20150646 Ver 1_119451_401Submittal_Signed_29Jun2015_20170613

Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
5550 Seventy-Seven Center Dr., Ste. 320 | Charlotte, North Carolina 28217
Office: 704.665.2200 | Fax: [phone]

June 29, 2015

Jennifer Burdette
NC DWR, 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
512 North Salisbury Street
Archdale Bldg., - 9th Floor
Raleigh, NC 27604

Subject: Pre-Construction Notification / 401-404 Certification
University Pointe Boulevard Extension Project
Mecklenburg County, NC

Dear Ms. Burdette,

Please find enclosed (5) copies of our PCN package for the University Pointe Boulevard
Extension Project. Please note that the permit fee of $570.00 will be sent directly from the City
of Charlotte. As part of this submittal, we have included the following supporting data on the
project:

 PCN Form,
 Agency Correspondence (USFWS, NCWRC, SHPO, OSA, NCNHP, and NC State
Environmental Clearinghouse),
 Map Figures (Vicinity Map, USGS Topographic Map, Soils Map, Jurisdictional Impact
Summary Maps, Project Area Map, Alternative Alignment Areas Map, and Floodzone
Map),
 (2) full size and (3) half size copies of the Site Plans,
 Geotechnical Reports of the subsurface soils at each bottomless culvert crossing,
 Agent Authorization Form

The Project is proposing a new connector roadway, which will begin at the intersection of IBM
Drive and the Martin Middle School Driveway in Charlotte, NC, cross over I-85, and connect to
the main thoroughfare being constructed as part of the Crescent Resources’ Belgate
Development and will intersect with IKEA Boulevard and University Pointe Boulevard upon
completion. An alternative access road for Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools has also been
proposed to ease traffic congestion and improve safety during school pick-up and drop-off
times. The access road will begin approximately 600 feet southeast of Neal Road on the
campus of Zebulon Vance High School, cross over Doby Creek, and connect to an existing traffic
circle and auxiliary parking lot located on the campus of James Martin Middle School.

University Pointe Blvd. Extension Project
PCN Additional Information
1 | P a g e
SECTION B. Project Information and Prior Project History

3d. Explain the purpose of the project.
The purpose of the proposed project is to provide additional east-west connectivity in the Charlotte
Northeast Corridor, between IBM Drive and North Tryon St. and provide an alternative entry/exit point to
James Martin Middle School. This will to create multi-modal travel alternatives, specifically for
pedestrians and bicyclists, will aid in reducing emergency response times, and will improve access to the
proposed Blue Line Extension (BLE).

3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
This project, identified as University Pointe Boulevard (UPB), formerly Shopping Center Drive, by the City
of Charlotte (City), proposes to extend UPB over I-85 from the IKEA Boulevard (approximately 0.4 miles
west of US 29 to IBM Drive), in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, a length of approximately 0.5 miles. This
project includes a grade separated crossing of I-85. Because the extension of UPB to IBM Drive will
overlay the existing access road to James Martin Middle School an alternative access road is pr oposed to
serve the Middle School. The access road will begin approximately 600 feet southeast of Neal Road on
the campus of Zebulon Vance High School, cross over Doby Creek, connect to the James Martin Middle
School driveway between the school and the athletic fields and tie into the existing traffic circle on the
school campus. See the Project Area Map for a depiction of the proposed alignment for both roadways.

Typical grading equipment will be used for the construction of the road (i.e. graders, curb machines,
rollers, back hoes, pavers, dump truck, crane for the placement of the culvert, pick-up trucks). The culvert
and wing walls are precast.
University Pointe Blvd. Extension Project
PCN Additional Information
2 | P a g e
SECTION C. PROPOSED IMPACTS INVENTORY

3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this question
for all streams sites impacted.
3a. Stream Impact
Number
Permanent or
Temporary
3b. Type of
Impact
3c. Stream
Name
3d. Perennial (PER)
or Intermittent (INT)
3e. Type of
Jurisdiction
3f. Average
Stream Width
(feet)
3g. Impact
Length (linear
feet)
S1 Permanent &
Temporary
Stabilization
& Pipe
UT1 to Doby
Creek Perennial Corps 7 P – 179
T – 35.0
S2 None - UT2 to Doby
Creek Intermittent Corps 3 0
S3 None - UT3 to Doby
Creek Intermittent Corps 3 0
S4 None - UT4 to Doby
Creek Perennial Corps 7 0
S5 Permanent &
Temporary
Stabilization,
Grading, &
Pipe
UT5 to Doby
Creek Intermittent Corps 5 P – 132.0
T – 20.0
S6 Temporary Stabilization
& Culvert Doby Creek Perennial Corps 20 T – 392.3
3h. Total Stream and tributary impacts P – 311
T – 447.3
3e. Comments
See Jurisdictional Overview Map, Jurisdictional Inset A Map, and Jurisdictional Inset B Map for a depiction of stream impact areas.

University Pointe Blvd. Extension Project
PCN Additional Information
3 | P a g e
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation

1. Avoidance and Minimization

1a. Specifically describe measures take to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing
the project.
The following measures were used to avoid and/or minimize the proposed impacts during the project’s
design:
 Implemented bottomless culverts at both crossings on Doby Creek.
 Aligned all outfalls to discharge in the floodplain to increase infiltration, reduce discharge
quantities and velocities, and improve water quality.
 Removed the grass strip between the road and the sidewalk at the creek crossing of UT1 to
reduce the length of the pipe.
 The pipe on UT1 will be buried to allow for aquatic passage.
 Did not change the outfall on UT1A so that this project would not further impact the channel.
 Reduced the lengths of the rip rap outfalls on UT1 and UT5.
 Removed drainage discharges from UPB on south side of Doby creek where slopes were steep
and floodplain area was limited.
 Designed the road widening and outfalls along UPB so that there would be no impacts to the UT4
or the wetland.
 Used an alternative alignment for the SAR to elim inate impacts to wetlands along Doby Creek
behind James Martin Middle and the existing riparian buffer. See Alternative Alignment Areas
Map for a depiction.

1b. Specifically describe measures take to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through
construction techniques.
The following construction measures will be implemented to minimize and/or avoid proposed impacts:
 A combination of clean water diversions, temporary diversions, and sediment basins will be used
throughout the project boundaries and during pipe and culvert installations.
 Installation of each bottomless culvert will be conducted so that there will only be minimal and
temporary impacts to Doby Creek. Culvert footings will be located outside the channel at a level below
the stream bed. See cross sections depicted in the plan set.
 Construction practices will follow guidelines from the Charlotte Land Development Standards Manual
and the NC Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual. NC Erosion and Sediment
controls will be implemented and will follow requirements outlined in the NCDENR NPDES
NCG010000 permit.
 Stream bank grading will be minimal and only what is needed to stabilize the stream banks after
bottom culverts and stormwater structures are installed.
 High hazard silt fence will be installed along work areas adjacent to S.W.I.M buffers and wetlands to
provide protection from sedimentation, but to also serve as a visual marker to their location.
 No onsite wetlands will be disturbed.

F. Supplementary Information

8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)

8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:

Data for potential floodplain effects were downloaded from the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping
website on March 27, 2011. The effective dates of the downloaded Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(DFIRM) for Mecklenburg County were March 2, 2009. The Doby Creek floodplain has been studied by
University Pointe Blvd. Extension Project
PCN Additional Information
4 | P a g e
Detailed Methods, and the Effective HEC-RAS hydraulic model was obtained from the Mecklenburg
County Flood Mitigation Program. Preliminary hydraulic analysis was conducted for each crossing and
resulted in an increase in the 100-year Base Flood Elevation (BFE) upstream of the bridge on UPB of
about 0.6 feet and upstream of the culvert on the SAR by about 2 feet.

Since the proposed project will result in modifications to the Floodway, as well as increases to the BFE, a
Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) will need to be obtained from the Mecklenburg County
Floodplain Mitigation Program prior to construction. A single CLOMR application will need to be prepared
to cover both crossings. The City is coordinating with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), the
delegated state agency for administering FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program, to develop the
approval of a CLOMR and subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).

North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
University Pointe Boulevard Extension
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County
Exhibit 3
FEMA National
DFIRM Panel 4576
Not To Scale
600 E. Fourth Street
C harlotte, NC 28202
Fax [phone]

T o report pollution or drainage problems, call: 311
http://stormwater.charmeck.org
June 29, 2015

Daniel Leaver
City of Charlotte
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, NC 28202

Subject Project: University Pointe Boulvard Roadway Extension
HUC#: 03040105 (Rocky)

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/Wetlands 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 (6) 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 311 0.0
Credits Available for This Project 311 0.0

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 River 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 [e-mail].

Sincerely,
Charlotte Storm Water Services
Isaac J. Hinson
Water Quality Program Specialist

cc: File
April 20, 2010

Ms. Christine Miller
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
1447 South Tryon Street, Suite 200
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203

Dear Ms. Miller:

Subject: Proposed Shopping Center Drive Alignment Project, Charlotte, Mecklenburg County,
North Carolina

In your letter of March 23, 2010, you requested our comments about the subject project. The
following comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.§ 4321 et seq.) (NEPA); the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e); and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).

According to your letter, the Shopping Center Drive Alignment Project involves the design and
construction of a new connector roadway that will begin at the intersection of IBM Drive and the
Martin Middle School Driveway, cross over 1-85, and end about 300 feet west of the future
intersection of Shopping Center Drive and IKEA Boulevard. This process will involve
conducting preliminary site surveys, alternatives analysis, design, natural resource permitting,
and construction.

General Comments. We have several concerns with the proposed project. Our principle
concern with this project is the potential impacts to Doby Creek associated with the proposed
road crossing and the potential for secondary development to result in additional impacts to the
creek.

Federal Endangered and Threatened Species. Your letter correctly points out that there are
five federally protected species in Mecklenburg County: Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus
schweinitzii), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) (currently protected through the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act), Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), Michaux's sumac
(Rhus michauxii), and the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata). Biologists with your
2

company conducted a field survey for Schweinitz's sunflower on September 9, 2009. No
individuals of the sunflower were observed throughout or adjacent to the project area. Though
no individuals were found within the project area, because suitable habitat is present, you have
concluded that the subject project "may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect" Schweinitz's
sunflower. Suitable habitat does not exist on the site for the bald eagle and the project will have
"no effect" on this species. Biologists with you company will be conducting field surveys for
Smooth coneflower and Michaux's sumac during the blooming season this summer (both species
bloom from June to mid-July). During this field assessment, biologists will also examine the
bank condition and substrate of Doby Creek, which bisects the project area, to determine if
suitable habitat exists for the Carolina heelsplitter.

We concur with your determination for Schweinitz’s sunflower and agree the project will not
affect the bald eagle. We will await this summer’s status surveys/site assessments for the other
three species before determining whether the requirements under section 7 of the Act are
fulfilled.

Stream Impacts. One of the most important and effective measures that can be taken to protect
stream health is the preservation of riparian buffers. Wide, contiguous riparian buffers have
greater and more flexible potential than other options to maintain biological integrity 1 and can
ameliorate many ecological issues related to land use and environmental quality.2 Riparian
buffers accomplish the following:

1. catch and filter runoff, thereby preventing nonpoint-source pollutants from
reaching streams;
2. enhance the in-stream processing of both point- and nonpoint-source
pollutants;
3. act as “sponges” by absorbing runoff (which reduces the severity of floods)
and by allowing runoff to infiltrate and recharge groundwater levels (which
maintains stream flows during dry periods);
4. catch and help prevent excess woody debris from entering the stream and
creating logjams;
5. stabilize stream banks and maintain natural channel morphology;
6. provide coarse woody debris for habitat structure and most of the dissolved
organic carbon and other nutrients necessary for the aquatic food web; and
7. maintain air and water temperatures around the stream.

For most projects, we recommend the maintenance or establishment of minimum 100-foot native
forested buffers along each side of perennial streams and 50-foot native forested buffers along
each side of intermittent streams and wetlands.3 ,4 We additionally encourage the

1R. Horner, C. May, E. Livingston, and J. Maxted. 1999. Impervious Cover, Aquatic Community Health, and
Storm Water BMPs: Is There a Relationship? In: Proceedings of the Sixth Biennial Storm Water Research and
Watershed Management Conference. Southwest Florida Water Management District, Tampa, FL.
2R.J. Naiman, H. DeCamps, and M. Pollock. 1993. The role of riparian corridors in maintaining regional
biodiversity. Ecol. Appl. 3:209-212.
3For projects potentially affecting waterways that contain federally listed species, the above-recommended buffer
3

implementation of buffers on ephemeral streams due to the important functions they provide as
headwater streams.5 , 6 Buffers should be measured horizontally from the edge of the stream
bank,7 which may result in wider buffers at higher gradients.

Stream Crossings. We strongly recommend the use of bridges for all stream crossings. We
recommend a bridge that spans the entire floodplain because it is important for streams to have
access/connectivity to the floodplain. Bridges that span the stream and floodplain are the best
option because they minimize impacts to aquatic resources, allow for the movement of aquatic
organisms, and eliminate the need to place fill in streams and floodplains. Bridges should be
designed and constructed so that no piers or bents are placed in the stream, and approaches and
abutments should not constrict the stream channel. Bridge should also be designed to allow for
safe terrestrial wildlife passage. To provide for terrestrial wildlife passage, the new bridge
designs should span beyond the waterways so that unsubmerged land is also bridged. If bank
stabilization is necessary, we recommend that the use of riprap be minimized and that a
riprap-free buffer zone be maintained under the bridge to allow for wildlife movement. Longer
bridge spans also cost far less than a separate wildlife crossing under an existing roadway. In
addition, floodplain culverts must be installed if fill is placed in the floodplain for bridge
construction.

If a bridge is not possible and culverts are the only option, we suggest using bottomless culverts.
Bottomless culverts do not need to be buried, thereby preserving the natural creek substrate and
not disturbing the streambed. Culverts should be sufficiently sized to mimic natural stream
functions and habitats located at the crossing site; allow for water depth, volume (flow), and
velocity levels that will permit aquatic organism passage; and accommodate the movement of
debris and bed material during bank-full events. Widening the stream channel must be avoided.
Consideration should be given to minimum water depth during low-flow/dry periods when
designing culvert placement. Sufficient water depth should be maintained during low flows to
accommodate both the upstream and downstream movement of aquatic species. Water depth
inside the culvert must be adequate for fish to be completely immersed and not scraping the
bottom of the stream. The culvert should be designed and installed at the same slope as the
stream grade to maintain an acceptable water velocity for fish passage, and the stream substrate
characteristics should be retained within the culvert. Where feasible, we recommend the use of
multiple barrels (other than the base-flow barrel), placed on or near stream bank-full or
floodplain bench elevation, in order to accommodate floodwaters within the stream corridor.

widths should be doubled (100 feet for intermittent streams and 200 feet for perennial streams).
4J.S. Stewart, D.M. Downes, L. Wang, J.A. Wierl, and R. Bannerman. 2000. Influences of riparian corridors on
aquatic biota in agricultural watersheds. Pages 209–214 in P.J. Wigington, Jr., and R.L. Beschta, eds. Proceedings
of the American Water Resources Association International Conference on riparian ecology and management in
multi-land use watersheds, Portland, OR.
5R.B. Alexander, R.A. Smith, and G.E. Schwarz. 2000. Effect of Stream Channel Size on the Delivery of Nitrogen
to the Gulf of Mexico. Nature 403:758-761.
6B.J. Peterson, W.M. Wolheim, P.J. Mulholland, J.R. Webster, J.L. Meyer, J.L. Tank, E. Marti, W.B. Bowden,
H.M. Valett, A.E. Hershey, W.H. McDowell, W.K. Dodds, S.K. Hamilton, S. Gregory, and D.D. Morrall. 2001.
Control of Nitrogen Export from Watersheds by Headwater Streams. Science 292:86-90.
7K.L. Knutson and V.L. Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington’s priority habitats: riparian.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 181 pp.
4
These should be reconnected to floodplain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished
by using sills on the upstream end to restrict or divert flow to the base-flow barrel(s). If the
culvert is longer than 40 linear feet, alternating or notched baffles should be installed in a manner
that mimics the existing stream pattern. This should enhance the passage of aquatic life by:
(1) depositing sediment in the barrel, (2) maintaining channel depth and flow regimes, and
(3) providing resting places for fish and other aquatic organisms.

Measures to control sediment and erosion should be installed before any ground-disturbing
activities occur. Grading and backfilling should be minimized, and existing vegetation should be
retained (if possible) to maintain shoreline cover for fish and wildlife. Disturbed areas should be
revegetated with native grass and tree species as soon as the project is completed.

The proper planning, design, and installation of stream crossings provide year-round aquatic
organism passage and preserve healthy streams. We recommend the following Web site for
additional information regarding stream crossing activities:

http://www.stream.fs.fed.us/fishxing/pointers.html

Equipment in Streams. Equipment should be kept out of streams by operating from the banks
in a fashion that minimizes disturbance to woody vegetation. It should be inspected daily and
should be maintained in order to prevent the contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels,
lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials. All fuels, lubricants, and other toxic
materials should be stored outside the riparian management area of the stream, in a location
where the material can be contained. Equipment should be checked for leaks of hydraulic fluids,
cooling system liquids, and fuel and should be cleaned before fording any stream.

Erosion and Sedimentation Control. Construction activities, particularly near streams, rivers,
and lakes, have the potential to cause water pollution and stream degradation if measures to
control erosion and sediment are not properly installed and maintained. To effectively reduce
erosion and sedimentation impacts, Best Management Practices should be designed, installed,
and maintained during land-disturbing activities. A complete design manual, which provides
extensive details and procedures for developing site-specific plans to control erosion and
sediment and is consistent with the requirements of the North Carolina Sedimentation and
Pollution Control Act and Administrative Rules, is available at
http://www.dlr.enr.state.nc.us/pages/publications.html.

Thank you for allowing us to comment on this project. Please contact Mr. Allen Ratzlaff of our
staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 229, if you have any questions. In any future correspondence
concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-10-126.

cc:
Mr. Ron Linville, Western Piedmont Region Reviewer, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 3855 Idlewild Road, Kernersville, NC 27284-9180

May 21, 2012

Ms. Kristi Suggs
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
5550 Seventy-Seven Center Drive, Ste. 320
Charlotte, North Carolina 28217

Dear Ms. Suggs:

Subject: Proposed University Pointe Boulevard Extension Project, Charlotte, Mecklenburg County,
North Carolina

In your letter of May 9, 2012 (received May 16, 2012), you requested our comments about the
subject project. The following comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.§ 4321 et seq.) (NEPA); the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e); and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).

In March of 2010, Baker Engineering (Baker) requested our review and comments regarding possible
impacts from the proposed Shopping Center Drive Alignment Project. We provided those comments
on April 20, 2010, which include “no effect” determinations for federally listed species in
Mecklenburg County and our concerns about impacts to Doby Creek. Since that time, the project has
added an additional alignment and Baker is requesting additional review and comments on the
proposed project – now called the University Pointe Boulevard Extension Project.

The University Pointe Boulevard Extension Project involves the design and construction of a new
connector roadway, which will begin at the intersection of IBM Drive and the James Martin Middle
School Driveway, cross over 1-85, and end at a future intersection with IKEA Boulevard and
University Pointe Boulevard. In addition, an alternative access road for Charlotte Mecklenburg
Schools has been proposed. The access road will begin about 600 feet southeast of Neal Road on the
campus of Zebulon Vance High School, cross over Doby Creek, and end at the existing traffic circle
on the campus of James Martin Middle School. This project will involve conducting preliminary site
surveys, alternatives analysis, design, natural resource permitting, and construction.

Stream Buffers. One of the most important and effective measures that can be taken to protect
stream health is the preservation of riparian buffers. Wide, contiguous riparian buffers have greater
2

and more flexible potential than other options to maintain biological integrity1 and can ameliorate
many ecological issues related to land use and environmental quality.2 Riparian buffers accomplish
the following:

1. catch and filter runoff, thereby preventing nonpoint-source pollutants from
reaching streams;
2. enhance the in-stream processing of both point- and nonpoint-source pollutants;
3. act as “sponges” by absorbing runoff (which reduces the severity of floods) and
by allowing runoff to infiltrate and recharge groundwater levels (which maintains
stream flows during dry periods);
4. catch and help prevent excess woody debris from entering the stream and creating
logjams;
5. stabilize stream banks and maintain natural channel morphology;
6. provide coarse woody debris for habitat structure and most of the dissolved
organic carbon and other nutrients necessary for the aquatic food web; and
7. maintain air and water temperatures around the stream.

For most projects, we recommend the maintenance or establishment of minimum 100-foot native
forested buffers along each side of perennial streams and 50-foot native forested buffers along each
side of intermittent streams and wetlands.3 ,4 We additionally encourage the implementation of
buffers on ephemeral streams due to the important functions they provide as headwater streams.5 , 6
Buffers should be measured horizontally from the edge of the stream bank,7 which may result in
wider buffers at higher gradients.

Stream Crossings. Similar to our concerns with the original alignment, the addition of a second
crossing of Doby Creek heightens our concerns about aquatic impacts. We strongly recommend the
use of bridges for all stream crossings. We recommend a bridge that spans the entire floodplain
because it is important for streams to have access/connectivity to the floodplain. Bridges that span
the stream and floodplain are the best option because they minimize impacts to aquatic resources,
allow for the movement of aquatic organisms, and eliminate the need to place fill in streams and

1R. Horner, C. May, E. Livingston, and J. Maxted. 1999. Impervious Cover, Aquatic Community Health, and
Storm Water BMPs: Is There a Relationship? In: Proceedings of the Sixth Biennial Storm Water Research and
Watershed Management Conference. Southwest Florida Water Management District, Tampa, FL.
2R.J. Naiman, H. DeCamps, and M. Pollock. 1993. The role of riparian corridors in maintaining regional
biodiversity. Ecol. Appl. 3:209-212.
3For projects potentially affecting waterways that contain federally listed species, the above-recommended buffer
widths should be doubled (100 feet for intermittent streams and 200 feet for perennial streams).
4J.S. Stewart, D.M. Downes, L. Wang, J.A. Wierl, and R. Bannerman. 2000. Influences of riparian corridors on
aquatic biota in agricultural watersheds. Pages 209–214 in P.J. Wigington, Jr., and R.L. Beschta, eds. Proceedings
of the American Water Resources Association International Conference on riparian ecology and management in
multi-land use watersheds, Portland, OR.
5R.B. Alexander, R.A. Smith, and G.E. Schwarz. 2000. Effect of Stream Channel Size on the Delivery of Nitrogen
to the Gulf of Mexico. Nature 403:758-761.
6B.J. Peterson, W.M. Wolheim, P.J. Mulholland, J.R. Webster, J.L. Meyer, J.L. Tank, E. Marti, W.B. Bowden,
H.M. Valett, A.E. Hershey, W.H. McDowell, W.K. Dodds, S.K. Hamilton, S. Gregory, and D.D. Morrall. 2001.
Control of Nitrogen Export from Watersheds by Headwater Streams. Science 292:86-90.
7K.L. Knutson and V.L. Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington’s priority habitats: riparian.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 181 pp.
3
floodplains. Bridges should be designed and constructed so that no piers or bents are placed in the
stream, and approaches and abutments should not constrict the stream channel. Bridge should also
be designed to allow for safe terrestrial wildlife passage. To provide for terrestrial wildlife passage,
the new bridge designs should span beyond the waterways so that unsubmerged land is also bridged.
If bank stabilization is necessary, we recommend that the use of riprap be minimized and that a
riprap-free buffer zone be maintained under the bridge to allow for wildlife movement. Longer
bridge spans also cost far less than a separate wildlife crossing under an existing roadway. In
addition, floodplain culverts must be installed if fill is placed in the floodplain for bridge
construction.

If a bridge is not possible and culverts are the only option, we suggest using bottomless culverts.
Bottomless culverts do not need to be buried, thereby preserving the natural creek substrate and not
disturbing the streambed. Culverts should be sufficiently sized to mimic natural stream functions and
habitats located at the crossing site; allow for water depth, volume (flow), and velocity levels that
will permit aquatic organism passage; and accommodate the movement of debris and bed material
during bank-full events. Widening the stream channel must be avoided. Consideration should be
given to minimum water depth during low-flow/dry periods when designing culvert placement.
Sufficient water depth should be maintained during low flows to accommodate both the upstream
and downstream movement of aquatic species. Water depth inside the culvert must be adequate for
fish to be completely immersed and not scraping the bottom of the stream. The culvert should be
designed and installed at the same slope as the stream grade to maintain an acceptable water velocity
for fish passage, and the stream substrate characteristics should be retained within the culvert. Where
feasible, we recommend the use of multiple barrels (other than the base-flow barrel), placed on or
near stream bank-full or floodplain bench elevation, in order to accommodate floodwaters within the
stream corridor. These should be reconnected to floodplain benches as appropriate. This may be
accomplished by using sills on the upstream end to restrict or divert flow to the base-flow barrel(s).
If the culvert is longer than 40 linear feet, alternating or notched baffles should be installed in a
manner that mimics the existing stream pattern. This should enhance the passage of aquatic life by:
(1) depositing sediment in the barrel, (2) maintaining channel depth and flow regimes, and
(3) providing resting places for fish and other aquatic organisms.

Measures to control sediment and erosion should be installed before any ground-disturbing activities
occur. Grading and backfilling should be minimized, and existing vegetation should be retained (if
possible) to maintain shoreline cover for fish and wildlife. Disturbed areas should be revegetated
with native grass and tree species as soon as the project is completed.

The proper planning, design, and installation of stream crossings provide year-round aquatic
organism passage and preserve healthy streams. We recommend the following Web site for
additional information regarding stream crossing activities:

http://www.stream.fs.fed.us/fishxing/pointers.html

Equipment in Streams. Equipment should be kept out of streams by operating from the banks in a
fashion that minimizes disturbance to woody vegetation. It should be inspected daily and should be
maintained in order to prevent the contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials. All fuels, lubricants, and other toxic materials should be
stored outside the riparian management area of the stream, in a location where the material can be
4
contained. Equipment should be checked for leaks of hydraulic fluids, cooling system liquids, and
fuel and should be cleaned before fording any stream.

Erosion and Sedimentation Control. Construction activities, particularly near streams, rivers, and
lakes, have the potential to cause water pollution and stream degradation if measures to control
erosion and sediment are not properly installed and maintained. To effectively reduce erosion and
sedimentation impacts, Best Management Practices should be designed, installed, and maintained
during land-disturbing activities. A complete design manual, which provides extensive details and
procedures for developing site-specific plans to control erosion and sediment and is consistent with
the requirements of the North Carolina Sedimentation and Pollution Control Act and Administrative
Rules, is available at http://www.dlr.enr.state.nc.us/pages/publications.html.

Federal Endangered and Threatened Species. Your letter correctly points out that there are five
federally protected species in Mecklenburg County: Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus
schweinitzii), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) (currently protected through the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act), Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), Michaux's sumac (Rhus
michauxii), and the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata). Biologists with your company
conducted a field survey for Smooth coneflower and Michaux’s sumac on July 6-7, 2010. A survey
for Schweinitz's sunflower was conducted on October 28, 2010. No individuals of any of the three
species were observed throughout or adjacent to the project area and Baker has made a “no effect”
determination for all three species. Suitable habitat for the bald eagle and Carolina heelsplitter is not
present in the project area and similar determinations were made for these species.

Based on the information provided in your letter and a review of our records, we concur with your
assessment that the project, as proposed, will not affect any species federally listed as endangered or
threatened. Therefore, the requirements under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act are
fulfilled. However, obligations under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act must be reconsidered
if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or
critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this 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 identified action.

Thank you for allowing us to comment on this project. Please contact Mr. Allen Ratzlaff of our staff
at 828/258-3939, Ext. 229, if you have any questions. In any future correspondence concerning this
project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-10-126.

cc:
Ms. Shari L. Bryant, Eastern Piedmont Region Permit Reviewer, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, P.O. Box 129, Sedalia, NC 27342-0129

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/ieckardt/Desktop/RE%206712%20phone%20conversation%20follow-up.htm[7/3/2012 2:47:24 PM]
From: Mintz, John <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 3:02 PM
To: Caldwell, Heath A
Subject: RE: 6/7/12 phone conversation follow-up

Not a problem, take care and let me know if I can ever be of assistance.

John J. Mintz
Assistant State Archaeologist
E-Mail to and from me, in connection with the transaction of public business, is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law
and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Caldwell, Heath A [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 2:11 PM
To: Mintz, John
Cc: Suggs, Kristi
Subject: 6/7/12 phone conversation follow-up

Mr. Mintz,

Per our telephone conversation (6/7/12), I am attaching a map of the proposed project limits and the identified grave site as
requested. The project involves the design and construction of a new connector roadway, which will begin at the intersection
of IBM Drive and the Martin Middle School Driveway in Charlotte , NC, cross over I-85, and end at a future intersection with
IKEA Boulevard and University Pointe Boulevard. In addition, an alternative access road for Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools
has been proposed. The access road will begin approximately 600 feet southeast of Neal Road on the campus of Zebulon
Vance High School , cross over Doby Creek, and end just east of the existing traffic circle on the campus of James Martin
Middle School .

As mentioned, the State Historic Preservation Office was contacted in March 2011 and March 2012 with regards to the
Shopping Center Drive Alignment Project. On April 12, 2010, Baker received comments from your office stating that no known
historic resources would be affected by the proposed project (ER-10-0589). Since that time the project has added the school
access road as part of the alignment and a subsequent review and comment letter was sent by baker in March 2011. On
March 22, 2011, Baker received comments from your office again stating that no known historic resources would be affected
by the proposed project.

On June 6, 2012, Baker personnel identified the location of a potential, historical grave site adjacent to the project limits near
the proposed school access road. Locations of the individual graves were identified by stone markers that were set in-ground
and spaced in rows. Baker personnel delineated the extent of the grave site by approximating a 10-ft buffer outside of the
most distant grave makers. The attached figure shows the location of the delineated grave site with respect to the proposed
project limits. Distance of the delineated grave site to the proposed project limits is approximately 16 feet. Grading for the
proposed roadway is approximately 45-ft inside the proposed project limits. Approximate total distance from the delineated
grave site to any grading or ground disturbing activities will be a minimum of 60-ft.

The purpose of the 6/7/2012 telephone conversation was to identify any additional requirements necessary with regards the
referenced project and the identified grave site. In consultation it was determined that if any indications of grave site
structures or remains are anticipated to be or have been unearthed, all construction activities should stop and the North
Carolina Office of State Archaeology should be contacted. If any additional requirements are necessary for this or additional
historical resources associated with the project area, please contact me.

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/ieckardt/Desktop/RE%206712%20phone%20conversation%20follow-up.htm[7/3/2012 2:47:24 PM]
Thanks again for your time-

Heath Caldwell
Environmental Specialist

Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
5550 Seventy-Seven Center Drive
Suite 320
Charlotte , NC 28217
D [phone]
C [phone]

Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
5550 Seventy-Seven Center Dr., Ste. 320 | Charlotte, North Carolina 28217
Office: 704.665.2200 | Fax: [phone]

May 20, 2015

Allen Ratzlaff
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801

Subject: Request Review of Biological Concurrence for Northern Long Eared Bat (NLEB)
University Pointe Boulevard Extension Project (Log Number 4-2-10-126)
(Formerly known as the Shopping Center Drive Alignment Project)
Charlotte, NC

Dear Mr. Ratzlaff,

On May 21, 2012, Michael Baker International (Baker) received concurrence from the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) that based on the information available at the time of
review, the proposed extension of University Pointe Boulevard (UPB) and the creation of a new
School Access Road (SAR) for James Martin Middle School (USFWS Log Number 4-2-10-126)
would not affect any federally listed threatened and endangered species for Mecklenburg
County, NC; therefore, fulfilling the project’s obligation to meet the requirements of Section 7(c)
of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Since that time, the USFWS listed the Myotis
septentridonalis (Northern Long Eared Bat (NLEB)) as a threatened species in Mecklenburg
County, NC on May 4, 2015. Due to this recent listing, Baker is requesting that the USFWS
review our findings and provide additional information in reference to any potential impacts
that the proposed project may have on the NLEB.

Below, Baker has included a brief description of the characteristics and habitat requirements
for the NLEB along with a biological conclusion regarding the potential project impact.

Myotis septentrionalis (Northern Long Eared Bat)

The Northern Long Eared Bat is found across much of the eastern and north central United
States (US) and throughout much of the Canadian providences. During the winter the NLEB
hibernates in caves, abandoned mines or similar types of structures, whereas in the summer
they roost under the bark or in cavities and crevices of trees and snags. The NLEB was listed as
threatened due to its potential for developing a fatal fungal disease known as white-nose
syndrome (WNS), which is rapidly spreading through the South and Midwestern US.

Though the primary threat to the NLEB is the contraction of WNS, certain activities are also
considered a threat to the species because of their decline in population and vulnerable state.
As part of the final 4(d) rule to list the NLEB as threatened, activities defined by this ruling
prohibit the purposeful take and regulate the incidental take, not otherwise exempt, of the
species within areas of the country affected by WNS, including buffer zones.

Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
5550 Seventy-Seven Center Dr., Ste. 320 | Charlotte, North Carolina 28217
Office: 704.665.2200 | Fax: [phone]

Data Analysis

Since Mecklenburg County, NC is located within the WNS buffer zone, Baker has done a cursory
office review of the project area using data collected during previous field surveys and an aerial
map from Google Earth dated 10/4/2014. Based on this review, a mature hardwood forest,
potential habitat for the NLEB, is present within the limits of disturbance for the SAR and a
small portion of the UPB extension. However, since the project’s is not located within 0.25
miles of a known population and any tree clearing conducted as part of construction will occur
outside of the pup season (June 1 – July 31), a determination of “not likely to adversely affect”
has been made for the NLEB.

We are requesting that you review our findings and provide additional information and/or
comments as necessary. We have enclosed a copy of an aerial map and a USGS topographic map
that includes the proposed project site boundaries for your review.

We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact
us with any questions that you may have concerning this project (704-665-2206).

Sincerely,

Kristi Suggs
Environmental Scientist

^_
§¨¦
§¨¦
§¨¦
§¨¦
§¨¦§¨¦
§¨¦
§¨¦§¨¦§¨¦§¨¦§¨¦§¨¦§¨¦§¨¦§¨¦§¨¦
03040105
03050101
03050103
03050102
03040103 0304010303040102
I-85
I-77
I-85
I-77
I-277
I-485
I-485
University Pointe Blvd. Extension ±
LEGEND
^_Project Location
Interstates
USGS 8-Digit HUC Codes
Major Waterways
Charlotte Boundary
Mecklenburg County
NC Counties
0 42
Miles Vicinity Map
Projec t Site35.29 8114 N, -8 0.767 066 W
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC
I -8 5
IBM
CITY
N E A L
V I N O Y
S I 8 5 x C I T Y B V
C I T Y B V x N I 8 5
H E W I T T A S S O C I A T E S
H A G E N
C I T Y B V x S I 8 5
MARCHAND
I -8 5
CITY
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
0 250125Feet ±0 600300
FeetUniversity Pointe Blvd Extension
1" = 600'Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC USGS Topographic Map
Derita Quadrangle
Projec t Ar ea
Par cels
LEGEND
INSET A
I -8 5
IBM
VIN
O
Y
C I T Y B V x N I 8 5
S I 8 5 x C I T Y B V
H A G E N
I -8 5
EnBMO
CeB2
WkD
CeB2
CeB2
MeB
WkD
EnD
CeD2
PaE
WkE
CeB2
MO
CeB2
EnB
CeD2
CeD2
MeB
EnD
EnD
EnD
EnD EnB
CeD2
EnB
WkE
0 250125Feet ±0 400200
FeetUniversity Pointe Blvd Extension
1" = 400'Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC Soils Map
CeB2 - Cecil sandy clay loam (Slopes 2 - 8%) Moderatly eroded
CeD2 - Cecil sandy clay loam (Slopes 5 - 15%) Moderately eroded
En B - Eno n sandy loam (Slopes 2 - 8%)
En D - En on san dy loam (Slopes 8 - 15%)
MO - Mo noca n loam (Slopes 0 - 2%) Frequently flooded
Me B - Mecklenburg fine sandy loam (Slopes 2 - 8%)
Pa E - Paco let sandy loam (Slopes 15 - 25%)
WkD - Wilkes loam (Slopes 8 - 15%)
SOILS
(2007 Aerial & NRCS Soils Data, Mecklenburg County)
INSET AINSET A
INSET B
Permanent Impact
Temporary Impact
ExistingImpacts
Proposed Stormdrainage
Existing Stormdrainage
Fill
Cut
Ditch
Ephemeral Stream
Intermittent Stream
Perennial Stream
30-Ft SWIM Buffer
Existing Wetlands
LEGEND
0 250125Feet ±0 400200
FeetUniversity Pointe Boulevard Extension
1" = 200'Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC Jurisdictional Impacts Overview Map
(2007 Aerial, Mecklenburg County)
UT4No Impa cts
UT5Permanent Impacts = 24 .2 LFTemporary Impacts = 10 .0 LF
Doby CreekPermanent Impacts = Non eTemporary Impacts = 21 5.8 LF
UT5Permanent Impacts = 63 .3 LFNo Temporary Impacts
UT5Permanent Impacts = 44 .5 LFTemporary Impacts =10.0 LF
LEGEND
Pe rmanen t Impact
Te mpora ry Impact
ExistingImpacts
Existing Stormdrainage
Pro pose d Sto rmdrainage
Fill
Cut
Ditch
Ephe meral Stream
Intermittent Stream
Perenn ial Stream
30-Ft SWIM Buffer
Existing Wetlands
Existing_BMPs
±0 250125FeetUniversity Pointe BoulevardExtension
1" = 125'Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC
Jurisdictional Impacts Inset A Map
(2007 Aerial, Mecklenburg County)
UT1Perma nent Impacts = 17 9 LFTemporary Impacts = 35.0 LF
UT1ANo Impac ts
Doby CreekTemporary Impacts = 176 .5 LF
UT2No Impac ts
LEGEND
Pe rma nent Im pac t
Temporary Im pac t
ExistingImpacts
Existing Stormdra ina ge
Propos ed D rainage
Fill
Cut
Ditch
Ephemeral Strea m
Intermittent Stre am
Perennial Stream
30-Ft SWIM Buffer
Existing Wetlands
±0 250125
Feet
University Pointe Boulevard Extension
1" = 125'Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC Jurisdictional Impacts Inset B Map
(2007 Aerial, Mecklenburg County)
S I -8 5 H y
N I -8 5 H y IKEA Bv
I
B
M

D
r
N e a l R d
U
niv
e
r
sity
C
ity
B
v
U
niv
e
r
sity
P
oi
n
t
e

B
v
C
la
r
k

B
v
B
r
o
o
k
si
d
e

L
n
V
i
n
o
y

B
v
N T r y o n S t
Ikea Bv
S I 8 5 x c i t y B v R a S b
C i t y B v x n I 8 5 R a N b Angele Ln
H a g e n C t
M
a
y
o
r
e
s

L
n
M
a
r
c
h
a
n
d

L
n
0 250125Feet ±0 600300
FeetUniversity Pointe Blvd Extension
1" = 600'Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC
Project Area Map
Pro je ct Area
Parce ls
Road
LEGEND
2011 Aerial
ó ó
ó ó
S I -8 5 H y
N I -8 5 H y IKEA Bv
I
B
M

D
r
N e a l R d
University City Bv
U
niv
e
r
sity
P
oi
n
t
e

B
v
N T r y o n S t
C
la
r
k

B
v
B
r
o
o
k
si
d
e

L
n
V
i
n
o
y

B
v
L
e
w
i
s

S
t
Ikea Bv
S I85xcity Bv Ra Sb
C i t y B v x n I 8 5 R a N b Angele Ln
H a g e n C t
M
a
y
o
r
e
s

L
n
M
a
r
c
h
a
n
d

L
n
0 250125Feet ±0 600300
FeetUniversity Pointe Blvd Extension
1" = 600'Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC
Alternative AlignmentAreas Map
Alte rn ative Alignment Areas
Pipe d
óó óó Rip Ra p
Parce ls
Road
LEGEND
2011 Aerial±
LEGEND
Projec t Ar ea
Creeks
100yr Floodplain
Streams ide
Managed Use
Upla nd
Wetla nds
University Pointe Blvd. Extension ±0 250125
Feet Flood Zone MapCharlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC