20201417 Ver 1_DeArmon_Cover page and Attachments_20230927

CAROLINA WETLAND SERVICES, INC.
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
704-527-1177 (office)
704-527-1133 (fax)
To: Douglas Perez
USACE - Charlotte Regulatory Field Office
Andrew Pitner
NCDEQ - 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
Date: September 7, 2023
Subject: Pre -Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit Nos. 14 and 58
DeArmon Road Complete Street Improvements (SAW-2022-02315)
Charlotte, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2020-0118
Dear Mr. Pitner and Mr. Perez,
The DeArmon Road Complete Street Improvements is a joint project between the City of Charlotte and the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). The DeArmon Road Improvements Project is part of
the City of Charlotte's Prosperity Village Comprehensive Neighborhood Improvement Program (Figure 1,
attached). On behalf of the City of Charlotte, Woolpert has subcontracted Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
(CWS) to provide Section 404/401 permitting services for this project. An executed Agent Authorization
Form is attached (Attachment B).
The purpose of the project is to widen the DeArmon Road and add sidewalks. Additionally, the project
proposes one open -cut sewer crossing. CWS is submitting a Pre -Construction Notification pursuant to
Nationwide Permit Nos. 14 and 58 to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Water Quality Certification Nos.
4246 and 4276 to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality for the impacts to the jurisdictional
waters of the U.S.
ATTACHMENTS INCLUDED:
DESCRIPTION
Attachment A - Figures 1-7
Attachment B - Agent Authorization Form
Attachment C - Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination SAW-2022-02315
Attachment D - Proposed Impacts
Attachment E - NC SAM Forms and Mitigation Credit Availability Letter
Attachment F - Protected Species Assessment and USFWS Concurrence Letter
Attachment G - SHPO Letter
Please do not hesitate to contact Aliisa Harjuniemi at 980-259-1222 or [e-mail] should you have
any questions or comments regarding this request.
Sincerely,
C
Megan Bollero, WPIT
Project Scientist
Aliisa Harjuniemi, PWS
Senior Project Manager

DeArmon Road Complete Street Improvements
Attachments
September 7, 2023
CWS Project No. 2020-0118
ATTACHMENT A:
Figures 1-7

Oehler [^ l3 a
Nature aef [: Iasi. a : r r • ASS
Prenerve := 1
%
°rar Rd � '�
�16ad Rd
Htmtersville I
Skytsoak l ram,
4;R g,❑"9 `..'•try. �,rpaK ir. (7011
_ a
e Club +
_ 1
r N
sP F eEa sthe ld
Peg io nal
Park
r 1
p Q Highland N
Q. C reek Go If
s Club
m �
a
Ham ! R d �%br�
x
2 a4d
Alex —
c�
hbnh
Lale ivb" North
c
Rff� La)w }
V1lbge a
z v
cr
a
vi
rL�
F,d
Sg�
�b� 5,000 2,500 0 5,000 Feet
�a
REFERENCE: BACKGROUND VICINITY LAYER PROVIDED BY ESRI, DATED 2n17.
SCALE: DATE: 2� 10/2017 FIGURE NO.
1 inch = 5,000 feet Vicinity Map
CWS PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:
2017-0112 CPS DeArmon Road Complete Street improvements
,1PPLJCANT NO: CHECKED BY: CAR ❑ L I N A Charlotte, North Carolina
GCA WETLAND SERVICES CWS Project No. 2017-0112
U:A2017A2017 Consulting\2017 PAnjectsA2017-0112 DeArmon Road,ArcGTS\GJS Data\Figurel_Vicinky.mxd

j
3
Eastfield Road V
—7
145?
. or er
2409'
q
il
X,
b
x 1p
%
24M Zz-
14
Bentield Road
Browne Road V
L f I DeArtrion Road
X,
Y,
N I
rr
%
Legend
it 11
r
Project Limits (16.3 ac.)
2,000 1,000 0 2,000 Feet
REFERENCE 7.5 MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC US GS QUADRANGLES CORNELIUS, NC 1996)AND DERIT. A,
41 N-71"
SCALE: I inch � 2,000 feet DATE: 2/10/2017 USGS Site Location FIGURE NO.
CWS PROJECT NO DRAWN BY.
2017-0112 CPS DeArmon Road Complete Street Improvements
\PPLJCANT NO CHECKED BY CAR OLINA Charlotte, North Carolina 2
GCA WETLAND SERVICES CANS Project No. 2017-0112
U\2017\2017C.ns,Iting\2017 Pr.je&.,\2017-0112 De,\tnion Road\ \icGIS\GIS Data\Fig-2 USGS.mxd

U:A2017A2017 Consulting\2017 Praje&,A2017-0112 DeArmon Road\ArcCTS\GTS Data\Figure4_CurrentSoils.msd

U:A2017A2017 Consulting\2017 Praje&,A2017-0112 DeArmon Road\ArcGTS\GTS Data\Fig-5_HistoricSoils.msd

U:A2017A2017 Consulting\2017 Praje&.,A2017-0112 DeArmon Road\ArcGTS\GTS Data\Fig-6 NWT.msd

DeArmon Road Complete Street Improvements
Attachments
September 7, 2023
CWS Project No. 2020-0118
ATTACHMENT B:
Agent Authorization Form

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers — Wilmington District - Regulatory Division
AGENT AUTHORIZATION
I. PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION
Site Name: DeArmon Road Complete Street Improvements
Property Identification Number(s): linear proiect encompassing multiple parcels
I, the undersigned, Kristie Kennedy ,hereby authorize Aliisa Hariuniemi , to act on
my behalf in all manners relating to all dealings with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding the project and
properties listed above, including taking all necessary actions for the application, processing, issuance, and/or
acceptance of a Clean Water Act and/or Rivers and Rivers Act delineations, determinations, and/or permits. Any
and all acts carried out by Aliisa Hariuniemi on my behalf as it relates to this project and properties
shall have the same effect as acts of my own.
5&btie Xetwd* 9/15/2V23
Signature Date
Principal Purpose: The information that you provide will be used in evaluating your request to determine whether there are any aquatic resources within the project area
subject to federal jurisdiction under the regulatory authorities referenced above.
Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and local government agencies, and the public, and may be made
available as part of a public notice as required by federal law. Your name and property location where federal jurisdiction is to be determined will be included in the approved
jurisdictional determination (AJD), which will be made available to the public on the District's website and on the Headquarters USACE website.
Disclosure: Submission of requested information isvoluntary; however, if information is not provided, the request for ajurisdictional determination cannot be evaluated nor
can a jurisdictional determination be issued.
January 2020

DeArmon Road Complete Street Improvements
Attachments
September 7, 2023
CWS Project No. 2020-0118
ATTACHMENT C:
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
(SAW-2022-02315)

saw-2022-02315
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. saw-2022-02315 County: Mecklenburg U.S.G.S. Quad: NC-Derita
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERNIINATION
Requestor:
City of Charlotte
Kristie Kennedy
Address:
600 East 4th Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone Number:
704-591-3954
E-mail:
kristie.kennedv(&charlottenc.gov
Size (acres) 16.3 Nearest Town Charlotte
Nearest Waterway Clarks Creek River Basin Upper Pee Dee
USGS HUC 03040105 Coordinates Latitude: 35.363110
Longitude:-80.793249
Location description: The review area is located on the along DeArmon Road between the intersections of DeArmon Road and
Browne Road and DeArmon Road and Prosperity Church Road. Reference review area description shown in the
Jurisdictional Determination Request package entitled "Figure 1, Vicinity Map" and dated 02/10/17.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
® There appear to be waters on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The waters have been
delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently accurate and reliable. The approximate boundaries
of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated 2/28/2017. Therefore this preliminary jurisdiction determination
may be used in the permit evaluation process, including determining compensatory mitigation. For purposes of computation of
impacts, compensatory mitigation requirements, and other resource protection measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a
preliminary JD will treat all waters and wetlands that would be affected in any way by the permitted activity on the site as if they
are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program
Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331). However, you may request an approved JD, which is an appealable
action, by contacting the Corps district for further instruction.
❑ There appear to be waters on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). However, since the waters
have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination may not be used in the permit evaluation process.
Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is merely an effective presumption of CWA/RHA
jurisdiction over all of the waters at the project area, which is not sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable
permit decision. We recommend that you have the waters on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be able
to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can
be verified by the Corps.
B. Approved Determination
❑ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area/property subject to the permit
requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for
a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ There are waterson the above described project area/property subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ We recommend you have the waters on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish
this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by
the Corps.

saw-2022-02315
❑ The waters on your project area/property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the Corps. The
approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated DATE. We strongly suggest you have
this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey
will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in
the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
❑ The waters have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps Regulatory Official
identified below onDATE. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied
upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area/property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA).
You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to determine their
requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US, including wetlands, without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material, construction or
placement of structures, or work within navigable waters of the United States without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Sections 9 and/or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC § 401 and/or 403). If you have any questions
regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Bryan Roden -Reynolds at 704-510-1440 or
brvan.roden-reynolds(&u sace.army.mil.
C. Basis For Determination: Basis For Determination: See the preliminary jurisdictional determination
form dated 11/08/2022.
D. Remarks: None
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site
identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security
Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request
a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in B.
above)
If you object to this determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed
you will find a Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and Request for Appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this
determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Mr. Philip A. Shannin
Administrative Appeal Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Floor M9
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8803
AND
PHILIP.A. SHANNIN&USACE.ARMY.MIL
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal
under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you
decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by Not applicable.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form tq the Di isio* Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence.**
Corps Regulatory Official:

saw-2022-02315
Date of JD: 11/08/2022 Expiration Date of JD: Not applicable
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete our Customer Satisfaction Survey, located online at
hiips://re ug lator,�.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/.
Copy Furnished:
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at
http: //corpsmapu.usace. army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=13 6:4: 0
Copy furnished:
Agent: Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
Megan Bollero
Address: 550 E. Westinghouse Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273
Telephone Number: 757-576-6433
E-mail: meganAcws-inc.net

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: City of Charlotte, Kristie Kenned File Number: saw-2022-02315 Date: 11/08/2022
Attached is:
See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
A
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
B
PERMIT DENIAL
C
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
❑X
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at or http://www.usace.army.miUMissions/CivilWorks/ReaulatoryProgramandPenuits.asi)
or the Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of
this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

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

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: 11/08/2022
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: City of Charlotte, Kristie Kennedy, 600 East
4th Street, Charlotte, NC 28202
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District, DeArmon Road, saw-2022-
02315
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The review area is located on the
along DeArmon Road between the intersections of DeArmon Road and Browne Road and DeArmon Road
and Prosperity Church Road. Reference review area description shown in the Jurisdictional Determination
Request package entitled "Figure 1, Vicinity Map" and dated 02/10/17.
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES
AND/OR AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County: Mecklenburg City: Charlotte
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Latitude: 35.363110 Longitude:-80.793249
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Clarks Creek
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
®Office (Desk) Determination. Date: 11/08/22
❑ Field Determination. Date(s):
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES INREVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO
REGULATORY JURISDICTION
Aquatic Feature
Latitude
Longitude
Estimated
Type of aquatic
Geographic authority to
(decimal
(decimal
amount of
resources (i.e.,
which the aquatic
degrees)
degrees)
aquatic
wetland vs.
resource "may be"
resources in
non -wetland
subject (i.e., Section 404
review area
waters)
or Section 10/404)
(acreage and
linear feet, if
applicable
Clarks Creek
35.363888
-80.791339
134 linear feet
Non -wetland
404
Stream B
35.361486
-80.796252
212 linear feet
Non -wetland
404
1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in the
review area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option to request
and obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an informed decision after
having discussed the various types of JDs and their characteristics and circumstances when
they may be appropriate.
2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a Nationwide
General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring "pre- construction
notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non -reporting NWP or other general
permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an AJD for the activity, the permit
applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit
authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an official determination of

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

SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply) Checked items are included in the administrative
record and are appropriately cited:
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map: Figures 1-7
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor. Datasheets:
® Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale:
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑USGS NHD data:
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps:
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Figure 2, USGS Site Location (7.5-minute
quadrangle Derita, NC)
®Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Figure 4, USDA-NRCS Current Soils Map of
Mecklenburg County (Web Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County) and Figure 5, USDA-NRCS Historic Soil
Survey of Mecklenburg County (Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County Dated 1976)
® National wedands inventory map(s). Cite name: Figure 6, National Wetland Inventory (USFWS NWI
Ma er
❑ State/local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): Figure 1, Vicinity Map (Dated 02/10/17), Figure 3, Aerial Imagery
(Dated 2017), and Figure 7, Jurisdictional Boundaries (Dated 02/28/17)
or ® Other (Name & Date): Photographs 1-6
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify):

IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily been verified by the Corps
- . - - I. , .. ,. .. . I . . .. 1. . . I . 1.
Signature and date of Regular
staff member completing PJD
11 /08/2022
Signature and date of person requesting PJD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining the signature is
impracticable)1
1 Districts may establish timeframes for requester to return signed PJD forms. If the requester does not respond within the established
time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is necessary prior to finalizing an action.

DeArmon Road Complete Street Improvements
Attachments
September 7, 2023
CWS Project No. 2020-0118
ATTACHMENT D:
Proposed Impacts

INDEX OF SHEETS
PE SEAL
CONVENTIONAL SIGNS
.■
0
0
io
0
0
0
N
O
N
t9
TitleSheet............................................................................................ 1
General Notes, Standard Abbreviations & Various Details ........... 2
Earthwork & Grading Summary ................................................... 2A
RampDetails..............................................................................
2B-2C
Structure Notes, Cast in Place Headwall &
Custom Structure Details ...................................................... 2D1-2D7
RetainingWall..................................................................................
2E
TypicalSections, Drainage Summary ......................................... 3-31)
PlanSheets...................................................................................... 4-11
Profile Sheets................................................................................ 12-17
Culvert Plan & Profile....................................................................... 18
Traffic Control Sheets & Temporary Detour .................
TCP1-TCP9
Pavement Marking & Signing Plans ................................ PM1-PM11
Erosion Control Plans ........................................................
EC1-EC19
Utility Construction Plans .................................................... UC1-UC4
Utility By Others Plans ...................................................
UBO1-UB08
CrossSections........................................................................... XI-X42
TOTAL SHEETS 139
sta• 11+40 -YL-
f
SURVEY PREPARED BY:
CITY OF CHARLOTTE SURVEY-MAPPING-GIS FROM
THE LOCALIZED COORDINATE SYSTEM DEVELOPED FOR
THIS PROJECT IS BASED ON STATE PLANE COORDINATES
ESTABLISHED BY: NCGS MONUMENT OR CONTROL POINT
WITH NAD 83(2011) STATE PLANE COORDINATES OF
NORTHING: 590881.73 EASTING: 1463358.12 ELEVATION NAVD: 809.51
THE AVERAGE COMBINED GRID FACTOR USED ON THIS
PROJECT (GROUND TO GRID) IS: 0.999840463
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 88
ALL LINEAR DIMENSIONS ARE LOCALIZED HORIZONTAL
\ DISTANCES. DATE RANGE OF SURVEY: 1/8/2016 TO 5/12/2016 /
VICINITY MAP
NTS
�9r End Construction
-Y2- +
Sta. 10 90 -Y3-
Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
PLANS PREPARED BY:
11301 Carmel Commons
%A/ Blvd, Suite 300
Charlotte, NC 28226
W O O L P E P T 704.525.6284
DESIGN I GFOSPATIAL I INFRASTRUCTURE FAX. [phone]
N.C.B.E.L.S.
Lic. No. P-0648
CHARLOTTESM
GENERAL SERVICES
Construction Plans of Proposed
DeArmon Road Complete Street Improvements
Project No. 8010800081
Proiect Features:
Street Improvements, Curb &
Gutter, Sidewalk, Asphalt
Paving, Traffic Control, Storm
Drain, Utility Relocation.
Fnd Camtr»etinn
Sta. 11+20 -Y4- �,
T "PA9171"N MAP
NET
LENGTH
OF
IMPROVEMENTS:
0.771
0.014
0.014
0.016
0.035
0.850
MILES
NET
LENGTH
OF
STRUCTURES:
0.011
0
0
0
0
0.011
MILES
NET
LENGTH
OF
PROJECT:
0.771
0.014
0.014
0.016
0.035
0.850
MILES
PLANS PREPARED FOR:
600 East Fourth Street
s'H�
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
FOR CHARLOTTE
CITY OF CHARLOTTE
GENERAL SERVICES
—L—
DeArmon Rd
2018 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
Plan View .................
Horz. Profile ............
Vert. Profile .............
Cross Section ...........
GRAPHIC SCALES
DONOTUSEFORCONSTRUCTION
Record Drawings
J0HNS7�
'OH OFH
RECOMMENDED
FOR CONSTRUCTION
Contract Administration
Construction Administration
Landscape Management
Engineering Services
Utility Coordinator
CDOT - Design
CDOT - Implementation
CLTWater
0 15 Planning
Storm Water Services
NewR/W Line ................................................. ROW —
—
Existing Property Line ................................... — —
Maintained as R/W Line ................................
ExistingStructures .........................................
RailroadTracks ..............................................
Proposed Edge of Pavement ..........................
Fence................................................................ X
SlopeStake Line ............................................. C
F
Temporary Construction Easement ............. e
e
Sidewalk / Utility Easement .......................... SUE
SUE
Storm Drainage Easement ............................ sDE
sDE
ExistingGas Line ........................................... G
G
ExistingWater Line ....................................... w
w
ExistingSanitary Sewer ................................ ss
ss
Existing Underground Telecommunications
Existing Underground Electric ..................... UE
UE
ExistingStorm Drainage ............................... - - - - - - -
- - - -
ProposedStorm Drainage .............................
ExistingTree...........................................................................................
0
ExistingWater Meter.............................................................................
WM
❑
WV
ExistingWater Valve............................................................................. >a
GV
ExistingGas Valve................................................................................. >a
s
Existing Sanitary Sewer Manhole
IT
Proposed Sanitary Sewer Manhole
°
Existing Storm Drain Manhole
ProposedStorm Drain Manhole...........................................................•
ExistingTelephone Manhole.................................................................0
ProposedTelephone Manhole...............................................................0
Existing Electric Manhole E
ProposedElectric Manhole...................................................................0
ExistingCatch Basin..............................................................................
ProposedCatch Basin............................................................................�
ExistingLight Pole.................................................................................
ProposedLight Pole................................................................................
ExistingUtility Pole................................................................................
.a
GuyWire............................................................................................
ProposedUtility Pole..............................................................................
.W
IronPin....................................................................................................
00
ExistingFire Hydrant............................................................................ . 6-
ProposedFire Hydrant..........................................................................
ExistingDrop Inlet..................................................................................0
ProposedDrop Inlet................................................................................
Accessible Ramp
TreeProtection.............................................................................
ProposedGuardrail...................................................................
SiltFence.....................................................................................
Proposed Curb & Gutter, Conc. Drive, Sidewalk ...................
ProposedAsphalt Pavement........................................................
ProposedRip Rap Ditch..............................................................
ProposedGravel...........................................................................
ProposedPavement Removal ......................................................
Proposed Sidewalk Bridging Tree Roots ..................................
Sidewalk Cross Slope Transition
�rrrr.
AsphaltMilling............................................................................
r. / / / / / /l
•
CHARLOTTE,.
GENERAL SERVICES
APPROVED
Bid Set No.
Sheet I

GRASSED SWALE
B-B
I
D= 1.5' r B -{
B= 1.0'
Z1= 3
Z2= 10
1 ON(,ITI Inwm CI (1PF = qFF qHT 1
DEBORAH M. HOLSINGER
MARK C. HOLSINGER
TAX PARCEL: 027-093-62
DB 14176 PG 535
R/W AGREEMENT DB 2302 PG 589
11925 DEARMON ROAD
A
150' STORAGE
e -
e
c e e e e- e
c _
c c ^ ,9c —
PREURINARYPLANS w
00 NOT USE FOR
� � o
Road Crossing #1 - Stream B / CINSTRUCTION
S CALVIN HUCKS
Y G. HUCKS
RCEL: 027-093-64
3 PG 315
GREEMENT DB 2302 PG 589 c
DEARMON ROAD
32pipeS 1: 130 if extensionc
-
rL2
- OHWM: 3.5 feet 6 AST' S p,PE
3
NVE T_
7,12
VER7 58,35
v�
CC L w
S2: 30 if pipe extension (downstream
c�
\ o
W<
� \ az
OHWM: 8 feet
— CHARLES CALVIN HUCKS
DOROTHY G. HUCKS T'F � a
TAX PARCEL: 027-093-65 00 a
DB 1910 PG 132 \ o
R/W AGREEMENT DB 2302 PG 586
12029 DEARMON ROAD GF -
A33
z
/ o
e �
z
0
w
0
— U) 2'-6" CU V � GAS 124 1/ �oS `� `"
W 123 0 � m
& GUTTER T PR. NCDOT 840.02 CB �o`" PR. NCDOT 840.02 CB 1z• A oD
o 7s7.o1 E-T E-T E-T E_T E-T RELOCATE F.H. 0 ¢
33LF OF 48" RCP ® 1.00% SUS- y o
— " — SUE AeAB
<� 59LF OF 24 RCP ®1.00% E S GAS l 1
0
OE of of
OE of of E of of z
-� NVERT-75a 4 7' SIDEWALK
� 15,. R
~ RT=768.66 EXIST. 15" RCP E N " 20 s" Rc
CLEn OUT 80LF OF 15" RCP ®1.24% o
BE REMOVED INVERT 6a 42
GRVL DW 7E 2" T WATER W W N
W W 2" CLT WATER m N
W W W W 7177� 7-1
W
W —� MB OE
uT 21 0 W w w w w w w w
u w w W w - - - — - - - EX 64LF OF -30" LF qF 6" C AT&T " 2 Lr OF,15" P ® .00 w M M
U uT a uT —uT t� z?
2 w 52LF OFF PVC
W PTO BE REMOVED UND RDRAIN ® 0% 136R DE AIN ® 1.00% 75LF OF PV 0 L C
OF 15" RCP 4. % _ _ 2 _ UNDERDRAIN 0 1. o !�� �; o
1 LF
y I/ 0 m z
25 W G
/ of 60LF 0 PV y y 0 a
m 66LF OF 6" PVC °
c - UN RDRAIN 1.0 e U DRA 1. % 126 UNDERD A
c c c of o OLDS 0.2 ��� 127 c 0
_ A p �1 -- `A��/-- --------�-�� c ----------u----c--
- - - - - - A LE 1 �17 '0 Y�IIL�y�R. NCDO 840 2 J C ANOUT / W
u6' S uT _ _- - _ _ -- - _ _ _ - c _� T T ITT �� ITT uT 5 �P . s1CDlZ1F0, 5,u cMP uT 26LF OF 15" CL III RCP 05.94% Q a W 6Li
IDEWgt - - - uT = - - oT - cMP AT&T TIT 35LF OF 48 RCP RT= oo Q Wn Z -j>
r — — — — — — - UT ITT ITT AT&T EMERLITT UT UT -
INVERT_7 ITT
PDE - PR. NCDOT 840.02 CB �- _ LU
F ----
�a
--- — Sh I ' l J QI = LL_j
E of �--��_------------------------ -- 7 SIDEWALK o Rc I l
3 X E �E'T�-eE - E 6 _ —� SS
S SS 6 SS S G W
_ 0 �w
X e - SUE _ � — — � �c�
OOD F CE e X e BENCH MARK: F F 118 'AREA OBSCUR D BY DENSE FOLI, ,_ _ UE E SS 110LF OF 15" RCP ®1.28%
PUE LANDSCAPE EASEMENT PER �1B 29- 35 AREA OBSCURED BY DENSE F LIAGE '"1 11 SUE SS�UE
PUE ELEV.=77 gs AREA OBSCURED BY DENSE FOLIAGE PR. NCDOT 840.02 CB C SUE
EXIST. C&G TO BE �� PR-MCDOT 840.02 CB x
t240 LF Qo � _ 3.1 ss S��� 6' SIDEWALK
EXIST. SIDEW LK TO
11
768.07 SUE
THIS- SHEET. � - - - 22� 7 � 5�
_ SUE SUE
O (DREMOVED,
BE R OVED. �_� � ,� �� o - - _ - _ _ -_ __ _ SUE SUE
o ±246 LF THI SHEET. o 3> P T—� HP. `� s5 E c 9 \ 122
IM=766, 46
T=T 16 766.13 Nv�RT�loc AV1s"H D PR. NCDOT 840.02 CB
A/ P " POE PDF- PDE PI PDE E SDE N RT (oUT)=7620
Q�� X EXIST. SDMN 2 P MB 8 DE / C e o 12"HARDWOOD
10OLF OF GRASS SWALE R. W86& 840.E E DE a -HARD OD N
x eo RIM=772.46 _ F e� 130LF OF GRAB SWALE e \ p
/ PEN TH OATFCB
I KIMBERLY THOMPSON WD FENCE 48"RCP(IN)=761,60 � SE �� $BET � SS � �� SEE SECTION C- THIS SHT � A o pa N
TAX PARCEL: 027-715-01 o� 0 48"RCP(oUT)=761,54 i i EXIST. 26LF OF 15
I DB 12699 PG 047 P i F e P " \ " N -a Q w
8638 MINERAL RIDGE WAY / ° \ SSE S / P`'F� ^ 2 -6 CURB G II Q m a
QOE eon/ \ - 115 \ e e 6" OPENING ON S ���RE PR. NCDOT 840.04 CMP TO BE REMOVED \ & GUTTER G eLj
CL � a
PAULA J. SLAUGHTER ,BR-NCDOT 840.32 JB (4) SIDES ,5 S OP E c e >
TAX I QQE DB 35287CPG: 4157-715-06 REMOVE 12 OF 48" RCP INV.-= 765.70 SS BENCH MARK: e Z
I / 12011 ALABASTER COURT S TP-60P #543 REPLACE EXIST.
I QOE QOE + �o A REMOVE HW APPROX. 130 LF s ELEV.=766.86 DRIVEWAY PER o e \
T CASSANDRA ROSE WALKER \ OF OPEN CHANNEL o
\ T NCDOT STD. 848.03
TAX PARCEL: 027-715-07 TO BE FILLED IN. " \
DB 34820 PG 81 \ � � 6 OPENING ONO I �° \ \
DB 8326 Pc 707 / s ss J INV. = 765.40
12013 ALABASTER COURT \ `�� \ \
2$�
69LF OF 48" RCP ® 0.80% \ \
ss 12.5 STORM \
QOE 50LF OF 48" RCP 0 0.741 000 m m
DRAINAGE ESMT. o
FROM CA OF PIPE \ \ 0 N ;
RID
\ EXIST. SSMH
RIM=772 \�INVERT (OUT)=76240 10
DERITA MASONIC LODGE #715
AF & AM, IS A MASONIC FRATERNITY UNDER
THE GRAND LODGE OF NORTH TAX PARCEL: 027- CAROLINA
714-01
\ �Q DB 31337 PG 927
\ AGREEMENT DB PG 590
121 \ = 12100 DEARMON ROAD
BRANDON DILLAHUNT \\ \ ��� �07 MICHAEL A. SCOTT \
TAX PARCEL: 027-715-02
DB 26565 PG 575 / �3" KIMBERLY SCOTT C)
TAX PARCEL: 027-715-08
8628 MINERAL RIDGE WAY / / JERALD D. CARSON
DB 9928 PG 048
TARA M. CARBON /
/ � 12017 ALABASTER COURT
TAX PARCEL: 027-715-05
/ \ DB 9814 PG 12007 ALABASTER COURT
TRINH BAD TRAN \
HUONG LAN NGUYEN \
A O
/ TAX PARCEL: 027-715-03
DB 15225 PG 461
/l 8624 MINERAL RIDGE WAY FRANCIS L. MAYNARD, JR.
/ / \ TAX PARCEL: 27-7ERYL A. : 027-7 15-09 \ SEE SHEET 13 FOR -L- PROFILE \ / TA
\ / DB 22590 PG 843
12018 ALABASTER COURT
F /
zo 40 60 Sheet
Plan View .................

Road 1
S5: 54
- OHNN
- 461f
See S
S6: 16(
- 60 if
- No lo
S7: 20
system
"""""NARYPL4NS
T USE FOR
TRUCTION
5
N
N
co
N �
i b 1-4 cp
C N N
fn � iD
16 M M
0
o W z
w CK
a' o D m
^O o a LL
CC U
4 UJ
QI I LL H
0w
W rz
w
0
N
0
pa
N
w
Q
LL
v
<
m
Q
so
X
W
0
Z
co
C]
0
z
Q
0
O
a
Y
0
co
a
¢
IR hPlan View '

752
748
744
740
736
732
728
724
720
I
SAFETY RAIL
eARMON ROAD
SAFETY RAIL
I
I
PROPOSED GRADE
I
I
2 __
I
2MEN
,
-
FEMA CROSS-SECTION
TOP
OF H W
TOP OF H W
=743.39
ST :19463
743.17
100-YR WSEL ELEV
FEMA
CROSS-SECTION I ELEV.
STA:19298
742.17
PROP. 1
"WM
ELEV.=742.39
= 740.24
100-YR
WSEL = 740.01
741.OE
I
740.80
I
0.79'
EXISTING GRADE
0.81'
PROP. 100
LF OF (1) 9' X 12' RCBC
PROPOSEDPWR
I
CHANNEL BOT
OM FILL
II
(� 72" GRIP
ELE V=736.66
WITH CREEK BANKMATERIAL
ROBE R-99
I FUTURE GREENWAY BOTTOM
PWR
ELEV=731.66
STA: 0+50
I
I BORE -
I EXISTING
CHANNEL BOTTOM
CHANNEL BOTTOM
I
I PWR
ELEV=732.31
I
I
PROP. CHANNEL BOTTOM
INTERSECTION
I
INVERT = 731.80
�i�
�� �C %�
�/ r,,%�y��i��� r����
,����
ii�ii�EXISTING
�i��' ^ �i��i�����i��>
- - - - - - - - - - -
����� ��
�������
CHANNEL
xxxx���T������������������
�� ��� ��
�����N��i��i���%i
�����
BOTTOM
INVERT = 732.05
EXISTING
CHANNEL
INVERT = 728.80
BOTTOM
X
INVERT = 729.05
INVERT = 727.47
\\
ROBE R-91
AUGER REFUSAL AT
9 1.8 H x 0.5 W CONCRETE
PROP. 100 LF OF 3 12' X 12' RCBC
( )
BURY 1' BELOW EXISTING GRADE
ELEV=730.13
SILLS (12'-6" SPACING).
I
ON BOULDER
TOTAL OF 18 SILLS WITHIN
THE TWO CULVERTS ON
(9) 1.0'H x 0.5'W CONCRETE
I FILL (3)
CULVERTS WITH COMPACTED
EACH SIDE OF THE LOW
SILLS (12'-6" SPACING). WITHIN
CREE
BANK MATERIAL FLUSH WITH
FLOW CULVERT.
THE LOW FLOW CULVERT.
THE TOP OF THE BAFFLES
n
n
n n
n O
n 00
t�0 M
Oi
N
n
d)
N
n
d)
N to
n n
d) n
N
n n
D1
N 't
n n
t0
n
n n
06 n
M
n n
O
M 1,
n n
M M
n n
r7
n
N
r7
n
0+50 1 +00
EU ST RC STRUCTURE
TYPE: THREE 72" GRIP
SPANS: +46' 0", +46' 0", +46' 0" (ALONG rL CLARKS CREEK)
ROADWAY: 54'0" F/F CURB
LOADING:
SKEW: 9'52'11 "±
APPROACH SLABS: NONE
ASGNMENT: TANGENT, N11'3'24"W
CROWN: ELEV 737.06, 736,92, 736.89
STRUCTURAL FILE NUMBER:
COORDINATES UPSTREAM FROM EXISTING CROSSING : N35'21149,70", W80'47'28.75"
DISPOSITION: STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED
PROPOSED STRUCTURE
TYPE: THREE 12'0"x12'0" CONCRETE BOX CULVERTS AND
ONE 12'0"X9'0" CONCRETE BOX CULVERT
SPANS: 101'2", 101'2", 101'2", 101'2" (ALONG rL CLARKS CREEK)
ROADWAY: 56'0" F/F GUARDRAIL
LOADING: HL93
SKEW: 11'3533"
APPROACH SLABS: NONE
ASGNMENT: TANGENT, N9.2V02"W
CROWN: ELEV 740.80 FOR ALL FOR BOX CULVERT
COORDINATES UPSTREAM FROM PROPOSED CROSSING : N35'2V49.85", W80'47'28.69"
1 +50 2+00
CREEK C/L PROFILE
752 752
748 748
744 744
E
7TT- 740
736 736
BORE
PWR
ELEV=
732 732
PROP
1
728 728
1.8' H
OF CRE
PR
724
L1
752
748
744
740
736
VATI ON
732
728
SEWER
;TED
724
12'
720
t0
n
6
n
2+50 39+00 40+00 40+25
DeARMON ROAD C/L PROFILE
2:
30LF OF 36" CL III RCP ® 2.07% I N�
N
I Z 2
I / m/
PROPOSED FUTURE
100-YR FLOODPLAIN /
PROPOSED EXIST.
100-YR FLOODPLAIN _
� 3
PROP./EFFECTIVE
FUTURE 10 -YR FLOODPLAIN
PROP./ ECTIVE EXIST.
720 720
PROPOSED ROAD
5.6'
4.5' 158LF OF
18" CL IV RCP ® 1.15%
ISTING ROAD
1.5
1
1.5
1
/EX.CULVERT
TEMP. EXC
732.31
LIMIT (TYP.)
(TO
BE REMOVED)
100 LF OF
:. 4
•
'x12' RCBC
AFFLES TO HOLD 1.8'
EK BANK MATERIAL IN
EX. 18" SAN.
CULVERT BOTTOM
TO BE PROTE
IN PLACE.
P. 100 LF OF 12'x12' RCBC
W FLOW CULVERT, BAFFLES TO
PROP. 1
0 LF OF (1) 9'
HOLD 1'-O" OF CREEK BANK
RCBC FU
TURE
MATERIAL IN CULVERT BOTTOM
GREEN WA
Y/PEDESTRIAN
1.8' H BAFFLES TO FOLD
1.8'
PASSAGEWAY
CULVERT
BOTTOM
ono
0
co
O .
ono N
CULVERT INLE
744
FUTURE GREENWAY
PASSAGE 7
740
EX AVATI N
736
732
• '1,'•
8' 1.0' 1.8'
728
724'
744
EXCAVATION
740
736
732
728
724
CULVER r r OUTLET
FUTURE GREENWAY
PASSAGE
744
740
736
732
728
724
744
>
m
co
v
ti
0
N
0
co
N
0
a
U
N O
7 O
���
aNa)-1
..
E
ZNw
oUcotn
Z
c6
O m J
O t J
�•
U
r��
M � W
ti
3 t � W
N W
y
r�i•3L
m
•� m
0U
it
r
a)U
fn U F- Z
r W H Z
a�
LLI
o
az
a
'
Ja
III
/
a
VIw
Oz
�w
0
740 0
736
�2
732
0
�Q4Z 'T
Q� 42
728
724
�; I'll 1111 1 NOTES
o
-�I o EARTHWORK SMITS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. ACTUAL SLOPES SHALL
PROPOSED FEMA CONFORM TO PLAN CROSS SECTIONS.
CROSS-SECTION
�I rn SEE FINAL PHASE FOR ADDITIONAL UTISIO TY LOCATNS.
L, WINGWALL /
N N \ I
FEMA..
ENCRO
�_ � � �
rt 1
- ''•vivvvii �•vi����.�ssp�o-
_
-
,�•vv .vvvvvp� v.vi..�w
� � -
10
PROP.
������ e��w®�O • •
-- - _
' •1
1�
1
FEMA FLOODWAY
••�it
Hydraulics
FOOTING (11F.) THE ROCK ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE TO THE TOP OF ROCK CORING,
PROPOSED FUTURE THIS STRUCTURE HAS BEEN DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH "HEC 18
100-YR FLOODPLAIN / //. /i /
sa PROPOSED E EVALUATING SCOUR AR BRIDGES."
I 100- FLO PLAIN / /
THE SCOUR CRITICAL ELEVATION FOR THE CULVERT IS THE BOTTOM OF 3.
FOOTING ELEVATION. SCOUR CRITICAL ELEVATIONS ARE USED TO MONITOR X: m 04
o
INSTALL PERMANENT TURF �
POSSIBLE SCOUR PROBLEMS DURING THE SEE OF THE STRUCTURE, cv w
REINFORCEMENT MATTING (TYP.) cn ¢ a
CL 2
W
PER CLDS 30.20 DESIGN TRAFSC: z D
2016 ADT 9,770 L' �
2040 ADT 12,400
yv.y�,,v,►vv ►vv!vvv♦vvvv, iv' _- � .
�D •.�.0� •O �•iiv',,••O�•v�i �.•i0 .Opp• � •
lax
�i®®•:v.•vvj�•�•:O•vv .! �:.•v�1D:•:v::•:v:.•i w.:.•vvw' �� �^ �� � 'rl
IL
t�. ::o :,.:•o;:;
��. ♦ vvvvvvvvvvvip• :�'vO•vi Q.
TYDRAUL�C DATA
. ;vv.•ivvviQ.vvvvvviv •�!�. • vv,;.;.'
•�• :O. •'• ..
STRUCTURE CLEARS 100-YEAR FLOOD ELEVAT�ON BY 0,81FT
I • ' ® o
NNMO` !OOi!pvv�; OOvvp Q� !Ovvvv!+-!P� •�LEGENDPERMANENT TURF MATTH�G
�,..
STRUCTURE CLEARS 100-YEAR FLOOD ELEVAT�ON BY 0,81FT
►._. _ _ -
i
•
r •2 I 'I 6I
�� • '
■ "�'2 I 40 6
1 -Horz. '

ELEV. 743.39
1" PEJF
PROP. GROUND SLOPE
BEHIND WALL i
ELEV. 736.50
PROP. GROUND SLOPE
IN FRONT OF WALL
6" PCPP
0
ELEV. 728.72 N
2'-0"
E
14'—B" (TYP.)
4" 15 SETS OF 2—H501, 4°
14 SPA. @ 12" — 14'-0"
(TYP. EACH BAY)
ELEV. 732.75
1'-0" UNDERCUT
NO.57 STONE LEVELING PAD o
ELEV. 725.72 N
2—H502
1Y2" (TYP.)
PROP. GROUND SLOPE
IN FRONT OF WALL
1. 8' H x 0.5' W
BAFFLE / SILL
59'-0%2"
LEGEND:
V 3—W403 LAP 3—W424, 2 SPA. @ 8" = 1'-4" (FF)
3—W811 & 3—W816, 2 SPA. @ 8" = 1'-4" (BF)
O 13—W403 LAP 13-430, 12 SPA. @ 1'-0" = 13'-0" (FF)
13—W521, 12 SPA. @ 1'-0" = 13'-0" (BF)
H CLARKS CREEK
/__ 2—H502
co 1.0' H x 0.5' W
BAFFLE / SILL
LOW FLOW CULVERT
1'-0" UNDERCUT
NO.57 STONE LEVELING PAD
HEADWALL INLET ELEVATION
V-0" HEADWALL
0
12'-0" (TYP.)
(PERPENDICULAR TO CULVERT)
1. 8' H x 0.5' W
co
BAFFLE / SILL
a
1'-0" (TYP.)
NOTES:
1. ELEVATION DIMENSIONS ARE NORMAL TO SKEW.
2. HEADWALL H503 BARS TO BE PLACED PARALLEL TO SKEW.
3. SEE SHEET 2D4 FOR FOUNDATION REINFORCING.
4. SEE SHEET 2D5 FOR SECTIONS E, F, AND G.
5. MINIMUM LAP LENGTHS SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:
#5 BAR = 2'-5"
2'-0"
n
N
ELEV. 743.17
SEH
UND SLOPE
\LL
ELEV. 736.50
1" PEJF
1'-4"
(TYP.)
I — ­ —F
6" PCPP
ELEV. 725.72
PROP. GROUND SLOPE
IN FRONT OF WALL
LIMITS OF SEALING OF
CONCRETE SURFACES
(EPDXY —URETHANE)
2'-0"
FI FV 74� 3q H501
2—H502
ELEV. 742.38
H503
PROP. GRADE
THREADED INSERTS CAST INTO
PRECAST CULVERT
SECTION H
DETAIL A
RCBC SIZE
DIMENSION
A
B
121x12'
12'
10'
1.80' TALL
" 1 4 & W816
W815 & W816
REBAR DOWELS TO BE IMBEDDED
INTO RCBC, SIZED AND SPACED
PER MANUFACTURERS
RECOMMENDATION.
1.80' TALL BAFFLE/SILL DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
RCBC SIZE
DIMENSION
A
B
12'x12'
12'
10'
1.0' TALL
REBAR DOWELS TO BE IMBEDDED
INTO RCBC, SIZED AND SPACED
PER MANUFACTURERS
RECOMMENDATION.
I ff TALL BAFFLE/SILL DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
W
O
v
> co
m �
N O
0 d
0
E m C
N
N Z
L) N N 2
a L) CR J
E z N C6
M R O N J
h+� V M C o w
.. R
CD
i.i co L)
FBI U
Q ~
Lu
� a
w �
Ja
/ a
a
o°
O0
3N
0
in
II
r
U
J
cn
00
m
O
0
O
0
0
o�
5 1° is IlSheet
Plan View .................

DeArmon Road Complete Street Improvements
Attachments
September 7, 2023
CWS Project No. 2020-0118
ATTACHMENT E:
NC SAM Forms and Mitigation Credit Availability Letter

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
Dearmon Road Complete Street
1. Project name (if any): Improvements Project
3. Applicant/owner name: Woolpert
5. County: Mecklenburg
7. River basin: Yadkin-PeeDee
2. Date of evaluation: 7.16.2020
Assessor name/organization:
Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
C WS
Clarks Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.363110,-80.793249
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): Stream A 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 134
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 6 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 20 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ®A El
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ®Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
❑A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
®B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
®C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
❑A ❑A
Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
®B ®B
Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
❑C ❑C
Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
®B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
❑J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ®Yes ❑No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach)
(skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A
Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
W
❑F
5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
M
❑G
Submerged aquatic vegetation
®B
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
o w
❑H
Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation
Y r
❑I
Sand bottom
❑C
Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
r
❑J
5% vertical bank along the marsh
❑D
5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
0 :5
❑K
Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
❑E
Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
®A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
❑B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ❑No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

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

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

Draft NIC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Dearmon Road Complete Date of Assessment
4.2.2020
Street Improvements Project
Stream Category Pal Assessor Name/Organization
CWS
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Intermittent
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All
Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access
MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
HIGH
(4) Microtopography
HIGH
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability
MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall MEDIUM

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
Dearmon Road Complete Street
1. Project name (if any): Improvements Project
3. Applicant/owner name: Woolpert
5. County: Mecklenburg
7. River basin: Yadkin-PeeDee
2. Date of evaluation: 7.16.2020
Assessor name/organization:
Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
C WS
Clarks Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.363110,-80.793249
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): Stream B 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 212
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 1 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 10 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ❑Perennial flow ®Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ®A El
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ®Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
❑A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
®B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
®B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
®A ®A
Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
❑B ❑B
Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
❑C ❑C
Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
®B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
❑J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ®Yes ❑No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach)
(skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A
Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
W
❑F
5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
M
❑G
Submerged aquatic vegetation
®B
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
o w
❑H
Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation
Y r
❑I
Sand bottom
❑C
Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
r
❑J
5% vertical bank along the marsh
❑D
5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
0 :5
❑K
Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
❑E
Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
®A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
❑B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Detritus
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ❑No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

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

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

Draft NIC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Dearmon Road Complete
Stream Site Name Date of Assessment
7.16.2020
Street Improvements Project
Stream Category Pal Assessor Name/Organization
CWS
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Intermittent
USACE/
NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All
Streams
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Microtopography
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
HIGH
HIGH
(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
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
HIGH
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
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
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
NA
Overall
MEDIUM
HIGH

Charlotte -Mecklenburg
STORM
WATER
Services
Kristie Kennedy
Engineering Services
600 E 4a' St
Charlotte, NC 28202
Transmitted via email to Aliisa Har uniemi aliisancws.inc.net
Subject Project: DeArmon Road Complete Street Improvements
HUC#: 03040105 (Rocky/Yadkin)
600 E. Fourth Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
Fax [phone]
September 7, 2023
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the City of Charlotte Umbrella Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank
("Umbrella Bank") is willing to accept payment for stream impacts associated with the subject project. Please note that the
decision by the Umbrella Bank to accept the mitigation requirements of this project does not assure that this payment will be
approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the North Carolina Division of Water Quality 401/Wedands Unit. It is the
responsibility of the applicant to contact these agencies to determine if payment to the Umbrella Bank for impacts associated
with this project is appropriate.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter. The following documents must be submitted to the
Umbrella Bank within this time frame for this acceptance to remain valid:
1. 404 Permit Verification
2. 401 Water Quality Certification
3. Executed Departmental Transfer Invoice (DTI) between Engineering Services and Storm Water Services
detailing the use of and payment for the credits described in the table below.
Based on the information supplied by your office, the stream and wetland credits that are necessary to satisfy the
compensatory mitigation requirements for this project are detailed in the table below. The total mitigation credits available
for this project are also indicated in this table.
Stream
(linear feet)
Wetlands
(acres)
Credits Requested for This Project
374.5
0.00
Credits Available for This Project
374.5
0.00
Mitigation Project Names
Upper Stoney Creek
The stream and wetland mitigation will be provided as specified in the Section 404 Permit or corresponding 401 Water
Quality Certification for impacts associated with the subject project in Hydrologic Unit 03040105 of the Rocky/Yadkin
Basin. The mitigation will be performed in accordance with the Agreement to Establish the City of Charlotte Umbrella
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, dated June, 16, 2004.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at [phone] or
enn.shanaber eg_rkcharlottenc.gov.
Sincerely,
Charlotte Storm Water Services
Erin Shanaberger, PWS
Mitigation Bank Administrator
cc: File
•
ObTo report pollution or drainage problems, call: 311 �✓
CtURIATTE_ http://stormwater.charmeck.org

DeArmon Road Complete Street Improvements
Attachments
September 7, 2023
CWS Project No. 2020-0118
ATTACHMENT F:
Protected Species Assessment
and
USFWS Concurrence Letter

CAROLINA WETLAND SERVICES, INC.
660 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
704-527-1177 (office)
704-527-1133 (fax)
November 21, 2022
Holland Youngman
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Subject: Protected Species Assessment Report
DeArmon Road Complete Street Improvements
Charlotte, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2022-0092
Dear Ms. Youngman,
On behalf of the City of Charlotte, Woolpert has subcontracted Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
(CWS) to provide a protected species assessment and targeted survey for the DeArmon Road
Complete Street Improvements site project. The DeArmon Road Complete Street
Improvements project is approximately 0.79 mile in length (16.3 acres in extent) and consists of
a 70-foot corridor along each side of DeArmon Road from Benfield Road to Browne Road in
Charlotte, North Carolina (Figure 1, attached).
Methods
In -office Desktop Review
To determine which protected species are listed as occurring or potentially occurring within the
project vicinity and prior to conducting the on -site field investigation, CWS performed a data
review using the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Data Explorer' and
Information for Planning and Consultation (IPAC) database on November 14, 2022 to
determine if any record occurrences of federally -listed, candidate endangered, threatened
species, or critical habitat are located within the project limits.
Typical habitat requirements for listed species was discerned from multiple USFWS3 and
NCNHP' online resources including, but not limited to, specific USFWS species profiles,
recovery plans, NCNHP's Guide to Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species of
North Carolina, and List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina. United States Department
of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) Web Soil Survey of
' North Carolina Natural Heritage Data Explorer. Accessed November 14, 2022. https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/
2 Information for Planning and Consultation (IPAC). https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/
3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Optimal Survey Windows for North Carolina's Federally Threatened and Endangered Plant
Species. https://www.fws.gov/southeast/pdf/fact-sheet/north-carolina-optimal-survey-windows-for-at-risk-and-listed-plants.pdf
Accessed November 14, 2022.
° Buchanan, M.F. and J.T. Finnegan. 2010. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina. NC Natural
Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC. Accessed from https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/nc_counties.html
NORTH CAROLINA - SOUTH CAROLINA
WWW.CWS-INC.NET
Page 1 of 6

DeArmon Road Complete Street Improvements
Protected Species Assessment Report
November 21, 2022
CWS Project No. 2022-0092
Mecklenburg County5 and aerial imagery were also reviewed for potential habitat of listed
species within the project vicinity (Figures 2 and 3).
Field Survey
CWS scientists Aliisa Harjuniemi, PWS', Megan Bollero, WPIT' and Amie Hoy, WPIT,
conducted a pedestrian habitat assessment of the project area on February 27, 2017, July 9,
and October 9, 2020, and August 17, 2022. Potential habitats for potentially occurring
federally -protected species that were identified during the desktop review were assessed in the
field for the quality of physical and/or biological features essential to the conservation of the
applicable species. Additionally, during the pedestrian habitat assessment, areas were
reviewed for applicable federally protected species Identification references for natural
communities include the National Land Cover Database (2011)8.
Targeted surveys for Schweinitz's sunflower and Michaux's sumac were conducted on October
9, 2020 and August 17, 2022 within the areas identified as potential habitat for these species
during the habitat assessment.
Results
Based on the NCNHP data explorer review, there are no known occurrences of federally
protected species within the project limits or within a one -mile radius of the project limits
(Attachment A). The USFWS lists four federally protected species for Mecklenburg County
(Table 1). Additionally, bald eagle is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
An official species list has not been obtained from the USFWS Asheville Field Office.
Table 1. Unofficial List of Federally -Protected Species Potentially Occurring within the
DeArmon Road Complete Street Improvements, Mecklenburg County, NC.
Major Group
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal Status*
Record Status
Helianthus
Schweinitz's
Plant
E
Current
schweinitzii
sunflower
Echinacea
Plant
Smooth coneflower
E
Current
laevigata
Plant
Rhus michauxii
Michaux's sumac
E
Current
Perimyotis
Animal
Tricolored Bat
PE
Current
subflavus
Haliaeetus
Animal
Bald eagle
BGPA
Current
leucocephalus
* E - Endangered, PE - Proposed Endangered, BGPA - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Two terrestrial community types were identified within the project area during the field survey.
These community types consist of mixed forest and herbaceous area (Figure 3). Of the
identified on -site community types, the herbaceous and forested areas are considered potential
5 United States Department of Agriculture, 2021. Web Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Accessed
11/14/2022. Source: https://websoiIsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm
6 Professional Wetland Scientist, The Society of Wetland Scientist Professional Certification Program
7 Wetland Professional in Training, The Society of Wetland Scientist Professional Certification Program
8 MLRC. National Land Cover Database, 2011. https://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd11_leg.php
Page 2 of 6

DeArmon Road Complete Street Improvements
Protected Species Assessment Report
November 21, 2022
CWS Project No. 2022-0092
habitat for federally threatened or endangered species that could potentially occur within the
project limits. A brief description of each species habitat requirements and determination of
effect findings are listed below by species.
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii)
Habitat Description:
Schweinitz's sunflower is a perennial herb with yellow rays and yellow centers. They
can reach heights of five feet. Populations are limited to the piedmont of North and
South Carolina. It has been listed as an Endangered species under the ESA since
1991.9 The typical habitat for this plant includes roadsides, old pastures, transmission
line right-of-ways, open areas, either natural or human -maintained habitats, or edges of
upland woods. Major characteristics of soils associated with suitable Schweinitz's
sunflower habitat include thin soils, soils on upland interstream flats or gentle slopes,
soils that are clay like in both composition and texture (and often with substantial rock
fragments), soils that have a high shrinkage swell capacity, and those which vary over
the course of the year from very wet to very dry.
Biological Analysis:
There is herbaceous area that is infrequently maintained that is considered marginal
habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower (Photograph 1). The road right-of-way along DeArmon
Road consists of open, frequently maintained grassy areas that are not suitable habitat
for Schweinitz's sunflower populations (Photographs 2-4). The forested areas within the
project limits do not provide adequate sunlight to support Schweinitz's sunflower. An
intensive survey was conducted on October 9, 2020 and August 17, 2022 and no
individuals of Schweinitz's sunflower or other Helianthus species were observed. Since
no individuals were observed within the project limits while above -ground plant
parts were identifiable, but marginal habitat was present, CWS concludes that the
project may affect, but not likely to adversely affect Schweinitz's sunflower.
Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laeviciata)
Habitat Description:
Smooth coneflower is a tall, perennial herbaceous plant found in areas with abundant
sunlight where competition in the herbaceous layer is minimal. It has been federally
listed as Endangered under the ESA since 1992.10 Typical habitat for this plant includes
meadows, open woodlands, the ecotonal regions between meadows and woodlands,
cedar barrens, dry limestone bluffs, clear cuts, and roadside and utility rights -of -way. In
North Carolina, the species normally grows in magnesium- and calcium- rich soils
associated with gabbro and diabase parent material, and typically occurs in Iredell,
Misenheimer, and Picture soil series. It grows best where there is abundant sunlight, little
competition in the herbaceous layer, and periodic disturbances (e.g., regular fire regime,
well-timed mowing, careful clearing) that prevents encroachment of shade -producing
y United States Fish and Wildlife Services. 1991. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Helianthus schweinitzii
(Schweinitz's sunflower) Determined to be Endangered. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/frl852.pdf.
10 United States Fish and Wildlife Services. 1992. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, Echinacea laevigata (Smooth
Coneflower) Determined to be Endangered. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr2l4O.pdf.
Page 3 of 6

DeArmon Road Complete Street Improvements
Protected Species Assessment Report
November 21, 2022
CWS Project No. 2022-0092
woody shrubs and trees. On sites where woody succession is held in check, it is
characterized by a number of species with prairie affinities.
Biological Analysis:
No Iredell, Misenheimer, and Picture soil series associated with this species are found
within the project limits. The forested areas within the project limits do not provide the
abundant sunlight the smooth coneflower requires and were assessed to be not
supportive habitats for this species. As no individuals of this species were observed
during the optimal survey window, CWS concludes that the project may affect, but
not likely to adversely affect the smooth coneflower.
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxil)
Habitat Description:
Michaux's sumac is a rhizomatous shrub. It is densely hairy with compound leaves
exhibiting evenly -serrated leaflets. Flowers are small, greenish to white, in terminal
clusters. Fruits are red drupes produced from August to October. It has been listed as
an Endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) since 1989.11 It is
found on the coastal plains of Virginia to Florida, with most populations occurring in
North Carolina. It prefers sandy or rocky open woods with basic soils, as well as,
highway right-of-ways, roadsides, or edges of artificially -maintained clearings.
Biological Analysis:
Disturbed open areas conducive to early -succession species are present in the western
portion of the project area. The on -site soils were predominantly slightly acidic sandy
loams, providing a marginal potential habitat for this species. As no individuals of this
species were observed during the optimal survey window and there are no known
occurrences in the vicinity of the project area, CWS concludes that this project
may affect, but not likely to adversely affect Michaux's sumac.
Tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus)
On September 14, 2022, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) published a proposal in
the Federal Register to list the tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) as endangered under the
Act.12 The Service has up to 12-months from the date the proposal published to make a final
determination, either to list the tricolored bat under the Act or to withdraw the proposal. The
Service determined the bat faces extinction primarily due to the range -wide impacts of
white -nose syndrome (WNS), a deadly fungal disease affecting cave -dwelling bats across North
America. Because tricolored bat populations have been greatly reduced due to WNS, surviving
bat populations are now more vulnerable to other stressors such as human disturbance and
habitat loss. Species proposed for listing are not afforded protection under the Act; however, as
soon as a listing becomes effective (typically 30 days after publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register), the prohibitions against jeopardizing its continued existence and "take" will
apply. Therefore, if a future or existing project may affect tricolored bats after the potential new
United States Fish and Wildlife Services. 1989. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered
Status for Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac). http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/frl601.pdf.
12 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-09-14/pdf/2022-18852.pdf#page=13
Page 4 of 6

DeArmon Road Complete Street Improvements
Protected Species Assessment Report
November 21, 2022
CWS Project No. 2022-0092
listing goes into effect, USFWS recommends analyzing possible effects of the project on
tricolored bats and their habitat to determine whether consultation under section 7 of the Act is
necessary. Conferencing procedures can be followed prior to listing to ensure the project does
not jeopardize the existence of a species or adversely modify critical habitat. Projects with an
existing section 7 biological opinion may require reinitiation of consultation to provide
uninterrupted authorization for covered activities.
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act,13 enacted in 1940, prohibits anyone without a permit
issued, from "taking" bald eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs. Habitat for the bald eagle
includes cliffs and forested areas typically within 1.0 mile of estuaries, large lakes, reservoirs,
rivers, seacoast, and as they become more abundant, stands of undisturbed forest.
A desktop-GIS assessment of the project study area, as well as, the area within a 1 mile radius
of the project limits, was performed on April 24, 2022, using 2021 color aerials. No water
bodies large enough or sufficiently open to be considered potential feeding sources were
identified. Since there was no foraging habitat within the review area, a survey of the project
study area and the area within the project limits was not conducted. Additionally, a review of the
NCNHP database on July 9, 2020, August 7, and November 14, 2022 revealed no known
occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the project study area. Due to the lack of habitat
and known occurrences, CWS concludes that this project will have no effect on this
species.
Summary
Based on the literature search and the results of the on -site assessment for suitable habitat of
federally -protected endangered, and threatened species, suitable habitat was not observed
within the project limits for bald eagle. CWS has concluded that activities within the project area
will not directly or indirectly jeopardize the continued existence of bald eagle.
Marginal habitats for Schweinitz's sunflower, Smooth coneflower, and Michaux's sumac were
observed within the project limits. However, as no individuals of these species were observed
during the optimal survey windows and there are no known occurrences for Schweinitz's
sunflower, smooth coneflower, Michaux's sumac in the vicinity of the project area, CWS
concludes that this project may affect, but not likely to adversely affect these species.
Biological determinations requirements for federally protected species are summarized in Table
2.
Table 2. Biological Determination Requirements Summary Table for Federally Protected Species
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal
Status*
Effect on Listed
Species
Helianthus schweinitzii
Schweinitz's sunflower
E
MANLAA**
Echinacea laevigata
Smooth coneflower
E
No Effect
Rhus michauxii
Michaux's sumac
E
MANLAA**
Perimyotis subflavus
Tricolored Bat
PE
TBD***
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Bald eagle
BGPA
No Effect
13 https://www.fws.gov/midwest/MidwestBird/eagIepermits/bagepa.htmI
Page 5 of 6

DeArmon Road Complete Street Improvements
Protected Species Assessment Report
November 21, 2022
CWS Project No. 2022-0092
* E - Endangered, PE - Proposed Endangered, BGPA - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
** MANLAA - May affect, but not likely to adversely affect
*** Consultation with USFWS may be required if species is listed
A biological assessment was not conducted for this project. All biological determinations of
effect represent the best professional opinion of CWS and are not official determinations of
effect. It is the responsibility of the lead federal agency to render an official determination of
effect.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these services on this important project. Please do not
hesitate to contact Megan Bollero at 757-576-6433 or [e-mail] should you have any
questions or comments regarding this report.
Sincerely,
Megan Bollero, WPIT
Project Scientist
Aliisa Harjuniemi, PWS
Senior Project Manager
Attachments: Figure 1: USGS Topographic Map
Figure 2: USDA-NRCS Web Soil Map of Mecklenburg County
Figure 3: Aerial Map
Attachment A: NCNHP Data Review Report
Attachment B: Representative Photographs (1-4)
Page 6 of 6

T
0
-- ) MMY OEHLFR q,-
s!gte Rn .'4;
'FlS r�l_ •.J _tt _
I_� •limnlll nit" - l
Legend
Project Limits (16.3 ac.)
Z.
2,000 1,000 0 2,000 Feet
REFERENCE: USGS 7.5 MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE(S): DERITA, NC (2019).
SCALE: DATE: FIGURE NO.
1 inch = 2,000 feet 7/11/2022 USGS Topographic Map
CWS PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:
2022-0092 ALH DeArmon Road Complete Street Improvement
COORDINATES: CHECKED BY: Cj A R O L I N A Mecklenburg County
35.363110,-80.793249 AVH WETLAND SERVICES Charlotte, North Carolina
G:\Shared drives\Consulting Team Drive\2022\2022 Consulting Projects\2022-0092 DeArmon Road\PETS\Figures\Figurel_USGS.mxd

M
CeD
� Broken Pine �n
o�
CeB2 eStAdthO� IrB
e �spe p e,� y c\
/Lyda-\ n p7 w� /xe o
son pdOr IrB
Yellow Rose Ln x
2?eB
�a Golden Pond Dr
goXer Ln CeD2
I CeB2
W 1 485 Outer Hy
EnB IrB _o
�2 _
IrA I°x
G\enIC IrB _
IrB _
Rd
�leB �17,�' `
N Rd
A\ler` Agro
/ nB
<n
. nB
7mer C
reel')
<n
ganders Creek Ct
Ig Oak Ln
IrB j-4g5 Ra
-1-485 Ra
\MD Ce
HeB
MeD
O
d� W
CeD �'��
o,
O„ gym`
<n /nD
UO� MeB
E4W
o
W I — �
r— W
U
Craven
Thomas
Rd
485-Inne71`9y
Robert.Helms Rd
G
m
inston Oehler Rd o
CeB2
to
S
c
MeB
MeD
Qc
e�5
D
�Qacr IrB
CeB
MeB
OtooePacK��
N�
Hill Ct v
MeD
G, e
n
CeD2 Ce 2
e�
o
p
elf ed9e
o IrB
I r N Qo
Sh
d aop�ne
CeB2
1P
o
MeD
MO CeD2
Q En ~Rd
9
Q
r
�
Soil Unit Name and Description
Hydric
Coverage (%) CeD2 \,\M D
CeB2
Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, moderately eroded
No
42.7
CeC2
Cecil sandy clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, moderately eroded
No
20 Towering Pine Dr Legend
EnD
Enon sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
No
Yes
11
18.1 Project Limits
(16.3 ac. )
HeB
Helena sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
MeB
Mecklenburg fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
No
0.4� MeB
MeD
Meckleburg fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
No
4.8 N�. Road
MO
Monacan loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
Yes
2.9 =_ m o
= APB � o
a r
Total Coverage
100
�m o��
a 3
�o-
1,000 500 0
1,000 Feet
REFERENCE: USDA-NRCS WEB SOIL SURVEY OF MECKLENBURG COUNTY,
NC, DATED 2021.
N
ApD
NUc
tQ
-- CeD2
A
SCALE:
1 inch = 1,000 feet
DATE:
7/11/2022
USDA-NRCS Web Soil Survey
Y
FIGURE NO.
of Mecklenburg County
CWS PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
2022-0092
ALH
DeArmon Road Complete Street Improvement
2
COORDINATES:
CHECKED BY:
CAR ❑ L I NA
Mecklenburg County
35.363110,-80.793249
AVH
WETLAND SERVICES
Charlotte, North Carolina
G:\Shared drives\Consulting Team Drive\2022\2022 Consulting Projects\2022-0092 DeArmon Road\PETS\Figures\Figure2_Current.mxd

� rw , — P%
y t
t. M
f �
�,,�`..w.•,�„��t Legend
�,r ✓ ;cf. w !' = Project Limits (16.3 ac.)
i d� .fit►.
•Intermittent Stream
Clark Creek
Culvert
�► Photo Location and Direction
REFERENCE: BACKGROUND AERIAL IMAGERY PROVIDED BY ESRI, ACCESSED 2022.
BACKGROUND GIS LAYER(S) PROVIDED BY MECKLENBURG COUNTY GIS DEPARTMENT, DATED 2021. J cJ00 250 0 500 Feet
NOTE: CWS CONDUCTED THE HABITAT ASSESMENT AND DELINEATION ON AUGUST 17, 2022. 4
JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY THE USACE.
SCALE: DATE: FIGURE NO.
1 inch = 500 feet 8/18/2022 Aerial Map
CWS PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:
2022-0092 ALH DeArmon Road Complete Street Improvement
COORDINATES: CHECKED BY: Cj A R O L I N A Mecklenburg County
35.363110,-80.793249 AVH WETLAND SERVICES Charlotte, North Carolina 3
G:\Shared drives\Consulting Team Drive\2022\2022 Consulting Projects\2022-0092 DeArmon Road\PETS\Figures\Figure3_Aerial.mxd

DeArmon Road Complete Street Improvements
Attachments
November 21, 2022
CWS Project No. 2022-0092
ATTACHMENTA:
NCNHP Data Review Report

Roy Cooper, Governor
0■0■� INC DEPARTMENT OF
■■�■m NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
■ ■■■
November 14, 2022
Amie Hoy
Carolina Wetland Services
550 East Westinghouse Blvd
Charlotte, NC 28273
RE. DeArmon Road Complete Street Improvements, 2022-0092
Dear Amie Hoy.
d_ Reid Wilson, Secretary
Misty Buchanan
Deputy director, Natural Heritage Program
NCNHDE-19971
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide
information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
A query of the NCNHP database indicates that there are records for rare species, important natural
communities, natural areas, and/or conservation/managed areas within the proposed project
boundary. These results are presented in the attached `Documented Occurrences' tables and map.
The attached `Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that
have been documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these
records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area
if suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed areas within a one -mile
radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report.
If a Federally -listed species is documented within the project area or indicated within a one -mile
radius of the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) for guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here:
https://www.fws.gov/offices/Directory/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation
planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria
for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published
without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information
source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission.
Also please note that the NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional
correspondence if a Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Land and Water Fund
easement, or an occurrence of a Federally -listed species is documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance,
please contact Rodney A. Butler at rod nev.butlerWncdcr.gov or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
DEPARTh1EN7 OF NATURAL_ AND CULTURAL RESOVRCES
Q 121 W. JONES STREET. RALEIGH. NC 27603 • 1651 MAIL SERVICE CENTER. RALEIGH. NC 27699
OFC 918.707.9120 • FAX [phone]

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Intersecting the Project Area
DeArmon Road Complete Street Improvements
Project No. 2022-0092
November 14, 2022
NCNHDE-19971
No Element Occurrences are Documented within the Project Area
There are no documented element occurrences (of medium to very high accuracy) that intersect with the project area. Please note, however, that although the
NCNHP database does not show records for rare species within the project area, it does not necessarily mean that they are not present, it may simply mean that
the area has not been surveyed. The use of Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys if needed, particularly if the project
area contains suitable habitat for rare species. If rare species are found, the NCNHP would appreciate receiving this information so that we may update our
database.
No Natural Areas are Documented within the Project Area
Managed Areas Documented Within Project Area
Managed Area Name 055II75wner Owner Type
Mecklenburg County Open Space - Clarks Creek Mecklenburg County Local Government
Greenway
NOTE: If the proposed project intersects with a conservation/managed area, please contact the landowner directly for additional information. If the project intersects with a Dedicated Nature Preserve
(DNP), Registered Natural Heritage Area (RHA), or Federally -listed species, NCNHP staff may provide additional correspondence regarding the project.
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at httr)s://ncnhde.natureserve.ora/heir). Data query generated on November 14, 2022; source: NCNHP, Q2, July 2022. Please
resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 4

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
DeArmon Road Complete Street Improvements
Project No. 2022-0092
November 14, 2022
NCNHDE-19971
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID ntific Name Common Name Element
cie
Group Observation Occurrence
Date Rank
Vascular Plant 13743 Delphinium exaltatum Tall Larkspur 1800s Hi?
Vascular Plant 33285 Sceptridium jenmanii Alabama Grape -fern 1936-09
No Natural Areas are Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Name
Owner
City of Charlotte Open Space
City of Charlotte
Mecklenburg County Open Space
Mecklenburg County
Mecklenburg County Open Space -
Clark's Creek
Mecklenburg County
Nature Preserve
Mecklenburg County Open Space -
Clarks Creek
Mecklenburg County
Greenway
Mecklenburg County Open Space -
Clarks Creek
Mecklenburg County
Park
Mecklenburg County Open Space -
Clarks Creek
Mecklenburg County
Tributary
Mecklenburg County Open Space -
Mallard Creek
Mecklenburg County
Park
NC Division of Mitigation Services Easement
NC DEQ, Division of Mitigation Services
IN
Accuracy
Federal State
Global
State
Status Status
Rank
Rank
M f i
5-Very
--- Threatened
G3
S2
Low
5-Very
--- Special
G3G4
S2
Low
Concern
Vulnerable
Owner Type =
Local Government
Local Government
Local Government
Local Government
Local Government
Local Government
Local Government
State
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at httr)s://ncnhde.natureserve.org/helr). Data query generated on November 14, 2022; source: NCNHP, Q2, July 2022. Please
resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 3 of 4

NCNHDE-19971: DeArmon Road Complete Street Improvements
5
807
r
c
Highland Cr
a
3
Elements
�
a
a
Ridge Road
Middle
Co
Ridge Rd
48 I-485
Joplor
Inner
I.qB
I-485 Inner 861 ft
65
SIh
her
iP 855 ft
0-
e�
�ry i
�ry
a
�
m
a
3
a
A
°ryL
O
9
f0
�G
PP,�
i
C
n
5
P
4
Hucks Rd
OC
`�
.cc,
a`a
3
°S
�
SOP
N
z
a
Tradition Golf
S
Course
WL
0.28
0.55 '�-,
1.1 Miles
S
November 14, 2022
Managed Area (MAREA)
Q Buffered Project Boundary
Q Project Boundary
So uross. Fsh, Airbus DS. USGS. NGA. NASA, CGIAR. N Robinson. NCFAS.
NLS. OS, NMA. Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat GSA, Geoland, FFMA,
It-mapand the GIS user community
Sources. Esri, HERE. Garm StreetMap in. FAO. NOAA, USGS. © Open
contributors, and the GIS User in,
Page 4 of 4

DeArmon Road Complete Street Improvements
Attachments
November 21, 2022
CWS Project No. 2022-0092
ATTACHMENT B:
Photopage (Photographs 1-4)

DeArmon Road Complete Street Improvements
Attachment B: Photopage
November 21, 2022
CWS Project No. 2022-0092
Photograph 1. View of marginal habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower, facing southwest.
Photograph 2. View of unsuitable habitat for any terrestrial species, facing northeast.
Photopage 1 of 2

DeArmon Road Complete Street Improvements
Attachment B: Photopage
November 21, 2022
CWS Project No. 2022-0092
Photograph 3. View of unsuitable habitat for any terrestrial species, facing northeast.
Photograph 4. View of unsuitable habitat for protected species, facing downstream.
Photopage 2 of 2

f NT OF Ty�'fi EIS &WHM iEE
SERVICE
N �o United States Department of the Interior
_ FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
q�cH 3,'�°� Asheville Field Office r
160 Zillicoa Street Suite B
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
August 22, 2023
Aliisa Harjuniemi
Senior Project Manager,
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
550 East Westinghouse Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
Subject: Informal Consultation for DeArmon Road Complete Street Improvements in Charlotte,
Mecklenburg County (CWS Project No. 2022-0092, Service Log 923-202)
Dear Aliisa Harjuniemi:
On June 15, 2023, we received your letter requesting our comments on the subject project. We have
reviewed the information that you presented and the following comments are provided in accordance with
the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.§ 4321 et seq.); the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661 - 667e); Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), as amended
(16 U.S.C. 703); Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d)(BGEPA); and section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 - 1543) (Act).
Project Description
According to the information provided, the City of Charlotte and, possibly, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, are proposing a project titled: The DeArmon Road Complete Street
Improvements project. This project is approximately 0.79 miles in length (16.3 acres in extent) and
consists of a 70-foot-wide corridor along each side of existing DeArmon Road from Benfield Road to
Browne Road in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
If there is no federal nexus for the proposed activities, then section 7 consultation is not required.
However, section 9 of the Act (Prohibited Acts) (a)(1)(B) still applies and explicitly states that it is
unlawful for any person — including private and public entities — to "take" individuals of an endangered
species and, by regulation, a threatened species (16 U.S.C. §1533(d).
Federally Listed Species
The correspondence you provided requests section 7 consultation on federally endangered Michaux's
sumac (Rhus michauxii), federally endangered Schweintiz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), and
federally threatened smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata).
The information provided states that suitable habitat for all three species is present within the action area;
however, these species were not observed during botanical surveys on October 9, 2020 and August 17,
2022. Survey results remain valid for two years. Based on presence of suitable habitat and valid negative
survey results obtained within the appropriate seasonal windows, we would concur with a "may affect,
not likely to adversely affect" (NLAA) determination from the lead federal agency for Michaux's sumac,
Schweintiz's sunflower, and smooth coneflower.

On September 14, 2022, the Service published a proposal in the Federal Register to list the tricolored bat
(Perimyotis subflavus) as endangered under the Act and has up to 12-months from that date to make a
final determination. Species proposed for listing are not afforded protection under the Act; however, as
soon as a listing becomes effective, the prohibitions against jeopardizing its continued existence and
"take" will apply. Therefore, if you suspect your project may affect tricolored bats after the potential new
listing goes into effect, we recommend analyzing possible effects of the project on tricolored bats and
their habitat to determine whether consultation under section 7 of the Act is necessary. By adding the
species to your biological evaluation, conferencing procedures can be followed prior to potential listing to
ensure the project does not jeopardize the existence of a species.
Given the above information, you have requested additional information on the tricolored bat, as the
project may be on -going after the effective date of any final listing rule, if one is published. Information
on potential project impacts on tricolored bat and any associated avoidance and minimization measures
and conservation measures was not provided in your letter; therefore, general measures are provided
below.
Implementation of conservation measures on behalf of listed or proposed species can help to support
NLAA determinations, depending on project specifics and associated impacts. Coordination with our
office on applicable conservation measures is encouraged. Standard conservation measures that could
benefit species in this project's work area include but are not limited to:
• Bat Conservation. To protect bats, we recommend the following conservation measures:
o If suitable roosting trees are present at the site and will be impacted, we recommend either
tree removal in the winter (October 16 through March 31) or a roost emergence survey of any
suitable roost trees one day prior to removal in accordance with the Range -wide Indiana Bat
and Northern Long-eared Bat Survey Guidelines (Appendix E;
https://www. fws.gov/library/collections/range-wide-indiana-bat-and-northern-long-eared-bat-
survey-guidelines.).
o Verify the absence of bats and signs of bat use on bridges and culverts within 15 days of
construction and/or demolition activities.
o Abstain from night work and encourage avoidance of new lighting. Also, avoid the
modification of existing lighting in ways that make it brighter or allow it to reach farther into
nearby natural habitats. We encourage the removal of all existing permanent lighting where
it is not needed for safety. Additional lighting conservation measures are available if lighting
cannot be avoided.
o If suitable roost trees are present near high -decibel activity (81— 162 dBA) and would
experience noise above background levels (41 — 70 dBA), avoid conducting those high -
decibel activities during the bat maternity season (May 15 — August 15). Alternatively,
activity could avoid the pup season (June 1 and July 31).
o To minimize noise levels, incorporate sound -dampening devices such as noise shrouds for
pile driving.
Little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus) is an at -risk species and Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) is a
candidate species. At -risk and candidate species are not legally protected under the Act and are not
subject to any of its provisions, including section 7, unless they are formally proposed or listed as
endangered or threatened. We will be making listing determinations on these species in the future and
include them here to provide advanced notification and request your assistance in protecting them.
Although not required, we recommend that the presence or absence of these species be addressed in any
BE or BA for this or future projects, depending on your expected completion timeline.

Migratory Birds and Eagles
The MBTA implements four treaties that provide for the international protection of migratory birds. The
MBTA prohibits taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs,
parts, and nests, except when specifically authorized by the Department of the Interior. Bald and golden
eagles are afforded additional legal protection under the BGEPA.
In general, to avoid impacts to migratory birds, we recommend conducting a visual inspection of
structures to be demolished or maintained and other migratory bird nesting habitat within the work area
during the migratory bird nesting season of March through September. If migratory birds are discovered
nesting in the work area, including an existing structure, impacts to the occupied nests should be avoided.
If birds are discovered nesting on or in a structure in the years prior to a proposed construction date, the
project proponent, in consultation with the Service, should develop measures to discourage birds from
establishing nests by means that will not result in the take of the birds or eggs.
Conservation Recommendations
Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of
a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or to develop
information. General recommendations for the benefit of fish and wildlife resources are also provided.
Erosion and Sedimentation Control. Construction activities near aquatic resources, streams,
and wetlands have the potential to cause bank destabilization, water pollution, and water quality
degradation if measures to control site runoff are not properly installed and maintained. In order
to effectively reduce erosion and sedimentation impacts, best management practices specific to
the extent and type of construction should be designed and installed prior to land disturbing
activities and should be maintained throughout construction. Natural fiber matting (coir) should
be used for erosion control as synthetic netting can trap animals and persists in the environment
beyond its intended purpose. Land disturbance should be limited to what can be stabilized
quickly, preferably by the end of the workday. Once construction is complete, disturbed areas
should be revegetated with native riparian grass and tree species as soon as possible. For
maximum benefits to water quality and bank stabilization, riparian areas should be forested;
however, if the areas are maintained in grass, they should not be mowed. The Service can
provide information on potential sources of plant material upon request.
A complete design manual that is consistent with the requirements of the North Carolina
Sedimentation and Pollution Control Act and Administrative Rules, can be found at the following
website: https:Hdeg.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy-mineral-land-resources.
Reinitiation Notice
We believe the requirements under section 7 of the Act are fulfilled for the federally listed species
discussed above. However, obligations under section 7 must be reconsidered if. (1) new information
reveals impacts of this proposed action may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not
previously considered, (2) this proposed action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not
considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed, or critical habitat is determined that may be
affected by the proposed action.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. Please contact Ms. Holland Youngman of our
staff at holland your ig nan&fws.gov if you have any questions. In any future correspondence concerning
this project, please reference our Service Log 923-202.
Sincerely,
- - original signed - -
Janet Mizzi
Field Supervisor
Electronic CC:
Joel Howard, NCDOT, Division 10, Project Development & Environmental Analysis Engineer
4

DeArmon Road Complete Street Improvements
Attachments
September 7, 2023
CWS Project No. 2020-0118
ATTACHMENT G:
SHPO Letter

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton
February 17, 2017
Caleb Sullivan
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
550 East Westinghouse Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: DeArmon Road Complete Street Improvements from Browne Road to Benfield Road, Charlotte,
Mecklenburg County, ER 17-0274
Dear Mr. Sullivan:
Thank you for your letter of February 10, 2017, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected
by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
environmental.review2ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fas: [phone]/807-6599