20180032 Ver 2_MORE COMMENTS_20210208

Strickland, Bev
From: Tinklenberg, Chris <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 4:59 PM
To: Amschler, Crystal C CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Cc: Johnson, Alan
Subject: [External] RE: SAW-2020-01148 Lower Little Sugar Creek ( CSWS)
Attachments: 05-Lower LSC-Polk to Stateline_PCN.pdf, Lowe rLSC_Polk_Stateline_FigSa_Prpsd_Cond_
20210208.pdf, Lowe rLSC_Polk_Stateline_Fig5b_Prpsd_Cond_20210208.pdf; 06_
2020-06-05_LLSC Polk to State Line -Structure Plans.pdf
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Hi Crystal - apologies for the delayed reply on this. I pulled comment 3 from below and brought it up for a little
clarity since that is the only outstanding comment. I'm hopeful I have clarified and satisfied the issue and not
made it more confusing. Please see the most recent responses to your comments below in
GREEN. Additionally, I have attached the revised PCN impact pages 8 & 9 and revised Proposed Conditions
Figures. No modifications to the structures are proposed, however, I included the structure plans for
reference. Please review at your convenience and let me know if you need anything else.
Thanks!
-Chris
3) The plan sheets showing the bridge crossings indicate that sheets S4-S6 show bridge details, but I
didn't see these sheets in the plan. Please forward those to me. I'm particularly looking for
information that indicates there won't be any additional riprap in the stream associated with these
crossings as the plans indicate that class 11 riprap will be used with the bridge and references the "S"
sheets for these details.
In an effort to reduce the overall size of the planset, I mistakenly removed the "S" sheets from the compiled
set. I have attached this section for your reference.
Thanks for the plan sheets Chris. Still confused though. Looks like Structures 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8 all cross
jurisdictional features and all of these structures (except 8) show riprap along the banks or across the entire
creek on the plans, but I don't see that these riprap impacts have been captured in the table. Am I just
missing it? Also, assuming the plan accurately shows the riprap here in these areas, please indicate why
riprap would need to be placed within the streams or along the banks where bridge crossings will be
constructed.
Good catch on these ... I missed them. Riprap along the abutments and down the banks below the bridge
crossings are necessary to protect the infrastructure and for sustained bank stability. The riprap embankment
protection will be limited to the minimum necessary to protect the bridge abutments as well as the stream
banks immediately below the bridges in areas where shading would likely result in the loss of woody
vegetation. Riprap will be appropriately keyed -into the banks and voids will be filled with earthen material.
Installation of constructed riffles implementing natural channel design techniques is needed at Structures #3
& #8 because the streams are actively degrading. The constructed riffles at these locations will stabilize the
stream bed and help elevate dissolved oxygen levels in the tributaries and to Little Sugar Creek. The

embankment protection and constructed riffle associated with Structures #2 & #6 are included with the
stream restoration/enhancement sections seeking authorization under NWP27 (Impacts 4 & 6,
respectively). Here is a summary of each structure:
• Structure #2 — Covered under Impact 4 seeking authorization under NW1327;
• Structure #3 was not previously identified and is included as Impact 15 seeking authorization under
NWP27 for the installation of a constructed riffle and embankment protection resulting in 141f of
permanent, no -net loss stream impact;
• Structure #5 was not previously identified and is included as Impact 16 seeking authorization under
NWP13 for riprap embankment protection resulting in 121f of permanent, no -net loss stream impact;
• Structure #6 is covered under Impact 6 seeking authorization under NW1327;
• Structure #8 was not previously identified and is included as Impact 17 seeking authorization under
NWP27 for the installation of a constructed riffle and embankment protection resulting in 141f of
permanent, no -net loss stream impact.
Chris
Chris Tinklenberg, PWS
Kimley-Horn 1200 South Tryon Street, Suite 200, Charlotte, NC 28202
Direct: 704 409 1802 1 Mobile: [phone]
From: Amschler, Crystal C CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 11:19 AM
To: Tinklenberg, Chris <[e-mail]>
Cc: Johnson, Alan <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: SAW-2020-01148 Lower Little Sugar Creek ( CSWS)
Chris,
Yeah apparently I just missed Charlotte so much I just couldn't stay away!
Thanks for your response to my questions. Below I've made my comments in Blue:
1) Tthe question of single and complete for this project discussed with Dave S and if so, do you have any
of the documentation from that discussion? The PCN indicates that this part of the Cross -Charlotte
Trail project and there are a couple of files in our database with that name. The plan shows the
termination on the western end of the project with the greenway connecting with what appears to be
a future greenway and a note that there will be a "future Greenway Connection by others". The
eastern end connects to the project that was permitted under SAW-2018-01818 and issued
September 2018. Please provide any documentation on previous discussion of whether this project is
single and complete, and if there has been no previous discussion please provide justification that this
segment is single and complete from other segments.

This was discussed many years ago during the Tyvola to 1-485 section of the XCLT trail as well as ANY trail that
is part of a larger greenway system. Dave communicated that under NWP 14, each crossing would be
considered single and complete, however, the threshold for mitigation had been met and ALL impacts require
mitigation unless the greenway trail is not part of a larger network. Spans, slab -top bridges, and top -down
constructed boardwalk are all implemented where practicable and feasible. I do not have any formal
correspondence on this. It was just understood that all impacts moving forward, for most greenway projects,
would require mitigation.
Thanks for your response. I coordinated with David S and Bryan and they both confirmed the permitting
mechanism for this project.
2) The rock toe: Typically rock toes aren't as preferred as other natural stabilization measure and I often
see them designed using large boulders that would restrict flow, and as Alan pointed out in an email
correspondence sent with the original request, acts more as a retaining wall. However, the detail for
rock toes provided in the plan seems to show smaller rock (6-18") used along the toe of the bank and
sloped at what looks like more of a 2:1 slope. Can you verify that my interpretation of the plan is
correct and that the rock toe won't result in creating a vertical, restrictive barrier along the stream
bank?
You are correct. The rock -toe protection proposes to install 6"-18" riprap flush with the bank to provide a
stable rock foundation for the grading that is proposed to occur behind the rock and up the bank. Please note
that per the site walk on February 2, 2018, Dave Shaeffer identified an area of opportunity within a rock -toe
section (STA 27+50 — 28+50) and requested that we replace the rock -toe protection with a brush mattress
solution.
Thanks for your comments. I consider this issue resolved.
3) The plan sheets showing the bridge crossings indicate that sheets S4-S6 show bridge details, but I
didn't see these sheets in the plan. Please forward those to me. I'm particularly looking for
information that indicates there won't be any additional riprap in the stream associated with these
crossings as the plans indicate that class 11 riprap will be used with the bridge and references the "S"
sheets for these details.
In an effort to reduce the overall size of the planset, I mistakenly removed the "S" sheets from the compiled
set. I have attached this section for your reference.
Thanks for the plan sheets Chris. Still confused though. Looks like Structures 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8 all cross
jurisdictional features and all of these structures (except 8) show riprap along the banks or across the entire
creek on the plans, but I don't see that these riprap impacts have been captured in the table. Am I just
missing it? Also, assuming the plan accurately shows the riprap here in these areas, please indicate why
riprap would need to be placed within the streams or along the banks where bridge crossings will be
constructed.
4) From Dave's request for information sent in response to the 2018 permit request: "a typical for Wall
DD shown on Sheet 51. Please provide a typical detail." I also would like to see more info on the
retaining walls. The plans reference sheets RW1-RW22 for more detail on retaining walls but I was
unable to locate these plan sheets. Generally speaking, retaining walls are not desirable stabilization
measures compared to bank grading, vegetation and riprap. In the PCN you indicated that the
"Retaining walls are necessary in areas of extreme bank erosion where existing infrastructure, parking
lots, buildings need protection as well as areas where the greenway is close to the top of bank" and

the impact table proposes 1.205 If of impact due to retaining walls and grading. This is a lot of wall
and I think justification needs to be provided in each area where a wall is proposed. Further, in areas
where the wall is proposed due to the proximity of the greenway, then you should provide
information on why the greenway can't be moved further from the creek to allow for more natural
stabilization efforts. Also, NWP 3 doesn't allow bulkheads greater than 1,000 feet in length along the
bank so you should identify the length of the wall at each location.
I have attached the retaining wall plans for Walls AA, BB, CC, & DD for your reference. Please note that there
are other walls placed in upland areas around the site. These plans were not included to prevent any
confusion and reduce the attachment size.
Please refer to Figures 5a and 5b and the attached retaining wall plans. Retaining wall lengths and justification
for each reach are as follows:
• NCSAM Reach 1 (Wall AA) — 300 If
o Opportunity for solely bank grading and a more natural stabilization solution
is constrained at this location by an existing driveway and parking lots serving
the adjacent apartment home community. A near -vertical bank is present
immediately adjacent to the parking lot and poses an imminent threat to the
existing infrastructure and a safety concern for residents. The wall is
necessary to provide a stable toe and grade banks to a stable slope.
• NCSAM Reach 2 (Wall BB) — 157 If
o Similar to Reach 1, an opportunity for solely bank grading and a more natural
stabilization solution is constrained at this location by an existing driveway
and parking lot serving the adjacent apartment home community. A near -
vertical bank is present immediately adjacent to the parking lot and poses an
imminent threat to the existing infrastructure and a safety concern for
residents. The wall is necessary to provide a stable toe and grade banks to a
stable slope and is limited to only the most constrained location along the
meander bend.
• NCSAM Reach 3 (Wall CC) — 407 If
o Reach 3 & 4 are both extremely topographically constrained. From a
hydraulic perspective, it is not feasible to grade out into the stream without
significantly constricting the baseflow. The landward topography is too steep
and would be difficult to stabilize. The earthwork required to grade out to a
stable slope would likely encounter bedrock which would limit the ability to
provide the appropriate stabilization measures. The retaining wall along the
toe creates a solid, stable base and allows for a stable slope to be constructed
above. The stabilization activities at these locations are not constrained or
dictated by the proposed greenway alignment although, inherently, do
provide long-term protections of the greenway trail.
• NCSAM Reach 4 (Wall DID) — 341 If
o see above.
NCSAM assessments were performed at each location as directed by Dave Shaeffer in order to qualify for the
Corps' waiver. As mentioned in the attached 2/12/2018 email, the wall heights are limited to the minimum
necessary to provide a stable slope above resulting in heights ranging from 4'-5' at each location.

Thanks for this additional information Chris. I think it justifies the use of these retaining walls, and judging by
the pictures, this is a very degraded system that will benefit from stabilizing areas that are actively eroding
and resulting in excessive sedimentation downstream. as such, I think it may be better to lump these impacts
as NWP 27 impacts. We normally would not authorize retaining walls under NWP 27, but considering this
project includes a large aspect of stream improvement work under NWP 27, the retaining walls seem to be
placed minimally where other, less intrusive stabilization measures aren't feasible and that the retaining
walls, along with the overall project activities, should provide some benefit to the overall system, I think in
this case it is appropriate to issue these impacts under NWP 27.
5) Per NWP 13 requirements, please indicate how many cubic yards per running foot, as measured along
the length of the treated bank, below the plane of the ordinary high water mark will result from
stabilization that falls under NWP 13 for this project.
All proposed bank stabilization areas are no more than 0.7 cubic yards per running foot below
OHWM. I have attached the table indicating the volume of fill material below OHWM to this email.
Thanks for your comments. I consider this issue resolved.
6) For the purposes of notification that NLEB falls under the 4D rule, please indicate an estimate of acres
or numbers of trees that will be removed with this project. Didn't answer this question.
7) Looks like you forgot to answer this one? Any idea how much wooded area will be cleared with this project?
8) The cover letter indicates that a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) Request, Field Data
Forms, NCDWR Stream Identification Forms, NCSAM Forms and Agency Correspondences were
included with the packet but it looks like for whatever reason they didn't make it. the previously
submitted packet includes the JD information and agency information so if none of this information
has been changed then no need to resubmit. Please just verify I can rely on previously submitted
information. The previous package does not include the SAM forms so please forward those forms.
No changes to the PJD information but interesting that you didn't receive that info since it is all
compiled into one single pdf. Anyway, no changes to the JD information, you can rely on what was
previously submitted. I've attached the NCSAM forms and agency correspondence for reference.
Yeah it is weird, not sure what happened but thanks for re -sending.
9) Lastly, I seem to be missing some information from my file. The file associated with the withdrawn
2018 permit request has correspondence that indicates a field meeting took place, but I don't see any
follow up or field notes in the file. There are also emails in this file that bring up the rock toe and
retaining wall but I don't see that the concerns regarding these things were resolved. If there is any
information or document you have that would fill me in on any previous discussion on rock toes and
retaining walls, and that might help answer my questions above, please forward those to me. Also, if
you have any field meeting minutes that indicate what was discussed during the field meeting that
would be helpful as well.
An agency field review was conducted on February 2, 2018, with Dave Shaeffer, KH's stream
engineer Jason Diaz, and myself. Corresponding emails are attached for your reference.
Thanks for this additional information.

Sincerely,
Crystal C. Amschler
Project Manager
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28403
(828)-271-7980 Ext 4231
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=136:4:0
From: Tinklenberg, Chris <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 9:54 AM
To: Amschler, Crystal C CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Johnson, Alan <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: SAW-2020-01148 Lower Little Sugar Creek ( CSWS)
Hey Crystal! Welcome back to Mecklenburg County! Haha. I hope you've been well. Please see my responses to your
comments in red below.
If you have any other questions or need additional clarification, please let me know.
Thanks,
Chris
Chris Tinklenberg, PWS
Kimley-Horn 1200 South Tryon Street, Suite 200, Charlotte, NC 28202
Direct: 704 409 1802 1 Mobile: [phone]
From: Amschler, Crystal C CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2020 1:57 PM
To: Tinklenberg, Chris <[e-mail]>
Cc: Johnson, Alan <[e-mail]>
Subject: SAW-2020-01148 Lower Little Sugar Creek ( CSWS)
Hi Chris,
I've reviewed the Lower Little Sugar Creek PCN and have the following comments:
1) Was the question of single and complete for this project discussed with Dave S and if so, do you have
any of the documentation from that discussion? The PCN indicates that this part of the Cross -
Charlotte Trail project and there are a couple of files in our database with that name. The plan shows
the termination on the western end of the project with the greenway connecting with what appears
to be a future greenway and a note that there will be a "future Greenway Connection by others". The
eastern end connects to the project that was permitted under SAW-2018-01818 and issued

September 2018. Please provide any documentation on previous discussion of whether this project is
single and complete, and if there has been no previous discussion please provide justification that this
segment is single and complete from other segments.
This was discussed many years ago during the Tyvola to 1-485 section of the XCLT trail as well as ANY trail that
is part of a larger greenway system. Dave communicated that under NWP 14, each crossing would be
considered single and complete, however, the threshold for mitigation had been met and ALL impacts require
mitigation unless the greenway trail is not part of a larger network. Spans, slab -top bridges, and top -down
constructed boardwalk are all implemented where practicable and feasible. I do not have any formal
correspondence on this. It was just understood that all impacts moving forward, for most greenway projects,
would require mitigation.
2) The rock toe: Typically rock toes aren't as preferred as other natural stabilization measure and I often
see them designed using large boulders that would restrict flow, and as Alan pointed out in an email
correspondence sent with the original request, acts more as a retaining wall. However, the detail for
rock toes provided in the plan seems to show smaller rock (6-18") used along the toe of the bank and
sloped at what looks like more of a 2:1 slope. Can you verify that my interpretation of the plan is
correct and that the rock toe won't result in creating a vertical, restrictive barrier along the stream
bank?
You are correct. The rock -toe protection proposes to install 6"-18" riprap flush with the bank to provide a
stable rock foundation for the grading that is proposed to occur behind the rock and up the bank. Please note
that per the site walk on February 2, 2018, Dave Shaeffer identified an area of opportunity within a rock -toe
section (STA 27+50 — 28+50) and requested that we replace the rock -toe protection with a brush mattress
solution.
3) The plan sheets showing the bridge crossings indicate that sheets S4-S6 show bridge details, but I
didn't see these sheets in the plan. Please forward those to me. I'm particularly looking for
information that indicates there won't be any additional riprap in the stream associated with these
crossings as the plans indicate that class 11 riprap will be used with the bridge and references the "S"
sheets for these details.
In an effort to reduce the overall size of the planset, I mistakenly removed the "S" sheets from the compiled
set. I have attached this section for your reference.
4) From Dave's request for information sent in response to the 2018 permit request: "a typical for Wall
DID shown on Sheet 51. Please provide a typical detail." I also would like to see more info on the
retaining walls. The plans reference sheets RW1-RW22 for more detail on retaining walls but I was
unable to locate these plan sheets. Generally speaking, retaining walls are not desirable stabilization
measures compared to bank grading, vegetation and riprap. In the PCN you indicated that the
"Retaining walls are necessary in areas of extreme bank erosion where existing infrastructure, parking
lots, buildings need protection as well as areas where the greenway is close to the top of bank" and
the impact table proposes 1.205 If of impact due to retaining walls and grading. This is a lot of wall
and I think justification needs to be provided in each area where a wall is proposed. Further, in areas
where the wall is proposed due to the proximity of the greenway, then you should provide
information on why the greenway can't be moved further from the creek to allow for more natural
stabilization efforts. Also, NWP 3 doesn't allow bulkheads greater than 1,000 feet in length along the
bank so you should identify the length of the wall at each location.

I have attached the retaining wall plans for Walls AA, BB, CC, & DD for your reference. Please note that there
are other walls placed in upland areas around the site. These plans were not included to prevent any
confusion and reduce the attachment size.
Please refer to Figures 5a and 5b and the attached retaining wall plans. Retaining wall lengths and justification
for each reach are as follows:
• NCSAM Reach 1 (Wall AA) — 300 If
o Opportunity for solely bank grading and a more natural stabilization solution
is constrained at this location by an existing driveway and parking lots serving
the adjacent apartment home community. A near -vertical bank is present
immediately adjacent to the parking lot and poses an imminent threat to the
existing infrastructure and a safety concern for residents. The wall is
necessary to provide a stable toe and grade banks to a stable slope.
• NCSAM Reach 2 (Wall BB) — 157 If
o Similar to Reach 1, an opportunity for solely bank grading and a more natural
stabilization solution is constrained at this location by an existing driveway
and parking lot serving the adjacent apartment home community. A near -
vertical bank is present immediately adjacent to the parking lot and poses an
imminent threat to the existing infrastructure and a safety concern for
residents. The wall is necessary to provide a stable toe and grade banks to a
stable slope and is limited to only the most constrained location along the
meander bend.
NCSAM Reach 3 (Wall CC) — 407 If
o Reach 3 & 4 are both extremely topographically constrained. From a
hydraulic perspective, it is not feasible to grade out into the stream without
significantly constricting the baseflow. The landward topography is too steep
and would be difficult to stabilize. The earthwork required to grade out to a
stable slope would likely encounter bedrock which would limit the ability to
provide the appropriate stabilization measures. The retaining wall along the
toe creates a solid, stable base and allows for a stable slope to be constructed
above. The stabilization activities at these locations are not constrained or
dictated by the proposed greenway alignment although, inherently, do
provide long-term protections of the greenway trail.
• NCSAM Reach 4 (Wall DD) — 341 If
o see above.
NCSAM assessments were performed at each location as directed by Dave Shaeffer in order to qualify for the
Corps' waiver. As mentioned in the attached 2/12/2018 email, the wall heights are limited to the minimum
necessary to provide a stable slope above resulting in heights ranging from 4'-5' at each location.
5) Per NWP 13 requirements, please indicate how many cubic yards per running foot, as measured along
the length of the treated bank, below the plane of the ordinary high water mark will result from
stabilization that falls under NWP 13 for this project.
All proposed bank stabilization areas are no more than 0.7 cubic yards per running foot below
OHWM. I have attached the table indicating the volume of fill material below OHWM to this email.

6) For the purposes of notification that NLEB falls under the 4D rule, please indicate an estimate of acres
or numbers of trees that will be removed with this project.
7) The cover letter indicates that a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) Request, Field Data
Forms, NCDWR Stream Identification Forms, NCSAM Forms and Agency Correspondences were
included with the packet but it looks like for whatever reason they didn't make it. the previously
submitted packet includes the JD information and agency information so if none of this information
has been changed then no need to resubmit. Please just verify I can rely on previously submitted
information. The previous package does not include the SAM forms so please forward those forms.
No changes to the PJD information but interesting that you didn't receive that info since it is all
compiled into one single pdf. Anyway, no changes to the JD information, you can rely on what was
previously submitted. I've attached the NCSAM forms and agency correspondence for reference.
8) Lastly, I seem to be missing some information from my file. The file associated with the withdrawn
2018 permit request has correspondence that indicates a field meeting took place, but I don't see any
follow up or field notes in the file. There are also emails in this file that bring up the rock toe and
retaining wall but I don't see that the concerns regarding these things were resolved. If there is any
information or document you have that would fill me in on any previous discussion on rock toes and
retaining walls, and that might help answer my questions above, please forward those to me. Also, if
you have any field meeting minutes that indicate what was discussed during the field meeting that
would be helpful as well.
An agency field review was conducted on February 2, 2018, with Dave Shaeffer, KH's stream
engineer Jason Diaz, and myself. Corresponding emails are attached for your reference.
Thanks and fill free to give me a call if you'd like to discuss. my work mobile is 828-526-6013.
Crystal C. Amschler
Project Manager
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28403
(828)-271-7980 Ext 4231
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:
Blockedhttp://corpsmapu.usace.army.miI/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0

2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number —
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ — non-404, other)
(acres)
Temporary (T)
W ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f.
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number -
(PER) or
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
DWQ — non-404,
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
LSC — Impact 1
NWP 13
® PER
® Corps
® P ❑ T
Bank Stabilization (Grading
LSC
❑ INT
® DWQ
40
6,210
and Native Plantings)
NWP 13
LSC — Impact 2
Bank Stabilization
LSC
® PER
® Corps
40
1,205
® P ❑ T
(Retaining Walls and
❑ INT
® DWQ
Grading)
LSC — Impact 3
NWP 27
LSC
® PER
® Corps
40
330
® P ❑ T
Constructed Riffles
❑ INT
® DWQ
LSC — Impact 4
NWP 27
® PER
® Corps
® P ❑ T
Stream Improvements (In-
LSC
❑ INT
® DWQ
40
955
Stream and Banks)
LSC — Impact 5
NWP 14
® PER
® Corps
® P ❑ T
Installation of Ford
LSC
❑ INT
® DWQ
40
46
NWP 27
LSC — Impact 6
Stream
UT to LSC
® PER
® Corps
5
165
® P ❑ T
Relocation/Restoration
❑ INT
® DWQ
Structure #6
LSC — Impact 7
NWP 14
® PER
® Corps
® P ❑ T
Rip -Rap Outfall Protection
LSC
❑ INT
® DWQ
40
12
LSC — Impact 8
NWP 14
® PER
® Corps
® P ❑ T
Rip -Rap Outfall Protection
LSC
❑ INT
® DWQ
40
12
LSC — Impact 9
NWP 14
® PER
® Corps
® P ❑ T
Rip -Rap Outfall Protection
LSC
❑ INT
® DWQ
40
12
LSC — Impact 10
NWP 14
® PER
® Corps
® P ❑ T
Rip -Rap Outfall Protection
LSC
❑ INT
® DWQ
40
12
Page 8 of 16
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

LSC — Impact 11
NWP 14
® PER
® Corps
® P ❑ T
Rip -Rap Outfall Protection
LSC
❑ INT
® DWQ
40
30
LSC — Impact 12
NWP 14
® PER
® Corps
® P ❑ T
Rip -Rap Outfall Protection
LSC
❑ INT
® DWQ
40
25
LSC — Impact 13
NWP 14
® PER
® Corps
® P ❑ T
Rip -Rap Outfall Protection
LSC
❑ INT
® DWQ
40
15
LSC — Impact 14
NWP 14
® PER
® Corps
® P ❑ T
Rip -Rap Outfall Protection
LSC
❑ INT
® DWQ
40
15
NWP 27
LSC — Impact 15
Structure #3 - Rip -Rap
LSC
® PER
® Corps
40
14
® P ❑ T
Embankment Protection
❑ INT
® DWQ
and Constructed Riffle
LSC — Impact 16
NWP 13
® PER
® Corps
® P ❑ T
Structure #5 - Rip -Rap
LSC
❑ INT
® DWQ
40
12
Embankment Protection
NWP 27
LSC — Impact 17
Structure #8 - Rip -Rap
LSC
® PER
® Corps
40
14
® P ❑ T
Embankment Protection
❑ INT
® DWQ
and Constructed Riffle
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
9,084
3i. Comments: The project will result in 7,427 linear feet of permanent, no -net loss impacts to potential non -wetland WoUS
from bank stabilization (NWP 13) activities and 1,478 linear feet of permanent, no -net loss impacts to potential non -wetland
WoUS from in -stream enhancements (NWP 27). The project will result in 46 linear feet of permanent impacts to potential
non -wetland WoUS from the installation of a permanent stream crossing (ford) (NWP 14) necessary to provide property
access for current land owners. 133 linear feet of permanent, no -net loss impacts to potential non -wetland waters of the US
is proposed as a result of the rip -rap outlet protection at 8 culvert outfalls (NWP 14).
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of the
U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
4b.
4c.
4d.
4e.
Open water
Name of waterbody
impact
(if applicable)
Type of impact
Waterbody type
Area of impact (acres)
number —
Permanent
(P) or
Temporary
(T)
01 ❑P❑
T
02 ❑ P ❑
T
4L Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
Page 9 of 16
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

Legend
r3 Project Area
Streams (Potential Non -Wetland WoUS)
NCSAM Assessment
Greenway Elements
Greenway Edge of Pavement
3 Bridge/Boardwalk
Proposed Rip -rap
Stream Rehabilitation Elements
Bank Stabilization
Boulder/Structure
Channel Work
Constructed Riffle
i Stream Relocation
Bank Stabilization - Retaining Walls
9.
• �A
Stream 2 - Permanent Impact 6
165 If - Stream Relocation/Restoration
NWP 27
NCSAM Reach 5
LSC - Permanent Impact 13
15 If -Riprap Outfall Protection
NWP 14
Structure #6
Covered under
Impact 6�,--
1'h.;
LSC - Permanent Impact 14 F
15 If - Riprap Outfall Protection - -
NWP 14 1
h`
NCSAM Reach 1
LSC - Permanent Impact 10
12 If - Riprap Outfall Protection°,y
NWP 14
1•I
k
Yi
LSC - Permanent Impact 11
.
30 If - Riprap Outfall Protection
NWP 14�,
x
a'.
LSC - Permanent Impact 9
12 If - Riprap Outfall Protection
NWP 14
:
'1.IN 9-9 M POW
LSC - Permanent Impact 8
�l
12 If - Riprap Outfall Protection = Stream impact
NWP 14 number Type of impact
tructure #2 s,
:overed 6nder,lm55ct4�,_
NCSAM Reach 2
A,..:. ti
C
ermanent Impact 12
prap Outfall Protection
Impact length
Stream name
W-:..
-.1 Stream 1 - Permanent Impact 5
c
- `
46 If - Installation of Ford
NWP 14
AbL
0
450
900
�-�
Feet
Figure 5a: Proposed Conditions
`"a`i0 OR Lower Little Sugar Creek Greenway and
WA ER Kimley ))) Horn Stream Rehabilitation - Polk to State Line
F 58rv; Pineville, Mecklenburg County, SC
February 2021

Figure 5b: Proposed Conditions
cha"'Oa.niesklaLower Little Sugar Creek Greenway and
sTORM ER Kimley ))� Horn Stream Rehabilitation - Polk to State Line
servA E Pineville, Mecklenburg County, SC
February 2021

BEGIN BRIDGE
STA:131+83.20
BEGIN APPROACH SLAB/
STA:131+73.20
580
570
560
550
-5 - —C
530
520
510
i
3
0
001
00
t M
uV
Q �
H J
(n W
564'-10" TOTAL BRIDGE LENGTH
B�rL LITTLE
rL —L1— SUGAR CREEK
pC
732x7 ,3 /
TIMBER /
APPROACH
RAIL (TYP.) /
/ a
PLAN ALONG ALONG STRUCTURE #1
/ GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
/ 0 10 20 40
564'-10" (FILL FACE TO FILL FACE)
PROPOSED GRADE
TIMBER PILE FOUNDATION TO BE
DESIGNED BY BOARDWALK ____......—
DESIGNER (TYP.) EXISTING GRADE
NOTES:
STRUCTURE #1 SHALL BE A TIMBER BOARDWALK. SEE STRUCTURES GENERAL
NOTES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
FOR TYPICAL SECTION, SEE SHEET S-18.
FOR APPROACH SLAB DETAILS, SEE SHEET S-23.
FOR TIMBER APPROACH RAIL DETAILS, SEE SHEET S-21.
FOR HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL ALIGNMENT DATA, SEE GREENWAY SHEETS.
PROFILE ALONG STRUCTURE #1
44 4
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
3205 FREEDOM DRIVE, SUITE 101
CHARLOTTE, NC 28208
r
Lp O
O N
= N
� O � O
0) N
R ^ z
7ffS
- o
END BRIDGE
STA:137+48.00
S
a
90'0'0.0"
END APPROACH SLAB
STA:137+58.00
W'v^ 5
fit
In M 5
54" PEDESTRIAN RAIL (TYP.) p d
Ld U) Li 5
APPROACH SLAB (TYP.)
—L1— PROFILE DATA
VPI STATION
ELEVATION
GRADE IN %
GRADE OUT %
CURVE LENGTH
130+74.21
541.13
0.00
3.89
100'-0"
133+56.33
552.11
3.89
0.30
80,-0"
135+99.83
552.85
0.30
—4.78
80,-0"
137+98.21
543.37
—4.78
—0.21
80,-0"
510
ro-
Knowwhat's below.
Call before you dig.

570
BEGIN BRIDGE
STA:162+25.89-\\
BEGIN APPROACH SLAB
STA:162+16.89�
162+00 -
0
/ 7
+
N
UD
I
I
I
I ESL LITTLE
III// SUGAR CREE
I
I
K
i
I
I METAL
APPROACH RAIL (TYP.)
00
I �
90'0'0.0" (TYP.)
.�
���` ON
FILL FACE END BENT
I I
I180'-0" TOTAL BRIDGE
I I I
I I
I II
PLAN ALONG STRUCTURE #2
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0 1 5 10 20
180'-0" (FILL FACE TO FILL FACE)
U / �
END APPROACH SLAB
STA:164+14.89
END BRIDGE
STA:164+05.89
570
66
wLo
FILL FACE END BENT 2
c�
I
560
N
00 cO 0
W O
560
d
PREFABRICATED
o +
w
PROPOSED GRADE m 1n w
TRUSS
H)
m N
oF_
C 550
��--�
w I~iI w
550
540
-
540
100 YR. W,
MICROPILE FOUNDATION (TYP.)
= 545.40
------
CUT��
_ _ _ _
APPROACH
SLAB (TYP.)
530
END BENT 1
530
END BENT 2
520
i
--- —
520
\- APPROXIMATE
17" DEEP WELL GRADED MIX
EXISTING GRADE
OF 5-17" CLASS i RIP RAP
(TYP.)
510
510
NOTES:
STRUCTURE #2 SHALL BE A 178'-0" PREFABRICATED TRUSS. SEE STRUCTURES
GENERAL NOTES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
FOR TYPICAL SECTION, SEE SHEET 5-10
FOR END BENT DETAILS, SEE SHEET 5-11.
FOR APPROACH SLAB DETAILS, SEE SHEET 5-23.
FOR METAL APPROACH RAIL DETAILS, SEE SHEET 5-22.
FOR HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL ALIGNMENT DATA, SEE GREENWAY SHEETS.
FOR LIMITS OF RIP RAP SLOPE PROTECTION, SEE GREENWAY SHEETS.
PROFILE ALONG ALONG STRUCTURE #2
—1_1— PROFILE DATA
VPI STATION
ELEVATION
GRADE IN %
GRADE OUT %
CURVE LENGTH
161+56.33
552.51
-3.69
-2.70
100'-0"
164+63.60
544.21
-2.70
-0.51
80,-0"
ro-
Knowwhat's below.
Call before you dig.
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
3205 FREEDOM DRIVE, SUITE 101
CHARLOTTE, NC 38208
i© e
TO «_
2 m gg
d aYm
N N
R ^ z
7ff
m $
S
- o
S
a
0

3
T
E

I
I
PT: 199+97.77 I o
l+
0
I�
-1-1- STA:200+22.06=
-Y4- STA:600+00.00
rL -L1- I
I
570
560
550
540 FINISH
GRADE -L1
BEGIN APPROACH
STA:600-1
I
I
I
�(L LITTLE SUGAR
CREEK
I
I
WAA
FILL FACE END BENT
530------------- CUT
520 MICROPILE FOUNDATION (TYP.) END BENT 1 ~`
PROPOSED LITTLE SUGAR CREEK
GRADE
510
NOTES:
STRUCTURE #5 SHALL BE A 106'-6" PREFABRICATED TRUSS. SEE STRUCTURES
GENERAL NOTES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
FOR TYPICAL SECTION, SEE SHEET S-10
FOR END BENT DETAILS, SEE SHEET 5-12 AND S-13.
FOR APPROACH SLAB DETAILS, SEE SHEET S-23.
FOR METAL APPROACH RAIL DETAILS, SEE SHEET S-21.
FOR HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL ALIGNMENT DATA, SEE GREENWAY SHEETS.
FOR LIMITS OF RIP RAP SLOPE PROTECTION, SEE GREENWAY SHEETS.
i
PLAN ALONG STRUCTURE J5
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0 5 10 20
108'-6" FILL FACE TO FILL FACE
100 YR. WSEL
= 539.79
PREFABRICATED
TRUSS
wv
�tm
o�
Fx o I-�
m cOM
z H J
wcnw
'OT /
i
END APPROACH SLAB
STA: 601 +56.90
END BRIDGE
STA: 601 +47.90
FACE END BENT 2
GRADE
570
560
550
540
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
3205 FREEDOM DRIVE, SUITE 101
CHARLOTTE, NC 28208
r
O N
d aYm
N N
0
- o
S
F
I c m c
530
<N
a
APPROACH SLAB (TYP.) 3 F
END BENT 2 3
520
/5-1�7
DEEP WELL GRADED MIX OF M m
-----------_____" CLASS I RIP RAP (TYP.)
_� d o
NG GRADE o
M m O
510 0
PROFILE ALONG STRUCTURE #5
—Y4— PROFILE DATA
FILL FACE END BENT
530------------- CUT
520 MICROPILE FOUNDATION (TYP.) END BENT 1 ~`
PROPOSED LITTLE SUGAR CREEK
GRADE
510
NOTES:
STRUCTURE #5 SHALL BE A 106'-6" PREFABRICATED TRUSS. SEE STRUCTURES
GENERAL NOTES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
FOR TYPICAL SECTION, SEE SHEET S-10
FOR END BENT DETAILS, SEE SHEET 5-12 AND S-13.
FOR APPROACH SLAB DETAILS, SEE SHEET S-23.
FOR METAL APPROACH RAIL DETAILS, SEE SHEET S-21.
FOR HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL ALIGNMENT DATA, SEE GREENWAY SHEETS.
FOR LIMITS OF RIP RAP SLOPE PROTECTION, SEE GREENWAY SHEETS.
i
PLAN ALONG STRUCTURE J5
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0 5 10 20
108'-6" FILL FACE TO FILL FACE
100 YR. WSEL
= 539.79
PREFABRICATED
TRUSS
wv
�tm
o�
Fx o I-�
m cOM
z H J
wcnw
'OT /
i
END APPROACH SLAB
STA: 601 +56.90
END BRIDGE
STA: 601 +47.90
FACE END BENT 2
GRADE
570
560
550
540
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
3205 FREEDOM DRIVE, SUITE 101
CHARLOTTE, NC 28208
r
O N
d aYm
N N
0
- o
S
F
I c m c
530
<N
a
APPROACH SLAB (TYP.) 3 F
END BENT 2 3
520
/5-1�7
DEEP WELL GRADED MIX OF M m
-----------_____" CLASS I RIP RAP (TYP.)
_� d o
NG GRADE o
M m O
510 0
PROFILE ALONG STRUCTURE #5
—Y4— PROFILE DATA
VPI STATION
ELEVATION
GRADE IN %
GRADE OUT %
CURVE LENGTH
600+39.38
537.74
1.94
-0.51
-
601+46.89
537.19
-0.51
-0.74
-
602+28.58
536.58
-0.74
5.00
100'-0"
is
z
a�
�W
�
0
O
®
a
F
V]
o
Know what's below.
Call before you dig.

[--* B [--* A
EL
END BENT 1 ELEVATION VIEW
5-12 SCALE: NTS
2 END BENT 1 STEM PLAN
5-12 SCALE: NTS
538.00
I
I
I
I
I
] I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
530.00
NOTES
. -- DIM NSIONS AND ELEVATIONS MARKED WITH AN
ASTERISK ARE TO BE VERIFIED AFTER
PREMANUFACTURED BRIDGE IS DESIGNED. DIMENSIONS,
CONCRETE, AND REINFORCING STEEL QUANTITIES ARE
SUBJECT TO CHANGE UNTIL AFTER SHOP DRAWINGS
ARE REVIEWED AND APPROVED. NO ADDITIONAL
PAYMENT WILL BE MADE FOR ANY ADJUSTMENT TO
QUANTITIES.
** — REFER TO PREFABRICATED PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
PLANS (BY OTHERS) FOR ANCHOR BOLT PLACEMENT
AND DETAILS, AND FOR DIMENSIONS NOT SHOWN.
�— INDICATES PILE TO BE BATTERED IN DIRECTION
INDICATED.
1. REINFORCEMENT SHOWN IN SECTION A —A AND
B—B ON SHEET S-13.
2. SEE SHEET S-15 FOR WINGWALL
REINFORCEMENT
3. DURING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR SHALL
MAKE NECESSARY PROVISIONS TO LIMIT GROUND
PRESSURES BEHIND THE END BENT FILL FACE
DUE TO EQUIPMENT TO A MAXIMUM OF 240
PSF.
4. FOOTINGS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 1'-6" OF
EARTH COVER FROM FINISHED GRADE TO TOP
OF FOOTING AT ALL LOCATIONS.
PILE SPA.
O O O
w
�
FILL FACE
I
N
OF STEM
END BENT
— —
MICROPILE (TYP.)
s END BENT 1 FOOTING PLAN
5-12 SCALE: NTS
`FRONT FACE
OF STEM
\-1'-3" TOE
15-
Knowwhat's below.
Call before you dig.
CHARLOTTE, NC 28208
i© e
O N
2 �
W o A--
d aYm
N N
R ^ z
7E
m $
0
- o
S
F
ca ry I O�
N � �

MICR
WI TH
EMBE
1 SECTION A -A
5-13 SCALE: NTS
16" EMBED.
MAX.
#5 DOWELS @ 12" MAX
MICROP
1'-0" t
EMBED.
z SECTION B-B
5-13 SCALE: NTS
ET S-12 FOR NOTES
6" EMBED.
MAX.
44 4
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
3205 FREEDOM DRIVE, SUITE 101
CHARLOTTE, NC 38208
r
O N
T �N
o
N N
R ^ z
� � o
a. 7ff
i S
i o
N
� m I.,
O 4 O
� U
h
3 �-
3
M
#5 DOWELS ® 12" MAX
M � �
O
w �
F
z
w
�3
AN
Know what-s below.
Call before you dig.
cn
° ^{

_1
END BENT 2 PLAN
5-14 SCALE: NTS
18'-0"
FB (SEE NOTE 1) 1-11, A (SEE NOTE 1)
'� END BENT 2 ELEVATION B 4 A
SCALE: NTS
FOLLOW BRIDGE DECK GRADE
-10 12"
X. IN
:KWALL
STIRRUP
JTERED OVER
E (TYP.)
STIRRUPS
2" MAX
P.)
NOTE: WINGWALLS NOT SHOWN FOR
CLARITY. SEE NOTE 1.
NOTES
* - DIMENSIONS MARKED WITH AN ASTERISK ARE TO BE Y7 4
VERIFIED AFTER PREMANUFACTURED BRIDGE IS DESIGNED.
DIMENSIONS, CONCRETE, AND REINFORCING STEEL
QUANTITIES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE UNTIL AFTER SHOP
DRAWINGS ARE REVIEWED AND APPROVED. NO ADDITIONAL
PAYMENT WILL BE MADE FOR ANY ADJUSTMENT TO MECKLENBURG COUNTY
QUANTITIES. 3205 FREEDOM DRIVE, SUITE 11
CHARLOTTE, NC 28208
** - REFER TO PREFABRICATED PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PLANS ^
(BY OTHERS) FOR ANCHOR BOLT PLACEMENT AND DETAILS, i...«
AND FOR DIMENSIONS NOT SHOWN. LQ ee
1. SEE SHEET S-15 FOR SECTIONS A -A AND B-B AND O °'
WINGWALL REINFORCEMENT. No m c
2. MICROPILES TO BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
N N
GENERAL NOTES AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS.
w
3. A MINIMUM OF 4 MICROPILES SHALL BE PROVIDED AT
EACH END BENT OF STRUCTURE 5.
4. FOR ELEVATION "A", SEE SHEET S-2.7E
i S
i o
N
w �
F
z
w
�z
z�
w w
H N
ti
°
Know what's below.
Call before you dig.

3'-0"
1'-0" 6" 1'-61,
�CL TOP OF BACKWALL EL MICROPILES & CAP
I IF
#5 @ 12"
MAX. (TYP.)
#5 n @
12" MAX
v7
o CONSTRUCTION JOINT
I
ANCHOR BOLTS **
I �
ELEVATION "A"
N 2% MIN. SLOPE
w
>
w
Z I
O
#5 E. F.
#5 STIRRUPS
r----�
o I
•I • 4- 8 B
I
BOTTOM OF CAP EL
� 1" CLR.
TYP.
MICROPILE
I
1 SECTION A -A
S-15 SCALE: NTS
WINGWALL
MIN. EMBED.
#7 BARS @ 6"
MAX. (FILL
FACE)
#5 BARS @ 12" MAX.
(FRONT FACE) 05 BARS @
12" MAX.
APPROACH SLAB
#5 @ 12" MAX. (TYP.)
L
1
I—
#5 n @
12" MAX-
3'-0"
1'-0" 6"
� I �
MICROPILES
& CAP
I
CONSTRUCTION JOINT
I
ANCHOR BOLTS **
�ELEVA
2% MIN. LOPE
(n
W - 0
m
w
O
#5 E.F.
0
I
BOTTOM OF CAP EL
i�
ABUTMENT / BACKWALL
TRUCTION JOINT
1'-9"
MIN. EMBED.
s TYPICAL WINGWALL PLAN
S-1s SCALE: NTS
2 SECTION B-B
S-15 SCALE: NTS
2'-8" MIN. EMBED. \
CONSTRUCTION JOINT'
MIN. EMBED.
#7 BARS @ 6
MAX. (FILL
FILL
I #5 STIRRUPS #7 @ E
(FILL F
2" CLR. (TYP.)
4- 8 BARS
I
I MICROPILE
—L#5 BARS @ 12" MAX.
#5 BARS @ 12" MAX.
(FRONT FACE)
APPROACH SLAB
TOP OF BACKWALL EL
RONT FACE
1 12" MAX
FT FACE)
w
@ 12" MAX. a
I OF CAP EL
s TYPICAL SECTION THRU WINGWALL
S-15 SCALE: NTS
END BENT—
PREMANUFACTURED
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
II / II
I
W
RIP RAP OR
FINISHED
GRADE ***
���vU
O O
MICROPILE
a RIP RAP PLACEMENT DETAIL
5-15 SCALE: NTS
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
3205 FREEDOM DRIVE, SUITE 101
CHARLOTTE, NC 28208
r
O
N N
R ^ d�z
m $
0
— o
S
a
0
o
Q
�
i
u
'm
o
I.,
3
3 �-
3
NOTES
o=
O
- DIMENSIONS MARKED WITH AN ASTERISK ARE TO BE VERIFIED AFTER PREMANUFACTURED BRIDGE OR BOARDWALK IS
o
DESIGNED. DIMENSIONS, CONCRETE, AND REINFORCING STEEL QUANTITIES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE UNTIL AFTER SHOP
1
DRAWINGS ARE REVIEWED AND APPROVED. NO ADDITIONAL PAYMENT WILL BE MADE FOR ANY ADJUSTMENT TO QUANTITIES.
** - REFER TO PREFABRICATED PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PLANS (BY OTHERS) FOR ANCHOR BOLT PLACEMENT AND DETAILS,
Z
AND FOR DIMENSIONS NOT SHOWN.
x
Lay
***
- RIP RAP TO BE LOCATED PER PLAN.
W
W
U Z
q
QI Fz]
Z
W
F4
w
a3
Know what's below.
ti
Call before you dig.
°

3" (TY
E
CANTED 2x8 TOP 1" RADIUS (TYP.)
PLATE (TYP.)
12'-0" MIN. CLEAR
A
>
1"x4" FACE
BOARD OVER
o
2x6 SPACER RAIL (TYP.)
2x6 JOINTS,
TYP.
CL BRIDGE
2x4 1:
GALVA
1"X4" FACEBOARD
FENCE
6"x6" CONC. 1
OVER 2"X6" JOINTS
(TYP.)
CURB
4x6 P(
#5 BAR
(CONT.)
#4 BARS ® 18"
MAX. (TOP AND
#4 DOWEL ®
BOTTOM) N
HILTI
12" MAX.
(TYP.
`n
J
U
#8 BARS ® 6" MAX. (BOTTOM) AND #4 BARS ® 18" MAX. (TOP) C4
13'-0" CONCRETE SLAB
TYPICAL SECTION THRU SLAB
11 S-17 SCALE: NTS
POSTS AT EQ. SPA. (5'-0" MAX.)
BACKWALL (TYP.)
2 RAIL ELEVATION
5-17 SCALE: NTS
.5 GAUGE
JIZED CHAIN LINK
BETWEEN POST
ST
NOTES
1. SEE GENERAL NOTES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
2. ALL LUMBER SIZES ARE NOMINAL DIMENSIONS.
3. ATTACH RAILS AND TOP PLATE TO EACH POST WITH FOUR (4) #8 X 4"
WOOD SCREWS.
4. ATTACH HANDRAIL TO SPACER WITH TWO (2) #8 X 3" WOOD SCREWS AT 12"
MAX. SPACING.
5. WOOD SCREWS SHALL BE HOT -DIP GALVANIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM
A153.
6. PREDRILL HOLES AS NECESSARY TO PREVENT SPLITTING.
HY 200 + HAS )z ANCHOR ROD
I (7" MIN. EMBED INTO CONCRETE)
APPROACH SLAB
(TYP.)
ro-
Knowwhat's below.
Call before you dig.
CHARLOTTE, NC 28208
r
O N
T AN
0.1 i o o
d aYV
N N
R ^ z
� � o
0
- o
S
F
F�
Fa a
rn �

45'-00'-00"
PEDESTRIAN
RAIL (TYP.)
2x4 12.5 GAUGE
GALVANIZED CHAIN LINK
BETWEEN POSTS (TYP.)
BLOCKING AT OUTSIDE
STRINGERS
STRINGER TO CAP BEAM —
CLIP (TYP.)
GALVANIZED LAG BOLT -
DRILLED INTO CENTER OF
PILE (TYP.)
TIMBER —
BACKWALL
FILTER
FABRIC
(L BOARDWALK
I
BEGIN OR END
BOARDWALK
I- j -I
L---J-L-----I-L----- 1-----L1-----1J--
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I III I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I III I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
BOARDWALK END BENT PLAN
5-18
CANTED 2x8 TOP PLATE
(TYP.)
2x4 SPACER RAIL
12'-0" MIN. CLEAR
1" RADIAS
CLBRIDGE
2X6 HAND RAIL WITH
2x6 RAIL (TYP.) -
ROUNDED EDGES
iD
1x4 FACE BOARD OVER -
i7
2x6 JOINTS (TYP.)
CONCRETE DECK
XXXX
GRADE
POINT STRINGER (TYP.)
\/
V V
IV
V
/\I
AI A
IA
A
CAP BEAM TO PILE I CAP BEAM
STRAP BOTH SIDES OF
CAP BEAM (TYP.)
� APPROX. GROUND LINE
z BOARDWALK TYPICAL SECTION
5-18
NOTES
1. SEE GENERAL NOTES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
2. ALL LUMBER SIZES ARE NOMINAL DIMENSIONS.
3. ATTACH RAILS AND TOP PLATE TO EACH POST WITH FOUR (4) #8 X 4"
TIMBER PILE WOOD SCREWS. MECKLENBURG COUNTY
3205 FREEDOM DRIVE, SUITE 11
(TYP.) 4. ATTACH HANDRAIL TO SPACER WITH TWO (2) #8 X 3" WOOD SCREWS AT CHARLOTTE, NC 28208
TIMBER 12" MAX. SPACING. ^�
WINGWALL 5. WOOD SCREWS SHALL BE HOT -DIP GALVANIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH L© e
(TYP.) ASTM A153. O
6. PREDRILL HOLES AS NECESSARY TO PREVENT SPLITTING. •�
N A N
- � CAP BEAM 7. STRUCTURES #1 AND #7 WILL HAVE TIMBER ABUTMENTS TO BE DESIGNED a m
BY THE CONTRACTOR'S ENGINEER AS PART OF THE BOARDWALK SYSTEM.
CAP BEAM STRUCTURE #8 WILL HAVE A CAST -IN -PLACE ABUTMENT. SEE SHEETS R /'� „ Z
o
ON PILE 5-19 AND 5-20 FOR DETAILS. o u o
EDGE OF a z o
CONCRETE
DECK (TYP.)
- o
1" RADIUS (TYP.)
4x6 POSTS
5'- 0" O.C.
(TYP.)
NOTE: ADD CROSS FRAMES WHEN
NECESSARY BY DESIGN.
TIMBER PILE (TYP.)
S
F
o
� m
z ¢
d
a
'm
o
o
< N
3
3 �-
3
o
o =
M
o
dd
�
fyrA
WW
Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
rn
°

Eoo 12 —6"D1 12—6„
EB1 EL. 550.0
EB2 EL. 553.4
EB1 EL. 544.4
EB2 EL. 549.4
END BENT 1 OR 2 ELEVATION VIEW
S-19 SCALE: NTS
SCE BRIDGE
2 END BENT 1 STEM PLAN
5-19 SCALE: NTS
4 B L-1111 A
E131 EL. 550.08
E132 EL. 553.42
1 EL. 544.87
2 EL. 547.44
a
N
s END BENT 1 FOOTING PLAN
5-19 SCALE: NTS
OFSTEM
*�—NOTES
DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS MARKED WITH AN ID
ASTERISK ARE TO BE VERIFIED AFTER BOARDWALK IS
DESIGNED. DIMENSIONS, CONCRETE, AND REINFORCING
STEEL QUANTITIES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE UNTIL
AFTER SHOP DRAWINGS ARE REVIEWED AND
APPROVED. NO ADDITIONAL PAYMENT WILL BE MADE
FOR ANY ADJUSTMENT TO QUANTITIES. muse EEDOMDRrvE,SUITEI
V— INDICATES PILE TO BE BATTERED IN DIRECTION
INDICATED.
1. REINFORCEMENT SHOWN IN SECTION A —A AND
B—B ON SHEET 5-20.
2. SEE SHEET 5-15 FOR WINGWALL
REINFORCEMENT
3. DURING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR SHALL
MAKE NECESSARY PROVISIONS TO LIMIT GROUND
PRESSURES BEHIND THE END BENT FILL FACE
DUE TO EQUIPMENT TO A MAXIMUM OF 240
PST.
4. BOARDWALK DESIGNER SHALL DESIGN
CONNECTION BETWEEN ABUTMENT AND
BOARDWALK. ADJUST SEAT ELEVATIONS AS
NECESSARY TO FACILITATE CONNECTION.
5. FOOTING SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 1'-6" OF
EARTH COVER FROM FINISHED GRADE TO TOP
OF FOOTING AT ALL LOCATIONS
PILE SPA.
W
H
0
1'-3" TOE
15-
Knowwhat's below.
Call before you dig.
CHARLOTTE, NC 28208
r
O N
T �N
o
N N
R ^ z
� � o
a z O
7E
- o
S
F

c
c
c
MICROP
1'-0"
FMRFD.
SECTION A -A
SO SCALE: NTS
16" EMBED.
MAX.
#5 DOWELS @ 12" MAX
3'-0"
APPROACH SLAB
1 #5 HAT BAR @ 6" MAX.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
>
OL
Q
-21 I
� N W
N Q
m m W
W W
X
Q
in 7F
j I N
r �
2'-9"
0
LJ
U
#5 @ 6"
#6 DOWELS @ 6" MAX m
m �1
N I I I #5 @ 12" MAX.
I
MICROPILE W�
1'-0" MIN
EMBED.
TFIP #6 TOP & BOT. BARS @ 1'-0" MAX
r
7'-0"
/`2 SECTION B-B
SO SCALE: NTS
SEE SHEET S-19 FOR NOTES
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
3205 FREEDOM DRIVE, SUITE 101
-#5 @ 6" MAX. W/16" EMBED. CHARLOTTE, NC28208
-ANCHOR BOLTS
Lp C
-#5 HAT BAR @ 6" MAX. TO
i
-2% MIN. SLOPE
d aYm
N N
!V ° zgu
S
N
#5 @ 12"MAX
I
S
F
I
#5 @ 12" MAX.
I
�CE END BENT
I
2" CLR. (TYP.)
I
I �
w
I w
I
7 1 /2"
12
Q
�
i
u
o
<
h
3
3 �-
3
M
2
#5 DOWELS @ 12" MAX
M
0
.
a
O
w �
z
w
3
A
W
00 Iai
�
ww
H A
Know what's below.
Call
N
°
before you dig.

1 TYPICAL APPROACH RAILING PLAN
S-21
� 4x4 POSTS
A A 44 END RAIL
:1 --------------
---+�: 3-3Yz" WOOD SCREWS (TYP.)
2x6 RAIL iv 2x6 RAIL
�C
4x4 SUPPORT BLOCK
1 1 /2"
2x6 RAIL
C
CONNECTION DETAILS
S-21
CLBRIDGE
R.
TRIM ENDS FLUSH
°
END 0 F BRIDGE
WITH 4x4
40-00'-00"
4x4
2x6
\i —
I
GRADE
v
ELEVATION
D
��
2 —6"
-
0
> .�
Nte
L� V—O"0 HOLES
TO BE FILLED WITH
CONCRETE END
BLOCK WITH
EMBEDDED 4x4
2" COMPACTED
SAND OR
STONE (TYP.)
CONCRETE MIX
AROUND POSTS
TYPICAL APPROACH RAILING ELEVATION
5-21
NOTES:
1. TIMBER APPROACH RAIL SHALL BE PROVIDED AT EACH END OF BOARDWALK AND CONCRETE
SLAB STRUCTURES.
2. ALL SCREWS, BOLTS, NUTS AND WASHERS ARE TO BE HOT DIPPED GALVANIZED.
3. THE LOCATION OF POST FOOTING AND END BLOCKS ARE TO BE FIELD VERIFIED. DEVIATIONS
FROM PLAN DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.
CL 1"0 x -Y4" RECESS
IN BACK OF POSTS
CL 5" x Y4" CARRIAGE
BOLT W/NUT & WASHER 2x6 RAIL
e SECTION B-B
S-21
N, 2x6 RAIL
N'
15'-00'-00"
END OF BRIDGE/
BOARDWALK
a SECTION A -A
5-21
CL 1"0 x -Y4" RECESS
IN BACK OF POSTS
4x4 END RAIL
CL 5" x Y4" CARRIAGE
BOLT W/NUT & WASHER 2x6 RAIL
f—
s SECTION C-C
S-21
FREEDOM
DRCOUNTY
JEUS FREEDOM DRIVE, 8208E 101
CHARLOTTE, NC 18E88
S
F
Know what's below. N
Call before you dig.

6•.
APPROACH RAIL
FD
—
i
FD
SEE "WALL CONNECTION
DETAIL" (TYP.)
FILL FACE OF BACKWALL— -�
APPROACH SLAB
BEGIN OR
END BRIDGE
L—TB 4—
CL BRIDGE
TYPICAL APPROACH RAILING PLAN
s-22
1Y2" DIA. STEEL ROD
WELDED TO POST (TYP.)
�a,•9,•Y. rvp�
X Q
a o
7� V)
a O
W
I
�
-HSS 4x2xY4
VALL
s SECTION A -A
s-2z
NOTES:
1. METAL APPROACH RAIL DETAILS SHOWN SHALL BE PROVIDED AT EACH END OF PREFABRICATED PEDESTRIAN
BRIDGES
2. DETAILS SHOWN ARE CONCEPTUAL. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS FOR EACH APPROACH RAIL
TO ENGINEER FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO FABRICATION OR INSTALLATION.
3. PROVIDE APPROACH RAIL ATTACHED TO WINGWALL IN ALL 4 CORNERS OF BRIDGE.
4. ALL APPROACH RAILING STEEL SHALL BE WEATHERING STEEL MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
PREFABRICATED PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE SPECIAL PROVISIONS. STYLE AND APPEARANCE OF APPROACH RAIL TO
MATCH ADJACENT PREFABRICATED PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE.
5. ADHESIVE ANCHORS SHALL BE PROVIDED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 420-13 OF THE
NCDOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS.
BRIDGE RAIL BY PREFABRICATED
BRIDGE MANUFACTURER
1Y2" DIA. STEEL
ROD WELDED TC)
POST (TYP.)
APPROACH SI
a SECTION B-B
5-22
FINISH GRADE
HSS 4x2xY4
C4x7.2 x
a
N
- � WINGWALL
O z
�° s/$' DIA. ADHESIVE ANCHOR
(SEE NOTES)
6"
FILL FACE' FRONT FACE
-0"
2 WALL CONNECTION DETAIL
s-22
V-0"
P5—
HSS 4x2xY4
HSS 4x2xY4
1J'z DIA.
STEEL ROD
TYP. WELDED TO a
POST (TYP.)
I � I
HSS 2x2xY4
X
a
HSS 4x2xY4
-E "WALL CONNECTION DETAIL"--
BACKWALL
s SECTION C-C
s-22
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
3205 FREEDOM DRIVE, SUITE 101
CHARLOTTE, NC 28208
r
O
T AN
0.1 i o o
N N
R ^ z
a. 7ff
0
— o
S
a
0,
d
<N
a
3 �-
3
o
o =
� O
O
ddd
1
W�
a
GTE W
N
Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
°

44 4
A
o ;y
BRIDGE
10" SUPERSTRUCTURE
FREEDMECKLOM
DRI COUNTY
6 EUS FREEDOM DRIVE, 8208E 101
CHARLOTTE, NC 18E88
FILL FACE OF CONCRETE
BACKWALL� j APPROACH SLAB #a BARS ©12' MAX.
�j 10" - 3"0 PVC PLASTIC PIPE L© e
® I 6 COMPACTED ABC DRAIN THROUGH O
_ ABUTMENT SLOPED AT
I COMPACTED SUBGRADE 2% SPA. @ 10' MAX = No m N
J Q I - o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - GEOTEXTILE FABRIC e d 00v
B B BEGIN OR END I C BRIDGE - - - AROUND AGGREGATE R �^ a m Z
BRIDGE �1=1I1=1�1=1�I ICII�1=1�1=1�I=1�1=1�1=1�I =I a u: o
111 ..111...11 III ..I I...I I.. III ..I I...I 11.. 111 111- AGGREGATE DRAIN
(#57 CRUSHED STONE)
c I COMPACTED cw z v
a a I SUBGRADE 7ffDO
° I 90'-00'-00" $
I " 6COMPACTED ABC ■� c
I ` ' N
I Y
I
® BEGIN OR END C I C
APPROACH SLAB * i 2 SECTION A -A a SECTION C-C
I S-23 S-23 IS
F
I -
(D
A
6" #4 BARS @ 12" MAX. 6"
10'-0"
APPROACH SLAB PLAN
5-23
12'-0" TO END OF
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
BEGIN OR END
CONCRETE APPROACH SLAB COMPACTED ABC
APPROACH SLAB ASPHALT PAVEMENT
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
10"
III-III---II1-I
6° I -III -III -III -III -I 11=1 I M I M 11-1
III III III III III III III ti l 11
COMPACTED
SUBGRADE
NOTE: GEOTEXTILE TO EXTEND FULL WIDTH OF TRANSITION.
3 SECTION B-B
S-23
APPROACH SLAB ELEVATIONS
STRUCTURE
CHAIN
LOCATION
BEGIN BRIDGE
ELEVATION
END BRIDGE
ELEVATION
1
-L1-
BEGIN APPROACH SLAB
131+73.21
544.98
137+48.00
545.77
END APPROACH SLAB
131+83.21
545.37
137+58.00
545.29
2
-L1-
BEGIN APPROACH SLAB
162+16.89
550.87
164+05.89
545.77
END APPROACH SLAB
162+25.89
550.63
164+14.89
545.53
3
-L1-
BEGIN APPROACH SLAB
167+43.73
542.78
167+82.73
542.58
END APPROACH SLAB
167+52.73
542.74
167+91.73
542.54
5
-Y4-
BEGIN APPROACH SLAB
600+30.40
573.70
601+47.90
537.19
END APPROACH SLAB
600+39.40
537.74
601+56.90
537.12
6
-L1-
BEGIN APPROACH SLAB
103+81.32
542.92
104+20.32
543.38
END APPROACH SLAB
103+90.32
543.03
104+29.32
543.48
7
-L1-
BEGIN APPROACH SLAB
217+93.36
530.15
221+07.20
541.12
END APPROACH SLAB
218+03.36
530.62
221+17.20
541.58
8
-L1-
BEGIN APPROACH SLAB
222+82.78
549.48
223+61.85
553.25
END APPROACH SLAB
222+92.78
549.96
223+71.85
553.73
CONCRETE APRON
4„ �#4 BARS @ 12" MAX.
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1-I
III III -III -III -III -III -III - -III-III-III III III-
- I I -I I I -III -III -III -III -III III I I III -III -III -III -III -I
COMPACTED SUBGRADE
6" COMPACTED ABC
s CONCRETE APRON SECTION
S -23
� m
z ¢
< N
o
o=
d
a
3
3 �-
3
m
o
NOTES:
� O
1
1. APPROACH SLABS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF CLASS AA CONCRETE.
a
2. WRAP ENDS OF PVC DRAIN IN MESH FABRIC TO PERMIT FREE FLOW OF WATER
BUT PREVENT LOSS OF AGGREGATE.
r.
3. ABC = AGGREGATE BASE COURSE
W
F
W
4. APPROACH SLAB DETAILS SHOWN FOR BRIDGE STRUCTURES. APPROACH SLABS
F^=7
FOR BOARDWALK ARE SIMILAR.
OA 12'-0" FOR STRUCTURES 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8
10'-0" FOR STRUCTURE 5
© 6'-0" FOR STRUCTURES 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8
5'-0" FOR STRUCTURE 5
�W
d
WW
U
N
vi
°
Know what's below.
Call before you dig.