20180712 Ver 1_T&E Supplemental info for RRRW PCN Form_20180523

Supplemental Information
PCN Form — Rocky River Road West Streetscape — Project Number 512-14-022
C. Project Information and Prior Project History
4. Project Description
4f. Explain the purpose of the proposed project
This project is intended to upgrade Rocky River Road West between North Tryon Street and Toby
Creek, with the goal of providing a safe, modern, complete street that includes upgraded pedestrian
and bicycle facilities. The current roadway alignment has multiple curves that will be straightened
to the greatest extent feasible for added vehicular safety. A widened roadway with dedicated bike
lanes and sidewalks will increase the safety of bikers and pedestrians that will be using the Rocky
River Road West roadway corridor for access between the residential development and the Toby
Creek Greenway, as well as to the commercial and transportation facilities on North Tryon Street.
A project goal is to provide a safer roadway for vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians to get from the
light rail on North Tryon Street to the Toby Creek greenway.
4g. Describe the overall project in detail, including indirect impacts and the type of
equipment to be used:
The City of Charlotte proposes to improve Rocky River Road West in Charlotte, NC from North
Tryon Street to Toby Creek. This project would include widening the roadway for the grading,
construction and paving of a turning lane, bike lanes, curb and gutter, and sidewalks on both sides
of Rocky River Road West. Erosion control will be provided prior to grading operations.
Stormwater management proposed would route stormwater runoff to a water quality basin located
adjacent to Toby Creek. A portion of the stream that is located across from Batavia Lane, will be
relocated further to the south. No impacts to waters of the U.S. will result from utility relocations.
The project length is approximately 0.75 mile along Rocky River Road West.
The relocation of the portion of RPW Stream A is proposed and will require a temporary pump-
around operation in order to work in dry conditions. The temporary impact areas of RPW Stream
A are depicted on the attached permit plans. When dry conditions in the portion of RPW Stream
A to be relocated have been established, the stream channel can be crossed by heavy equipment
and construction of the new stream channel will commence using boulders and rocks collected
from the dry portion of the stream channel to construct the boulder revetments and riffle runs. The
impacted portion of the stream channel will be backfilled for the new roadway embankment. When
the relocated portion of the stream channel has been constructed and stabilized, the pump-around
operation will be shut down and the stream flow will be diverted into the new channel.
D. Proposed Impacts Inventory
3j. Comments
The proposed culvert at RPW Stream C has been designed in accordance with the recent guidance
presented by the NCDWR in an e-mail from Alan Johnson on April 25, 2018. The DWR "questions
asked" list is as follows:
Rocky River Road West Streetscape Project

1) How is the stream channel going to be brought back up to the original elevation entering
and discharging from the culvert? Provide the information, the schematics. Are there
sills? Is there grade controls to prevent future head cutting? Is there some backfilling
immediately up and down stream of the culverts?
2) How is the base flow going to be maintained through an overwide culvert (designed to
handle large storm event)? Are there baffles? If not explain how aquatic passage is to be
maintained. Is the culvert to be backfilled? What type of soil/gravel/rock medium is
proposed?
3) Is the "mickey mouse" concept used to handle storm surge and base flow (goes back to
above comments)
4) Provide cross section and longitudinal profile of the culvert, proposed sills, proposed
baffles, constructed benches, etc... In construction details, remove the extraneous
information that is not of concern or pertinent to the review.
5) Riprap dissipaters proposed? How is it constructed to ensure that baseflow flows over
the riprap, rather than through the riprap.
6) Information legible???? 2 pt font isn't legible!
Responses:
1) The culvert to be replaced and extended at RPW Stream C will have an invert that is buried
approximately one foot to maintain the existing elevation of the stream at both the inlet and
outlet as depicted on the attached schematics. The culvert will have sills at the inlet and
outlet, as well as flood benches, in order to maintain the low flow channel. There are two
sills in the culvert; one on the upstream end and one on the downstream end. The culvert
invert is buried one foot for natural sedimentation. The sills have a trapezoidal shape that
are 6 feet wide and 3 inches tall (above the one foot silted flowline) to represent the typical
stream section observed/documented in the area. There are four baffles inside the culvert
that are a rectangular shape. The flow will travel over 6 foot wide sections that are 3 inches
tall (above the one foot silted flowline). The baffles that shift the flow are two feet and
three inches tall and alternate sides through the culvert to allow for the stream to meander
(See Attached permit plans Sheets 2-6).
2) The base flow will be maintained through the low flow portion of the culvert. Alternating
baffles within the culvert will maintain a low flow channel through the culvert and will
allow for the natural accumulation of sediments to provide a natural steam bottom. The
natural stream bottom will improve the aquatic passage compared to the existing culvert.
3) The "mickey mouse" concept will not be used to handle storm surge and base flow, and a
single reinforced concrete box culvert with low flow sills and baffles will be used instead.
The proposed 8' x 7' RCBC buried one foot is adequate to provide the required freeboard
for 25-year storm event without overtopping in the 100-year storm event in the future
landuse full build out condition. With the sills and baffles, the single barrel culvert will
adequately provide a representative stream section to accommodate base/low flow
conditions.
4) The attached permit impact plans depict the cross section and longitudinal profile of the
culvert including the proposed sills, baffles and constructed flood bench.
5) The intent of the design is to match existing elevations without modifying the
stream. There is no riprap dissipater at the inlet/outlets; only stream bank riprap to create
the flood benches. This approach avoids putting riprap in the stream channel to better
Rocky River Road West Streetscape Project

represent natural conditions and reduce stream impacts. Minor temporary impacts at the
inlet and outlet of the culvert may occur during the installation of the flood benches.
6) All of the information on the permit plans is legible on the printed plans and the .pdf file
of the permit plans can be enlarged for easy on-screen viewing.
E. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
la. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in
designing the project.
The relocation of RPW Stream A is proposed to minimize impacts that would result from piping
the stream and will be self-mitigating. Approximately 196 linear feet of RPW Stream A will be
impacted and approximately 187 linear feet of new stream channel will be created. The
profile/cross section measurement of the relocated stream will be performed after construction,
and visual monitoring of the relocated portion of RPW Stream A will be performed for two years
in order to document stability. The culvert to be replaced and extended at RPW Stream C will be
buried and have sills at the start and end to maintain the low flow channel and will have alternating
baffles within the culvert.
lb. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through
construction techniques.
NCDOT Best Management Practices for Construction and Maintenance Activities will be
employed. The relocated stream channel will use the rocks from the existing stream channel to
provide a natural stream substrate.
G. SupplementalInformation
5. Endangered Species and Critical Habitat
STV conducted protected species habitat assessments on August 6, 2014, September 23, 2015 and
September 22, 2017. As of March 26, 2018 the United States Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) lists six
federally protected species, under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for Mecklenburg County
(Table 1). For each species, a discussion of the presence or absence of habitat is included below
along with the Biological Conclusion rendered based on survey results in the study area.
Table 1. ESA federally protected species listed for Mecklenburg County
Rocky River Road West Streetscape Project

Scientific Name Common Name Federal Habitat Biological
Status Present Conclusion
Bombics affinis Rusty-patched bumblebee E No NE*
Echinacea lczevigata Smooth coneflower E Yes NE
Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's stmflower E Yes NE
Lasinigoyaa decorata Carolina heelsplitter E No NE
Myotis septentrionalis Northern long-eared bat T Yes MA-NLAA
Rhirs michauxii Michaux's sumac E Yes NE
E - Endangered
T - Threatened
MA-NLAA - May Affect — Not Likely to Adversely Affect
NE - No Effect
*- Historic record (the species was last observed in the counry more than 50 years ago)
Rusty-patched bumble bee
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: Early June — mid-August
Habitat Description: Rusty-patched bumble bees once occupied grasslands and tallgrass prairies
of the Upper Midwest and Northeast, but most grasslands and prairies have been lost,
degraded, or fragmented by conversion to other uses. Buinble bees need areas that provide
nectar and pollen from flowers, nesting sites (underground and abandoned rodent cavities
or clumps of grasses), and overwintering sites for hibernating queens (undisturbed soil).
Biological conclusion: No Effect
Potential habitat does not exist within tl�e project study area. There are historical records
of rusty-patched bumble bee being located in Mecklenburg County and the Derita, NC
USGS topographic quadrangle, but no records of rusty-patched buinble bee in the
Harrisburg, NC USGS topographic quadrangle. The NCNHP website was reviewed on
April 26, 2018 to determine the locations of the nearest populations of rusty-patched
bumble bee. The NCNHP determined that no populations of rusty-patched bumble bee
were present within one mile of the pi•oject study area (PSA), and no effect to rusty-patched
bumble bee is anticipated.
Smooth Coneflower
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: late May-October
Habitat Description: Smooth coneflower, a perennial herb, is typically found in meadows, open
woodlands, the ecotonal regions between meadows and woodlands, cedar barrens, dry
limestone bluffs, clear cuts, and roadside and utility rights-of-way. In North Carolina, the
species normally grows in magnesium- and calcium-rich soils associated with gabbro and
diabase parent material, and typically occurs in Iredell, Misenheimer, and Picture soil
series. The plant grows best where there is abundant sunlight, little coinpetition in the
herbaceous layer, and periodic disturbances (e.g., regular fire regime, well-timed mowing,
careful clearing) that prevents encroachment of shade-producing woody shrubs and trees.
On sites where woody succession is held in check, it is characterized by a number of species
with prairie affinities.
Rocky River Road West Streetscape Project

Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for smooth coneflower is present in the PSA within the roadside rights-of-
way. Plant by plant surveys were conducted by STV biologists throughout areas of suitable
habitat on August 6, 2014, September 23, 2015, and September 22, 2017. No individuals
of smooth coneflower were observed and the field surveys were conducted during the
flowering season. A review of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records
on April 26, 2018 indicates no known occurrences within one mile of the PSA and no effect
to smooth coneflower is anticipated.
Schweinitz's sunflower
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: late August-October
Habitat Description: Schweinitz's sunflower, endemic to the Piedmont of North and South
Carolina. The few sites where this rhizomatous perennial herb occurs in relatively natural
vegetation are found in Xeric Hardpan Forests. The species is also found along roadside
rights-of-way, maintained power lines and other utility rights-of-way, edges of thickets and
old pastures, clearings and edges of upland oak-pine-hickory woods and Piedmont longleaf
pine forests, and other sunny or semi-sunny habitats where disturbances (e.g., mowing,
clearing, grazing, blow downs, storms, frequent fire) help create open or partially open
areas for sunlight. It is intolerant of full shade and excessive competition from other
vegetation. Schweinitz's sunflower occurs in a variety of soil series, including Badin,
Cecil, Cid, Enon, Gaston, Georgeville, Iredell, Mecklenburg, Misenheimer, Secrest,
Tatum, Uwharrie, and Zion, among others. It is generally found growing on shallow sandy
soils with high gravel content; shallow, poor, clayey hardpans; or shallow rocky soils,
especially those derived from mafic rocks.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower is present in the PSA along roadside shoulders.
Plant by plant surveys were conducted by STV biologists throughout areas of suitable
habitat on August 6, 2014, September 23, 2015, and September 22, 2017. No individuals
of Schweinitz's sunflower were observed and the September field surveys were conducted
during the flowering season. A review of NCNHP records on Apri126, 2018 indicates no
known occurrences within one mile of the PSA and no effect to Schweinitz's sunflower is
anticipated.
Carolina heelsplitter
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: year round
Habitat Description: The Carolina heelsplitter was historically known from several locations
within the Catawba and Pee Dee River systems in North Carolina and the Pee Dee and
Savannah River systems, and possibly the Saluda River system in South Carolina. In North
Carolina, the species is now known only from a handful of streams in the Pee Dee and
Catawba River systems. The species exists in very low abundances, usually within six feet
of shorelines, throughout its known range. The general habitat requirements for the
Carolina heelsplitter are shaded areas in large rivers to small streams, often burrowed into
Rocky River Road West Streetscape Project

clay banks between the root systems of trees, or in runs along steep banks with moderate
current. The more recent habitat where the Carolina heelsplitter has been found is in
sections of streams containing bedrock with perpendicular crevices filled with sand and
gravel, and with wide riparian buffers.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
A mussel survey for the Carolina heelsplitter was not conducted. Suitable habitat for the
Carolina heelsplitter is not present in the PSA. A review of NCNHP records on Apri126,
2018 indicates no known occurrences within one mile of the PSA and no effect to Carolina
heelsplitter is anticipated.
Northern long-eared bat
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: June 1— August 15
Habitat Description: In North Carolina, the northern long-eared bat (NLEB) occurs in the
mountains, with scattered records in the Piedmont and coastal plain. In western North
Carolina, NLEB spend winter hibernating in caves and mines. During the summer, NLEB
roost singly or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both live and dead
trees (typically >3 inches dbh). Males and non-reproductive females may also roost in
cooler places, like caves and mines. This bat also been found, rarely, roosting in structures
like barns and sheds, under eaves of buildings, behind window shutters, in bridges, and in
bat houses. Foraging occurs on forested hillsides and ridges, and occasionally over forest
clearings, over water, and along tree-lined corridors. Mature forests may be an important
habitat type for foraging.
Biological Conclusion: May Affect, not likely to Adversely Affect
Potential habitat exists within the wooded areas of the project study area. There are records
of NLEB being located in Mecklenburg County, but no records of NLEB being located in
the Derita or Harrisburg, NC USGS topographic quadrangles. The NCNHP website was
reviewed on Apri126, 2018 to determine the locations of the nearest populations of NLEB.
The NCNHP determined that no populations of NLEB were present within one mile of the
project study area. The USFWS record of occurrence for the NLEB is greater than 40 miles
from the PSA, so it is anticipated that the project may affect, not likely to adversely affect
NLEB. As per the recommendation of the USFWS, a tree cutting moratorium between May
15 and August 15 will be implemented as feasible to further reduce the probability of "take"
for this species.
Michaux's sumac
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: May-October
Habitat Description: Michaux's sumac, endemic to the inner Coastal Plain and lower Piedmont,
grows in sandy or rocky, open, upland woods on acidic or circumneutral, well-drained
sands or sandy loam soils with low cation exchange capacities. The species is also found
on sandy or submesic loamy swales and depressions in the fall line Sandhills region as well
as in openings along the rim of Carolina bays; maintained railroad, roadside, power line,
and utility rights-of-way; areas where forest canopies have been opened up by blowdowns
Rocky River Road West Streetscape Project

and/or storm damage; small wildlife food plots; abandoned building sites; under sparse to
moderately dense pine or pine/hardwood canopies; and in and along edges of other
artificially maintained clearings undergoing natural succession. In the central Piedmont, it
occurs on clayey soils derived from mafic rocks. The plant is shade intolerant and,
therefore, grows best where disturbance (e.g., mowing, clearing, grazing, periodic fire)
maintains its open habitat.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac is present in the PSA along roadside shoulders.
Surveys were conducted by STV biologists throughout areas of suitable habitat on August
6, 2014, September 23, 2015, and September 22, 2017. No individuals of Michaux's sumac
were observed and the field reviews were conducted during the survey window. A review
of NCNHP records on Apri126, 2018 indicates no known occurrences within one mile of
the PSA and no effect to Michaux's sumac is anticipated.
Rocky River Road West Streetscape Project