20190732 Ver 1_401 Application_20190701

Strickland, Bev
From: Tinklenberg, Chris <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2019 8:08 PM
To: Shaeffer, David L SAW; Johnson, Alan
Subject: [External] RE: NoDA Exchange (SAW -2018-01201 & DWR#20190732 v1)
Attachments: 00_NoDa_PCN_Complete.pdf
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail] a
Good evening gentlemen — hope you're both doing well.
Based on comments from Dave, minor revisions to the permit numbers have been made per my responses below. The
changes to the PCN are solely clerical and do not seek modifications to the original PCN submittal. All requested impacts
remain the same and no changes to the original plans are proposed.
Alan — I'm hopeful that this is something you can change on your end relatively easily to avoid resubmittal into the ePCN
system and the additional cost associated with the resubmittal; however, if it's required to resubmit into ePCN, please
let me know.
Thank you,
Chris
Chris Tinklenberg, PWS
Kimley-Horn 1200 South Tryon Street, Suite 200, Charlotte, NC 28202
Direct: 704 409 1802 1 Mobile: [phone]
From: Tinklenberg, Chris
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2019 3:49 PM
To: Shaeffer, David L SAW <[e-mail]>
Subject: SAW -2018-01201 - NoDA Exchange
Hey Dave —thanks for talking over the NoDa site with me earlier. When we hung up, I went into GIS and brought in the
100 -yr floodplain layer and low and behold, most of the site is within the floodplain. I marked up the proposed
conditions figure with a few of the items we talked about regarding changing the NWP number and attached it to this
email. Here's a quick summary:
• Impacts associated with the roadway into the property and bridge over Little Sugar Creek would be permitted
under a NWP14
• Impacts associated with the roadway and multi -use trail on the south property would be permitted under a
NWP14
• Impacts associated with the retaining wall and site grading on the west side of the northern property which
includes 0.3 -ac wetland impact and 981f of stream relocation would be permitted under a NWP18 since impacts
are minor.
If you're able to confirm the changes as soon as you can, I'll revise the appropriate documents and resend.

Let me know if you have questions,
Thanks,
Chris
Chris Tinklenberg, PWS
Kimley-Horn 1200 South Tryon Street, Suite 200, Charlotte, NC 28202
Direct: 704 409 1802 1 Mobile: [phone] www.kimley-horn.com
Connect with us: Twitter I Linkedln I Facebook I Instagram
Celebrating 12 years as one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For

Preliminary ORM Data Entry Fields for New Actions
ACTION ID #: SAW- 2018-01201
Prepare file folder ❑
1. Project Name [PCN Form A2a]: NoDa Sugar Creek
Begin Date (Date Received):
Assign Action ID Number in ORM ❑
2. Work Type: ✓❑Private ❑ Institutional ❑ Government ❑ Commercial
3. Project Description / Purpose [PCN Form B3d and B3e]:
Brand Properties proposes to develop the subject property into a multi -family development. (Figure 1).
4. Property Owner / Applicant [PCN Form A3 or A41: NoDa Exchange LLC
5. Agent / Consultant [PNC Form A5 — or ORM Consultant ID Number]:
Chris Tinklenberg, PWS (Kimley-Horn)
6. Related Action ID Number(s) [PCN Form B5b]:
7. Project Location— Coordinates, Street Address, and/or Location Description [PCN Form Blb]:
The subject property is located at 255 Matheson Ave., which is situated between Matheson Avenue and Cullman Avenue in
the City of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County (Figure 1). Project Coordinates (Decimal Degrees): 35.247920 N, -80.812634 W.
8. Project Location— Tax Parcel ID [PCN Form Bla]: 08303115;08302101
9. Project Location — County [PCN Form A2b]: Mecklenburg
10. Project Location — Nearest Municipality or Town [PCN Form A2c]: Charlotte
11. Project Information — Nearest Waterbody [PCN Form 132a]: Little Sugar Creek
12. Watershed / 8 -Digit Hydrologic Unit Code [PCN Form 132c]: Lower Catwaba (HUC 03050103)
Authorization: Section 10 ❑ Section 404 ❑
Regulatory Action Type:
❑ Standard Permit
❑✓ Nationwide Permit #14 & 18
F!Jurisdictional Regional General Permit #
Determination Request
Section 10 and 404 ❑
❑ Pre -Application Request
❑ Unauthorized Activity
❑ Compliance
❑No Permit Required
Revised 20150602

Kimley»>Horn
July 1, 2019
Mr. David Shaeffer
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Ms. Karen Higgins
NC DWR, 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re: 404/401 Pre -Construction Notification (NWP #14 &18)
NoDa Sugar Creek — Brand Properties, LLC
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC
Dear Mr. Shaeffer and Ms. Higgins:
On behalf of our client, Brand Properties, LLC, Kimley-Horn (KH) is submitting the enclosed joint
Section 404/401 Pre -construction Notification for the above referenced project for your review
pursuant to a Nationwide Permits #14 & 18 and General 401 Water Quality Certification numbers
4135 & 4139. This application is to request authorization for construction of a proposed multi -family
development. The following information is included as part of this application submittal:
• Project Summary Sheet
• Agent Authorization Letter
• Pre -Construction Notification Form
• Permit Figures
■ Figure 1—Vicinity
■ Figure 2 — USGS Topo (Charlotte East Quadrangle)
■ Figure 3 — NRCS Soils (2018 Meck. Co. Aerial)
■ Figure 4 — Existing Conditions (2018 Meck. Co. Aerial)
■ Figure 5 — Proposed Conditions (2018 Meck. Co. Aerial)
• Permit Plans — NoDa Sugar Creek Site
• Agency Correspondence
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The proposed project site is located at 255 Matheson Avenue, which is situated between Matheson
Avenue and Cullman Avenue, in Charlotte, NC. The site is a primarily undeveloped 16 -acre forested
200 South Tryon, Suite 200, Charlotte, NC 282

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

Kimley»>Horn
Page 3
Construction of a retaining wall and associated grading fill slopes necessary to facilitate construction
on the northern portion of the property requires the relocation of a section of Stream B. The
proposed stream relocation will result in 94 If of permanent, no net loss impacts to non -wetland
waters of the United States. Stream B will be relocated and rehabilitated to no less than current
conditions. A relocation plan, utilizing natural channel design techniques, including in -stream
structures (constructed riffles), appropriately designed pattern, profile and bank grading will be
implemented in order to provide the appropriate aquatic uplift. Coir fiber matting will be installed,
and a temporary seed mix will be applied immediately following construction to provide initial
stabilization. A planting plan including the application of a permanent seed mix and planting native
riparian live stakes and bare roots will be conducted to provide long-term stability. The stream
relocation requires 20 If of temporary stream impacts for the construction activities necessary to
work in dry conditions.
Additional impacts associated with the construction of the northern portion of the property include
0.18 -ac of permanent impacts to Wetland B at two separate impact sites. 0.06 -ac of temporary
wetland impacts are necessary to facilitate construction of the retaining wall within Wetland B.
Mud mats will be utilized over a portion of Wetland B to provide temporary construction access and
prevent wetland soil disturbance, resulting in 0.06 -ac of temporary wetland impacts. Construction
access will be located within a temporary construction easement and is not part of the overall
development. A temporary stream crossing over Little Sugar Creek is necessary to provide
construction access to the southern portion of the property, prior to construction of the bridge.
Timbers will be placed from top of bank to top of bank and will not result in temporary impacts
below the ordinary high-water mark of Little Sugar Creek.
Construction activities on the southern portion of the property include 0.06 -ac of permanent
wetland impacts to Wetland C from grading fill slopes necessary for construction of a pedestrian
footpath. 0.04 -ac of temporary wetland impacts are necessary to Wetland C to construct the
retaining wall for the footpath.
In total, the proposed development project seeks permanent impacts to 298 If of non -wetland
waters of the US and 0.24 -ac of wetland -waters of the US. A total of 60 If of temporary non -
wetland waters of the US impacts are needed for construction activities necessary to work in dry
conditions. 0.16 -ac of temporary wetland impacts are necessary for construction access and
construction of retaining walls. All temporary impacts will be restored to preconstruction
conditions following completion of the activities.
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
Avoidance and minimization efforts during development planning and design were implemented to
the greatest extents practicable in order to reduce the overall impacts on the aquatic environment
while staying within nationwide permit thresholds. Large retaining walls are proposed throughout
the entirety of the site to eliminate fill slopes which would result in additional stream and wetland

Kimley»>Horn
Page 4
impacts. Initial site layout and grading plans proposed over 600 If of stream impacts and nearly 1 -
acre of wetland impacts. Through multiple iterations of siting and the implementation of retaining
walls, the final plan demonstrates maximum minimization efforts by reducing the proposed stream
and wetland impacts to 298 If and 0.24 -ac, respectively. Rationale to support avoidance and
minimization efforts include the following:
• Stream B — Impact 1 & Wetland B — Impact 3: One building, associated parking lot, public
access road and bridge crossing over Little Sugar Creek (required to provide access to the
southern portion of the property which is inaccessible) are all necessary to meet the needs
of the proposed development on this portion of the property. There are no feasible
alternatives which would avoid impacts to Stream B or Wetland B. The proposed layout
minimizes impacts to Stream B and Wetland B by implementing 15 to 25 -foot tall retaining
walls around the north, east and southern boundaries of development footprint.
• Stream B — Impact 5 & Wetland B — Impact 6: These impacts are necessary to facilitate the
appropriate building footprint and access road. The design maximizes the available space
to construct the facilities while minimizing impacts to aquatic features. In lieu of
encapsulating Stream B through the retaining wall and fill slope via pipe, resulting in a
total loss of stream function, the proposed project seeks to implement natural channel
design techniques to shift the channel slightly south. Improvements to the bedform,
pattern and profile of the channel seek to provide functional aquatic uplift over the
existing condition and avoid additional loss of waters.
• Wetland C — Impact 8: As part of the development plan and approvals by the City, the
developer is required to construct a segment of the future Cross -Charlotte Trail. The
future multi -use trail segment is adjacent to the private street situated on the southern
portion of the property. Impacts to Wetland C are unavoidable due to this requirement,
however, proposed impacts are minimized by replacing grading fill slopes with retaining
wall.
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION
Compensatory mitigation will be met by the purchase of credits through the NC Division of
Mitigation Services (NCDMS) in -lieu fee program. 298 If of stream impacts will be mitigated through
the purchase of stream mitigation credits. Based on an NCSAM assessment of intermittent Stream
B, mitigation is proposed at a 1.5:1 ratio. Since the project is located within the Lower Catawba
watershed (HUC 03050103), credits will be purchased at a 3:1 ratio; therefore, 894 SMUs will be
purchased from NCDMS for impacts associated with the new development. 0.24 -ac of wetland
impacts will be mitigated through the purchase of wetland mitigation credits. Based on an NCWAM
assessment of Wetlands B and C, mitigation is proposed at a 2:1 ratio. Wetland mitigation credits
will be purchased at 4:1 based on the location of the project within the Lower Catawba watershed,
therefore, 0.96 wetland credits will be purchased from NCDMS for wetland impacts.
In total, 894 stream credits and 0.96 wetland credits will be purchased from NCDMS to provide
the appropriate compensatory mitigation for this project.

Kimley»>Horn
Please feel free to contact me at [phone] if you have any questions or if additional
information is necessary.
Sincerely,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Chris Tinklenberg, PWS
Environmental Scientist
Attachments
Page 5

Kimley>»Horn
Project Summary Sheet
Project Name: NoDa Sugar Creek
Applicant Name and Address: Brand Properties
3328 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 100
Atlanta, GA 30326
Telephone Number:
Open Water
(acres)
Type of Request: ® Nationwide PCN (NWP # 14 & 18) ❑ Individual Permit Application
❑ Jurisdictional Determination ❑ Other:
Included Attachments: ® Project Plans
® USGS Map ® NRCS Soil Survey
® Agent Authorization
® Delineation Sketch ❑ Delineation Survey
❑ Data Forms (Up & Wet)
❑ NCDWR Stream Forms ❑ USACE Stream Forms
® NCDMS Confirmation
® Aerial Photo ❑ Site Photos
® Agency Correspondence
® Other: NCSAM Forms ® Other: NCWAM Forms
Check if applicable: ❑ CAMA County
❑ Trout County ❑ Isolated Waters
❑ Section 7, ESA
❑ Section 106, NHPA ❑ EFH
❑ Mitigation Proposed (❑
NC EEP ❑ On -Site ❑ Off -Site ❑ Other)
County: Mecklenburg
Nearest City/Town: Charlotte
Waterway: Little Sugar Creek
River Basin: Catawba
H.U.C.: 03050103
USGS Quad Name: Charlotte East
Property Size (acres): 16.02 acres
Approx. Size of Jurisdiction on Site (acres): 1.7 ac
Site Coordinates (in decimal degrees): 35.247920
°N -80.812634 °W
Project Location: The site consists of an approximate 16 -acre mixed use tract located at 255 Matheson Avenue, which is
situated between Matheson Avenue and Cullman Avenue, in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County.
Site Description: The project area is currently undeveloped forest land. Existing land use in the vicinity of the project
includes, industrial and commercial development, and undeveloped forested/maintained properties.
Impact Summary (if applicable): The proposed project seeks to install a 1751f RCP resulting in 2041f of permanent stream
impacts. A proposed stream relocation will result in 941f of permanent stream impacts. The proiect reauires 601f of
temporary stream impacts for the construction activities necessary to work in dry conditions in order to install the culvert
and perform the stream relocation. Additionally, 0.24 -ac of permanent wetland impacts will result from the construction of
retainine walls and site eradine. 0.16 -ac of temporary wetland impacts are necessary for construction of retainine walls and
temporary construction access.
NWP
#
Open Water
(acres)
Wetland
(acres)
Stream Channel
Intermittent and/or Unimportant Perennial and/or Important
Aquatic Function Aquatic Function
Temp. Perm.
Temp.
Perm.
Tem Perm. Tem Perm.
if ac if ac if ac if Ac
14
0.15
0.21
40 0.005 204 0.04
18
0.01
0.03
20 0.002 94 0.01
Total
0.16
0.24
60 0.007 298 0.05
Total Permanent (Loss) Impact to Non -Wetland Waters of the U.S. 2981f (0.05 ac)
Total Permanent (Loss) Impact to Wetland Waters of the U.S. 0.24 ac
Kimley-Horn Contact: Chris Tinklenberg, PWS Direct Number: [phone]
Email: chris.tinklenbergga,kimley-horn.com
ldlnl - 200 South Tryon Street, Suite 200, Charlotte, NC 28202

AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
Name: Dan Fitzpatrick ..
Address: 3328 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 100, Atlanta, GA 30326
Phone: [phone]
Project Name/Description: NoDa - Sugar Creek
Date_ July 12, 2018
The Department of the Army
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Attention: David Shaeffer
Re: Wetland Related Consulting and Permitting
Pri L5 o LL -C. hereby designates and authorizes Kimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc. to act in their behalf as their agent solely for the purpose of processing
Jurisdictional Determinations, Section 404 permits/Section 401 Water Quality Certifications
applications, and to furnish upon request supplemental information in support of applications, etc.
from this day forward until successful completion of the permitting process or revocation by
Authorized this the /2 day of 0 -
Authorized
Authorized Representative Aut prized Rep ative
(Print Name) (Signature)
Cc: Karen Higgins
NC Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number -
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P)
(if known)
DWQ - non -404, other)
(acres)
or Temporary
T
WB - Impact 3
®P ❑ T
Grading Fill
Riparian
® Yes
El No
® Corps
® DWQ
0.15
WB - Impact 4
Construction of
Riparian
® Yes
® Corps
0.06
El ® T
retaining wall
El No
® DWQ
WB- Impact 7
® P El T
Grading Fill
Riparian
® Yes
El No
® Corps
® DWQ
0.03
WC - Impact 8
❑P®T
Construction Access
Riparian
® Yes
[71 No
® Corps
®DWQ
0.06
WC - Impact 9
®P❑T
Grading Fill
Riparian
® Yes
[_1 No
® Corps
®DWQ
0.06
WC - Impact 10
Construction of
Riparian
® Yes
® Corps
0.04
El ® T
retaining wall
El No
® DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
0.4
2h. Comments: 0.18 -ac of permanent impacts to Wetland B are necessary at two separate impact sites. 0.06 -ac of temporary
wetland impacts are necessary to facilitate construction of the retaining wall within Wetland B. Mud mats will be utilized over a
portion of Wetland B to provide temporary construction access and prevent wetland soil disturbance, resulting in 0.06 -ac of
temporary wetland impacts. Construction access will be located within a temporary construction easement and is not part of
the overall development. Construction activities on the southern portion of the property include 0.06 -ac of permanent wetland
impacts to Wetland C from grading fill slopes necessary for construction of a pedestrian footpath. 0.04 -ac of temporary
wetland impacts are necessary to Wetland C to construct the retaining wall for the footpath. In total, 0.24 -ac of permanent
wetland impacts, and 0.16 -ac of temporary wetland impacts are proposed.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f.
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number -
(PER) or
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
Permanent (P)
intermittent
DWQ - non -404,
width
(linear
or Temporary
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
(T)
SB - Impact 1
Installation of RCP
UT to Little Sugar
® PER
® Corps
3
204
® P ❑ T
Creek
❑ INT
® DWQ
SB - Impact 2
Impervious Dike and
UT to Little Sugar
® PER
® Corps
3
40
❑ P ® T
Pumped Diversion
Creek
❑ INT
® DWQ
SB - Impact 5
Stream Relocation
UT to Little Sugar
® PER
® Corps
3
94
® P ❑ T
Creek
❑ INT
® DWQ
SB - Impact 6
Impervious Dike and
UT to Little Sugar
® PER
® Corps
3
20
❑ P ® T
Pumped Diversion
Creek
❑ INT
® DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
358
3i. Comments: The proposed project seeks to install a 175 If, 30" reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) with flared end sections
along Stream B. The culvert will be installed below the elevation of the stream bed by 20% of the culvert diameter to allow low
flow passage of water and aquatic life. Rip -rap dissipation is proposed at the inlet and outlet of the proposed pipe to reduce
discharge velocity and meet non-erosive design criteria. Both areas will be constructed using natural channel design
techniques that include ensuring that the rip -rap is properly installed into the channel bed and placed in a fashion to ensure
aquatic passage. The culvert installation and inlet/outlet protections will result in 204 If of permanent stream impacts to non -
wetland waters of the US. Installation of the culvert requires 40 If of temporary stream impacts for the construction activities
necessary to work in dry conditions.
Construction of a retaining wall and associated grading fill slopes necessary to facilitate construction on the northern portion of
Page 7 of 14
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

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

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

2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
® Yes ❑ No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ® Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this project?
❑ Mitigation bank
® Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
® Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
894 linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
® warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
0.96 acres
4f. Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments: Compensatory mitigation will be met by the purchase of credits through the NC Division of Mitigation Services
(NCDMS) in -lieu fee program. 298 If of stream impacts will be mitigated through the purchase of stream mitigation credits.
Based on an NCSAM assessment of intermittent Stream B, mitigation is proposed at a 1.5:1 ratio. Since the project is located
within the Lower Catawba watershed (HUC 03050103), credits will be purchased at a 3:1 ratio; therefore, 894 SMUs will be
purchased from NCDMS for impacts associated with the new development. 0.24 -ac of wetland impacts will be mitigated
through the purchase of wetland mitigation credits. Based on an NCWAM assessment of Wetlands B and C, mitigation is
proposed at a 2:1 ratio. Wetland mitigation credits will be purchased at 4:1 based on the location of the project within the
Lower Catawba watershed, therefore, 0.96 wetland credits will be purchased from NCDMS for wetland impacts.
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 10 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

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

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

5b.
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
® Yes ❑ No
F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
❑ Yes ® No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes ❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c.
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
❑ Yes ❑ No
letter.)
Comments:
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B.0200)?
2b.
Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes ® No
2c.
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a.
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
4.
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a.
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non -discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Waste water directed to a Charlotte Water public sewer main adjacent to the project.
Page 13 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑ Yes ® No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑ Yes ® No
impacts?
E] Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
❑ Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
A review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database on November 5, 2018 did not indicate
known occurrences of threatened or endangered species within the project boundary. Additionally, pedestrian surveys
conducted by Kimley-Horn in August 2018 did not identify any occurrences of protected species. (See attached NCNHP
Letter).
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NCNHP element occurrence database did not indicate the presence of EFH within the project boundary.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
A review of the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) HPOWEB GIS Service database on November
5, 2018 did not indicate any cultural or historic resources within the project boundary.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain?
® Yes ❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: A flood impact analysis report, no -rise impact certification, and
individual floodplain development permit will be submitted to the City of Charlotte for review and approval prior to
construction/restoration activities. The results of the flood impact analysis show that there is no net increase in base flood
elevations.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FIRM Panels 4555 and 4554
Chris Tinklenberg, PWS
'
07/01/2019
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
isprovided.)
Page 14 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

A
Kimley>>>Horn
Legend
Project Study Area
Mecklenburg County
500
Mecklenburg
County
= Feet
1,000
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
Brand Properties
NoDa Sugar Creek
Mecklenburg County, NC

!1- � � _ ` /yam • i i • • �.
t - \ _',4 r 1 I��/'[i. ■ "-��.p+mss
YIP OU t)d
10-00
Wo tef
To
'` f v' \ • - Hi#tAnd
" -
f `\ 0 ;
r r
.'s =sem A
€ ♦' , J t�.
Legend
,• .: _ 1` +� �i a1' _ i s• Feet
Project Study Area _ ,Uci 0 1,000 2,000
kz. , r�
Figure 2
USGS Topo (Charlotte East)
Kif'j ley> orn Brand Properties
NoDa Sugar Creek
Mecklenburg County, NC

N�''► gel
'a T6
%
s
I
F
y
1
Legend
Project Study Area x �.
NWI Wetlands ,r•
SSURGO Soils
Hydric Rating
Not Hydric (0%) r
Kimloy> Horn
•- I
10
Feet
200 400
Figure 3
SSURGO Soils and NWI
Brand Properties
NoDa Sugar Creek
Mecklenburg County, NC

4+11
0,0000
NOV.
AAlf �.
)f�
. � WC
SB
w
WB
y
A.
SA
1
00
WA °�
Legend ,y
h Project Study Area r
Stream (Potential Non -Wetland WoUS)
Wetland (Potential Wetland WoUS) Feet
Photo Locations ` 0 200 400
Figure 4
PJD Field Sketch
Klmley O Horn Brand Properties
1 NoDa Sugar Creek
Mecklenburg County, NC

VV,
rt
L� ,. Stream B -Impact 1 r • 'fit, '"
Stream B -Impact 2 ' 204 If Permanent
,..
40 If Temporary +� * Culvert Installation
Impervious Dike and
Pumped Diversion +r
x Wetland B - Impact 3 ,
I" 0.15 ac Permanent
Grading Fill
Wetland B - Impact 8
0.06 ac Temporary
Construction Access
'z,'
f
r Aw
1
wt.
Wetland C - Impact 9
y, 0.06 ac Permanent
Grading Fill
♦ ; ♦♦ r Wetland C - Impact 10
I' 0.04 ac Temporary
Construction of Retaining Wall
Stream B - Impact 5
94 If Permanent � �• � .
Stream Relocation 40
Stream B - Impact 6
20 If Temporary w ti/its
Impervious Dike and41
Pumped Diversion
�4.
Wetland B - Impact 4
0.06 ac Temporary
Construction of Retaining Wall �►`
Legend
rO Project Boundary (Limits of Disturbance) Retaining Walls X '
Buildings Site Plan Layout � �, .,.s ,,•
R�&' Wetland Impacts Grading
Stream Relocation Existing Streams
Drainage e-,3 Existing Wetlands Feet
Temporary Crossing '' 0 200 400
�t
Figure 5
Proposed Conditions
Kirnley }// Horn Brand Properties
NoDa Sugar Creek
Mecklenburg County, NC

IpII II1111�11�111 1111mi I ll l l m i 1111/111 1 1111111111'�IN 1111111111�'ll ll ll�l lol l�') IIII II IIIA 1111/11AI I I DID I I P,I1 111/1111 1ioI III III I II 1171 1 11'1 l' 1'�'
'.1:► ... .. LL► ..,.1. 1..1.► /.1 ♦ ♦ 1 11:► ... 1111 ♦ 1 ♦,.L► ... .. l.l:► ♦♦ 11,.11 1 ♦ I:111.. L1 ...1'„x.11 I' 1 1111,;11 1.:1 1 11.:1 1 1, .11 1 1.;1 1 111
11 1:1111:111 1:1111I11�I It',l 11 II11
►/1 ►.111111111 /11111111
11 11 /, 111111 11111 I11�1 1111111.111.111;1111111111',/111♦1'.111111 111111111 111♦111.1 111 1 M11 I',111'I 11 FIND ►;x'1111111 11111
1i l` U.
1111. \, .. 1'I ♦ \7 loll
1 ♦ ♦ .. ... \'I 1+�1. ...\► ... ... 1111\7♦ 117 ♦ 1 1+�I ♦ \-►. \, ... \�. P'I ♦ Noll
Nil
.\►. ..\,+�I .. .....\► 111111
11 \,.. F/ ♦t 1��/ ♦ ♦\7 ♦t ♦ d 11 1�1 ♦ ♦♦ 1'I 111114
t♦ ►.. 1111 ►1 t t1► 1;�/NIM
.. \7t1111 111 ►rl 111 11 111111111111 111 1111111!1 11 1111/111 1 Iluul 1 11 111111Ibil 11115 11 41 11 ►4 III rl 1 1 11111 Illllo 111 11111!1 nl nllllllu+l 1!11 1.111 tl 1111!1 1 Ili! 111 1 !+x11!1 111 rl 11111x1 11 11 11 11llll1+11!111 II11 1♦ 1'1 ♦11,►' .':►' I,► 1111 111' 11'I,►,:111 ♦ 1111:► .1.' ... 1.'1.' I,►♦ 11.► ..U'. 1.:►.',1111.11.:' P.1.',11.11 ..'♦ 11:1♦'♦1,1.1' .' ♦1111:\ P.1♦':11'':►'. ,.11.1L.►1.11..1:► ,.1111.':►'1..,.i:►1.111111.'V.:11111:►P.1♦'11,1♦ 111� I. . . . . \, 1111...\7...\►..\'►... \,......\,..\',. .. \,... 1 . \► 411 1"I 1'I♦ .\-, .. 1"I..\►... 111 ...\, ..\, ♦ 11 t 1 ♦ ♦R^'I \, ... ♦I♦ ..\,... \7.... \,...111 1 1 5111/11111111111 11111111111 1111 111 +IN1111 11 i IO 11111 11 11 111 IN 11 11 1!ul !1 x11 11 l 1111x1 1 r 11 1 !,1!1111 111 1llI 0111 111111111 1 11!!1 11 111111111 1111N 1 l 11 11 TIN♦ ♦ 11 11' L► ♦ ♦♦1 ♦111,'1 ♦11,►♦'I,►'♦11 ':1111'♦ 11'.1. 111:11' ♦'.►' ♦'11:1 1':► P.1♦':1':11 1':►'♦ 1.1"I,1'♦".6.1.11:►' ♦'L► 1 ♦I:► 1♦ ♦ 1 11"k.1'.► '♦1 1.11 1 11:11 "11,"♦' / �.:1♦'1 �1'1 t♦ 1"I♦♦1 111111.,11111 1 .. 1.1 11111\-►....47♦\'I♦4'I♦♦47 \7 .. 4�It t\'1►♦\'I♦.. \'I♦♦141♦I�11'/♦..\'/t 1tP7.\1♦♦FII... I♦.\►....\►..1"/\'►1t♦111^/.. FI1tt4�/4�/.\'I♦1"I \'PSI .. .. ♦♦4�/. \►. \►.♦t1'/.\► ..\►. 11..11111 1111 11 1111! 11 1111 111 1!1 11Il11/1NIr II1U 11 1111 1 11!10 1111111 11 11! 1 11 11' 11 11 !111 1111 1 11 1 (11) 1 I (1 111 !1 11 111 111 ! 1!111 111 ! 1!1 '1 111 11! 1/1111/15 111 1 11 1) I 11♦1111.,1�11'♦P.'111:►1';11'11:111:►11 �1 P.1♦11-1 ♦11:11111111:►♦111':1' NI:I,I:11.►♦111, ��111� p,1111�,�111111-1.11'11'.6.1111 I,' 11� �1 ♦Ij,11 ♦♦�;���,�11♦11111':1111111-1♦' ♦':'P.11':11 �;��.:I:1'1'♦ 1111 P,��11,►♦I:1♦�1�1,1 � 11,1 ♦11 �,��I 11 �1�1♦
1:1111„ 11.1111.11.11.1
11 111111'.11'.I111'.1�Dill 1111IIIIli111111i1 11/11111 111111.11.111.1 1��11111�1�Illilll►;�I►:111111 5.11
11 11111111 Iloilo loll ►111►111►111 ►;; ►M; IlEll/l @ oill'1
10 11.111111111101\,!I II II IIIII11 11111 11 = 11 I11 I111111 E 111 1111.1II1i11111.111
II loom I1 II I1 111 111 111 111 11 II; 111 11 11 11 11 \ 11 1111 II 11 111111II V�tI 111111I1 I, 11iI111 11 11 II � 11 11 11 II 1;t;�1 11 1♦.111 II � II 11 11 11
i1
. 1I 11.
. .. -I I I1 111 11 1 ♦ . 11 11 -1111 . 11111111 111 I ♦ . 11 11 ... 1 11 1.1111 1 I ♦ 11 \ 11 1 ♦ 11111 11 -1 1 1 ♦ ♦ 1111 H111 111 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 11 .. I ♦ „X11 I1 ♦ . 111 . ..
1 1 1
1r � .1 1 � r � 1 � 1 r 1 � 1� .1 .r �
i1 io I I I I ri r i o f r i i i i i u 1i P 1 i i r i ri � u i ri i i i r i1 io I I ri r
x111 r1r1/ i 1r1r1r lrlrllol1111r 1r.1r1r ,lr 11 ulrlr o 11,.1 1r 1r1r111.�i ��1�,,,�1r�i1 .�rlrlr1r111111 Irlr,,lr rlru1r1r111r 1x11 111r.111r1r1r1 rlrlr 1r lrlr I1 ilr lrlrlr. 111r1r 1►11 1111 Irl/, i 1r11111r111i,,,,r..i.
11 1 1 o I 1 . 1:111 11 1 11 ♦ t. 111'1 I 1 .1+11..11 ♦. 1 411. ♦ ♦�+� 1 111 1 1 1 111'.'.1 11��'11♦ 1 111 1 11:1 11111 ♦ ♦ ♦ 1 11111111 11 11 11 1 11 111 ND
1 1� N 1 111111 11111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 411 1 111 1" 1 1 1 /t
1111 11 11 11x111 11111111r�111� LI lil Il lr�l ll� 11i�,) II Ilr!�Q�111111�1 1��1111��11 11 11 111!11 Ilpll Il 11 11 lr� 1!!1 H,!.!IIrH. 11 llll�l lel 11 l,!1111,!��II 11 11 11 II IIIN.�114yp11 1111111111111!1 111,111.1 LI I,�Qp!1 II II Ili�.l 11 lr�l�111111111111111111111�� Il Il lr� Itl 1111„ Il 111 lr�l l!I II N.
OIUNNIIIIB'NNIINilllM 1111

\`I'I ♦ ♦t ♦t 1��1`I MEMO
t1�01 ♦ 1 \`I 1��1 ♦ ♦ 1 tl'I ♦ 11 ttt 1 ♦ t 11rd `I ♦ t♦ t♦ 1+q'I ♦t 111rd�1 ♦ 1 \'I ♦ 11 ♦ 1 ♦ \`I t♦ t t\`I 1��It 1��1 \�71'I ♦ ♦ �♦ 1����1 \'`I ♦ 1 1��1 ♦\'I tII♦ ♦ \'I ♦t 1��1 ♦ ♦1'I ♦t
Mel IIN111.INI,t,M IIN,�,N111.11,111,�,1111 L1M1.1p1�1 11111.11.111N111.1111.11,!,11 IIL111N.111,�;1,1 1. 1111.11.11,!;111.IIIF,M 11111.11.1111.1& 1.11111111,11 I,�,NI,�II,M1,1,1 111.11.111 1,} 11,11 LILA,�ILIF,ll11.,1�N►.I►,MLIN►,�,IIILI,II LIN 11
11 M1111 M 11 11 11 11► 1111
Il 11 ll 11 11 ►:111MM ►:I li
111 111 1:1 1:1 1:1 1'11:111111'11:1
11,'..11 1111 II��� 111111 ►:111111111.11:1111;; 111/1111 11►:1111111►;i� IE,1I�I1�� 1�1 II II IIII 1��11�� 11111�� 1'.11;1�1$;ll 11 ��� 11 I.t.111�►1 11111
1:1 I:Ill 11.1111.1111111,�;i; /�111111:II;i;1:111; 111:11:1111 1:1111:1111:II;1 1;1;11;11'„1\,\„ 11.111.111.11 1;t�;11',1111.11.11;X1111',X11',4;111.11',�111.111;l111.1111�1 11.1111.1
11 Illllllllllil►;� 1'.111'.111',1; 11111111 11►:1111111�1 ►;�;1►;�;►;►�� 11►:IIII►;;�I►;;./1►;�;�►:1►\„►1�„1.►;�,11►;�11►:1��; 11111
11.1 11.111.1111111.11111\,��1 11.1111.11111 1111 11.1 11.1 11 11.11111.1
11 PI3 IjA11ljllEIIIl IE'l l l111l Vl 11119 15 11111111 11 11.11111.11,1111.111.111.111.111\,11 11111111/
@11 '11101111111.1 ll
11 1111111111111.11:1
1111.11111.11'.1111'.1
11 I111111
11 P,t"101 ll 11 01'.1111
11.1 1.11111.11t1111.1111111'.11111'.1111111111111'.1
1111111'.1 11111111.1
11 111111.1
11.1
11111.1111.111.11
1111111.11111111.111111.1111.1
111111:1.11',�;I;t111.111.111.I;;
11.111.1 1111.1
1:11111.1
1.11.1111
1:1 li l
LI 111 1:111.11
1111
111.111111.11.111.11.11:111:1
1:1 I 11 m 11.111.1
1:1111:1
11.1 11 11.111.111.1;;11.111.111.1
►:1111111►;1;� 1 11111111.1111.1 11.111.111
. ,,.. .,, ... ...�,..v,."N .,,. .. ... .. ....... .. ..... , ..�,. ,. 111 , . .1
o i i i i i� i o1 ro u o 0 0 0 o i u i i o u i i ! i i i ri
►1 ►111,.11.. 111►0�llllllllllllllll,lll►11,11111►�o1►Ilu�llllollllll,lllw11111111111111u111111111111111111111 ai.ails,iil►lilil�lilil�a�l►i�ailil�ail�a�ai1�1�1i1�ail�a�li1�„�►,,111►1111111111111111111►11111111r1►111111111 III 11.�1111�1►..01►111111,111►11111►,,1►111III 1111111
111!IIIIIIIli1i111111111 !I!�I 111 o-1!IIPI111 1111!Illllulllll 11111!i!bil Illullinlllllllllllll!I IIINI!11!IIIIIIIIIIillllb111!I it ull!IIIII i!11!I!!111!111 it Ilil 111 11!1 �PI111 V111VI 111 i!1 it 11111!111►11!!INIIIIIIIIIMI!IIII!111 it 1111 111 it I W1111111111
. 1.11111:1. 1.�♦ LuA1 ♦111.11♦.. ♦.k1♦I\1..1 ♦11JJL.\ ♦1♦111.♦�\111\11.1.\1.1..1.1.\11. ..':\1.1.1♦♦11.11.11.1.1,1.':\1L\1♦ 111..♦ 1 Ill'J.1'..\1♦.1.1111..11:\...1, IN"1♦':\♦11 .1.N 1...010
IIIIIII.V;121P, 151► 1: 12

NCNHDE-7438: Brand - NODA Site
-
.1 Lfwl„U.ek 'lWO ninr qrr A.•
"v
JIM- A- Arando ” m
Halard •luncEon
Rv Y N�
'•-y��l � �hn by
•$, tivrn A Orale Hlk i S['CYf N k ry:ryvn
EIMR/RYrr E fL..vp }RF -
hb'c Ie AVE H""Ww
P G" ri naionx. wnk
LWI
;V,� anvela Oak,
w r 1 W-91 oy'
Orr.itl " ir>ar Tryon Hllla 8011
JH,Hill, [F�b[3 myg0L P, %
T kK4S-rHillx
u1ti
11-1lr Av-t t.[f _ A-
Hvwe
Oa
ark N n -0•F �.§ .. - - HttiJ—d RV[
j
µ�� a n•[,° J -
c• $x 1H' W"5� urr
S
` P � "e]Orn Acy fltd .L
.�r
y
p�. Ar❑�� s �c k• slel � -; - -
l S;
J 11
.Iryz,lw. %
Greenville
NMI -G Df. SU rR C. N �. JS1
6 !j �r Tp45: FF �.Jr fLx°
Rd P.
,p G�
!! $ s
lV' ^(•�nw
North ® wr _� p� Aracr,on 51 [y
n +` �*` s•:n rnn. Fin =n s° waxy 9b.-
N
- LGCkwOOtl v �" Charlotte
F -.:,l: r�A.. 0'. P+` teary Arr , fy, 'nY HI
F i Yr7n a d Ry yc Pori 9` C
r D C S S' 1
Pail, 1 - Y Opli-st par -'` '+i ��'p$ i � . •''�5 T
C W IM• I- reMyt �9 x A� ti
`oU O
'y'* y; r t ' [•ayVrilyl A.w pl. HMIs �� �c ��r ,1� Sr'" r. •• p�P w
pj _R 4
Oe �,N•a�mock I n
lr•y.ei.Y .• Fa'L SL S� c
November 5, 2018
❑ Project Boundary
❑ Buffered Project Boundary
Managed Area (MAREA)
I•I.I@Q@qP'15Ig N:15
1:22,725
0 0-175 0.35 0-7 mi
0 0-3 0-6 7-2 km
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin. Ini—p, in—rit P Corp., GEWO, u9GS.
FAO, NPS. NRCAN, Gea -, IGN, Kad-t[ NL, Ordnance Survey, Esti .Japan.
MET f- E5N China IHwg Kprgj, 5vasstapp. ® Open$lmelMap p ntlipplors, and
the GIS User Conmunity

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
mating i aicuiator version 4.l
Wetland Site Name NoDa Sugar Creek Date 04/04/2019
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization Chris Tinklenberg / Kimley-Horn
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Little Sugar Creek
River Basin Catawba USGS 8 -Digit Catalogue Unit 03050103
r— Yes ro"No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Lonaitude (deci-dearees) 35.247920 °N -80.812634 °W
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? [—, Yes F," No
Regulatory Considerations (select all that apply to the assessment area)
F Anadromous fish
F Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
F NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect
F Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
F Publicly owned property
F N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
F Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
F Designated NCNHP reference community
F Abuts a 303(d) -listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d) -listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
Blackwater
Brownwater
F Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) Lunar .,Wind
�; Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? [—, Yes F," No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? [—, Yes F," No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ;Yes F, No
Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS VS
A A Not severely altered
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. Refer to the current NRCS lateral effect of ditching guidance for
North Carolina hydric soils (see USACE Wilmington District website) for the zone of influence of ditches in hydric soils. 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 ditch
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).
Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (answer for non -marsh wetlands only)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
3a. A A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
D D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. r -,A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet

F, C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a. A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C 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
E ; 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
E ; 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
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
f✓ A 171 A F1 A >_ 10% impervious surfaces
F B f— B r B < 10% impervious surfaces
F C r C r C Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
F D r D r D >_ 20% coverage of pasture
F E F E F E >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
F F F F F F >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F G F G r G z 20% coverage of clear-cut land
F H F H F' H Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from hydrologic alterations
that prevent drainage or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer— assessment area/wetland complex condition metric
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
E ;Yes r;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 the 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 weltand? Descriptor E should be selected if ditches effectively bypass the buffer.
A z 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.
F, 5 15 -feet wide [—, > 15 -feet wide [—, Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
Yes [; No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
F, 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 metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Check a box in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT)
and the wetland complex at the assessment areas (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 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
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
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)
CA CA CA >_ 500 acres
C B C B C B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
C D C D C D From 25 to < 50 acres
C E C E C E From 10 to < 25 acres
C F C F C F From 5 to < 10 acres
C G C G C G From 1 to < 5 acres
H E H E; H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
C I C I C I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
CJ CJ CJ From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
CK CK CK < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
CA Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
C B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
Well Loosely
A A > 500 acres
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
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
CYes C No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
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.
CA No artificial edge within 150 feet in all directions
C B No artificial edge within 150 feet in four (4) to seven (7) directions
C An artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in more than four (4) directions or assessment area is clear-cut
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
CA 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.
CC Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition. Expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species). Exotic species are dominant in
at least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
CA Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (<10% cover of exotics).
C B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
CC Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (>50% cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
E Yes C No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
CA
>_ 25%
coverage of vegetation
C 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
Q_
CA
CA
Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
m
E; B
E; B
Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U
CC
C C
Canopy sparse or absent
20"0
CA
F,A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
I
C B
F, B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
o
E; C
E; C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
.0
CA
CA
Dense shrub layer
B
E; B
Moderate density shrub layer
CC
C C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
.0
CA
F,A
Dense herb layer
C B
F, B
Moderate density herb layer
C
E; C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric
CA Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 -inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
E;B Not
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric
CA 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.
CC Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
CA Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
E;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.
CA CB CC CD
5 AA 'NN
J.
Ir
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands 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.
E;A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
C B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
CC Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland Site Name NoDa Sugar Creek Date 04/04/2019
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization 'is Tinklenberg / Kimley-H
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function
Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
HIGH
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Conditon
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat
Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Habitat
Conditon
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

Accompanies User Manual Version 2
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5 -minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/ SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): NoDa Sugar Creek Development 2. Date of evaluation: April 4, 2019
3. Applicant/owner name: Brand Properties, LLC 4. Assessor name/organization: C. Tinklenberg/Kimley-Horn
5. County: Meklenburg 6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: Catawba on USGS 7.5 -minute quad: Little Sugar Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.247920, -80.812634
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width win be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): Stream B 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): -150'
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feel): 2 r Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 3' 13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? [, Yes [, No
14. Feature type: [,'Perennial flow Fes' Intermittent flow [-,Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: [-,Mountains (M) (:; Piedmont (P) ): ; Inner Coastal Plain (I) [-,Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic \ J
valley shape (skip for (;' a
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip (;' Size 1 (< 0.1 mi`) (:,' Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi`) [",Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi`) [",Size 4 (�: 5 mi')
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? [ ;Yes r-, No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
F_ Section 10 water r Classified Trout Waters r Water Supply Watershed ( [-,I [ �' II [ , III [-,IV IV [,V)
F Essential Fish Habitat r Primary Nursery Area r High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
F Publicly owned property r NCDW R riparian buffer rule in effect r Nutrient Sensitive Waters
r- Anadromous fish r- 303(d) List r- CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
F Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
F Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
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
Al least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow ora channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
[;B
Not
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
[ ;A
A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
[;B
Not A.
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile -assessment reach metric
F, 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 -cul), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
E;A
< 10% of channel unstable
CB
10 to 25% of channel unstable
r" 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 interslream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors -assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
F A
Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky while, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
r B
Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
R C
Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
F D
Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
1`3 E
Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
F F
Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
F G
Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
F H
Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
r I
Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
t- J
Little to no stressors
8. Recent
Weather -watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, Dt 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
F, No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).

10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types -assessment reach metric
10a. r-, Yes FNo 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)
101b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
r A Multiple aquatic macrophy es and aquatic mosses m r F5 % oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) F m r G Submerged aquatic vegetation
R B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent w nr H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation o r I Sand bottom
F_ C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) L m r J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
r D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots 02 r K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal welled perimeter
F_ E Little or no habitat
*"""'"*"*"*"*"*"""""'"*"*"- REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS**"*'*'*'---- "'"*--
11. Bedform and Substrate -assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11 a. r-, Yes F No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
P A Riffle -run section (evaluate ttc)
r B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
r- Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffles sections, check all that occur below the normal welled 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/saprolile
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 r" No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12. Aquatic Life - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. F, 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. r" No Water [; Other:
121b. r" Yes F,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 11 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for size 3 and 4 streams.
r r Adult frogs
r r Aquatic reptiles
r r Aquatic macrophyles and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
r
r- Beetles (including water pennies)
f✓ r Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
r r Asian clam (Corbicula )
r r Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
r
r- Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
r r Dipterans (true flies)
r r Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
r r Megaloptera (alderfly, fishily, dobsonfly larvae)
r r Midges/mosquito larvae
r r Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
r r Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )
r r Other fish
r r Salamanders/tadpoles
r r Snails
r r Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
r r Tipulid larvae
r r Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
A [",A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B [; B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C [",C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage - streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A [",A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water t 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 welled 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.
r A Streams and/or springs Qurisdictional discharges)
r B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
r C Obstruction that passes some flow during low -flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom -release dam)
r D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
W E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
r F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors -assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
r A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
r B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
fJ C Urban stream (>: 24% impervious surface for watershed)
F D Evidence that the stream -side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
r E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge

r F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
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 x 100 -feel wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B ['; B B From 50 to < 100 -feel wide
C [;C C [;C From 30 to<50-feet wide
D [",D [';D [",D From 10 to<30-feel wide
E E ['; E E < 10 -feel wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RS) 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 feel of stream (< 30 feel), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feel).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: f3
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 RS
FA F'A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B ['; B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C ['; C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feel of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RS
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. r_ Yes CNo Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. r" No Water [; Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
CA <46 [ ; B 46 to < 67 [; C 67 to < 79 [; D 79 to < 230 CE ? 230

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 1
Rating Calculator Version 1
Stream Site Name NoDa Sugar Creek Development Date of Evaluation April 4, 2019
Stream Category Pb2 Assessor Name/Organization,. Tinklenberg/Kimley-Horr
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Intermittent
USACE/
NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Floodplain Access
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Microtopography
NA
NA
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
LOW
(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
MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
OMITTED
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
HIGH
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(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 Habitat
NA
NA
Overall
MEDIUM
MEDIUM