20180307 Ver 2_External response DMS Letter_20180606

Strickland, Bev
From:
Jason Marshall <[e-mail]>
Sent:
Wednesday, June 06, 2018 4:40 PM
To:
Higgins, Karen; Wojoski, Paul A
Cc:
Bartlett, Nicole; Lindsay Matthy; Woodie, David; Fertenbaugh, Christyn L
Subject:
RE: [External] Stevens Creek Trunk Sewer response DMS Letter
Attachments:
07 -Michael, Jeremy final -failure rate.pdf, 01 -EMC Variance Letter - 06.06.2018.pdf, 02-
Variance-Application-Form_5-10-2018-Update.pdf, 03-Variance-Question-C3-
Mitigation.pdf, 04-AGENT_AUTHORIZATION_FORM.pdf, 05 -11123681 -Stevens Creek -
FINAL DESIGN 5-31-18.pdf, 06 -Stevens Creek Trunk Sewer Phase 1 rev.pdf
Karen,
Please see the attached submittal response to your comments dated May 24, 2018. Please let me know if there is
anything else you need or if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Jason
From: Higgins, Karen <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 2:29 PM
To: Jason Marshall <Jason.Marshall @ghd.com>; Wojoski, Paul A <[e-mail]>
Cc: Bartlett, Nicole <[e-mail]>; Lindsay Matthy <[e-mail]>; Woodie, David
<[e-mail]>; Fertenbaugh, Christyn L <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] Stevens Creek Trunk Sewer response DMS Letter
Jason -
Please see attached request for additional information. Please note the letter gives 30 days for a response,
however for this project to make the July WQC meeting, I will need this add info ASAP.
Thanks -
Karen
Karen Higgins
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch Supervisor
Division of Water Resources
Department of Environmental Quality
[phone] office
karen.higginsa-ncdenr.gov
-wetlands-buffer-
permitshttps://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-permits/wastewater-branch/401

512 N. Salisbury Street (Archdale Building), Suite 942-E, Raleigh, NC 27604
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed
to third parties.
From: Jason Marshall [mailto:Jason.Marshal [e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 1:24 PM
To: Higgins, Karen <[e-mail]>; Wojoski, Paul A <[e-mail]>
Cc: Bartlett, Nicole <[e-mail]>; Lindsay Matthy <[e-mail]>; Woodie, David
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Stevens Creek Trunk Sewer response DMS Letter
Karen,
Please see the attached letter of acceptance for mitigation by NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services. At this point we
would only plan to use this If required to do so pending EMC decisions on whether we can use the stream restoration
and mitigating effects of sewer as mitigation. The worst case area required for mitigation covers a 15' wide permanent
maintenance corridor totaling 121,546 sf within the 200' buffer. If required to make a payment do you think the EMC
would take into consideration a reduced amount due to mitigating effects of stream restoration? Please let me know if
there is anything else you need.
Regards,
Jason Marshall, PE
GHD
T: [phone] V: 864913 1 E: [e-mail]
222 South Church Street Suite 400 Charlotte North Carolina 28202 USA I www.ghd.com
WATER I ENERGY & RESOURCES I ENVIRONMENT I PROPERTY & BUILDINGS I TRANSPORTATION
Please consider our environment before printing this email
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email, including any attachments, is confidential and may be privileged
If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender immediately, and please delete it; you should not
copy it or use it for any purpose or disclose its contents to any other person. GHD and its affiliates reserve the
right to monitor and modify all email communications through their networks.
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email, including any attachments, is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not
the intended recipient please notify the sender immediately, and please delete it; you should not copy it or use it for any
purpose or disclose its contents to any other person. GHD and its affiliates reserve the right to monitor and modify all
email communications through their networks.

1
June 6, 2018 Reference No. 11123681
North Carolina Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
Attn: Ms. Karen Higgins
512 N. Salisbury Street, Suite 942-E
Raleigh, NC 27604
Dear Ms. Higgins:
Re: Request for Additional Information - Stevens Creek Trunk Sewer Phase 1
ect Name: Stevens Creek Trunk Sewer
Coordinates: approximately (35.146,-80.650)
GHD Job Number: 11123681
Charlotte Water Project Number: 2017000405
In response to your letter dated May 24, 2018, we have prepared responses below and revisions to the
Buffer Variance Application to included additional information requested. Drawings have been revised with
changes and clarifications.
Included you will find the revised variance application, Agent Authorization Form, Drawings, additional
responses/revisions to questions under C.3. with mitigation information provided for the proposed project.
GHD appreciates your assistance with this project. Please contact me at [phone] or
[e-mail] if you have any questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
GHD.
fQ
I
Jason Marshall, PE
Project Coordinator
Encl. Permit and Plan Documents
cc: Nicole Bartlett, Charlotte Water
Chuck Bliss, Charlotte Water
Lindsay Matthy, GHD
GHD aanE.EN co.1— Ea
222 South Church Street Suite 400 Charlotte North Carolina 28202 USA ISD 9001
T7043424910 F7043424911 Wwww.ghd.com ENGINEERING DESIGN

Response to Comments Date May 24, 2018:
1. Please see attached Agent Authorization Form signed by Charlotte Water.
2. Mitigation requirements have been added to Application under item C.2. for a total of 364,638
square feet of mitigation. An updated Mitigation Services request is attached for a total of 121,546
square feet. This is for actual permanent disturbance and we understand that a factor of 3 will be
applied based on the current compensatory impact fee. Please account for mitigation proposed by
stream restoration and sewer.
3. GHD Response:
a. See updated language in application Section E.1. attached.
i. Construction corridor of 50' and maintenance corridor of 15' have added to
Section E.1. See attached application.
ii. All sewer is within the buffer except for the first 75 feet from station 0+00 to 0+75
as shown on sheet 4 of the Drawings. 2,910 feet of DIP and 6,992 feet of PVC is
proposed. This information has been added to Section E.1. See attached
application.
iii. The relative location of the sewer and proposed stream crossings closely mirrors
the existing channel to be reconstructed. At the proposed sewer crossing
locations, the new stream is offset by approximatly10 to 20 feet from the existing
location. There are two crossings of Stevens Creek and four intermittent
crossings. Section E.1 has been updated to reflect this information.
b. Section E.2-6 has been updated in the application. See attachment.
4. GHD Response:
a. Under Section C.3. attachment, additional information is provided in first paragraph.
b. See updated Alternative Mitigation Plan and Table 1 data.
c. Under Section C.3. attachment, additional information is provided in the second
paragraph.
d. Under Section C.3. attachment, additional information is provided in the fourth paragraph.
e. Under Section C.3. attachment, additional information is provided in the third paragraph.
f. Additional information regarding TMDL targets have been added to mitigation plan page
2.
5. Drawings have been revised to remove 50' and 30' buffer lines and the proposed stream TOB
linetype has been modified so that it is more visible. Wetland buffer have also been added to the
drawings.
a. Sheet 4: DIP has been added between station 0+00 to 0+40 to cover area inside the 50'
wetland buffer.
b. Sheet 5: Plan label has been changed to DIP.
c. Sheet 6: Plan labels have been changed to reflect material.
d. Sheet 7: Yes, DIP will be used as shown in the profile view.
e. Sheet 10: All material designations on the plan view have been changed to read
PROPOSED XX" SANITARY SEWER and material type will be referenced only in the
profile.
f. Sheet 12: Wetland buffer line is now shown and DIP has been extended to areas within
50' buffer line. No variance is sought for 02T rules.
01 -EMC Variance Letter - 05.17.2018

State of North Carolina
D_ Department of Environment and Natural Resources
.wWR
Division of Water Resources
Dtvlslon of Water Resources
15A NCAC 02B .0233 (8)(b), .0243 (8)(b), .0250 (11)(b), .0259 (8)(b), .0267 (11)(c), .0607 (e)(2)
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rules - Variance Application
FORM: VAR 10-2013
PLEASE IDENTIFY WHICH RIPARIAN AREA PROTECTION RULE APPLIES:
❑ Neuse River Basin (15A NCAC 02B.0233)
Major Variance D Minor Variance
❑ Catawba River Basin (15A NCAC 02B.0243)
❑ Randleman Lake Water Supply Watershed (15A NCAC 02B.0250)
Major Variance n Minor Variance
❑ Tar -Pamlico River Basin (15A NCAC 02B.0259)
Major Variance c Minor Variance
❑ Jordan Lake Water Supply Nutrient Strategy (15A NCAC 02B.0267)
Major Variance ; Minor Variance
Goose Creek Watershed (15A NCAC 02B.0606 & 15A NCAC 02B.0607)
A. General Information
1. Applicant's Information(if other than the current property owner):
Name: Charlotte Water (Nicole Bartlett)
Title: Project Manager
Street Address: 5100 Brookshire Blvd.
City, State & Zip: Charlotte, NC 2821
Telephone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
2. Property Owner/Signing Official (person legally responsible for the property and its compliance):
Name:
Title:
Street Address:
City, State & Zip:
Telephone:
Email:
FORM: VAR 10-2013
See above

3. Agent Information:
3a. Name:
Company Affiliation
Street Address:
City, State & Zip:
Telephone:
E-mail:
Jason Marshall
GH
222 South Church Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
704-342-4910
[e-mail]
3b. Attach a signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner.
4. Project Name (Subdivision, facility, orestablishment name):
Stevens Creek Trunk Sewer - Phase 1
5. Project Location:
5a. Street Address: See Attached Property Easement List
City, State & Zip: Mint Hill, NC
5b. County: Mecklenburg
5c. Site Coordinates (in decimal degrees): 35.1436 Latitude 80.6483 Longitude
5d. Attach an 8 % x 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the USGS topographic map indicating the location of the site.
5e. Attach an 8 % x 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the published County NRCS Soil Survey Map depicting the
project site.
6. Property Information:
6a. Property identification number (parcel ID): See Attached Property Easement List
6b. Date property was purchased: NA
6c. Deed book
6d. Map book
and page number
and page number
6e. Attach a copy of the recorded map that indicates when the lot was last platted.
7. Is your project in one of the 20 Coastal Counties covered under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)?
❑ YES ❑ NO .
7a. If you answered yes above, in which AEC do you fall (30 ft or 75 ft)? NA
7b. If you answered yes above, what is the total percent of impervious cover that you have proposed within the AEC? NA
FORM: VAR 10-2013 Page 2 of 7

8. Directions to site from nearest major intersection:
Exit 1-485 at Lawyers Road towards Mint Hill, NC, Ge left on Thompson Road, continue on Thompson Road until
you reach the confluence of a tributary to Stevens Creek and Stevens Creek. Project parallel creeks.
9. Stream associated with riparian buffer to be impacted by the proposed activity:
Name Water Quality Classification
Stevens Creek and Tributary to Stevens Creek C
9a. For Goose Creek only: Is the buffer in the 100 -year floodplain? ❑ YES ❑ NO
10. List any permits/approvals that have been requested or obtained for this project in the past (including all prior phases).
Date Applied: Date Received
8/23/2017 9/21/2017
8/31/2017 9/25/2017
2/27/2017
9/12/2017 5/3/2017
8/1/2017 8/29/2017
B. Proposed Activity
Permit Type:
NCDOT Utility Encroachment
NCDENR Erosion Control
PCN
Meck. Co. Floodplain Development
Town of Mint Hill — Road Crossing Permit
1. Project Description
1a. Provide a detailed description of the proposed activity including its purpose:
The Durpose of this oroiect is to provide sanitary sewer service to users currently serviced by a Dackaee WWTP and to
Provide additional sanitary sewer service to the Stevens Creek Basin. This project is located along Stevens Creek and a
Tributary to Stevens Creek west of 1-485. Service along the Stevens creek Tributary will ultimately allow for the removal
Of existing pump stations and limit the use of septic systems. This project is being coordinated with a stream restoration
project on Stevens Creek that shares the similar project limits. Charlotte Water is working with Mecklenburg County
Stormwater to construct the sewer and stream restoration projects at the same time so that disturbance within the area
will be done once and to limit the total area of clearing by best utilizing each projects required temporary construction
1b. Attach a site plan showing the following items as applicable to the project:
0 Development/Project name
0 Revision number & date
0 North arrow
0 Scale (1" = 50' is preferred)
0 Property/project boundary with dimensions
0 Adjacent streets and roads labeled with names and/or NC State Road numbers
0 Original contours and proposed contours
0 Perennial and intermittent streams, ponds, lakes, rivers and estuaries
FORM: VAR 10-2013 Page 3 of 7

0 Mean high water line (if applicable)
0 Wetlands delineated, or a note on plans that none exist
0 Location of forest vegetation along the streams, ponds, lakes, rivers and estuaries
0 Extent of riparian buffers on the land including Zone 1 and Zone where applicable
0 Location and dimension of the proposed buffer impact (label the area of buffer impact in ft' on the plan)
0 Details of roads, parking areas, cul-de-sacs, sidewalks, and curb and gutter systems
0 Footprint of any proposed buildings or other structures
0 Discharge points of gutters on existing structures and proposed buildings
0 Existing drainage (including off-site), drainage easements, and pipe dimensions
0 Drainage areas delineated
C. Proposed Impacts and Mitigation
1. Individually list the square footage of each proposed impact to the protected riparian buffers:
Buffer Impact
Goose Buffer
Zone
1
Number'—
Reason for Impact
Buffer
�_.._ _ ....�___
Zone 1 Impaet
Zone 2 Imre. n+
�_..
Permanent (P) or
(square feet)
Mitigation
Uzi
3
Temporary (T)
Required
(2 for Catawba only)
61 - ❑ P ® T
Excavation — Temp
❑ Yes ❑ No
194,501
Total Buffer Mitigation Required:
Easement
B2 - ❑ P ® T
Excavation- Permanent
❑ Yes ❑ No
128,567
Easement
63 -EP [:]T
❑ Yes ❑ No
121,546
Total Buffer Impacts
121,546
'Label on site plan
2. Identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation from the table above. Calculate
the amount of mitigation required.
'For projects in the Goose Creek Watershed, list all riparian buffer impacts as Zone 1
and use Zone 1 multiplier.
3. Provide a description of how mitigation will be achieved at your site pursuant to the mitigation requirements of the applicable
river basin/watershed.
See Attachment
3a. Is buffer restoration or enhancement proposed? ',K Yes ❑ No
If yes, attach a detailed planting plan to include plant type, date of plantings, the date of the one-time fertilization in the
protected riparian buffers, and a plan sheet showing the proposed location of the plantings.
3b. Is payment into a buffer restoration fund proposed? ❑ Yes `g[ No
If yes, attach an acceptance letter from the mitigation bank you propose to use or the NC Ecosystem Enhancement
Program stating they have the mitigation credits available for the mitigation requested.
FORM: VAR 10-2013 Page 4 of 7
Required
Zone
Total Impact
Multiplier
Mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Zone 1'
121,546
3
364,638
(2 for Catawba only)
Zone 2
1.5
Total Buffer Mitigation Required:
'For projects in the Goose Creek Watershed, list all riparian buffer impacts as Zone 1
and use Zone 1 multiplier.
3. Provide a description of how mitigation will be achieved at your site pursuant to the mitigation requirements of the applicable
river basin/watershed.
See Attachment
3a. Is buffer restoration or enhancement proposed? ',K Yes ❑ No
If yes, attach a detailed planting plan to include plant type, date of plantings, the date of the one-time fertilization in the
protected riparian buffers, and a plan sheet showing the proposed location of the plantings.
3b. Is payment into a buffer restoration fund proposed? ❑ Yes `g[ No
If yes, attach an acceptance letter from the mitigation bank you propose to use or the NC Ecosystem Enhancement
Program stating they have the mitigation credits available for the mitigation requested.
FORM: VAR 10-2013 Page 4 of 7

D. Stormwater
1. Provide a description of how diffuse flow will be maintained through the protected riparian buffers (e.g., re -planting vegetation
or enhancement of existing vegetation, gutter splash pads, level spreader to control of runoff from impervious surfaces, etc.).
A diffuse flow plan has not been included as part of this project. The project involves temporary ground impacts with no
change in topography. No impervious areas are being added as part of this project.
la. Show the location of diffuse flow measure(s) on your site plan. NA
1b. Attach a completed Level Spreader Supplement Form or BMP Supplement Form with all required items for each proposed
measure. NA
1c. Attach an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Form for each proposed level spreader or BMP. NA
2. For Major, Catawba, and Goose Creek variance requests, provide a description of all best management practices (BMPs) that
will be used to minimize disturbance and control the discharge of nutrients and sediments from stormwater.
This project will utilize temporary erosion control devices through construction as approved by NCDENR erosion control permit.
No permanent stormwater management practices are required for this project. No impervious areas are being added as part of
this project.
2a. Show the location of BMPs on your site plan. NA
2b. Attach a Supplement Form for each structural BMP proposed. NA
2c. Attach an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Form for each structural BMP proposed. NA
E. Demonstration of Need for a Variance
The variance provision of the riparian buffer rules allows the Division or the Environmental Management Commission to grant a
variance when there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships that prevent compliance with the strict letter of riparian
buffer protection.
Explain how complying with the provisions of the applicable rule would prevent you from securing a reasonable return from or
make reasonable use of your property. Merely proving that the variance would permit a greater profit from the property shall
not be considered adequate justification for a variance. The Division will consider whether the variance is the minimum possible
deviation from the terms of the applicable Buffer Rule that shall make reasonable use of the property possible.
We are seeking a variance for a rule stated under 15A NCAC 02B .0607, Page 5, Non -electric utility lines with impacts other
than perpendicular crossings, Stated as "Wastewater collection system utility lines and lift station lines may impact the riparian
zone if both gravity and force main collections systems are made of ductile iron and 50% of the collection system is cleaned
annually." We are requesting the requirement for ductile iron pipe be waved for in favor of PVC, AWWA C900, Pressure Class
165 psi, DR25 as an equal to ductile iron pipe. Ductile iron pipe will be used at stream crossing locations, within 50' of wetlands,
and where pipe cover exceeds 20'. DIP will also extend 10' on either side of the crossing or to the first manhole. A total of 6
stream crossings are included a part of this variance request. Plans showing locations with material designations listed and
specifications for sewer system have been included in this request. Also note that all pipe and manholes are subject to leakage
testing to ensure the system is watertight. A specification for leakage testing has been included in with this application. The
sewer line consists of 9,902' of sewer pipe with 2,910' of DIP and 6992' of PVC pipe. This project will utilize a 50' wide
construction corridor with a 15' wide permanent maintenance corridor.
We are also seeking a variance for rule stated under 15A NCAC 02B .0607, Page 6 Non -electric perpendicular utility line
FORM: VAR 10-2013 Page 5 of 7

crossings that are collections systems as defined in Rule 15A NCAC 02T.0300 (note: must follow constraints listed under
wastewater collection system utility lines and lift stations, above): Stated as "That use any of the following installation methods
to minimize the sediment, nutrient and other pollution through the riparian buffer: underground directional boring methods,
bore -and -jack techniques or another appropriate microtunnelling method." We are requesting the requirement for trenchless
crossings of streams for this project be waved since the construction of the stream restoration and sanitary sewer will be
completed as one project. The stream restoration work entails grading existing streambanks, relocation of existing stream bed
at various locations, and rebuilding the stream bed that will increase the elevation of the existing channel. The requirement to
provide trenchless installations on this project will create additional large excavations for boring and receiving pits required to
install equipment used to make crossings. These large excavation must be maintained and dewatered to provide a safe working
environments and could arguably be more disruptive based on the area required and additional time needed to make the
installation. Standard cut and cover installations move much quicker and can therefore be stabilized sooner. With stream
disturbances already implemented for restoration, the sewer installations have a minor overall impact. Additional excavation
disturbance would be required to install launching and receiving pits. This requirement is intended to limit disturbances at
stream crossings on typical projects that do not have a stream restoration component. We believe the considerable cost to
include trenchless installation for methods that are intended to limit disturbance are not a good use of public funds.
There are two main stream crossing locations on Stevens Creek and four intermittent/ephemeral crossings. Stevens Creek
crossings are located at stations 26+00 and 28+00. The intermittent/ephemeral crossings are located at station 16+75, 45+00,
55+00, and 64+00. The relative location of the sewer and proposed stream crossings closely mirrors the existing channel to be
reconstructed. At the proposed sewer crossing locations, the new stream is offset by approximatly10 to 20 feet from the
existine location.
2. Explain how the hardship results from application of the Buffer Rule to the property rather from other factors such as deed
restrictions or other hardships (e.g. zoning setbacks, floodplains, etc).
We believe the circumstances under which the proiect is being completed are unique in character and that the combined
effort to complete both the sewer and stream restoration as one project should be considered with regard to means used to
construct the project. Consideration of rules requiring trenchless installations should be waved due to the overall stream
disturbances required to construct the proiect. The stream bed and banks will be changed and grades adjusted and because of
this open cut installations should be made. An open cut installation can be completed in a day or two. A trenchless installation
can take weeks. This means a much longer exposure time to potential problems that include flooding of the pits require to make
the installation. The ground disturbance for to bore and iack requires a 20' x 40' pit on the launching side and a 10' x 10' piton
the receiving side versus 4' wide trench to open cut the crossing. Shallow bores under creeks tend to allow the creek to find it's
way into the pits requiring the creek to be bypassed in the same manner that is required for open cut installations. This means
the contractor will automatically perform a piped or pumped bypass around the crossing area. Time should be a maior
consideration. If it takes a week or two to bore due to rock and tough drilling conditions then all that time would require
additional dewatering to keep the pits dry. If the weather goes bad then the drilling equipment may need to be removed
causing additional delays and possible construction issues that could end in having to drilling a hole. We consider these
additional risk hardships that are not necessary based on how this project will be constructed.
3. Explain how the hardship results from physical nature of the property, such as its size, shape, or topography, which is different
from that of neighboring property.
The property upstream of the confluence of Stevens Creek and the tributary to Stevens Creek is challenging location due to
the steeper slopes and hills. Moving uphill to the buffer line away from the creek to construct the sewer line creates a situation
where the depth makes installation cost prohibitive due to shoring and rock removal required to make installation. The pipe
centerline is currently 50 to 60 feet away from the top of bank with depths above 20 feet in some locations. It would be
financiallv unfeasible to construct the sewer outside the buffer area.
4. Explain whether the hardship was caused by the applicant knowingly or unknowingly violating the applicable Buffer Rule.
No rules have been violated and we started working with NCDEQ in November of 2017 for guidance on the buffer rules and
variance requirements.
5. For Neuse, Tar -Pamlico, Jordan Lake and Goose Creek only: Did the applicant purchase the property after the effective date of
the applicable Buffer Rule and then request a variance?
Charlotte Water does not own the property in question but has a permanent and temporary easement for the construction
and maintenance of the sewer line. Easements have been purchased and were acquired after the effective date of buffer rules.
FORM: VAR 10-2013 Page 6 of 7

6. Explain how the hardship is rare or unique to the applicant's property, rather than the result of conditions that are widespread.
This proiect is unique in that it is restoring a stream and constructing a gravity sewer all under one proiect to be
constructed at the same time. This allowed for an overall reduction in clearing where we adjusted the sewer alignment with
input from NCDEQ and utilized overlapping areas of the stream restoration for temporary easement thus reducing the upland
clearing reauired to comDlete the work.
F. Deed Restrictions
By your signature in Section G of this application, you certify that all structural stormwater BMPs required by this variance shall
be located in recorded drainage easements, that the easements will run with the land, that the easements cannot be changed
or deleted without concurrence from the State, and that the easements will be recorded prior to the sale of any lot.
G. Applicant's Certification
I, J 0,-S o L MA 5 kA, �� (print or type name of person listed in Section A, Item 2), certify that
the information included on this permit application form is correct, that the project will be constructed in conformance with the
approved pla7a,,,that the deed restrictions in accordance with Section F of this form will be recorded with all required permit
conditions.
Signature:
Date:
FORM: VAR 10-2013 Page 7 of 7

Additional Responses to Variance Application Section C. Proposed Impacts and Mitigation.
3. Provide a description of how mitigation will be achieved at your site pursuant to the mitigation
requirements of the applicable river basin/watershed.
As previously mentioned in the project description, Stevens Creek Trunk Sewer is being constructed in
conjunction with the Stevens Creek Stream Restoration project (7,267 LF along Stevens Creek and 3,328
LF along Stevens Creek Tributary) under one contract. Charlotte Water and Mecklenburg County Storm
Water have been working together to complete these projects on the same timeline. In doing this, we
have been able to reduce overall clearing limits by utilizing each project's clearing area for construction.
The sewer benefits from using temporary areas for construction, and the stream benefits from utilizing
the sewer alignment for access which amounts to a reduction in total area needed to construct the
sewer. A much greater amount of upland clearing would have been required had the sewer project been
constructed outside of the stream restoration project limits. Without the stream restoration project, all
temporary construction easements for the sewer project would have been placed upland versus utilizing
the overlapping area which is provided from the stream restoration project. Construction will be
performed utilizing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce impacts by maintaining NCDEQ
approved erosion control devices.
The trunk sewer project will serve many needs one of which will provide sewer to the Stevens Creek
Nature Preserve's nature center. In addition, this project will take an existing package wastewater
treatment plant (PWWTP) offline and will convey wastewater to the McAlpine Creek WWTP. The Oxford
Glen PWWTP is currently permitted for 0.075 MGD with average flows of 0.024 MGD (2016 flow data).
The existing permit has the following monthly average limits: 11.0 mg/L BOD (16.5 mg/L daily
maximum), 30 mg/L TSS (45 mg/L daily maximum), 0.5 mg/L NH3 as N for summer and winter (2.90 mg/L
and 7.15 mg/L daily maximum for summer and winter respectively), and 200/100 mL fecal coliform
(400/100 mL daily maximum). The plant has a daily maximum chlorine residual limit of 0.024 mg/L.
The trunk sewer will ultimately be beneficial to the area by reducing the number of septic systems in use
as aging systems begin to fail. A study conducted in 2012 (see attached document) analyzed the failure
rate of septic systems within the Goose Creek Basin. Although the failure rate was determined to be
low, it was established that septic system failures are happening within the Goose Creek Basin. It is
anticipated that as these septic system continue to age that the failure rate will increase. There is an
established need for residential sewer service in the immediate project area, and Charlotte Water has
been receiving requests from homeowners currently on septic systems that would like to connect to the
sewer system. The main request has come from residents in the Farrington Oaks subdivision but
Charlotte Water cannot take applications and tap fees until an existing system is in place and close
enough to extend service. Ultimately these homeowners will be able to make connections once the
trunk line is in place and sewer street main extensions can be installed to meet these requests.
Additionally, several developments are slated within the Stevens Creek basin. The availability for sewer
connections within these developments will reduce additional septic systems being installed.
Another goal for Charlotte Water is to reduce the number of existing pump stations in the area by
constructing a regional pump station known as the Stevens Creek Lift Station. This will provide a basin
wide pump station for the service area that will send sewer outside the Goose Creek basin to be treated

at the McAlpine Creek WWTP, Permit NC0024970. While these improvements may not be defined as
mitigation for the buffer, they will reduce existing point source discharges now and in the future.
Mitigating Effects of Sewer on Stream
• Reduction in septic systems that fail as they age which can in turn cause an increase in TMDLs
on the stream. Septic issues are further referenced in Tetra Tech, North Carolina Piedmont
Nutrient Load Reducing Measures Technical Report, September 2013, prepared for NCDEQ.
Under Section 3 Remedy Malfunctioning Septic System, the report includes making connections
to permitted NPDES sewer systems as a means to remove nutrient loads to nearby surface
waters. A TMDL of 200/400 cfu (NC Standard for Class C waters) is being targeted. The below
information from the NC DEQ Total Maximum Daily Loads for Fecal Coliform for Goose Creek,
North Carolina Final Report (2005) summarizes the waste load allocations for Goose Creek.
Section 2.2.1 of the report also cites failing septic systems a significant contributor to TMDL
increases with the Goose Creek Basin having a specific failure rate of 2.4%.
• NC DEQ Total Maximum Daily Loads for Fecal Coliform for Goose Creek (Page iv)
3. Allocation R"atershed/Stream Reach
Segment 13-17-18a
Wasteload Allocation (DVLA): 7.81x101' counts
Load Allocation (LA): 1.14x101; counts
Margin of Safety (MOS): More stringent geometric mean target of 180 counts 100 mL. as
opposed to the 200 counts 100 mL standard: conservative modeling assumptions.
TMDL (W'LA—LA—MOS): 1.22 x 1014 counts
TMDL Component
TN1DL Allocation
Category
Fecal Coliform Load
Reductions
Wasteload Allocation
MS4
9_'.5°b
Load Allocation
von oust Sources
9_'.5°0
Wasteload Allocation
Pernnited NXI'%TP's
V A
Segment 13-17-18b
Wasteload Allocation (XVLA): ?.34x1013 counts
Load Allocation (LA): ?.06x101' counts
Margin of Safety (MOS): More stringent geometric mean target of 180 counts 100 mL_ as
opposed to the 200 counts 100 mL standard: consen•ative modeling
assumptions.
TNiDL (IA-LA—LA—MOS): 2.08x1015 counts
TMDL Component
TMDL Allocation
Category
Fecal Coliform Load
Reductions
Wasteload Allocation
MS4
92.5%
Load Allocation
Nonpoint Sources
92.5%
Wasteload Allocation
Pennnited R-X%TP's
V A
• Removal of point source discharge by decommissioning the existing PWWTP after trunk sewer is
activated for service.

• A reduction in pump stations will limit potential failures and demands of operating multiple
stations.
Alternate Mitigation Plan
As part of this project variance request, we propose that the stream restoration be included as
mitigation for the sewer construction mitigation requirements. Stream restoration is inherently a form
of mitigation that is intended to restore a watershed to a functioning ecosystem that returns natural
rates of ecological, chemical, and physical processes not found in the existing stream. The stream
restoration will return the stream to a more natural state by creating stable pattern, profile and
dimension, improving aquatic habitat, increasing floodplain connectivity, and establishing native plant
species. Buffer areas, excluding the sewer maintenance corridor, disturbed during construction will all
be restored with native species while also reducing invasive plant species. The sewer maintenance
corridor will be planted with a riparian seed mix that includes grasses and wildflowers native to the area.
Mitigating effects of these improvements will provide net watershed benefits that include the following:
• Stream restoration will have mitigating effects that improve water quality by reconnecting the
stream to the floodplain.
• Existing buffer areas will be improved with native species plantings.
• With support from US Fish and Wildlife Service, this stream restoration includes habitat
structures for aquatic species. The restoration work will improve overall habitat and biotic
reliability in the riparian zone.
• Stream restoration will reduce the effects of erosion prevalent in the existing incised channel by
creating a more stable channel with appropriate dimensions for various flow regimes and
gentler slopes. This will mitigate the effects of erosion on water quality by providing a stable
bed and riparian zones that promote vegetative growth.
• Reference Study Data: Tetra Tech, North Carolina Piedmont Nutrient Load Reducing Measures
Technical Report, September 2013, prepared for NCDEQ includes a section, 7 Stream
Restoration/Enhancement, on the mitigating effects of restoration on nutrient loads to
downstream surface waters.
• Stream restoration connectivity to the existing floodplain will change based as shown on Table
1. As you can see, in the existing conditions smaller flood events, typically 2-10 year storms,
never reach the floodplain and are thus disconnected from the riparian zone. The upstream
reach on Stevens Creek from the confluence with the tributary has the largest stretch outside
the 100 -year flood zone. As a result of the project, the stream will access the floodplain at less
than a 2 year event. In the current state of the stream, it is accessing the floodplain at a 10-25
year event. As part of the project, the flood width for flood events is being increased up to a 10 -
year event. For the tributary and upper portions of Stevens Creek, because of grading to a lower
floodplain, the streams will have higher flood capacity at lower elevations. See Table 1 for flood
conditions at various return periods.
3a. Is buffer restoration or enhancement proposed? Yes. We have included a Stantec's planting plans
for restoration of the buffer areas. The sewer maintenance corridor is specified as follows...
Riparian Buffer Seed (sewer maintenance corridor)

1. Riparian seed mix shall be applied along 15 -foot wide maintained easement corridor outside
landscaped lawn areas and pastures.
2. Riparian seed mix shall be composed of native spices intended for the North Carolina piedmont
region. Approved seed mix includes Ernst Seeds NC Piedmont Riparian Mix or approved equal.
3b. is payment into a buffer restoration fund proposed? No. We are requesting that the responses
under question 3 and 3a be consider as mitigation in lieu of payment for mitigation. However, a
mitigation request has been made to the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program for a 15' wide
maintenance corridor through existing buffer areas. An acceptance letter will be provided at a later date
to be used if necessary to meet permitting requirements.

Table 1 Stream Restoration Connectivity
2year flood
Existing Proposed
Flood Width flood Width
Change in
Flood Stage
5year flood
Existing Proposed
flood Width Flood Width
Change in
Flood Stage
10year flood
Existing Proposed
flood Width Flood Width
Change in
Flood Stage
25year flood
Existing Proposed
Flood Width Flood Width
Change in
flood Stage
Soyear flood
Existing Proposed
Flood Width flood Width
Change in
Flood Stage
100year flood
Existing Proposed Change in
Flood Width Flood Width flood Stage
Stevens Creek jabove confluence 19 27
0.4
26 43
-0.6
46 55
-1.1
156 83
-1.3
189 115
.1.2
216 159 .1.2
Stevens Creek lbelow confluence) 30 53
1.3
86 171
0.5
222 246
0.2
288 285
0.1
321 322
0.1
350 341 0.1
Tributary to Stevens Creek 17 21
0.1
23 31
-0.1
27 36
-0.3
105 65
-0.5
148 124
.0.4
182 160 .0.4

SAMPLE AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT NO. See Attachment PLAN NO.
STREET ADDRESS: See Attachment
Please print:
Property Owner:
Property Owner:
See Attachment
See Attachment
PARCEL ID:
The undersigned, registered property owners of the above noted property, do hereby authorize
Jason Marshall of GHD, Inc.
(Contractor / Agent) (Name of consulting firm)
to act on my behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance and acceptance of
this permit or certification and any and all standard and special conditions attached.
Property Owner's Address (if different than property above):
222 South Church Street, Suite 400, Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone:
704-342-4913
We hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate to the
best of our knowledge.
Authorized Signature ori d Si at
Date: 2/26/18

LEGEND
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT— TCE TCE TCE
I
3Ul 301 301 J
STAGING AREA r J
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
EROSION CONTROL MATTING
NOTE: LINE WEIGHTS ARE NOT DELINEATED HERE, THEY ARE CONTROLLED THROUGH CLTWater PLOTSTYLE,
DESIGN COMPANY: GHD CONSULTING SERVICES INC.
ADDRESS: 222 S. CHURCH STREET, SUITE 400, CHARLOTTE, NC 28202
PHONE: [phone]
DATE DESIGN COMPLETED: -
SURVEY COMPANY: LAWRENCE ASSOCIATES
ADDRESS: 106 W. JEFFERSON STREET, MONROE, NC 28112
PHONE: [phone]
DATE SURVEY COMPLETED: -
GEOTECHNICAL COMPANY: JOEL E. WOOD & ASSOCIATES
ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 2961 CLOVER, SC 29710
PHONE: [phone]
DATE COMPLETED: -
CONTRACTOR:
ADDRESS: -
PHONE: -
INSPECTOR: -
INSIDE CHARLOTTE: ( ) YES (�) NO:
TOPO NO: 138,139
CHARLOTTE
"VV T E IR
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
INDEX OF SHEETS
SHEET NO. 1
SYMBO
ASPHALT (PROFILE)
STA B19+00 TO STA B31+00
BOTTOM OF BANK (TOE)
— — — — —
SHEET NO. 15
STA C0+00 TO STA C2+75
BRIGDE
KEY MAP
SHEET NO. 16
BUILDING
CHECK DAM STD. 6.83
�► �►
CONCRETE (PROFILE)
MANHOLE DETAILS (SHEET 2 OF 2)
EXISTING CREEK
STA A9+00 TO STA A18+00
PROPOSED CREEK
#a M0 as
CURB & GUTTER
STA A18+00 TO STA A24+00
EDGE OF ROADWAY
-------------
EXISTING � SANITARY SEWER
—ss
EXIST. SAN. SEWER MANHOLE STRUCTURE
STANDARD SEWER DETAILS (SHEET 1 OF 2)
EXISTING GAS MAIN
G
EXISTING GAS SERVICE
GS
FENCE (LABEL TYPE)
X X
GAS VALVE
GV
GRAVEL (PROFILE)
STA A49+00 TO STA A58+00
GROUND PROFILE
EROSION CONTROL DETAILS (SHEET 1 OF 3)
GUARD RAIL
STA A58+00 TO STA A66+00
MARSH, POND, WETLAND OR LAKE
EROSION CONTROL DETAILS (SHEET 2 OF 3)
OVERHEAD ELECTRIC
OE
SHEET NO. 25
EROSION CONTROL DETAILS (SHEET 3 OF 3)
PIERS
POWER POLE/GUY WIRE
r 0EITHER / OR
PROPERTY LINE
— —
BORE HOLE
SHEET NO. C302 6" SEWER CONSTRUCTION
PROPOSED � SANITARY SEWER
N89ro0'00"E
26.80'
PROP. SAN. SEWER MANHOLE STRUCTURE
RIP — RAP
GRAVITY
ROAD/STREET R/W
RW
SEDIMENT FENCE (SILT FENCE) STD. 6.62
CHARLOTTE WATER
SIDEWALK
STREET SIGN (LABEL TYPE)
STORM DRAIN/CATCH BASIN, YARD AND DROP INLET
TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAP STD. 6.60
(�
TEMPORARY ROCK SEDIMENT DAM
ROCK SILT CHECK
SILT BASIN
STONE CHECK DAM
TEMPORARY DIVERSION STD. 6.20
TD TD TD
TEMPORARY SILT DITCH
TSD TSD
TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING STD. 6.70
�T�
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK (TOB)
TOWER LINE
of
TREE & BUSH
TREE UNE
UNDERGROUND CABLE
UC
UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
UE
UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE
UT UT
PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER (BY OTHERS)
SS SS
WATER METER
❑
100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
— — — — — —
50' WETLAND BUFFER
200' BUFFER
MAJOR CONTOUR
—
MINOR CONTOUR
PROP. PERM. SEWER EASEMENT
3nsd PSUE
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT— TCE TCE TCE
I
3Ul 301 301 J
STAGING AREA r J
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
EROSION CONTROL MATTING
NOTE: LINE WEIGHTS ARE NOT DELINEATED HERE, THEY ARE CONTROLLED THROUGH CLTWater PLOTSTYLE,
DESIGN COMPANY: GHD CONSULTING SERVICES INC.
ADDRESS: 222 S. CHURCH STREET, SUITE 400, CHARLOTTE, NC 28202
PHONE: [phone]
DATE DESIGN COMPLETED: -
SURVEY COMPANY: LAWRENCE ASSOCIATES
ADDRESS: 106 W. JEFFERSON STREET, MONROE, NC 28112
PHONE: [phone]
DATE SURVEY COMPLETED: -
GEOTECHNICAL COMPANY: JOEL E. WOOD & ASSOCIATES
ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 2961 CLOVER, SC 29710
PHONE: [phone]
DATE COMPLETED: -
CONTRACTOR:
ADDRESS: -
PHONE: -
INSPECTOR: -
INSIDE CHARLOTTE: ( ) YES (�) NO:
TOPO NO: 138,139
CHARLOTTE
"VV T E IR
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
INDEX OF SHEETS
SHEET NO. 1
COVER SHEET
SHEET NO. 14
STA B19+00 TO STA B31+00
SHEET NO. 2
GENERAL NOTES AND MANHOLE SCHEDULE
SHEET NO. 15
STA C0+00 TO STA C2+75
SHEET NO. 3
KEY MAP
SHEET NO. 16
MANHOLE DETAILS (SHEET 1 OF 2)
SHEET NO. 4
STA A0+00 TO STA A9+00
SHEET NO. 17
MANHOLE DETAILS (SHEET 2 OF 2)
SHEET NO. 5
STA A9+00 TO STA A18+00
SHEET NO. 18
24 IN. MANHOLE FRAME AND COVER DETAILS
SHEET NO. 6
STA A18+00 TO STA A24+00
SHEET NO. 19
30 IN. MANHOLE FRAME AND COVER DETAILS
SHEET NO. 7
STA A24+00 TO STA A35+00
SHEET NO. 20
STANDARD SEWER DETAILS (SHEET 1 OF 2)
SHEET NO. 8
STA A35+00 TO STA A43+00
SHEET NO. 21
STANDARD SEWER DETAILS (SHEET 2 OF 2)
SHEET NO. 9
STA A43+00 TO STA A49+00
SHEET NO. 22
EROSION CONTROL NOTES
SHEET NO. 10
STA A49+00 TO STA A58+00
SHEET NO. 23
EROSION CONTROL DETAILS (SHEET 1 OF 3)
SHEET NO. 11
STA A58+00 TO STA A66+00
SHEET NO. 24
EROSION CONTROL DETAILS (SHEET 2 OF 3)
SHEET NO. 12
STA 130+00 TO STA 67+00
SHEET NO. 25
EROSION CONTROL DETAILS (SHEET 3 OF 3)
SHEET NO. 13
STA 137+00 TO STA B19+00
SHEET NO. 26
FENCE DETAILS
SHEET NO. C302 6" SEWER CONSTRUCTION
APPLICATION FOR NON -DISCHARGE PERMIT
GRAVITY
SEWER MAIN EXTENSION
CHARLOTTE WATER
PROJECT NAME
SANITARY SEWERAGE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS CREEK BASIN STEVENS CREEK
Tr H A'S� E
v` `ol
0� O= w
M j
o°aO
Ezell Farm �' t Ci r
Community 7� 2) _ M
Parc d stone dr U n
to
v � �
N I
i
d
Oak pr Q
I 1
N
tiRd
L, �� o �rornps°nNol1o* Ln �I
410
" Q i
0 o PROPOSED SEWER G '400 6s
C°U(�tty
c`
Oaks n'. O -
LZ
o
cow �k Or 0', Lr Linen' 04o 'Aa
oStevens Creek O,,
w /
Lake B%"-%
O a,- r
`61e -, • • had°w dr
LakE Ln °ok
O� Steven s - 5
Creek Nature
Pre se rve
Mill House Ln
'Thom Rd °
f3 tj r n t M;//
tiTr �\ a
Ap 04
1 // QRZ t 1)coo
y Qi
r a I ,fin The a
p ore Ln � r R t I � � Divide �� w• B
C� O Nancy �' hAbergele l n
v
i
v, v
�•�r Hook Rd
P. . °
(fig 1�
e
SOURCE: ESRI, DELORME, USGS, INTERMAP, NRCAN, NGCC, © OPENSTREETMAP CONTRIBUTORS
LOCATION MAP (NTS)
GHD PROJECT NO.: 111-23681
GHD Consulting Services Inc.
222 South Church Street, Suite 400
Charlotte NC 28202 USA
T 1 704 342 4910 W www.ghd.com
STEVENS CREEK TRUNK SEWER
CLTWater PROJECT NO.: 7030700047-17-503
PROJECTTYPE: ❑X NEW CONSTRUCTION ❑RELOCATION ❑MODIFICATION OF PERMIT NO.
OTHER
VOLUME OF WASTEWATER GENERATED BY THIS PROJECT: 930,000 GALLONS PER DAY BASED
ON 250 GAL/DAY/EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL UNIT (ERU) 3720 ERUs OR
135 GAL/DAY/MULTI-FAMILY UNIT X * UNITS OR IS BASED ON
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT RECEIVING WASTEWATER:
Z McALPINE CR. (NC0024970) ❑ IRWIN CR. (NC0024945) ❑ McDOWELL CR. (NC0036277)
❑ SUGAR CR. (NC0024937) ❑ MALLARD CR. (NC0030210) ❑ ROCKY CR. (NC0036269)
NATURE OF WASTEWATER 100 % DOMESTIC % INDUSTRIAL
% COMMERCIAL % OTHER
ORIGIN OF WASTEWATER ❑ SUBDIVISION ❑ COMMERCIAL
❑ SCHOOL ❑ INDUSTRIAL
❑ APARTMENTS/CONDO'S ❑X OTHER EXISTING DEVELOPMENT (RESIDENTIAL)
LIST ANY PARAMETER AND ITS CONCENTRATION THAT WILL BE GREATER THAN NORMAL DOMESTIC LEVELS:
NONE
IF WASTEWATER IS NON-DOMESTIC, DESCRIBE LEVEL OF PRETREATMENT:
IF A PRETREATMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED, HAS ONE BEEN ISSUED? ❑YES ❑ NO
HAS ENGINEER DETERMINED THAT DOWNSTREAM SEWERS ARE CAPABLE TO HANDLE THIS FLOW? ❑X YES ❑ NO
PERMIT NO. FOR SEWERS IMMEDIATELY DOWNSTREAM TBD
PIPE DIAMETER OF SEWERS IMMEDIATELY DOWNSTREAM PROPOSED STEVENS CREEK PS (BY OTHERS)
HAS ENGINEER DETERMINED THAT NC DEM AND CLTWater MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS ARE MET BY THIS
PROJECT? ❑X YES ❑ NO
COMPLETE NAME AND ADDRESS OF ENGINEERING DESIGN FIRM:
GHD CONSULTING SERVICES INC.
222 S. CHURCH STREET SUITE 400
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28202
TELEPHONE [phone]
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATION:
MICHAEL E. BISIGNANI ATTEST THAT THIS APPLICATION FOR SANITARY SEWERAGE SYSTEM
IMPROVEMENTS STEVENS CREEK TRUNK SEWER HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY ME AND IS ACCURATE AND COMPLETE TO THE
BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. I FURTHER ATTEST THAT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE THE PROPOSED DESIGN HAS BEEN
PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS. ALTHOUGH CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THIS SUBMITTAL
PACKAGE MAY HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BY OTHER PROFESSIONALS, INCLUSION OF THESE MATERIALS UNDER MY
SIGNATURE AND SEAL SIGNIFIES THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THIS MATERIAL AND HAVE JUDGED IT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH
THE PROPOSED DESIGN.
NORTH CAROLINA PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER'S SEAL, SIGNATURE, AND DATE
CLTWater PERMIT NO.
PLANT FLOW ALLOCATION RECORDED BY:
PERMIT APPROVED BY:
FINAL DESIGN
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
CHARLOTTE WATER STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS.
ISSUED
JOSEPH C WILSON, P.E., CHIEF ENGINEER
APPROVAL SEAL
N. C. P. E.
SUMMARY OF SEWER MAINS & MANHOLES
SIZE
LENGTH
SIZE
LENGTH
24"
2490'
8"
27'
16"
4060'
12"
3325'
TOTAL NO. OF MANHOLES: 32
TOTAL NO. LOTS SERVED: 3680
PROJECT NAME: SANITARY SEWER
SYSTEM IMPROVMENTS
STEVENS CREEK TRUNK SEWER
JOB NO: 7030700047-17-503
DATE OF ACTIVATION:
DATE AS BU I LT: BY:
A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT

GENERAL NOTES:
1. CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHARLOTTE WATER STANDARDS,
SPECIFICATIONS, AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.
2. ALL ELEVATIONS REFER TO DATUM NAVD88.
3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL ADDITIONAL PERMITS NECESSARY NOT PROVIDED IN
CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND FURNISH COPIES TO THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO COMMENCING
WORK.
4. THE CONTRACTORS WORK AREA SHALL BE CONFINED TO THE LIMITS OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAYS
AND EASEMENTS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ANY ADDITIONAL EASEMENTS OR WORK
RELEASES SHOULD THE CONTRACTOR REQUIRE ADDITIONAL AREA TO ACCOMMODATE HIS
OPERATIONS. A COPY OF WRITTEN AGREEMENTS SHALL BE FURNISHED TO CHARLOTTE WATER.
5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION OF TRAFFIC IN
ACCORDANCE WITH MANUAL OF UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (MUTCD) AND NCDOT
STANDARDS AND DRAWINGS FOR WORK ZONE TRAFFIC CONTROL.
6. THE LOCATIONS AND DEPTHS OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THE
PLANS AND PROFILES ARE APPROXIMATE. OTHER UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOT SHOWN MAY
BE ENCOUNTERED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM SOFT -DIGS TO VERIFY THE LOCATION
AND ELEVATION OF UTILITIES AT INTERCONNECTIONS AND CROSSINGS AS SHOWN, DIRECTED
OR REQUIRED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXCAVATE IN ADVANCE OF THE PIPE LAYING
OPERATION AND EXPOSE ALL EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES TO PREVENT DAMAGE DURING
CONSTRUCTION AND TO DETERMINE REQUIRED CHANGES IN GRADE NECESSARY TO INSTALL
THE SEWERMAIN TO AVOID CONFLICTS.
7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THOSE MEASURES REQUIRED TO LIMIT EROSION OF AREAS
DISTURBED BY THE WORK. CLEARING SHALL BE PERFORMED TO THE EXTENT SHOW OR ON AN
AS NEEDED BASIS, WHICHEVER IS LESS, PHASED TO REDUCE EROSION POTENTIAL AND
VISUAL IMPACT.
8. BLASTING WILL ONLY BE PERMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.
9. ONLY CHARLOTTE WATER SHALL OPERATE EXISTING VALVES AND FIRE HYDRANTS.
10. ALL SEWER PIPING SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH MINIMUM COVER OF 3'-0". IF MINIMUM COVER
CANNOT BE OBTAINED, THE SEWER MAIN LOCATION SHALL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY
THE ENGINEER AND OWNER AND SHALL BE ENCASED IN CONCRETE.
11. MINIMUM PIPE SEPARATION: 10' HORIZONTAL SEPARATION OR 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION
SHALL BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN WATER MAINS OVER SEWER MAINS. WHEN WATER MAINS ARE
BELOW SEWER MAINS OR THE ABOVE MINIMUM SEPARATION CANNOT BE MAINTAINED, DUCTILE
IRON PIPE SHALL BE USED FOR BOTH MAINS TO 10' EITHER SIDE OF CROSSING, AND ALL
ALONG THE LENGTH OF MAINS WHERE MINIMUM SEPARATION CANNOT BE MAINTAINED.
12. IF THE MATERIAL AT THE DESIGN GRADE IS UNSUITABLE AS DETERMINED BY THE ENGINEER,
THE CONTRACTOR, WHEN ORDERED IN WRITING, SHALL EXCAVATE ADDITIONAL MATERIAL TO
THE DEPTH NECESSARY AND SHALL BACKFILL TO THE PROPOSED GRADE WITH SELECT
GRANULAR BACKFILL MATERIAL.
13. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE OWNER OF ANY UTILITY POLE IN ADVANCE OF ANY
EXCAVATION WORK THAT WILL TAKE PLACE WITHIN 5'-0" OF THE UTILITY POLE. THE
CONTRACTOR SHALL INCLUDE THE COST OF TEMPORARY POLE SUPPORT IN THE APPROPRIATE
BID ITEM. WHERE UTILITY POLES ARE REQUIRED TO BE SUPPORTED DURING CONSTRUCTION,
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE ALL NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE UTILITY COMPANY
(DUKE POWER).
14. IF MATERIALS ARE ENCOUNTERED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION THAT ARE SUSPECTED OF
BEING CONTAMINATED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE NCDEQ FOR
DIRECTION REGARDING TESTING, SEPARATION, CONTAINMENT AND DISPOSAL PROCEDURES.
15. IF A PROPOSED SEWER CONFLICTS WITH A SUBSURFACE OBSTRUCTION AND WHEN THE
MINIMUM COVER CANNOT BE MAINTAINED BY GOING ABOVE THE OBSTRUCTION, THE
CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THE SANITARY SEWER BELOW THE OBSTRUCTION MAINTAINING
THE APPROPRIATE SEPARATION AND GRADE.
16. CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR ALL TRENCH EXCAVATIONS IN TRAVELED AREAS INCLUDING
ROADS, DRIVEWAYS, SIDEWALKS AND PARKING AREAS TO MEET OWNER'S REQUIREMENTS.
17. THE USE OF EXISTING FIRE HYDRANTS FOR ANY REASON IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT PRIOR
APPROVAL AND PERMITTING OF CHARLOTTE WATER.
18. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONTRACT DOCUMENTS PROCEDURES
FOR TESTING OF THE SEWER TO THE ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL.
19. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE PRESENT AND ASSIST IN THE FINAL WALK INSPECTION. THE
CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT TO DEMONSTRATE TO
THE ENGINEER THAT ALL EQUIPMENT OPERATES AS REQUIRED.
20. TO FACILITATE INSTALLATION OF THE NEW SEWER AND APPURTENANCES, THE CONTRACTOR
SHALL REMOVE AND REINSTALL, OR RELOCATE EXISTING MAILBOXES, SIGNS, GUIDE RAILS, OR
OTHER STRUCTURES AND OBSTACLES ENCOUNTERED DURING THE WORK. NO SEPARATE
PAYMENT SHALL BE PAID FOR THIS WORK.
21. ALL OPEN EXCAVATED AREAS SHALL BE ADEQUATELY MARKED, SECURED WITH TEMPORARY
FENCING WITH A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF 6 FEET, AND/OR COVERED WITH STEEL PLATE AT THE
END OF EACH WORK DAY.
22. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE AND REPLACE CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MAILBOXES, ETC.
TO LIKE KIND CONDITION OR BETTER AS NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE CONSTRUCTION OF
THE PROPOSED UTILITIES HERE IN.
23. THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATION AND/OR ELEVATION OF
EXISTING UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS BASED ON RECORDS OF THE VARIOUS
UTILITY COMPANIES AND FIELD MEASUREMENTS. THE CONTRACTOR MUST CONTACT ALL
APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANIES AT LEAST A 3 WORKING DAY NOTICE PRIOR TO ANY
EXCAVATION TO REQUEST DETAILED FIELD LOCATION OF EACH UTILITY. THE CONTRACTOR IS
RESPONSIBLE TO CONTACT NORTH CAROLINA 811 AT 1-800-632-4949 OR 811 FOR UTILITY
MARK OUT PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY EXCAVATION WORK ON THIS PROJECT.
24. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS PERTINENT TO THE WORK OF THE
CONTRACT. NO ALLOWANCE SHALL BE MADE ON BEHALF OF THE CONTRACTOR FOR ANY
ERROR OR NEGLECT ON HIS PART.
25. ALL SURFACES DISTURBED BY THE CONTRACTOR WHICH ARE OUTSIDE THE WORK LIMITS OR
WORK SCOPE, OR ARE SURFACES DISTURBED WITHOUT PRIOR AUTHORIZATION BY THE
ENGINEER, SHALL BE RESTORED TO ORIGINAL CONDITIONS OR BETTER, AT THE CONTRACTOR'S
EXPENSE.
26. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD LOCATE ALL SEWER LATERALS, WATER SERVICES, AND OTHER
SERVICES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR ANY DAMAGED SEWER
LATERALS, WATER SERVICES, AND OTHER SERVICES AS A RESULT OF CONSTRUCTION AT HIS
OWN EXPENSE.
27. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM ALL WORK NECESSARY, WITHOUT INTERRUPTION TO
EXISTING SANITARY SERVICES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL UTILIZE APPROVED BYPASSING
TECHNIQUES IN ORDER TO PERFORM SAID WORK UNDER SAID CONDITIONS. ALL PROPOSED
BYPASSING TECHNIQUES AND EQUIPMENT SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE ENGINEER FOR
REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE START OF THIS WORK. THE COST FOR THIS WORK
SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE UNIT PRICES BID FOR THIS PROJECT. NO ADDITIONAL
COMPENSATION WILL BE PROVIDED FOR THIS WORK.
28. IN THE EVENT THAT A SERVICE MUST BE INTERRUPTED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SOLELY
RESPONSIBLE TO NOTIFY THE RESIDENT OF SAID INTERRUPTION. IN NO CASE SHALL ANY
SERVICE BE INTERRUPTED FOR MORE THAN 6 -HOURS, AND IN NO CASE SHALL THE
INTERRUPTION EXTEND BEYOND THE END OF THE WORKING DAY. IN THE EVENT THAT ANY
INTERRUPTION CONTINUES FOR MORE THAN 6 -HOURS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE
TEMPORARY SERVICES. NO ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION WILL BE PROVIDED FOR WORK
ASSOCIATED WITH ALL SUCH TEMPORARY SERVICES.
29. WHEN WORK INCLUDED UNDER THIS PROJECT, AS INDICATED BY THE PROJECT CONTRACT
DOCUMENTS, REQUIRES THE REMOVAL OF EXISTING PAVED SURFACES, TO INCLUDE BUT NOT
BE LIMITED TO, ROADWAYS, DRIVEWAYS, SIDEWALKS, AND PARKING LOTS, THE CONTRACTOR
SHALL BE REQUIRED TO SAW -CUT THE LIMITS OF THE PROPOSED EXCAVATION PRIOR TO
EXCAVATION OF SAID AREA. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE AND
MAINTAIN TEMPORARY RESTORATION OF ALL SUCH AREAS, UNTIL PERMANENT RESTORATION
IS PROVIDED. NO ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL SUCH SAW
CUTTING AND TEMPORARY RESTORATION.
30. SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATIONS HAVE BEEN PERFORMED IN THE AREAS IN WHICH WORK IS
PROPOSED. IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE IF ANY
ADDITIONAL SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATIONS ARE NECESSARY. NO ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION
WILL BE PROVIDED FOR ANY SUCH WORK. IN THE EVENT THAT TRENCH EXCAVATION BECOMES
DIFFICULT DUE TO THE MATERIAL ENCOUNTERED, THE ENGINEER SHALL DETERMINE WHETHER
ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL SUCH EXCAVATING. THE
CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS FOR FURTHER INTERPRETATION
OF WHEN SUCH ADDITIONAL ALLOWANCES WILL BE MADE, AND WHAT IS CONSIDERED "ROCK"
EXCAVATION.
31. UNDER THIS PROJECT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO RESTORE, ACCORDING
TO THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, ALL AREAS DISTURBED AS A RESULT OF HIS WORK.
32. IN ALL CASES WHERE THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS VARY, THE SPECIFICATIONS SHALL
PREVAIL, UNLESS OTHERWISE ORDERED BY THE ENGINEER.
33. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO REPAIR, TO THE EXTENT SPECIFIED BY THE
ENGINEER, ALL DAMAGED PAVEMENT AREAS, (OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF EXCAVATION) DAMAGED
AS A RESULT OF HIS (OR ANY OF HIS REPRESENTATIVES) OPERATIONS. NO ADDITIONAL
COMPENSATION WILL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL SUCH WORK.
34. CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR STATE,
COUNTY AND CITY.
35. ALL SEWER MAINS SHALL MAINTAIN THE MINIMUM SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS AS SET FORTH
BY THE NCDEQ STANDARDS, CHARLOTTE WATER AND SEWER POLICIES, PROCEDURES,
STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS MANUAL, MOST RECENT EDITION.
36. ALL PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE RECORDED BY THE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO THE START
OF CONSTRUCTION AND REPLACED TO PRE CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT AS APPROVED BY THE
ENGINEER AND OWNER. (IF NECESSARY)
37. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN TRAFFIC THROUGHOUT THE LENGTH OF THE CONTRACT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF DIVISION 11 - WORK ZONE TRAFFIC CONTROL OF
THE NCDOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROADS AND STRUCTURES AND TOWN OF MINT
HILL STANDARDS AS THEY APPLY.
38. PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY CONSTRUCTION PHASE, ALL PROPOSED MAINTENANCE AND
PROTECTION OF TRAFFIC RELATED WORK SHALL BE COMPLETE. THIS INCLUDES, WHERE
APPLICABLE, ALL SIGNS, PAVEMENT MARKINGS, BARRIERS, DELINEATION (CONES, DRUMS,
ETC.), PAVEMENT MODIFICATION AND OTHER RELATED WORK.
39. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL POST WARNING SIGNS AT ALL APPROACHES TO THE PROJECT AND
AT CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE FLAG MEN WHEN AND
WHERE NECESSARY.
40. CONSTRUCTION INGRESS AND EGRESS - THE CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP TO A MINIMUM THE
MOVEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT IN AND OUT OF DESIGNATED
TRAVEL LANES. ONLY NECESSARY OR AUTHORIZED VEHICLES, AS DETERMINED BY THE
ENGINEER, SHALL BE ALLOWED TO ENTER THE WORK AREA.
41. PUBLIC INGRESS AND EGRESS
A. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO EXISTING PARKING LOTS AND DRIVEWAY
ENTRIES AT ALL TIMES.
B. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE PROPERTY OWNERS WITH PROPER ACCESS AND
MINIMUM WIDTHS FOR THEIR DRIVEWAYS ACCORDING TO THE POLICY AND STANDARDS
FOR ENTRANCES TO STATE HIGHWAYS AND SHALL MAINTAIN THEM THROUGH ALL
PHASES OF WORK AND SHALL DELINEATE THESE BY MEANS OF SIGNS, CONES, AND/OR
DRUMS.
C. WHERE DIRECT ACCESS TO DRIVEWAYS IS NOT POSSIBLE DUE TO NECESSARY
CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PLAN ALTERNATE MEANS OF
ACCESS AND SUBMIT SUCH PLANS TO THE ENGINEER AND CITY DPW FOR REVIEW
BEFORE OPERATIONS COMMENCE.
42. PORTIONS OF THIS ALIGNMENT PASS THROUGH EXISTING ACTIVE HORSE PASTURES. WHEN
WORK IS PERFORMED IN THIS AREA LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE ADEQUATELY
FENCED AND PROTECTED TO PREVENT THE ENTRY OF ANIMALS ON ALL SIDES OF THE WORK,
THIS INCLUDES ANY TRAVERSING ACROSS EASEMENTS.
43. CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE EXISTING FENCES, UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE, WITH EQUAL OR
BETTER MATERIALS WHEN TEMPORARY FENCING IS REMOVED.
STEVENS CREEK MANHOLE SCHEDULE
MH NAME
STATION
MH TYPE
SIZE & MATERIAL
RIM
COVER TYPE
FRAME
EXTERNAL VENT ELEVATION
MH -01
(BY OTHERS)
AO+00
PRECAST
5'0 CONCRETE
631.45
BY OTHERS
BY OTHERS
TBD
MH -02
A3+37.83
PRECAST
5'0 CONCRETE
635.73
TYPE 4 (VENTED)
TYPE D
MH -03
A6+59.55
PRECAST
5'0 CONCRETE
637.92
TYPE 4 (VENTED)
TYPE D
MH -04
A9+84.54
PRECAST
5'0 CONCRETE
639.23
TYPE 4 (VENTED)
TYPE D
MH -05
A13+07.73
PRECAST
5'0 CONCRETE
636.52
TYPE 5 (SOLID)
TYPE D
MH -06
A16+26.79
PRECAST
5'0 CONCRETE
638.26
TYPE 5 (SOLID)
TYPE D
639.41
MH -07
A20+38.27
PRECAST
5'0 CONCRETE
636.93
TYPE 5 (SOLID)
TYPE D
MH -08
A24+83.26 =
B0+00
PRECAST
5'0 CONCRETE
641.12
TYPE 5 (SOLID)
TYPE D
643.68
MH -09
A28+10.33 =
CO+00
PRECAST
4'0 CONCRETE
650.43
TYPE 1 (VENTED)
TYPE B
MH -10
A32+32.51
PRECAST
4'0 CONCRETE
657.65
TYPE 1 (VENTED)
TYPE B
MH -11
A35+20.43
PRECAST
4'0 CONCRETE
650.30
TYPE 1 (VENTED)
TYPE B
MH -12
A38+53.42
PRECAST
4'0 CONCRETE
651.81
TYPE 3 (SOLID)
TYPE B
MH -13
A42+42.63
PRECAST
4'0 CONCRETE
655.34
TYPE 1 (VENTED)
TYPE B
MH -14
A45+99.11
PRECAST
4'0 CONCRETE
658.41
TYPE 1 (VENTED)
TYPE B
MH -15
A49+60.55
PRECAST
4'0 CONCRETE
663.26
TYPE 1 (VENTED)
TYPE B
MH -16
A53+63.26
PRECAST
4'0 CONCRETE
660.46
TYPE 3 (SOLID)
TYPE B
MH -17
A58+11.76
PRECAST
4'0 CONCRETE
662.82
TYPE 3 (VENTED)
TYPE B
MH -18
A62+54.79
PRECAST
4'0 CONCRETE
664.01
TYPE 3 (SOLID)
TYPE B
MH -19
A64+63.77
PRECAST
5'0 CONCRETE
666.03
TYPE 5 (SOLID)
TYPE D
MH -20
A65+48.00
PRECAST
5'0 CONCRETE
666.61
TYPE 5 (VENTED)
TYPE D
MH -21
B2+14.46
PRECAST
4'0 CONCRETE
643.04
TYPE 3 (SOLID)
TYPE B
MH -22
65+91.49
PRECAST
4'0 CONCRETE
644.98
TYPE 3 (SOLID)
TYPE B
MH -23
B9+84.20
PRECAST
4'0 CONCRETE
647.84
TYPE 5 (VENTED)
TYPE B
MH -24
B11+77.09
PRECAST
5'0 CONCRETE
649.12
TYPE 4 (VENTED)
TYPE D
MH -25
B12+71.21
PRECAST
5'0 CONCRETE
647.60
TYPE 3 (SOLID)
TYPE D
MH -26
B15+64.77
PRECAST
4'0 CONCRETE
649.33
TYPE 3 (SOLID)
TYPE B
MH -27
B17+97.41
PRECAST
4'0 CONCRETE
651.87
TYPE 3 (SOLID)
TYPE B
MH -28
B21+48.61
PRECAST
4'0 CONCRETE
653.60
TYPE 3 (SOLID)
TYPE B
655.02
MH -29
B26+63.92
PRECAST
4'0 CONCRETE
653.93
TYPE 3 (SOLID)
TYPE B
MH -30
B30+79.35
PRECAST
4'0 CONCRETE
661.60
TYPE 1 (VENTED)
TYPE B
MH -31
C2+29.93
PRECAST - INSIDE DROP
5'0 CONCRETE
644.81
TYPE 3 (SOLID)
TYPE B
MH -32
C2+56.22
PRECAST - DOGHOUSE
4'0 CONCRETE
645.49
TYPE 3 (SOLID)
TYPE B
tR WZAf
FI
GHD Consulting Services Inc.
222 South Church Street, Suite 400
Charlotte NC 28202 USA
T 1 704 302 4910 W www.ghd.com
A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT

A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT
� rn \
C7El
�\ \ PROPOSED 12 SS -
\ I
/>
�-EXISTING STEVENS
CREEK TRIBUTARY� \ 1APS�N \ I ' , I
PROPOSED STEVENS CREEK
NATURE PRESERVE (BY OTHERS)
BH -10 ' I PROPOSED
MANHOLE (TYP)
EXISTING OXFORD
4 GLENN PACKAGE WWTP\
EM F-1
�!SHEET 15 BH -2 / I
EXISTING /
STEVENS CREEK BH -3 ISI
6 PROPOSED 24 SS
�,- PROPOSED STEVENS CREEK
J/ I \ v
PUMP STATION (BY OTHERS)
I
0/ I _ - ' � , , ® � © ®� - � EXISTING
STEVENS CREEK
H-5 Q Hg��T4
H-9 0 PROPOSED 15 SS
\ /
©
(�
LEGEND•
I \ ®\ \ ✓ \ ` ,' , . / I �eH-� BORE HOLE
4�1 • CONSTRUCTION ACCESS
4EJ Cp
KEY MAP
GHD Consulting Services Inc.
0 300' 600' , 222 South Church Street, Suite 400
Charlotte NC 28202 USA
T 1 704 302 4910 W www.ghd.com
CHARLOTTE CHARLOTTE WATER
WJ)TER
CHARLOTTE NORTH CAROLINA
• ® 7030700047-17-503
Job No. File No. STEVENS CREEK
Scales PLAN 1"=300' TRUNK SEWER PHASE l
Know what's below. PROFILE
Call before you dig. Hor• NTS KEY MAP
Vert. NTS
As Built Date
A 2/16 TED FINAL DESIGNSheet Of
L. ASSOC JEM TED MEB 5/1/18 3 26
No. Dote By Revision Surveyed By Designed By Drown By Project-Engr Approved By Date
A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT

a - a
j _ \ T✓ \ / \ PROPOSED STEVENS
- - - - `V____
PROPOSED STEVENS _ �� - — - / - 100 YR FLOODPLAIN _ _ _ - ���\\ \ \ \\\ CREEK NATURE
- - - CREEK TOB BY OTHERS I / ` ' - 7 \
a • • - � � a • � � `� � ( ) _ HAZARD AREA (TYP) \ I �\\\ ��� PRESERVE PEDESTRIAN
'BRIDGE (BY OTHERS) D #19524101MECKLENBURG COUNTY DB 12412 PG 394
EXISTING \
i000
STjVENS CREEK
i • • • • • a 1 • , J ` -= woman_� 1 / ` �Z� ' TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION\ I +
- - PID #19514101 / / / / / EASEMENT (TYP)
\ MECKLENBURG COUNTY 50' WETLAND BUFFER / �� /
• • r i i DB 30459 PG 495 PERMANENT SEWER
\
EASEMENT (TYP)
• • • • • • • - - ! _ - - TEMPORARY ROCK \ 1
/ - - - SEDIMENT DAM ` l
WEIR = 4' \
• • • • • • i _ / 1cE TCE TYPE B (TYP) \
ICE T A O
EXISTING MANHOLE i ' ICE T E \ STONE CHECK DAM TYP
INTERCONNECTION _ / - - - TCE PsuE r E 10 (TYP)
- pSUE \ SEE DETAIL SHEET 24
• • a (SEE DETAIL DWG 20)/ / / _ i / / — TC TcE BH -1 PsuE r E rcE OUTLET (TYP)ED
STABILIZATION , _�` \
Muumuu — _
ICE —ICE
- PSUE p3+00 A4 rcE4so -SEE DETAIL SHEET 25 \ SILT FENCE (TYP)�_ - _ _
ICE — –+00 — — 20' Pg UE — TCE = 3CE \ ^ \ SEE DETAIL SHEET 23 - - - ` Q
ICE AZ+00 rcE \ \ TEMP. DIVERSION DITCH (TYP) Q
?SUE � - T - !� - - - - -� 4415+ TCE \ EE DETAIL SHEET 25
N8 , 5 N/ PE — — — —E — 0
g 43 5 �� _ - - _� 20' O UE TCE
i Al+00/ g37.83� ITARY SEWER SUE �_ _ _-PS S - - l N66 �3�49"�y / P\E ce TCE
• • • • ,,G, 24" SANITA TEMPORARY ROCK SILT_ _' — _ = = _ - - �� �°ROpOS •321.72• \ _6+ 00 rcE - - - - J
/
PROPOSE / CHECK TYPE B - _ - r ED 24p 00 \ Psu TcE LIJ
A0+00 / ii ' SEE DETAIL SHEET 25 % i ' - - - ' _ Ems- - SAN�JrAl
PERMANENT SEWER / / \ Psu �� rcE _ _ `7J
EASEMENT(TYP)/ / A7+00 T
, / / STA. A3+37.83 Q
PrcE�o TEMPORARY SILT PID #19514101 suPROPOSED 5 NO3DITCH (TYP) MECKLENBURG COUNTY 4gbW
rcE _J
rcE
/ TEMPORARY SILT CHEC TYPE B iii / /i / D/A. MANHOLE MH -02 DB 30459 PG 495 PSUE Op •32¢99, A8+00 P �� ( \
LLJ
W/ SILT BASIN TYPE B - _ OSEO 24b A �, v
SEE DETAIL St'ET 25 /� / \ _ / / / / W/VENTED
S TAR SE (�
FRAME &COVER — — — PSUE wER As Q
/ /� / / ---
=r— STA. Ao+oo 00000w- iPSUE
- — — — — — _ —
—PROPOSED 5' - STA. A6+59.55 ' ��—
DIA. MANHOLE MH -01 , — ' — PROPOSED 5 \ -
-- SUE
D/A. MANHOLE MH -03 — —
� Ss (BY OTHERS) _ — — / W/VENTED - — _ — -640-\PROPOSED STEVENS CREEK \_
200' BUFFER LINE FRAME &COVER __— — —
NATURE TRAIL (BY OTHERS) i
SS Ssy_ SS�� /� PROPOSEDTORMWATER POND - - -
/ SS // - S& OUTFALL( BY ) 640-
_OTHERS - - _ - -
—
//
PROPOSED SANITARY-
/�'� SEWER (BY OTHERS)�� / ----- -----
���/ / _ _/--_---- ---
PROPOSED STEVENS CREEK
PUMP STATION (BY OTHERS)/�� / - -- ----- ----�/
jz -_� / _-_- _ ------------- --
_
A 2/16 TED
No. Dote By
woman
Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
FINAL DESI
Revision
GHD Consulting Services Inc.
0 40' 80' , 222 South Church Street, Suite 400
Charlotte NC 28202 USA
T 1 704 302 4910 W www.ghd.com
CHARLOTTE CHARLOTTE WATER
W6TER CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
7030700-503 STEVENS CREEK
Jobb No. No. File No.
Scales
PLAN 1" = 40' TRUNK SEWER PHASE l
PROFILE
Hor. 1" = 40'
Vert. 1" = 4' PLAN AND PROFILE
STA AO+00 TO STA A9+00
As Built Date
Sheet Of
L. ASSOC JEM TED MEB5 3! 18 4 26
Surveyed By Designed By Drawn By Project-Engr Approved By Date
A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT
W
J
= W
W to
U)M
o II
���
�
+1W
(0
Q
= W
^-
+IW WcMotn
Q o o Z II
�1� 3
W
Az-^ v
Ct
o N ^ (0
11 C)
IEXISTING
Q _ m
640
64
O
O
+LO
Q
Qz
U) W
I
W
z=
W
C) Lj_j_
AT CENTERLINE
(APPROX.)
6501
100
HAZARD
YR
FL
AREA
OD
LAIN
(TYP)
63C
MIN. COVER
3.0'
4
P.
SANITARY
PROP.
o
®0.20/
24
D. I.
SEWER
[-- Cn
__
/
- -
-
\\
/ �
XIS
NG
BOTTOM
STEVENS
(APPROX.)
//
♦
-
\\
_
-♦
%
��
CREEK
PROP. 24" PVC SANITARY SEWER
PROP. 24" PVC SANITARY SEWER
62C
6
0
♦�
PROP. 24 " PVC SANI TARY SEWER
PROP. IN = 618.63
®0.20%
®0.20%
PROP. IN = 6 1 7.98
®0.20%
PROP. IN = 617.31
PROP. OUT = 617.9 8
PROP. OUT =
618.63
PROP. f OUT = XXX.XX (BY OTHERS)
EXISTING MAN
OLE
NTERCONNECTION
(SEE DETAIL DWG 20)
E[
0
p
(_j
a - a
j _ \ T✓ \ / \ PROPOSED STEVENS
- - - - `V____
PROPOSED STEVENS _ �� - — - / - 100 YR FLOODPLAIN _ _ _ - ���\\ \ \ \\\ CREEK NATURE
- - - CREEK TOB BY OTHERS I / ` ' - 7 \
a • • - � � a • � � `� � ( ) _ HAZARD AREA (TYP) \ I �\\\ ��� PRESERVE PEDESTRIAN
'BRIDGE (BY OTHERS) D #19524101MECKLENBURG COUNTY DB 12412 PG 394
EXISTING \
i000
STjVENS CREEK
i • • • • • a 1 • , J ` -= woman_� 1 / ` �Z� ' TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION\ I +
- - PID #19514101 / / / / / EASEMENT (TYP)
\ MECKLENBURG COUNTY 50' WETLAND BUFFER / �� /
• • r i i DB 30459 PG 495 PERMANENT SEWER
\
EASEMENT (TYP)
• • • • • • • - - ! _ - - TEMPORARY ROCK \ 1
/ - - - SEDIMENT DAM ` l
WEIR = 4' \
• • • • • • i _ / 1cE TCE TYPE B (TYP) \
ICE T A O
EXISTING MANHOLE i ' ICE T E \ STONE CHECK DAM TYP
INTERCONNECTION _ / - - - TCE PsuE r E 10 (TYP)
- pSUE \ SEE DETAIL SHEET 24
• • a (SEE DETAIL DWG 20)/ / / _ i / / — TC TcE BH -1 PsuE r E rcE OUTLET (TYP)ED
STABILIZATION , _�` \
Muumuu — _
ICE —ICE
- PSUE p3+00 A4 rcE4so -SEE DETAIL SHEET 25 \ SILT FENCE (TYP)�_ - _ _
ICE — –+00 — — 20' Pg UE — TCE = 3CE \ ^ \ SEE DETAIL SHEET 23 - - - ` Q
ICE AZ+00 rcE \ \ TEMP. DIVERSION DITCH (TYP) Q
?SUE � - T - !� - - - - -� 4415+ TCE \ EE DETAIL SHEET 25
N8 , 5 N/ PE — — — —E — 0
g 43 5 �� _ - - _� 20' O UE TCE
i Al+00/ g37.83� ITARY SEWER SUE �_ _ _-PS S - - l N66 �3�49"�y / P\E ce TCE
• • • • ,,G, 24" SANITA TEMPORARY ROCK SILT_ _' — _ = = _ - - �� �°ROpOS •321.72• \ _6+ 00 rcE - - - - J
/
PROPOSE / CHECK TYPE B - _ - r ED 24p 00 \ Psu TcE LIJ
A0+00 / ii ' SEE DETAIL SHEET 25 % i ' - - - ' _ Ems- - SAN�JrAl
PERMANENT SEWER / / \ Psu �� rcE _ _ `7J
EASEMENT(TYP)/ / A7+00 T
, / / STA. A3+37.83 Q
PrcE�o TEMPORARY SILT PID #19514101 suPROPOSED 5 NO3DITCH (TYP) MECKLENBURG COUNTY 4gbW
rcE _J
rcE
/ TEMPORARY SILT CHEC TYPE B iii / /i / D/A. MANHOLE MH -02 DB 30459 PG 495 PSUE Op •32¢99, A8+00 P �� ( \
LLJ
W/ SILT BASIN TYPE B - _ OSEO 24b A �, v
SEE DETAIL St'ET 25 /� / \ _ / / / / W/VENTED
S TAR SE (�
FRAME &COVER — — — PSUE wER As Q
/ /� / / ---
=r— STA. Ao+oo 00000w- iPSUE
- — — — — — _ —
—PROPOSED 5' - STA. A6+59.55 ' ��—
DIA. MANHOLE MH -01 , — ' — PROPOSED 5 \ -
-- SUE
D/A. MANHOLE MH -03 — —
� Ss (BY OTHERS) _ — — / W/VENTED - — _ — -640-\PROPOSED STEVENS CREEK \_
200' BUFFER LINE FRAME &COVER __— — —
NATURE TRAIL (BY OTHERS) i
SS Ssy_ SS�� /� PROPOSEDTORMWATER POND - - -
/ SS // - S& OUTFALL( BY ) 640-
_OTHERS - - _ - -
—
//
PROPOSED SANITARY-
/�'� SEWER (BY OTHERS)�� / ----- -----
���/ / _ _/--_---- ---
PROPOSED STEVENS CREEK
PUMP STATION (BY OTHERS)/�� / - -- ----- ----�/
jz -_� / _-_- _ ------------- --
_
A 2/16 TED
No. Dote By
woman
Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
FINAL DESI
Revision
GHD Consulting Services Inc.
0 40' 80' , 222 South Church Street, Suite 400
Charlotte NC 28202 USA
T 1 704 302 4910 W www.ghd.com
CHARLOTTE CHARLOTTE WATER
W6TER CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
7030700-503 STEVENS CREEK
Jobb No. No. File No.
Scales
PLAN 1" = 40' TRUNK SEWER PHASE l
PROFILE
Hor. 1" = 40'
Vert. 1" = 4' PLAN AND PROFILE
STA AO+00 TO STA A9+00
As Built Date
Sheet Of
L. ASSOC JEM TED MEB5 3! 18 4 26
Surveyed By Designed By Drawn By Project-Engr Approved By Date
A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT

A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT
W
J
—43
41
W
J
I�
�p O M
O
co
N
OVM
�CN
Q
�I4
p I
MIO OO M
Qc0
Q�p� II
QQ o II
\
�n��3�
4
1
1
1
1
6irk
I0
CROSSING
ti
O
XISIING
AT
CENTERLINE
GRADE
(APPROX.)
O
O
00
Q z
MATTING
HEET 25
Q
z
100 YR
HAZARD
FL
AREA
ODPLAI
(TYP)
EROSION
CONTROL
DETAIL
(
I
EE
3
U) w
Cl) W
EXISTING
S
VENS
0
LLJ w
REEK
BOTTOM
APP
OX.)--
w
w
z=
cn
--
-
--
--
-
--
--
-
--
-
--
-
--
--
- - --
--
- _
__ --
-
cn
W
W
-
--
-
--
--
-
--
--
-
.
\�
__
`
--
-�
��
-'
���
y
IN.
COVER
.0'
'-
--
--
_ __
U W
-
-
-- --
-
--
``
Q
PROP. 24" D.I.P. SANITARY SE►NE
Q
4_1
PROP.
24"
PVC SANITARY
SEWER
PROP. 24" PVC SS
PROP. 24" PVC SANITARY
SEWER
®0.50 o
®0.50
2
PROP.
PROP
IN
OUT
=
X621.52
=
620
PROP. IN = 622.17(6")
621 52
®0.20'
®0.20%
PROP.
IN
= 619.28
PROP. IN = 619.92
P. OUT = 619.28
PROP. OUT = 619.92
10+0
11+0
12+0
13+0
14+®
15+0
16+0
17+0
18+0
�
-_
-�
w /
I � `" _ /.\� ��� - - -� --- - \= = //\\- / ` PID #19524101
x \ WROPOSE SI�VENS\�\ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ MECKLENBURG COUNTY__
CREEK TOB (BY OTHERS)_ - 6 — - r --� - j - �� -�� _ \ DB 12412 PG
394
-
�
Ji
EXISTING
STEVENS CREEK \
PID 19524101
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
(
'
/ \ ��
_
k I
J ` STA. A 13+07.73 \ \ ` \ \%
DB 12412 PG 394 '
_-�
_
�✓ \ /�
k \
_ PROPOSED 5'/;\\\\-,I I
-
\
D/A. MANHOLE MH -05_ / // t \ I - / ♦ ...
// _ `
I
i x \
y
/
W/WATER TIGHT _ ///� �� /� �� �� �' /
_
\
'
TEMPORARY ROCK FRAME & COVER _ , ;
SEDIMENT DAM �� \ \ \ - / / /TEMPORARY l \ -�/
J
IJl
'
—moo* '
ONSTRUC—■
TION '/'
WEIR = 12' \\ \\ \ \' / EASEMENT (TYP) \
TYPE B (TYP) \ \ / �, I
_
/
_
TCE � CE \\ \ ter/
ICE \ \ \
\ TICE SEWER
TEMP. DIVERSION DITCH (TYP) I
ICE PSU �\ PERMANEN�
\
Ice rcF \� EASEMENT (7Y
ICE \ \
SEE IL SHEET 25 owns-
/
- - - \
?SUE
ICE +00 roe � \ - SILT FENCE (TYP)
p13
ICE_ cF SEE DETAIL SHEET 23
- Psu
i
_ '
1 ICE ?SUE
_ - \ REINFORCED STABILIZATION'
Al2+p0 \ q' l r�F \ OUTLET (�)
�•
ICE
TCE
_ _ ICE ' PsuE
_
�W �' - - - _ _ 4f00 rcE \ SEE DETAIL SHEET 25Cn
N66'03'49� Pa °?su� 1. N384 rcF _
+0 _ \
ICE
ICE�� Al 0 24 3 SANITARY SEWER PSUE T ° ,`• I T _ PROpOs 4 �9 06� bH' PSUE rc� \rcF
TCE p UE n _ ,
rcE D � P I
20 - - - _ \ E
PROPOSED
T A 1500
Sq'"'�TgRY
— _ rc ��\
v
lJ ,
SEER �\ �i�
6
' 1
PSUE f�\
— — — _ SE-y,E. "SUE ro �c
— R
- - \ - \
k00 ��a, Ito
SAI I / V
2�
1
•03'49"W
p0 N66 g9,
4.
20' PSUE
SEW ER -
- - - \
_
- 100 YR FLOODPLAIN - - - - Ers
/ / - _ - - - -HAZARD AREA (TYP) _ TEMPORARY SILT \
\ DITCH (TYP) '4 i16,�00 -
\
/
Ep
PROPOS %
V , SANITARY psuE - / \
24" -` \\
PERMANENT SE R / / PROPOSED STREAM RESTORATION T�MPORARY SILT CHECK TYPE B \ \ �F�,
O
• •
PROPOSE
PR PsuE
\\ \
/ STAGING AREA _ \ \ \
EASEMENT (TYP) \ I W/ SILT BASIN TYPE B \ \
�\CP
SEE DETAIL SHEET 25 ' \`Ao\
0 %C
STA. A9+84.54 -
l / ' ` \ \ \ _
____
' r
PROPOSED 5' - ' \ / (, \ \\ \ TEMPORARY STREAM i
I _1__--\
\ / _ -PRO-POSED ACCESS ROAD STA. A 16+26.79 � \ \ \ CROSSING (TYP)
D/A. MANHOLE MH -04 \ I - - - N \ _ _ _ \ \ \ \ \ \� SEE DETAIL SHEET 23
(BY OTHERS) PROPOSED 5 40\ _ \ /�"
'
O
O
W/VENTED -
/ \
- _
- -
�� - - - - PID #19524101 - \ D/A. MANHOLE MH -06 \ \ _ \ \
\\ \\`'
;� \\
- - \\\\
TEMPORARY EROSION /
\� CONTROL MATTING (TYP)
�
FRAME & COVER , _ _ _
�\
-MECKLENBURG COUNTY \ \ \
m DB 12412 PG 394 W/WATER TIGHT ` \
\
_ \\ SEE DETAIL SHEETZ,5 -
\\\ ` _ \ —
_
GHD Consulting Services Inc.
- - -
FRAME & COVER \
\\ - "
_ _ \\
_,�\\\\ - ��
0 40� 80� 222 South Church Street, Suite 400
,
PID #19514101
MECKLENBURG COUNTY - \
DB 30459 PG 495
111(\ \ \ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ - _ NATURE PRESERVE \
/ \ \/
\ I \ I N 6' SS CONNECTION \ / - -
\ �' SEE SHEET C302
- - _ _ _
---- \`\\ _
\\ \ \\� / _
arlotte NC 28202 USA
Th1 704 302 4910 W www.ghd.com
---__-_ --_\
\,� - �
IIII-\\ �-
\ \\\ \_
_��--
_-
/ \ \ V _-- -- -- _ 200 BUFFER LINE \-------
�_-
\�~� -_ ------
\\ 50' WETLAND BUFFER__-
\���\�
-� \; ;�\___^
CHARLOTTE
CHARLOTTE WATER
----------------
------------ —\\\\ \_
--_�
�\ \ \ \\-
- \\__
W6TER
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
`\\ \\\
'
-----'—\_--'—
-----
\ r \( / '— _ \\ `----' \—
1 , \ I\(l sso� \\-\_-------
--\ _--__�'—� \\— \\
_ -\
\�
\
• 0 7030700047-17-503 STEVENS CREEK
Job No. File No.
/
---
-----------------
\
\\ \
Scales
PLAN 1„ - 40' TRUNK SEWER PHASE l
Know what's below. PROFILE
------------- — _ \N \
Hor. 1„ - 40'
Call be fore you dig. PLAN AND PROFILE
Vert.
STA A9+00 TO STA A 18+00
\\\\ \\\\\
As Built Date
___`------\sss\\\\\ \\\
A 2/16.
/
TED
Sheet Of
FINAL DESIGN L. ASSOC JEM TED MEB 5/1 18
5 26
__/\_—_
- - - - - _ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ -
/ \ No. Date
By
Revision Surveyed By Designed By Drawn By Project-Engr Approved By Date
A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT

A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT
W
J
++ IQ O
Q�p� II
QCc _ NK
4
00
YR
FLOODPLAIN
Et
Cc
4
AZARD
AREA
(TYP)
O
EXIS NG
AT CENTERLINE
GRADE
(APPROX.)
O
__0
O
O
Q
O
N
Z
EXISiI
CREEK
G S
BOTTOM
NS
(APPROX.)
z
�
U7 W
W
3
,
MIN. COVER 3.0'
/�
-'
3
60
��
- --
= LiJ
®0.50% 4 „ D. I. P. SS
PROP.
LLJ
=
��
24
PVC SANITARY
SEWER
w
U
PROP. 24" D.I.P. SANITARY
W
U (n
SEWER
Q
®0.50
0
Q
®0.50%
PROP. IN = 623.57
PROP. OUT = 623.57
PROP. 24"
D.I.P.
SANITARY
SEWER
®0.50%
ANTI -SEEP COLLAR
SEE DETAIL SHEET 21
2
2
1
8
1 9+
O+
1+
2+
3+
4
777 N
\��\��
NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE AND
—\��=_ --- ---- �\ —\ \ \ \ \ \ I I �\\J 1\I�`>ll /
PLANT 9 GALLON SIZED EVERGREEN
— — — — —
TREES, THREE (3) PER LOCATION
ALONG PERMANENT EASEMENT LINE
\�
AT MANHOLE #7, 8, AND 21.
� � \ I \ \ \ \ PID #19524101
\ I \ \ \ _
r / MECKLENBURG COUNTY I
\,��yl _---•/� / ��\� \\'- \ \\ \\\\ \\ \\ / DB 122 PG 394
��
PROPOSED STEVENS
CREEK TOB (BY OTHERS I \ J
HAZARD AREA (TYPy
100 YR FLOODPLAIN//
e1111.111,
EXISTING
STEVENS0 y/�/
00 -CREEK /
\
0 /
I
n
+ \ �_���_� ; j \ \ \ TEMPORARY EROSION /"CON
\ \ \ �, `
���\ CONTROL MATTING Ct ONTRACT
- �� `--\-\\ \ \ -SEE DETAIL 25 + REMOVE AND REPLACE 3
r-
Q O
s \
TEMPORARY = _-_-_ _ - - TRAND ELECTRIC WIRE
� ` r - f \\� ���� �\ + NCE TO OUTSIDE LIMITS 1
CONSTRUCTION �� ti\ \ �� \� �� \
F TEMPORARY EASEMENT
Q O
z
EASEMENT (TYP) IL ENCE (TYP) REORCED STABILIZATION �a -
+ �[\ - -(SEE DETAIL SHEET 26
DETAIL SHEET 23 \ %\ \ \ �%
z
Q
PERMANENT SEWER ` ,OUTLET (NP) \ \ - _ - - FOR FENCE REPLACEMENT
EASEMENT (TYP) \ .\_� - - SEE`DETAIL SHEET 2 c �� = 635 = %� - / \/
-��
Q
CIO LLI/
\ \ � � � � \ � -� - L- �� �-� � /� �
- - E CE TCE
(n
LTJ
W
T6E TCE
TCE TCE TCE TCE CE - CE \ E E + C
W =
_ _ _FCE
T Tc _ E`
X
- - - - - - - - PSUE
Li
z V J
PSUE -
SUE PS P E r X
,.
` ` I
z
V l
J
W
20' � A20+00 � X A23+00 A2
00 A19+00 I A22+00
I N76'2658 "W A21 +00 N78'30'38 "W
—
J L d
U LTJ
BH -2 20' 41 f.48' I 444.99
SEWER
= W
U
(�
PROPOSED 24" SAN/TAY SEWER �PRO�SED 24" SANITARY x -
--- ---
PSU P UE PS
uE PSU P
/ _ \ ANTI -SEEP COLLAR _ i \ \� - PERMANENT SEWER FARM GA
i/ / • (FODETAIL
=>
SEE DETAIL SHEET 21 a \ \ \ \ EASEMENT (TYP) SEER SHEET 26) i
SEE NOTE 1
STA. A20+38.27
PROPOSED 5' t /
` GHD Consulting Services Inc.
,
• • • REDUCE CLEARING TO 40' I D/A. MANHOLE MH -07 ! / /
0 40'
80' 222 South Church Street, Suite 400
, Charlotte NC 28202 USA
_
I STA A19+20 TO STA A20+20
W1 WA TERT/GHT
T 1 704 302 4910 W www.ghd.com
�,�._ _ _ _ FRAME & COVER
/ /
PID #19524101 /� 50' WETLAND BUFFER \ LI / 1 PID #19517155 / / /
< MECKLENBURG COUNTY / /
CHARLOTTE
CHARLOTTE WATER
/ JAMES R WIGGINS JR / /
DB 12412 PG 394 \ _ _ - & MITZI C WIGGINS i / / �/ i /
/ � - DB 8064 PG 520 � / � �
W6T E R
� MB 26 PG 552 / ,'
f
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
�— /
\ 200' BUFFER LINE / /�. �' - / /'�, `' i / / / /
/
—��
• 7030700047-17-503 STEVENS CREEK
Job No. File No.
Scales
TRUNK SEWER PHASE I
/�
PLAN 1" -
40'
�-\ i • a i i i I I� /// / ./ -/ /� _
Know what's below PROFILE
� Hor. 1„ =
40'
// //,/ /�/
\ /
Call before you dig. vert. ," -
4' PLAN AND PROF/LE
STA A 18+00 TO STA A24+00
As Built Date
A 2/16. TED
FINAL DESIGNSheet
L. ASSOC JEM
TED MEB 5/1/18 6
Of
26
No. Date By
Revision Surveyed By Designed
By Drawn By Project-Engr Approved By Date
A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT

A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT
W
J
�
W
J
O �
M=
M
otr)
� V
O
N
W LQ �0
Q
cMo
Q
Q p II
_EXISTING
QI022
� W II
GRADE
W
oX
(/�
3
AT CENTERLINE
(APPROX.)
5
5
MoIQ
,QN
o
CIO+ oZ
_
o
+o
IW ���
O
O
1o°�OW
00
Nt co
QQ
oo II
L
Q O
I
_ Z
II ��3Q
CROSS NG #2--Q
z
z
100
HAZARD
YR
FLOODPLAIN
AREA (TYP)
Q
640
LLJ
6412
W =
___----_-.
.---__-
W =
z Cf)
W
I
EROSION
SEE DETAIL
CONTROL
SHEET
MATTING
25
(TYP)
-LS
S
CREEK BOTTOM (APPROX.)
-
-
"J
-
z
W
_
__
__
_
__ __ _
__ __
.,� ^
"'
-
�
��
-
W""
_ -� - -- --
-
--
_
-
= W
Cn
Q
PROP. 16 " p,
I.P. SANITARY_
00.60
Q
�
-- - -- -- -
-- --
-
•,
�
SEWER
�
p p, 16 " D.I.P. SANITARY
1N-4FOR 310'O
3
PROP.
IN
631.44
3
6PROP.
1" p, �, P. SANITARY
PROP®0.60
SEWER-
0
1=
OUT = 631.24
ANTI -SEEP COLLAR
SEE DETAIL SHEET 21
7-;; 7-1 777
17.1
2
/ L - 4 ®0.609'
PROP.
F /N
=
628.71(12")
AA/)i
IPROP.
IN
=
628.96
PROP.
OUT
= 628.51
PROP. C IN =
626.55(12")-
26.55(12")PROP.
IN=1
626.80(16 ")
--PROP.
I I I
PROP. , f , OUT
i
= 625.80
PROP. 24"
D.I.P. SS
®0.50%
4
5+
6+
7+
8+
9+
O+
1+
2+
3+
4+
3
5
000,
NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE
AND
—� \ I / I \ \ \
\ — / \ ) / / /
/ / / / / / / N,
PLANT 9 GALLON SIZED EVERGREEN
TREES, THREE (3) PER LOCATION
ALONG PERMANENT EASEMENT
LINE
AT MANHOLE #7, 8, AND 21.
—655CD
PWOOOOO
0
9
`
I 1
21 660
PID #19524101
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
/ / / \ \ — _ \
\\ / / Q
\\
\\\ \ \ \
\ \ \ ��"� \ iso \
\ ,. \ \
DB 12412 PG 394 / ` \ — _ — —
\ / — — _ — ' ) \ l \ 1 \ \ \ \
\\
-- \ \ \--
_\
////
/ /// O
G�
Cj� /
illllll\ EXISTING \ \
STEVENS CR I I \ \
I I I I \ \ \ \ \
— —_
_ — ' ' \ , 1 1 1I EROSION CONTROL MATTING (TYP) _ _
i" —650- — —
/ I ( \ \ \ SEE DETAIL SHEET 25
\\
—\\\\\�'
STA. A32+32.51 \ \ \ ✓ / / / / / — — —
/
X X
�� llllh x � \ \ \ \ `\ \ \ \ \
`
_
STA. A28+10.33 _ _ _ - / \ � \ .�00 BUFFER LINE
I \
'
_ _ __
l j J /
� I ` � � /00
PROPOSED 4
/ 50 WETLAND U
IIII Jill TEMPORARY EROSI \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \
_ \
PROPOSED 4 \ \
_ _ - _ - \ / /
I
\ sA \ I
IIIII CONTROL MATTING (TYP.) \ \
S�E D TAI HEET 25 ` \ \ s\ \ 1 \ \ 1
\ PERMANENT SEWER DIA. MANHOLE MH -10
- - -
DIA. MANHOLE MH -09 _ — \ \ EASEMENT (TYP) \ 655—
\ W/VENTED
+
ANTI -SEEP COLLAR II f I / \ \ l \ \ \ \ \ I
\ 1 ' —ARY ` \ \ \
W/VENTED \ \ \ ` FRAME & COVER
FRAME & COVER - \ \ \ \\ ` -
O SEE DETAIL SHEET 21 — _
/ / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
O m + \ \ / ' I FORD CROSSING \ \
gg \
SEE TIL E T 23
-
\ \ \ BH -4
/ — — — \ \ \ \ — _ PsuE PsuE
/ — UE
\ I
Y
\ \ /
`
�
REINFORCED'iTABILIZATION BH 3 PsuE
PsuE Ps A32+00 15
suE � A30+00 -A31+00 S40'36 36 W / /
—
� PSUE — - 650 - — / j \ SLI
s
-b /
\\ \\
//
/ / OUTLET TYP PSU;
AIL SHEET A28+00
A29+00 _
� 422.18' — --1-59 1-5' — i
/ _ — — — _ _
� A33+Q0) _ —
\l =
'app
\ 1 �O 7T W \ \ 11 I
I
0 oN o� i IIIII
DE 25 15
/ — R / +OO . ' 1 "W
' / A27 S35 37 3 CO+00
_ _
—
PSU / //\
-� PROPOSED 16" SANITARY SEWER r ^
\ PSUE — PSE _ �♦
SUE \ P \ — — — — —, —_ P �� / x A34+00
PID #19517155
\ Psu \ — /
\ �o ' �� so ` 327.07 �5 \ — /
�A25+00
E
JAMES R WIGGINS JR \
& MITZI C WIGGINS `\
�\
N s�
\ �N
A26+00 _ pROpOSED 16" SS PSUE
\
1 PSUE
\
_PsuE
/ \ X PsuE IW
/ SLI
/ / / T / SO \ E TCE ���_ T� ' T A3
PROpOSE.�
DB 8064 PG 520 \
MB 26 PG; 98\/T
\
\ N
x` \
20,
\ UE I \ \
_ — _
/ / P �s51F
TCE TCE
- / CE TCE TCE \ _ — — — — — TCE
/ T \� ------
\
/TCE�\\.
—
\ uy\ —�\
//
REDUCE CLEARING TO 40'
STA A24+00 TO TA A25+ 5
\ SEE NOTE
/ PsuE\
✓
, ��/ — Xoo
T TCE \ — —
\ 1� 20 6P'
�C�\�\\� T \ \\ \
�rcE c
STA. A24+83.26 1
a a
\\ ��\ 1 \\y — �\ \ �—
\ \
' /� _ PERMANENT SEWER is45r�
�"► TEMPORARY ROCK
(TYP)
EASEMENT TYP
= STA 80+00
'
PROPOSED 5
q �`� \
N
a� \
L \ \�\\ \ \\ \ I \
A GATE \ \ _\ m
(FOR DETAIL v �� PERMANENT
SEE SHEET 26 � � NT SEWER
T /
_
`SEDIMENT DAM \ \ ) '
�S ' ' / WEIR = 4'000
SILT FENCE (TYP) / / TYPE B TYP \\ \ x
/ ( �� / \
/� �� —
/
t * \\• T TYP -�
D/A. MANHOLE MH -08\ ANTI -SEEP COLLAR ( ) \
fi x SEE DETAIL SHEET 21 v TEMPORARY
/ m
W WATERT/GHT CONSTRUCTION
�1T12A TOR SHALL REMOVE AN
EASEMENT TYP
FRAME &COVER / \ REPLACE 3 STRAND ELECTRIC WIRE ( ) I
/ ,, \ �_
��
SEE DETAI SHEET 23 v _ _ e
/ /�
// TEMPORARY \,\ _
C 1 +00 `=
' �' / CONSTRUCTION \\��\\ / \ �\� \ /o i TEMPORARY \\\
EASEMENT (TYP) \� \` —�; \ \ // EXISTING SEDIMENT DAM \\�
_ _ j STEVENS CREEK 7 \
f o ( \ �� _ iF \ _ // / WEIR = 6'
®\ —���—\
) ' ��j/// / /,� _ ��` ���� �� _�� l j/ 'N /� l/ — ` TYPE B (TYP) \Z
0 40' 80'
m FENCE TO OUTSIDE LIMITS OF�����
\ MPORARY STREAM
\ \ • a X / ? r' TEMPORARY EASEMENT (SEE DETAIL �
1 I \ O \ � CROSSING(TYP)\�'
w �i�if 100 YR FLOODPLAIN / ���
JJ —
�\ �/ // J HAZARD AREA TYP-1 ��
( ) f / i
" �� —
�//moi \ PROPOSED STEVENS --- y
/�/// / —
\
/// /^� \
l l / / STONE CHECK DAM (TYP) \�
SEE AIL SHEET 24
\ \
\ \
-o O
1\ \ A
\ •\ • / p NSF
SHEET 26 FOR FENCE REPLACEMENT) (S DETAI SHEET 23 w _ �� / \ --�� DE \ \�
� —
,, — _ / // �\ CREEK TOB (BY OTHERS) — /� �� / //// / r - r\\
//�/i / \ _ �_ _ _— J TEMP. DIVERSION DITCH (TYP) ^\\
FENCE REPLACEMENT /" I I/�j r� — —_ \ _ �� �/ / / / _' y _ �F �� __, — / SEE DETAIL SHEET 25 \
LOCATI N l \ r � /�l —.� �'` �\ I� � / \ \�� i
�� \ \
GHD Consulting Services Inc.
9
222 South Church Street, Suite 400
1
Charlotte NC 28202 USA
\ \ \
REINFORCED STA IL A 014- n
OUTLET (TYP) ; \
`\\
_ / — — / X / / Z —
S S — ' — — — —
T 1 704 302 4910 W www.ghd.com
\
\
• r'
\ SEE DETAIL SHEET 25 —
SHEET 15 X \ - JJ �;� Sg —
PROFILE
\
\ ► - - �,�
x \ , 0 r r \ \ XIS I ING STEVENS / /,, — — _ _ _ _
� EXISTING
�
CHARLOTTE CHARLOTTE
WATER
\
\ \ • • c^�
EXISTING WWTP
\�\CI�EEKTR,)BUTARY/// �
I — / / ��// /. PUMP STATION
;� MANHOLE
+00_ _ // � � � _
\ SANITARY SEWER
m _-
W�T E R
CHARLOTTE,
NORTH CAROLINA
•
EXISIING FENCE TO BE REMOVED — TEMPORARY EROSION -
e�X // AND REPLACED BY CONTRACTOR \ / -CONTROL MATTING (TYP.) /
� X„ /� I {TYP) SEE DETAIL SHEET 21 / � SEE DETAIL SHEET 25 -
• 7030700047-17-503
\
, \ X�
�X
�' S - - - - -
QBE \\/�/ ' —
Job No. File No.
Scales
STEVENS CREEK
\ I SEE NOTE 1
I
x
10 / /� �// / SS
��/ _ _ \
I _ , _ _ , _ _ - - _ - _
AN I — \ _ / PID #19517132 PID #19517133
PLAN 1 " = 40 TRUNK
SEWER PHASE l
a
30� ti PID #19517148 m
/ I //\
I / \ \ / -DEAN G HAWKINS & ' MICHAEL BRADLEY LITTLE — — —
\ / KELLIE P HAWKINS _ & NOREEN A LITTLE \
Know what's below. PROFILE 1" = 40'
Hor.
\
\
\
.
/ MECKLENBURG COUNTY S (
►� a - k / m S I DB 24274 PG 101 DB 8702 PG 72 — — — _ _
I I • a �/� I DB 24891 PG 862 �/ 1 \ I \ \ / LOT 32 — LOT 33
EXISTING WWTP Q lF C\5 \ I h \ / MB 22 PG 303 _ MB 22 PG 303 \ ` -
Call before you dig. -
g Vert. 1" 4'
STA
PLAN AND PROF/LE
A24+00 TO STA A35+00
m PID #19517147
I CITY OF CHARLOTTE
30613 PG 431
J / —
TCF / \ \ / _ _
I � � \,
As Built Date
Sheet
Of
_DB
� _ - --
A 2/16
TED FINAL DESIGN L. ASSOC JEM TED
MEB 5/1/18
�G
No. Date
By Revision Surveyed By Designed By Drawn By Project-Engr Approved By Date
A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT

A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT
W
J
� = W
ON
+I
W W two
6
6
J
N_=
BIZ W^
z
Qp^Z II
oo
o°.��,
+IW C�t�o
������
O
�Q
0
Q
N�
o
0
+
Q O
+Q
MQj
'Ilk
Qom
to
Q to
II
I
(nQ_
I
EXISTING GRADE
AT CENTERLINE (APPROX.)
+
0-)
-Q O
Q
LIJ
100
HAZARD
YR FLOODPLAIN
AREA (TYP)__17
(� W
5
S
W
W
W =
W =
Un
__zUn
= W
(APPROX.)
= W
IN.
CO
R 3
0'
EXI
CREEK
TIN
SIEVE
BOTTOM
NS
U (%�
_
_
`
U (W
--
--
i
640
16" PVC SANITARY
SEWER
PROP.
PROP. 16" D.I.P. SANITARY SEWER
®0.60%
PROP.
f IN = 638.11
PROP.
OUT = 637.91
01
PROP. IN = 635.57
®0.60
PROP. OUT
= 635.37
PROP. f IN ,= 633.37
PROP. OUT = 633.17
5
6+
7+
8+
9+
O+
1+
2+
3
O
(/I I I/ I I I \ I \ \\— /' /' // // /l l � 5,
—670
-'
STA. A42+42.63
�/
PROPOSED 4'
—
DIA. MANHOLE MH 131
W/VENTED Q
FRAME & COVER QST S
1
\
I I I I 1 'STA. A35+20.43 \ -- \\\ \\,\ ---_ ��,
I\ I\ I\ I 1 PROPOSED 4 \\ ��_ —_,\ /C\\\ ---�
tixo°/-
' P�
\�\ ��—�/ ��' /,-- /� /// / / /'////'
�(
\ \ \ , D/A. MANHOLE MH -11 \ \ �. /
/� S �p—
eS e �� /�
x 6>
\\
\\
\ \ \ , — _ _ _ \ \ — — / /
\ \ \ W/VENTED \ \\ \ \ / / /� \ \ _ — — — — 200' BUFFER UNE / // /'
\ \ ---J
, / /
' / / '09 S���R / �O PERMANENT SEWER
��
\\ \ FRAME &COVER \\ \\ \ / /'� _-- --___—_ /// /��//�/// SZg•�a 20P�\�pR� �O �c�/ �EASEMENT(TYP)
\ \
/I
00
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / PID #19524101 — — _ \ \ — — — / / // / /'36''
\ \ \ \ \ ( _ _ — — —
\ \ \ \ PERMANENT SEWER- _665- — MECKLENBURG COUNTY - - / / /
Ses�� TEMPORARY
�i CONSTRUCTION
es k00 Q / EASEMENT (TYP)
\
_
'- J DB 12412 PG 394
\ \ \ \ \ \ \EASEMENT (TYP) / — . — �_ _ / / / /
\ \ ' /
P OP O
O
O
x \ \ \ \ \ ` STA. A38+53.42
U` \ g3gx00 \ \ \ ,' / PROPOSED 4 '
\ \ / \
\ D/A. MANHOLE MH -12
+
X
\ \ ps�F \ \ \ — _ / / /' ,
s \ \ , , \ / / / / W/WATER T/GHT
— �•.
����—�' - �,r,- % V%
\\ OSE,0\3rr 08•� \\\ ,\ '—'// FRAME &COVER okoo
fs"V m� noun low=
\ \\ S4iVj�, g3���\\�66p__ // / esu e—/
30' BUFFER LINE
ro /\`//
` F \ \ \ \ as�q�y S x00 /
15' — ` `/ - / J / '
-- 50FFER LIN x/jj�� % �,
W
�� —
` X / — c� /�
PSLF
\\\ '/BH ��
SILT FENCE (TYP)
W
\\\ `\\
/ /1—�/ _— -5 /�
\\\\
\� r,��J \ \ p 1J _—_-655 i / S�� 15'
8x0 15
SEEA SH ET2
/\3
_ Py9
25 --- 0 '40PF—
W\\ \\ \ \ PSU 20
�i/a /jam //
/
/
LLJ7
U(J-)III
`—
\ CF \ - I X7%1
� \\"► \ STONE CHECK �TYP)'
L
/
j
/
rc O /
x \ \ \ J F j� ��a — �c� SEE �pc E EE /
\ ` _ / F / I TEMP. DIVERSION DITC& TYP
\— x \ \ �c� 1 EE ETAIL SHE T !�i
%/,�%/
= EXISTING
, //// — /
STEVENS CREEK
PID I #19517142
— — rCF / x — —� ��/�
11111\ I —I cF
/
RosA E MASCORRO &
MERCEDES H MONTALVO
DB 17117 PG 944
� GHD Consulting Services Inc.
222 South Church Street, Suite 400
I I xl , _ ��\\\�\\ �\ x ---// —'—
\
LOT 42
d MB 22 PG 303
, Charlotte NC 28202 USA
ROPO$ED STEVENS 1 ` � / I, - �
CREEK TOB BY OTHERS J — — — // / /
( ) TEMPORARY ROCK \ J ® / — /
/ / �
/ /
T 1 704 302 4910 W www.ghd.com
SEDIMENT DAM/i//�/
,' -WEIR = 6' J — — // j
�?� _� // / \ / /
CHARLOTTE
CHARLOTTE WATER
TYPE B TYPE %—�//
(TYP) , �_ / - /' �, // / /
\\�\\/�_,,
100 YR FLOODPLAIN
HAZARD AREA (TYP)
W6T E R
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
/ ! — — \ \
PID #19517141
.0001 JAMES T BOYLES JR
• 7030700047-17-503
_
SS \\ \ — \\\ �\\\ �\ // /////� I \ \ .� / / / \
Y
& ROBIN W BOYLES
DB 13846 4G 682
®
Job No. File No. STEVENS CREEK
ss _ \' i\\� \ \\ \ \ // / ►; / �/////// / \� \\ S \ /
/ \ S
/ / MB 2j i 303 e
/
Scales
PLAN 1" =
40' TRUNK SEWER PHASE l
_
SS\, I \ -/ \ , /' / %/�//// / \ \\ S—� — — /
Know what,s below. PROFILE
Hor. 1„ -
40'
���� PID #19517138 PID #19517139 — — — —
— — — _ =\� PAMELA SULLIVAN & DAVID L COLE & —
S
PID #19517140 `�
- JERRY M MUSSELWHITE JR
Call before you dig. = PLAN AND PROF/LE
Vert.
STA A35+00 TO STA A43+00
PID #19517136 — _ — / PID #19517137 / �'"r•\
— KENNETH AUBREY TYREE ' TERESA A COLE
RONALD L PUTNAM JENNIFER BROWER DEGROAT —
DB 7455 PG 271 \ — — DB 8838 PG 329 \ DB 8131 PG 67— —
& SHERRI H MUSSELWHITE
DB 9277 PG 598
As Built Date
Sheet Of
DB 8006 PG 291 — — —
— _ LOT 36 LOT 37 LOT 38 — _ _ _ — LOT 39 —
MB 22 PG 303_ / — — MB 22 PG 303 / / _ MB 22 PG 303 — — _ MB 22 PG 303
— LOT 40 A 2 16 TED
MB 22 PG 303 �
�� No. Date By
FINAL DESIGN L. ASSOC JEM
Revision Surveyed By Designed
TED MEB 5/1/18 G
By Drawn By Project-Engr Approved By Date 8 2 V
A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT

A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT
W
J
� Z
O
QO
,6 0
1360
O
-O
O
EXISTING
GRADE
O
LU
AT
CENTERLINE
(APPROX.)
S EAM
—CROSSING
100
HAZARD
YR FLOODPLAIN
AREA
(TYP)
+ O
Q O
Q p
22
Qz
Qz
wEROSION
w
w =
U) w
w
_
w
5
ATTING
SEE
DETAIL
CO
(TYP)
TR
SHE
L
T 25
XI TIN
CREEK
S VENS
BOTTOM APPROX.
5
z (�
Li
�
`
= w
w
w
v�
IN. COVER
0'
Cl)
16"
PVC
SANITARY
SEWER
PROP.
PROP. 16"
PVC
SANITARY
SEWER
®0.37.6
4
4
®0.606
PROP. IN = 640.44
PROP. OUT = 640.24
EWER
PROP. 16" PVC SANITARY SEWER --
@
®0.60%
PROP. 16" D.I.P. SANITARY SEWER
®0.60%
3
4+
5+
6+
7+
8+
9
-1-
00000/ /
l I -J/////
�6e0.
\\
PID #19524101 / / — 200' BUFFER UNEP
i l / / EROSION CONTROL / / / I \
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
\
\
DB 12412 PG 394 MATTING (TYP)
SEE DETAIL SHEET 25
`
\STA. A45+99.11
PROPOSED 4'
_
1 \ D/A. MANHOLE MH 14
6�//�r��/���f/ _---___—
�� pSUF W/VENTED ___ 670\\�\
q4 \ \
- 6* FRAME & COVER
/ PERMANENT SEWER
/ EASEMENT (TYP) — — — _ —
psfi — \ \
--� P SU — — — — — �
'.
�_---_=665_---
0 15 f Ps 447 _ — _ — _ _ — — — PID #19523106 \ \
?SUE p44+0 \ '�00 ps _ — _ _ _ \
uF — _ _ _ � MECKLENBURG COUNTY \
— — - �
�� _ _ DB 12412 PG 394
' 6'37"W 15' ' 1ce ro �P S _ — \
524' � ! / / Tce x v � \ 86.
00 356.49 SEWER PsuE sso\
1 6" SANITARY UIP T�\ P� \ \ \ \ \
\4sr,
pR0p05E0 PsuE �' E x MPORARY STREAM ` \' \ \ ps�Fs'4N/r q48 \ \ \
tc � CROSSING (TYP) _ — x t v � S X00
\
Fy'Fip
Ice //® SEE DETAIL SHEET 23-=� x t� Cay 15 \ O
\ —
�' ICE ' --_--� \\\ \F — p F� \ �
r n ^ 1 1cE _ _ TEMPORARY ROCK - - _ = Su
SEDIMENT DAM =_ \\\\�\\ \r�F T npsuF
PERMANENT SEWER WEIR = S' /iii\ ` \� \ \ ` �\ �� rcF - ——
r�rl EASEMENT (TYP) / TYPE B (TYP) �(/ �_ �?��\� ` \\\\\ ; \ q4g
_ / \ x
/�/PROPOSED STEVENS O•
%� CREEK TOB (BY OTHERS)
k
STONE CHECK D M
(TYP)rc
SEE DETAIL SHEET 24 EXISTING / x /�,
\ / / STEVENS CREEK / /� r `� J /�'
TEMP. DIVERSION DITCH (TYP) �a\\�� _ — �V
SEE DETAIL SHEET 25 50' BUFFER LINE / �,\� / ^ 16 PO
PO AR / a
`
Z PORA YI // / / / 5 \/� v / I IL /\_ SEDIMENT DAM _ —5-
# /,,
CONSTRUCTION l /r//// / / / i 30' BUFFER LINE 1 / ` / / / ` WEIR = 10 ` // `-' )
O I,
EASEMENT (TYP , /�r / / / i �/ — — TYPE 6 (TYP)
� //
�� �
� �>"`jam l �I /
Wwoo �\ ` \� l I/ // —// SILT FENCE (lYP)
� EE DETAIL SHEET 23
r '6g
O
/ / 100 YR FLOODPLAIN/l//llI I �\ �\ I / / j / I
\ \ i / I
0 40'
GHD Consulting Services Inc.
80' 222 South Church Street, Suite 400
,
\ _ HAZARD AREA (1YP) // I
// // I I\' \ /
Th1 704 302 4910 W www.ghd.com
CHARLOTTE
CHARLOTTE WATER
+�
W6TER
CHARLOTTE NORTH CAROLINA
\ _
/
® 7030700047-17-503
STEVENS CREEK
PID #19517143 PID #19517144 PID #19517145
`
Job No. File No.
ROBIN C CARROLL & RONDA S AVILA / ALEX P LECLAIR & +
WILLIAM M CARROLL � DB 23069 PG 139 SAUNDRA LECLAIR \
\
Scales
TRUNK SEWER PHASE l
DB 23108PG 43 560 MB LOT\
T22 PG4303 \ DB 7636 PG 613
45
/ \ \ / \I MB \ �+� �^'�
PLAN 1" =
Know what's below. PROFILE
40'
MB 22 PG 303 _ 22TPG 303
11"
\ \� / \ \
Call before you dig. -
4' PLAN AND PROF/LE
Ma \ \ \ \
Ver.
Vert. -
Ma
STA A43+00 TO STA A49+00
/ \
As Built Date
—� M� \ A 2 16 TED
FINAL DESIGN L. ASSOC JEM
Sheet
TED MEB 5/1/18
Off
V
— \ No. Date By
Revision Surveyed By Designed
By Drawn By Project-Engr Approved By Date
A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT

A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT
W
OO
Q
to =
o 10to
to UN
BIW W�
jI
X10 OV�
�
Q II
Q (3W) II
Q _ \
i
0100
Ln \
STREAM
YR
HAZARD
FLOODPLAIN
AREA (TYP)
CROSSING
6
6
EXISTING
GRADE
CENTERLINE (APPROX.)
O
AT
O
O
-
O
O7
Q 0
MATTING (NP)
SEE DETAIL SHE
T 25
�
Q O
I
_
-
Q
MIN. COVER 3.0'
- --
-
--
W
EXISTING STEVENS
CREEK BOTTOM
(APPROX
6512LLJ
zv
_
_
--
-
--
-
--
--
-
--
`
PVC SANITARY
SEWER
z
-ifit
W -
PROP.
16
U LLJ
I
PVC
SANITARY
PROP.
16" PVC SS
U Ld
� (/)
16"
SEWER
®0.50
0
Q
PROP.
--
16" PVC SS
PROP. 16"
D.I.P. SANITARY
SEWER
®0.50%
PROP. IN
= 644.20
®0.5 0%
PROP.
OUT =
644.00
®0.37 o
I
I
I
I
4
4
PROP.
f IN = 641.98
__j
PROP. OUT
= 641.78
4.9
O+
1+
2+
3+
4+
5+
6+
7+
8
PID #19523116
WYANE LAMAR SIGMON
STA. A49+60.55
& MARY K. SIGMON J
DB 2042 PG 270 _J _ _ -j
�� I
�_��' \\`\6S\
,/ /
PROPOSED 4'
/ / \ --- J _
�/- --______ t \\�\\
DIA. MANHOLE MH -15
-__ _//
200' BUFF R LINE / `� - - _ - - ` ��/ - - �,Lfl
STA. A53+63.26
W VENTED // -'-----_;__,
,/ �� /1 \--
-�IBH-7
/ ----
>„�____
�.- _--_
FRAME & COVER %/
_ — _ / PROPOSED 4 i
-_,
>
�
_- ___
/ - -
// /� i ' �_
_ / _-
- - - - - DIA. MANHOLE MH -16 \
e� PID #19523106 ---�
MECKLENBURG COUNTY —
�\ PERMANENT SEWER
� EASEMENT (TYP) i/ j � j� / � ' _ _ — _
-- — ��—_ �- W/WATERTIGHT
— — _� � \ � � � _ _
4 —
DB 12412 PG 394
TE — — _ \
DITCH (TYP) _--_ FRAME & COVER PID #19510136 /ML
_ _ CLYDE DANIEL TURNER
-� \_---- ----- � �• DB 5218 PG 004
./ --- 100 YR FLOODPLAIN
660, HAZARD AREA (TYP)PSUE
Psu� n EROSION CONTROL0
TSD PSUE TSD PSUpMATTING (TYP) J 00
N82'10'S5"W A51 +00_� rsD PSUE
SEE DETgIS�/EET�2�7
402.71'
A52+00 �j' TSD rs�D r 'TSD SUE
��7 A53+00E
v //rco
g�
tTSD
PROPOSED �Su16" SAN/TARY SEWER
PSE
�
� 5� TSD � � � � �
_
lel y
o Sy6 561.Q �6 / _ i �% PSUE
S y`/ �05�e5J� / \
\/ /
Ps A54+OOp �srE► PID #19510137 Q
/ _ PSUE Ps ` _ / �`� �i ITSL) — / CLYDE DANIEL TURNER O
PSUE A55+00 Psu % / / DB 13710 PG 684+/�
01
TCE T
20� \ + PSUE /
_
/ - 655_
5 5
% — —
T TC� J —
+ \
r � A56-i-00�J
TC TICE TICE RSO
^
/�/ `p /
S
/•(�
PERMANENT SEWER, r*
EASEMENT (TYP)
�� TCE — L� / i
\
Ps
rcE w
Ljj
r\
/
A57+00
s0 PSUE f'ROPpsE-p 448,50•
\
7 r�n
L
\ �\ /;� v//=��_`--�__—
700PORARY �' — = �� - - _
—�
— SAN/T�p
_ -- + = ���\ — — — — // i ��/ / PsuE A Y SEWER
\ \\�
vl
AS 8
O �n
lY
�11CONSTRUCTION / - _
— — — /�— — TCE
— — = — —
\EASEMENT (TYP} ,��� /_ \ `�I�` /�/ �\ E UE
_
kTEMP. DIVERSION DITCH TYP '�� 7
( ) TEMPORARY ROCK
� -SEE DET SHEFJ 2� ✓
SEDIMENT DAM
�
— — — —= = = �I — ' \\\ \ \\ /�
' �— = —= — _!�_ _ _ -- —\\� / r — ` REINFORCED STABILIZA ON j TICErcE rc PSUE
�� VA A �- / E rc
` OUTLET \ I
(�
TONE CHECK DAM (TYP)\ WEIR = 12�
l \SEE DETAIL SHEET 2¢m \ TYPE B (TYP) �
SILT FENCE II �\ \ _ SEE DETAIL 25 r
SEE DETAIL SHEET 23 \ rcE
\\\\\\ \ /
_
�
/—�\ —
\ `
_STEVE S CREEK
—�
J X — �� _ _ —_— _= + _
,
R
POP SE6 STEVENS
/' —\\ \3 _\ ✓ — zz
7-
CREEK TOB (BY OTHERS) \ /I
\
X X
GHD Consulting Services
Inc.
_
✓ / / �./ / / �66� \ \ _ — _ , _ 50' BUFFER LINE \
/ /
ETEVE
,
Know what's below.
222 South Church Street, Suite 400
PID #19517146 .--�
MARGARET RHYNE BIGHAM '` /
—
xI \ �' — S GREE
/ PID #19516201 PID #19516202 / PID #19516203 \ x PID #19516204 _ \ — 0' BUFFER LINE r
MICHAEL P GOLIK / LUANN M JENKINS I WILLIAM E GENET JR — / MICHELLE MARIE MCFALL �X ,/ — N_��
y PID #19516205 PID #19516206
Call before you dig.
Charlotte NC 28202 USA
�, T1 704 302 4910 Wwww.ghd.com
& LYNDA BIGHAM EVANS /
DB 27507 PG 32
LOT 46
/
DB 18649 PG 969 / DB 5849 PG 531 I DB 10576 PG 26 X I DB 23235 PG 890 i r \ AARON K FORSYTH 660- — - STEVEN M ADAMS &
LOT 27 / LOT 28 LOT 29 LOT 30 & ASHLEY E FORSYTH - �_ _ / JOSEPHINE ALBERICO '
MB 21 PG 957 MB 21 PG 957 \ MB 21 PG 957 MB 21 PG 957 _ I
1 / DB 29839 PG 660 — DB 19279 PG 690
'
MB 22 PG 303
x
LOT 31 LOT 32
MB 21 PG 957 _ MB 21 PG 57
CHARLOTTE CHARLOTTE
W6TER
WATER
CHARLOTTE
NORTH CAROLINA
7030700b No. File
Job No. File No.
STEVENS CREEK
Scales
PLAN 1" = 40' TRUNK SEWER PHASE I
PROFILE
Hor. 1" = 40'
," = 4'
PLAN AND PROFILE
Vert.
STA
A49+00 TO STA A58+00
As Built Date
A 2/16 TED FINAL DESIGNSheet
L. ASSOC JEM TED
MEB 5/1/18 1 �
Of
26
No. Date By Revision
Surveyed By Designed By Drown By Project-Engr Approved By Date
A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT

A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT
0 0C
0
�Z CIC
WM
+ I� V c0
Ntp co
oZLAJ
+
hW
I� v to
W to
41 ~
Q (z)101) _j
Q
43 Q)
II
N
O W
^ J
Q4 N
( Q_
Qp,
O
o
+ip to
W
tj
1
(370
I N
p ~ to
_
O
°o W W�
Q p^ Z
i;
Q C V_ I I
Q 4 I y p
Q
STREAM
CROSSING #5
THOMPSON RD.
T
O
`�
1
100
HAZARD
YR
FLOODPLAIN
AREA
(TYP)
Q O
Q z
EXISTING
AT CENTERLINE
GRADE
(AP,,ROX.)
ROSION
CONTROL
I
UTA
s"
GAS
(/') W
W W
=
MATTING
SEDTIALLS)EET25
I III
III
I I
6
6
z_
C/)-
16" D.I.P.
WTR
_ _
-- r
= W
U
(n
XIS NGS
CREEK BOTTOM
VEN
APPROX.
_
--
-
-- --
_
//
-
--
--
/
- _-
-
I
I
�yA
`_
�-
--
_
--
--
/�
i
MIN.
COVER
3.0'
18" MIN.
SEPARATIO
I
16" I CAP OR' PLUG
PROP. IN
= 648.93
5
PROP. 16" PVC SANITARY
SEWER
5
PROP. 16" PVC SANITARY SEWER
I
PROP. OUT = 648.73
—
00.20
Yo
STA A65+40
®0.20^'
INv = s4s.3s
PROP IN
646.64
—
PROP. IN — 647.72
STA A64+71
INV = 648.,00
PROPOSED LF
PROP. OUT
= 646.44
IN
OF 30 CASING PIPE
1:1 THEORETICAL
P. OUT = 647.52
PROP. IN = 648.31
EMBANKMENT
PROP. 16" PVC
PROP.
16"
D.I.P. SANITARY SEWER
PROP. OUT
= 648.14
00.20%
SANITARY SEWER
00.50%
8
9+
O+
1+
2+
3+
4+
5+
6
200' BUFFER LINE
S TEMPORARY CON�TRR CTION 665 \\
► I \
\ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
EASEMENT (TYP) '
STA. A62+54.79 V \ I I
100 YR FLOODPLAIN ' TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION I
_PROPOSED 4 / ENTRANCE \ \ I I I
25' \
\
II (I I
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ 7 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \\ \ \ \
- HAZARD
AREA (TYP) � - DIA. MANHOLE MH-
18 1✓ \ \ I I� I
` \ \ I
�� �
PARCEL #19506127
i
C
/6\ w/w,a rERricHr
PROPOSED STREAM I I
RESTORATION STAGING \ \ �I I 1
/
p
RONALD COX
14709 THOMPSON RD, \
\
PID #19510137 � I `�
CLYDE DANIEL TURNER
PID #19510101 FRAME & COVER
MEETA J TURNER
AREA �►I
\
I /
I \
Z \ /�
�^
-
DB 13710
PG 684 STA. A58+11.76
DB 10105 PG 273 -
� l
V)
~
_
'
PROPOSED 4
/ - SILT FENCE (TYP)
\
- - - I I I TCE
_ -
\
O=
TEMPO ARY STREAM — —
D/A. MANHOLE MH -17 _
_ 660- — ' SEE DETAIL SHEET 23
_ _ _ _ \
_
_
Ir- n-
- -CROSSING (TYP)
SEE DETAIL SHEET 23 --
W/VENTED
PERMANENT SEWER
�< % EASEMENT (TYP)
cE
GE cE
Q �"
I \
15'x4o'
FRAME & COVER
G
cE I I
I II
LAUNCHING PIT
— s�o��
STA. A64+63.77 \�
p62+oo
PROPOSED 5,
°0 \ \
DIA. MANHOLE MH -19
/
A61 +p0
ps�E \ / 3 \
I
W/VENTED
'
+oo , 4,3 "W PSUE
A60 N61
443.04 SEWER ?SUE
15� SANITARY
°� o 'I'?s;��, ps F
TCE rcF s� sF� , ?p8 �.9 d� I I I
sas98• I `
� II
I
IyI'
FRA ME & COVER
/ cd
<
– A59+p0
-TCE
16"
PROPOSED psuE T TCE
rcF '4'QY /III \ I 1
g64V60,
II
15'x20'
-
15' PSUE TCE ICE ` rc SF* OF 1 1� \
ICE � � � s�F �—
\
41 ;
�_
RECEVING PIT TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION
ENTRANCE
pSUE
TCE
TCE �
W"7
r
`
�?�j
�
s E
�
-�� PsoE
/ TCE
TCE
\ �
W
_ - -.
■��! ` F \ I
��
I
A65+00
PROPOSED FUTURE
A65+48 SS EXTENSION
TCE
/
000
A� RS
/ 0
\
woo_ —
_
660
x
/ l
X-' REINFORCED STABILIZATION \-
I
I
= _ STA. A65+48
� PROPOSED 5'
- =
-_
-
= - - -� - -
L �=��
-- — — —— ��
OUTLET TYP - � = - / � -
(TYP) / /
SEE DETAIL SHEET 25 /
ERRIANENT SEWERS l -
--_` _
1_
\ \
�ii
�� /i
�— DIA. MANHOLE MH -20
-
,_—
/ �
�%
_= _ _
� /� - _� � - �� �_ - _-EASEMENT
�� \ _ ^�� -
\\ 1
_ _= J/� __
TYP - - -�___ - -
_ - - - _ _ R 10 CONTROL J-
- ay TTI NG
\ - - - I �
j 1 ��%� W/VENTEDA
\\L�
-�7 'EXISTING
/ 50 BUFFER LINE \
TEMPORARY --s E DET IALTMSHEF.J�5 - = _ �� - _
CONSTRUCTION
+- _� _
FRAME & COVER
-
Q �� STEVENS CREEK \'I I 1 1 \ _
EASEMENT (TYP) x �— x —
~ x
\ - - _ �-
\ r '
\
\ \
- -
/ 30' BUFFER LIN Ii\ I
- �_
` ^ EXISTING \ \ x
fi
F
// PROPOSED 68 L /� - / -
\ \ ✓
cp PROPOSED
% k STREAM TOB
J I I
• \ I� -�\ `
STEVENS CR EK J /
-__� .�.
I
OF 30" CASING PIPE , / _ - -
/ �llj ��
�_" 0 40' 80'
�I -----_
,-_
N56°0323"W
O
_�/ / I I-II'I I \
/�_ —_— __ --- -- — - --y►�x
100 YR FLOODPLAIN ��
hI \ ,I
y `
I 84.23'
PROPOSED 16 / / / _
` // /// ///'- -----
GHD Consulting Services Inc.
\�'
PID 19516207
#
I \
/ HAZARD AREA (TYP) \ \ \
— \
\ _
ANITARY.-SErWER % / // / / / / /
/ / / / / / /
— — — 222 South Church Street, Suite 400
CAROLS A BRENNAN
DB 7266 PG 977
(� I 665'
/ / \ '`'I� / +
\ / / I I �
/ � � \
/ �� X \ \\
\ \
I /
\ I � \
� / / / �
_ _ .66`'// j / /
/
Charlotte NC 28202 USA
\ T 1 704 302 4910 W www.ghd.com
LOT
/ III - -
(
x ��
' I / \
3' / /
MB 21 PG 957
G
PID 19516208 I PID 19516225 -
/ # I II � #
/ TARRA G DEAN I I DEBORAH S WILLIAMS
\ PID #19516226 PID #19516227
NC RE INVESTMENTS LLC MARK S PERRY
& JASON C DEAN \N� DB 7525 PG 775 \ \
DB 12272 PG 728 > ) LOT 51
/ LOT 34 ` MB 21 PG 363
MB 21 PG 957 I
DB 30048 PG 917 / & SUSAN M PERRY
LOT 52 / DB 17371 PG 335
MB 21 PG 363 LOT 53
I B 21 PG 363 \+
M11
CHARLOTTE
CHARLOTTE WATER
/ I l - /
W6T E R
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
\
I J
/
7030700047-17-503 STEVENS CREEK
Job No. File No.
NOTE:
/ / �' / / — \ \ \\ 11 I /
/
_ — _
Scales 1" -
PLAN
40' TRUNK SEWER PHASE I
/ \ �\ \` I x
_ _ J/
— — —
Know what's below. PROFILE
EXCAVATIONS SHALL NOT ENCROACH UPON THE DESIGNATED 1:1 ,
THEORETICAL EMBANKMENT LINE. SHORING AS REQUIRED SHALL BE PROVIDED
I x— _ _
�� _
\
Hor.
Call before you dig. Vert. 11 -
4o PLAN AND PROF/LE
BY THE CONTRACTOR. SHOULD MODIFICATIONS TO THE LIMITS OF THE BORE
I I �I
11 I
I
PIT BE NEEDED APPLICATION AND MODIFICATION OF THE NCDOT CROSSING
I -� �
I I
STA A58+00 TO STA A66+00
PERMIT SHALL BE COMPLETED AT THE EXPENSE OF THE CONTRACTOR.
/ \ i /I/ /
I I
As Built Date
/ v
I / I
A
I ,
I
2 16 TED
FINAL DESIGN L. ASSOC JEM
Sheet
TED MEB 5/1/18
1 1
Of
26
/ /I
No.
Dote By
Revision Surveyed By Designed
By Drown By Project-Engr Approved By Date
A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT

A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT
W
J
O
LU
Q j QO
65
�Iz �
+
� 6-4
1
1
1 650
O
O
NQ
Q 0
N O J W
= J
�OIOSA!
-I.O Z UWP
QQ CIO i41 II
t j �p pl VOj p
ti =�2
+ W �O
m �II
NJO
O l to
�
h
I to
Q; _
4,�3Q;
O
O
00 YR FLOODPLAIN
HAZARD
AREA
(TYP)
z
II
a,�3Qo;
Q
Cn W
Qz
(%)
XIS
AT CENTERLINE
NG GRA E
(APPROX.)
6
4
LJJ
w
6,10
LLJ =
LLJ LJ
z U)MIN.
__J LTJ
COVER 3.0'
EXISTING STEVENS C
TRIBUTARY BOTTOM
EEK
APPROX.
--
-
--
-
z (/')
Cn
`
ANTI -SEEP
SEE DETAIL
COLLAR
SHEET 21
PVC
SS
PROP•
12
PROP.
12"
PVC SS
�
-SEEP
DETAIL
COLLAR
SHEET
21
ANTI
SEE
-SEEP
DETAIL
COLLAR
SHEET
21
®0.60/
o
17
PROP.
IN
®�•60
=
°
630.75
63
ANTI
SEE
6,30
7
7
ANTI -SEEP
COLLAR
PROP.
OUT = 630.55
SEE DETAIL
SHEET
21
PROP. IN = 628.29
PROP. 12"
PVC SANITARY S
WER
PROP.l OUT = 628.09
®0.60%
—
PROP. E IN — 626.55
PROP. /N = 626.80
PROP. 12" PVC SANITARY SEWER
®0.60%
PROP. 12"
®0.60%
D.I.P. SANITARY S
WER
_
PROP. OUT = 625.80
PROP. 24 " D. 1. P. SS
®0.50%
PROP. 12"
®0.60%
D.I.P. SA Nl TA R Y SEWER
tt
BO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
+_+11
--, 77
000
01 ��//� .Z�
REINFORCED STABILIZATION i
PROPOSED STREAM
\ \ \
�
NOTES:
— i I
OUTLET (TYP)
�� \
� FENCE EPLA�GEM � � ���5 E DETAIL SHEET 5 `
/// ���
RESTORATION STAGING AREA
\
\ \ \ \
\ '
\ CITY OF 1CHARLOTTE \ \ .
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE AND
//// �!• `
o
/ \� LOCATION
x� ` I COITTRACTOR SHALL
REMOVE AND REPLACE 3
STRAND ELECTRIC WIRE
EXISTING STEVENS
\ — _ DB 30613 PG 431
\ \\
PLANT 9 GALLON SIZED EVERGREEN
TREES THREE (3) PER LOCATION
+ G\�
j j CREEK TRIBUTARY
\ \ ` \\` FE IDE LIMITS50' WETLAND BUFFER
ALONG PERMANENT EASEMENT LINE
N,
J a
�
/ E
W x
TEMPORARY NT
\ TcFx\� �t� �- s C ®
��
\ _(SEE DETAIL SHEET 26
FOR FENCE REPLACEMENT) Y
\
\�
\
AT MANHOLE #7 8 AND 21.
i POA
ORD CROSSING \ —
x x -- _
41
`
k��•��
STREAM BANK \
STABILIZATION (TYP)����
SEE DETAIL SHEET 23'\
QS, � � -
/ \ k \ \`
ice / /
TEMPORARY \
CONSTRUCTION
EASEMENT (TYP)
\
"W
x
\
J
ARM GATE
00 N 2?,� SpN�1
PERMANENT SEWER
EASEMENT lYP
10 (TYP)
/
(FOR DETAIL / X
SEE SHEET 26)
g1'� 12 SEE NOTE 1
�Io
y _
S
REDUCE CLEARING TO 40'
x
�/
°
pSU Q R Q
x� + _ \ —
l
OF / �/ �� ✓
\\ �o STA 63+70 TO STA 65+00
_bPOSED
\ A25+00
�� �� PR STE N
CREEK TOB (BY OTHERS)
STA. B2+ 14.46
B2+14.46
+ /SILT
/ /
F
P SEE DEN IL (TYP)
H ET 23
64x00 T �\ 1
PROPOSED 4' !
�; �\_�
\ O
��E /
p
x ��_` —
O \
v / •30
BO+00 ANTI -SEEP COLLAR
DIA. MANHOLE MH -21 x r� ,
W/WA TER TIGHT 7 �pOS N��S pS -
\
ANTI -SEEP COLLAR
`
1a g ,, SS
/ b• Z / /
��
SEE DETAIL SHEET 21
SE NOTE 1s . • . .
F
Fp 8' �\ F
FRAME &COVER • .?
S� DETAIL SHEET 2\
\ �/
e
SEp
_ � �
'STA. A24+83.26PERMANENT
S SF�F
� _ Q- O
/�
/
STA BO+OO _ — —
PROPOSED 5
EASEMENT (TYPWER FENCE GATE FOR psUB5+00
DETAIL SEE SHEET 26
\
ANTI -SEEP COLLAR
SEE DETAIL SHEET
21 D/A. MANHOLE MH -08
_ — — _ ~ ANTI -SEEP COLLAR . OF rcF
/ �/ C SEE DETAIL SHEET 21 ` \
4 �/
W/WATER TIGHT '�
_ H-10
� � � � _ 1 /
pSUF rc� \
-� —�
FRAME & COVER
r
—
-
\
v
�
100 YR FLOODPLAIN
` \ J _ +
HAZARD AREA (TYP) � _. STA. B5 91.49
/
50' WETLAND BUFFER
i 1 \ PROPOSED 4
1 D/A. MANHOLE MH -22
! _ _ — — /
$ r
PID #19517155 I W/WA TER TIGHT
- —
JAMES R WIGGINS JR FRAME & COVER
& MITZI C WIGGINS - % \
DB 8064 PG 520 /
_
"W
MB 26 PG 598
N29'2448
---
___---
/ —'
392.71'
/
BUFFER LINE
PROPOSED 12"
SANITARY SEWER
GHD Consulting Services Inc.
_20_0'
0 40'
80' 222 South Church Street, Suite 400
,
Charlotte NC 28202 USA
// ------_
T 1 704 302 4910 W www.ghd.com
--
��
PID #19517150
ROBERT A WINFREY -
//
DB 2996 PG 144
CHARLOTTE
CHARLOTTE WATER
W6TER
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
•
/ / — — — — —
— —
® 7030700047-17-503
Job No. File No. STEVENS CREEK
Scales
PLAN 1"
= 40' TRUNK SEWER PHASE I
Know what's below. PROFILE
11
Call before you dig.
PLAN AND PROF/LE
Ver.
Vert.
- 4o
-
STA BO+00 TO STA B7+00
As Built Date
A 2/16 TED
FINAL DESIGNSheet Of
L. ASSOC JEM TED MEB 5/1/18 � 2 26
No. Date By
Revision Surveyed By Designed By Drawn By Project-Engr Approved By Date
A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT

A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT
W
i�
A
m
Q p `
41 Ftp
O1* 2 II
ONS
THOMPSON RD.
74t
C- 2 C9
+
W�tVp
m p�� II =
N p h
yl��
tQ
p
+ O
W p co
m OtoJ :r:
tV II v1
os-I� 00
II
� Q. A 3 QC
I
W
v
= W
00 W 4pit�p
� CIO tn
tV W II
~ � _\�
5
-
5
ti�a�3o;
ur
100
HAZARD
FLOODPLAIN
AREA
(TYP)
UT(2)
6" GAS
Q
E ISTING
RADE
O
Q
AT
CENTERLINE
(APPROX.
3
O
N
EXISTING
TRIBUTARY
S VENS
BOTTOM
C
EE
(APPROX.)
I
0
��
-
O
z
I
16 D.I.P.
WTR
-
-
Q z
MIN.
COVER 3.0'
(%
V
4
W
-
--
.
-- --
-�
SEPARATION
I PROP. 12" D.I.P. SS
W
W
4
W
z=
�,
,.-------
------------------
A
_
__
_-
PROP.
12 PVC SANITARY
SEWER
®0.50 0
W
=
z
- (�
=
PROP
12"
PVC
SANITARY
SEWER
J
W
-I
I®0.5090
PROP. IN = 638.17
= W
C)
Q
PROP.
12
PVC
SANITARY
SEWER
®0.5090
PROP. 12
D.I.P.
SANITARY
SEWER
®0.5090
PROP.
OUT
=
637.97
Q
SANITARY
®0.60 YO
SEWER
PROP. 12 "PVC
00.50%
STA 811+88
INV = 634.02
-
PROP. 1 IN - 636.81
STA B12+55
INV = 634.42
PROP.
OUT = 636.61
PROP. `` IN = 6.
'L
.47
1:1 B NK
ENT LIN
PROP.
PROP.
IN = 633.30
I I
r OUT = 633.10
3
PROP.
PROP.
OUT = 634.27
PROPOSE 7
F 24" CASING
LF PROP. 1 PROP. IN = 635.14VER
PIPE 00.50% PROP. OUT = 634.94
3
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
-
\ /
'y \
/ - - - _ - _
/ i�� -
/ ✓�
-7 T���
/ /
- �� / // /� " -^i '- - MICHAEL R & - i� JOHN ANTHONY GRUE - - �- BECKY BOBZIEN-SIMMS
ANGELA B KROLL �� PID# 19508159 i� & T NEY SIMMSI �\ \
I \ MORITTZDPROPERTIES50816LLC //- \
\ \ / / I _ /o \ \ \ l l I I \ \ \
0 `�/ __ \ \ ii \ \ �_--�
\\�
- _ _ \
/ /��% - - ��
i�i� _ - _---_ -=
io
�� / -_' --�� I I
I I
I \ \\ ss #COS _-//,/� ���
- _ i ��
PID 19508161 �y� LOT 22 / / PID 19508158\\
=-���� DB 29543 PG 406 J/ / LOT 218\\\
��� LOT 215
PG 488, 49
\
-
DB 26978 PG 870 //
J V _� ��DB 30678 \ B 56 PG / DB 30627 PG 990 \
- - MB 56 PG 49ld
\
- -650= �- \--ce//-
''�
PID #19517148 \ �J III
MECKLENBURG COUNTY7.4�DB 24891 PG 862
MB 56 PG 49
iiiii
s�; \ �� _ _ /��i///
"'TEMPORARY ���' -J / ` ' �' \
\\
\\ '_
�\ PROPOSED STEVENS CREEK
1
I \ ROCK 0 OSED STREAK
SEDIMENT DAM �_��� //� i ESTORATION STAGING AREA INSTALL FIBERGLA
� 10 � / \ - MARKER, SEE
��
I x ��\� \ _ TRIBUTARY TOB (BY OTHERS) j \
/ -
r -1
I
\
_ ��
,WEIR = = „ / / / 'SS
_ / - - DETAIL SHEET 17
=TYPE B (TYP) - //� / STREAM -� /
/
MPORARY
TEMPORARY /
CONSTRUCTION
`
I 3 c �,.-. N ,�: /% /// EST ATION EASMENT
/ CONSTRUCTION
X \ f EASEMENT (TYP)
- i \
EASEMENT (TYP) _ I !` J
��
/ a�
EXISTING STEVENS /
30 %� 6 /
///
STALL FIBERGLASS �// / / x
i // /
� SS MARKER SEE // ( /
`� /
�/� CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE
' AND REPLACE IN-KIND �� ONTRACTOR SHALL
� �� \
EXISTING 4 -RAIL VINYL \ REMOVE AND REPLACE
CREEK TRIBUTARY _
\ - - - r DETAIL X \
PERMANENT SEWER /� �-- / IN-KIND EXISTING. \
EASEMENT (TYP) / /,% x �� I _ _ / I x + REI FN ORCED STABILIZATION 4 -RAIL VINYL�NC� '\\ /
OUTLET (TYP) ` S
SEE DETAIL SHEET 25 TA. B 17+97.41
'+ PROPOSED 5
� T $
TCE E D/A. MANHOLE MH -27
T
/
l/
/
cE T� W/WA TER TIGHT )
�e�s+ 30
I
E g15+oo: 10
x Oo PSUE TCE rc FRAME & COVER ,
TEMP. DIVERSION DITCH (TYP),
EE DETAIL SHEET 25
' l
l lI I
p
\
- E
-TEMPORARY ROCK
SEDIMENT DAM `
'
T III / /
I g14 30 53
.1x00- N3TE �w
/ 57
% 2g3SANITARY SEWER s E
10 8�7+ DO Tc `� \\ O
suE e
/ x P • . \
wooTYPE
WEIR = 12'
(TYP)
B TYP �c
/
Tc
D / I ( /
I
I / E ROPOSED,yt 2 /
1 P
PsuE
N16.4¢b
p
Q
' TCE Tc
�� / /
,� g13+OD /
10 cwopPosEp 124 W (�
2 SAN/ B18+00. ••
-I-
/ _ / 1 - CE TCE D ,� ��
N TC TC TC TCE ��
Tc
g12+0 o /
TEMPORARY I
PSUE CONSTRUCTION
1%
t Y SEjy +
r, qR - \41
STA. B 15+64.77
I / N1 `
TCE ICE TC TC TC
��
D
P�E�
r
/
I EASEMENT (TYP) SILT FENCE (TYP) l /
\ SEE DETAIL SHEET 2
PROPOSED 4 _ - 65° '°RO�o- -
X k Ep iY
m
O
30' //
pStB11 1.00
PSUE
�/
/
" TREE PROTECTION PERMANENT SEWER
AROUND 3 PINE TREES EASEMENT (TYP)
D/A. MANHOLE MH -26 t?SS �, e19
Y
I W/WATERTIGHT FENCE kAN�r ��
, ,
Q z
PsuE X69+00
PSUE BB+oo
_ N36.32'18"W
192SANITARY SEWER
PSUE g10+p0 '
12 r,�t
��E /� 1 /
/ / / I
I
/ 11 T E ICE STA. B 12+71.21
E
_ REPLACEMENT - / , , 0
( FRAME &COVER �• WETLAND BUFFER LOCATION x x V
I
40 80
00 0' N2924'48'*W' --.
PROPOSED
pgUE
/ /
l/ I / I
15'x40' PROPOSED 5'
II BH
W
'_
6r --:-=o TstPROPOSEDr�129 SANITARY SEWER;o P E TSD TSD PSUET
i
�' -"� �� C , /
/ /
/ / /I /�
//
-12 LAUNCHING PIT D/A. MANHOLE MH -25 100 YR FLOODPLAIN
TEMPORARY W/WATERT/GHT HAZARD AREA (TYP)
EXISTING 4 -RAIL .�
x \ ' �"' /� VINYL FENCE TO
BE RELOCATED.
W W ' /
_ - "
/ / =
//�/
I J CONSTRUCTION
ENTRANCE FRAME & COVER � /
/ \ x \ SEE NOTE 1
,
z =
-
J
PERMANENT SEWER TEMPORARY SILT CHECK TYPE B
EASEMENT (TYP) W/ SILT BASIN TYPE B
SEE DETAIL SHEET 25
//0 j i I
, // O I I
i / Q I
-- _ �� ^
= - PROPOSED 12
I x - \_x - - - - - _ _ _ - _ -
•
T
O l o -
= = SANITARY SEWER
RPIR1A�11FR Y
OBE WN E
\TCE\TCE /
_ -
�� / Z
f - 'N3T30'S3"W ' �� �� ,---' x�------- _
` x
(�
Q
/ - _
DB 2996 PG 144
TCE
TCE
R_
4
frj
' Q
94.12
- - PID #19508105
_ _ I x Know
-I _- 11----x--_-
- - _ _ CHEVAL ASSOCIATES LLC ` x \
what's below.
Call before you dig.
TCE
�
CLAY A. LITTLEFIELD & �
- - - PID# 19508131 x
_
STA. B9+84.20 / � 15'x20'
- - - STA. B 1 1 +77.09 RECEVING PIT
r =
,
� JENNIFER LITTLEFIELD � � �
i DB 30900 PG 385
I � - DB 19418 PG 1 - - -
MB 44 PG 425 _
_ , _
PROPOSED 4' PROPOSED 5'
200' BUFFER UNE D/A. MANHOLE MH -23 TEMPORARY
D/A. MANHOLE MH -24 CONSTRUCTION
- -
/ / 2
- - PROPOSED 77 LF / / '6�5�
OF 24" CASING PIPE / /
/
CONTRACTOR SHALL SECURE GHD Consulting Services Inc.
SITE WITH FENCE TO PREVENT 222 South Church Street, Suite 400
EQUESTRIAN ENTRY DURING ALL
/ I VENTED ENTRANCE
W WATERT/GHT
FRAME & COVER `FRAME & COVER
�
/ � � � � �
PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION Charlotte
T 1
NC 28202 USA
704 302 4910 W www.ghd.com
� -
/�
I650-
3
' ' '
CHARLOTTE CHARLOTTE
WATER
W�T E R
CHARLOTTE, NORTH
CAROLINA
z// ,��
NOTES:
'
1. PRIOR TO SEWER CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR 7030700047-17-503
STEVENS
CREEK
SHALL REPLACE FENCE BETWEEN STATION Job No. File No.
18+00 TO 30+80 AS SHOWN ALONG Scores
1" = 40' TRUNK SEWER PHASE l
PERMANENT SEWER EASEMENT WITH IN-KIND PLANEXISTING
4 -RAIL
ACCORDANCE WITH VINYL CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. PROFILEHor. 1" = 40'
vert. 1" = 4' PLAN AND
PROFILE
STA B7+00 TO
STA B19+00
As Built Date
A 2/16 TED FINAL DESIGN L. ASSOC JEM TED MEB
Sheet Of
5 1 18
13 26
No. Date By Revision Surveyed By Designed By Drawn By Project-Engr Approved By Date
A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT

A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT
W
J
'IQ" aq
05
LQ
o W W�
0 2 II
M
`O'Q
+I�
+C v��o
C.
� I �00�
660CNI6130
O
m p coo I I
ANO
h I� 3 Q QC
100
HAZARD
YR
FLOODPLAIN
AREA
(TYP)
it
EXISTING
GRAD
AT
CENTERLINE
(APPROX.�-
m
0
Qz
-
G
O
U) LL]
W LLJ
EX
TRIBUTARY
SUNG
S
VES
BOTTOM
REE
(APPROX.)
�-
1�
i�
-
1
MIN.
COVER 3.0'
`
_
Lij
Lij
(n
1
--
--
-
-,
PROP.
12"
PVC
SANITARY SEWER
Q
V/
12" PVC
SANITARY
SEWER
®0.50 o
PROP. IN = 645.19
PROP. OUT = 644.99
PROP.
PROP.
12"
PVC
SS
®0.50�G
PROP.
f IN = 642.91
6
0
PROP.
OUT = 642.71
6#0
®0Z oz.509'
PROP.
FL
/N
= 640.13
PROP.
FL
OUT
= 639.93
PROP. 12" D.I.P. SANITARY SEWER
00.50x
1
9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
E330
00
31
\ \ JASON C & — MORITZ PROPERTIES LLC i \ _ / �` MORITZ PROPERTIES LLC — ' MORITZ PROPERTIES LLC • • ift • MORITZ PROPERTIES •
Y — _
ANDREA E KNOTTS PID# 19508156 / � \ — \ � PID# 19508155 — — PID# 19508154 / LLC
PID 19508157 — — — LOT 220 / LOT 221 LOT 222 PID 19508153
1., LOT 219 DB 26978 PG 870 ,�' / � , � / � = DB 26978 PG 870 —14 -, DB 26978 PG 870 / � + COMMUNITY WELL LOT
I # — — — — \ / — # — — —
DB 29473 PG 495 MB 56 PG 49 \ MB 56 PG 49 MB 56 PG 49 / DB 26978 PG 870
�— ��\
• • • • • •
PROPOSED STREAM
RESTORATION STAGING AREA
/ '�\ � �
+
\ MORITZ PROPERTIES LLC 1 \
\ 100 YR FLOODPLAIN
� \' PID# 19508152
— 1� — — — \ LOT 223 HAZARD AREA (TYP) \ \
_ ,
\ � DB 26978 PG 870 \
MB�56PG 49
1 MB 56 PG 49 -- -----
ell
+
STABILIZATIONPERMANEN� SEWER_
\ — �, \\+ // + ' MB 56 P. G 49
— PROPOSED STEVENS CREEK—
\ + \ \ \ \ \ \
77RY TOB (BY OTHERS)REINFORCED
-
OUTLET (TYP) - -
SEE DETA L S EET 25 _ _�
EXISTING STEVENS i
+ EASEMENT (TYP)
I
TEMPORARY
III \I� % �� / =� _-J%'
/ \\ /i \ \ J : / /i _
__
_
FENCE (A;; \ \
/ +
CREEK TRIBUTA__ /
�- -� - - _ _ _SILT
ONSTRUCTION/ / \� \ \__� - -; ±_ _ ���� _ _ ��___1__ _ - - / \ -SEE DETAIL SH ET 2*3 -- //I/ r J�� ��-�
EASEMENT (TYP) - f
--ft mmj memo
�' �\�
TCE k �- T TCE
—� — \�� ��/��
\ / Now� /
-_//% - -
ii /
III I ✓ `\TCE TCE SCE TCE�
TCE
/ \
w
CE C� \\\\�
+ T +
o \\✓
0 TeE- TCE TCE r v\\\
O /+ iCE TCE TCE
�..�'�-U'� \ TCE
TCE TCE TCF \
+ TCE TCE TCE _� TCE TCE — _ _ _ _ \ —
E� E TCE
/
/�
T J \
\ T ` �' \
\ / T — T /
— r — — — — V -
SU
r-
30' \ \ //
\
— �.� --
PSB26+00
/ -... �- - PSUE
PSUE B25+00
824+00
B27+00' PSUE — - - - \ T R6D
\TCE /
/ \ PSUE 1928+00 +
S E
\
r- 00"x- PSUL J +
PSUE X
U 2B 3 0000 x x x x x x —�
52 W
_ _ _ _
—
NOT3358"W 1929+00 '
m '
0
- B20+00
- N10'49'17"W 10' 821+00
r N161
X P r
suE B22+0� 515.30' E /
X " SANITARY SEWER x /
-
— — — —
---. � �.. 0.
415 4 B30+79,
� ROPOSED 12"
/ SAN/TgRy B30+00 PsuE
/
z x
Q
351.20'
PROPOSED 12" SAN/TARY SEWER x
x _ -
P E" _ x x
x T I'� / / / / �� EX. 15" FES,
.Owl 1x ,EWER
-
- ' � �\\ — — — / /
~
PsuE
x x x Ps
BH -13
x x
x REPLACE_
/ / RIP—RAP APRON
��"- f
J / / ��
/
x
/ / / \\ — _ _ " / X I
� EX. 12 FES, � _
/ / REPLACE / j l
A.
(/) -�
LLJ
W
W
.� EXISTING 4 -RAIL
VINYL FENCE TO
BE RELOCATED.
SEE NOTE 1
r
/ / ��
' FENCE REPLACEMENT / / -
/ LOCATION / / I�
-'� - /
, /
- - -.► _ -
/ / \k, _ APRON _ - _ F=q / / / \\\ =
RIP -RAP
/ " - - - - / / \ EX. 30" FES, _ __ _CON Ih'ECT T6
_ - EXI TING FENCE
/ \\ EX. 12 RCP_ - REPLACE / O 40 80
/ \ - _--
=
z
x
/ - "
EX. 15 RCP
---
_ _ _ - - / _ _ _
- - , /
_
- _ / / / / _ / / \ RIP -RAP APRON �_ \
------ --'
/ �\ /
\
\_
/� �� //--}� __ �/
`... 'PERMANENT SEWER / / - - -
EASEMENT (TYP) _ I STA. B26+63.92 /
// ///-
_ ---- - EX. 30" RCP
/ / / - x -
FENCE REPLACEMENT � ' / / / X -
\ - ~• ✓ -•�
'Lij /
PROPOSED
- - _
4 -
_ - -
/ - - - / / �`
Q
//� - --_
/
_ _ _
__ /- - _ -
_ //�/ �/� - D/A. MANHOLE MH -29 '` //
- - x , x x —
--x x ix x x x / W/WATER TIGHT __
, ,
// -- I,_ __ STA. B30+79.35�-•
- _ PROPOSED 4
/ STA. B21+48.61
_
- X -__x
x /�
x �'
D/A. MANHOLE MH -30
-__
-
X x x / x x x PROPOSED 4' _ - -655- - - - / / - / / FRAME &COVER
D/A. MANHOLE MH -28_ _ ` — — _ \ — — — _ _ CHEVAL ASSOCIATES LLC / / / / / /
-x
\ — —' —
--__-_-_ _665
- ' W/VENTED
_ CHEVAL ASSOCIATES LLC — — — - FRAME & COVER
CONTRACTOR SHALL SECURE W/WATERT/GHT
SITE WITH FENCE TO PREVENT
EQUESTRIAN ENTRY DURING ALL FRAME & COVER
— \ \
�\ ��
- - , _
-- 660, ��
\ \ _ i PID# 19508131 / / —
\ DB 19418 PG 1 / / —�,
— — — — — — — — / / / — — MB 44 PG 425 / /�� ��
—� '��`
_
— — J i _ i ' — —
-- �_— _-----
_ — — — �� — —� —
'
—
— — — — — PID# 19508131 — — ,
— __— k
_ — _ — MB 44 PG 425 x x x =— / / PARIS FAMILY LLC Know what's below.
--- PID 19507103 Call before you dig.
PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION -
— \
/ �� ��
— — \ / / / �r
_-- _� � __
' _ —
— -- x1000e
DB 25497 PG 724
— ' ' x _ kAo A7 or, ��z
\�
�
WARM,Jim_
— /' / //'
/'
� \
y / �- X. x x - GHD Consulting Services Inc.
/' ss� X�/ �\
—�
t X — _
\ / y-
— —� \ — — — — / ,66 /
\ _ \ \ / / / / / / / �'' ' /' '
x `
/'
/ / / f
' /
\
/'
iX X —
�/ I \ ' / X / 222 South Church Street, Suite 400
,
— 200' BUFFER LINE /
� x x x / ' ' / ' ' '
x x x x x X'
/
Tharlotte NC 28202 USA
I x // 6 /
I /� \�' 1 704 302 49 0 W www.ghd.com
g
x �'/�/ /' ''
x x' I
/ / —' x
x_
����/ /�
X /
jf/ ,
, , __
► \\ , CHARLOTTE CHARLOTTE WATER
W TER
/
CHARLOTTE NORTH CAROLINA
NOTES: 7030700047-17-503 STEVENS CREEK
1. PRIOR TO SEWER CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR Job No. File No,
SHALL REPLACE FENCE BETWEEN STATION Scales
1" 40' TRUNK SEWER PHASE l
18+00 TO 30+80 AS SHOWN ALONG PLAN =
PERMANENT SEWER EASEMENT WITH IN—KIND PROFILE
EXISTING 4—RAIL VINYL FENCE IN Hor. 1" = 40' PLAN AND PROFILE
ACCORDANCE WITH CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. Vert. 1" = 4'
STA B19+00 TO STA B31+00
As Built Date
A 2/16 TED FINAL DESIGNSheet Of
L. ASSOC JEM TED MEB 5/1/18 14 26
No. Date By Revision Surveyed By Designed By Drawn By Project-Engr Approved By Date
A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT

`\ \ ► \ FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET N
o. $4Q°36i'36 "W - 7
x REINFORCED
I I I I 22.18'I / STABILIZATION
OUTLET (TYP)"
\\\� EIS NGPROPbS D 16 ` \
/ )
SEE DETAIL
I I
SHEET 2 ` \ \ ` S7VE�� C � EK
I SANITAkY I SEIWE% ` \\ \\ \ \PROPOSD \ I I \ I I
\ \ \ S EA TOB
TEM OR RY R
I \ \ \ \ SILT FENCE (TYP) /
/ \ \ 0 l � SEE DIT AIL HEET 23 \1�� /CROSSING (TYP) / PLUG AND RE—BEN H
/ I \ \ + \ ` I \\� ISEE DFS I SHE T 23 PID #19517148 / / MANHOLE AFTER
cC4 \ I N61 a 10'50 "W \ ` I \\ \\ \ MECKLENBURG COUNTY TRANSFER TRHAVE ANSFERRED \
DB 24891 PG 862 / /
229.93' I 1
-SA\YR rLUUUt-LAIN
PROPOSED
Z CREEK TRUNK EWER
PROPOSED 12"1zN/TARY SEWER
_ nD AREA (TYP)
301
m —\
\
C7 00
UE
ansd' C1+00\
wCO 0
SU i TCE
J
/ / / 0 / SCE rcE x TCF PID #19517147
00
STA. A28+10.33 — — a i / / N TCE TC i /STREAM ANK CITY OF CHARLOTTE
= Q DB 30613 PG 431
STA. C0+00 00 Tei / / �� STABILIZATION (TYP)
PROPOSED 5' — �` l I r' SEE DETAIL T 23 STA. C2f56.22
/ O PERMANENT StWER / I PROPOSED 4'
D/A. MANHOLE MH -09 7' N EASEMENT (TYP) / STA. C2+29.93
W/WATERTIGHT / PROPOSED 5' D/A. MANHOLE MH -32
w� x TEMPORARY
W WA TER
FRAME & COVER D/A. MANHOLE MH -31, / .
/ h EASEMENT (TYP) _ _W WATERTIGHT FRAME & COVER
30' BUFFER LINE \�� k �N�� G
\� FRAME &COVER _ � _
� o
ws
50' BUFFER LINE ` — - — \��\ \ EXI'9fNG WWTP N31 *2256"
W v
/ PERMANENT SEWER M M _ x TEb(PORARYU STATION MH 26.29' \ /
— / C EASEMENT (TYP) h O CONSTRUCTION -1
o � i / � �I� � � � PROPOSED 8"
ASEMENT (TYP) II ` SA
+ � / � EXISIIN� FENCE T 'BE REMOVED N/TARY SEWER---_
/ a /ERMANENT SEWER AND REPLACED BY CONTRACTOR �
ASEMENT (TYP)(TYP) SEE DETAIL SHEET 21 / \
y ,
FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET N o. 7
FI
NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE TEMPORARY BY—PASS LINE AROUND
PROPOSED MANHOLE #31 & 32 TO FACILITATE CONSTRUCTION OF
DOGHOUSE MANHOLES. FLOW SHALL BE MAINTAINED TO EXISTING
PUMP STATION UNTIL FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF TRUNK SEWER AND
STARTUP OF STEVENS CREEK PUMP STATION.
2. CONTRACTOR SHALL WORK WITH CHARLOTTE WATER STAFF FOR
SHUTDOWN OF PWWTP PUMP STATION. CONTRACTOR IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVING PIPE AND ABANDONING CONNECTIONS
TO PUMP STATION.
3. ABANDONED PIPE SHALL BE DISCONNECTED A MINIMUM OF
2—FOOT FROM STRUCTURES. ALL DISCONNECTED LINES SHALL BE
PLUGGED WITH WATERTIGHT MASONRY PLUGS. PLUGS SHALL FILL
PIPE A MINIMUM OF 18—INCHES IN DEPTH AND CAP THE OUTER
WALL BY A MINIMUM OF 4—INCHES.
=_�
Know what's below.
0111 before you dig.
GHD Consulting Services Inc.
222 South Church Street, Suite 400
Charlotte NC 28202 USA
T 1 704 302 4910 W www.ghd.com
A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT
M
O
w
00
N
Q
ti
II
+
V
h
O
=
2 W M
L- coo
�pO II
_ ��
3
_at
LIIQ ��
EXISTING GRADE NI,JO
AT CENTERLINE (APPROX.) N (Wil w
V �MJO II
100 YR FLOODPLAIN QI&I_ IV,
HAZARDI AREA (TYP) ti IC 3
STREAM
CROSSING #6
_
N�'K
i-
N
V �Mp II
kc
y IQ� A 3Q:
cJ
rJ
340
64
STREAM BANK
STABILIZATION
TING R /N = 640.55
PROP. f OUT = 640.35
I
I
�
�
�=
L PROP. 8" D.I.P. SANITARY SEWER
®2.00%
MIN. COVER 3.0'
PROP. 12 D.I.P.
SANITARY
SEWER
3
3
tPROP.
00.75%
EX/ST/NG IN = 640.54
PROP. FL /N = 639.82
DROP PROP. f IN - 630.89
PROP. OUT = 630.69
P. E IN = 628.71
IN = 628.96
P. OUT X628.51
(12 ")
0+5
2
`\ \ ► \ FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET N
o. $4Q°36i'36 "W - 7
x REINFORCED
I I I I 22.18'I / STABILIZATION
OUTLET (TYP)"
\\\� EIS NGPROPbS D 16 ` \
/ )
SEE DETAIL
I I
SHEET 2 ` \ \ ` S7VE�� C � EK
I SANITAkY I SEIWE% ` \\ \\ \ \PROPOSD \ I I \ I I
\ \ \ S EA TOB
TEM OR RY R
I \ \ \ \ SILT FENCE (TYP) /
/ \ \ 0 l � SEE DIT AIL HEET 23 \1�� /CROSSING (TYP) / PLUG AND RE—BEN H
/ I \ \ + \ ` I \\� ISEE DFS I SHE T 23 PID #19517148 / / MANHOLE AFTER
cC4 \ I N61 a 10'50 "W \ ` I \\ \\ \ MECKLENBURG COUNTY TRANSFER TRHAVE ANSFERRED \
DB 24891 PG 862 / /
229.93' I 1
-SA\YR rLUUUt-LAIN
PROPOSED
Z CREEK TRUNK EWER
PROPOSED 12"1zN/TARY SEWER
_ nD AREA (TYP)
301
m —\
\
C7 00
UE
ansd' C1+00\
wCO 0
SU i TCE
J
/ / / 0 / SCE rcE x TCF PID #19517147
00
STA. A28+10.33 — — a i / / N TCE TC i /STREAM ANK CITY OF CHARLOTTE
= Q DB 30613 PG 431
STA. C0+00 00 Tei / / �� STABILIZATION (TYP)
PROPOSED 5' — �` l I r' SEE DETAIL T 23 STA. C2f56.22
/ O PERMANENT StWER / I PROPOSED 4'
D/A. MANHOLE MH -09 7' N EASEMENT (TYP) / STA. C2+29.93
W/WATERTIGHT / PROPOSED 5' D/A. MANHOLE MH -32
w� x TEMPORARY
W WA TER
FRAME & COVER D/A. MANHOLE MH -31, / .
/ h EASEMENT (TYP) _ _W WATERTIGHT FRAME & COVER
30' BUFFER LINE \�� k �N�� G
\� FRAME &COVER _ � _
� o
ws
50' BUFFER LINE ` — - — \��\ \ EXI'9fNG WWTP N31 *2256"
W v
/ PERMANENT SEWER M M _ x TEb(PORARYU STATION MH 26.29' \ /
— / C EASEMENT (TYP) h O CONSTRUCTION -1
o � i / � �I� � � � PROPOSED 8"
ASEMENT (TYP) II ` SA
+ � / � EXISIIN� FENCE T 'BE REMOVED N/TARY SEWER---_
/ a /ERMANENT SEWER AND REPLACED BY CONTRACTOR �
ASEMENT (TYP)(TYP) SEE DETAIL SHEET 21 / \
y ,
FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET N o. 7
FI
NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE TEMPORARY BY—PASS LINE AROUND
PROPOSED MANHOLE #31 & 32 TO FACILITATE CONSTRUCTION OF
DOGHOUSE MANHOLES. FLOW SHALL BE MAINTAINED TO EXISTING
PUMP STATION UNTIL FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF TRUNK SEWER AND
STARTUP OF STEVENS CREEK PUMP STATION.
2. CONTRACTOR SHALL WORK WITH CHARLOTTE WATER STAFF FOR
SHUTDOWN OF PWWTP PUMP STATION. CONTRACTOR IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVING PIPE AND ABANDONING CONNECTIONS
TO PUMP STATION.
3. ABANDONED PIPE SHALL BE DISCONNECTED A MINIMUM OF
2—FOOT FROM STRUCTURES. ALL DISCONNECTED LINES SHALL BE
PLUGGED WITH WATERTIGHT MASONRY PLUGS. PLUGS SHALL FILL
PIPE A MINIMUM OF 18—INCHES IN DEPTH AND CAP THE OUTER
WALL BY A MINIMUM OF 4—INCHES.
=_�
Know what's below.
0111 before you dig.
GHD Consulting Services Inc.
222 South Church Street, Suite 400
Charlotte NC 28202 USA
T 1 704 302 4910 W www.ghd.com
A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT

A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT
CITY OF CHARLOTTE STANDARD CITY OF CHARLOTTE STANDARD
CAST IRON FRAME AND COVER. CAST IRON FRAME AND COVER
4" MIN. CLEAR FROM
USE BRICK OR CONC. GRADE (BOLT DOWN -WATER TIGHT)
JOINT (ABOVE OR BELOW)
RINGS FOR ADJUSTMENT OF
FINISHED GRADE
FLUSH MANHOLES.
CUT TO FIT i 9 LF. i
D.I.P.
1 /2 PIPE I.D.
6•
2'
a
N 7" MIN.
21" MAX
7" 24"
E16"
5/8" COPPER GROUND ROD
C
O 5/8" COPPER GROUND ROD O.C.
NF
1/4"x2" STAINLESS
(SEE NOTES 14 AND 15)
isa
(SEE NOTES 14 AND 15)
STEEL STRAP WITH
W
N HEIGHT OF RISER
TING M.H.
2 ANCHOR BOLTS
c AND CONE
io SECTION VARIES
JOINT � 4�
If
w
N
%MIN.
of
ENLARGED DETAIL
STEPS N
CORE HOLE FOR INFLUENT D.I.P.
o
(ON STRAIGHTWALL) m
WITH CORING
MACHINE AND
Z
5" >
INSTALL FLEXIBLE RUBBER
5'-000UPLING.
Uj
(SEE NOTE #5)
CUJ
NOTES:
STRAIGHT WALL OF
O.D. PIPE BARRELL
M.H. TO BE LOCATED 1. MANHOLE TO CONFORM WITH ASTM C478 EXCEPT AS
OVER INFLUENT PIPE MODIFIED BELOW.
STANDARD
(4'0 M. H.) 2. MANHOLE BASE TO BE REINFORCED WITH A MINIMUM AREA OF
#12 COPPER
zo 0.20 SQ. IN. PER LINEAL FOOT EACH WAY. WALL REINFORCING
A A
TRACER WIRE i
F TO BE MINIMUM OF 0.12 SQ. IN. PER LINEAL FOOT. EITHER
4'-0' OR 5'-0' TONGUE OR GROOVE SHALL HAVE REINFORCING EQUAL IN
i
w
N AREA TO MINIMUM OF WALL SECTION.
SEE NOTE 13
,
N W 3. ALL JOINTS SHALL CONFORM WITH ASTM C443.
m 4. STEPS TO BE PLASTIC PER CITY STANDARDS.
5. ALL PIPE OPENINGS TO BE NO GREATER THAN 3" LARGER
THAN OUTSIDE DIAMETER OF PIPE AND ADDITIONALLY
1/4"x2" STAINLESS
/
REINFORCED WITH A MINIMUM OF 0.20 SQ. IN. OF STEEL AT
90 DEGREES (ADDITIONAL REINFORCING NOT REQUIRED FOR
STEEL STRAP WITH 2
CORED OPENINGS)
ANCHOR BOLTS
= 6. ALL SURFACES SHALL BE SMOOTH EVEN TEXTURED WITH A
B o B
MINIMUM OF HONEYCOMB, FINS AND OTHER IMPERFECTIONS.
w
7. PENETRATING LIFTING HOLES SHALL BE PLUGGED WITH
cn
EXPANSION GROUT.
w
77�STALLED
RESHAPE INVERT
/FLEXIBLE COUPLING CAST IN BASE OR 8. INVERTS MAY BE 3600 PSI READY MIX CONCRETE IN LIEU OF
IN CORED HOLE WITH
00
SECTION B -B
BRICK. PRECAST INVERTS ARE ACCEPTABLE.
TAINLESS STEEL COMPRESSION DEVICE. 9. STEPS IN 5' DIAMETER MANHOLES TO BE OVER WIDEST SHELF.
O8AND 10" PIPE, INVERTS ARE TO BE 10. 4'0 CONE SECTIONS MAYBE USED WITH 5'0 MANHOLES WITH A
3/4" PIPE OD AT TROUGH, FOR 12" AND 5'-4" TRANSITION SECTION PLACED DIRECTLY BENEATH THE
4 CONE.
LARGER PIPE, PROVIDE FULL INVERT AS 11 MANHOLE SECTIONS SHALL BE DESIGNED FOR H-20
SECTION A -A
SHOWN. THE SHELF SHALL SLOPE 2" FROM LOADING.
THE MANHOLE WALL TO THE TROUGH. 12. MINIMUM HEIGHT FOR CONCENTRIC CONES ON MANHOLES WITH
BOLT DOWN F&C IS 32".
NOTES:
13. COPPER TRACER WIRE TO BE WRAPPED AROUND OUTSIDE OF
MANHOLE AND UP TO CONNECT WITH GROUND ROD.
14. 5/8" COPPER GROUND ROD CAST IN MANHOLE 1" BELOW TOP
1.
PIPE FOR INSIDE DROP SHALL BE SDR 35 PVC CONFORMING TO ASTM
STEP IN CENTERLINE OF STEP, GROUND ROD NOT TO
2.
SPECIFICATION D3034.
BOTTOM BEND TO BE 90' SHORT BEND, BELL SPIGOT, OF SDR 35
PROTRUDE PAST INSIDE EDGE OF STEP.
PVC. SPIGOT OF BEND TO REST DIRECTLY ON EXISTING SHELF.
15. CONNECT TRACER WIRE TO GROUND ROD WITH GROUND ROD
CONSTRUCT MASONRY THROUGH FROM DROP EFFLUENT TO MAIN
CLAMP WITH SS SCREWS. WRAP ALL EXPOSED METAL WITH
Z)r
CHANNEL.
RUBBER ELECTRICAL SPLICING TAPE.
16. TRACER WIRE IN 1/2" PVC CONDUIT ATTACHED TO MANHOLE.
3.
NOTCH BELL OF PVC DROP TO ACCEPT D.I.P. SPIGOT AS SHOWN.
4.
LOCATE STRAPS AT PIPE BELL AND ABOVE BELL OF 90' BEND AS
SHOWN. ADD EXTRA STRAPS AS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN MAXIMUM
SPACING OF TEN FEET.
5.
HOLE IN MANHOLE WALL TO BE MADE WITH A CORING MACHINE.
INSTALL FLEXIBLE RUBBER COUPLING.
6.
CORE HOLE SHALL NOT ENTER CONE SECTION.
2" FALL
7.
STEPS SHALL BE RELOCATED IF THEY CONFLICT WITH INSIDE DROP.
(TYP.)
I
INSIDE DROP DETAIL
PRECAST MANHOLES 4' & 5' DIAMETER
NOTES:
1. MANHOLE BASE SHALL BE 4000 PSI CONCRETE PLACED ON
=
A
A
UNDISTURBED EARTH AND MAY BE PLACED AGAINST SHAPED
i'
BANKS IN LIEU OF FORMS.
2. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT CUT THE EXISTING SEWER PIPE
UNTIL PERMISSION IS GRANTED BY THE ENGINEER OR SRU
INSPECTOR - AFTER FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL.
3. WRAP OUTSIDE MANHOLE SEAMS (JOINTS) WITH WIDE BUTYL
TAPE.
4. MANHOLE TO CONFORM TO CITY STANDARDS AND
(7)=
SPECIFICATIONS FOR PRECAST MANHOLES.
�10
5. ALL MANHOLES ARE REQUIRED TO BE VACUUM TESTED.
0 I 1-1/4"
6. 4' INSIDE DIAMETER MANHOLES SHALL HAVE 5" THICK WALLS
rn
5' INSIDE DIAMETER MANHOLES SHALL HAVE 6" THICK WALLS
7. MANHOLES MUST NOT HAVE ANY LARGE CHIPPED AREAS,
PLAN
STAINLESS STEEL
BROKEN AREAS, CRACKS, OR EXPOSED REINFORCEMENT, OR
NUTS & BOLTS
OTHER DEFECTS. DEFECTIVE MANHOLES WILL NOT BE
ACCEPTED.
V\8/
O
BUTYL MASTIC BETWEEN
A
MANHOLE AND FRAME &COVER
PRE -CAST RINGS (WHEN NEEDED)
MAXIMUM OF 11 1/2-
/2"A
INCLUDING BUTYL MASTIC
A-
BUTYL RUBBER
SEALS IN JOINTS
10-3/4-
12"
= =L_\
5" MIN
6" MIN
\_.'
CONCRETE BLOCK
COPOLYMER POLYPROPYLENE PLASTIC
PIPE DIA.
CONCRETE MONOLITHIC
POURED
1/2" GRADE 60 STEEL REINFORCEMENTZ
8" MIN
UNDISTURBED SOIL OR COMPACTED
SECTION AA
WASHED STONE WHERE POOR SOIL
SECTION A -A
CONDITIONS EXIST
5-3/4"
CHARLOTTE CHARLOTTE WATER
THIS STEP TO BE DRIVEN INTO
W6TER
TAPERED HOLES IN PRECAST
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
MANHOLE SECTIONS. DO NOT
USE AS A GROUTED -IN STEP.
DOGHOUSE MANHOLE
7030700047-17- 503
1000 LB. PULL OUT TEST REPORT
STEVENS CREEK
REQUIRED ON EACH STEP.
Job No. File No.
Scales
TRUNK SEWER PHASE I
PLAN NTS
PROFILE
PLASTIC STEP CORED HOLE
MANHOLE DETAILS (SHEET 1 OF 2)
Vert. NTS
DRIVEN IN PLACE
As Built Date
Of
A 2/16
TED FINAL DESIGNSheet
L. ASSOC JEM TED MEB 5/4/18 16 26
No. Date
By Revision
Surveyed By Designed By Drawn By Project-Engr Approved By Date
A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT

5/8"x2 1/2" EXPANSION ANCHOR BOLTS
ON BOTTOM BRACKETS.
5/8"x4" EXPANSION ANCHOR BOLTS ON
TOP BRACKET.
BIRD/INSECT
SCREEN
Ell% YLAANGLEAS REQ'D, TO
QUARELY ONE
TOP BRACKET ONLY
11 1/2-
1
/2"> 1 /2" a 1/2- > 1/2-
1
/2"1 1 /2"
I I
I I
11/16"0 HOLES BRACKET FABRICATED
DRILLED AS SHOWN FROM 1/4" STEEL PLATE
PIPE BRACKET PIPE BRACKET
(SEE THIS SHEET)-
WASHER
HEET)-
WASHER PLATES
TO PLUMB VENT
1 4"
1/4" PLATE A
� I
LJ
A
SECTION A -A
ACCORDING TO THE TYPE OF PRECAST MANHOLE.
WASHER SPACERS MAY BE REQUIRED ON LOWER
BRACKETS.
1/4'
5"0 STEEL PIPE
1_Z4-
0
W
or
a
CIT -r
0
9" I
[
1 4"
PLUG
WATERTIGHT FRAME AND
COVER (BOLTED DOWN)
STEPS AND VENT
INSTALLED ON STRAIGHT
WALL OF M.H.
PRECAST CONCRETE MANHOLE
MANHOLE VENT DETAIL
NOTES:
1. VENT SHALL BE ON CREEK SIDE AND POINT
DOWNSTREAM.
2. VENT AND BRACKETS SHALL BE PAINTED PER
SPECS.
3. AVOID PLACING PIPE BRACKET AT MANHOLE JOINTS
OR STEPS.
4. ANCHOR SLEEVE, THREADED STUD AND NUT SHALL
BE STAINLESS STEEL OR GALVANIZED STEEL.
5. ROTATE STRAIGHT WALL OF MANHOLE TO CREEKSIDE.
w
O V
a
om
z
za
X Y im (
0"-72" 1 60" 1 3
72"-84"
"
)VER 84" 72" 3
GROUND LEVEL
N
4"
TOP VIEW
4-
L
A
B
E
L
Co
TYPE "A"
GROUN[
TOP VIEW
2.956"
io
LO
rn
R.
TYPE "B"
NOTE:
1. ALL MARKER POSTS SHALL BE INSTALLED PER
MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
MANHOLE VENT DETAIL
C P
A S I
U E P
T W E
I E L
0 R I
N N
E
Know what's below.
Call Wore you dig.
LABEL DETAILS
CHARLOTTE CHARLOTTE WATER
W6TER CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
7030700047-17-503
Job No. File No.
Scales
PLAN NTS
PROFILE
Hor. NTS
Vert. NTS
STEVENS CREEK
TRUNK SEWER PHASE I
MANHOLE DETAILS (SHEET 2 OF 2)
As Built Date
A 2 16 TED FINAL DESIGN Sheet Of
L. ASSOC JEM TED MEB 5/4/18 17 26
No. Dote By Revision Surveyed By Designed By Drawn By Project—Engr Approved By Date
A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT

A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT
3/4" LETTERS
1" LETTERS
(RECESSED FLUSH)
nRy 0 1" VENT HOLE
(RECESSED FLUSH)
3/4" LETTERS IRO /y
1" ARIAL TEXT ®j;�
5/8" ARIAL STYLE TEXT
NETRATING JpRT EI RpN wpRks
�, ®�
s� JpRDAN
Wpb°�®RIOT
(RECESSED FLUSH) EP �s
T E®��
TF
PICKNHOLESON
1 1" LETTERS
1 5/8" OT T E ��
S �PR� wA 1 ARIAL TEXT
G °
O T E
�/—DETAIL
GAP
CAM LOCK
2 CORED �0
.9 (RECESSED FLUSH)
P ICKBARS
5/8" ARIAL STYLE TEXT
HOLESNETRATING -9�
PICK HOLES
�
1 5/8"�
"WARNING
SEE ASSEMBLY
-z-
CAM LOCK v
WARNING
�
v ANITARY (2) CORED
DO NOT ENTER
SEE ASSEMBLY SANITAR , 1/2"
DETAIL
EWER
DO NOT NT (2) - LIFTING BARS
PICKBARS
SEWER
(2) - NON PENETRATING
PICK HOLES
� O
(2) -NON PENETRATING
PICK HOLES
�
1 1/2-1
1 1 /2"
"-11x4"
� � 3/4" LETTERS
TYPE 304 S.SBOLT HEX .
1 1/2-
4U 1 1/2"1
USF CAMLOCK WASHER ,A /2n (RECESSED FLUSH)
1
5/8" HEX HEAD BOLT 1 /16"x5/8"x1 1 /2" WASHER �
�
3/4" LETTERS /
s,�Q'
q T N� E�
S.S.
TYPE304
RUBBER 5/8" ID 1.50 OD ��
TYPE 304 S.S. C,
s q �Q
A s ��
(RECESSED FLUSH) �C
D O N®�
A R Y s
Do NO
R Y
E ON U.B.
MADE i N USA 1" VENT HOLE
ON U.S.�'°
—
= 2 3/8"
1 1/8-- BOSS
LOCK LUG MADE IN USA /
26"
6 10/4"
4" 1 1/2-
0 26"
1 1/2"
26"
22 "
—
3/8"
0 26"
NUT HEX 5/8"-11 13/16" 1 1/2"
TYPE 304 S.S. NYLK
15/16"
�
13/16"
�
6 1 /4"
15/16 "
I
3 1/4- O 0
3 13/16"
I
=
3 1 /4" = O —� �� _ '"�
2 1/8-
NUT HEX JAM 5/8"-11
TYPE 304 S.S.
3 1 /8" 1 /2rr
1 15/16" ��
5 3/16
1 5/8" 3 1/8- 1 /2" �
1 15/16 "
0 22 13/16" NEO NE
2 1/8" " GASKET
1 3/8" 0 22 13/16"
1 1/2"
I� 5 3/16"� 3/16"
0 25
01" VENT HOLE -
15/16"
9/16"
15/16"
I
3 13/16" O.D. OF GKT GROOVE
T
i
I I �
011/16" 1 3/8"
6 1/2"
1/2"
9/16"
5/8" TYPE 304
5/8"
TYPE 304 1/2"
5/8" TYPE 304 MACHINED
S.S. ROD SURFACE
S.S. ROD
MACHINED
SURFACE EAST JORDAN IRON WORKS
S.S. ROD
3 16 DOVETAIL
/
GROOVE MACHINED
1 2rr
'1800 /)��t/8"TYPE 304 EAST JORDAN IRON WORKS
USF NR
USF NL
SURFACE
.2400" MACHINED S.S. ROD
SURFACE
DATE 5/8"
3/4" 1 1/4-
1040C
2 1 /4" UT I
7/16" MO/DA/YR X
PROD. NO.
DATE
5/8"
3/4" 1 1/4-
3/16-
1040AGS
2 1/4- 7/16" lom
" rr MO/DA/YR X
1 3/8 1 PROD. NO.
CLASS 35
1 3/8" ASTM A48 CL35B
1 ��
0 7/8 CLASS 35
" CAM LOCK
ASTM A48 CL35B
-- --
-- -- 1" VENT HOLE
HOLE ® 22"
"
3/8 �- 5/8"-
5/16"
----- _
— -
/4""
3/grr
�J L
" DOVETAIL
180
rr [:.240"
1 1/8
3 4"
/
GROOVE
GROOVE
PICK HOLE DETAIL
PICK HOLE DETAIL
PICK HOLE DETAIL
PICK HOLE DETAIL
TYPE 1 24—INCH MANHOLE COVER (VENTED)
TYPE 3 24—INCH MANHOLE COVER WATERTIGHT GASKET CAMLOCK (SOLID)
(4)-0 1" ANCHOR g S S d �
HOLES ONA
b' S .n
�Sn Ni �,o
(4) - 0 1" ANCHOR ST JpRDAN IRON WpR
P Ks
n
0 33 3/4 B.C.D.
�
��� b�V
HOLES ON A E
0 31" B.C.D.
/ 0
0
s
b S 0 (4)-0 1" ANCHOR
/ � HOLES ON A
s
�� b� 0 32 3/4" B.C.D.
Y
o
0Dz
V) p
w
0 2
0
C) o
MACHINED
r
v 7)
MACHINED
SURFACE
0 0
cin
SURFACE 0 0
1 1 /2"
w
Lp J
1 1 /2" EAST JORDAN IRON WORKS
FMADE
O,q T E
MADE I N U S A
IN USA
MACHINED FRAME
SURFACE
MACHINED
OO SURFACE
1 5/8" 1 1/2-
Oq
iE
27 1/4"
FRAME
1 1/2"
34"
I
1" 26 1/4" 1 1/2"
1 1/2"
� n
26 1/4" 1 1/2
MACHINED
27 7/16"
1
SURFACE
26 1/4- FRAME
24"
4"
24" 1/2"A
27 15/16"
36r'
26 1/4"
4"
24"
26 1/4"
1 1/2"
36"
24"
27 1/4"
5/8»
I 1 4
1 1 /2"
F
27„
4" I
—T-5/8'5/8"
CHARLOTTE
CHARLOTTE WATER
W�TER
„
11/2”
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
36
26 1/4"
MACHINED
SURFACE
7030700047-17- 503
Job No. File No. STEVENS CREEK
TYPE B 24—INCH MANHOLE
FRAME 4 INCHES TALL
TYPE
C 24—INCH MANHOLE FRAME 4—INCHsales
PLAN NTS TRUNK SEWER PHASE l
TALL
INVERTED — REVERSIBLE (CAST IN) PROFILE
Hor. NTS
NTS 24 IN. MANHOLE FRAME
Vert.
AND COVER DETAILS
As Built Date
A 2/16 TED FINAL DESIGNSheet Of
L. ASSOC JEM TED MEB 5/4/11 1 $ 26
No. Date By
Revision Surveyed By Designed By Drawn By Project-Engr Approved By Date
A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT

A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT
MACHINED
0 1" VENT HOLE
SURFACE
1" LETTERS (2) CLOSED
(RECESSED FLUSH)
� ORpTA PICKHOLES
R0 ry w0R
MACHINED
TSURFACE
1" LETTERS
T(RECESSED FLUSH)
(2) CLOSED
`pTTE-Wq��
G®0�R 1 5/8-
Pss � s
E
7-
PICKHOLES
7" k
7/8
1 5/8"
r-VENT HOLE
\.O 1" DIA VENT
VENT --I-
® CAM LOCK
7/16 "
1` (2) CAMS
C.) �J (SEE DETAIL)
CAM LOCK 8"
PQ- �HOLE
HOLE,Z.o
.. V (2) CAMS
DSEE ETAILSSEMBLY
O
DSEE ETAILSSEMBLY7/16"
® ®�
®
(SEE DETAIL)
0
1/2"—
WARNING
g 7 g"
/
x of
� 0 SANITARY
�0 9" 32" �O
® ®
1 2"
/
1*0 T SANITARY
DO NOT ENTE
�w SEWER
WARNING 1 8 7/8"
DO NOT ENTER,_�
\I- 9" i 32" o
O �
® ®® ®®®
® ®® ®
N —
"� o SEWE
® 1" ARIAL STYLE
TEXT TYP.
o " /
.. 1 /4 1 3/4" LETTERING G
„
ISTYLE
j
o 1 /4"
®®
5/16" RECESSED
I v/�
TEXT TYP.
®
-V7��
5/16" 'A
�/
S,q ^n�
NOTARY SG
ORS GASKET
NEOPRENE
RUBBER
1 1 4"
/ (3
MACHINED DO N
® ®
® ORS GASKET
SqN�
��
3 1/2" 1 1/4" /VG '(
/ "
(2)-NON
MADE IN U.S.P•
PENETRATING
60 DUROMETER
1" LETTERING
SURFACE M q ° s ' RECESSED
wVv NEOPRENE
T S RUBBER
(2)-NON TA 60 DUROMETER
Y D0 ND 1 3/4 LETTERING
MACHINED M a RECESSED
SURFACE a ° s
PICKHOLES 1 1/2"
I
F�
PENETRATING MADE IN U - s • P �
E ' " 1" LETTERING
32 "
3 1/2"
27 3/4"
PICKHOLES II
1 1/2 F�
RECESSED
1 1/2" 28 5/8"
3 1/2"
TYPE 1 X 3 1 /2" LG 5/8" I.D. 1 1 /2" O.D. 5/8" 1 1 /2"
TYPE SS
32" 1/2"
27 3/4"
"
HEX
TYPE 304 SS FLAT WASHER
BOLT
BOLT
1 1/2" 28 5/8" 5/8"-11 X 3 1 /2" LG 5/8" I.D. 1 1 /2" O.D. 5/8" 1 1 /2
3 1/2" TYPE 304 SS TYPE 304 SS FLAT WASHER
_ _
F3
USF CAMLOCK
5/8" HEX HEAD BOLT
" "
5/8 I.D. 1 1/2" O.D. r ��
RUBBER WASHER F7T
_ = USF CAMLOCK HEX
5/8" HEX HEAD BOLT
BOLT
5/8" I.D. 1 1/2" O.D.
RUBBER WASHER F J I !
MACHINED
SURFACE
ALL GRADE S.S.
TYPE 304
3 1/2"-J5/16"
MACHINED
ALL GRADE S.S.
MACHINED TYPE 304
--
5/16"
CAM LOCK
`
BRONZE 1/4" 9 SURFACE
LOCK LUG
CAM LOCK SURFACE
VENT HOLE
3 1/2 " MACHINED
��
OCKBRONZLUG 1/4 9 SURFACE
-
45, -
21/2"
NEOPRENE
5/8-11 HEX GASKET
I
\ I — 2 1/2"
NEOPRENE
GASKET
=
)
JAM NUT TYPE 304 SS
45' =
HEX
3/8"
� I
JAM N TYPE 304 SS
AM N
G
s�
WELD ON JAM NUT OR
3/8"
11 /16��
TYPE 304 SS PEEN END THREADS ON BOLT
5/88-11 NUT
NYLOK
G
WELD ON JAM NUT OR
2 1/8"
11/16"
� � \ 2 1 /8"
22'5' ORS GASKET
5/8-11 TYPE 304 SS PEEN END THREADS ON BOLT
NYLOK NUT VENT HOLE--
2 1/4"
22.5' ORS GASKET
_ \ RUBBER
v
4' 60 DUROMETER 3/4"
5/8"
1 1 /4 "
2 1 /4" 7/16" 1480GS
A CLDI
1 3 8 o O
/ 1" PROD. NO.
NEOPRENE
r RUBBER 5/8"
4__ r 60 DUROMETER3/4" 1 1/4"
GS
7/16" 1480ClCLDI
3/8" 1" PROD. NO.
_
MO/DY/YR X
—_ --
----TT 3/16"
II
—1 MO/DY/YR X
0 7/8" CAM LOCK
—
-L— -
3/16„
\
-----� �--
09HOLE ® 0 28 5/8" 3/8" 5/8"
5/16"
180" 3/4"
0 7/8" CAM LOCK
HOLE ® 0 28 5/8" 3/8" 5/8 "
F
I 3/4"
CLASS 35
GRDOVETAIL GROOVE
.240
240"
DI 80-55-06
— 18" 5/16"
.180"
f� "
CLASS 35 3/16" DOVETAIL
PICK HOLES DETAIL
PICK HOLES DETAIL
GROOVE
DI 80-55-06
PICK HOLES DETAIL
PICK HOLES DETAIL
TYPE 4 30-INCH MANHOLE COVER
VENTED, GASKET, CAMLOCK (VENTED)
TYPE 5 30-INCH MANHOLE COVER
WATERTIGHT, GASKET, CAMLOCK (SOLID)
31 b4
31 ba (6) - 0 1" ANCHORNV(11:lor
lsb3
O
/
HOLES ONA
0 37 1/2S B.C.D.4�
\ 6,
//
\\ s
(1CHOR �o
0\�
� // �
2J-
HOLES 0N A
y /
(6) - 0 1" ANCHOR
(6)
//
0 35 5/8" B.C.D.
�o s
HOLES ON A
0 37" B.C.D.
ICU ?
��
O
If
/�
o
0
\\
\�
MACHINED
/�
0
SURFACE
O
z 0
o
\\ // ^0
\
MACHINED
SURFACE
FRAME--\20 /
/
O
L
\\
FRAME
N \
\ /
MACHINED
J MACHINED
SURFACE
FOV NDRY
op1�Q11
SURFACE
0
1 5/8F
1
1 1/2
• S (�
FOUNDRY
MADE IN USA O
MO/DAY/YR
7/16"
40 3/4"
32 1/4"
Ll 1/2-
MACHINED
SURFACE
MACHINED
SURFACE 38"
32 1/4"
30"
1 1/2"
1 1/2" 11/16"
30"
33 1/4" FRAME
32 1 /4"
33 1/4- 1 1/2"
�
�
4"
I
1 1/2" 1 "
4"
32 3/16"
1 1/2"
4" 321/4"
1 1/2"
5/8"
4 1/2"
32 1/4"
33 1 4
/"
CHARLOTTE CHARLOTTE WATER
30"
32 1/4"
2 9/16" 30"
33 15/16"
V% �T E R
WCHARLOTTE NORTH CAROLINA
9
"
40 3/4
40 3/4"
7030700047-17-503
STEVENS CREEK
Job No. File No.
Scales
PLAN NTS TRUNK SEWER PHASE I
TYPE E 30-INCH
MANHOLE
FRAME 4-INCH
TYPE D 30-INCH MANHOLE
FRAME 4-INCH TALL
PROFILE
TALL INVERTED - REVERSIBLE (CAST IN) Hor. NTS
30 /N. MANHOLE FRAME
Vert. NTS
AND COVER DETAILS
As Built Date
A
2/16 TED
FINAL DESIGNSheet Of
L. ASSOC JEM TED MEB 5/4/18 19 26
No.
Date By
Revision Surveyed By Designed By Drawn By Project-Engr Approved By Date
A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT

1900
INITIA
PIF
PIPE SPRIN
HAUNCI
BEDDIN,
FOUNE
SUBGRADEJ
NOTES:
1. FOUNDATION MATERIAL ONLY REQUIRED WHEN UNSUITABLE
SUBGRADE MATERIALS ENCOUNTERED.
2. SEE SPECIFICATION 02223 (BACKFILLING) FOR MATERIALS
REQUIRED.
TYPICAL TRENCH DETAIL
STRAIGHT THROUGH
4 -WAY JUNCTION
FORM BENCH WITH
4000 PSI CONCRETE
4ANHOLE WI
RIGHT ANGLE
3 -WAY JUNCTION
CONCRETE BASE SECTION
:l�:T�P►
SLOPE BENCH TO
CHANNEL ® 1%
PROPOSED
MANHOLE
NOTES:
1. FINISH ALL CHANNELS AT PROPER GRADE AS TO ALLOW
SMOOTH AND UN -OBSTRUCTED FLOW ALL INVERTS TO BE
FLUSH WITH THE INSIDES. MINIMUM CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.2%
FLOW CHANNEL AND BENCH DETAIL
CONDITION
SCHEMATIC
REQUIREMENTS
CARRIER PIPE
WL
NCDOT
THICKNESS
I
(INCHES)
A. WATERLINE AND SEWER LINE PIPE
LENGTHS TO BE CENTERED AT
(INCHES)
THOMPSON RD
CROSSING. EACH LENGTH OF PIPE
WATERLINE
MORE THAN
IS TO BE 10' MINIMUM.
ABOVE
18 INCHES
0.250
SEWER LINE
SL
A. WATERLINE AND SEWER LINE PIPE
SL
LENGTHS TO BE CENTERED AT
CROSSING. EACH LENGTH OF PIPE.
B. COMPACTED SELECT FILL OR WASHED
SAND TO THE CENTERLINE OF
SEWER LINE
MORE THAN
EXISTING UTILITY PIPE.
ABOVE
18 INCHES
WATERLINE
WL
BACKFILL
WL - WATERLINE
SL - SEWER LINE, SANITARY OR STORM
D PIPE BEDDING
D -OUTSIDE DIAMETER OF PIPE
IN NO CASE SHALL PIPES BE CLOSER THAN
18" APART. DISTANCES ARE MEASURED
BETWEEN OUTSIDES OF PIPE.
D
PLUS 2'
END CLOSURE
SEE DETAIL
BELOW
DRAINAGE GRAVEL
(10 CF OF STONE)
WATERMAINZSEWER CROSSING
SPIDER SUPPORTS OR
APPROVED EQUAL
SLOPE TO DRAIN
PROVIDE" WEEP HOLE
AT LOW POINT OF CASING
ENCASEMENT PIPE
r -PROPOSED
SEWER MAIN
RESTRAINED JOINT DIP
CARRIER PIPE
45*
,'ARRIER PIPE
_q
STEEL SPIDER SUPPORTS
ENCLOSE ENDS WITH 8"
BRICK MASONRY (SEAL WITH
NON -SHRINK GROUT AS 90,
NECESSARY)
END CLOSURE SECTION SECTION
INIMUM SIZE AND THICKNESS STD. FOR ENCASEMEN
PIPE
LOCATION
CARRIER PIPE
CASING PIPE
NCDOT
THICKNESS
w 1
(INCHES)
(INCHES)
(INCHES)
THOMPSON RD
16
30
0.312
THOMPSON RD
12
24
0.250
STEEL ENCASEMENT PIPE
NOTES:
1. REFER TO APPLICABLE PERMIT FOR MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
GOVERNING HIGHWAY UNDERCROSSINGS.
2. STEEL "SPIDERS" SHALL BE USED FOR SUPPORT OF THE
CARRIER PIPE WITHIN THE ENCASEMENT (CASING) PIPE.
3. A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 2 SPIDERS PER JOINT OF CARRIER
PIPE SHALL BE REQUIRED.
4. SPACING OF SPIDERS WILL BE DICTATED BY THE LENGTH OF
CASING PIPE AND NUMBER OF JOINTS OF CARRIER PIPE.
5. THERE SHALL BE NO WELDING OF CASING UNDER PAVEMENT.
CASING PIPE WITH SPACERS
STAINLESS STEEL TAKE-UP CLAMP
1 FOR PIPE 14.3" OD OR SMALLER
2 FOR PIPE 14.3" OD OR LARGER
V
SLOPE TO CHANNEL
STAINLESS STEEL POWER
SLEEVE RING OR
APPROVED EQUAL
CHANNEL
- o
GASKET
EXISTING
BENCH
NOTES:
1. CORE DRILL ENTRANCE HOLE IN MANHOLE BARREL, BASE AND/OR
BENCH FOR REQUIRED PIPE CLEARANCE. PER MANUFACTURERS
RECOMMENDATIONS.
2. WATERTIGHT PIPE TO MANHOLE BOOT SEAL REQUIRED FOR ALL
CORE DRILLED ENTRANCE HOLES IN MANHOLE BARREL AS SHOWN.
CONNECTION TO EXISTING MANHOLE
EXISTING PIPE CROSSING (SEE1'-
WATER MAIN CROSSING DETAIL
FOR CONCRETE ENCASEMENT)
N
Q
J
E:
Y
0
a
m
o
z
0
N
w
a
CL
101 1
J
1 I SELECT FILL L_
Y
ao
J
w 1
m�
Y D
C
0 Q
a
d
_�
N
TRENCH BOTTOM
PIPE CROSSING SUPPORT DETAIL
mmm
PIPE VARIES WITH /
SLOPE
PIPE BEDDING
PROPOSED SEWER
R
EXIST. OR FINISHED GRADE
1�, MINIMUM
4' MIN. COVER
AT T
22 -1/2 -BEND
(PVC, DIP OR CISP.)
COMPRESSION JOINT SEALER
SEWER TAP SADDLE
EPDXY SEALANT AS
RECOMMENDED BY TAP
SADDLE MANUFACTURER
VITRIFIED CLAY, PVC
OR DUCTILE IRON PIPE.
NOTES:
1. THE OPENING PIPE SHALL BE CUT WITH A TAP
MACHINE ONLY.
2. THE TAP SHALL BE MADE IN THE UPPER HALF OF
THE PIPE AT 45' FROM THE HORIZONTAL.
3. MAXIMUM SIZE TAP SHALL BE FOUR INCHES.
4. TEE & BEND TO BE FULLY ENCASED WITH #67
CRUSHED STONE.
5. SDR 35 PVC LATERAL PIPE REQUIRE TYPE III
GRANULAR BEDDING.
6. MIN. CLEAR TO PIPE JOINT ON MAIN SHALL BE
1'-0".
7. THE LATERAL MUST BE INSTALLED PERPENDICULAR
TO THE MAIN.
8. IF THE LATERAL HAS LESS THAN 3' OF COVER, THE
LATERAL MUST BE D.I.P.
4" LATERAL (TAP
SURFACE FLOW
DIVERTED BY SWALE
0
P�
SURFACE FLOW
DIVERTED BY SWALE
SEED AND MULCH W/—
SURFACE BINDER
AGGREGATE BED OVER
GEOTEXTILE FILTER CLOTH
AGGREGATE APPROCH
1: 5 (V: H) MAXIMUM SLOPE ON ROAD
SURFACE FLOW DIVERTED BY SWALE SURFACE FLOW
DIVERTED BY SWALE
\--NEW ROAD
GEOTEXTiLE FILTER CLOTH
ORIGINAL STREAM BED
AGGREGATE BED OVER
TEMPORARY FORD CROSSING
CHARLOTTE CHARLOTTE WATER
W6TER CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
7030700047-17-503
Job No. File No.
Scales PLAN NTS
PROFILE
Hor. NTS
Vert. NTS
As Built Date
FINAL DESIGN L. ASSOC JEM
Revision Surveyed By Designed By
STEVENS CREEK
TRUNK SEWER PHASE I
STANDARD SEWER DETAILS
(SHEET 1 OF 2)
Sheet Of
TED MEB 5/4 18 120126
Drawn By Project-Engr Approved By Date
A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT

GRAVITY SEWER MAIN & MANHOLE MARKER
SECTION VIEW
4'-6"
2'-6-
12* HOLE FILLED'
WITH CONCRETE
5/8" COPPER GROUND ROD.
CAST IN OR CORE IN
MANHOLE 1" BELOW STEP
IN CENTERLINE OF STEP.
DO NOT PROTRUDE PAST
INSIDE EDGE OF STEP.
FLOW
PLASTIC GREEN MANHOLE MARKER
LABELED SEWER MH (SEE NOTES)
SEWER
LATERAL ♦ _ _ _ - -
C-
GROUND ROD CLAMP
SECTION VIEW
1
6-[-- 12" MIN.
I TRACER
I CONNECT EACH TRACER WIRE TO GROUND
I ROD WITH GROUND ROD CLAMP WITH
STAINLESS STEEL SCREWS (SEE DETAIL ABOVE).
WRAP ALL XPOS D M TA
WITH
E E E L
RUBBER ELECTRICAL SPLICING TAPE.
NO. 12 GAUGE SOLID
��COPPER TRACER NARES (TYP.)
(SEE NOTES)
ALL VERTICAL WARE SHALL BE PLACED
IN 1" ID PVC CONDUIT
N0 12 GAUGE SOLID
(CO�PER
E NOTES
,SSEEWER ADDLE )TAP
FLOW
WRAP EACH TRACER WARE AROUND OUTSIDE
OF MANHOLE AND CONNECT TO GROUND ROD
SEWER MAIN
STEEL
SCREWS (TYP.)
SPLICE To
MAIN TRACER WARE
FOR NEW SEWER
NEW SERVICE ON EXISTING MAIN
MAGNESIUM ANODE (1 LB. MIN.)
REQUIRED WHERE NO TRACER
WIRE IS LOCATED ON SEWER MAIN
NOTES:
1. TRACER WIRE SHALL BE AWG NO. 12 GUAGE SOLID COPPER WITH 30 MILS GREEN HDPE INSULATION.
2. FOR GRAVITY MAIN AND OR LATERAL INSTALLATIONS LESS THAN 8 FEET, THE TRACING WIRE SHALL BE
ATTACHED TO THE PIPE. TRACER WIRE SHALL BE LAID FLAT AND SECURELY AFFIXED TO THE PIPE AT 10 FOOT
INTERVALS USING ZIP TIES. FOR GRAVITY MAIN AND OR LATERAL INSTALLATION DEEPER THAN 8 FEET, THE
TRACING WIRE SHALL BE ATTACHED TO THE PIPE AND PLACED AT A DEPTH OF 4 TO 5 FEET DIRECTLY ABOVE
THE SEWER PIPE. TRACER WIRE SHALL BE PLACED IN CONDUIT WHEN NOT PLACED AT THE SEWER PIPE. (SEE
CLTWATER STD. DETAIL TS1) THE WIRE SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM DAMAGE DURING THE EXECUTION OF THE
WORK. NO BREAKS OR CUTS IN THE TRACER WIRE OR INSULATION SHALL BE PERMITTED.
3. WHERE LATERAL TAPS ARE MADE BY SERVICE SADDLES, THE TRACER WIRE SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED TO TO BE
PLACED BETWEEN THE SADDLE AND MAIN.
4. SPLICES IN THE PRIMARY TRACER WIRE ALONG THE SEWER MAIN SHALL INCLUDE 3 FEET OF SLACK WIRE ON
EACH SIDE OF EACH SPLICE.
5. FOR INSTALLING A NEW LATERAL ON AN EXISTING MAIN WITH TRACER WIRE, ONLY SPLICE TO EXISTING WIRE
WITH 3 FEET OF SLACK ON NEW LATERAL.
6. MANHOLE MARKERS SHALL BE PLACED ADJACENT TO MANHOLES AT THE DISCRETION OF ENGINEER OR
ENGINEER'S REPRESENTATIVE.
FLOW
NO. 12 GAUGE SOLID COPPER
TRACER WIRE (TYP.)
NEW SERVICE ON EXISTING MAIN
MAGNESIUM ANODE (1 LB. MIN.)
REQUIRED WHERE NO TRACER
WIRE IS LOCATED ON SEWER MAIN
LATERAL
WRAP TRACER WIRE
AROUND OUTSIDE OF
NO.12 GAUGE SOLID COPPER MANHOLE AND CONNECT
TRACER WIRE (TYP.) TO GROUND ROD
EXISTING
GRAVITY
MAIN
SERVICE CONNECTION zI
SECTION VIEW
wla
`wyli w
J
WI PER REHAB
0 i rDETAIL
n 0: 1
EXTEND TRACER WIRE M-�
JUST ABOVE CLEANOUT PLUG.
PROVIDE 24" NEATLY COILED -"
WARE IN BOX.
ALL VERTICAL WIRE SHALL BE PLACED-/
IN 1/4" OR 3/8" ID CONDUIT
SDR 9 PEX TUBING - ASTM F876 (TYP.)
NO. 12 GAUGE SOLID COPPER ¢
TRACER WARE (TYP.) MIN.
FASTEN TRACER WIRE TO PIPE
WITH ZIP TIES AROUND THE
CIRCUMFERENCE OF PIPE
AT 10' INTERVALS (TYP.)
VALVE BOX ASSEMBLY
(SEE CLTWATER STD.
DETAIL)
`STEEL REBAR
SIZE #3 OR #4
CONCRETE PAD
(SEE CLTWATER STD.
DETAIL)
NOTES:
1. THE TRACER WIRE SHALL BE CONTINUOUS TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE. WHERE SPLICES
ARE NECESSITATED IN THE WIRE, THE SPLICES SHALL BE SECURELY BONDED TOGETHER WITH
AN APPROVED INDUSTRIAL CONNECTOR TO PROVIDE ELECTRICAL CONTINUITY. CONNECTOR SHALL
BE COPPER AND INSULATION SHALL BE REPAIRED TO SEAL OUT MOISTURE AND CORROSION
AND SHALL BE INSTALLED IN A MANNER SO AS TO PREVENT ANY UNINSULATED WIRE
EXPOSURE. (SEE CLTWATER STD. DETAIL TS1)
2. THE CLEANOUT AT THE RIGHT OF WAY AND OR EASEMENT SHALL SERVE AS THE TEST PORT.
3. SPLICED CONNECTIONS SHALL BE ALLOWED BETWEEN THE MAIN LINE TRACER WIRE AND THE
LATERAL TRACER WIRE.
4. FOR NEW SEWER TAPS ON EXISTING MAINS VOID OF ANY TRACER WIRE, PROVIDE A 1 LB.
MAGNESIUM ANODE FOR THE TRACING WIRE TERMINATION AT THE POINT OF THE NEW TAP ON
THE EXISTING SEWER MAIN. PLACE ANODE AT BOTTOM EDGE OF TRENCH AWAY FROM MAIN &
LATERAL.
5. PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE (POST PUNCH LIST) EACH WIRE SEGMENT SHALL PASS A CONDUCTIVITY
TEST, WITNESSED BY THE ENGINEER OR ENGINEER'S REPRESENTATIVE.
TAPE TRACER WARE TO PIPE WITH 2" WIDE PVC \
TAPE AROUND THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF PIPE
AT 10' INTERVALS (TYP.)
GRAVITY SEWER MAIN
PLAN VIEW
SPLICE
SEWER MAIN
FLOW
-ALL VERTICAL WIRE SHALL BE PLACED `NO. 12 GAUGE SOLID COPPER
IN 1" ID PVC CONDUIT TRACER WIRE (TYP.)
OUND ROD
MANHOLE
NOTES:
1. TRACER WIRE SHOWN AWAY FROM PIPE FOR CLARITY.
TRACER WIRE SHALL BE INSTALLED IMMEDIATELY
ADJACENT TO THE SEWER PIPE. TRACER WIRE SHALL
BE FASTENED TO THE PIPE WITH ZIP TIES AT 10 FOOT
INTERVALS.
2. TRACER WIRE SHALL BE SOLID COPPER NO. 12 GAUGE
WITH
30 MILS GREEN HDPE INSULATION.
FLOW
TRACER WIRE FOR GRAVITY SEWER DEEPER THAN 8 ET
SECTION VIEW
SEWER SEWER
MANHOLE FINISHED GRADE FINISHED GRADE f MANHOLE
SPLICE
CONDUIT
GRAVITY SEWER MAIN PIPE -
LESS THAN 8' DEPTH
TRACING WIRE SHALL GRAVITY SEWER MAIN GREATER THAN 8' DEPTH
BE ATTACHED TO PIPE TRACER WARE SHALL BE ATTACHED TO PIPE
AND PLACED AT A DEPTH OF 4 TO 5 FEET
DIRECTLY ABOVE SEWER PIPE
WRAP TRACER WIRE AROUND
OUTSIDE OF MANHOLE AND CONNECT
EACH WIRE TO GROUND ROD
- - (SEE CLTWATER STD. DETAIL) - -
- - - - - - - SEWER TRUNK-"',
LINE
r,
O
R
ANO. 12 GAUGE SOLID
COPPER TRACER
WIRE (TYP.)
VALVE BOX ASSEMBLY
(SEE CLTWATER STD. DETAIL)
CONCRETE PAD
(SEE CLTWATER
STD. DETAIL)
SEWER TRUNK
N0. 12 GAUGE SOLID COPPER LINE
TRACER WIRE (TYP.)1
STREET / ROADWAY
CURB
-- - - - - --
PLANTING STRIP
SIDEWALK
UFRIGHT-OF-WAY /
N0. 12 GAUGE SOLID COPPER EASEMENT LINE
A TRACER WIRE (TYP.)
�/- WRAP TRACER WIRE AROUND
OUTSIDE OF MANHOLE AND CONNECT
EACH WIRE TO GROUND ROD
(SEE CLTWATER STD. DETAIL)
NO. 12 rTRACER WIREE(�) COPPER
SEWER OUTFALL-/ SEWER MANHOLE -/\-SEWER OUTFALL
�- NO SPLICE
STREAM
�...
--- --------- �...- STREAM
TRENCH DETAIL
PROFILE VIEW
TRACER WARE SHALL BE
CLASS B CONCRETE SPECIFICATIONS
STREET / ROADWAY
STREET VIEW - GRAVITY
SEWER TRACER WIRE
- - - - CURB
- - - - -
PLACED IN CONDUIT WHEN
SEWER SERVICE
- LATERAL -
5.5
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PLAN VIEW
14' TO 5'
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PLANTING STRIP
SLUMP RANGE
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_---
- - - - - - - - - - -
CURB
- - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - -
CURB
- - - - - - - - - -
NEW SERVICE ON EXISTING MAIN
SIDEWALK
WRAP TRACER WIRE AROUND
OUTSIDE OF MANHOLE AND CONNECT
LATERAL
NO. 12 GAUGE SOLID
NO. 12 GAUGE SOLID
COPPER TRACER
MAGNESIUM ANODE (1 LB. MIN.)
EACH HARE TO GROUND ROD
TRACER WIRE (TYP.)
COPPER TRACER
____T_ ­
SEWER
REQUIRED WHERE NO TRACER
VALVE BOX CLEANOUT
(SEE CLTWATER STD. DETAIL)
CONCRETE PAD
WARE (TYP.)
(SEE CLTWATER STD. DETAIL)
MANHOLE
WIRE IS LOCATED ON SEWER MAIN
CONCRETE PAD
(SEE CLTWATER STD. DETAIL) PROPERTY /
EASEMENT LINE
EASEMENT LINE
12"
T
(�•)
LOW
F~
4
mmmp
FLOW
JJ
??
EXIST. SEWER MAIN LINE
WTHOUT TRACER WIRE
SEWER MANHOLE
NO SPLICE SEWER MAIN
LINE
SPLICE
NO SPLICE SEWER MAIN
UNE
NOTES:
1. TRACER WIRE SHOWN AWAY FROM PIPE FOR CLARITY.
TRACER WIRE SHALL BE INSTALLED IMMEDIATELY
ADJACENT TO THE SEWER PIPE. TRACER WIRE SHALL
BE FASTENED TO THE PIPE WITH ZIP TIES AT 10 FOOT
INTERVALS.
2. TRACER WIRE SHALL BE SOLID COPPER NO. 12 GAUGE
WITH
30 MILS GREEN HDPE INSULATION.
FLOW
TRACER WIRE FOR GRAVITY SEWER DEEPER THAN 8 ET
SECTION VIEW
SEWER SEWER
MANHOLE FINISHED GRADE FINISHED GRADE f MANHOLE
SPLICE
CONDUIT
GRAVITY SEWER MAIN PIPE -
LESS THAN 8' DEPTH
TRACING WIRE SHALL GRAVITY SEWER MAIN GREATER THAN 8' DEPTH
BE ATTACHED TO PIPE TRACER WARE SHALL BE ATTACHED TO PIPE
AND PLACED AT A DEPTH OF 4 TO 5 FEET
DIRECTLY ABOVE SEWER PIPE
WRAP TRACER WIRE AROUND
OUTSIDE OF MANHOLE AND CONNECT
EACH WIRE TO GROUND ROD
- - (SEE CLTWATER STD. DETAIL) - -
- - - - - - - SEWER TRUNK-"',
LINE
r,
O
R
ANO. 12 GAUGE SOLID
COPPER TRACER
WIRE (TYP.)
VALVE BOX ASSEMBLY
(SEE CLTWATER STD. DETAIL)
CONCRETE PAD
(SEE CLTWATER
STD. DETAIL)
SEWER TRUNK
N0. 12 GAUGE SOLID COPPER LINE
TRACER WIRE (TYP.)1
STREET / ROADWAY
CURB
-- - - - - --
PLANTING STRIP
SIDEWALK
UFRIGHT-OF-WAY /
N0. 12 GAUGE SOLID COPPER EASEMENT LINE
A TRACER WIRE (TYP.)
�/- WRAP TRACER WIRE AROUND
OUTSIDE OF MANHOLE AND CONNECT
EACH WIRE TO GROUND ROD
(SEE CLTWATER STD. DETAIL)
NO. 12 rTRACER WIREE(�) COPPER
SEWER OUTFALL-/ SEWER MANHOLE -/\-SEWER OUTFALL
�- NO SPLICE
STREAM
�...
--- --------- �...- STREAM
TRENCH DETAIL
PROFILE VIEW
TRACER WARE SHALL BE
CLASS B CONCRETE SPECIFICATIONS
STREET / ROADWAY
`SEE MANHOLE y
MINIMUM CEMENT CONTENT, SACKS PER
CUBIC YARD WITH ROUNDED COURSE AGGREGATE
- - - - CURB
- - - - -
PLACED IN CONDUIT WHEN
SEWER SERVICE
- LATERAL -
5.5
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
14' TO 5'
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PLANTING STRIP
SLUMP RANGE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SEWER SERVICESEWER
MINIMUM STRENGTH - 28 DAY PSI
2,500
===mmmmmmmmilommmmol
===OF===
SERVICE
LATERAL
SIDEWALK
LATERAL
NO. 12 GAUGE SOLID
COPPER TRACER
N0. 12 GAUGE SOLID COPPER
WIRE (TYP.)
TRACER WIRE (TYP.)
RIGHT
____T_ ­
-OF -WAY /J CLEANOUT
EASEMENT LINE
VALVE BOX CLEANOUT
CLEANOUT
VALVE BOX ASSEMBLY
CONCRETE PAD
ASSEMBLY
(SEE CLTWATER I
(SEE CLTWATER STD. DETAIL)
(SEE CLTWATER STD. DETAIL)
STD. DETAIL)
PROPERTY /
CONCRETE PAD
(SEE CLTWATER STD. DETAIL) PROPERTY /
EASEMENT LINE
EASEMENT LINE
NOTES:
1. TRACER WIRE SHOWN AWAY FROM PIPE FOR CLARITY.
TRACER WIRE SHALL BE INSTALLED IMMEDIATELY
ADJACENT TO THE SEWER PIPE. TRACER WIRE SHALL
BE FASTENED TO THE PIPE WITH ZIP TIES AT 10 FOOT
INTERVALS.
2. TRACER WIRE SHALL BE SOLID COPPER NO. 12 GAUGE
WITH
30 MILS GREEN HDPE INSULATION.
FLOW
TRACER WIRE FOR GRAVITY SEWER DEEPER THAN 8 ET
SECTION VIEW
SEWER SEWER
MANHOLE FINISHED GRADE FINISHED GRADE f MANHOLE
SPLICE
CONDUIT
GRAVITY SEWER MAIN PIPE -
LESS THAN 8' DEPTH
TRACING WIRE SHALL GRAVITY SEWER MAIN GREATER THAN 8' DEPTH
BE ATTACHED TO PIPE TRACER WARE SHALL BE ATTACHED TO PIPE
AND PLACED AT A DEPTH OF 4 TO 5 FEET
DIRECTLY ABOVE SEWER PIPE
WRAP TRACER WIRE AROUND
OUTSIDE OF MANHOLE AND CONNECT
EACH WIRE TO GROUND ROD
- - (SEE CLTWATER STD. DETAIL) - -
- - - - - - - SEWER TRUNK-"',
LINE
r,
O
R
ANO. 12 GAUGE SOLID
COPPER TRACER
WIRE (TYP.)
VALVE BOX ASSEMBLY
(SEE CLTWATER STD. DETAIL)
CONCRETE PAD
(SEE CLTWATER
STD. DETAIL)
SEWER TRUNK
N0. 12 GAUGE SOLID COPPER LINE
TRACER WIRE (TYP.)1
STREET / ROADWAY
CURB
-- - - - - --
PLANTING STRIP
SIDEWALK
UFRIGHT-OF-WAY /
N0. 12 GAUGE SOLID COPPER EASEMENT LINE
A TRACER WIRE (TYP.)
�/- WRAP TRACER WIRE AROUND
OUTSIDE OF MANHOLE AND CONNECT
EACH WIRE TO GROUND ROD
(SEE CLTWATER STD. DETAIL)
NO. 12 rTRACER WIREE(�) COPPER
SEWER OUTFALL-/ SEWER MANHOLE -/\-SEWER OUTFALL
�- NO SPLICE
STREAM
�...
--- --------- �...- STREAM
TRENCH DETAIL
PROFILE VIEW
TRACER WARE SHALL BE
CLASS B CONCRETE SPECIFICATIONS
`SEE MANHOLE y
MINIMUM CEMENT CONTENT, SACKS PER
CUBIC YARD WITH ROUNDED COURSE AGGREGATE
5.0
PLACED IN CONDUIT WHEN
MINIMUM CEMENT CONTENT, SACKS PER
CUBIC YARD WITH ANGULAR COURSE AGGREGATE
5.5
CONNECTION DETAIL
MAXIMUM WATER -CEMENT RATIO GALLONS
PER SACK
14' TO 5'
NOT PLACED AT SEWER PIPE
SLUMP RANGE
2" TO 4"
WARNING TAPE-
APE===
TRACER WIRE
MINIMUM STRENGTH - 28 DAY PSI
2,500
===mmmmmmmmilommmmol
===OF===
N0. 12 GAUGE SOLID
WARNING TAPE
COPPER TRACER
WIRE(TYP.)
N0. 12 GAUGE SOLID TRACER WIRE
_Q
COPPER TRACER SEWER
WARE (TYP.) PIPE
12"
T
LATERAL
FLOW
TRENCH WIDTH
4" NATIVE TOPSOIL RESTORED
TO ORIGINAL GRADE AND SEEDED
WITH WETLAND SEED MIXTURE.
IN UNDEVELOPED AREAS BACKFILL
REMAINING PORTION OF
TRENCH IN MAX 12" LIFTS
TO 95% MAX DENSITY.
BACKFILL TO 18" ABOVE PIPE
FOR A LENGTH OF 12" WITH
18" MIN III CLASS B CONCRETE SPECIFIED
r BELOW OR WITH WITH IMPERMEABLE
CLAY HAVING A SPECIFIC DISCHARGE OF
UNDISTURBED I I 1 1 X 10-5 CM/SEC OR LESS.
CID
.�. ANTI SEEP COLLAR SHALL EXTEND
..` A MIN. OF 18" ABOVE THE PIPE, 6"
" INTO UNDISTURBED TRENCH WALLS
12 MIN I- 7-r---71 i--r-r=T -1 i _ I EACH SIDE AND 12" INTO UNDISTURBED
=I I I=I I I=I I I=I I I=I =I I I=I I TRENCH BOTTOM.
=1
1� BEDDING MATERIAL SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED
WHERE ANTI -SEEP COLLAR IS LOCATED.
NOTES:
1. EXISTING TOPSOIL SHALL BE REMOVED
STOCKPILED AND PROTECTED FROM
CONTAMINATION AND SHALL BE
REPLACED AS TOPSOIL AFTER UTILITY
INSTALLATION.
2. ANTI -SEEP COLLAR SHALL BE PLACED AT THE
DOWNSTREAM WETLAND BOUNDARY AND A
MIN. SPACING OF 150' UP THE GRADIENT UNTIL
THE UTILITY EXITS THE WETLAND BOUNDARY
UNLESS INDICATED OTHERWISE ON THE DRAWINGS.
3. ANTI -SEEP COLLARS MAY BE CONSTRUCTED WITH
COMPACTED CLAY, CLASS B CONCRETE, PVC
OR METAL COLLARS. WETLAND CROSSINGS THAT
ARE DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED AND PERPENDICULAR
WETLAND CROSSINGS THAT ARE OPEN CUT AND
LESS THAN 150' IN LENGTH DO NOT REQUIRE
ANTI -SEEP COLLARS.
4. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE
SUITABLE FORMING (TO BE REMOVED)
TO CONTAIN CONCRETE FOR PROPER
SHAPE AND DIMENSIONS. PROVIDE#4
BARS ® 12"OC EACH WAY.
5. ANTI -SEEP COLLAR MATERIAL AND
INSTALLATION SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE
ENGINEER PRIOR TO PLACING AND PRIOR TO
BACKFILLING.
6. CONSTRUCTION AND SEEDING IN WETLAND
AREAS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND
THE OWNER'S PERMIT REQUIREMENTS.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR WETLAND AREAS
1. THE CONSTRUCTION CORRIDOR IS LIMITED TO
40' IN WIDTH AND MUST BE MINIMIZED TO THE
MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE
2. PRECONSTRUCTION CONTOURS TO BE RESTORED
3. STABILIZATION IS REQUIRED IMMEDIATELY ON
COMPLETION OF EACH INDIVIDUAL CROSSING.
4. RESTORATION TO INCLUDE SEEDING WITH ANNUAL
SPECIES FOR WET LOCATIONS (PERENNIALS
SUCH AS FESCUE PROHIBITED).
5. THE TOP 6" TO 12" OF THE TRENCH SHOULD
GENERALLY BE BACKFILLED WITH TOPSOIL FROM
THE TRENCH
6. EXCESS MATERIAL SHALL BE REMOVED TO
UPLAND AREAS UPON COMPLETION OF
UTILITY LINE.
ANTI -SEEP COLLAR DETAIL
CHARLOTTE CHARLOTTE WATER
W�TER CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
7030700047-17-503
Job No. File No.
Scales
PLAN NTS
PROFILE
Hor. NTS
Vert. NTS
As Built Date
A 2 16 TED FINAL DESIGN L. ASSOC JM
No. Date By Revision Surveyed By Designed By
STEVENS CREEK
TRUNK SEWER PHASE I
STANDARD SEWER DETAILS
(SHEET 2 OF 2)
Sheet Of
TED MEB 5/4 18 121126
Drawn By Project-Engr Approved By Date
A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT
CLASS B CONCRETE SPECIFICATIONS
A)
MINIMUM CEMENT CONTENT, SACKS PER
CUBIC YARD WITH ROUNDED COURSE AGGREGATE
5.0
B)
MINIMUM CEMENT CONTENT, SACKS PER
CUBIC YARD WITH ANGULAR COURSE AGGREGATE
5.5
C)
MAXIMUM WATER -CEMENT RATIO GALLONS
PER SACK
6.8
D)
SLUMP RANGE
2" TO 4"
E)
MINIMUM STRENGTH - 28 DAY PSI
2,500
NOTES:
1. EXISTING TOPSOIL SHALL BE REMOVED
STOCKPILED AND PROTECTED FROM
CONTAMINATION AND SHALL BE
REPLACED AS TOPSOIL AFTER UTILITY
INSTALLATION.
2. ANTI -SEEP COLLAR SHALL BE PLACED AT THE
DOWNSTREAM WETLAND BOUNDARY AND A
MIN. SPACING OF 150' UP THE GRADIENT UNTIL
THE UTILITY EXITS THE WETLAND BOUNDARY
UNLESS INDICATED OTHERWISE ON THE DRAWINGS.
3. ANTI -SEEP COLLARS MAY BE CONSTRUCTED WITH
COMPACTED CLAY, CLASS B CONCRETE, PVC
OR METAL COLLARS. WETLAND CROSSINGS THAT
ARE DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED AND PERPENDICULAR
WETLAND CROSSINGS THAT ARE OPEN CUT AND
LESS THAN 150' IN LENGTH DO NOT REQUIRE
ANTI -SEEP COLLARS.
4. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE
SUITABLE FORMING (TO BE REMOVED)
TO CONTAIN CONCRETE FOR PROPER
SHAPE AND DIMENSIONS. PROVIDE#4
BARS ® 12"OC EACH WAY.
5. ANTI -SEEP COLLAR MATERIAL AND
INSTALLATION SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE
ENGINEER PRIOR TO PLACING AND PRIOR TO
BACKFILLING.
6. CONSTRUCTION AND SEEDING IN WETLAND
AREAS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND
THE OWNER'S PERMIT REQUIREMENTS.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR WETLAND AREAS
1. THE CONSTRUCTION CORRIDOR IS LIMITED TO
40' IN WIDTH AND MUST BE MINIMIZED TO THE
MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE
2. PRECONSTRUCTION CONTOURS TO BE RESTORED
3. STABILIZATION IS REQUIRED IMMEDIATELY ON
COMPLETION OF EACH INDIVIDUAL CROSSING.
4. RESTORATION TO INCLUDE SEEDING WITH ANNUAL
SPECIES FOR WET LOCATIONS (PERENNIALS
SUCH AS FESCUE PROHIBITED).
5. THE TOP 6" TO 12" OF THE TRENCH SHOULD
GENERALLY BE BACKFILLED WITH TOPSOIL FROM
THE TRENCH
6. EXCESS MATERIAL SHALL BE REMOVED TO
UPLAND AREAS UPON COMPLETION OF
UTILITY LINE.
ANTI -SEEP COLLAR DETAIL
CHARLOTTE CHARLOTTE WATER
W�TER CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
7030700047-17-503
Job No. File No.
Scales
PLAN NTS
PROFILE
Hor. NTS
Vert. NTS
As Built Date
A 2 16 TED FINAL DESIGN L. ASSOC JM
No. Date By Revision Surveyed By Designed By
STEVENS CREEK
TRUNK SEWER PHASE I
STANDARD SEWER DETAILS
(SHEET 2 OF 2)
Sheet Of
TED MEB 5/4 18 121126
Drawn By Project-Engr Approved By Date
A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT

THE FOLLOWING SCHEDULES SHALL BE USED FOR RESEEDING DISTURBED AREAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE -
OUTFALLS EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL
1—CED
STEEP SLOPES OR POOR SOILS AND LOW MAINTENANCE
****** MIXTURE ********************* RATE (LB/ACRE)***************************************
TALL FESCUE 100
SERICEA LESPEDEZA 30
KOBE LESPEDEZA 10
SEEDING DATES
FALL
LATE WINTER
BEST _
AUG. 25 — SEPT. 15
FEB. 15 — MAR. 21
POSSIBLE M
AUG. 20 — OCT. 25
FEB. 1 — APR. 15
SEEDING NOTES
1. FALL IS THE BEST FOR TALL FESCUE AND LATE WINTER FOR LESPEDEZAS. OVERSEEDING
OF KOBE LESPEDEZA OVER FALL SEEDED TALL FESCUE IS VERY EFFECTIVE.
2. AFTER AUG. 15, USE UNSCARIFIED SERICEA SEED.
3. WHERE A NEAT APPEARANCE IS SPECIFIED, OMIT SERICEA AND SUBSTITUTE
BERMUDAGRASS AT 15 LB/ACRE. USE ONLY WHERE BERMUDAGRASS WILL NOT BECOME
A PEST AND ONLY UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING.
4. BETWEEN MAY 1 AND AUG. 15 ADD 10 LB/ACRE GERMAN MILLET OR 15 LB/ACRE
SUDANGRASS. PRIOR TO MAY 1 AND AFTER AUG. 15, ADD 40 LB/ACRE RYE GRAIN.
FERTILIZER
APPLY LIME AND FERTILIZER AS REQUIRED BY SOIL TESTING RESULTS OR APPLY 4,000
LB/ACRE GROUND AGRICULTURAL LIMESTONE AND 1,000 LB/ACRE 10-10-10 FERTILIZER.
NO FERTILIZER SHALL BE PLACED WITHIN TEN (10) FEET OF STREAMS.
MULCH
APPLY 4,000-5,000 LB/ACRE GRAIN STRAW, OR EQUIVALENT COVER OF SUITABLE MULCHING
MATERIAL. TACK BY USING ASPHALT, ROVING OR NETTING. NETTING IS TO BE USED ON
STEEP SLOPES AS DIRECTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. NOTE: LESSER AMOUNTS
OF STRAW MAY BE USED WITH MECHANICAL SPREADERS.
MAINTENANCE
RESEED, FERTILIZE AND MULCH DAMAGED AREAS IMMEDIATELY. REFERTILIZE AT END OF
WARRANTY PERIOD IF GROWTH IS NOT SATISFACTORY TO THE DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING.
2—CED
GENTLE SLOPES, AVERAGE/GOOD MOISTURE RETENTION AND LOW MAINTENANCE
****** MIXTURE ********************* RATE (LB/ACRE)*****************************************
TALL FESCUE 80
SERICEA LESPEDEZA 20
KOBE LESPEDEZA 10
SEEDING DATES
FALL
LATE WINTER
BEST _
AUG. 25 — SEPT. 15
FEB. 15 — MAR. 21
POSSIBLE M
AUG. 20 — OCT. 25
FEB. 1 — APR. 15
SEEDING NOTES
1. FALL IS BEST FOR TALL FESCUE AND LATE WINTER FOR LESPEDEZAS. OVERSEEDING OF
KOBE LESPEDEZA OVER FALL SEEDED TALL FESCUE IS VERY EFFECTIVE.
2. AFTER AUG. 15, USE UNSCARIFIED SERICEA SEED.
3. WHERE A NEAT APPEARANCE IS SPECIFIED, OMIT SERICEA AND INCREASE KOBE
LESPEDEZA TO 40 LB/ACRE.
4. BETWEEN MAY 1 AND AUG. 15 ADD 10 LB/ACRE GERMAN MILLET OR 15 LB/ACRE
SUDANGRASS. PRIOR TO MAY 1 OR AFTER AUG. 15, ADD 40 LB/ACRE RYE GRAIN.
5.IN WETLAND AREAS, RESEEDING/REPLANTING SHALL INCLUDE ENDEMIC PLANT SPECIES
SUCH AS SMARTWEED, FALSE NETTLE, CATTAIL SEDGE, SEDGES AND OTHER PLANTINGS AS
RECOMMENDED BY THE N.C. WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION AND THE N.C. DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES. PERENNIALS SUCH AS FESCUE ARE
PROHIBITED. TOP 6" TO 12" OF TRENCH TO BE BACKFILLED W/ ORIGINAL TOPSOIL FROM TRENCH
FERTILIZER
APPLY LIME AND FERTILIZER AS REQUIRED BY SOIL TESTING RESULTS OR APPLY 4,000
LB/ACRE GROUND AGRICULTURAL LIMESTONE AND 1,000 LB/ACRE 10-10-10 FERTILIZER.
NO FERTILIZER SHALL BE PLACED WITHIN TEN (10) FEET OF STREAMS,
MULCH
APPLY 4,000 LB/ACRE GRAIN STRAW, OR EQUIVILENT COVER OF SUITABLE MULCHING
MATERIAL. TACK BY USING ASPHALT, ROVING OR NETTING. NETTING IS TO BE USED ON
STEEP SLOPES AS DIRECTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. NOTE: LESSER AMOUNTS OF
STRAW MAY BE USED WITH MECHANICAL SPREADERS.
MAINTENANCE
RESEED, FERTILIZE AND MULCH DAMAGED AREAS IMMEDIATELY. REFERTILIZE AT END OF
WARRANTY PERIOD IF GROWTH IS NOT SATISFACTORY TO THE DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING.
NPDES Stormwater Discharge Permit for Construction Activities (NCG01)
NCDENR/Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
STABILIZATION TIMEFRAMES
(Effective Aug. 3, 2011)
SITE AREA DESCRIPTION
STABILIZATION
TIMEFRAME EXCEPTIONS
4, L; Perimeter dikes, swales, ditches, slopes
7 days
None
High Quality Water (HQW) Zones
7 days
None
Slopes steeper than 3:1
7 days
If slopes are 10' or less in length and are
not steeper than 2:1, 14 days are allowed.
Slopes 3:1 or flatter
14 days
7 days for slopes greater than 50' in length.
All other areas with slopes flatter than 4:1
14 days
None, except for perimeters and HQW Zones.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL
ALL EXISTING SENSITIVE LAND FEATURES AND STRUCTURES SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM
EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION. ITEMS TO BE PROTECTED SHALL INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT
LIMITED TO, ALL DOWNSTREAM PROPERTY, NATURAL WATERWAYS, STREAMS, WETLANDS,
YARDS, LAKES AND PONDS, CATCH BASINS, DRAINAGE DITCHES, ROADS, GUTTERS, AND
NATURAL AREAS.
SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL SHALL BE PROVIDED AND MAINTAINED BY THE
CONTRACTOR, AT HIS EXPENSE, THROUGHOUT THE LIFE OF THE CONTRACT AND DURING THE
CONTRACT WARRANTY PERIOD, FOR ALL AREAS THAT ARE GRADED OR DISTURBED AS A RESULT
OF THE CONTRACTOR'S WORK ACTIVITY. CONTROL MEASURES SHALL CONSIST OF APPROVED
PRACTICES FOUND IN THE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL
AND AS SHOWN ON THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS AS APPROVED BY THE N.C. DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY DIVISION OF ENERGY, MINERAL, AND LAND RESOURCES
AND INSTALLED AS SUCH.
IN THE EVENT THAT LOCAL CONDITIONS CHANGE TO RENDER DESIGNED SEDIMENTATION AND
EROSION CONTROL INEFFECTIVE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE NCDEQ
INSPECTOR FOR A FIELD CHANGE DISPOSITION.
AFTER DISTURBED AREAS ARE STABILIZED AND ALL TEMPORARY MEASURES REMOVED, THE
SEDIMENT SHALL BE SPREAD IN A MANNER NOT TO ADVERSELY AFFECT PROTECTION
PROCEDURES AND THEN THE AREA SHALL BE SEEDED AND MULCHED. OTHERWISE, SEDIMENT IS
TO BE DISPOSED OF BY HAULING AND SPREADING AS DETAILED ON THE DIVISION OF LAND
RESOURCES' APPROVED SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL DRAWINGS.
ALL AREAS SHOWN AS WETLANDS ON THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS SHALL BE PROTECTED BY
DIRECTIONS GIVEN ON THE PLANS AND ALL WORK WITHIN THESE AREAS SHALL BE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS AS SET FORTH IN THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 404 PERMIT,
THE N.C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 401 PERMIT/CERTIFICATION,
AND THE DIVISION OF ENERGY, MINERAL AND LAND RESOURCES LETTER OF APPROVAL.
SEEDING, GROUND COVERS, AND MULCHING
AREAS DAMAGED BY CONSTRUCTION WORK SHALL BE RESTORED TO A CONDITION APPROVED BY
CHARLOTTE WATER BY WORKING, FERTILIZING, SEEDING, AND MULCHING.
SEEDING SHALL BE DONE WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) DAYS AFTER THE INITIAL GROUND DISTURBANCE.
THE BED SHALL BE PREPARED BY PULVERIZING THE SOIL TO A DEPTH OF THREE INCHES.
TILLAGE SHALL CONTINUE UNTIL A WELL—PULVERIZED, FIRM, AND UNIFORM SITE IS PREPARED
CONFORMING TO ADJACENT PROPERTY. THE SOIL MUST BE LOOSE ENOUGH FOR WATER
INFILTRATION AND ROOT PENETRATION. GOOD DRAINAGE MUST BE PROVIDED AND VISIBLE
PONDING WILL NOT BE ALLOWED. ALL STONES, ROCKS, STICKS, RUBBISH, AND OTHER
OBJECTIONABLE MATERIAL SHALL BE REMOVED PRIOR TO FERTILIZATION. THE pH OF THE
SOIL SHALL BE NON—TOXIC TO THE SEED MIXTURE. PLANT SMALL GRAINS NO DEEPER THAN
1 INCH AND GRASSES/LEGUMES NO DEEPER THAN 1/2 INCH. PLANTING IS TO BE UNIFORM.
1. OBTAIN GRADING/EROSION CONTROL PLAN APPROVAL FROM NCDEQ.
2. SET UP A ON—SITE PRECONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE WITH THE
INSPECTOR FROM THE NCDEQ TO DISCUSS EROSION CONTROL
MEASURES.
3. INSTALL SILT FENCE, INLET PROTECTION, SEDIMENT TRAPS,
DIVERSION DITCHES, TREE PROTECTION, AND OTHER MEASURES AS
SHOWN ON PLANS, CLEARING ONLY AS NECESSARY TO INSTALL
THESE DEVICES.
4. CALL FOR ON—SITE INSPECTION BY NCDEQ INSPECTOR.
5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DILIGENTLY AND CONTINUOUSLY MAINTAIN
ALL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES AND STRUCTURES.
6. FOR PHASED EROSION CONTROL PLANS, CONTRACTOR SHALL
MEET WITH NCDENR INSPECTOR PRIOR TO COMMENCING WITH
EACH PHASE OF EROSION CONTROL MEASURES.
7. STABILIZE SITE AS AREAS ARE BROUGHT TO FINISHED GRADE.
8. COORDINATE WITH NCDEQ INSPECTOR PRIOR TO REMOVAL OF
EROSION CONTROL MEASURES. MEASURES WILL NOT BE REMOVED
UNTIL AREAS ARE PERMANENTLY STABILIZED.
9. ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE N.C. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL, AND DETAILS SHOWN IN THESE PLANS.
10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DILIGENTLY AND CONTINUOUSLY
MAINTAIN ALL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES AND STRUCTURES
TO MINIMIZE EROSION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN
CLOSE CONTACT WITH THE NCDENR INSPECTOR SO THAT
PERIODIC INSPECTIONS CAN BE PERFORMED AT APPROPRIATE
STAGES OF CONSTRUCTION.
A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT

S i r 1'1I1t^T
WOVEN FILTER FABRIC
0
I
N
6' MAX.
GENERAL NOTES:
1. WOVEN FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE USED WHERE SILT FENCE IS TO REMAIN FOR A PERIOD OF
MORE THAN 30 DAYS.
2. STEEL POSTS SHALL BE 5'-0" IN HEIGHT AND BE OF THE SELF -FASTENER ANGLE STEEL
TYPE.
3. TURN SILT FENCE UP SLOPE ENDS.
4. ORANGE SAFETY FENCE IS REQUIRED AT BACK OF SILT FENCE WHEN GRADING IS ADJACENT
TO SWIM BUFFERS, STREAMS OR WETLANDS (REFER TO SWIM BUFFER GUIDELINES). THE
COLOR ORANGE IS RESERVED FOR VISUAL IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE
AREAS.
5. DRAINAGE AREA CANNOT BE GREATER THAN 1/4 ACRE PER 100 FT OF FENCE.
6. SLOPE LENGTHS CAN NOT EXCEED CRITERIA SHOWN IN TABLE 6.62A NORTH CAROLINA
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL.
7. DO NOT INSTALL SEDIMENT FENCE ACROSS STREAMS, DITCHES, WATERWAYS OR OTHER
AREAS OF CONCENTRATED FLOW.
#467 COARSE AGGREGATE 6" DEEP.
EXTEND 25' EACH SIDE OF BANKS.
2
�1
STEEL POST
FILTER FABRIC
U_ m Q�
FLOW
N
ico
ANCHOR SKIRT;
EXCAVATE
TRENCH AND
COMPACT STREA
BACKFILL
MAINTENANCE NOTES:
1. FILTER BARRIERS SHALL BE INSPECTED BY THE FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTY
OR HIS AGENT IMMEDIATELY AFTER EACH RAINFALL AND AT LEAST DAILY DURING
PROLONGED RAINFALL. ANY REPAIRS NEEDED SHALL BE MADE IMMEDIATELY.
2. SHOULD THE FABRIC DECOMPOSE OR BECOME INEFFECTIVE PRIOR TO THE END OF
THE EXPECTED USABLE LIFE AND THE BARRIER STILL IS NECESSARY, THE FABRIC
SHALL BE REPLACED PROMPTLY.
3. SEDIMENT DEPOSITS SHOULD BE REMOVED WHEN DEPOSITS REACH APPROX. HALF
THE HEIGHT OF THE BARRIER. ANY SEDIMENT DEPOSITS REMAINING IN PLACE
AFTER THE SILT FENCE IS REMOVED SHALL BE DRESSED TO CONFORM TO THE
EXISTING GRADE, PREPARED AND SEEDED.
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
FILL WITH CMUD
STANDARD RIP RAP
ROCK
1 ft. min.
�PE
SIZED TO CARRY
NORMAL FLOW WHEN
FLOWING HALF FULL
USE DUCTILE IRON
CMP OR RCP ONLY.
6" #467 STONE
I I
NOTES:
1. CLASS OR MEDIAN SIZE OF RIPRAP AND LENGTH, WIDTH AND DEPTH OF APRON
TO BE DESIGNED BY THE ENGINEER.
2. REFER TO THE CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG STORM WATER DESIGN MANUAL FOR
RIPRAP APRON DESIGN STANDARDS.
3. RIPRAP SHOULD EXTEND UP BOTH SIDES OF THE APRON AND AROUND THE END
OF THE PIPE OR CULVERT AT THE DISCHARGE OUTLET AT A MAXIMUM SLOPE OF
2:1 AND A HEIGHT NOT LESS THAN TWO THIRDS THE PIPE DIAMETER OR
CULVERT HEIGHT.
4. THERE SHALL BE NO OVERFLOW FROM THE END OF THE APRON TO THE
SURFACE OF THE RECEIVING CHANNEL. THE AREA TO BE PAVED OR RIPRAPPED
SHALL BE UNDERCUT SO THAT THE INVERT OF THE APRON SHALL BE AT THE
SAME GRADE (FLUSH) WITH THE SURFACE OF THE RECEIVING CHANNEL. THE
APRON SHALL HAVE A CUTOFF OR TOE WALL AT THE DOWNSTREAM END.
5. THE WIDTH OF THE END OF THE APRON SHALL BE EQUAL TO THE BOTTOM
WIDTH OF THE RECEIVING CHANNEL. MAXIMUM TAPER TO RECEIVING CHANNEL 5:1
6. ALL SUBGRADE FOR STRUCTURE TO BE COMPACTED TO 95% OR GREATER.
7. THE PLACING OF FILL, EITHER LOOSE OR COMPACTED IN THE RECEIVING
CHANNEL SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED.
8. NO BENDS OR CURVES IN THE HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT OF THE APRON WILL
BE PERMITTED.
""'^"' GRADE
CROSSING LOCATIONS
A16+25
A25+85
A29+75
A34+55
A45+05
A64+35
SURFACE FLOW DIVERSION
//"--
SURFACE FLOW DIVERSION
TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING
�o
SURFACE FLOW 0
DIVERTED BY SWALE— IV
NOTES:
1. REMOVE THE STRUCTURE WHEN NO
LONGER NEEDED. (NOT TO EXCEED 1
YEAR).
2. AS A MINIMUM, DESIGN THE
STRUCTURE TO PASS 2 YEAR PEAK
FLOW WITHOUT OVERTOPPING.
3. ENSURE THAT DESIGN FLOW VELOCITY
AT THE OUTLET OF THE CROSSING
STRUCTURE IS NON-EROSIVE FOR
THE RECEIVING STREAM CHANNEL.
4. ADDITIONAL MEASURES MAY BE
REQUIRED BY THE EROSION CONTROL
COORDINATOR OR CITY ENGINEER
BASED ON SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS.
1/2 PIPE DIAMETER OR 12"
WICHEVER IS GREATER
RIP RAP
F_ 1v 1�IZ_r_ rirF_ koF_F_ ivvIF_ �I
PROVIDE PIPE SIZE, INVERTS, SLOPE AND MATERIAL
FOR EACH CROSSING.
SEED AND MULCH W/--1 /
CROSSING LOCATIONS SURFACE BINDER
AGGREGATE BED OVER
A26+65 GEOTEXTILE FILTER CLOTH
AGGREGATE APPROCH
C1+70 1:5 (V: H) MAXIMUM SLOPE ON ROAD
SURFACE FLOW DIVERTED BY SWALE SURFACE FLOW
DIVERTED BY SWALE
JNEW ROAD
GEOTEXTILE FILTFER CL ORIGINAL STREAM BLD
I I RIP RAP
STD. DET. #29
I I W
RIP RAP
TEMPORARY FORD CROSSING
H �I I�
B B
NOTES:
1. SLOPE APPROACHES TO CROSSING 2:1 OR FLATTER.
2. SPILLWAY LENGTH = BANK TO BANK WIDTH OF STREAM
OR AS SHOWN ON PLANS.
3. PIPE TO EXTEND COMPLETELY ACROSS PERMANENT
RIGHT OF WAY AND 1 ft BEYOND LIMITS OF RIP RAP.
NOTE: MINIMUM H=2/3
PIPE DIAMETER
PERMANENT STREAM CROSSING
r, ,, vvl STONE
LAYER OF FILTER FABRIC
SECTION B -B
(NOT TO SCALE)
CHARLOTTE CHARLOTTE WATER
W6TER CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
7030700047-17-503
Job No. File No.
Scales
PLAN NTS
PROFILE
Hor. NTS
Vert. NTS
As Built Date
STEVENS CREEK
TRUNK SEWER PHASE I
EROSION CONTROL DETAILS
(SHEET 1 OF 3)
A 2/161 TED I FINAL DESIGNSheet Of
L. ASSOC JEM TED MEB 5/4/18 23 26
No. Date By Revision Surveyed By Designed By Drawn By Project-Engr Approved By Date
A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT

A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT
A
L = THE DISTANCE SUCH THAT POINTS
A AND B ARE OF EQUAL ELEVATION 9" MIN. 1.5'
MIN.1
A L B
6' TYP.
FILL SLOPE
NOTES:
SPACE CHECK DAM IN A CHANNEL SO THAT THE CREST FILTER
FABRIC
OF DOWNSTREAM DAM IS AT ELEVATION OF THE TOE OF
UPSTREAM DAM A
2' MI
2' MIN
COMPACTED BERM
CHECK DAM SPACING
FINIS
NATURq�
SILT FENCE )
(SEE NOTE 2
GROUND
CLASS B RIPRAP
iygT
CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS: 12" OF NCDOT #5 OR #57
1. PLACE STONE TO THE LINES AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN IN THE PLAN ON A
WIDTH AND
DEPTH U�4 G
ROUND
WASHED STONE
FILTER FABRIC FOUNDATION.
OF DITCH TO BE DESIGNED
2.
KEEP THE CENTER STONE SECTION AT LEAST 9 INCHES BELOW NATURAL 2'7
BY ENGINEER (18" MIN)
GROUND LEVEL WHERE THE DAM ABUTS THE CHANNEL BANKS.
24" MAX.
3.
EXTEND STONE AT LEAST 1.5 FEET BEYOND THE DITCH BANK TO KEEP WATER
AT CENTER
FROM CUTTING AROUND THE ENDS OF THE CHECK DAM.
4.
SET SPACING BETWEEN DAMS TO ASSURE THAT THE ELEVATION AT THE TOP FILTER CLOTH
NOTE:
OF THE LOWER DAM IS THE SAME AS THE TOE ELEVATION OF THE UPPER DAM.
5.
PROTECT THE CHANNEL AFTER THE LOWEST CHECK DAM FROM HEAVY FLOW
1. DITCH SHOULD HAVE
LONGITUDINAL SLOPE OF 1%.
THAT COULD CAUSE EROSION. 4' TO 6'
-
6.
MAKE SURE THAT THE CHANNEL REACH ABOVE THE MOST UPSTREAM DAM
2. SILT FENCE MAY BE
REQUIRED BEHIND BERM
IS STABLE. SECTION VIEW A—A
7.
ENSURE THAT OTHER AREAS OF THE CHANNEL, SUCH AS CULVERT ENTRANCES
BELOW THE CHECK DAMS, ARE NOT SUBJECT TO DAMAGE OR BLOCKAGE FROM STONE SHOULD BE PLACED OVER THE CHANNEL BANKS TO KEEP WATER
DISPLACED STONES. FROM CUTTING AROUND THE DAM.
STONE CHECK DAM
TEMPORARY
SILT DITCH
NOTES:
1. A STABILIZED ENTRANCE PAD OF 2-3" OF WASHED STONE AND/OR RAILROAD BALLAST SHALL BE LOCATED WHERE
TRAFFIC WILL ENTER OR LEAVE THE CONSTRUCTION SITE ONTO A PUBLIC STREET.
2. FILTER FABRIC OR COMPACTED CRUSHER RUN STONE SHALL BE USED AS A BASE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
ENTRANCE.
3. THE ENTRANCE SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH WILL PREVENT TRACKING OR FLOWING OF SEDIMENT
ONTO PUBLIC STREETS OR EXISTING PAVEMENT. THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH ADDITIONAL
STONE AS CONDITIONS WARRANT AND REPAIR OR CLEANOUT OF ANY MEASURES USED TO TRAP SEDIMENT.
4. ANY SEDIMENT SPILLED, DROPPED, WASHED, OR TRACKED ONTO PUBLIC STREETS MUST BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY.
ANY AGGREGATE TRACKED INTO THE ROADWAY MUST BE SWEPT BACK ONSITE ON A NIGHTLY BASIS.
5. WHEN APPROPRIATE, WHEELS MUST BE CLEANED TO REMOVE SEDIMENT PRIOR TO ENTERING A PUBLIC STREET.
WHEN WASHING IS REQUIRED, IT SHALL BE DONE IN AN AREA STABILIZED WITH CRUSHED STONE WHICH DRAINS
INTO AN APPROVED SEDIMENT BASIN SEE STD. NO. 30.11B.
6. CDOT MAY REQUIRE A STANDARD COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY (STD. 10.24 & 10.25) TO ACCESS THE CONSTRUCTION
SITE IF THE DRIVEWAY IS ON A THOROUGHFARE, OR ON ANY STREET WITH AN EXISTING SIDEWALK TO REMAIN
OPEN DURING CONSTRUCTION.
7. FOLLOW WORK AREA TRAFFIC CONTROL HANDBOOK (WATCH) FOR SIDEWALK CLOSURE OR DETOUR/DIVERSION.
100' MIN.
PUBLIC STREET
EXISTING GROUND SOIL STABILIZATION FABRIC
UNDER 2-3" OF WASHED STONE
EX. CC
100' MIN. DRIVEWAY APRON
WITH SIDEWALK AT
BACK OF CURB
(IF RETAINED DURING
CONSTRUCTION.)
w
z ~
w
�
N
00
U
J
m
D
a
CHARLOTTE CHARLOTTE WATER
W6TER
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
7030700-503 STEVENS CREEK
Jobb No. No. File No.
Scales
TRUNK SEWER PHASE I
PLAN NTS
STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
PROFILE
Hor. NTS
EROSION CONTROL DETAILS
Vert. NTS
(SHEET 2 OF 3)
As Built Date
Of
A 2/16 TED
FINAL DESIGNSheet
L. ASSOC JEM TED MEB 5/4/18 24 26
No. Date By
Revision
Surveyed By Designed By Drawn By Project—Engr Approved By Date
A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT

A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT
TEMP. STONE
DITCH CHECK
SN�p. NOTES:
P PMEN�
USE CLASS 'B' EROSION CONTROL STONE FOR
STRUCTURAL STONE.
THE ENGINEER MAY DIRECT THE OPTION OF
CLASS "A" STONE FOR SITES HAVING LESS THAN
4' MAX. 8' MAX. PLACE POST
AT LOW POINTS
ONE (1) ACRE DRAINAGE AREA AND A DITCH
EDGE OF
STRUCTURAL STONE
PAVEMENT GRADE LESS THAN 3%.
5' MIN. 18"
�
G1• USE NO. 5 OR NO. 57 STONE FOR SEDIMENT
1' i N. 1 �3:
SEDIMENT
��� OQ�' CONTROL. PLACE SEDIMENT CONTROL STONE
5
CONTROL STONE
5� AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
5 MIN.�,OQ�
?'1 5' MAX. 2'
STRUCTURAL STONE
ELEVATION
COARSE AGGREGATE
1 S S�Op
Z• F
BACK
SLOPE
2-3"
v�
3
8'
n� LINE OF POST
Mqk 18" z pW
O 0
12"
ISOMETRIC VIEW
BEYOND
,1
II SUPPORT WIRE
FILTER FABRIC
PROFILE SECTION
1' MIN.NATURAL GROUND
/r
POST 18"
SLOPE_ POST
MN6�1
9 TYPICAL
COMPACTED 14LASS A STONE
STRUCTURAL STONE OVERFILL 6"
DESIGN FOR SETTLEMENT
MD
TEMPORARY GRAVEL DIVERSION DITCH FOR VEHICLE CROSSING
SETTLED TOP 2 MIN.
dt-
2•� II
MIN. MIN.
T.,
CROSS SECTION
If
5' MAX. FILL EMERGENCY
VEE DITCH
BY—PASS 6"
4"
BELOW SETTLED
WEIR LENGTH TOP OF DAM
SECTION A — A
PLUS 5 FEETNATURAL
NATURAL GROUND
GROUND
1' MIN.
FOR POOR DEFINED CHANNELS
CROSS SECTION
A�
' MIN
NOTES:
COMPACTED SOIL I
2' MINS{
USE CLASS 'B' EROSION CONTROL STONE FOR STRUCTURAL STONE.
CROSS SECTION
TRAPEZOIDAL DITCH
USE NO. 5 OR NO. 57 STONE FOR SEDIMENT CONTROL.
MPX
DIKE MAY EXTEND ALONG MORE THAN ONE SIDE OF THE TRAP AREA. PROVIDE A
2. 7 2:1
TOTAL SEDIMENT STORAGE VOLUME OF 1800± CUBIC FEET PER ACRE OF DISTURBED
'yq,� 18" MIN FLOW
AREA. SOME OF THE REQUIRED VOLUME MAY BE PROVIDED BY OTHER UP OR
BASE OF DITCH
��
DOWNSTREAM CONTROLS.
4' MAX.
AN UNDERLAY OF STRUCTURAL STONE WITH FILTER FABRIC MAY BE REQUIRED BY
12" 12" MIN.
i
THE ENGINEER.
SEDIMENT
IFTRAP
A
6' TYPICAL
FLOW
PLAN
DRAINAGE AREA WEIR LENGTH
(ACRES) (FT)
6.0
-� I' 4-6"
REINFORCED STABILIZATION OUTLET
TEMPORARY EARTHEN DIVERSION DITCH
3
TYPE
-------
4 10.0
SILT BASIN 12" THICK SEDIMENT
5 12.0
CONTROL STONE
ELEVATION VIEW
TEMPORARY ROCK SEDIMENT DAM TYPE 'B'
TEMPORARY ROCK SILT CHECK TYP 'B'
3'-0"
BACKFILL TOP OF BANK
SECTION
TOP OF DITCH SLOPE
4 FT
OF MATTING WITH MIN
6" TOPSOIL
TOP OF BANK
EXPOSE NO MORE THAN
12 IN
2 IN OF STAKE (TYP.)
30 IN
BASE OF DITCH FORPLANTS
—V— DITCH >
7
STAKE ALONG TOE OF
HERBACEOUS
(SWITCH GRASS)
SEED AND MULCH WITH
z
SLOPE AT 1 FT SPACINGS
COIR NET OVERLAY
SECURE EROSION CONTROL MATTING
ROLANKA BioD—MAT 70
OR APPROVED EQUAL
N
WITH 2 IN X 2 IN X 30 IN
NOTCHED WOOD DEAD STAKES
INSTALL ANCHORS
IN ACCORDANCE
WITH MANUFACTURES
SPECIFICATIONS
BASE OF DITCH
EROSION CONTROL MATTING
FOR FLAT
TOE OF SLOPE
SCOUR LINE 1•
BOTTOM DITCH
�Q�G
TOP OF DITCH SLOPE
STONE RIP—RAP
O
PLAN
KEY IN EROSION CONTROL MATTING
FILTER FABRIC, MIRAFI
160N OR EQUAL
TOP OF DITCH SLOPE
FOR A DEPTH OF 1 FT
PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS
O
NOTES:
NOTES:
24" MIN a +
,�1•
1. DETAIL #2 IS FOR MINOR STREAMS OR DRAINAGE
FEATURES OUTSIDE MECKLENBURG COUNTY S.W.I.M.
1. BEGIN AT TOP OF SLOPE AND ANCHOR FIBER MATTING IN A 12 IN DEEP INITIAL ANCHOR
BUFFERS. OTHERWISE NOTED ON PLANS.
LENGTH IN FEET EQUALS TWCE THE NADTH
TRENCH. BACKFILL TRENCH AND TAMP EARTH FIRMLY.
Q
2. DETAIL SHALL ONLY BE USED UNDER REQUEST AND
BASE OF DITCH FLOW LINE
MINIMUM BASE OF DITCH FLOW LINE
2. UNROLL FIBER MATTING DOWNSLOPE IN THE DIRECTION OF WATER FLOW.
tij
DIRECTION OF OWNER/ENGINEER.
3. OVERLAP EDGES OF ADJACENT PARALLEL ROLLS BY 6 IN AND ANCHOR AT 12 IN
CENTERS.
0z
4. WHEN FIBER MAT MUST BE SPLICED, PLACE END OVER END (SHINGLE STYLE) WITH 12 IN
N
OVERLAP AND ANCHOR USING TWO STAGGERED ROWS OF STAKES AT 6 IN CENTERS.
CREEK BED
5. LAY FIBER MAT LOOSELY AND ANCHOR SUFFICIENTLY TO MAINTAIN DIRECT CONTACT
CLASS 1 RIPRAP MINIMUM OF 24" THICKNESS
WITH THE SOIL — DO NOT STRETCH.
FOR STONE SIZE SEE SPECIFICATIONS.
6. FOR SLOPES 2:1 AND STEEPER USE A MINIMUM OF 3 STAKES PER SQUARE YARD AND
FOR SLOPES FLATTER THAN 2:1 USE A MINIMUM OF 2 STAKES PER SQUARE YARD.
7. ANCHOR, FILL, AND COMPACT END OF FIBER MATTING IN 12 IN X 6 IN TERMINAL
R L O T T E CHARLOTTE WATER
ANCHOR TRENCH (MIRROR IMAGE OF INITIAL TRENCH).
/CHARLOTTE
�H�A
�/ �/ 6T E R CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
ELEVATION
STREAMBANK STABILIZATION DETAIL J2
SILT BASIN TYPE 'B'
EROSION CONTROL MATTING DETAIL
7030Job 4No. -503 File No. STEVENS CREEK
Scales
TRUNK SEWER PHASE I
PLAN NTS
PROFILE
Hor. NTS
EROSION CONTROL DETAILS
Vert. NTS
(SHEET 3 OF 3)
As Built Date
Of
A 2/16 TED
FINAL DESIGNSheet
L. ASSOC JEM TED MEB 5/4/18 25 26
No. Date By
Revision Surveyed By Designed By Drawn By Project—Engr Approved By Date
A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT

A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT
8-
5/8- LAG BOLTS
/
9.
1 0 l
--
8" x 8"
TREATED
x 8' PRESSURE
POST INSTALLED14'-
5 PANEL STEEL FARM
28" LONG 5/16"
_ 9"
i --
3' IN GROUND
(TYP.)
GATE, W/ 2" TUBING, 16GA,
LINK CHAIN
;�
150" 5"
SEE FENCE
DETAILS
9"
- -
�5"�
X X
X X j
X X
X X
5" SQUARE POST
VARIES
EXISTING NATURAL GRADE
i
a
C-4
1.9"
3.7"
10'-12'
4 -RAIL
PVC FENCE
.�" .085" 1.5"
�5.5"
#57 STONE (TYP.)
E0-
c
1 1/2" x 5 1/2" RAIL
0
0 0
�
1
1
/
NOTES:
1. NO PADLOCK REQUIRED. GATE SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH
CHAIN
0
/
LATCH.
o
\
2. ALL HARDWARE SHALL BE GALVANIZED STEEL.
°
OUTSIDE CAP
5/8" LAG
o
BOLTS
FARM GATE DETAIL
EXISTING NATURAL GRADE
10'-12'
4 -RAIL
PVC GATE
DOME
CORNER TOP RAIL
BRACE RAIL
CHAIN UNK FABRIC LINE POST (3) STRANDS OF BARBED WIRE
NOTES:
CHAINLINK FENCE DETAIL SHALL BE USED FOR ANY REMOVAL AND
REPLACEMENT REQUIRED AT PACKAGE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
CORNER TOP
ARM
POST 1.66" (42.2MM)(1 �")
1.66" (42.2MM)
MESH GA 45' B/W ARM EA CONSISTING OF 2 STRAND
PER SPECIFICATIONS UNE WIRE W/ 4 BARBS
TO FACILITATE CONSTRUCTION. EXISTING FENCE MAY BE REQUIRED AND
(OPTIONAL)
(1) OD
ANY REPLACEMENT PARTS NEEDED SHALL BE INCORPORATED AS
FOLLOWS:
END POST
1. FENCE FABRIC: WARE SHALL BE ZINC COATED, GALVANIZED AFTER
iso
WEAVING (GAW) 1.2 OZ SQ. FT. CLASS(, HELICALLY WOUND AND
�
WOVEN 6' FABRIC WITH 2" DIAMOND MESH, 9 GAUGE W/ CORE
LENGTH VARIES (15' MAX.)
DIAMETER OF 0.148" AND BREAK LOAD OF 1290 LBF. SELVAGE OF
FABRIC SHALL BE TWISTED AT TOP AND KNUCKLED AT BOTTOM.
14 GUAGE WIRE
TENSION BAND
JIRAIL
=
2. STEEL FENCE FRAME MEMBERS: STEEL PIPE - TYPE 1, SCHEDULE
12 O.C. 305MM
TIE
TENSION
40, HOT DIPPED GALVANIZED WITH MINIMUM AVERAGE 1.8 OZ/ SQ.
BAR
_
FT. OF COATED SURFACE AREA. END, GATE, AND CORNER POST
i
z
z
2.875" OD, 5.79 LBS/FT. UNE POST 2.375" OD, 3.65 LBS/FT. TOP
4'-O"
6'-O"
F
BRACE BAND
UNE
m
B
RAIL AND BRACES 1.660" OD, 2.27 LBS/FT.
a
ll
HOG
POST TIE
12" as
�
V)
�
RING
a
3. SWING PERSONNEL GATES: GALVANIZED FRAMEWORK; WELDED
m
18" OC z
w
1-5/8" OD GATE FRAME, WEIGHT - 2.27 LB/FT, 6' FABRIC, GAUGE
v
9, 2" DIAMOND MESH; 3" OD GATE POSTS, WEIGHT - 5.79 LBS/FT.
USE OF CORNER FITTINGS IS NOT PERMITTED.
ADJUSTABLE
TRUSS ROD
TENSION WIRE
s
I" (9.5MM) DIA.
a 7 GAUGE
° BOTTOM SELVAGE
4. DOUBLE PANEL SWING GATE: GALVANIZED FRAMEWORK; WELDED 2"
KNUCKLED
OD PIPE, WEIGHT - 2.27 LB/FT; 6' FABRIC, GAUGE 9, 2" MESH;
TRUSS ROD
TRUSS ROD
4" OD GATE POSTS, WEIGHT 9.10 LBS/FT. USE OF CORNER
STEEL STUDDED T POST
i
ADJUSTING UNIT
-T
U.
ADJUSTING UNIT
FITTINGS IS NOT PERMITTED.
(3 -STRAND) - 1.33LB/FT
20_0»
(TYP)
J�
5. ALL GATES SHALL HAVE DIAGONAL BRACING USING 3/8"
10'-0" O.C. MAXIMUM
ADJUSTABLE TRUSS RODS.
FENCE POST TO BE EQUALLY SPACED
FOOTINGS: DIA. (4X) POST DIA, MIN 3'-0 (914MM)
TI
TYPICAL FENCE SECTION
6. FITTINGS: MEET ASTM F 626, ALL GLAVANIZED, 6" TOP RAIL
SLEEVES, 7 GA GALVINIZED STEEL TENSION WIRE, ALL NUTS AND
BOLTS SHALL BE GALVINIZED, TENSION BARS 3/16" x 3/4'.
BARBED WIRE; GLAVANIZED COATED ASTM A-121 TYPE Z - CLASS
3 WITH 0.80 OZ/SF ZINC COATED WIRE - DESIGN #12- 4-5-14R,
DOBLE STRAND, 12-1/2 GAUGE, TWISTED LINE WIRE WITH, 4 POINT
BARBS, SPACED 5" OC W/ 3 STRANDS. PRESSED STEEL ARMS
BARBED WIRE SUPPORT ARMS W/ 3 ATTACHMENT ROWS.
7. VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL MEMBERS MAXIMUM 8' O.C.
OPENING
OPENING
(FACE TO FACE)
(FACE TO FACE)
WIGGINS PROPERTY FENCE
REPLACEMENT
3 STRAND
DOME CAP 3 STRAND
BARBED WIRE
WHERE REQ'D
TERMINAL/
BARBED WIRE
TERMINAL/ WHERE REQ'D
GATE POST
GATE POST TOP RAIL
TOP RAIL
NoCHAIN
LINK FABRIC
TENSCHAIN (BANDS
�v
MESH GA
LINK FABRIC
MESH GA
AR AT
12" INTERVALS
PER SPECIFICATIONS
CHARLOTTE
PER SPECIFICATIONS
BAR BANDS
BRACE RAIL
C H A RL O TT E W AT E R
BRACE RAIL
W6T E R
1-7/8" 0 D
(48.3MM) FRAME
3/8 -TRUSS ROD
LATCH
CHARLOTTE,
NORTH CAROLINA
LATCH
TENSION BAR
x
TENSION BAND
TENSION BAR
DROP
1-7/8" O.D.
7030700047-17-503
HINGE
3/8" TRUSS ROD
ROD
(48.3MM) FRAME
Job No. File No.
STEVENS CREEK
BOTTOM TENSION WARE
HINGE
TRUSS RO
BOTTOM TENSION WIRE
Scales
TRUSS ROD
ADJUSTING
TRUNK SEWER PHASE I
ADJUSTING UNIT
UNIT
PLAN NTS
FOOTINGS: DIA. (4X)
PROFILE
Hor. NTS
POST DIA. MIN. tO
FENCE DETAILS
-FOOTINGS: DIA. (4X)
I ° 3'-0" (914MM)
Vert. NTS
POST DIA. MIN.
�t
3'-0" (914MM)
As Built Date
GATE PLAN
TYPICAL DOUBLE SWING GATE
A
2/16 TED FINAL DESIGNSheet
L. ASSOC JEM
Of
TED MEB 5/4/18
26 26
No.
Date By Revision
Surveyed By Designed By
Drawn By Project-Engr Approved By Date
A CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT

Mitigation Services
ENVIRONMENTAL OVALITY
May 21, 2018
Nicole Bartlett
Charlotte Water
5100 Brookshire Blvd
Charlotte, NC 28216
Project: Stevens Creek Trunk Sewer Phase 1
ROY COOPER
Govemor
MICHAIEL S. REGAN
Secretary
Expiration of Acceptance: 11/21/2018
County: Mecklenburg
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) is willing to
accept payment for compensatory mitigation for impacts associated with the above referenced project as
indicated in the table below. Please note that this decision does not assure that participation in the DMS in -
lieu fee mitigation program will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts.
It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact permitting agencies to determine if payment to the DMS will
be approved. You must also comply with all other state, federal or local government permits, regulations or
authorizations associated with the proposed activity including G.S. § 143-214.11.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not
received a copy of the issued 404 Permit/401 Certification/CAMA permit within this time frame, this
acceptance will expire. It is the applicant's responsibility to send copies of the permits to DMS. Once DMS
receives a copy of the permit(s) an invoice will be issued based on the required mitigation in that permit and
payment must be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the in -lieu fee to be paid by
an applicant is calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed on the DMS website.
Based on the information supplied by you in your request to use the DMS, the impacts for which you are
requesting compensatory mitigation credit are summarized in the following table. The amount of mitigation
required and assigned to DMS for this impact is determined by permitting agencies and may exceed the
impact amounts shown below.
River Basin I Impact Location Impact Type Impact Quantity
Yadkin i Goose Creek I Zone 1 1 Up to 121,546 ft2
Upon receipt of payment, DMS will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. The
mitigation will be performed in accordance with the In -Lieu Fee Program instrument dated July 28, 2010 and
15A NCAC 02B .0295 as applicable. Thank you for your interest in the DMS in -lieu fee mitigation program.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at [phone].
cc: Jason Marshall, agent
Sincerely,
James.: B Stanfill
Ash anagement Supervisor
State ofNorth Carolina I Environmental Quality I Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 1 217 W. Jones Street, Suite 3000
919 707 8976 T

Goose Creek Watershed On -Site Wastewater System (Septic System)
Failure Rate Analysis
By
Jeremy Michael
A project submitted to the Graduate Faculty of
North Carolina State University
In partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Masters of Environmental Assessment
Raleigh, North Carolina
2012
Approved by advisory committee
Advisory Chair:
Linda Taylor

ABSTRACT
Michael, Jeremy A. Goose Creek Watershed On -Site Wastewater System (Septic System)
Failure Rate Analysis. (Under the direction of Linda Taylor).
The Goose Creek Watershed located in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina is home to
the federally endangered Carolina heelsplitter mussel which is sensitive to many pollutants
commonly found in municipal and industrial wastewater releases. On-site wastewater systems
were evaluated within the Goose Creek Watershed from April 2009 through April 2011 to
determine if any failing on-site wastewater systems could have had a significant impact on high
fecal coliform counts found in the tributaries. This project considered how the following criteria
could contribute to on-site wastewater system performance: system design, age of system,
seasonal impacts, operation and maintenance, and siting location.
On-site wastewater failures were found at 12 out of 1,422 sites inspected, with a failure
rate of 0.84%. This failure rate is considerably lower than other failure rate studies conducted in
North Carolina and abroad. Only three of the twelve failures were located within 400ft of any
surface water indicating a minimal impact on-site wastewater failures may have contributed to
the high fecal coliform counts throughout the watershed. Age and excessive water usage from
leaks or too many people living in the residence was a major contributing factor to more than
half of the failures observed. On-site wastewater systems that were sited based on the soil type,
operated per design, and maintained routinely had lower impacts on failures. This may be
attributed to Mecklenburg County having a licensed soil scientist on staff, along with conducting
routine public management entity (PME) inspections. There was a higher failure rate observed
in the wet season as opposed to the dry season. Further investigation is needed to determine
other potential sources of fecal coliform found in the tributaries throughout the watershed.

BIOGRAPHY
Jeremy Michael attended Western Carolina University and earned a B.S. in
Environmental Health in 2003. During the summer of 2002 he interned as a Jr. Commissioned
Officer with the United States Public Health Service working with the Indian Health Services in
Minot, ND. He started his professional career working as a Registered Environmental Health
Specialist for Lincoln County Environmental Health and as a consultant for S&ME. Mr.
Michael has worked for Mecklenburg County since 2006 and is a Supervisor in the Groundwater
and Wastewater Services section. His area of interest has been in evaluating soils along with
permitting and designing on-site wastewater systems throughout many counties in the Piedmont
and Mountains of NC.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express sincere thanks to all involved in this project including staff from
the Groundwater & Wastewater Services and Water Quality Departments of Mecklenburg
County. I would also like to thank Mr. Jeff Price for his assistance with statistical analysis of
data collected for this project. To my advisor Ms. Linda Taylor who was very helpful at
answering my questions and guiding me though this graduate program. Lastly, I would like to
thank my family especially my wife and daughter for your endless support during graduate
school.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LISTOF FIGURES...........................................................................................v
LIST OF APPENDICES....................................................................................vi
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................. l
METHODS AND MATERIALS............................................................................3
StudyArea.............................................................................................3
StudyDesign..........................................................................................4
Preparations for Field Survey.......................................................................7
FailureDefinition.....................................................................................8
DataCollection.......................................................................................9
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.............................................................................9
SystemAge Impacts................................................................................10
Siting Impacts/ System Use Practices............................................................13
System Design/ Maintenance Impacts............................................................15
Wet vs. Dry Season Failures.......................................................................17
Surface Water Quality Impact.....................................................................18
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION.......................................................................20
REFERENCES CITED......................................................................................23
iv

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Cumulative on-site wastewater system failure rate percentage vs. age of the
system.......................................................................................11
Figure 2. Individual on-site wastewater system failure rate percentage vs. age of the
system.......................................................................................12
Figure 3. Causes of on-site wastewater system failures in the Goose Creek Watershed..... 14
Figure 4. On-site system types in the Goose Creek Watershed.................................16
Figure 5. Box and whisker plot on before and after fecal counts in the Goose Creek
tributary......................................................................................1 9
VA

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Map and location of on-site wastewater system inspections in the Goose Creek
Watershed....................................................................................26
Appendix 2. On-site wastewater system inspection form used in the Goose Creek
Watershed...................................................................................27
Appendix 3. Information pamphlet used in the Goose Creek Watershed ..........................28
Appendix 4. Goose Creek Watershed On-site wastewater system failure chart..................29
vi

INTRODUCTION
On-site wastewater systems (also called septic systems) have been used effectively in
treating sewage for many years. Approximately 21 % of American homes are served by on-site
wastewater systems and 95% of these are septic systems (USCDC, 2009). Over 50% of
households across North Carolina use onsite wastewater systems with new systems being
installed at a rate of 40,000 per year (Hoover and Konsler, 2004). However, there have not been
many studies conducted on the lifespan, failure rates, and survival ability of on-site wastewater
systems across the State. Other studies that have been conducted within North Carolina by
standard practice have taken two different approaches in carrying out an on-site wastewater
system failure analysis. One is drawing random on-site wastewater system permits from the
local health department and studying a broad area, while the other is to zero in on a particular
area and conduct a blanket or enforcement survey (Hoover, 2011). Both of these methods, while
different, offer valuable data to be used in the future of on-site wastewater system designs,
technology, and maintenance.
On-site wastewater system failures are important to remediate due to the potential health
concerns to humans, wildlife, and the environment. Sewage that has surfaced to the ground can
contain many harmful bacteria and pathogens that could cause disease such as dysentery,
hepatitis, typhoid fever, and acute gastrointestinal illness if exposure to humans occurs (Mass
DEP, n.d.). Nutrients in untreated sewage, particularly nitrates, nitrites, and phosphorous if in
excess can cause nutrient overload also known as eutrophication to occur in surface waters.
The Goose Creek Watershed is comprised of 42 square miles in Union and Mecklenburg
counties and is also home to the Carolina heelsplitter mussel which was added to the federal
endangered species list in 1993. Due to elevated bacteria levels, the N.C. Department of

Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) indentified Goose Creek as being impaired.
Management rules were developed and approved by DENR to protect the water quality and
habitat needed to recover and sustain the Carolina heelsplitter mussel.
In order to comply with the state rules, the Town of Mint Hill and Mecklenburg County
established a Water Quality Recovery Plan (WQRP) with the goal to identify and remove
sources of fecal coliform in the watershed. The WQRP specified that fecal coliforms shall not
exceed a geometric mean of 200/100 ml (membrane filter count) based upon at least five
consecutive samples examined during any 30 -day period, nor exceed 400/100 ml in more than 20
percent of the samples examined during such period (Mecklenburg County Storm Water
Services, 2009). Samples collected in different locations throughout the watershed were found
to have fecal coliform results higher than what the WQRP specified. Results from one specific
sampling point had a median of 960 CFU/ 100ml and a mean of 1,162 CFU/ 100ml out of 21 fecal
coliform samples collected.
Mecklenburg County Storm Water Services conducted field surveys, stream walks, and
identified all storm water outfalls, in addition to sampling, and these efforts have not been
successful in identifying sources of fecal coliform. During stream walks, environmental
specialist would look for leaking sewer laterals that crossed creeks along with overflowing sewer
access risers that were adjacent to creeks. On-site wastewater systems were the most likely
source of fecal coliform contamination that had not been evaluated. Approximately 54% of the
residences located within the Goose Creek Watershed are served by on-site wastewater systems.
The purpose of this study was to identify all failing on-site wastewater systems in the Goose
Creek Watershed within Mecklenburg County and determine if the onsite wastewater systems
are a significant contributor to high fecal coliform contamination in the tributaries.
2

Investigating all on-site wastewater systems within a specific location provided the
opportunity to identify failing systems, repair the systems, and evaluate on-site wastewater
system performance under a variety of real-life operating conditions. In addition, the
performance and longevity of different on-site wastewater system types (i.e. conventional,
approved, low pressure pump panel block systems, drip irrigation etc.) could be evaluated. On-
site wastewater systems that are identified as failing would be further investigated as to the
reason why the failure occurred. The results from this study will provide Groundwater and
Wastewater Services of Mecklenburg County with a snap shot of how well on-site wastewater
systems are performing within the county and to determine if they have a significant impact on
surface water quality of Goose Creek.
METHODS AND MATERIALS
Study Area
Mecklenburg County is located in the southwest portion of the Piedmont area of North
Carolina. The Goose Creek Watershed includes the Goose Creek and Duck Creek subbasins both
located in the southeast portion of Mecklenburg County and is within the city limits of Mint Hill
(Appendix 1). Although the majority of the Goose Creek Watershed is in Union County, the on-
site wastewater system survey only included the portion in Mecklenburg County where the
headwaters for the watershed originate. The estimated acres and percentage of the Goose Creek
subbasin located in Mint Hill is 4,938 acres (18.1%) and 2,354 acres (8.6%) of the Duck Creek
subbasin which together is a total of 7,292 acres (26.7%) of the Goose Creek watershed located
in Mecklenburg County that was surveyed (NCWRC and NCHP, 2005).
Cecil soils occur most often in Mecklenburg County and in the Goose Creek Watershed
on gently sloping to strongly sloping topography, and make up about 41percent of the counties
3

soils. Cecil soils are well drained soils that have predominantly clayey subsoil and are formed in
residuum from acid igneous and metamorphic rock. Soils in the Goose Creek Watershed were
predominantly mapped as CeD2- Cecil sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded, and CeB2-
Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded (McCachren, 1977). Typically on an auger
boring 48 inches deep, the surface layer is sandy clay loam to about 6 inches with the majority of
the subsoil consisting of clay and clay loam texture towards the bottom of the boring. According
to the NC Regulations for Sewage Treatment and Disposal systems these soils are considered to
be Group IV- clayey texture soils, and are classified as provisionally suitable with respect to soil
texture (NCDENR, 2000).
Study Design
The study area for this project includes all parcels that are served by on-site wastewater
systems within the Goose Creek Watershed in Mecklenburg County. All parcels connected to
municipal sewer were not included in this study although existing sewer laterals could be a
potential source of fecal coliform contamination. Goose Creek Watershed is subdivided into 14
separate catchment basins and the study was carried out one catchment basin at a time. Factors
used to determine the order (priority) that on-site wastewater systems were inspected were as
follows: 1. Catchment basin (14 total), 2. Proximity to stream (200 ft. buffer), 3. Age of on-site
wastewater system (estimated from CAMA development data). Catchment basins were
prioritized from 1 to 14 by the Water Quality (WQ) program and provided to Groundwater &
Wastewater Services (GWS). Groundwater and Wastewater Services then develop an inspection
schedule for each catchment based on the following matrix:
4

Tier
Proximity to stream
1
<= 200 ft.
2
<= 200 ft.
3
> 200 ft.
4
> 200 ft.
5
> 200 ft.
Septic System Age (yrs.)
29+ (Pre -1980)
0-28 (1981-2009)
29+ (Pre -1980)
14-28 (1980-1995)
0-13 (1996-2009)
There were a total of 2,740 parcels in all 14 catchment basins within the Goose Creek
Watershed. In Mecklenburg County forty three percent (1,187 parcels) of the total number of
parcels were vacant or served by municipal sewer. This was determined by looking at sewer
lateral maps, knowledge of known subdivisions on municipal sewer, and aerial photography.
Because the catchment basins parcels were computer generated there were 73 parcels that were
picked twice on two separate catchment basins where they may have fell on the line separating
the catchments. In these instances these parcels were accounted for and only evaluated one time.
Therefore there were 1,480 on-site wastewater systems within the Goose Creek Watershed to
investigate.
Unlike some previous studies on failure rate analysis in North Carolina, this study was
conducted over a longer period of time, beginning in April 2009 and completing in April, 2011.
Most failure rate analysis assessments are performed during a short amount of time or days to
minimize potential impacts (and biases in the results) due to variation in soil moisture status
and/or precipitation for different parts of the study sample (Hoover, Lynn et al. 2005).
Generally, because groundwater recharge is more substantial during the wet season (spring),
failure rates are more likely to occur. However, an important component of this study was to
eliminate any and all sources of fecal coliform that may be coming from parcels served by on-
site wastewater systems. Although failure rates may be greater during one season over another,
5

there is beneficial information that can be obtained from inspecting on-site wastewater systems
over all seasons of the year and with varying hydraulic conditions. After all, on-site wastewater
systems are in use year round and groundwater recharge is only one variable among many that
may contribute to on-site wastewater system failures.
Methodologies used in conducting the study in the Goose Creek Watershed included a
notification, inspection, and education carried out by an inspection form and an educational
information pamphlet (see appendix 2 and 3). In addition, if on-site wastewater systems were
observed failing at the time of inspection, a home owner interview form was used to diagnose the
problem. All participants in the study were notified through a letter that was mailed out before a
site visit was made to inspect the on-site wastewater system. Information detailing the purpose
of the on-site wastewater system inspections was included in the letter, but it did not give a
specific time when the inspections would be conducted. Others studies avoid sending out letters
prior to an inspection to prohibit home owners from getting illegal (non- permitted) repairs
installed. Some homeowners did have their septic tanks pumped prior to the inspection, but this
rarely fixes a failing septic system and is not considered a repair. In addition, there were no
illegal repairs reported or found on any of the parcels inspected during the course of this study.
The letter was sent out prior to an inspection to notify the homeowner that the inspection
would be taking place and give them an opportunity to respond if they refused the inspection or
had additional information. If no response came back and the homeowner was not present at the
time of inspection, the inspector could legally walk around the premises and evaluate the on-site
wastewater system. In addition, this was an opportunity for homeowners to call the office and
set up a time for an inspection, allowing inspectors to gain access to properties that had locked
11

gates and dogs. However, if there was a fence or gate that was closed and the on-site wastewater
system was not visible at the time of the inspection, than the site was classified as inaccessible.
Any site where the homeowner refused to allow an inspection was also deemed
inaccessible and these sites were turned over to the Mecklenburg County Water Quality
Department for further evaluation. Most cases of inaccessibility were from locked gates or tall
fences around the septic field and not homeowner refusal. Of the 1,480 on-site wastewater
systems in the watershed, only 58 (3.92%) were inaccessible. Moreover, there were only 419
sites out of the 1,480 where the homeowner was present for the inspection thus reiterating the
need for the letter to be mailed out so inspectors could legally walk around the premises to
conduct the inspection.
Preparations for the Field Survey
There were a total of six inspectors within Groundwater and Wastewater Services to
conduct the study. All inspectors were Registered Environmental Health Specialist with the
State of North Carolina and authorized in on-site wastewater. Inspections were spread out
among each inspector with the number of inspections varying depending on the catchment.
When the inspections were sent out to the inspectors, there was a deadline date to have them
completed. This deadline varied depending on the number of inspections to complete but was
usually quarterly. Each inspector conducted their inspections at their own pace working in
between their regular assigned job duties. Prior to going out to each lot, the inspector would
search the county database to see if there was an existing permit on the property showing where
the septic system was located and to identify what type of aggregate was used in the nitrification
field.
7

The inspectors were equipped with an information pamphlet, and a carbon copy
inspection form. Inspectors would knock on the door and if the homeowner was present, they
would announce themselves and educate them on why their septic system was being inspected
along with handing the homeowner an information pamphlet on the Goose Creek Watershed and
the Carolina heelsplitter (appendix 3). If the homeowner consented, the inspector would probe
the nitrification field and determine the type of onsite wastewater system. For any innovative or
accepted system, each inspector had a permit on hand to confirm the system type. The age of the
system was determined by the operation permit date on file with the Mecklenburg County Health
Department. The age for systems where no operation permit was found was determined by the
date the house was built found through Mecklenburg County online geographical POLARIS
system. Most of the older systems where a permit could not be found were determined to be
gravel systems. Observations were made to determine if there were trees in the nitrification field
area, irrigation systems, or wells on the property. All information was recorded on the
inspections survey form (appendix 2).
Failure Definition
A failure described in the Laws and Rules For Sewage Treatment, And Disposal Systems
(1900 Rules) is (1) a discharge of sewage or effluent to the surface of the ground, the surface
waters, or directly into groundwater at any time; or (2) a back-up of sewage or effluent into the
facility, building drains, collection system, or freeboard volume of the tanks; or (3) a free liquid
surface within three inches of finished grade over the nitrification trench for two or more
observations made not less than 24 hours apart. Observations shall be made greater than 24
hours after a rainfall event (NCDENR, 2000).

For the purpose of this study the failure definition was limited to (1) a discharge of
sewage to the surface of the grounds or (2) a straight pipe to the land surface, or (3) when a
nitrification line was probed the sewage surfaced to the ground. If one of these observations
were made at the time of the inspection, the system was documented as failing and a notice of
violation was mailed to the homeowner.
Data Collection
For every on-site wastewater system inspection performed, a work order was created in
City Works Server. City Works is a computer program used by Mecklenburg County that can be
used to geospatially register on-site wastewater systems and wells. If a site had an on-site
wastewater system or well on the property, the inspector would register the on-site wastewater
system or well in the database and a separate point would show up on a map indicating there was
an on-site wastewater system or well. For every on-site wastewater system registered, a work
order was created and information was entered into the computer program summarizing the
findings of the survey.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
On-site wastewater failures were observed at 12 out of 1,422 sites inspected, with a
failure rate of 0.84% over the course of the survey. Hydraulic field assessments of conventional
and alternative technologies have been conducted over the last 25 years that identified system
failure rates ranging from less than 5% to almost 50% (Hoover, 2011). This failure rate
percentage was lower than other low end failure rates found in other studies (Hoover et al. 2007)
which found a 9.7% failure rate in Wake County, and less than 5% failure rate in a multi county
health district in eastern North Carolina (Lindbo et al, 1998).
01

The study conducted in Wake County, North Carolina was different in nature taking
random on-site wastewater systems throughout Wake County and inspecting all on-site
wastewater systems during the wet season when hydraulic failures occur more often (Hoover et
al. 2007). The study that took place in the multi county health district in North Carolina (Lindbo
et at, 1998) was a separate assessment 5 years after a management entity was put into place from
a previous (Hoover et al. 1993) study that found a 12 to 16% failure rate in conventional
aggregate -laden and sand lined trench systems less than 5 years old (Hoover, 2011).
During the Goose Creek survey there were a total of 12 notices of violations issued. Out
of the 12 failures, there were only three considered to be high risk of fecal contamination to
tributaries in the Goose Creek Watershed. The three high risk sites occurred within a 400ft
buffer around creeks or surface waters (see appendix 1). Each on-site wastewater system that
was failing was further investigated as to the probable cause of the failure (see appendix 2).
Because the number of failing septic systems was so low, statistical analysis could not properly
be done however trends and observations could be made.
System Age Impacts
The average age of the on-site wastewater systems inspected in the Goose Creek
Watershed was 27.4 years old. The average age of the failing on-site wastewater systems in the
Goose Creek Watershed was 34 years old. There was not an operation permit on file for one on-
site wastewater system that according to POLARIS the house was constructed100 years ago.
This number was thrown out because 100 years ago the residence more than likely used an
outhouse or privy and a record of the on-site wastewater installation could not be determined.
There was a significant correlation between increased age of the on-site wastewater system and
10

percentage of on-site wastewater failure in the Goose Creek Watershed as opposed to a (Hoover
et al. 2007) Wake County study that found a 10% failure rate for newer systems matched about a
10% failure rate of older systems. All but one septic system failure found during this survey was
older than 20 years, with seven of the failures occurring between the ages of 30 and 38 years old
(see figure 1 and 2).
Cumulative Septic System Failure Rate
Figure 1. Cumulative on-site wastewater system failure rate percentage vs. age of the system
11

0.16
0.14
0.12
0.10
Q)
3
m 0.08
U.
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
Septic System % Failure Rate
c-INM�lf1101�00010�--INM� V1101�00010�--INM�I.!)lflI�00010�--INM� V11D1�00410�--INM�L.()101�00010�--INM�Lf1
e--I�--I�--I�--I�--I�--Ic-I�--I�--I�--INNNNNNNNNNMMMMMMMMMM����������tf1 V1 V1 V1 V1 V1
System Age
Figure 2. Individual on-site wastewater system failure rate percentage vs. age of the system
Although there were more on-site wastewater failures found with an age greater than 20
years, it must be noted that it does not necessarily indicate the failures were a direct result of age.
Water usage among other variables can contribute to an on-site wastewater failing regardless of
age. It is reasonable to conclude in this study, that if on-site wastewater systems are designed
and used properly they can be expected to last 30 years before they start to show age related
failures.
12

Siting Impacts/ System Use Practices
Trees were located within the nitrification field on 398 (27.99%) sites, and irrigation was
installed within the nitrification field on 96 (6.75%) sites. Tree roots or biomat problems and
excessive watering over the nitrification field can contribute to failures of on-site wastewater
systems. Trees were observed in the nitrification field on 5 out of the 12 failures found. After a
more thorough investigation was conducted only 2 out of the 5 on-site wastewater system
failures found with trees in the nitrification field were caused by tree roots and/or biomat
problems. Biomat is a bacteria layer that forms along the bottom and sidewalls of a drainage
trench. As the on-site wastewater system ages and the biomat grow thicker it can reduce
infiltration rates to a point where ponding occurs. Two of the failures occurred due to
age/biomat clogging up the nitrification field. None of the on-site wastewater systems found
failing had irrigation systems over the nitrification field. A further study would be required to
determine if irrigation systems located within nitrification fields contribute to failure rates of on-
site wastewater systems.
There was a strong correlation with increased failure and excessive water usage within
the majority of on-site wastewater systems found failing in this study. Half of the on-site
wastewater system failures that occurred were caused by excessive water usage. Out of the six
excessive water usage sites, three sites had more people living in the residence than the on-site
wastewater system was designed to support, and the other three had leaking toilets that were
continuously running. In addition, there were two failures that occurred because the on-site
wastewater system was damaged or destroyed. One on-site wastewater system found failing had
a garage built over the nitrification field and the other site had a wash line that was straight piped
to the surface of the ground (see figure 3).
13

7
6
S
4
3
2
1
0
Causes of Septic Failures
■1■
■ Number of Septic Failures
Figure 3. Causes of on-site wastewater system failures in the Goose Creek Watershed
Soils were evaluated on failures that needed a repair permit to add additional nitrification
fields. There were no soil suitability issues on any of the sites that were failing. All sites that
needed a repair were given a long term acceptance rate (LTAR) of 0.3 GPD/FT 2. A 0.3 LTAR is
a common upper limit loading rate given to Cecil type soils found in the Goose Creek
Watershed. However, in addition to soil properties, landscape position is taken into
consideration when assigning a LTAR. Similar to the (Hoover et al. 2007) study conducted in
Wake County in 2003, soil suitability not being a main contributing factor in on-site wastewater
system failures in this survey is attributed to the expertise of a licensed soil scientist evaluating
all soils within Mecklenburg County. Previous studies in North Carolina (Hoover and
Amoozegar 1989; Hoover et al. 1993) and in Pennsylvania (Hoover et al. 1981) have found
failure rates of 20% and greater where soil suitability did not match well with that recorded on
the system permit by the environmental specialist. As a result, septic systems were installed in
14
Jya�e
�°lea
c�+�e Qat
■1■
■ Number of Septic Failures
Figure 3. Causes of on-site wastewater system failures in the Goose Creek Watershed
Soils were evaluated on failures that needed a repair permit to add additional nitrification
fields. There were no soil suitability issues on any of the sites that were failing. All sites that
needed a repair were given a long term acceptance rate (LTAR) of 0.3 GPD/FT 2. A 0.3 LTAR is
a common upper limit loading rate given to Cecil type soils found in the Goose Creek
Watershed. However, in addition to soil properties, landscape position is taken into
consideration when assigning a LTAR. Similar to the (Hoover et al. 2007) study conducted in
Wake County in 2003, soil suitability not being a main contributing factor in on-site wastewater
system failures in this survey is attributed to the expertise of a licensed soil scientist evaluating
all soils within Mecklenburg County. Previous studies in North Carolina (Hoover and
Amoozegar 1989; Hoover et al. 1993) and in Pennsylvania (Hoover et al. 1981) have found
failure rates of 20% and greater where soil suitability did not match well with that recorded on
the system permit by the environmental specialist. As a result, septic systems were installed in
14

soil conditions that did not have proper loading rates issued by environmental specialist (Hoover
et al. 2007).
Registered environmental health specialist do have the ability to evaluate soils in North
Carolina to permit on-site wastewater systems, however the only soils training is obtained from a
three week centralized intern training course in Raleigh and on the job experience.
Mecklenburg County has supported having a licensed soil scientist on staff and it is the author's
opinion that this level of expertise has prevented on-site wastewater failures from occurring due
to systems being installed in properly characterized soils.
System Design/Maintenance Impacts
Conventional gravel on-site wastewater systems were most prevalent type of system used
in the Goose Creek Watershed with 1,046 (72%) inspected (Figure 4). Most of these were gravel
bed systems meaning the trench was greater than 3ft in width. Although all failures found were
conventional gravel systems, the failures were not attributed to system type alone but rater
excessive water usage and age related issues. There was no indication that system type had any
impact on the failure rate. Other studies have shown that lack of professional maintenance of
low-pressure pipe systems (LPP) can increase failure rates (NCDENR, 2011). In addition to
there being a low percentage of LPP and pump systems in this watershed, the overall low failure
rate could be contributed to the Public Management Entity (PME) program that is implemented
within Mecklenburg County.
15

Septic System Types in The Goose Creek
Watershed
Gravity Conventional ■ Gravity 25% Reduction Pump 25% Reduction
Pump Conventional ■ LPP Panel I Gavity Panel
5% 3% <1%
Figure 4. On-site wastewater system types in the Goose Creek Watershed.
The rules that govern onsite wastewater systems in North Carolina require that the Health
Department conduct PME inspections for LPP systems once every three years and single pump
systems once every five years. In reality very few counties across North Carolina conduct these
inspections due to limited staff and resources. There are benefits to inspecting systems with
mechanical features by identifying systems that are failing or may fail without maintenance, and
routinely educating the owners of these systems with information and a written report on their
on-site wastewater system inspection. There was no indication that on-site wastewater system
failures occurred more often based on the system type alone. Although there were a lower
percentage of pump and LPP systems inspected in the Goose Creek Watershed, it is the author's
opinion that routine PME inspections, identifying maintenance issues, educating homeowners,
along with certified operator reviews of these systems contributed to a 0% failure rate on these
types of systems during the course of this study.
16

Wet vs. Dry Season failures
The wet season in the Piedmont of North Carolina occurs in the springtime. Typically
there is more rainfall during the summer months but with higher temperatures along with
evaporation and transpiration, the subsoil is usually dryer during the summer than in the winter
and spring. Most short-term on-site wastewater failure rate studies are conducted in the wet
season when the hydraulic performance is most limited for on-site wastewater system and
hydraulic failure is most likely to occur. (NCDENR, 2011).
As expected, the wet season failure rate was higher than the dry season failure rate.
During the spring time antecedent soil moisture conditions are the wettest, rainfall is plentiful
and groundwater recharge is substantial (Hoover et al. 2007). Generally in November and
December, when most of the vegetation is dormant and the evaporative capacity of the air is low,
the groundwater levels begin to rise (LeGrand and Mundorff, 1952). Out of the 12 system
failures found, 7 were during the spring months of March through May. The other 5 system
failures were found during the winter months of November through February. There were no on-
site wastewater failures found or reported over the summer months during the course of this
study. High dry season failure rates have been reported in another study (Hoover et al, 198 1)
which found cumulative failure rates of 40-50% in Pennsylvania for undersized sand mound
systems that were less than 3 years old (NCDENR, 2011). In future studies, using monitoring
well groundwater level and drought data from the USGS and NC Division of Water Resources
could be useful to determine if seasonally high groundwater levels correlate to an increase in on-
site wastewater failures.
17

As mentioned previously, half of the on-site wastewater system failures found in this
study were due to excessive water usage. It is unknown if these systems were failing in the
summer months prior to the inspections that took place over the winter and spring months, or if
the wetter soil conditions during this time contributed to the failure of these systems. Further
study would be required to determine if excessive water usage failure rates fluctuated with wet
vs. dry seasons.
Surface Water Quality Impact
Aside from the on-site wastewater systems failure rate analysis, fecal coliform samples
were analyzed in several tributaries within the Goose Creek Watershed to determine if failing on-
site wastewater systems contributed to higher fecal coliform counts in the creeks. There were
only three failing on-site wastewater systems found within 400ft of any stream within the
boundaries of this study. One specific area with a high number of on-site wastewater systems
within 200ft of a stream was further analyzed for fecal coliform counts after a on-site wastewater
system was found failing within 200ft of the creek. Samples had been taken before the failing
on-site wastewater system was found and after the on-site wastewater system was repaired.
A non -parametric statistical box and whisker plot analysis was used to determine if there
was a statistical significance in fecal coliform counts (CFU/100ml) before and after the on-site
wastewater system was repaired (See figure 5). The P value was .02 and anything below .05 is
considered to be statistically significant. The .02 p value indicates a 98% confidence level that
the data results were not based on error or random significance. However it must be noted that
there were 21 fecal samples collected prior to the failing on-site wastewater system being
repaired and only seven samples collected after the on-site wastewater system was repaired.
18

Ideally it would have been better to collect additional samples after the on-site wastewater
system was repaired, but considering the downward trend in fecal counts along with the cost for
sampling, additional samples were not collected. The Water Quality Department had a DNA
analysis test performed on a bacteria sample collected to determine if it contained fecal coliform
from a human or animal. The results of the test came back with a high percentage that the fecal
coliform came from a human source. Further test were not done due to the high cost.
Goose Creek Tributary95% Cl otc a utter
Boxplot
95- Cl Mean Diamond
+ Outliers > 1.5 and < 3 IQR
nl 28
Fecal Coliform n Rank sum Mean rank U
21 342.5 16.31 35.5
7 63.5 9.07 111.5
Fecal
Before
After
n I Mn I 1st Quartile
21 140 626.
7 170 165.
480.0
110.0 to +m (normal approximation)
35.5
2.02
0.0218 (normal approximation, corrected for ties)
Median 95% Cl I 3rd Quartile I Max IQR
960.0 640.0 to 1500.0 1500.0 39001 873.3
480.0 170.0 to 3600.0 631.7 3600 446.7
Figure 5. Box and whisker plot on before and after fecal counts in the Goose Creek tributary
As illustrated in the diagram above, the median for fecal coliform counts before the on-
site wastewater system was repaired was 960 CFU/100ml vs. 480 CFU/100ml after the on-site
wastewater system was repaired. The U.S. EPA (1975) reported on studies performed in
19

Atlantic Beach and Surf City, North Carolina which showed high concentrations of fecal
coliforms in surface waters that were in close proximity to dense housing developments served
by on-site wastewater systems. It was observed that effluent from the on-site wastewater
systems reached surface waters by using dye tracers and dye was detected in surface water
within 4 to 60 hours respectively (Cardona, 1998).
There is a vast difference in soil texture between the Coastal Plain and Piedmont soils.
The soils in the Goose Creek Watershed are primarily of a clay texture as opposed to sand in the
coastal region. Crane and Moore (1983) reported that under unsaturated flow conditions
bacterial population could be reduced to up to 95% within the first 1-5 cm of soil and that clays
were more effective than sand in bacterial removal. Other conditions such as saturated
conditions, rainfall events, saturated conductivity, and low temperatures have been confirmed to
enhance bacterial survival (Cardona, 1998). Dye packs were given to homeowners that lived
along both sides of the Goose Creek Tributary that was sampled for fecal coliform. They were
asked to flush the dye pack down their toilet and afterwards a representative from Water Quality
would observe this section of Goose Creek. No dye was observed or reported in the creek, thus
any coliform bacteria that may have entered Goose Creek directly from on-site wastewater
systems may have come from surface runoff through rain events rather than subsurface
movement of effluent.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
A field study which took place from April 2009 through April 2011 in the Goose Creek
Watershed of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina found on-site wastewater system hydraulic
failures at 12 out of 1,422 sites inspected, with a failure rate of 0.84°/x. This failure rate was
20

considerably lower than other studies however the survey was in one specific area of the county
as opposed to random sampling throughout the entire county. This low rate is consistent with
reported failures within the same boundaries of the study a year after the study was conducted
with only three on-site wastewater system failures reported from April, 2011 through March,
2012.
The majority of the failures observed were due to age and excessive water usage
from leaks or too many people living in the residence. Site maintenance through the PME
program, education of homeowners, and certified operator contracts were considered a factor in
the absence of on-site wastewater failures for pump, drip irrigation, and LPP systems inspected.
Wet season hydraulic failures were considerably higher during the winter and spring months,
with no failures found during the summer months. Siting had no significant impact on hydraulic
failures in this study. Professional licensed soil scientists that have been on staff with
Mecklenburg County for the past 30 years are attributed with a low on-site wastewater failure
rate by siting and evaluating the soil in the areas that on-site wastewater systems are installed. In
addition, there was no indication that system type had anything to do with failure rates. The
majority of the on-site wastewater systems inspected were conventional bed systems that have
proven to properly function with a very low failure rate and could be expected to last over 30
years if operated and maintained properly.
Fecal coliform counts were statistically lower after one on-site wastewater system was
repaired that was found failing within 200ft of Goose Creek. As for the entire watershed, there is
little evidence that high fecal coliform counts over the desired TDML standards was attributed to
failing septic systems within the watershed. Only three failing on-site wastewater systems were
found within 400ft of tributaries throughout the watershed. Further research would be needed to
21

determine if on-site wastewater systems attributed to higher fecal coliform counts in surface
waters by using DNA or other fingerprinting techniques to differentiate animal from human fecal
coliform, and to trace samples collected from surface water back to samples taken from a failing
on-site wastewater system.
On-site wastewater system failures are not suspected as having a big influence for the
decline of the Carolina heelsplitter mussel in the Goose Creek Watershed. The Carolina
heelsplitter is more susceptible and sensitive to ammonia and prescription drugs found in surface
waters from storm water runoff and sewage package plant overflows around Stevens Creek
(Fridell, J (2008, January 20). Telephone interview). Urbanization along with construction
activities that do not adequately control soil erosion contribute to excessive amounts of silt,
pesticides, fertilizers, heavy metals, and other pollutants that suffocate and poison freshwater
mussels (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011).
If any future studies are to be conducted within Mecklenburg County it would be
beneficial to collect water samples from wells on properties that are also served by on-site
wastewater systems to determine if there are any impacts on groundwater. In addition, it would
be beneficial to compare the Goose Creek Watershed findings to a failure rate analysis using
randomly selected on-site wastewater systems within the entire county. Overall the study was a
success and gave Mecklenburg County an indication on how well on-site wastewater systems are
performing within the study area, along with educating residences about on-site wastewater
system use and maintenance.
22

REFERENCES CITED
Cardona, M.E. (1998). Nutrient and Pathogen Contributions to Surface and Subsurface Waters
From On-site Wastewater Systems -A Review. North Carolina State University
Cooperative Extension Service.
Hoover, M.T. (2011). "Failure rate, Lifespan and Survivability of On -Site Systems." North
Carolina Soils and On -Site Wastewater Training Academy. Tech 201: Wastewater in the
Environment, Col. Agr. and Life Sci., North Carolina Cooperative Extension, North
Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Hoover, M.T. and Amoozegar, A. (1989). "Performance of alternative and conventional septic
Tank systems." Proceedings of Sixth Northwest On -Site Wastewater Treatment Short
Course. Univ. of Washington, Seattle, Washington., 173-203.
Hoover, M.T., Evans, R.O., Hinson, T.H., Heath, R.C. (1993). Performance of sand -lined trench
septic systems on wet, clayey soils in northeastern North Carolina. Soil Sci. Dept., Col.
Agr. and Life Sci., North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Hoover, M.T. and Konsler, T. (2004). Soil Facts: Septic systems and their maintenance, Publ.
No. AG -439-13, North Carolina Cooperative Extension, Raleigh, NC.
Hoover, M.T., Lynn, W.E., King, L.D., Nelson, L.A., Harris, S.M., Bristow, S.W., Angoli, P.M.,
Lowery, W. Daeke, K.G. (2007). On -Site Wastewater System (Septic System) Surface
Hydraulic Failure Rates. Wake Co. ASCE JHE, Dept. review draft, Department of
Environment Services, Raleigh, NC.
23

Hoover, M.T., Peterson, G.W., Fritton, D.T. (1981). "Utilization of Mound Systems for Sewage
Disposal in Pennsylvania." Individual On -Site Wastewater Systems: Proc. 7th National
NSF Conference. Edited by McCleland, N.I., Evans, T.L. National Sanitation Foundation,
Ann Arbor, MI.,
King, L.D., Hoover, M.T., Polson, R.L., Everett, R.W. "Surface failure rates of chamber and
traditional aggregate -laden trenches in Oregon." Small Flows Quarterly, Fall 2002, 3(4).
Nat. Small Flows Clearinghouse, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV., 27-36.
LeGrand, H.E., Mundorff, M.J. (1952). "Geology & Ground Water Resources in the Charlotte
Area, North Carolina. " U.S Geological Survey.
Lynn, W.E., Hoover, M.T., King, L.D. Nelson, L.A., Harris, S.M., Bristow, S.W., Angoli, P.M.,
Lowery, W. Daeke, K.G. (2005) Wake County field performance and operation &
Maintenance survey of systems installed 1982-2002. Wake Co. Department of
Environmental Services, Raleigh, NC.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (Mass DEP) (n.d.). How Failing Septic
Systems Can Be Hazardous to Your Health. Retrieved January 28, 2012 from
http://www.studygs.net/citation.htm.
McCachren, C.M. (1977). Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. USDA, Soil
Conservation Service in cooperation with Mecklenburg County Board of Commissioners
and North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station. Washington, D.C.
24

Mecklenburg County Storm Water Services (2009). Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery
Program Plan for Fecal Coliform TMDL. Version 2: November 12, 2009.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) (2000). Laws
And Rules for Sewage Treatment, and Disposal Systems. 15A NCAC 18A. 1900.
NCDENR, Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of
Environmental Health On-site Wastewater Section.
NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), NC Natural Heritage Program (NCHP), (2005).
Technical Support Document for Consideration of Federally -listed Threatened or
Endangered Aquatic Species in Water Quality Management Planning for the Goose
Creek Watershed. Goose Creek TSD 073105revision review draft.
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [USCDC]. (2009). Healthy Housing Reference
Manual, Chapter 10. On -Site Wastewater Treatment. Retrieved January 28, 2012 from
http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/Tublications/books/housing/chalo.htm
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. (2011). Carolina heelsplitter. Ashville Ecological Services
Field Office, Ashville, NC. Retrieved January 28, 2012 from
http://fws.gov/asheville/htmis/listedspecies/Carolina heelsplitter.html
25

Appendix 1. Map and location of on-site wastewater system inspections in the Goose Creek Watershed
. 0
Septic Inspections In The Goose Creek Watershed
o
0 po O
0O
q° o00
o ,
0 0.O
ol
To
o O
of �co8°° °
a
of°
0 0
0 �
00 , 0°° 0 °o o
O O O® 5 8�aA511P4 °o ° ���LLLfffiiS{{{555U6U6U6 oo 0 0
m
°S 8 o
O R° O O
ccyY o°Oo° ° q8 00
/ ob 0
00° °. Opo °O B B
O o80 ��OC� O
vq O B 00 O
°O O OO rBnslN �o O
°Oo0
O 0 O
0°
00 O 1 8Y,Qi
8
O OM
�o O e IN13 �.
0 0 ° o .o
° °°
o �� o
I
og
o �
o
o
0 3,800 7,600
1 inch = 2,642 feet
B _on° 8 o
Oo
o
�Op
o O p
° °o
oe o 0
ooh Wnslrvfa 8 000
15 200 Fee[
Legend
e High Rlsk Septic Ippedi ons
O Septic l nspect,o
+ Fali,g Septic Systems Wth,,400ftofSream
5[ream s
� Irfters[ale
400fi SYream BURer
OParcels Served By Waste Water Trea[m erft PI..
Basins
'all other values
BRSIN_ID
19 sIN1
BASUN
BASIN11
13 sIN1z
BAS IN ,
Bn IN14
BASIN2
BA IN3
BASIN4
BASINS
13 SIN
BASIN]
13 SIN8
BASUN
Streets
OParcels
G.— Creek Watershed
This map was created by Jeremy Michael on December 1, 2011.
This map was created for GIS 510 North Carolina State University.
Data used in this map was obtained from Mecklenburg County GIS
Intranet folder %%meckgismapimageld, and the Mecklenburg County
nternal5hared docume"Itsfolder(xfer)onthel drive. The useof
this map was intended for Mecklenburg County Groundwater and
Wastewater Services Department.

Appendix 2. On-site wastewater system inspection form used in the Goose Creek Watershed
Inspection Date:
Site Parcel Id #:
GWS File #:
Septic System Information:
System Classification: ❑ II
❑a ❑ b
System Description:
Septic System Inspection Form
Inspection Completed By:
Site Address:
Watershed:
El III El IV ❑V F-1 vi
El El El El El
Groundwater & Wastewater Services
Catchment Id:
700 N. Tryon St., Suite 211
Charlotte, NC 28202
Ph: 704-336-5103
(Ex: pump to 25% reduction)
Year Operation Permit Issued:
(If no permit record is available use built date year from POLARIS.)
System Age: Years
❑ Actual
❑ Estimated
Inspection Information:
Comments
Site accessible for inspection:
❑ Yes
❑ No
Owner present:
❑ Yes
❑ No
Drain field probed:
❑ Yes
❑ No
System malfunction observed:
❑ Yes
❑ No
Notice of Violation required:
❑ Yes
❑ No
System located <200 ft. from
❑ Yes
❑ No
surface water body:
System located <50 ft. from
❑ Yes
❑ No
stormwater BMP or diversion:
Trees/vegetation in drain field:
❑ Yes
❑ No
Irrigation on drain field:
❑ Yes
❑ No
Well(s) located on property:
❑ Yes
❑ No
General comments/observations:
# photos taken: Dye Pack Left: ❑ Yes
❑ No Signature:
27

Appendix 3. Information pamphlet used in the Goose Creek Watershed.
About your watershed
The baose Creek watir-sired is made of 9z square miles in
Ltion and Medllanburg wurrf;es
wdndudes perm d hTrttl�. The
watershed 's home m the Card'na
heelspimer mussel which was res
added m the federal endangered
:spades list in 1993.
n order m promR the rater
quality and habitat needed msm hu' an reocaaer
{ard'nahaelspimer populaticn, a setof tnanagemercrulas
were deuekaped and appramd by the N. C. Department of
Ehruirann•nnt& Naeural Hesdrraas [NCI]ENR).
hi order m comply with the rules put forth b7 the Stam, the
Town of Mont Hi and lledlen r[p {maty establdwd a Water
Quality Reoo1eery Plan QWWP) lorfeEEl culfform in deo 6a
Creek Wubrstred- The Trane pack d the MRP is m idwtty and
ramora sournas d feel ookform in the Water had.
Storm Wafer 5Serkems has oondu�.ed field surveys of the
wetershed'nddieg the sampling errs idernfic tion of al
s -o m w .er outfalls, in -stream s prrg and saaenn walks of
the mire w .Bmtlsd. Threw effor3 here nit been suooes_dul
in dermfykg w rtes of fecal chcliforrn. The one rennanenq
potent" source -hat hes ye- to be dhn r uo* onuestip kmd is
septic systems. Septic systems are being targeted beaa4r4e the
vast m** of the fimr a Creek W whershrd does nd saris a
municpel sanitary serer system.
About your septic system
A typml septic system hes four ..in components: a pp.
From the horn., a septic tank_ a drainfAd, and the sai.
Mi—bas in the soil digest or remove most ccntaminerhts
from wastewater before it—tually readies groundwaim
rb�a4rr
sa
sa
Graana.eller
Homearmers are respors laforthe care and maintanenca
-= -he4 s=.-ic <--- -h raa. ra• E ;;E a•a .;.?z
_.... ... .. -: -o .as✓E �o.: 5y5:E --,erars.r
'E'8re:
• _, -9413 p, mpirg of the sept g. from the septic
ar.c.
i L—d.tF. naptic ta,k lid a,d keep it merkEdL
i Kn—wF.t-Fa T nirm wai--arca requirements
are 1,r V., :ype cf -.pt, Er -,—
i '.spo-d t, a tai ng s),tem with r.q.ir.d
-i.r-e: ar_, p3r:ica arlywhen —Fta frig of ALent
ccxurs or r.dor5 are apparent
i Keep records of the system desgn, 1-dicn and
maintenance adNifi s (indhding pumping detms .
lieepiny year :y:tem functioning properly
prevent: ih—p—d of inlection and di:ease and
preteets water re ee ureas.
For questions ccro rrvng septics inns, well.
and ground wabsr issues contact
6rwnrdwatw & Wasterrater Services
704-336-5103
wa I k ag @dnn ee k len bu rgeau n tyro. gore
For qu tsticns ocnoeming the Water Qua* Recu y
Plan d the 5unme Creek watershed oontad
David Kroening
704-33Cr5448
dairidLknoonirq@nneckIenhurgcaunt mc.gov
About your inspection
Prio• -o - a ; = a c up ctiehh the inspector reviewed the
Farr: ssaec rr ars:alaf— of the system and looked at
recent aerial plxabgraphyta idarCytha location of the
system.
The inspadormaf haue'prahad'the arae of the drain
field to determine the an3tion of the tan L and drain lines
and any rapairareas. The inspadur locked for vgns of e
mallu,ct mg syA—
Y—optic 5),stam was inspected on:
ihspecWra name:
Inspector's c—Led number:
Twr impaction showed:
❑ No pral,k—. system furthering —, dly
❑ P -ring sewage on the hand wrf—
❑ Trees growing in the drain field
❑ Irrigation of the drair fell
Please call the above in:pecter directly H you
here q—ti— or con cern. a6vut the inspection
aF your septic system.
A Guide for Homeowners
sit-PhC sy5b--m5 iin
Coo5e Creek
aLer5hed
To prated your ground
and surface watw
msawca
Tips for a healthy system
Akh.ugh aaamErhteral optr system hes m —img pees
and ncrmellj locos[ require rreeUy yr hly meintena-i
a:tentim met be paid to cone g3nerd prndp� of maim.—
Impw-arr. malt—not pr—i— mriude the followN:
Oep prize ureter usage.
• depeileelyteu-Hs endicila:s prump:F{
• Rin dshrra;h.rs 6 rredhig nechinas tnyn
lull hods
• Turn water elf while shaving, bru;Hng teeth,
— hing dishes, etc
• h¢ull 1—fi w faucets end wa[e—ing
=_h s.arheads.
Provide adequate site drainage
• Drect gutm•s and c..nspouts -q from the
sepdctank and cninh.d.
a ao notdrihe oueror park onthe dminfield.
Use proper landscaping.
• Aheehty g•sss ;a.e• s�.ud to main-3ined Quer
the drir'ec ro p•evem sail erosion
• Trees enc sieves should not be plumbed too cloy
m the draidield.
i Na structures, sheds, pooh, patios, or paned
Euff—ss hddd he mnstrucmd averse sapdc t
:r c'31'Ih9 d a --
Use
-Ilse sound waste disposal practice
�.-..... ... .... . .E. Ecco tum
6 C—
• -:E' i - - ::E5
• _ -s•q nae ': • = e, ort
• -i- ��15 • —"E .A. n—,lom wash
For mare kip: on septic :yxtenh: risit
http:flr reandwater.eh armeek. cry.
28

Appendix 4.Goose Creek Watershed on-site wastewater system failure chart
NOV Issued System Age (years) Design Flow Failing System Code
Failure Type
Primary Cause
LTAR
Remedy Code
Compliance Achieved By:
4/30/2009
30
600 GPD
Gravel Bed
SD -Discharge to surface
Excessive Water Usage/ Many kids home schooled,
0.3
Tire Chip Bed
Septic system repaired
5/18/2009
32
360 GPD
Gravel Bed/Washer Line SD -Discharge to surface
Damaged or Destroyed
0.3
Gravel Bed
Washer lime repaired
5/27/2009
32
360 GPD
Gravel Bed
SD -Discharge to surface
Excessive Water Usage/ Had many visitors
N/A
Terra Lift
Maintenance
3/15/2010
10
480 GPD
Gravel Drain Lines
SD -Discharge to surface
Excessive Water Usage/Leak in house
0.3
Tire Chip Bed
Septic system repaired
2/10/2010
37
360 GPD
Gravel Bed
SD -Discharge to surface
Site Problems/Buikling over Drainfield
0.3
Tire Chip Bed/Int. Drain Septic system repaired
4/19/2010
36
360 GPD
Gravel Bed
SD -Discharge to surface
Excessive Water Usage/ 10 people living there
0.3
Tire Chip Bed
Septic system repaired
3/23/2010
38
360 GPD
Gravel Bed
SD -Discharge to surface
Age/ Normal Exhaustion/ Roots
0.3
Tire Chip Bed
Septic system repaired
11/16/2010
38
240 GPD
Gravel Bed
SD -Discharge to surface
Excessive Water Usage/Leak in house
N/A
Fixed Leak
Maintenance
11/29/2010
23
480 GPD
Gravel Trench
SD -Discharge to surface
Excessive Water Usage/Leak in house
N/A
Terra Lift/ fixed leak
Maintenance
12/15/2010
55
360 GPD
Gravel Bed
SD -Discharge to surface
Age/ Normal Exhaustion/ Roots
N/A
Roots/Cleaned Out
Maintenance
4/18/2011
47
360 GPD
Gravel Bed
SD -Discharge to surface
Straight Piped Wash Water
0.3
Tire Chip Bed
Washer lime repaired
2/23/2011
100
360 GPD
Gravel Bed
SD- Discharge to surface
Damaged or Destroyed -Lids on septic tank broken
N/A
Tank lids replaced
Maintenance
29