tricolored bats appear much darker than the
grayer adults. The range for the tricolored bat stretches from Central America to Canada including
central and eastern United States. During the winter, tricolored bats are found in mines and caves.
Where caves are sparse like the southern United States, tricolored bats have been found roosting
in road -associated culverts, tree cavities and abandoned water wells. During the fall, summer, and
Supplemental Information —Mecklenburg 165

spring tricolored bats are found in forested habitats. Tricolored bats primarily roost among dead
and live leaf clusters of live or recently dead deciduous hardwood trees. In the southern portion of
their range tricolored bats will roost in Spanish moss (Tillandsia usneoides); other roosting spots
include, eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), barns, beneath porch roofs, bridges, and concrete
bunkers. Female tricolored bats often return to the same summer roosting locations year after year.
In early evenings tricolored bats forage at or above the tree level. Later in the evening the tricolored
bat is more commonly found foraging over waterways and forests edges.
Review of the NCNHP records obtained on August 7, 2023, revealed no known occurrences of
tricolored bat within the study area or within one mile of the study area. On September 14, 2022,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced a proposal to list the tricolored bat (Perimyotis
subflavus - PESU) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. If listed, NCDOT will resolve
Section 7 prior to let as appropriate. Construction activities for this project will not take place until
NCDOT (in coordination with our lead federal agency) satisfies Endangered Species Act
compliance for PESU. Due to the anticipated future listing the project has a biological conclusion
of `Unresolved' for tricolored bat.
Biolofzical Conclusion: Unresolved
Michaux's sumac
USFWS optimal survey window: May -October
Habitat Description: Michaux's sumac, endemic to the inner Coastal Plain and lower Piedmont,
grows in sandy or rocky, open, upland woods on acidic or circumneutral, well -drained sands or
sandy loam soils with low cation exchange capacities. The species is also found on sandy or
submesic loamy swales and depressions in the fall line Sandhills region as well as in openings
along the rim of Carolina bays; maintained railroad, roadside, power line, and utility rights -of -
way; areas where forest canopies have been opened up by blowdowns and/or storm damage; small
wildlife food plots; abandoned building sites; under sparse to moderately dense pine or
pine/hardwood canopies; and in and along edges of other artificially maintained clearings
undergoing natural succession. In the central Piedmont, the plant occurs on clayey soils derived
from mafic rocks. The plant is shade intolerant and, therefore, grows best where disturbance (e.g.,
mowing, clearing, grazing, and periodic fire) maintains its open habitat.
STV Environmental Scientist Josh Kotheimer, PWS, conducted plant by plant field surveys for
the presence of Michaux's sumac on October 5, 2018, May 21, 2019, October 10, 2019, September
30, 2021, and April 13, 2023 during the USFWS-designated optimal survey window. Suitable
habitat was found along the SR 5469 roadside and woodland edges, but Michaux's sumac was not
observed. Review of the NCNHP on August 7, 2023, revealed no documented occurrences or
populations of Michaux's sumac in the study area or within one mile of the study area. Based on
the literature review and field survey conducted during the flowering season, it is determined that
the project would have no effect on Michaux's sumac.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The bald eagle is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and enforced by the
USFWS. Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forests in proximity to large
Supplemental Information —Mecklenburg 165

bodies of open water for foraging. Large dominant trees are utilized for nesting sites, typically
within 1.0 mile of open water.
A desktop-GIS assessment of the project study area, as well as the area within a 1.0-mile radius of
the project limits, was performed on August 7, 2023, using the latest ESRI ArcGIS color aerials.
The study area, crossing over Coffey Creek, falls within 1 mile of the border of Moody Lake, a 7-
acre Class C surface water; Johnson Lake, a 5.9-acre Class C surface water; and a 2.2-acre
unnamed/unclassified pond. Although these water bodies are potentially large enough, the foraging
habitats were determined to be of low quality for bald eagle foraging. Due to the low quality
foraging habitat, a survey of the study area and the area within 660 feet of the project limits was
not conducted. Additionally, a review of the NCNHP database on August 7, 2023, revealed no
known occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the study area. Due to the lack of habitat,
known occurrences, and minimal impact anticipated for this project, it has been determined that
this project will not affect this species.
Supplemental Information —Mecklenburg 165

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement
Bridge No. 165 on SR 5469 over Coffey Creek — PCN for RGP 50
Attachment F
No Archaeological Survey Required Form,
Historic Architecture and Landscapes No Survey Required Form,
and Tribal Coordination

Project Tracking No.:
16-01-0092
NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
04�
This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the
Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group. ;"
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No:
WBS No:
F.A. No:
Structure 590165 (Resubmit) County: Mecklenburg
17BP.10.R.138
N/A
Federal Permit Required?
Document: State MCC
Funding: ® State ❑ Federal
® Yes ❑ No Permit Type: USACE (not specified)
Project Description: NCDOT's Division 10 proposes to replace Bridge No. 165 on SR 5469 (Shopton
Road) over Coffey Creek in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County. Bridge No. 165 was built in 1975, and is
considered to be structurally deficient and functionally obsolete. Project length is listed as 0.15 mile (792
feet). Existing ROW along the corridor is listed as 60 feet whereas the Proposed ROW is listed as 120
feet. Although Preliminary Design Plans have not been developed, a Study Area has been generated in
order to facilitate the environmental review process at this time. The Study Area will be centered on the
bridge and measure about 700 feet long by 200 feet wide (i.e. 100 feet off centerline). Overall, the Study
Area will encompass about 3.00 acres, inclusive of the existing roadway and structure to be replaced.
When this proiect was first submitted in January 2016, a Study Area measuring 1,530 feet long by
225 feet wide was reviewed. Since then the Study Area has decreased but still falls entirely within
what was initially reviewed.
SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
This project was accepted on Tuesday, December 11, 2018. Based on the previous review of the project,
an additional map review and site file search at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) was deemed not
necessary. As before, no archaeological surveys have been conducted along this particular stretch of SR
5469 (Shopton Road); however, one (1) archaeological site has been recorded within one-half (1/2) mile
of the proposed project. Digital copies of HPO's maps (Charlotte West Quadrangle) as well as the
HPOWEB GIS Service (http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/) were reviewed once more on Wednesday,
December 12, 2018. There are no known historic architectural resources located within or adjacent to the
Study Area for which intact archaeological deposits would be anticipated within the footprint of the
proposed project. In addition, topographic maps, historic maps (NCMaps website), USDA soil survey
maps, and aerial photographs were utilized and inspected to gauge environmental factors that may have
contributed to historic or prehistoric settlement within the project limits, and to assess the level of
modern, slope, agricultural, hydrological, and other erosive -type disturbances within and surrounding the
Study Area.
Brief Explanation of why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predicting
that there are no unidentified historic properties in the APE:
This is still a State -funded project that will require a Federal permit. Temporary and/or permanent
easements will be necessary as well as additional ROW. The size and shape of the Study Area have been
drawn in a wat to capture any possible ground -disturbing activities associated with the project. At this
"No ARCHAEOLOGYSURVEYREQUIRED " form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 200712015 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of 3

Project Tracking No.:
16-01-0092
time, we are in compliance with NC GS 121-12a since there are no eligible (i.e. National Register -listed)
archaeological resources located within the project's Study Area that would require our attention. A
review was undertaken for NC GS 113A (North Carolina Environmental Policy Act [SEPA]) since every
State agency is to include an environmental statement on any action involving a significant expenditure of
public moneys or use of public land for projects and programs significantly affecting the quality of the
environment of the State. Based on the statute's definition of a "significant expenditure of public
moneys" (i.e. $10 million) and "use of public land" (i.e. not over 10 acres and less than 2 acres of public
land), the proposed undertaking is to be considered an exempt action; therefore, an archaeological survey
would not be deemed necessary under State law.
From an environmental perspective, the Study Area falls within a heavily residential area and consists of
the rolling terrain typical of North Carolina's Southern Piedmont physiographic region. With the size of
the Study Area decreased, three (3) soil types are present: Monacan loam (Mo), Pacolet sandy loam, 15-
25% slopes (PaE), and Wilkes loam, 15-25% slopes (WkE). Soil conditions (sloped and somewhat
poorly drained) throughout the Study Area are considered not favorable for preserving intact
archaeological sites/resources. Preservation of archaeological materials within these soil type areas is
likely to be poor. Review of aerials from the mid-1990s to the early 1960s indicate a high degree of
erosion east of the Study Area. In the vicinity of the Study Area, the Office of State Archaeology (OSA)
has reviewed several projects for environmental compliance, including a cell tower (CT 14-0215), a
subdivision (Olde Whitehall II [ER87-8270]), and a sewer line (ER 00-8393). Stating a low probability
for intact archaeological sites to be present, OSA did not recommend archaeological surveys for these
projects, except for the sewer line, the survey for which did not result in the documentation of any sites
along Coffey Creek. More importantly, most, if not all, of the Study Area falls within the area surveyed
as part of the Coffey Creek Wastewater Outfall (Fischer 1980 [Biblio #844]. Slopes bases, slope terraces,
and spur toe slopes and summits along Coffey Creek were all examined north of Shopton Road, resulting
in the documentation of Site 31MK128, located about 1,500 feet upstream from Bridge No. 165. Site
31MK128 was not considered to be culturally significant. Within five (5) miles of the Study Area,
NCDOT's Archaeology Group has reviewed at least three (3) transportation -related projects for
environmental compliance under the Programmatic Agreement (PA) with the State Historic Preservation
Office (NC-HPO), none of which is located within a mile a proposed project. Similar to OSA,
archaeological surveys were not recommended for most of these projects based on the degree of modern
disturbances and the level of erosion within each project area. A survey, however, was recommended and
conducted along Steele Creek Road (PA 16-06-0020 [TIP# U-5766]), resulting in the recordation of one
(1) archaeological site (31MK1127) deemed not eligible for the NRHP.
Overall though, based on the presence of poor soil conditions and the results of previous survey and
review work, it is believed that the decreased Study Area, as depicted, is unlikely to contain intact and
significant archaeological resources. No archaeological survey is required for this project. If design
plans change or are made available prior to construction, then additional consultation regarding
archaeology will be required. At this time, no further archaeological work is recommended. If
archaeological materials are uncovered during project activities, then such resources will be dealt with
according to the procedures set forth for "unanticipated discoveries," to include notification of NCDOT's
Archaeology Group.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ® Map(s) ® Previous Survey Info ❑ Photos ❑Correspondence
❑ Photocopy of County Survey Notes Other:
"No ARCHAEOLOGYSURVEYREQUIRED " form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 200712015 Programmatic Agreement.
2 of 3

Project Tracking No.:
16-01-0092
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
NO ARCHAEOLOGY SUR VEY REO UIRED
)Vowv'�
NCDOT ARCHAE6116GIST
December 12, 2018
Date
-T+ y*
~ T
1
5 r'.
1
5
- -ry1L
1• } r� f
a
r • r� �k
Figure 1: Charlotte West, NC (USGS 1968 [PR1980]).
"No ARCHAEOLOGYSURVEYREQUIRED "form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 200712015 Programmatic Agreement.
3 of 3

P,E.t T—ki, N.. (Ineemal Un)
16-01-0092
'. HISTORIC ARCHICTECTURE AND LANDSCAPES updated
NO SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
This form only pertains to Historic Architecture and Landscapes for this project. It
is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
B-5789
County:
Mecklenburg
17BP.10.R.138
Document
MCC
Type:
EidNa:
Funding:
® State ❑ Federal
Yes ❑ No
Permit
NWP
T e s :
Project Description:
Replace Bridge No.
165 on SR 5469 (Shopton Road) over Coffey Crock. The study area is
shown in the attached map, measuring approximately 1400 feet in length and 200 feet in width.
No information regarding right-of-way, detour routes or easements was provided.
GPI IIZ W.10INAM W 06Y N D\% I DUO
Review of HPO quad maps, HPOweb GIS mapping, historic designations roster, and indexes
was conducted on 1/26/16. Based on this review, there are no existing NR, SL, DE, LD or SS
properties in the Area of Potential Effects (APE). Built in 1975, Bridge No. 165 has not yet been
evaluated for listing to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) according to the North
Carolina Historic Bridge Inventory, due to insufficient age. Tax records show that there is one
property whose parcel sits within the APE but the house (ca. 1940s) is situated very far from the
APE itself. It will not be affected by project activities. According to Google Street View and
aerial imagery, there are no other properties in the APE that appear to be over the age of fifty
years. The APE is roughly defined as 200 feet by 1400 feet and consists of mostly residential
development and wooded areas. Therefore, because there are no potential historic resources
within the APE, a survey will not be required for this project. This project was resubmitted in
December 2018. There have been no changed to the conditions in the project area. No survey is
required.
Anorlc Amhilemare mdlnndscaM NO SURVEY REQUMDformforMinor sY ,, rmtim Pmjecle as Q."Rodinthe 200�Progmmmalio Agreement
Page 1 of 3

area:
HPO quad maps, HPOweb GIS mapping, Google Street View, Google maps and Mecklenburg
County property records are considered valid tools for the purposes of determining the likelihood
of historic resources being present. A survey is not required for this project.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
®Map(s) ❑Previous Survey Info. ❑Photos ❑Correspondence ❑Design Plans
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
Historic Architecture and Landscapes --NO SURVEY REQUIRED
NCDOT Architecturhl Historian' Date
HlsWic A¢ftecwm and(n&s sN SUR➢R➢R£WU Dfa,mlrMimr2 sMnaam PmjK w QWfia in,M 2W7 ➢rog�mmmc Agreemem.
Page 2 of 3

0
F,

Office of the Chief
GW-Y.B DSP Chuck Hoskin Jr.
C H ERoKEE NATimN) Principal Chief
Bryan Warner
P.Q. Box 949 • Tahlequah, QK 74465-0948 Deputy Principal Chief
918-453-5000 • www.chcmUe.org
March 17, 2020
Garland Haywood
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Highway Division 10
716 West Main Street
Albemarle, NC 28001
Re: Project 17.13P.IO.R.138, Bridge No. 165 on SR-5469 (Shopton Road) over Coffey Creek
Mr. Garland Haywood:
The Cherokee Nation (Nation) is in receipt of your correspondence about Project 17.BP.10.R.138,
Bridge No.165 on SR-5469 (Shopton Road) over Coffey Creek, and appreciates the opportunity
to provide comment upon this project.
The Nation maintains databases and records of cultural, historic, and pre -historic resources in this
area. Our Historic Preservation Office reviewed this project, cross referenced the project's legal
description against our information, and found no instances where this project intersects or adjoins
such resources. Thus, the Nation does not foresee this project imparting impacts to Cherokee
cultural resources at this time.
However, the Nation requests that the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
halt all project activities immediately and re -contact our Offices for further consultation if items
of cultural significance are discovered during the course of this project.
Additionally, the Nation requests that NCDOT conduct appropriate inquiries with other pertinent
Tribal and Historic Preservation Offices regarding historic and prehistoric resources not included
in the Nation's databases or records.
If you require additional information or have any questions, please contact me at your convenience.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Wado,
Elizabeth Toombs, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Cherokee Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Office
[e-mail]
918.453.5389