20160179 Ver 1_Application_20160225

CAROLINA
WETLAND SERVICES
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
550 East Westinghouse Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273
704 -527 -1177 -Phone
704 -527 -1133 -Fax
TO: Ms. Karen Higgins
NCDWR—NC DWR, 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
512 N Salisbury St
9th Floor, Archdale Building
Raleigh NC 27604
Date: 2-24-2016
CWS Project #: 2016-3888
201601?8
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
�'9 2
o 6 zo16
WE ARE SENDING YOU: ®Attached ❑Under separate cover via the s:
FF RFS�U
❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ JD Package ❑ Specifications
❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ Wetland Survey ® Other
IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED, KINDLY NU'11,FY US Al ONCE
DATE COPIESDESCRIPTION
1 2-24-2016 5 Application for Individual WQC
2 2-24-2016 1 Application Fee ($240)
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
®For approval ❑Approved as submitted
®For your use ❑Approved as noted
❑As requested ❑Returned for corrections
❑For review and comment
❑Resubmit copies for approval
❑Submit copies for distribution
❑Return corrected prints
❑For your verification and signature
REMARKS: Karen please find attached five copies of the Individual Water Quality Certification implication for 8403
Dow Road Pipe Maintenance Project. A check for the application fee of $240 is also attached.
Copy to: File
Thank you,
A C,
Gregg Antemann, PWS
Principal Scientist
NORTH CAROLINA • SOUTH CAROLINA

Preliminary ORM Data Entry Fields for New Actions
SAW — 201 -
BEGIN DATE [Received Date]:
Prepare file folder ❑ Assign Action ID Number in ORMFI
1. Project Name [PCN Form A2a]: 8403 Dow Road Culvert Maintenance Project
2. Work Type: Private ❑ Institutional ❑ Government 7 Commercial El
3. Project Description / Purpose [PCN Form 63d and 133e]:
The purpose of the project is to replace and extend the outlet of a failing 30 -inch reinforced concrete
pipe (RCP) beneath Dow Road.
4. Property Owner / Applicant [PCN Form A3 or A4]:
CMSWS; POC: Ms. Erin Turner
5. Agent / Consultant [PCN Form A5 — or ORM Consultant ID Number]: CWS Inc. POC: Gregg Antemann, PWS
6. Related Action ID Number(s) [PCN Form 135b]: N/A
7. Project Location - Coordinates, Street Address, and/or Location Description [PCN Form 131b]:
8403 Dow Road
decimal degrees: 35.3353450 -80.8406530
8. Project Location -Tax Parcel ID [PCN Form I31a]: 03723506 (site address) and portions of other parcels
9. Project Location —County [PCN Form A2b]: Mecklenburg
10. Project Location — Nearest. Municipality or Town [PCN Form A2c]: Charlotte
11. Project Information — Nearest Waterbody [PCN Form 132a]: UT to Long Creek
12. Watershed / 8 -Digit Hydrologic Unit Code [PCN Form 62c]: Santee (HUC 03050101)
Authorization: Section 10 ❑ Section 404
Regulatory Action Type:
❑Standard Permit
✓ Nationwide Permit # 3
❑ Regional General Permit #
0✓ Jurisdictional Determination Request
7 Section 10 &4'04 ❑
Pre -Application Request
Unauthorized Activity
0 Compliance
❑ No Permit Required
Revised 20150602

CAROLINA WETLAND SERVICES, INC.
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
704-527-1177 (office)
704-527-1133 (fax)
February 24, 2016
Ms. Crystal Amschler
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Ms. Karen Higgins
NCDWR, 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
512 N. Salisbury Street, 9th Floor
Raleigh, NC 27604
Subject: Request for Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination and
Pre -Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 3 and
Water Quality Certificate No. 3883
8403 Dow Road Pipe Maintenance Project
Charlotte, North Carolina
Carolina Wetland Services Project No. 2016-3888
Dear Ms. Amschler and Ms. Higgins:
The Dow Road Culvert Maintenance Project is located at 8403 Dow Road in Charlotte, North
Carolina (Figure 1, attached). The purpose of the project is to replace and extend the outlet of a
failing 30 -inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) beneath Dow Road, add new headwalls, and add an
associated rip rap apron to dissipate energy. Charlotte -Mecklenburg Storm Water Services (CMSWS)
has contracted Carolina Wetland Services, Inc. (CWS) to provide Section 404/401 permitting services
for this project.
Applicant Name: Charlotte -Mecklenburg Storm Water Services, POC: Ms. Erin Turner
Mailing Address: 600 East Fourth Street, Charlotte, NC 28202
Phone Number of Owner/Applicant: 704-336-3927
Street Address of Project: 8304 Dow Road in Charlotte, NC
Waterway: UT to Long Creek
Basin: Santee (HUC1 03050101)
City: Charlotte
County: Mecklenburg
Tax Parcel ID numbers: 03723506 (site address) and portions of other parcels
Decimal Degree Coordinate Location of Project Site: 35.335345°, -80.840653°
USGS Quadrangle Name: Derita, NC (1996)
Current Land Use
The project area consists of maintained lawn with a stream crossing (Figure 2, attached). Typical on-
site vegetation includes sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
I "HUC" is the Hydrologic Unit Code. U.S. Geological Survey, 1974. Hydrologic Unit Map, State of North Carolina.
NORTH CAROLINA . SOUTH CAROLINA
WWW.CWS-INC.NET

8403 Dow Road Pipe Maintenance Project February 24, 2016
Nationwide Permit No. 3 CWS Project No. 2016-3888
japonica), kudzu (Pueraria lobata), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), greenbrier (Smilax
rotundifolia), and various grasses (Festuca spp.).
According to the Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County' (Figures 3 and 4, attached), on-site soils consist
of Enon sandy loam, 8-15 percent slopes (EnD) and Cecil sandy clay loam, 2-8% slopes, moderately
eroded (Ce132). None of the on-site soils are listed as containing hydric inclusions on the North
Carolina Hydric Soils List for Mecklenburg County' nor are they listed as hydric on the National
Hydric Soils List4 for Mecklenburg County.
Jurisdictional Delineation
On February 10, 2016 CWS scientists Aliisa Harjuniemi, Wetland Professional in Training (WPIT), and
Kaitlin McCulloch, Staff Scientist 1, delineated jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including wetlands, within
the project area (Figure 5, attached). Jurisdictional areas were delineated (flagged in the field), classified,
and surveyed with a sub -foot Trimble Geo7X GPS unit using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Routine On -Site Determination Method. This method is defined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual', the 2007 USACE Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook, with
further technical guidance from the 2012 Eastern Mountains & Piedmont Regional Supplement. A
Wetland Determination Data Form representative of on-site, non jurisdictional upland areas is attached as
DPI. The location of this data point is depicted on Figure 5 (attached).
Jurisdictional stream channels were classified according to recent USACE and North Carolina Division of
Water Resources (NCD)VR) guidance. These classifications included sampling with a D -shaped dip net,
taking photographs, and defining approximate breakpoints (location at which a channel changes
classification) within each on-site stream channel. A NCDWR Stream Classification Form
representative of Stream A is attached as SCP 1. The location of this data point is depicted on Figure 5
(attached). Jurisdictional stream channels were also classified using the North Carolina Stream Assessment
Methodology (NCSAM) to determine the quality of the stream channel'.
Results -
The results of the wetland delineation conducted by CWS indicate that there is one jurisdictional
stream channel (Stream A) within the project limits (Figure 5, attached). On -Site jurisdictional waters
of the U.S. include an unnamed tributary (UT) to Long Creek. Long Creek is part of the Santee River
basin (HUC 03050101) and is classified as "Class C Waters" by the North Carolina Division of Water
Resources (NCDWR). According to the NCDWR, Class C Waters are defined as: "Waters protected
for uses such as secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption, aquatic life including
propagation, survival and maintenance of biological integrity, and agriculture."9
2 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2014. Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
3 United States Department of Agriculture — Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1999. North Carolina Hydric Soils List, USDA
NRCS North Carolina State Office, Raleigh
4 United States Department of Agriculture — Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2012. National Hydric Soils List by State, accessed at
http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/main/soils/use/hydric/
5 Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual", Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
6 USACE Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook. 2007. USACE Regulatory National Standard Operating Procedures
for conducting an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) and documenting practices to support an approved JD. USACE Headquarters,
Washington, DC.
7 US Army Corps of Engineers, April 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern
Mountains and Piedmont Region. US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
8 NCSAM User Manual. 2013. http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Portals/59/docs/regulatory/publicnotices/2013/NCSAM—Draft User
— Manual —130318.pdf.
9 NCDWR. "Surface Water Classifications" http://portal.nedenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/classifications.
2

8403 Dow Road Pipe Maintenance Project February 24, 2016
Nationwide Permit No. 3 CWS Project No. 2016-3888
On -Site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. total approximately 106 linear feet (If) of jurisdictional stream
channel. No jurisdictional wetlands are located within the project limits. On -Site jurisdictional waters of
the U.S. are summarized in Table 1, below.
Table 1. Summa of on-site Jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
Seasonal Relatively Permanent Waters" (RPWs)
Seasonal RPWs are those that exhibit continuous flow for at least three consecutive months per year on a
seasonal basis. This flow regime is the result of a lowering of the water table during dry periods that
prevents groundwater discharge to the stream channel. Seasonal streams do not typically support aquatic
life requiring year-round flow necessary for reproductive and maturation stages.
The results of the on-site field investigation conducted by CWS indicate that there is one seasonal RPW
located within the project area (Stream A). Stream A originates off site and flows southwest for
approximately 46 If before entering a pipe beneath Dow Road (Figure 5, attached). After exiting the pipe,
Stream A continues to flow 60 If before continuing off site (a total of 1061f of jurisdictional stream
channel). Stream A (R4SB412) exhibits strong grade control, moderate continuity of channel bed and bank,
moderate particle size of stream substrate, and moderate presence of base flow. Biological sampling did not
reveal any aquatic organisms located within the channel. Stream A scored 23 out of a possible 63 points on
the NCDWR Stream Classification Form, indicating intermittent status (SCP1, attached). In addition, an
NCSAM form was completed to assess the quality of the stream within the project limits. Seasonal RPW
Stream A scored "LOW" utilizing NCSAM, further justifying the lack of biology observed and low quality
of streamside buffers (NCSAM form, attached). Photographs representative of Seasonal RPW Stream A
are attached (Figure 5; Photographs A -D, attached).
Agency Correspondence
Cultural Resources
A letter was forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on February 10, 2016 to
determine the presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that
would be affected by the project. As of the date of submittal, no response has been received from the
SHPO. CWS also consulted the SHPO online GIS service13 and the Charlotte Mecklenburg Historic
Landmarks Commission14 database and found no sites of architectural, historical, or archaeological
significance within the project limits.
10 Classifications of streams include Traditionally Navigable Waters (TNWs), Relatively Permanent Waters (RPWs), and Non -Relatively
Permanent Waters (Non-RPWs). Subcategories of RPWs include perennial streams that typically have year-round flow, and seasonal
streams that have continuous flow at least seasonally. Tow classification ofjurisdictional wetlands are used to describe proximity and
connection to TNWs. These classifications include either adjacent or directly abutting. Adjacent wetlands are defined as wetlands within
floodplains or in close proximity to a TNW but without a direct visible connection. Abutting wetlands have a direct surface water
connection traceable to a TNW.
11 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook. May 5, 2007. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and the Environmental Protection Agency.
http://www.usacc.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/regulatory/cwa_guide/jd_guidebook_051207final.pdf.
1z R4SB4 = Intermittent stream with streambed with sand, Cowardin et al. Classification System, 1979.
13North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/. Accessed February 10, 2016.
14 Charlotte Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission, http://www.cmhpf.org/homehistoricproperties.htm. Accessed February 10,
2016.
Jurisdiction
NCDWR
Jurisdictional
Stream
Stream
Linear
Acreage
USAGE/EPA
Feature
Rapanos
Intermittent)
Classific)
Classification
Feet (if)
(ac)
Classification"
Perennial
on (SCP)
Score
Stream A
Seasonal RPW
Intermittent
SCP I
23
106
0.005
Stream Total
1061f
0.005 ac.
Seasonal Relatively Permanent Waters" (RPWs)
Seasonal RPWs are those that exhibit continuous flow for at least three consecutive months per year on a
seasonal basis. This flow regime is the result of a lowering of the water table during dry periods that
prevents groundwater discharge to the stream channel. Seasonal streams do not typically support aquatic
life requiring year-round flow necessary for reproductive and maturation stages.
The results of the on-site field investigation conducted by CWS indicate that there is one seasonal RPW
located within the project area (Stream A). Stream A originates off site and flows southwest for
approximately 46 If before entering a pipe beneath Dow Road (Figure 5, attached). After exiting the pipe,
Stream A continues to flow 60 If before continuing off site (a total of 1061f of jurisdictional stream
channel). Stream A (R4SB412) exhibits strong grade control, moderate continuity of channel bed and bank,
moderate particle size of stream substrate, and moderate presence of base flow. Biological sampling did not
reveal any aquatic organisms located within the channel. Stream A scored 23 out of a possible 63 points on
the NCDWR Stream Classification Form, indicating intermittent status (SCP1, attached). In addition, an
NCSAM form was completed to assess the quality of the stream within the project limits. Seasonal RPW
Stream A scored "LOW" utilizing NCSAM, further justifying the lack of biology observed and low quality
of streamside buffers (NCSAM form, attached). Photographs representative of Seasonal RPW Stream A
are attached (Figure 5; Photographs A -D, attached).
Agency Correspondence
Cultural Resources
A letter was forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on February 10, 2016 to
determine the presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that
would be affected by the project. As of the date of submittal, no response has been received from the
SHPO. CWS also consulted the SHPO online GIS service13 and the Charlotte Mecklenburg Historic
Landmarks Commission14 database and found no sites of architectural, historical, or archaeological
significance within the project limits.
10 Classifications of streams include Traditionally Navigable Waters (TNWs), Relatively Permanent Waters (RPWs), and Non -Relatively
Permanent Waters (Non-RPWs). Subcategories of RPWs include perennial streams that typically have year-round flow, and seasonal
streams that have continuous flow at least seasonally. Tow classification ofjurisdictional wetlands are used to describe proximity and
connection to TNWs. These classifications include either adjacent or directly abutting. Adjacent wetlands are defined as wetlands within
floodplains or in close proximity to a TNW but without a direct visible connection. Abutting wetlands have a direct surface water
connection traceable to a TNW.
11 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook. May 5, 2007. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and the Environmental Protection Agency.
http://www.usacc.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/regulatory/cwa_guide/jd_guidebook_051207final.pdf.
1z R4SB4 = Intermittent stream with streambed with sand, Cowardin et al. Classification System, 1979.
13North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/. Accessed February 10, 2016.
14 Charlotte Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission, http://www.cmhpf.org/homehistoricproperties.htm. Accessed February 10,
2016.

8403 Dow Road Pipe Maintenance Project February 24, 2016
Nationwide Permit No. 3 CWS Project No. 2016-3888
Protected Species
CWS performed a data review using North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Data
Explorer15 on February 10, 2016 to determine the presence of any federally -listed, candidate
endangered, threatened species, or critical habitat located within the project area. Based on the
NCNHP review, there ,are no records of federally -protected species within the project limits or within
a mile of the project site. A copy of the data review report is attached. However, the recent listing of
the Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) now requires consultation with the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), until the new Final 4(d) Rule16 becomes effective on February
16, 2016.
The Northern long-eared bat (NLEB) is one of the species of bats most impacted by the white -nose
syndrome disease. Habitat for the NLEB includes forested areas of any age, rocky areas with
boulders, and culverts greater than four feet wide. Due to recent population declines of almost 89%
caused by white -nose syndrome and continued spread of the disease, the NLEB now receives
protection as a Threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. A Threatened species is
defined as a taxon likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range17.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is requesting the documentation of the amount of
wooded acres cleared in connection with any construction project that takes place within any county
shown on the January 29, 2016 White -Nose Syndrome Buffer Zone Map (attached). Per a
conversation on January 27, 2016, with Byron Hampstead of the USFWS, there are no mature
roosting trees or hibernacula recorded in Mecklenburg County. In addition, this project only proposes
minimal clearing (less than 0.5 acre). Therefore, this project may affect, but is not likely to adversely
affect the NLEB.
Purpose and Need for the Project
The purpose of the project is to replace and extend portions of an existing 30 -inch reinforced concrete
pipe (RCP) beneath Dow Road. Due to heavy rainfall events and subsequent high flows, extensive
undercutting and erosion has undermined the outlet of the existing pipe. Extensive erosion has caused
undercutting and the last four feet of the pipe to separate from the majority of the pipe. To prevent the
pipe from falling into the stream and causing additional stream impacts, there is an immediate need
for the removal and replacement of the four foot piece of pipe.
The failing pipe has also compromised the structural integrity of the existing fill slope embankments
supporting the road. The current conditions of the compromised road necessitates the construction of a
new portion of the pipe and new headwalls for the crossing of Stream A. The current crossing poses a
safety hazard for pedestrians and vehicular traffic on Dow Road.
The project is necessary to stabilize Dow Road and prevent further erosion and undercutting of stream
banks and Dow Road. The plan is to remove and replace a four foot section of separated 30 -inch RCP,
extend the 30 -inch RCP by a total of 16 linear feet on the downstream end, and replace the existing
headwalls (Figure 6, attached). The initial 10 linear foot section of new RCP will replace the failing four
linear feet of RCP and a second 10 linear foot section of RCP will help stabilize the road. The 20 linear foot
pipes will result in a net loss of 16 linear feet of stream channel. To tie the extension into the existing
15 North Carolina Natural Heritage Data Explorer, https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/ Accessed February 10, 2016.
16 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2016. Key to the NLEB 4 (d) Rule for Non -Federal Activities
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/pdf/KeyFinal4dNLEB 12Jan2016.pdf
17 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 1973. Endangered Species Act. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/laws-policies/.
4

8403 Dow Road Pipe Maintenance Project February 24, 2016
Nationwide Permit No. 3 CWS Proiect No. 2016-3888
channel grades, and thereby reducing impacts to the downstream channel, a drop structure needs to be
installed. ,To do this, the initial 10 linear feet of proposed 30 -inch RCP, consisting of a four foot
replacement and a six foot extension, will tie into the existing RCP, while the downstream 10 linear foot
extension will have a greater than six inch drop from the previous section of RCP. In addition to the RCP
replacement and extension, a 14 linear foot rip rap apron will be installed at the outlet of the pipe for energy
dissipation.
Avoidance and Minimization
Impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent possible.
All work will be constructed in the dry in accordance with Water Quality Certification (WQC) No. 3883.
Proper sediment and erosion control measures will be.used to minimize disturbances to downstream
waters.
Based on a review of the existing pipe by drainage specialist David Kenney, PE (with CMS WS), the
current 30 -inch RCP is undersized for the drainage area that is routed to the pipe. The necessary pipe
diameter is 66 inches, but would require another downstream culvert replacement to handle the passage
of additional flows. Moreover, replacing the existing 55 linear foot 30 -inch RCP with a 66 -inch RCP in
entirety is difficult and cost prohibitive due to an existing sewer located above the current pipe.
Therefore, CMS WS proposes that the four foot section of the existing RCP be replaced and then
extended by 16 linear feet in order to support the influx of stormwater from surrounding commercial
properties. In order to complete the pipe extension and tie into the existing channel grades, a drop pipe is
proposed. Although the drop pipe structure (>6 -inch drop) prevents the passage of aquatic life, it is the
best option for avoiding and minimizing total channel impacts. Extending the pipe and installing a drop
structure pipe will prevent further erosion and undercutting downstream, as well as prevent future
flooding on residential properties adjacent to the stream. Additionally, to dissipate flows exiting the pipe
crossing at Dow Road, rip rap apron installation and headwall installation on Stream A is unavoidable
(Figure 6, attached).
The current stream is in poor condition and is heavily eroded downstream of the existing pipe. As
evidenced by the lack of biology observed and a "LOW" NCSAM score, the proposed drop structure is
unlikely to have a.negative effect on aquatic life. The proposed design is the best alternative for
preventing future degradation and future negative impacts to Stream A. Other alternatives would include
roughly the same amount of impacts, but require more extensive downstream channel grading.
The project has been thoughtfully designed to avoid all other impacts to jurisdictional waters of the
U.S. wherever possible. We believe that the current site plan is the best possible plan that meets the
project goals while avoiding impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. to the greatest extent
practicable.
Proposed Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
Under Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 3,, unavoidable permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters of
the U.S. associated with this project are limited to a total of 30 linear feet (0.003 acre) of jurisdictional
stream channel (Figure 6, attached). The permanent impacts to Stream A are the result of the
installation of a 20 linear feet 30 -inch RCP and associated 14 linear foot rip rap apron (Figure 6;
Photograph C, attached).
The proposed 20 linear feet of 30 -inch RCP will consist of a drop structure between 10 linear foot
sections of RCP (stream impact 1 [Sl]). The initial 10 linear foot section of new RCP will replace four
feet of the existing RCP and extend the RCP by six feet. This initial 10 linear foot section of 30 -inch
RCP will tie into the existing 30 -inch RCP beneath Dow Road and will permanently impact six linear
feet of Stream A. The second 10 linear foot section of 30 -inch RCP will be a dropped pipe (> 6

8403 Dow Road Pipe Maintenance Project February 24, 2016
Nationwide Permit No. 3 CWS Project No. 2016-3888
inches) that permanently impacts 10 linear feet of Stream A for a total of 16 linear feet of permanent
impacts to Stream A due to a pipe extension.
CMSWS also proposes to install a 14 linear foot rip rap apron (stream impact 2 [S2]) and add
headwalls at the inlet and outlet of the pipe crossing at Dow Road (Figure 6, attached). The proposed
rip rap apron will permanently impact 14 linear feet of Stream A, but is necessary to dissipate flows
exiting the pipe per the City of Charlotte's design standards. The rip rap apron will also prevent
erosional forces from undermining the outlet.
Permanent impacts to Stream A total 30 linear feet and are the result of a pipe extension and rip rap
apron installation. The area of disturbance and impacts -are illustrated in Figure 6 and the attached
construction plan set. Table 2 (below) summarizes the unavoidable impacts to on-site jurisdictional
waters of the U.S.
Table 2. mmary of impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
On behalf of Charlotte -Mecklenburg Storm Water Services, CWS is submitting a Pre -Construction
Notification Application with attachments in accordance with Nationwide Permit General Condition No.
31 (attached) and pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 3. Due to the dropped pipe (> 6 -inch drop) that
prevents aquatic life passage, this project requires written authorization from the NCDWR.
Compensatory Mitigation
Permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been limited to 30 linear feet of impaired
stream channel. We believe that the proposed pipe design meets the project goals while avoiding and
minimizing impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. to the greatest extent possible. Therefore, no
mitigation is proposed for these impacts.
rel
Approx.
Jurisdictional
Seasonal/
Impact
Impact
Temporary/P
NWP
Approx.
Acreage
Feature
Perennial
No.
Type
ermanent
No.
Length Of)
--
(ac.)
30 -inch
S1
RCP
Permanent
3
161f
0.002
Stream A
Seasonal
extension
S2
Rip rap
Permanent
3
14 If
0.001
apron
Stream Total:
301f
0.003
On behalf of Charlotte -Mecklenburg Storm Water Services, CWS is submitting a Pre -Construction
Notification Application with attachments in accordance with Nationwide Permit General Condition No.
31 (attached) and pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 3. Due to the dropped pipe (> 6 -inch drop) that
prevents aquatic life passage, this project requires written authorization from the NCDWR.
Compensatory Mitigation
Permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been limited to 30 linear feet of impaired
stream channel. We believe that the proposed pipe design meets the project goals while avoiding and
minimizing impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. to the greatest extent possible. Therefore, no
mitigation is proposed for these impacts.
rel

8403 Dow Road Pipe Maintenance Project February 24, 2016
Nationwide Permit No. 3 CWS Project No. 2016-3888
Please do not hesitate to contact Erin Turner at 704-336-3927 or [e-mail] should
you have any questions or comments regarding these findings.
ZT1- e --
Erin Turner Gregg Antemann, PWS
Wetlands Specialist Principal Scientist +
CMSWS Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
Attachments: Figure 1. USGS Site Location Map
Figure 2. Aerial Map
Figure 3. Current USDA-NRCS Mecklenburg County Soil Survey
Figure 4. Historic USDA-NRCS Mecklenburg County Soil Survey
Figure 5. Approximate Jurisdictional Boundary Field Map
Figure 6. Proposed Stream Impacts
Pre -Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit No. 3
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form
NCDWR Stream Classification Form (SCP I)
USACE Wetland Determination Data Form (DPI)
NCSAM Form
Representative Photographs (A -D)
Agency Correspondence
White Nose Syndrome Buffer Zone Map
Construction Plan Set

�'�• ter' ,--- I 1 v�/ �- ��- •� � r � _ ��
A
Al
�I yr a
4
li . � \'^���'� � � � .•\ r { . u� 'L`
1 X ) $-ori '.�\• \. v,.�+'1.1 �TRCi1�%i !/i •t1 .; :(, {�/� , "7`I ✓ V
A13
A
.wares
r _� `� t ��vv �� � r i � '��-a'.:i/� � - ref, '-F � 1� t wt._ T'a._hlil ` • -V � • _ � t
841!
tbfl
Lakeview Road
\\ �� (•!L y�lv = �� / fJ y ,�qL—� (('r j• bis
Statesville Road �. \; ! is+ y 248 x _ _ es77 7
_ � t �" •Sri I �1� ,,�,
\� -IA r r ~. _ : �' tiG f� �* 45 • 8403 Dow Road t #`
1 - _
1 ' �' l df .'\._ • pit ,lf :�i_>rl \ i� �.,. `Ti87. �,
/ t fIv
IN
� y • 1' r! � 769 i r � � � � �. -' { . \,
It,�It
` A
"(211 Y �j i •« •4i } ! I _ i 0 f r�� vakk,,Gr
�i7 = t ,•. s r _� -.� _ - ,� 111 ,f�/ 1 til o �v\,' Cerh
It
I r• r t
ram
, i I � j it • � ur � r 7 •\,..� 'i, 1 j ..
��4 \ x`t i •,
e, �� s' ! 1 ''� r`_. l airgrb4 14
f
re fliikY i�..••ro f at i I y f
A_�.$�
� ��'-- - •�•�. `.s..r +•, \ .o, \ �'�y �e r ter.\_
J/I
)•�nNSI
i\a( (FriEndly x�y Legend
• �1 ` �• `l s �` -•
Project Limits `tip
sf (^, r , � '�, frit a •�� !� �, _) `�a �' _:'.--� ���'tt 2� � . ; i� I + „ ~_�
+' !
2,000 1,000 0 2,000 Feet
REFERENCE: USGS 7.5 MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLES: DERITA, NC (1996). - i 'Oak 4vbve''
a 1 t t\Ch
• \ ; \
SCALE: 1 " : 2000' DATE: 2-9-2016 USGS Site Location Map FIGURE NO,
CWS PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:
2015-3888 KJM /� 8403 Dow Road 1
PPLICANT NO: CHECKED BY: CAROLINA Charlotte, North Carolina /
KMT WETLAND SERVICES CWS Proiect No. 2016-3888 /

s s,
tia .
QQ F
F 7t �a
AIR
Not
REFERENCE: BACKGROUND AERIAL IMAGERY PROVIDED BY NC ONEMAP,
DATED 2015. BACKGROUND GIS LAYER(S) PROVIDED BY MECKLENBURG COUNTY
GIS DEPARTMENT, DATED 2015.
SCALE: 1"
: 50' DATE: 2-9-2016
CWS PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: n A
2015-3888 JIVI
APPLICANT NO: CHECKED BY:Kn AT CAROLINASERVICES
FIGURE NO.
Aerial Imagery Map
8403 Dow Road 2
Charlotte, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2016-3888
a
AMON
s s,
tia .
QQ F
F 7t �a
AIR
Not
REFERENCE: BACKGROUND AERIAL IMAGERY PROVIDED BY NC ONEMAP,
DATED 2015. BACKGROUND GIS LAYER(S) PROVIDED BY MECKLENBURG COUNTY
GIS DEPARTMENT, DATED 2015.
SCALE: 1"
: 50' DATE: 2-9-2016
CWS PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: n A
2015-3888 JIVI
APPLICANT NO: CHECKED BY:Kn AT CAROLINASERVICES
FIGURE NO.
Aerial Imagery Map
8403 Dow Road 2
Charlotte, North Carolina
CWS Project No. 2016-3888

77,
76E
761
76(
751
75:
74!
744
0+00
0+50
PIPE JOINT
WRAPPING DETAIL
172 1 761
68 1 761
764 1 761
760 1 751
756 1 75:
752 1 741
748 1 74
744
1+00
8403 DOW ROAD
DRIVEYVAY PIPE
— nDIN.
LI
5 4
_76_45
O
a
yea= y
TO PROTECT.
a�
__. CONTRACTOR""TO CLEAR KUDZU FOR
Ra
In
°10`F'"T Q
R.20 LIF 1S
naz
%
n mill
/
I.�_�'____
Stream
_ _--
.....-PROP.
8IIN /
HN1Cc
TCE VA RIES --J
0+50
PIPE JOINT
WRAPPING DETAIL
172 1 761
68 1 761
764 1 761
760 1 751
756 1 75:
752 1 741
748 1 74
744
1+00
740---
1+00
2+75
I
• O�O��O •
1+50 2+00 2+50
037-235-05
GERALDINE YOUNG REMBERT
DB 14697-315
8413 DOW RD.
220LF EX. 15' RCP, lO
BE REMOVED h REPLACED.
X -i 2+90 PROP. TYPE IV CONCRETE DRIVEWAY
I.,. , x -E IDD.AK la M,Tx
r AWRIwz Tnz lnn+ '.o+r.a
ry rr_r-f--�,.wrlwaA
M• -_- A i0__ _ 1.4 Taxc
T-- - l -
I I
SECTION A -A
_ NON
. w .ArA (:=w:'=
imu/mr[rn• pn Uv^w�Fx p�iY.� M v !! txF
•.. �.�a.:,.I.W. NOT TO SCALI
CI'CY Ot LEARIAITE
ISNU DRVHDPYB.YT STANDARDS TYPE IV DRIVEWAY
APRON, 226 SY 6 CONIC. DRIVE
EX. TREE TO REMAIN,
220LF TREE PROTECTION FENCE.
EX. GRAVEL DRIVEWAY TO BE RESTORED
AFTER CONSTRUCTION, 215TN GRAVEL
CL FNC.
Z. .
EX POWER POLE TO REMAIN MAINTAIN
—
— nDIN.
LI
STALLARA710NREE FENCE
INSTALL 2311E TREE FENCE AS N
_76_45
O
p
TO PROTECT.
l
__. CONTRACTOR""TO CLEAR KUDZU FOR
TIMcn
In
CONSTRUCTION AND GRADING;85-sY).
.. •
It
I.�_�'____
Stream
_ _--
.....-PROP.
8IIN /
HN1Cc
TCE VA RIES --J
1 / / DECK
/
PROP. 10' PDE
LI INV-
]60.08
S
w
._.RHs
of
S
BLDG.
Proposed Rip -.. Apron ►
PROP. CLASS I RIP RAP APRON O
6
p
ImpactS2: 14 If Permanent
OS SLOPE, 11' W, 14' L 16' D,
Stream A
FORM TO CHANNEL (28 TONS
KENN037-235-06
EM D. BYA�S
DB 9724-441
^ - JV'
3/
8403 DOW RD.
�SLDQ�
Y
/
IN
740---
1+00
2+75
I
• O�O��O •
1+50 2+00 2+50
037-235-05
GERALDINE YOUNG REMBERT
DB 14697-315
8413 DOW RD.
220LF EX. 15' RCP, lO
BE REMOVED h REPLACED.
X -i 2+90 PROP. TYPE IV CONCRETE DRIVEWAY
I.,. , x -E IDD.AK la M,Tx
r AWRIwz Tnz lnn+ '.o+r.a
ry rr_r-f--�,.wrlwaA
M• -_- A i0__ _ 1.4 Taxc
T-- - l -
I I
SECTION A -A
_ NON
. w .ArA (:=w:'=
imu/mr[rn• pn Uv^w�Fx p�iY.� M v !! txF
•.. �.�a.:,.I.W. NOT TO SCALI
CI'CY Ot LEARIAITE
ISNU DRVHDPYB.YT STANDARDS TYPE IV DRIVEWAY
APRON, 226 SY 6 CONIC. DRIVE
EX. TREE TO REMAIN,
220LF TREE PROTECTION FENCE.
EX. GRAVEL DRIVEWAY TO BE RESTORED
AFTER CONSTRUCTION, 215TN GRAVEL
CL FNC.
Z. .
EX POWER POLE TO REMAIN MAINTAIN
'68
'64
'60
156
152
148
144
- - - -- - -- -740
3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50
037-2HUG36-45
\ „GREO-HES"
\ \ TAMMY ALIHAM
TN HUGH S
DS 23391-731. / Y•v
\ .6,408 -DON
¢/ / 5 /
TBM: PKMAI / 1P$
4 WO U E�y9.oz y /ssSS
/nY a
�o
5 ✓ POLES TO REMAIN. MAINTAIN, j-
' I 55 / // i ARAT)0F DURING 1;ONSTRUCTION�. ,1#
SSM!y k MA"�f6RQ1AIN?USE —%
4 / CAUTION DURING-CONSTRUCTDON.
EST4USH BTPASS PUMPING AS NECESSARY FOB- /
2 I PD
SA' I
Im
WIN
—
— nDIN.
LI
STALLARA710NREE FENCE
INSTALL 2311E TREE FENCE AS N
_76_45
O
p
TO PROTECT.
l
__. CONTRACTOR""TO CLEAR KUDZU FOR
TIMcn
In
CONSTRUCTION AND GRADING;85-sY).
Proposed
26OLF SILT FENCE
Stream
_ _--
.....-PROP.
8IIN /
HN1Cc
TCE VA RIES --J
1 / / DECK
/
PROP. 10' PDE
LI INV-
]60.08
S
w
._.RHs
of
S
BLDG.
/
1
Q
PROP. CLASS I RIP RAP APRON O
6
p
OS SLOPE, 11' W, 14' L 16' D,
FORM TO CHANNEL (28 TONS
KENN037-235-06
EM D. BYA�S
DB 9724-441
^ - JV'
3/
8403 DOW RD.
�SLDQ�
Y
'68
'64
'60
156
152
148
144
- - - -- - -- -740
3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50
037-2HUG36-45
\ „GREO-HES"
\ \ TAMMY ALIHAM
TN HUGH S
DS 23391-731. / Y•v
\ .6,408 -DON
¢/ / 5 /
TBM: PKMAI / 1P$
4 WO U E�y9.oz y /ssSS
/nY a
�o
5 ✓ POLES TO REMAIN. MAINTAIN, j-
' I 55 / // i ARAT)0F DURING 1;ONSTRUCTION�. ,1#
SSM!y k MA"�f6RQ1AIN?USE —%
4 / CAUTION DURING-CONSTRUCTDON.
EST4USH BTPASS PUMPING AS NECESSARY FOB- /
2 I PD
SA' I
Im
WIN
/&TECONDITIONS; �TUP TO BEJMTHIN R/W/-
PROP CLASS "IP RAP PA6 k DITCH TO
STABILIZE SLOPES, 10�,THICK (29 .TONS). /
" LL 4 COMPACT AT 2:1 MIN!$LOPE: /
\ -- CY BOFMOW MATERIAr k 22.5 E.j SELECT.
I, .-ryT ILIZE SLOPE WITH tCIR MA73 AND RESEED.
INDICATES Lo`cATJQK OF PROPOSED
INJECTION REPAIR OF FAILURE IDEN'11FIED
FRCM j1lPE VIDEO INSPECTION (5). 037-236-45
M.D. HAMPTON
CONTRACTOR TO REPAIR ASPHALT PROPERTIES, LLC
DAMAGED BY CONSTRUCTION. DB DDOW 55.
8400 DOW RD.
/ 20.65 CY CONCRETE PIPE COLLAR.
AT PIPE JOINT STA. 3+01.73.
DLL 8 COMPACT AT T.1 MIN. SLOPE;
26 CY BORROW MATERIAL G 236 TONS SELECT,
STABILIZE SLOPE WITH COIR MATTING AND RESEED.
RE -STABILIZE BANKS WITH GDR
\ MATTING AND RESEED.
/ TEMPORARY ROCK CHECK DAM
/ (CLDS, 30.10) CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE
SILT AND DAM UPON COMPLETION.
Seasonal RPW Stream
Existing 30" RCP
_ Proposed 30" RCP
_ Proposed Rip Rap Apron
VICINITY MAP NTS
RAI DNSTR I NO =
CONTRACTOR IS
FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING
A
APPROPRIATE PARTES AND ASSURING THAT EXISTING UnLInS
ARE LOCATED PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION.
2. CONTRACTOR TO MAINTAIN 5' OF SEPARATION FROM ALL
EXISTING UTILITY P NOT TO BE RELOCATED.
3. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PLACING ALL TRAFFIC
CONTROL DEVICES AND SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE CHARLOTTE DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION (COOT) WORK
AREA TRAFFIC CONTROL HANDBOOK (W.A.T.C.H.).
4. STORM PIPE INSTALLATION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
NCDOT STANDARD DETAIL 300.01.
5. ALL STORM WATER PIPE LENGTHS SHOWN ARE FROM CENTER
OF STRUCTURE TO CENTER OF STRUCTURE. PROPOSED PIPES ARE
CUII RCP UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED.
NAME SYMBOL
TREE BARRICADE
TREE REMOVAL X
STORM DRAINAGE MANHOLE Q
CATCH BASIN
YARD INLET/ DROP INLET
NAME SYMBOL
EXIST. PROPERTY UNE
EXISTING FENCE.—
EXISTING WATER W --
EXISTING SEWER SS -
EXISTING GAS G -
U'GROUND TELEPHONE UT
WGROUND POWER UE
WGROUND CABLE TV TV --
WGROUND FIBRE OPTIC FO
EXIST. YHEAD ELECTRIC OE
PROP. DRAIN PIPE
STORM DRAINAGE ESMT —sDE—
TEMPORARY EASEMENT — e e
TREE PROTECTION FENCE
TEMP. SILT FENCE - - - - - ---
JOINT REPAIRS
CONTRACTOR TO USE HYDROPHIUC AND/OR HYDROPHOBIC POLYURETHANE
INJECTION RESIN TO REPAIR PIPE JOINTS AND BACK -GROUT. WHEN USING
HYDROPHOBIC PGLYURETHANE, IT SHALL BE MOISTURE ACTIVATED AND THE
APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF CATALYST SHALL BE USED BASED ON SITE
CONDITIONS AND MANUFACTURERS RECOMMEND RATES. JUTE OAKUM (OR
APPROVED EQUAL) TO BE USED AS CONTAINMENT DAM AS NEEDED.
INJECTION RESIN SHALL BE CERTIFIED TO BE USED IN POTABLE WATER
SYSTEMS.
SUBMIT SPECIFICATIONS FOR ALL MATERIALS, RELATIVE EXPERIENCE AND A
COPY OF CONTRACTOR'S CONFINED SPACE PLAN (IF NECESSARY) TO
ENGINEER AND OWNER AT LEAST 10 WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO STARTING
CONSTRUCTION. NO WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED PRIOR TO RECEIVING
WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM CITY.
GENERAL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FOLLOWING:
1. FEW SBLE FOR APPROPRIATE CONFINED SPACE ENTRY PRACTICES WITH
METHODS THAT MEET ALL OSHA REQUIREMENTS.
2.APPROPRIATE TRAFFIC CONTROL TO PROTECT ASSOGATED WORK IN THE
RIGHT OF WAY THAT MEETS THE W.A.T.C.H. MANUAL
S.ALL DEWATERING OF CONDUIT IN PREPARATION FOR SEALING, BACKGROUTNG,
AND COATING PROCESS IF NEEDED.
4.CLEANING OF CULVERT INVERTS PRIOR TO REPAIRS. PROTRUDING AREAS IN
THE INVERT SHALL BE EITHER CUT AWAY AND DISPOSED. OR HAMMERED OUT
50 AREA NO LONGER PROTRUDES INTO PIPE INTERIOR.
00
5.0RDINATE WITH CMSWS INSPECTOR FOR SCHEDUUNG OF CCTV AS NEEDED.
6.ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AS NECESSARY PER CITY AND STATE
REQUIREMENTS
7.VENTILATION AND AIR QUALITY DEIECTON OF WORK AREA.
B. MATERIAL NEEDED TO FILL LARGE BLOWOUTS OR SINK HOLES ADJACENT TO
STORM DRAINAGE PIPES BEING REPAIRED.
9.ALL CLEAN UP OF WORK AREA
B=- E YW
0 2..0 0
10 30
T-•DD-eaz-4949
SCALE: 1"=20' A.D UTVTY DAMA.
M
O
W
LI
_76_45
O
Jul17,
1
l
_
TIMcn
Proposed
Stream
Impacts
8IIN /
HN1Cc
1 / / DECK
/
LI INV-
]60.08
S
w
FT -754.15
x % BLDG. I
W / CONC.
/
JZ
5 WTR
j' i% PAD 037-235-07
6
p
= JAMES MICHAEL
TENCH.
DB 21940-768
OUT
8327 DOW RD.
�SLDQ�
Y
/
/&TECONDITIONS; �TUP TO BEJMTHIN R/W/-
PROP CLASS "IP RAP PA6 k DITCH TO
STABILIZE SLOPES, 10�,THICK (29 .TONS). /
" LL 4 COMPACT AT 2:1 MIN!$LOPE: /
\ -- CY BOFMOW MATERIAr k 22.5 E.j SELECT.
I, .-ryT ILIZE SLOPE WITH tCIR MA73 AND RESEED.
INDICATES Lo`cATJQK OF PROPOSED
INJECTION REPAIR OF FAILURE IDEN'11FIED
FRCM j1lPE VIDEO INSPECTION (5). 037-236-45
M.D. HAMPTON
CONTRACTOR TO REPAIR ASPHALT PROPERTIES, LLC
DAMAGED BY CONSTRUCTION. DB DDOW 55.
8400 DOW RD.
/ 20.65 CY CONCRETE PIPE COLLAR.
AT PIPE JOINT STA. 3+01.73.
DLL 8 COMPACT AT T.1 MIN. SLOPE;
26 CY BORROW MATERIAL G 236 TONS SELECT,
STABILIZE SLOPE WITH COIR MATTING AND RESEED.
RE -STABILIZE BANKS WITH GDR
\ MATTING AND RESEED.
/ TEMPORARY ROCK CHECK DAM
/ (CLDS, 30.10) CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE
SILT AND DAM UPON COMPLETION.
Seasonal RPW Stream
Existing 30" RCP
_ Proposed 30" RCP
_ Proposed Rip Rap Apron
VICINITY MAP NTS
RAI DNSTR I NO =
CONTRACTOR IS
FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING
A
APPROPRIATE PARTES AND ASSURING THAT EXISTING UnLInS
ARE LOCATED PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION.
2. CONTRACTOR TO MAINTAIN 5' OF SEPARATION FROM ALL
EXISTING UTILITY P NOT TO BE RELOCATED.
3. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PLACING ALL TRAFFIC
CONTROL DEVICES AND SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE CHARLOTTE DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION (COOT) WORK
AREA TRAFFIC CONTROL HANDBOOK (W.A.T.C.H.).
4. STORM PIPE INSTALLATION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
NCDOT STANDARD DETAIL 300.01.
5. ALL STORM WATER PIPE LENGTHS SHOWN ARE FROM CENTER
OF STRUCTURE TO CENTER OF STRUCTURE. PROPOSED PIPES ARE
CUII RCP UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED.
NAME SYMBOL
TREE BARRICADE
TREE REMOVAL X
STORM DRAINAGE MANHOLE Q
CATCH BASIN
YARD INLET/ DROP INLET
NAME SYMBOL
EXIST. PROPERTY UNE
EXISTING FENCE.—
EXISTING WATER W --
EXISTING SEWER SS -
EXISTING GAS G -
U'GROUND TELEPHONE UT
WGROUND POWER UE
WGROUND CABLE TV TV --
WGROUND FIBRE OPTIC FO
EXIST. YHEAD ELECTRIC OE
PROP. DRAIN PIPE
STORM DRAINAGE ESMT —sDE—
TEMPORARY EASEMENT — e e
TREE PROTECTION FENCE
TEMP. SILT FENCE - - - - - ---
JOINT REPAIRS
CONTRACTOR TO USE HYDROPHIUC AND/OR HYDROPHOBIC POLYURETHANE
INJECTION RESIN TO REPAIR PIPE JOINTS AND BACK -GROUT. WHEN USING
HYDROPHOBIC PGLYURETHANE, IT SHALL BE MOISTURE ACTIVATED AND THE
APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF CATALYST SHALL BE USED BASED ON SITE
CONDITIONS AND MANUFACTURERS RECOMMEND RATES. JUTE OAKUM (OR
APPROVED EQUAL) TO BE USED AS CONTAINMENT DAM AS NEEDED.
INJECTION RESIN SHALL BE CERTIFIED TO BE USED IN POTABLE WATER
SYSTEMS.
SUBMIT SPECIFICATIONS FOR ALL MATERIALS, RELATIVE EXPERIENCE AND A
COPY OF CONTRACTOR'S CONFINED SPACE PLAN (IF NECESSARY) TO
ENGINEER AND OWNER AT LEAST 10 WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO STARTING
CONSTRUCTION. NO WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED PRIOR TO RECEIVING
WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM CITY.
GENERAL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FOLLOWING:
1. FEW SBLE FOR APPROPRIATE CONFINED SPACE ENTRY PRACTICES WITH
METHODS THAT MEET ALL OSHA REQUIREMENTS.
2.APPROPRIATE TRAFFIC CONTROL TO PROTECT ASSOGATED WORK IN THE
RIGHT OF WAY THAT MEETS THE W.A.T.C.H. MANUAL
S.ALL DEWATERING OF CONDUIT IN PREPARATION FOR SEALING, BACKGROUTNG,
AND COATING PROCESS IF NEEDED.
4.CLEANING OF CULVERT INVERTS PRIOR TO REPAIRS. PROTRUDING AREAS IN
THE INVERT SHALL BE EITHER CUT AWAY AND DISPOSED. OR HAMMERED OUT
50 AREA NO LONGER PROTRUDES INTO PIPE INTERIOR.
00
5.0RDINATE WITH CMSWS INSPECTOR FOR SCHEDUUNG OF CCTV AS NEEDED.
6.ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AS NECESSARY PER CITY AND STATE
REQUIREMENTS
7.VENTILATION AND AIR QUALITY DEIECTON OF WORK AREA.
B. MATERIAL NEEDED TO FILL LARGE BLOWOUTS OR SINK HOLES ADJACENT TO
STORM DRAINAGE PIPES BEING REPAIRED.
9.ALL CLEAN UP OF WORK AREA
B=- E YW
0 2..0 0
10 30
T-•DD-eaz-4949
SCALE: 1"=20' A.D UTVTY DAMA.
M
O
W �
U
W
O
00
TIMcn
Proposed
Stream
Impacts
r/D
W �
U
00
TIMcn
wz
r^
U
Figure
6
'o
L

b_ka
AO
o Nii� s
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Page 1 of 13
PCN Form —Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Pre -Construction Notification PCN Form
A. Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit ❑Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 3 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes
® No
1 d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
❑ Yes ® No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ® No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program.
❑ Yes
® No
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes
® No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes
® No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
8403 Dow Road Pipe Maintenance Project
2b.
County:
Mecklenburg
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Charlotte
2d.
Subdivision name:
N/A
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
N/A
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
KENNETH BYARS
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
09724-441
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
N/A
3d.
Street address:
8403 Dow Road
3e.
City, state, zip:
CHARLOTTE NC 28269
3f.
Telephone no.:
3g.
Fax no.:
3h. Email address:
Page 1 of 13
PCN Form —Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
❑ Agent ® Other, specify: Charlotte -Mecklenburg Storm Water Services
4b. Name:
Ms. Erin Turner
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
CMSWS
4d. Street address:
600 E. Fourth Street
4e. City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28202
4f. Telephone no.:
[phone]
4g. Fax no.:
[phone]
4h. Email address:
[e-mail]
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
Gregg Antemann, PWS
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
5c. Street address:
550 E. Westinghouse Blvd.
5d. City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28273
5e. Telephone no.:
704-408-1683
5f. Fax no.:
704-527-1133
5g. Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 13
PCN Form —Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1 a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
03723506 (Project Address) and portions of multiple
parcels
Latitude: 35.335345 Longitude: -
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
80.840653
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1 c. Property size:
0.32 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
UT to Long Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
Class C
2c. River basin:
Santee (HUC# 03050101)
Page 3 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The project area consists of maintained lawn with a stream crossing (Figure 2, attached). Typical on-site vegetation
includes sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), kudzu (Pueraria lobata), poison
ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), and various grasses (Festuca spp.).
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
106 If
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of the project is to replace and extend portions of an existing 30 -inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP)
beneath Dow Road. Due to heavy rainfall events and subsequent high flows, extensive undercutting and erosion has
undermined the outlet of the existing pipe. Extensive erosion has caused undercutting and the last four feet of the pipe to
separate from the majority of the pipe. To prevent the pipe from falling into the stream and causing additional stream
impacts, there is an immediate need for the removal and replacement of the four foot piece of pipe.
The failing pipe has also compromised the structural integrity of the existing fill slope embankments supporting the road.
The current conditions of the compromised road necessitates the construction of a new portion of the pipe and new
headwalls for the crossing of Stream A. The current crossing poses a safety hazard for pedestrians and vehicular traffic
on Dow Road.
The project is necessary to stabilize Dow Road and prevent further erosion and undercutting of stream banks and Dow
Road. The plan is to remove and replace a four foot section of separated 30 -inch RCP, extend the 30 -inch RCP by a
total of 16 linear feet on the downstream end, and replace the existing headwalls (Figure 6, attached). The initial 10
linear foot section of new RCP will replace the failing four linear feet of RCP and a second 10 linear foot section of RCP
will help stabilize the road. The 20 linear foot,pipes will result in a net loss of 16 linear feet of stream channel. To tie the
extension into the existing channel grades, and thereby reducing impacts to the downstream channel, a drop structure
needs to be installed. To do this, the initial 10 linear feet of proposed 30 -inch RCP, consisting of a four foot replacement
and a six foot extension, will tie into the existing RCP, while the downstream 10 linear foot extension will have a greater
than six inch drop from the previous section of RCP. In addition to the RCP replacement and extension, a 14 linear foot
rip rap apron will be installed at the outlet of the pipe for energy dissipation.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Under Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 3, unavoidable permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. associated
with this project are limited to a total of 30 linear feet (0.003 acre) of jurisdictional stream channel (Figure 6, attached).
The permanent impacts to Stream A are the result of the installation of a 20 linear feet 30 -inch RCP and associated 14
linear foot rip rap apron (Figure 6; Photograph C, attached).
The proposed 20 linear feet of 30 -inch RCP will consist of a drop structure between 10 linear foot sections of RCP
(stream impact 1 [S1]). The initial 10 linear foot section of new RCP will replace four feet of the existing RCP and extend
the RCP by six feet. This initial 10 linear foot section of 30 -inch RCP will tie into the existing 30 -inch RCP beneath Dow
Road and will permanently impact six linear feet of Stream A. The second 10 linear foot section of 30 -inch RCP will be a
dropped pipe (> 6 inches) that permanently impacts 10 linear feet of Stream A for a total of 16 linear feet of permanent
impacts to Stream A due to a pipe extension.
CMSWS also proposes to install a 14 linear foot rip rap apron (stream impact 2 [S2]) and add headwalls at the inlet and
outlet of the pipe crossing at Dow Road (Figure 6, attached). The proposed rip rap apron will permanently impact 14
linear feet of Stream A, but is necessary to dissipate flows exiting the pipe per the City of Charlotte's design standards.
The rip rap apron will also prevent erosional forces from undermining the outlet.
Permanent impacts to Stream A total 30 linear feet and are the result of a pipe extension and rip rap apron installation.
Page 4 of 13
PCN Form —Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
El Preliminary E] Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known):
Agency/Consultant Company:
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 5 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑ Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ❑ Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
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
W1 El F -1T
❑Yes
El Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
ElCorps
❑ 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)
S1 ®P ❑ T
Pipe Extension
Stream A
® PERINT
®❑ CWQ
4'
16'
S2 ®P ❑ T
Rip Rap Apron
Stream A
El PER
®NT
Z Corps
El DWQ
4'
14'
S3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
❑ PER
❑ Corps
S6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
30 If
3i. Comments: Permanent impacts to Stream A total 30 linear feet.
Page 6 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
4b.
4c.
4d.
4e.
Open water
Name of waterbody
impact number —
(if applicable)
Type of impact
Waterbody type
Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary
01 ❑P❑T
02 ❑ PEI T
03 ❑P❑T
04 ❑P❑T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, the complete the chart below.
5a.
5b.
5c.
5d.
5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (feet)
Upland
Pond ID
Proposed use or purpose
(acres)
number
of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5E Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
❑ Neuse F1 Tar -Pamlico ❑Other:
Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b.
6c.
6d.
6e.
6f.
6g.
Buffer impact
number—
Reason
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or
for
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Temporary T
impact
required?
B1 ❑P❑T
El Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑P❑T
F1 Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑ PEI T
EI Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 7 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent possible. All work will be
constructed in the dry in accordance with Water Quality Certification (WQC) No. 3883. Proper sediment and erosion control
measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters.
Based on a review of the existing pipe by drainage specialist David Kenney, PE (with CMSWS), the current 30 -inch RCP is
undersized for the drainage area that is routed to the pipe. The necessary pipe diameter is 66 inches, but would require
another downstream culvert replacement to handle the passage of additional flows. Moreover, replacing the existing 55 linear
foot 30 -inch RCP with a 66 -inch RCP in entirety is difficult and cost prohibitive due to an existing sewer located above the
current pipe. Therefore, CMSWS proposes that the four foot section of the existing RCP be replaced and then extended by 16
linear feet in order to support the influx of stormwater from surrounding commercial properties. In order to complete the pipe
extension and tie into the existing channel grades, a drop pipe is proposed. Although the drop pipe structure (> 6 -inch drop)
prevents the passage of aquatic life, it is the best option for avoiding and minimizing total channel impacts. Extending the pipe
and installing a drop structure pipe will prevent further erosion and undercutting downstream, as well as prevent future
flooding on residential properties adjacent to the stream. Additionally, to dissipate flows exiting the pipe crossing at Dow
Road, rip rap apron installation and headwall installation on Stream A is unavoidable (Figure 6, attached).
The current stream is in poor condition and is heavily eroded downstream of the existing pipe. As evidenced by the lack of
biology observed and a "LOW" NCSAM score, the proposed drop structure is unlikely to have a negative effect on aquatic life.
The proposed design is the best alternative for preventing future degradation and future negative impacts to Stream A. Other
alternatives would include roughly the same amount of impacts, but require more extensive downstream channel grading.
The project has been thoughtfully designed to avoid all other impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. wherever possible.
We believe that the current site plan is the best possible plan that meets the project goals while avoiding impacts to
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. to the greatest extent practicable.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. have been reduced to the maximum extent possible. All work will be
constructed in the dry in accordance with Water Quality Certification (WQC) No. 3883. Proper sediment and erosion control
measures will be used to minimize disturbances to downstream waters.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
❑ Yes ® No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
❑ Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
ElPayment to in -lieu fee program
project?
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank 1
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
Quantity
Page 8of13
PCN Form —Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f. Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 9 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments:
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: No significant change in impervious area.
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
❑ Certified Local Government,
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
❑ Phase II
❑ NSW
3b. Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a. Which of the following state -implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ ORW
(check all that apply):
❑ Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 10 of 13
PCN Form —Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F. Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
® Yes
❑ No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b.
If you answered, "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes
® No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c.
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
❑ Yes
❑ No
letter.)
Comments:
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes
® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes
® No
2c.
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a.
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes
® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
The project will not result in additional future development.
4.
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non -discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
Page 11 of 13
PCN Form —Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
® Yes ❑ No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
® Yes ❑ No
impacts?
El Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
® Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
CWS performed a data review using North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Data Explorer on February 10,
2016 to determine the presence of any federally-listed, candidate endangered, threatened species, or critical habitat
located within the project area. Based on the NCNHP review, there are no records of federally-protected species within
the project limits or within a mile of the project site. A copy of the data review report is attached. However, the recent
listing of the Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) now requires consultation with the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), until the new Final 4(d) Rule becomes effective on February 16, 2016.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is requesting the documentation of the amount of wooded acres cleared in
connection with any construction project that takes place within any county shown on the January 29, 2016 White-Nose
Syndrome Buffer Zone Map (attached). Per a conversation on January 27, 2016, with Byron Hampstead of the USFWS,
there are no mature roosting trees or hibernacula recorded in Mecklenburg County. In addition, this project only proposes
minimal clearing (less than 0.5 acre). Therefore, this project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the NLEB.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NOAA Fisheries: http://sharpfin.nmfs.noaa.gov/website/EFH_Mapper/map.aspx
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
A letter was forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on February 10, 2016 to determine the presence
of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that would be affected by the project. As of the date
of submittal, no response has been received from the SHPO. CWS also consulted the SHPO online GIS service and the
Charlotte Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission database and found no sites of architectural, historical, or
archaeological significance within the project limits.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain?
❑ Yes ® No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA FIRM No. 3710455800K
Page 12 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

Ms. Erin Turner 2-24-2016
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
Page 13 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

ATTACHMENT A
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATION (JD): 2-24-2016
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Storm Water Services (CMSWS); POC: Ms. Erin Turner
600 East Fourth Street, Charlotte, NC 28202
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
Wilmington District -Asheville Regulatory Field Office
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
located at 8403 Dow Road in Charlotte, North Carolina
(USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WATERBODIES AT DIFFERENT
SITES)
State: NC County/parish/borough: Mecklenburg
City: Charlotte
Center coordinates of site ([at/long in degree decimal format):
Lat. 35.335345 ON; Long. -80.840653
Universal Transverse Mercator: NAD83
Name of nearest waterbody: UT to Long creek
OW
Identify (estimate) amount of waters in the review area:
Non -wetland waters:
106 linear feet: 2-4 width (ft) and/or 0.005 acres.
Cowardin Class: R4SB4
Stream Flow: seasonal
Wetlands: 0 acres.
Cowardin Class:
Name of any water bodies on the site that have been identified as Section 10
waters:
Tidal:
Non -Tidal:
1

E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT
APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
❑✓ Field Determination. Date(s): 2-9-2016
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for preliminary JD
(check all that apply - checked items should be included in case file and,
where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
❑✓ Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant/consultant:
❑✓ Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the
app ' nt/consultant.
Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps
❑✓ U.S. Geological Survey map(s).. Cite scale &Derita, NC (1996quad name: )
❑✓ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey.
Citation: Current (2013) and Historic (1976) for Mecklenburg County
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is:
(National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
❑✓ Photographs: ❑✓ Aerial (Name & Date): NC ONEMAP (2015)
W] Other (Name & Date): Site photographs, dated February 2016
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify):
2
or

1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional waters of the
United States on the subject site, and the permit applicant,or other affected party
who requested this preliminary JD is hereby advised of his or her option to
request and obtain an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) for that site.
Nevertheless, the permit applicant or other person who requested this
preliminary JD has declined to exercise the option to obtain an approved JD in
this instance and at this time.
2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or
a Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring
"pre -construction notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non -reporting
NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an
approved JD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware of the
following: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization
based on a preliminary JD, which does not make an official determination of
jurisdictional waters; (2) that the applicant has the option to request an approved
JD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and
that basing a permit authorization on an approved JD could possibly result in less
compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) that
the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting
the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4)
that the applicant can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply
with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation
requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) that undertaking
any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting
an approved JD constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the
preliminary JD, but that either form of JD will be processed as soon as is
practicable; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps
permit authorization based on a preliminary JD constitutes agreement that all
wetlands and other water bodies on the site affected in any way by that activity
are jurisdictional waters of the United States, and precludes any challenge to
such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement
action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether
the applicant elects to use either an approved JD or a preliminary JD, that JD
will be processed as soon as is practicable. Further, an approved JD, a proffered
individual permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual
permit denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331,
and that in any administrative appeal, jurisdictional issues can be raised (see 33
C.F.R. 331.5(a)(2)). If, during that administrative appeal, it becomes necessary
to make an official determination whether CWA jurisdiction exists over a site, or
to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional waters on the site, the Corps will
provide an approved JD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable.

This preliminary JD finds that there "maybe" waters of the United States on the
subject project site, and identifies all aquatic features on the site that could be
affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not
necessarily been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for
later jurisdictional determinations.
Signature and date of
Regulatory Project Manager
(REQUIRED)
4
aAj,--� 2-24-2016
Signature and date of
person requesting preliminary JD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)

Estimated
Site
Cowardian
Amount of
Class of Aquatic
Latitude
Longitude
Aquatic
Number
Class
Resource in
Resource
Review Area
Seasonal RPW
Stream A
N35.335345
W80.840653
R4SB4
106 If
non -section 10 -- non -tidal

NC D WO Stream Identification Form VerMon 4.11
W
A. Geomorphology Subtotal ao J }
ProjeetJSlt4 � j DO',<'4Y A #;j
Latitude: , -� 5 3L
Evaluator: � �, � f�g
T11�'
County: t, l
'tn_,, I'YI,"10
Longitude: -80,3�q0
` __ 7
4<
5
Total Points:
Stream Determination {circle one)
Other OWY'Oefllve lei
StreAmisatleast lydermitl�ent
r : 19 cr erennieloTz 30'
Ephemera n t3 tt M t perennial
e.g. Quad Name:.
�L
W
A. Geomorphology Subtotal ao J }
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18' Coritin6ity or channel bad and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool; step -pool,
ri le- ool.s uence
0
G
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
11
1
`1
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
D
No = 0
2.
3
ti, Depositional bars or benches
0
2
3
7..Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
3
B. 'Headcuts
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0.5
1
1a. Natural valley
0.5
1
1.5
11.8aoond Qr.greater order channel
tN =_
Sketch;
Yes = 3
"artificial ditches are not rated,; see dlscusslans in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal= a
12. Presence of Baseflow
:0
1
2�
3
13.. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
16. Sediment on plants or debris
0
1
1.5
18. Organic debris fines or piles
4
1
1.5
17, Soil -based evidence of high-water table?
0,5
No = 0
1
es ='3
C_ Pialo6v fSuhtotal = 1.
18. Fibrous roots in streambed B
2
1
6
19. (tooted upland plantsIn streambed
2
1
D
ZD. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance):
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mdllusksb
1'
2
3
22. Fish
0,&
1
1.5
23, Crayfish
0,5
1
1.6
24. Amphibians
Q:5
1'
1.5
25. Algae ')
0.5_
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW 0_.75; bl3L =1.5 t r =
"perennial streams rNy also be identified using other methods. Sea p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch;

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Projec115ite:U,`xI%td v7C1Eaa Citylcountys4t`�"1` l'[.a L% Scnritpllnrd Date: `q" Ile j
Applicanllowner:.Cy)(rty(,Ai1-( - MW'U r10'3U t , 'I"oY lrr t _JL4 '1r 1'- JrPf lfiAa P ' S Siate: N C' sampling Poin bri
Investigator{s):. d t. Lift `� Section, Township, Range:.-. it LQ Liu Ic
I-andform (hilislope, terrace, etc.):. ''kyt t r t Local relief (c=oncave, convex, none): �!)J� tP. Slope (96)i Ci � •�
Subregion (LRR or C Lf2A 1 24 {t) t.®l:ii Lori Daturii;''
soil Map Unit Namo: - a'fN , ,+1t•t j&&L'3 t 1"i iJ'rll classificaitiori "nti�
Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the sill typical for this time of year? Yes �� No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrolpgy signifcanily disturbed? Are'Wbrmal Circumstances" present? Yes + -No.
Are Vegetation Sol) or Hydrology _naturally prab'cmatic? (if needed, explain any answers In Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS —Attach site map showing sampling poirit locc:itions, tear►sects, Miportaiit features; etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
HydricSoll Present? Yes Nom within Wetland? Yes No
Welland Hydrology,Presena Yes No_:??_
Rema_ rksi
i
HYI IROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators;
Secondary Indicators (minimum of live required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one Is reaulred•
check nli that apply)
Surface Sail CracpS (86)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (A14) a
Sparsely Vegetated Concave, Surface'{68)
_ High Water Tabfa'(A2)
— Hydrogen 5ultide odor (C1) _
Drainage Patterns (Bill)
— Saturation (A3)
_ "Qxldized Rhizasphdres on Living Rcots (C3) _
Moss Trlm Lines (816)
— Water Marks.(f3'1)
_ Presence of R,aduced Iron (C4) _
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132)
® RecenL Iron Reduction in Tilled Sails (C6) _
Crayflsh. Burrows IC8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
Titin Muck Surface (C7) =
5aturati'on Visible on Aerial.lmagery (C9)•
Algal Mat or Crust (84)
_other (Explain in Remarks) _Stunted
ar Stressed Plants (Dj)
_ lr"dA Ddpasils (85)
_
Geomgrphic Position (D2)
_ inundatian V(sible on Aerial Imagery
(87) _
Shallow Aquitard (03)
r Water -Stained -Leaves 039_)
_
Kcratopographic Relief (04)
_ Aquatic Farina (1313)
_
FAC.Neutral Test (Ds)
Field Observations.
Surface Water Present? Yes
Nn s_ Depth (Inches),
Water Table Present? Yes.
No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present?. Yes
'No Depth (inches).
Wetland Hydralogy Present? Yes ig
ncludes capillary[rine)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring ~veil, aerial phatgs, previous .hspoctions),'if available:
Remarks:
(af a
US Army Corps 6f Engineers Eastern Mouritafns and Piedmont - V&fsiun 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific. names cf pkants'
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree strattim (Plot size; Cover
SpQLfas?
| ------� ------�-----
|� ----------------'
. ~-_----
. ->~ Total cove
50% of 10 1 MV01: 20% of total Cover
(Plot
a_______ _______
u
r
~Totx|C*nr
total rover, 20% of total cover:
Herb 5
V—stunj�
-�
CIALO
E__-______
7
of
Wobdy Vine Stratum (Plot size,:
----------------
1-q,p&Test foruyumnkylicVagbiatkm
2^Dominance Test is >5D%
n'PvevalvncnIndex bQ.0`
-_4'Mv,olfolo$icd[Adapmwmm`(Provide supporting
data |nRemarks ^rwnwseparate ohev)
pmhlb-madcxydmph)WoveyolaUon,(E,plo|n)
Indicators of nyddc soil and wetland hydrology must
be presq�t . unless disturbed or probl.orn.a tic.
Troe - Wood), plants, excluding viriesi 1 in*, (7-6 CM) or
more in diamadir dbreast height (DEN). regardless of
Sapling/Shrub— Woody plants, excjjdin�yirios, wss
n
mnnmkzzmHmm��us�m�r�o �1m U
M) tall.
morb- All herbaceous [bon-vjoady)'plants, regardless
w'm:�and w*vdyplamwless than 3.cuft. mu,
.Woody vine — All woqdy vines greater than 3.2.8 ft in
Hydrophyties
------ ----' Vegeta-
_AL-'�=Total pove |� P'�s��`=~�_--
�m
6u%urmum
y,omo���Lcu�vxm|eo.�___ �
or on -a separate stiaot.)
-/�P 0
Ny^40111H'l (i �l 4 V
LS Army corps or cri.qnmers; Eastern, MoLinwmsand Piedmont - Version m.0
Dominance Test worltslheet:
Number of Mirrilrialrit 5pecins
9V
Total Number of Dominant
Sipecies Across All Sfrala;
Percent of Dominant Species
TbatAre OBL FAc�,ormC:
(AM)
Total % Cover of:_TolultiplyU§y;
OBI-spuueo
F$CwspudO______^ xu~_______
pnC.xpmdon x3-________
FAouspwcley
VpL species xa~_______
Column Totals: (o
Prevalence index ~BIn~__________
1-q,p&Test foruyumnkylicVagbiatkm
2^Dominance Test is >5D%
n'PvevalvncnIndex bQ.0`
-_4'Mv,olfolo$icd[Adapmwmm`(Provide supporting
data |nRemarks ^rwnwseparate ohev)
pmhlb-madcxydmph)WoveyolaUon,(E,plo|n)
Indicators of nyddc soil and wetland hydrology must
be presq�t . unless disturbed or probl.orn.a tic.
Troe - Wood), plants, excluding viriesi 1 in*, (7-6 CM) or
more in diamadir dbreast height (DEN). regardless of
Sapling/Shrub— Woody plants, excjjdin�yirios, wss
n
mnnmkzzmHmm��us�m�r�o �1m U
M) tall.
morb- All herbaceous [bon-vjoady)'plants, regardless
w'm:�and w*vdyplamwless than 3.cuft. mu,
.Woody vine — All woqdy vines greater than 3.2.8 ft in
Hydrophyties
------ ----' Vegeta-
_AL-'�=Total pove |� P'�s��`=~�_--
�m
6u%urmum
y,omo���Lcu�vxm|eo.�___ �
or on -a separate stiaot.)
-/�P 0
Ny^40111H'l (i �l 4 V
LS Army corps or cri.qnmers; Eastern, MoLinwmsand Piedmont - Version m.0

SOIL L Sampling Point: MIN 0
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to dorurnent the indicator or confirm the absence ioF indicators.)
Depth Ntalrix
Redox Features
(frichesl Calorlmoist)
Color frrol5ii T. Toxwri? Remarks
L
I o o,
Jif e4
ITVI)d: C --Concentration, D=Dapletion, RNI-Reduced Matrlx, MSWasked Sand Grains. `Location: PL=PDra Lining, WMairix,
i&1Ydfi&-S4Yi1 fndicator$:
Indic Ators 156rProblornpilicHydric $dile;
Histosol (A1)
Dark Surface (S7) .2 cm Muck,CA10) (MLRA 147)
[IIsdc EpIpedon (A2)
= Polyvalue Below Slirfade (SB) (MLRA 147,143) Gciast Prairie Redox (A16)
B16ck HISUE: (A3)
ThIn Dark 5urr6cb (54) .(MLRA 147,140}' (MLRA 147,146)
Hydrogah SuIrida (A4)
— Loamy Glpyed Matrix (F2) Nedrnont Floodplain Solis - (F1 9)
Stratifled Laym.(A5)
— Oupleted Matrix (F31 (MLRA 130, 947)
2 cri! Muck (,klOj 'COR N)
— Redox. Dark surrace (176) Vary ShalloW Dark Surface (TF12)
Depicted Wpw Dark Surface (All)
— . Depict . ad Dark Surface W -n Other (Explaln In Remarks)
Thick Dark Surfaces (Al2)
Redox Depressions.(H)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) (LRR N,
Iron-MarildnesaiMasses (F12) (LRR.N,
MiRA 147, 146)
IIALRA 136)
Sandy Glayed Matrix C54)
Wbric Sufface'(F13) PLAA 1138,122) :'Indicators of fiydraphytY vegetation and
Sandy Redox ($5)
Piedniont Floodplain Salls (17119) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be presorit.
—.81ripoed.Malft (SS)
Red Pardnt,Materlal (F21) (MI -14A 127,147) unless disturbed orproblernwic'.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (Inrlies)!
FHydrit$oll Present? Yes— No
Rerna6s;
0 rc
J
,Up Aroij Carpe 61 E'n9inem Eastern Mountains and Ple'dinont – V ersion 2.0

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
user manual version z.i
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): 8403 Dow Road 2. Date of evaluation: 2-9-16
3. Applicant/owner name: Ms. Erin Turner 4. Assessor name/organization: KJM & AVH; CWS, Inc.
5. County: Mecklenburg 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: Santee on USGS 7.5 -minute quad: Long Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.335345°, -80.840653-
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
Stream A: Reach
9. Site number (show on attached map): 1 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 106 If
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 3 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 4 ' 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ❑Perennial flow ®Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ®A �l ❑B
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ®Size 1 (< 0.1 mit) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mit) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mit) ❑Size 4 (_> 5 miz)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (01 ❑11 ❑III []IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish 0303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ®Yes [:]No
1. Channel Water - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
®A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
❑B Not A
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
®A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
❑B Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile -assessment reach metric
®A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
❑B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
®C > 25% of channel unstable

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

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

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

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
.Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name 8403 Dow Road Date of Assessment
2-9-16
Stream Category Pal Assessor Name/Organization KJM & AVH; CWS, Inc.
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Intermittent
.USACE/
NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
LOW
(4) Microtopography
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
LOW
LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
LOW
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
MEDIUM
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
NA
Overall
LOW
LOW

8403 Dow Road Pipe Maintenance Project February 24, 2016
Nationwide Permit No 3 CWS Project No. 2016-3888
Photograph A. View of Seasonal RPW Stream A, facing upstream.
Photograph B. View of the existing culvert inlet for Seasonal RPW Stream A, facing downstream.

8403 Dow Road Pipe Maintenance Project February 24, 2016
Nationwide Permit No. 3 CWS Project No. 2016-3888
Photograph C. View of the failed culvert outlet to be replaced, facing upstream.
Photograph D. View of Seasonal RPW Stream A, facing downstream

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Pat McCrory Bryan Gossage Susan Kluttz
Governor Executive Director Secretary
Clean Water Management Trust Fund
NCNHDE-1233
February 10, 2016
Kaitlin McCulloch
Carolina Wetlands Inc
550 East Westinghouse Blvd
Charlotte, NC 28273
[e-mail]
RE: 8403 Dow Road; 2016-3888
Dear Kaitlin McCulloch:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide information
about natural heritage resources from our database that have been compiled for the project referenced
above.
A query of the NCNHP database, based on the project area mapped with your request, indicates that there
are no records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, or conservation/managed
areas within the proposed project boundary. Please note that although there may be no documentation of
natural heritage elements within the project boundary, it does not imply or confirm their absence; the area
may not have been surveyed. The results of this query should not be substituted for site-specific surveys
where suitable habitat exists. In the event that rare species are found within the project area, please contact
the NCNHP so that we may update our records.
The attached 'Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that have
been documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these records
suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area if suitable
habitat exists and is included for reference.
Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed area within a one -mile radius of the project area, if any,
are also included in this report. The location of the natural areas and conservation/managed areas can be
viewed online on the Natural Heritage Data Explorer found at: https:Hncnhde.natureserve.ora/.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation planning,
project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria for regulatory
decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published without prior written
notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information source in these publications.
Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission.
The NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a Dedicated Nature
Preserve (DNP), Registered Heritage Area (RHA), or Federally -listed species are documented near the
project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance, please
contact John Finnegan at john.finneganencdenr.gov or 919.707.8630.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
Page 1 of 3

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
8403 Dow Road
Project No. 2016-3888
February 10, 2016
NCNHDE-1233
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID Scientific Name Common Name Last
Group Observation
Date
Vascular Plant 13743 Delphinium exaltatum Tall Larkspur 1800S
Vascular Plant 33285 Sceptridium jenmanii Alabama Grape -fern 1936-09
No Natural Areas are Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Name Owner
Mecklenburg County Open Space Mecklenburg County
Element
Accuracy
Federal
State
Global
State
Occurrence
Status
Status
Rank
Rank
Status
Historical
5 -Very
Species of
Endangered
G3
S2
Low
Concern
Historical
5 -Very
---
Special
G3G4
S2
Low
Concern
Vulnerable
Owner Type
Local Government
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at hhttps://ncnhde.natureserve.ora/content/helo. Data query generated on February 10, 2016; source: NCNHP, Q4 October 2015. Please resubmit
your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 3

NCNHDE-1 233: 8403 Dow Road
February 10, 2016
Project Boundary
J Buffered Project Boundary
Managed Area (MAREA)
01 Rd-*
Page 3 of 3
1:20,535
0 0.175 0.35 0.7 mi
0 0.275 0.55 1.1 km
Sate— E.,, HERE D -L-- INeP, Ml ­t P C.,P. GEBCO,
USGS. FAO.
NPS, Nkl—
AN, G-8-, IGN, Kad.,te, NL, Old -Me Survey.

Q `S 1 I/ r rhym. °aSmvup'a
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
uJ
Northern Long -Eared Bat Final 4(d) Rule
c, 3.ja'9 White -Nose Syndrome Zone Around WNS/Pd Positive Counties/Districts
9
.� ? v / axe m. �_'• . jIS'' � s
�.... 5.
Map Created January 29, 2016
,J
-- Counties/Districts with WNS/Pd
Infected Hibernacula
White -Nose Syndrome Zone
Per Final 4(d) Rule
,.,-`• U.S. counties within 150 miles of positive
counties/districts (Data as of 01/26/16;
additional updates expected)
Northern Lon Eared Bat Range
(As of 04/30/2015)
I Y I
i 5 Northern Long -Eared Bat range and WNS Zone
subject to change as new data are collected.
_ WNS =White -Nose Syndrome
Pd = Pseudogymnoascus destructans; the
-a. fungus that causes WNS
30
, Coordinate System: WNS Counties/Districts Data Provided By: 0: 450 X600 3 North America Equidistant Conic Pennsylvania Game Commission
Miles Datum: North American 1983 Basemap Data: USGS

77'
76F
76,
76(
751
75:
741
744
0+00
0+50
'60
'56
'52
BEEN
PIPE JOINT
WRAPPING DETAIL
'72 I 76E
'68 1 761
'64 1 76(
160 1 751
756 1 75:
752 1 741
744
1+00
IP
8403 DOW ROAD
DRIVEYWAY PIPE
MEE REMOVAL
DOW RDA D
STORM DRAINAGE MANHOLE
/
CATCH BASIN
5 4
YARD INLET/ DROP INLET
2
aa�
SYMBOL
U'GROUND POWER
UE
1
TV
/
R.20 IF
2.
EXIST. O'HEAD ELECTRIC
OE -- -
PROP. DRAIN PIPE
......
GE ALDI
DERYOUNG REMBERT
DB 315
14697
84133 DOW DOW RD.
/ I
\ I�
- -----
_ --------037-236-4D
TEMP. SILT FENCE
I{I
_
�3
744
0+00
0+50
'60
'56
'52
BEEN
PIPE JOINT
WRAPPING DETAIL
'72 I 76E
'68 1 761
'64 1 76(
160 1 751
756 1 75:
752 1 741
744
1+00
IP
740
1+00
1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00
2+75 1
68
64
60
'56
'52
'48
'44
740
4+50
\�
MEE REMOVAL
DOW RDA D
STORM DRAINAGE MANHOLE
/
CATCH BASIN
m
YARD INLET/ DROP INLET
2
3
SYMBOL
U'GROUND POWER
UE
1
TV
/
5 -OS
EXIST. O'HEAD ELECTRIC
OE -- -
PROP. DRAIN PIPE
......
GE ALDI
DERYOUNG REMBERT
DB 315
14697
84133 DOW DOW RD.
/ I
\ I�
- -----
_ --------037-236-4D
TEMP. SILT FENCE
I{I
_
�3
\
037-236-4D
igBE
a
I
I
,_GREQ'HUGFIES
- - TAMMY BIRMINGHAM 4A
/
8403 Do Rd
pk
\ 1u
FFE=75 i.90
63 ]Dow Rd
1
F E=154.13
'
B' S5 OVEII
T
%IS . 3 RC 0 7.
—
o.-----
---
10
----
----- — — — — —
----- ------ -- ---
---- ------
EtiY� a7.M
NJECR
REPAIR POINTS.
----- ---- PROP. CHECK M O
------- PROJECT HITS.
30.63 Y CONCRETE
C TO JOIN PIPES.
H: 1"=20'
v:1
740
1+00
1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00
2+75 1
68
64
60
'56
'52
'48
'44
740
4+50
w\ AUSTIN HUGHES y
v n 2+90 PROP. TYPE IV CONCRETE DRIVEWAY '1 \ DB 23391-731,
Iw. s' sCL T �51pe- x� m w
(Dn4W+_ px 25ad'I�l pV.van1 r
a �a m Isv
��mufwl
A
x„ --I- :ED��t paAVPtf .Wrl
SECTION A-
T=
-
T t0 e[ JBm PSI. r2YPKsh1
z. aTc
cmFiN'[En"'A'' u�i��iIXIK pstan� aF t�
TYPE IV DRIVEWAY
TC
H: V=10' APRON, 326 Sy 6' CONIC. DRIVE ' I I; \ \ BA08-DOW
1"
=2' 764 \ \ :�
EX TREE TO REMAIN,
760
±2.1 TREE PROTECTION FENCE. f/' j / SS
-- EX. GRAVEL DRIVEWAY TO BE RESTORED rf / / �5 / /
756 AFTER CONSTRUCTION, 315TH GRAVEL4: I yl I O �TP ZAIV / % �� / S/�iss�'"°`O�p• —
752 CL FT1C. ,s7_ W Q. -I('I` /
EX. GRADE V -,x .— O I /SZ
PROP. GRAD — 748 3
\ I'
PROP. 30' RCP 744 w IDIn
0 10 20 IX. POWER POLE TO REMAIN. MAINTAIN5 �P POLE3 TO REMAIN: MAINTAIN i
TIM DURING CONSTRUCTION
——5'-&EPARA4TON-OURINB•CTRONSiRDCTION. 55 ////� k MAILS AIN?OSE /
INSTALL 331LF EE FENCE AS NEEDED_ - / S4A !y
TO PROTECT. CAUTIOI( DURING�CONSTRUCT GN.
CONTRACTOR TO CLEAR KUDZU FOR l \ E R ; / / ES7�LISH BYPASS PUNNWING AS NECEtSARY FOR
CONSTRUCTION AND GRADING (?85-SY).. 2 \ ,SITE CONDITIONS: jTUP TO 8E,WITHIN R/W/-
___...._11; SILT FENCE 1 5 J . r I �_� STA9IUZE SS SIP 10�'THICK (191 I(1N
i
w�
qsp.. __... ._._... ___ .___ 1 S /
e PROP. TCE VARIES -J,- I I / LL $COMPACT AT 2:1 MIN!SLOPE; /
/ /
mI PROP. 30' POE I ' ' .CY BORROW MATERIAL k 32.5 TO SELECT,
PR, LF \\ - IUZE SLOPE WITH 'COIR MA7l p AND RESEED.
PROP. SLOPE. 81P RAP APRON O To -" - _ /tRCPO 0.
OS7-235-06 of. SLOPE 8' W, 14' 1, 18' D. \ Oi"
KENNETH D. BYA S F08M TO CHANNEL (±8 TONS
DB 9724-441 YJ`� O 'max (A� PR OLF 30' ~VINDICATES L T)QN OF PROPOSED
8403 DOW RD. c, JA -- / I - INJECTION REPAIR OF FAILURE IDENTIFIED
RCP 1.MW' ; / / FROM$IPE VIDEO INSPECTION (5). 037-236-45
M.D. HAMPTON
PROPERTIES, LLC
m 1 CONTRACTOR TO REPAIR ASPHALT
DAMAGED BY CONSTRUCTION. DB 13601-556
1s4"` x BLDG. / 840D DOW RD.
30.65 CY CONCRETE PIPE COLLAR.
AT PIPE JOINT STA. 3+01.73.
36 CY BORROWT MATERIAL & 36 T ONS SELECT,
STABIUZE SLOPE WITH COIR MATTING AND RESEED.
�. TR— ! -'" "/ / ,Pr /I ( I 1N, RE-STABIUZE BANKS WITH COIR
..-¢ Co 62 MATTING AND RESEED.
IL / / TEMPORARY ROCK CHECK DAM
(CLDS. 30.10) CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE
SILT AND DAM UPON COMPLETION.
EW4CC
4 K
�.- / ❑tUNE "INV-
/ 55j�/ DECK AI Li 760.OB
FT -
4.13
BLDG. /
GONG. I I
s�AMMII ARr SEWO+ i PAD 037-235-07
JAMES MICHAEL 037-236-44
TENCH, JR.
`]E DB 21940-768 M.D. HAMPTON
PROPERTIES.
E C
8327 DOW RD. I I DB13601556
8328 DOW RD.
1M�
WB
BLDCC�L
VICINITY MAP NTS
1.GENERAL - R I TON ND
CONTRACTACT OR TIE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING
A
APPROPRIATE PARTIES AND ASSURING THAT EXISTING UTILITIES
ARE LOCATED PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION.
2. CONTRACTOR TO MAINTAIN 5' OF SEPARATION FROM ALL
EXISTING UTILITY POLES NOT TO BE RELOCATED.
3. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PLACING ALL TRAFFIC
CONTROL DEVICES AND SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE CHARLOTTE DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION (COOT) WORK
AREA TRAFFIC CONTROL HANDBOOK (W.a T.C.H.).
4. STORM PIPE INSTALLATION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
NCDOT STANDARD DETAIL 300.01.
5. ALL STORM WATER PIPE LENGTHS SHOWN ARE FROM CENTER
OF STRUCTURE TO CENTER OF STRUCTURE. PROPOSED PIPES ARE
CLIII RCP UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED.
NAME SYMBOL
TREE BARRICADE
\�
MEE REMOVAL
STORM DRAINAGE MANHOLE
/
CATCH BASIN
m
YARD INLET/ DROP INLET
IBM
NAME
SYMBOL
U'GROUND POWER
UE
U'GROUND CABLE ry
TV
/
5 -OS
EXIST. O'HEAD ELECTRIC
OE -- -
PROP. DRAIN PIPE
......
GE ALDI
DERYOUNG REMBERT
DB 315
14697
84133 DOW DOW RD.
/ I
\ I�
- -----
_ --------037-236-4D
TEMP. SILT FENCE
I{I
_
32DLF E%. 15' RCP, TO
\
037-236-4D
1
BE REMOVED k REPLACED.
I
I
,_GREQ'HUGFIES
- - TAMMY BIRMINGHAM 4A
/
w\ AUSTIN HUGHES y
v n 2+90 PROP. TYPE IV CONCRETE DRIVEWAY '1 \ DB 23391-731,
Iw. s' sCL T �51pe- x� m w
(Dn4W+_ px 25ad'I�l pV.van1 r
a �a m Isv
��mufwl
A
x„ --I- :ED��t paAVPtf .Wrl
SECTION A-
T=
-
T t0 e[ JBm PSI. r2YPKsh1
z. aTc
cmFiN'[En"'A'' u�i��iIXIK pstan� aF t�
TYPE IV DRIVEWAY
TC
H: V=10' APRON, 326 Sy 6' CONIC. DRIVE ' I I; \ \ BA08-DOW
1"
=2' 764 \ \ :�
EX TREE TO REMAIN,
760
±2.1 TREE PROTECTION FENCE. f/' j / SS
-- EX. GRAVEL DRIVEWAY TO BE RESTORED rf / / �5 / /
756 AFTER CONSTRUCTION, 315TH GRAVEL4: I yl I O �TP ZAIV / % �� / S/�iss�'"°`O�p• —
752 CL FT1C. ,s7_ W Q. -I('I` /
EX. GRADE V -,x .— O I /SZ
PROP. GRAD — 748 3
\ I'
PROP. 30' RCP 744 w IDIn
0 10 20 IX. POWER POLE TO REMAIN. MAINTAIN5 �P POLE3 TO REMAIN: MAINTAIN i
TIM DURING CONSTRUCTION
——5'-&EPARA4TON-OURINB•CTRONSiRDCTION. 55 ////� k MAILS AIN?OSE /
INSTALL 331LF EE FENCE AS NEEDED_ - / S4A !y
TO PROTECT. CAUTIOI( DURING�CONSTRUCT GN.
CONTRACTOR TO CLEAR KUDZU FOR l \ E R ; / / ES7�LISH BYPASS PUNNWING AS NECEtSARY FOR
CONSTRUCTION AND GRADING (?85-SY).. 2 \ ,SITE CONDITIONS: jTUP TO 8E,WITHIN R/W/-
___...._11; SILT FENCE 1 5 J . r I �_� STA9IUZE SS SIP 10�'THICK (191 I(1N
i
w�
qsp.. __... ._._... ___ .___ 1 S /
e PROP. TCE VARIES -J,- I I / LL $COMPACT AT 2:1 MIN!SLOPE; /
/ /
mI PROP. 30' POE I ' ' .CY BORROW MATERIAL k 32.5 TO SELECT,
PR, LF \\ - IUZE SLOPE WITH 'COIR MA7l p AND RESEED.
PROP. SLOPE. 81P RAP APRON O To -" - _ /tRCPO 0.
OS7-235-06 of. SLOPE 8' W, 14' 1, 18' D. \ Oi"
KENNETH D. BYA S F08M TO CHANNEL (±8 TONS
DB 9724-441 YJ`� O 'max (A� PR OLF 30' ~VINDICATES L T)QN OF PROPOSED
8403 DOW RD. c, JA -- / I - INJECTION REPAIR OF FAILURE IDENTIFIED
RCP 1.MW' ; / / FROM$IPE VIDEO INSPECTION (5). 037-236-45
M.D. HAMPTON
PROPERTIES, LLC
m 1 CONTRACTOR TO REPAIR ASPHALT
DAMAGED BY CONSTRUCTION. DB 13601-556
1s4"` x BLDG. / 840D DOW RD.
30.65 CY CONCRETE PIPE COLLAR.
AT PIPE JOINT STA. 3+01.73.
36 CY BORROWT MATERIAL & 36 T ONS SELECT,
STABIUZE SLOPE WITH COIR MATTING AND RESEED.
�. TR— ! -'" "/ / ,Pr /I ( I 1N, RE-STABIUZE BANKS WITH COIR
..-¢ Co 62 MATTING AND RESEED.
IL / / TEMPORARY ROCK CHECK DAM
(CLDS. 30.10) CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE
SILT AND DAM UPON COMPLETION.
EW4CC
4 K
�.- / ❑tUNE "INV-
/ 55j�/ DECK AI Li 760.OB
FT -
4.13
BLDG. /
GONG. I I
s�AMMII ARr SEWO+ i PAD 037-235-07
JAMES MICHAEL 037-236-44
TENCH, JR.
`]E DB 21940-768 M.D. HAMPTON
PROPERTIES.
E C
8327 DOW RD. I I DB13601556
8328 DOW RD.
1M�
WB
BLDCC�L
VICINITY MAP NTS
1.GENERAL - R I TON ND
CONTRACTACT OR TIE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING
A
APPROPRIATE PARTIES AND ASSURING THAT EXISTING UTILITIES
ARE LOCATED PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION.
2. CONTRACTOR TO MAINTAIN 5' OF SEPARATION FROM ALL
EXISTING UTILITY POLES NOT TO BE RELOCATED.
3. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PLACING ALL TRAFFIC
CONTROL DEVICES AND SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE CHARLOTTE DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION (COOT) WORK
AREA TRAFFIC CONTROL HANDBOOK (W.a T.C.H.).
4. STORM PIPE INSTALLATION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
NCDOT STANDARD DETAIL 300.01.
5. ALL STORM WATER PIPE LENGTHS SHOWN ARE FROM CENTER
OF STRUCTURE TO CENTER OF STRUCTURE. PROPOSED PIPES ARE
CLIII RCP UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED.
NAME SYMBOL
TREE BARRICADE
\�
MEE REMOVAL
STORM DRAINAGE MANHOLE
^X
C
CATCH BASIN
m
YARD INLET/ DROP INLET
IBM
NAME
SYMBOL
EXIST. PROPERTY UNE ----------
EXISTING FENCE
EXISTING WATER
W zWImET�
EXISTING SEWER
SS
EXISTING GAS
G
U'GROUND TELEPHDNE
UT
U'GROUND POWER
UE
U'GROUND CABLE ry
TV
U'GROUND FIBRE OPTIC
FO --
EXIST. O'HEAD ELECTRIC
OE -- -
PROP. DRAIN PIPE
STORM DRAINAGE ESMT
mE SDE—
TEMPORARY EASEMENT
TREE PROTECTION FENCE
TEMP. SILT FENCE
JOINT REPAIRS
CONTRACTOR TO USE HYDROPHILIC AND/OR HYDROPHOBIC POLYURETHANE
INJECTION RESIN TO REPAIR PIPE JOINTS AND BACK -GROUT. WHEN USING
HYDROPHOBIC POLYURETHANE. IT SHALL BE MOISTURE ACTIVATED AND THE
APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF CATALYST SHALL BE USED BASED ON SITE
CONDITIONS AND MANUFACTURERS RECOMMEND RATES. JUTE OAKUM (OR
.APPROVED EQUAL) TO BE USED AS CONTAINMENT DAM AS NEEDED.
INJECTION RESIN SHALL BE CERTIFIED TO BE USED IN POTABLE WATER 1
SYSTEMS. U
SUBMIT SPECIFICATIONS FOIE ALL MATERIALS, RELATIVE EXPERIENCE AND A
COPY OF CONTRACTOR'S CONFINED SPACE PLAN (IF NECESSARY) TO
ENGINEER AND OWNER AT LEAST 10 WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO STARTING
CONSTRUCTION. NO WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED PRIOR TO RECEIVING
WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM CITY. W
Wa
GENERAL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FOLLOWING
1. ESPONS THAT
FOR APPROPRIATE CONFINED SPACE ENTRY PRACTICES WITH
MTIISI
ME ODS AL MEET ALL OSHA REQUIREMENTS.
2. RIGHT OF WA TRAFFIC CONTROL W. PROTECT ASSOCIATED WORK IN THE O O
RIGHT W WAY THAT CMEETSONDUIT
THE W.AT. C.H. MANUAL AF4i/) A4WWW/
3.AN DEWATERING OF CONDUIT IN PREPARATION FOR SEALING, BACKGROUTNC,
AND COATING PROCESS IF NEEDED.
4. CLEANING OF CULVERT INVERTS PRIOR 1D REPAIRS. PROTRUDING AREAS IN
THE INVERT SHALL IE EITHER ES AWAY AND DISPOSED, OR RAMNERED OUT
SO AREA NO WITH
CM PROTRUDES INTO PIPE INTERIOR
S. COORDINATE H1H CMSWS INSPECTOR FOR SCHEDUUER OF CCTV AS NEEDED.
fi.RE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AS NECESSARY PER qtt AND STALE
REIX ILATONTS.A
,. VATERAL N AND AIR FUAUtt DETECTONBLOWOUTS
OF WORK AREA.
R. STORM AL NEEDED TO FILL LARGE BLOWOUTS OR SINK HOLES ADJACENT TO 0 l
STORM DRAINAGE PIPES BONG REPAIRED. I�1
9.ALL BEAN UP OF WORK AREA
rl
C.4EL xC Btt
BEFgtE YOU DIC O I\
0 20 GC � 111
10
t-80D-ett
SCALE: 1'=20' AMD UTu DAPACE '