20150646 Ver 1_401 Application_20150615

INTERNATIONAL
June 29, 2015
(Jennifer- Burdette�
jNC DWR, 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
1512 North Salisbury-Street/
Cchdale- Bldg.,, =9th Floor%
Raleigh, NC 27604
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
5550 Seventy -Seven Center Dr., Ste. 320 ( Charlotte, North Carolina 28217
Office: 704.665.2200 1 Fax: [phone]
Subject: Pre- Construction Notification / 401 -404 Certification
University Pointe Boulevard Extension Project
Mecklenburg County, NC
Dear Ms. Burdette,
JUL 0 1 2.015 iL
WATER-
401 & BU FER WTT JG
Please find enclosed (5) copies of our PCN package for the University Pointe Boulevard
Extension Project. Please note that the permit fee of $570.00 will be sent directly from the City
of Charlotte. As part of this submittal, we have included the following supporting data on the
project:
• PCN Form,
• Agency Correspondence (USFWS, NCWRC, SHPO, OSA, NCNHP, and NC State
Environmental Clearinghouse),
• Map Figures (Vicinity Map, USGS Topographic Map, Soils Map, Jurisdictional Impact
Summary Maps, Project Area Map, Alternative Alignment Areas Map, and Floodzone
Map),
• (2) full size and (3) half size copies of the Site Plans,
Geotechnical Reports of the subsurface soils at each bottomless culvert crossing,
• Agent Authorization Form
The Project is proposing a new connector roadway, which will begin at the intersection of IBM
Drive and the Martin Middle School Driveway in Charlotte, NC, cross over I -85, and connect to
the main thoroughfare being constructed as part of the Crescent Resources' Belgate
Development and will intersect with IKEA Boulevard and University Pointe Boulevard upon
completion. An alternative access road for Charlotte - Mecklenburg Schools has also been
proposed to ease traffic congestion and improve safety during school pick -up and drop -off
times. The access road will begin approximately 600 feet southeast of Neal Road on the
campus of Zebulon Vance High School, cross over Doby Creek, and connect to an existing traffic
circle and auxiliary parking lot located on the campus of James Martin Middle School.
s._
M111- lR1t�ITIkTtl�I
Global Innovation ... Done Right
KA.SE/f�9AM I
SA
LLYPORT

Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
June 29, 2015
Jennifer Burdette
NC DWR, 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
512 North Salisbury Street
Archdale Bldg., - 9th Floor
Raleigh, NC 27604
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
5550 Seventy -Seven Center Dr., Ste. 320 1 Charlotte, North Carolina 28217
Office: 704.665.2200 1 Fax: [phone]
Subject: Pre - Construction Notification / 401 -404 Certification
University Pointe Boulevard Extension Project
Mecklenburg County, NC
Dear Ms. Burdette,
Please find enclosed (5) copies of our PCN package for the University Pointe Boulevard
Extension Project. Please note that the permit fee of $570.00 will be sent directly from the City
of Charlotte. As part of this submittal, we have included the following supporting data on the
project:
• PCN Form,
• Agency Correspondence (USFWS, NCWRC, SHPO, OSA, NCNHP, and NC State
Environmental Clearinghouse),
• Map Figures (Vicinity Map, USGS Topographic Map, Soils Map, Jurisdictional Impact
Summary Maps, Project Area Map, Alternative Alignment Areas Map, and Floodzone
Map),
• (2) full size and (3) half size copies of the Site Plans,
• Geotechnical Reports of the subsurface soils at each bottomless culvert crossing,
• Agent Authorization Form
The Project is proposing a new connector roadway, which will begin at the intersection of IBM
Drive and the Martin Middle School Driveway in Charlotte, NC, cross over I -85, and connect to
the main thoroughfare being constructed as part of the Crescent Resources' Belgate
Development and will intersect with IKEA Boulevard and University Pointe Boulevard upon
completion. An alternative access road for Charlotte- Mecklenburg Schools has also been
proposed to ease traffic congestion and improve safety during school pick -up and drop -off
times. The access road will begin approximately 600 feet southeast of Neal Road on the
campus of Zebulon Vance High School, cross over Doby Creek, and connect to an existing traffic
circle and auxiliary parking lot located on the campus of James Martin Middle School.
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL��
Fw ima «maim USEMW ffSALLYPORT * * * *PMSI

Michael Baker
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
5550 Seventy -Seven Center Dr., Ste. 320 1 Charlotte, North Carolina 28217
Office: 704.665.2200 1 Fax: [phone]
This same information has been submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Field
Office. If you have any questions, please contact me at (704) 665 -2206 or via email at
ksuees(@mbakerintl.com.
Sincerely,
Kristi uggs
Enclosures
G pr
MICHAEL BAKER •
Global Innovation... Done Right
�-.,� pBF ima dPA KASEMAN /QSALLYPORT P M S I

i
t..
ETI
0
`O�ot W AT�c9QG
Office Use Only:
Corps acti IDnno.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2000
Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information 2 0, 5 0 6 4 6
1. Processing
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps: ❑X Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit I
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 14 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? I ❑ Yes ❑X No I
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
❑X 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record For the record only for DWQ For the record only for Corps Permit:
because written approval is not required? 401 Certification:
❑ Yes ❑X No ❑ Yes ❑X No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for
mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank ❑X Yes ❑ No
or in -lieu fee program.
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h ❑ Yes ❑X No
below.
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ❑ Yes ❑X No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: University Pointe Boulevard Extension
2b. County: Mecklenburg...
`�`'0 U � In
2c. Nearest municipality /town: Charlotte �,
2d. Subdivision name: N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no: I N/A JUN 2 9 2015
3. Owner Information
UN R - WATFp taco
3a. Names on Recorded Deed: Charlotte- Mecklenburg Department oFER PERMITT!{VG
3b. Deed Book and Page No. Bk: 047 Pg: 39 (City of Charlotte is currently working on the easement acquisition.)
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if Dan Leaver, Project Manager
applicable):
3d. Street address: 600 E. Fourth Street, 14th Floor
3e. City, state, zip: Charlotte, NC 28202
3f. Telephone no.: 704 - 336 -6388
3g. Fax no.: N/A
3h. Email address: dleaver @charlottenc.gov
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ❑X Agent ❑ Other, specify:
4b. Name: Kristi Suggs
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
4d. Street address:
5550 Seventy -Seven Center Dr., Ste. 320
4e. City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC
4f. Telephone no.:
704 - 665 -2206
4g. Fax no.:
704 - 665 -2201
4h. Email address:
ksuggs @mbakerintl.com
5. Agent/Consultant Information
(if applicable)
5a. Name:
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
5c. Street address:
5d. City, state, zip:
5e. Telephone no.:
5f. Fax no.:
5g. Email address:
Page 2 of 10

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): 1 047 - 391 -08
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
1c. Property size:
2. Surface Waters
Latitude: 35.298114 Longitude: - 80.767066
2a. Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
2c. River basin:
204.59 acres
I
Doby Creek
C
Yadkin
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The current land use of the project area is a mix of institutional, commercial, and forested. The parcels on the west side of Interstate 85 (1 -85) are
primarily institutional and include James Martin Middle School and Zebulon Vance High School. Portions of the school campuses are forested. On they
east side of 1 -85 the land is commercial. Development is currently underway in this area.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.14
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 4,585
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
Please see attached sheet.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Please see attached sheet.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Kristi Suggs & Ian Eckardt
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determination:
0 Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
Comments: JD approval was requested on 1/9/2012.
❑ Preliminary ❑ Final
Agency /Consultant Company: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc
Other:
or State determinations and attach documentation.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for I ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?
6b. If yes, explain.
❑ Yes 0 No
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑ Wetlands ❑X Streams —tributaries ❑ Buffers ❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b. 2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
Type of jurisdiction
Area of
number
Stream name Perennial (PER) or Type of Average
Impact
number
Corps (404,10) or
impact
Permanent (P) or
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
DWQ (401, other)
(acres)
Temporary (T)
-
S2 Choose one
- -
W11 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
W2 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
W3 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
W4 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
W5 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
W6 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
2h. Comments:
Proposed roadway alignments were chosen in order to minimize jurisdictional impacts; therefore, no wetlands will be temporarily or permanently
impacted as part of this project.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream
impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete
this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b.
3c. 3d. 3e. 3f.
3g.
Stream impact Type of impact
Stream name Perennial (PER) or Type of Average
Impact
number
intermittent (INT)? jurisdiction stream
length
Permanent (P) or
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(feet)
feet)
S1 Choose one
-
S2 Choose one
- -
S3 - Choose one
_
S4 - Choose one
-
S5 - Choose one
-
+I
I S6 - Choose one
-
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
3i. Comments:
Please see attached sheet and associated figures for stream impacts.
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list
4a. 4b. 4c.
4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number (if applicable)
Type of impact Waterbody Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
type
Temporary (T)
O1 -
Choose one Choose
O2 -
Choose one Choose I
03 -
Choose one Choose 1
04 -
Choose one Choose
mitigation
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Pond ID number Proposed use or Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
purpose of pond (acres)
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated
P1 Choose one
P2 Choose one
5f. Total:
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list
all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which protected basin? ❑ Neuse ❑ Tar - Pamlico ❑ Catawba
❑ Randleman
❑ Other:
6b. 6c. 6d.
6e. 6f.
6g.
Buffer Impact Reason for impact Stream name
Buffer
Zone 1
Zone 2
number —
mitigation
impact
impact
Permanent (P) or
required?
(square
(square
Temporary (T)
feet)
feet)
B1 -
Yes /No
B2 -
Yes /No
B3 -
Yes /No
B4 -
Yes /No
B5 -
Yes /No
B6 -
Yes /No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
6i. Comments: '
Page 5 of 10

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Please see attached sheet.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Please see attached sheet.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for ® Yes ❑ No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ❑X DWQ ❑X Corps
❑X Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project? ❑Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank: City of Charlotte Umbrella Mitigation Bank Instrument
Type: Stream Quantity: 311
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type: Choose one Quantity:
Type: Choose one Quantity:
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached. ❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: Choose one
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: I acres
4f. Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested: I acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres,
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires I ❑ Yes ❑X No
buffer mitigation?
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
6c. 6d. 6e.
Zone Reason for impact Total impact Multiplier Required mitigation
(square feet) (square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 7 of 10

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
1 2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
❑ Yes ❑X No
❑ Yes ❑ No
85%
❑x Yes ❑ No
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
Due to site constraints, there is not enough space within roadway easement to accommodate a properly sized BMP for post - construction stormwater
quality and volume control. Therefore, the City of Charlotte's Post - Construction Stormwater Ordinance Manager approved the treatment of a
comparable impervious drainage area at James Martin Middle School to offset the UPB stormwater requirements. Design criteria for the stormwater
treatment system is in accordance with City's Stormwater Design Manual and /or other approved Stormwater Best Management Practices Manuals
approved by the State Stormwater Regulatory Program.
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? I City of Charlotte
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
3b. Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs
apply (check all that apply):
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
4a. Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply
(check all that apply):
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
City of Charlotte
❑X Phase II
❑ NSW
❑ USMP
❑ Water Supply Watershed
Q Other: PCO
❑ Yes ❑X No
❑Coastal counties
❑HQW
❑ORW
E] Session Law 2006 -246
❑Other:
❑ Yes ❑X No
❑X Yes ❑ No
❑X Yes ❑ No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the 0 Yes ❑ No
use of public (federal /state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes' to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ❑X Yes ❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) The State EA/FONSI for University Pointe Blvd. Extension was approved on ❑X Yes ❑ No
Comments: 10/21/2014. The approval letter has been included in the permit submittal package.
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, E] Yes 0 No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 213 .0200)?
2b. Is this an after - the -fact permit application? El Yes ❑X No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in I ❑Yes ❑X No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
The project area surrounding the site is located in an existing developed area and is currently used for education purposes and utility infrastructure.
Since the project purpose is to extend an existing road to provide better east -west connectivity within the Charlotte Northeast Corridor (an existing high
density area) and to provide an alternative entry/exit point to James Martin Middle School, the existing designated land use is unlikely to change in the
reasonably foreseeable future. In addition, growth is limited by floodplain regulations, the PCCO, area utility and Duke Energy easements and S.W.I.
M. buffer requirements.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non- discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
This project will not generate any wastewater that will require sewage treatment.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ❑X Yes ❑ No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act Yes ❑ No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted. Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
A review of federally listed species for Mecklenburg County was conducted. Because potential habitat is present within the project area, multiple field
surveys were conducted and no populations were found. Correspondence requests and comments received with the USFWS have been included.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? I ❑ Yes ❑X No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
There are no marine or estuarine habitats located with the Piedmont Physiographic Region of North Carolina. In addition the NC WRC was contacted
and they responded stating that they did not anticipate that the project would pose any significant adverse impacts to aquatic resources.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ❑ Yes ❑X No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
Requested review and comment from the State and Tribal HPOs and the State Archeology Office. Correspondence requests and comments received
from these agencies are included in the permit package.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplain? I ❑X Yes ❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
Please see attached sheet.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
FEMA DFIRM Panel 4576. A copy of the FIRM panel is included in the permit package.
Kristi Suggs ( C, 6/29/2015
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name pplicant j e-e J Date
(Agen s signature is valid only if an authorization
letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 10 of 10

University Pointe Blvd. Extension Project
PCN Additional Information
2 1 P a g e
SECTION C. PROPOSED IMPACTS INVENTORY
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site,
then complete
this question
for all streams sites impacted.
3a. Stream Impact Permanent or
3b. Type of
3c. Stream
3d. Perennial (PER) 3e. Type of
3f. Average
Stream Width
3g. Impact
Length (linear
Number Temporary
Impact
Name
or Intermittent (INT) Jurisdiction
(feet)
feet)
S1 Permanent &
Stabilization
UT1 to Doby
Perennial Corps
7
P —179
Temporary
& Pipe
Creek
T — 35.0
S2 None
_
UT2 to Doby
Creek
Intermittent Corps
3
0
S3 None
_
UT3 to Doby
Intermittent Corps
3
0
Creek
S4 None
_
UT4 to Doby
perennial Corps
7
0
Creek
Permanent &
S5
Stabilization,
Grading, &
UT5 to Doby
Intermittent Corps
5
P — 132.0
Temporary
Pipe
Creek
T — 20.0
S6 Temporary
Stabilization
& Culvert
Doby Creek
Perennial Corps
20
T — 392.3
3h. Total Stream and tributary
impacts
P — 311
T — 447.3
3e. Comments
See Jurisdictional Overview Map, Jurisdictional Inset A Map, and Jurisdictional
Inset B Map for a depiction of stream impact areas.

University Pointe Blvd. Extension Project
PCN Additional Information
1IPage
SECTION B. Proiect Information and Prior Proiect History
3d. Explain the purpose of the project.
The purpose of the proposed project is to provide additional east -west connectivity in the Charlotte
Northeast Corridor, between IBM Drive and North Tryon St. and provide an alternative entry /exit point to
James Martin Middle School. This will to create multi -modal travel alternatives, specifically for
pedestrians and bicyclists, will aid in reducing emergency response times, and will improve access to the
proposed Blue Line Extension (BLE).
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
This project, identified as University Pointe Boulevard (UPB), formerly Shopping Center Drive, by the City
of Charlotte (City), proposes to extend UPB over 1 -85 from the IKEA Boulevard (approximately 0.4 miles
west of US 29 to IBM Drive), in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, a length of approximately 0.5 miles. This
project includes a grade separated crossing of 1 -85. Because the extension of UPB to IBM Drive will
overlay the existing access road to James Martin Middle School an alternative access road is proposed to
serve the Middle School. The access road will begin approximately 600 feet southeast of Neal Road on
the campus of Zebulon Vance High School, cross over Doby Creek, connect to the James Martin Middle
School driveway between 'the school and the athletic fields and tie into the existing traffic circle on the
school campus. See the Project Area Map for a depiction of the proposed alignment for both roadways.
Typical grading equipment will be used for the construction of the road (i.e. graders, curb machines,
rollers, back hoes, pavers, dump truck, crane for the placement of the culvert, pick -up trucks). The culvert
and wing walls are precast.

University Pointe Blvd. Extension Project
PCN Additional Information
3 1 P a g e
D. Impact Justification and Mitiqation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures take to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing
the project.
The following measures were used to avoid and /or minimize the proposed impacts during the project's
design:
• Implemented bottomless culverts at both crossings on Doby Creek.
• Aligned all outfalls to discharge in the floodplain to increase infiltration, reduce discharge
quantities and velocities, and improve water quality.
• Removed the grass strip between the road and the sidewalk at the creek crossing of UT1 to
reduce the length of the pipe.
• The pipe on UT1 will be buried to allow for aquatic passage.
• Did not change the outfall on UT1A so that this project would not further impact the channel.
• Reduced the lengths of the rip rap outfalls on UT1 and UT5.
• Removed drainage discharges from UPB on south side of Doby creek where slopes were steep
and floodplain area was limited.
• Designed the road widening and outfalls along UPB so that there would be no impacts to the UT4
or the wetland.
• Used an alternative alignment for the SAR to eliminate impacts to wetlands along Doby Creek
behind James Martin Middle and the existing riparian buffer. See Alternative Alignment Areas
Map for a depiction.
1b. Specifically describe measures take to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through
construction techniques.
The following construction measures will be implemented to minimize and /or avoid proposed impacts:
• A combination of clean water diversions, temporary diversions, and sediment basins will be used
throughout the project boundaries and during pipe and culvert installations.
• Installation of each bottomless culvert will be conducted so that there will only be minimal and
temporary impacts to Doby Creek. Culvert footings will be located outside the channel at a level below
the stream bed. See cross sections depicted in the plan set.
• Construction practices will follow guidelines from the Charlotte Land Development Standards Manual
and the NC Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual. NC Erosion and Sediment
controls will be implemented and will follow requirements outlined in the NCDENR NPDES
NCGO10000 permit.
• Stream bank grading will be minimal and only what is needed to stabilize the stream banks after
bottom culverts and stormwater structures are installed.
• High hazard silt fence will be installed along work areas adjacent to S.W.I.M buffers and wetlands to
provide protection from sedimentation, but to also serve as a visual marker to their location.
• No onsite wetlands will be disturbed.
F. Supplementary Information
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
Data for potential floodplain effects were downloaded from the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping
website on March 27, 2011. The effective dates of the downloaded Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(DFIRM) for Mecklenburg County were March 2, 2009. The Doby Creek floodplain has been studied by

University Pointe Blvd. Extension Project
PCN Additional Information
4 1 P a g e
Detailed Methods, and the Effective HEC -RAS hydraulic model was obtained from the Mecklenburg
County Flood Mitigation Program. Preliminary hydraulic analysis was conducted for each crossing and
resulted in an increase in the 100 -year Base Flood Elevation (BFE) upstream of the bridge on UPB of
about 0.6 feet and upstream of the culvert on the SAR by about 2 feet.
Since the proposed project will result in modifications to the Floodway, as well as increases to the BFE, a
Conditional Letter of Map Revision ( CLOMR) will need to be obtained from the Mecklenburg County
Floodplain Mitigation Program prior to construction. A single CLOMR application will need to be prepared
to cover both crossings. The City is coordinating with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), the
delegated state agency for administering FEMA's . National Flood Insurance Program, to develop the
approval of a CLOMR and subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).

•�'g� � b� ��16 � �� � ��� ��� � � � � �� � f� � �} � � � �� � z � � � �; !{fit � .E
M
Is
�
i !� #€ • (IE =fit s 2` ��'Ei � S �l11 z 1 _ 11 o j c v
jig] z 9t 111 m Q((i = �v c
�! igi I r s r R Z a.
all I
LU
E �Qj LL N.
r ,
r mr-rioN.
ca o
:g
e
a �
�p f
� \ r r • �i I � -� ��
021 - I I 10,
Zo
XW
G ,
4
tt Llr� O�
a i.Om9" t
eaaf$ [�j�iiif(b
e ; °$
##a II
g � s-
i lift�
a
o�
1�
y6
i
f
t
b a E e
Ilia
b
E
Y
PO
gil
iii jlnP� E�5€
l E 21111111
E�
S ,
MR
c m
0
a�
�a
�g
o a�
E
00
�r
aW
o
=E
U�
0
z4)
.o
a�
O
O
Z
�9!
X �
wV
m Y
�z
�m
t
>U
W,
i

CherMtte- Mecklenburg
STORM
WATER
ffflserwcft���
June 29, 2015
Daniel Leaver
City of Charlotte
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
Subject Project: University Pointe Boulvard Roadway Extension
HUC #: 03040105 (Rocky)
600 E. Fourth Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
Fax [phone]
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the City of Charlotte Umbrella Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank
( "Umbrella Bank ") is willing to accept payment for stream impacts associated with the subject project. Please note that the
decision by the Umbrella Bank to accept the mitigation requirements of this project does not assure that this payment will be
approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the North Carolina Division of Water Quality 401/Wetlands Unit. It is the
responsibility of the applicant to contact these agencies to determine if payment to the Umbrella Bank for impacts associated
with this project is appropriate.
This acceptance is valid for six (6) months from the date of this letter. The following documents must be submitted to the
Umbrella Bank within this time frame for this acceptance to remain valid:
1. 404 Permit Verification
2. 401 Water Quality Certification
3. Executed Departmental Transfer Invoice (DTI) between Engineering Services and Storm Water Services
detailing the use of and payment for the credits described in the table below.
Based on the information supplied by your office, the stream and wetland credits that are necessary to satisfy the
compensatory mitigation requirements for this project are detailed in the table below. The total mitigation credits available
for this project are also indicated in this table.
Stream Wetlands
(linear feet) (acres)
Credits Requested for This Project 311 0.0
Credits Available for This Project 311 0.0
The stream and wetland mitigation will be provided as specified in the Section 404 Permit or corresponding 401 Water
Quality Certification for impacts associated with the subject project in Hydrologic Unit 03040105 of the Rocky River Basin.
The mitigation will be performed in accordance with the Agreement to Establish the City of Charlotte Umbrella Stream and
Wetland Mitigation Bank in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, dated June, 16, 2004.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (704) 336 -4495 or ihinson(a,charlottenc.aov.
Sincerely,
Charlotte Storm Water Services
Isaac J. Hinson
Water Quality Program Specialist
cc: File
To report pollution or drainage problems, call 311
http: / /stormNvater.charm cc k.org

-111C' TED APR 11O
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor Office of Archives and History
Linda A. Carlisle, Secretary Division of Historical Resources
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary David Brook, Director
April 6, 2010
Christine Miller
Baker Engineering
1447 South Tryon Street
Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 28203
Re: Shopping Center Drive Alignment Project, Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, ER 10 -0589
Dear Ms. Miller:
Thank you for your letter of March 23, 2010, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill- Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919- 807 -6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above - referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Peter Sandbeck
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -4617 Telephone /Fax: [phone] -6599

T'O _
�4RCH 3" gas
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field'Offce
160 Zillicoa.5treet
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
April 20, 2010
Ms. Christine Miller
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
1447 South Tryon Street, Suite 200
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
Dear Ms. Miller:
Subject: Proposed Shopping Center Drive Alignment Project, Charlotte, Mecklenburg County,
North Carolina
In your letter of March 23, 2010, you requested our comments about the subject project. The
following comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.§ 4321 et seq.) (NEPA); the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661- 667e); and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 -1543) (Act).
According to your letter, the Shopping Center Drive Alignment Project involves the design and
construction of a new connector roadway that will begin at the intersection of IBM Drive and the
Martin Middle School Driveway, cross over 1 -85, and end about 300 feet west of the future
intersection of Shopping Center Drive and IKEA Boulevard. This process will involve
conducting preliminary site surveys, alternatives analysis, design, natural resource permitting,
and construction.
General Comments. We have several concerns with the proposed project. Our principle
concern with this project is the potential impacts to Doby Creek associated with the proposed
road crossing and the potential for secondary development to result in additional impacts to the
creek.
Federal Endangered and Threatened Species. Your letter correctly points out that there are
five federally protected species in Mecklenburg County: Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus
schweinitzii), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) (currently protected through the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act), Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), Michaux's sumac
(Rhus michauxii), and the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata). Biologists with your

company conducted a field survey for Schweinitz's sunflower on September 9, 2009. No
individuals of the sunflower were observed throughout or adjacent to the project area. Though
no individuals were found within the project area, because suitable habitat is present, you have
concluded that the subject project "may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect" Schweinitz's
sunflower. Suitable habitat does not exist on the site for the bald eagle and the project will have
"no effect" on this species. Biologists with you company will be conducting field surveys for
Smooth coneflower and Michaux's sumac during the blooming season this summer (both species
bloom from June to mid - July). During this field assessment, biologists will also examine the
bank condition and substrate of Doby Creek, which bisects the project area, to determine if
suitable habitat exists for the Carolina heelsplitter.
We concur with your determination for Schweinitz's sunflower and agree the project will not
affect the bald eagle. We will await this summer's status surveys /site assessments for the other
three species before determining whether the requirements under section 7 of the Act are
fulfilled.
Stream Impacts. One of the most important and effective measures that can be taken to protect
stream health is the preservation of riparian buffers. Wide, contiguous riparian buffers have
greater and more flexible potential than other options to maintain biological integrity' and can
ameliorate many ecological issues related to land use and environmental quality.2 Riparian
buffers accomplish the following:
1. catch and filter runoff, thereby preventing nonpoint- source pollutants from
reaching streams;
2. enhance the in- stream processing of both point- and nonpoint- source
pollutants;
3. act as "sponges" by absorbing runoff (which reduces the severity of floods)
and by allowing runoff to infiltrate and recharge groundwater levels (which
maintains stream flows during dry periods);
4. catch and help prevent excess woody debris from entering the stream and
creating logjams;
5. stabilize stream banks and maintain natural channel morphology;
6. provide coarse woody debris for habitat structure and most of the dissolved
organic carbon and other nutrients necessary for the aquatic food web; and
7. maintain air and water temperatures around the stream.
For most projects, we recommend the maintenance or establishment of minimum 100 -foot native
forested buffers along each side of perennial streams and 50 -foot native forested buffers along
each side of intermittent streams and wetlands. 3,4 We additionally encourage the
IR. Horner, C. May, E. Livingston, and J. Maxted. 1999. Impervious Cover, Aquatic Community Health, and
Storm Water BMPs: Is There a Relationship? In: Proceedings of the Sixth Biennial Storm Water Research and
Watershed Management Conference. Southwest Florida Water Management District, Tampa, FL.
2R.J. Naiman, H. DeCamps, and M. Pollock. 1993. The role of riparian corridors in maintaining regional
biodiversity. Ecol. Appl. 3:209 -212.
3For projects potentially affecting waterways that contain federally listed species, the above - recommended buffer
2

implementation of buffers on ephemeral streams due to the important functions they provide as
headwater streams. 5' 6 Buffers should be measured horizontally from the edge of the stream
bank, which may result in wider buffers at higher gradients.
Stream Crossings. We strongly recommend the use of bridges for all stream crossings. We
recommend a bridge that spans the entire floodplain because it is important for streams to have
access /connectivity to the floodplain. Bridges that span the stream and floodplain are the best
option because they minimize impacts to aquatic resources, allow for the movement of aquatic
organisms, and eliminate the need to place fill in streams and floodplains. Bridges should be
designed and constructed so that no piers or bents are placed in the stream, and approaches and
abutments should not constrict the stream channel. Bridge should also be 'designed to allow for
safe terrestrial wildlife passage. To provide for terrestrial wildlife passage, the new bridge
designs should span beyond the waterways so that unsubmerged land is also bridged. If bank
stabilization is necessary, we recommend that the use of riprap be minimized and that a
riprap -free buffer zone be maintained under the bridge to allow for wildlife movement. Longer
bridge spans also cost far less than a separate wildlife crossing under an existing roadway. In
addition, floodplain culverts must be installed if fill is placed in the floodplain for bridge
construction.
If a bridge is not possible and culverts are the only option, we suggest using bottomless culverts.
Bottomless culverts do not need to be buried, thereby preserving the natural creek substrate and
not disturbing the streambed. Culverts should be sufficiently sized to mimic natural stream
functions and habitats located at the crossing site; allow for water depth, volume (flow), and
velocity levels that will permit aquatic organism passage; and accommodate the movement of
debris and bed material during bank -full events. Widening the stream channel must be avoided.
Consideration should be given to minimum water depth during low- flow /dry periods when
designing culvert placement. Sufficient water depth should be maintained during low flows to
accommodate both the upstream and downstream movement of aquatic species. Water depth
inside the culvert must be adequate for fish to be completely immersed and not scraping the
bottom of the stream. The culvert should be designed and installed at the same slope as the
stream grade to maintain an acceptable water velocity for fish passage, and the stream substrate
characteristics should be retained within the culvert. Where feasible, we recommend the use of
multiple barrels (other than the base -flow barrel), placed on or near stream bank -full or
floodplain bench elevation, in order to accommodate floodwaters within the stream corridor.
widths should be doubled (100 feet for intermittent streams and 200 feet for perennial streams).
4J.S. Stewart, D.M. Downes, L. Wang, J.A. Wierl, and R. Bannerman. 2000. Influences of riparian corridors on
aquatic biota in agricultural watersheds. Pages 209 -214 in P.J. Wigington, Jr., and R.L. Beschta, eds. Proceedings
of the American Water Resources Association International Conference on riparian ecology and management in
multi -land use watersheds, Portland, OR.
5R.B. Alexander, R.A. Smith, and G.E. Schwarz. 2000. Effect of Stream Channel Size on the Delivery of Nitrogen
to the Gulf of Mexico. Nature 403:758 -761.
6B.J. Peterson, W.M. Wolheim, P.J. Mulholland, J.R. Webster, J.L. Meyer, J.L. Tank, E. Marti, W.B. Bowden,
H.M. Valett, A.E. Hershey, W.H. McDowell, W.K. Dodds, S.K. Hamilton, S. Gregory, and D.D. Morrall. 2001.
Control of Nitrogen Export from Watersheds by Headwater Streams. Science 292:86 -90.
7K.L. Knutson and V.L. Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats: riparian.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 181 pp.
3

These should be reconnected to floodplain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished
by using sills on the upstream end to restrict or divert flow to the base -flow barrel(s). If the
culvert is longer than 40 linear feet, alternating or notched baffles should be installed in a manner
that mimics the existing stream pattern. This should enhance the passage of aquatic life by:
(1) depositing sediment in the barrel, (2) maintaining channel depth and flow regimes, and
(3) providing resting places for fish and other aquatic organisms.
Measures to control sediment and erosion should be installed before any ground - disturbing
activities occur. Grading and backfilling should be minimized, and existing vegetation should be
retained (if possible) to maintain shoreline cover for fish and wildlife. Disturbed areas should be
revegetated with native grass and tree species as soon as the project is completed.
The proper planning, design, and installation of stream crossings provide year -round aquatic
organism passage and preserve healthy streams. We recommend the following Web site for
additional information regarding stream crossing activities:
http://www.stream.fs.feduslflshxinglpointers.htmI
Equipment in Streams. Equipment should be kept out of streams by operating from the banks
in a fashion that minimizes disturbance to woody vegetation. It should be inspected daily and
should be maintained in order to prevent the contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels,
lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials. All fuels, lubricants, and other toxic
materials should be stored outside the riparian management area of the stream, in a location
where the material can be contained. Equipment should be checked for leaks of hydraulic fluids,
cooling system liquids, and fuel and should be cleaned before fording any stream.
Erosion and Sedimentation Control. Construction activities, particularly near streams, rivers,
and lakes, have the potential to cause water pollution and stream degradation if measures to
control erosion and sediment are not properly installed and maintained. To effectively reduce
erosion and sedimentation impacts, Best Management Practices should be designed, installed,
and maintained during land - disturbing activities. A complete design manual, which provides
extensive details and procedures for developing site - specific plans to control erosion and
sediment and is consistent with the requirements of the North Carolina Sedimentation and
Pollution Control Act and Administrative Rules, is available at
http://www.dlr.enr.state.nc.us/pages/publications.html.
Thank you for allowing us to comment on this project. Please contact Mr. Allen Ratzlaff of our
staff at 828/258 -3939, Ext. 229, if you have any questions. In any future correspondence
concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4 -2 -10 -126.
cc:
Mr. Ron Linville, Western Piedmont Region Reviewer, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 3855 Idlewild Road, Kemersville, NC 27284 -9180
0

TO_
qCH 5 - -'k
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Ziltiicoa,Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
May 21, 2012
Ms. Kristi Suggs
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
5550 Seventy-Seven Center Drive, Ste. 320
Charlotte, North Carolina 28217
Dear Ms. Suggs:
Subject: Proposed University Pointe Boulevard Extension Project, Charlotte, Mecklenburg County,
North Carolina
In your letter of May 9, 2012 (received May 16, 2012), you requested our comments about the
subject project. The following comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.§ 4321 et seq.) (NEPA); the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661- 667e); and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 -1543) (Act).
In March of 2010, Baker Engineering (Baker) requested our review and comments regarding possible
impacts from the proposed Shopping Center Drive Alignment Project. We provided those comments
on April 20, 2010, which include "no effect' determinations for federally listed species in
Mecklenburg County and our concerns about impacts to Doby Creek. Since that time, the project has
added an additional alignment and Baker is requesting additional review and comments on the
proposed project — now called the University Pointe Boulevard Extension Project.
The University Pointe Boulevard Extension Project involves the design and construction of a new
connector roadway, which will begin at the intersection of IBM Drive and the James Martin Middle
School Driveway, cross over 1 -85, and end at a future intersection with IKEA Boulevard and
University Pointe Boulevard. In addition, an alternative access road for Charlotte Mecklenburg
Schools has been proposed. The access road will begin about 600 feet southeast of Neal Road on the
campus of Zebulon Vance High School, cross over Doby Creek, and end at the existing traffic circle
on the campus of James Martin Middle School. This project will involve conducting preliminary site
surveys, alternatives analysis, design, natural resource permitting, and construction.
Stream Buffers. One of the most important and effective measures that can be taken to protect
stream health is the preservation of riparian buffers. Wide, contiguous riparian buffers have greater

and more flexible potential than other options to maintain biological integrity' and can ameliorate
many ecological issues related to land use and environmental quality.z Riparian buffers accomplish
the following:
1. catch and filter runoff, thereby preventing nonpoint- source pollutants from
reaching streams;
2. enhance the in- stream processing of both point- and nonpoint- source pollutants;
3. act as "sponges" by absorbing runoff (which reduces the severity of floods) and
by allowing runoff to infiltrate and recharge groundwater levels (which maintains
stream flows during dry periods);
4. catch and help prevent excess woody debris from entering the stream and creating
logjams;
5. stabilize stream banks and maintain natural channel morphology;
6. provide coarse woody debris for habitat structure and most of the dissolved
organic carbon and other nutrients necessary for the aquatic food web; and
7. maintain air and water temperatures around the stream.
For most projects, we recommend the maintenance or establishment of minimum 100 -foot native
forested buffers along each side of perennial streams and 50 -foot native forested buffers along each
side of intermittent streams and wetlands.3'4 We additionally encourage the implementation of
buffers on ephemeral streams due to the important functions they provide as headwater streams.s, 6
Buffers should be measured horizontally from the edge of the stream bank,' which may result in
wider buffers at higher gradients.
Stream Crossings. Similar to our concerns with the original alignment, the addition of a second
crossing of Doby Creek heightens our concerns about aquatic impacts. We strongly recommend the
use of bridges for all stream crossings. We recommend a bridge that spans the entire floodplain
because it is important for streams to have access /connectivity to the floodplain. Bridges that span
the stream and floodplain are the best option because they minimize impacts to aquatic resources,
allow for the movement of aquatic organisms, and eliminate the need to place fill in streams and
'R. Horner, C. May, E. Livingston, and J. Maxted. 1999. Impervious Cover, Aquatic Community Health, and
Storm Water BMPs: Is There a Relationship? In: Proceedings of the Sixth Biennial Storm Water Research and
Watershed Management Conference. Southwest Florida Water Management District, Tampa, FL.
2R.J. Naiman, H. Decamps, and M. Pollock. 1993. The role of riparian corridors in maintaining regional
biodiversity. Ecol. Appl. 3:209 -212.
3For projects potentially affecting waterways that contain federally listed species, the above - recommended buffer
widths should be doubled (100 feet for intermittent streams and 200 feet for perennial streams).
4J.S. Stewart, D.M. Downes, L. Wang, J.A. Wierl, and R. Bannerman. 2000. Influences of riparian corridors on
aquatic biota in agricultural watersheds. Pages 209 -214 in P.J. Wigington, Jr., and R.L. Beschta, eds. Proceedings
of the American Water Resources Association International Conference on riparian ecology and management in
multi -land use watersheds, Portland, OR.
5R.B. Alexander, R.A. Smith, and G.E. Schwarz. 2000. Effect of Stream Channel Size on the Delivery of Nitrogen
to the Gulf of Mexico. Nature 403:758 -761.
6B.J. Peterson, W.M. Wolheim, P.J. Mulholland, J.R. Webster, J.L. Meyer, J.L. Tank, E. Marti, W.B. Bowden,
H.M. Valett, A.E. Hershey, W.H. McDowell, W.K. Dodds, S.K. Hamilton, S. Gregory, and D.D. Morrall. 2001.
Control of Nitrogen Export from Watersheds by Headwater Streams. Science 292:86 -90.
7K.L. Knutson and V.L. Nae£ 1997. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats: riparian.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 181 pp.
2

floodplains. Bridges should be designed and constructed so that no piers or bents are placed in the
stream, and approaches and abutments should not constrict the stream channel. Bridge should also
be designed to allow for safe terrestrial wildlife passage. To provide for terrestrial wildlife passage,
the new bridge designs should span beyond the waterways so that unsubmerged land is also bridged.
If bank stabilization is necessary, we recommend that the use of riprap be minimized and that a
riprap -free buffer zone be maintained under the bridge to allow for wildlife movement. Longer
bridge spans also cost far less than a separate wildlife crossing under an existing roadway. In
addition, floodplain culverts must be installed if fill is placed in the floodplain for bridge
construction.
If a bridge is not possible and culverts are the only option, we suggest using bottomless culverts.
Bottomless culverts do not need to be buried, thereby preserving the natural creek substrate and not
disturbing the streambed. Culverts should be sufficiently sized to mimic natural stream functions and
habitats located at the crossing site; allow for water depth, volume (flow), and velocity levels that
will permit aquatic organism passage; and accommodate the movement of debris and bed material
during bank -full events. Widening the stream channel must be avoided. Consideration should be
given to minimum water depth during low- flow /dry periods when designing culvert placement.
Sufficient water depth should be maintained during low flows to accommodate both the upstream
and downstream movement of aquatic species. Water depth inside the culvert must be adequate for
fish to be completely immersed and not scraping the bottom of the stream. The culvert should be
designed and installed at the same slope as the stream grade to maintain an acceptable water velocity
for fish passage, and the stream substrate characteristics should be retained within the culvert. Where
feasible, we recommend the use of multiple barrels (other than the base -flow barrel), placed on or
near stream bank -full or floodplain bench elevation, in order to accommodate floodwaters within the
stream corridor. These should be reconnected to floodplain benches as appropriate. This may be
accomplished by using sills on the upstream end to restrict or divert flow to the base -flow barrel(s).
If the culvert is longer than 40 linear feet, alternating or notched baffles should be installed in a
manner that mimics the existing stream pattern. This should enhance the passage of aquatic life by:
(1) depositing sediment in the barrel, (2) maintaining channel depth and now regimes, and
(3) providing resting places for fish and other aquatic organisms.
Measures to control sediment and erosion should be installed before any ground - disturbing activities
occur. Grading and backfilling should be minimized, and existing vegetation should be retained (if
possible) to maintain shoreline cover for fish and wildlife. Disturbed areas should be revegetated
with native grass and tree species as soon as the project is completed.
The proper planning, design, and installation of stream crossings provide year -round aquatic
organism passage and preserve healthy streams. We recommend the following Web site for
additional information regarding stream crossing activities:
http: / /www.stream fs fed.us /fishxing /pointers.html
Equipment in Streams. Equipment should be kept out of streams by operating from the banks in a
fashion that minimizes disturbance to woody vegetation. It should be inspected daily and should be
maintained in order to prevent the contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials. All fuels, lubricants, and other toxic materials should be
stored outside the riparian management area of the stream, in a location where the material can be
3

contained. Equipment should be checked for leaks of hydraulic fluids, cooling system liquids, and
fuel and should be cleaned before fording any stream.
Erosion and Sedimentation Control. Construction activities, particularly near streams, rivers, and
lakes, have the potential to cause water pollution and stream degradation if measures to control
erosion and sediment are not properly installed and maintained. To effectively reduce erosion and
sedimentation impacts, Best Management Practices should be designed, installed, and maintained
during land - disturbing activities. A complete design manual, which provides extensive details and
procedures for developing site - specific plans to control erosion and sediment and is consistent with
the requirements of the North Carolina Sedimentation and Pollution Control Act and Administrative
Rules, is available at httr): / /www.dlr.enr. state .nc.us /panes /nublications.htm].
Federal Endangered and Threatened Species. Your letter correctly points out that there are five
federally protected species in Mecklenburg County: Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus
schweinitzii), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) (currently protected through the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act), Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), Michaux's sumac (Rhus
michauxii), and the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata). Biologists with your company
conducted a field survey for Smooth coneflower and Michaux's sumac on July 6 -7, 2010. A survey
for Schweinitz's sunflower was conducted on October 28, 2010. No individuals of any of the three
species were observed throughout or adjacent to the project area and Baker has made a "no effect"
determination for all three species. Suitable habitat for the bald eagle and Carolina heelsplitter is not
present in the project area and similar determinations were made for these species.
Based on the information provided in your letter and a review of our records, we concur with your
assessment that the project, as proposed, will not affect any species federally listed as endangered or
threatened. Therefore, the requirements under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act are
fulfilled. However, obligations under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act must be reconsidered
if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or
critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a
manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is
determined that may be affected by the identified action.
Thank you for allowing us to comment on this project. Please contact Mr. Allen Ratzlaff of our staff
at 828/258 -3939, Ext. 229, if you have any questions. In any future correspondence concerning this
project, please reference our Log Number 4 -2 -10 -126.
cc:
Ms. Shari L. Bryant, Eastern Piedmont Region Permit Reviewer, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, P.O. Box 129, Sedalia, NC 27342 -0129
Ll

North Carolina Department of Cultural resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor
Linda A. Carlisle, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
March 22, 2011
Kristi Suggs
Baker Engineering
1447 South Tryon Street
Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 28203
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
Re: Shopping Center Drive Alignment Project, Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, ER 10 -0589
Dear Ms. Suggs:
Thank you for your letter of March 10, 2011, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800:
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill- Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919- 807 -6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above - referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
6="Claudia Brown
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -4617 Telephone /Fax: (919) 807 - 6570/807 -6599

T ;�
48ENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs
Beverly Eaves Perdue Linda Pearsall Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
May 29, 2012
Kristi Suggs
Baker
5550 Seventy -Seven Center Drive
Suite 320
Charlotte, NC 28217
Subject: University . Ponte Boulevard Extension Project
Dear Ms. Suggs:
The Natural Heritage Program still has no-record of rare species, significant natural communities; significant natural t
heritage areas, or conservation /managed areas in the expanded project area, and none-are known with-one mile of the
project area.
Sincerely, 0
YI Oct&
Michael P. Schafale
Natural Heritage Program
.i�11: •;trot rf? {. +�;Lt;al" I: � lot: •� .r', 1.' " ".. .. ' i... .. rr �.. �,:i�l; iL'. tl!.�ill.r �•r: .�i!)I ! X11! r.
�i .1. .ti• ' 'lt I i
Mailing address: 1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1601 One
Location: 217 W. Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27604 NorthCarohna
Phone: 919 - 707 -8600 Webpage: www.oneNCNaturally.org ��ltlllY�C�j/
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer Natural Resources Planning and Coo�se//rvation

From: Mintz, John <john.mintz @ncdcr.gov>
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 3:02 PM
To: Caldwell, Heath A
Subject: RE: 6/7/12 phone conversation follow -up
Not a problem, take care and let me know if I can ever be of assistance.
John J. Mintz
Assistant State Archaeologist
E -Mail to and from me, in connection with the transaction of public business, is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law
and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Caldwell, Heath_A rmai Ito: Heath. CaldwelI(a)mbakercorD.com�
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 2:11 PM
To: Mintz, John
Cc: Suggs, Kristi
Subject: 6/7/12 phone conversation follow -up
Mr. Mintz,
Per our telephone conversation (6/7/12), 1 am attaching a map of the proposed project limits and the identified grave site as
requested. The project involves the design and construction of a new connector roadway, which will begin at the intersection
of IBM Drive and the Martin Middle School Driveway in Charlotte, NC, cross over 1 -85, and end at a future intersection with
IKEA Boulevard and University Pointe Boulevard. In addition, an alternative access road for Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools
has been proposed. The access road will begin approximately 600 feet southeast of Neal Road on the campus of Zebulon
Vance High School, cross over Doby Creek, and end just east of the existing traffic circle on the campus of James Martin
Middle School.
As mentioned, the State Historic Preservation Office was contacted in March 2011 and March 2012 with regards to the
Shopping Center Drive Alignment Project. On April 12, 2010, Baker received comments from your office stating that no known
historic resources would be affected by the proposed project (ER -10- 0589). Since that time the project has added the school
access road as part of the alignment and a subsequent review and comment letter was sent by baker in March 2011. On
March 22, 2011, Baker received comments from your office again stating that no known historic resources would be affected
by the proposed project.
On June 6, 2012, Baker personnel identified the location of a potential, historical grave site adjacent to the project limits near
the proposed school access road. Locations of the individual graves were identified by stone markers that were set in- ground
and spaced in rows. Baker personnel delineated the extent of the grave site by approximating a 10 -ft buffer outside of the
most distant grave makers. The attached figure shows the location of the delineated grave site with respect to the proposed
project limits. Distance of the delineated grave site to the proposed project limits is approximately 16 feet. Grading for the
proposed roadway is approximately 45 -ft inside the proposed project limits. Approximate total distance from the delineated
grave site to any grading or ground disturbing activities will be a minimum of 60 -ft.
The purpose of the 6/7/2012 telephone conversation was to identify any additional requirements necessary with regards the
referenced project and the identified grave site. In consultation it was determined that if any indications of grave site
structures or remains are anticipated to be or have been unearthed, all construction activities should stop and the North
Carolina Office of State Archaeology should be contacted. If any additional requirements'are necessary for this or additional
historical resources associated with the project area, please contact me.

Thanks again for your time-
Heath Caldwell
Environmental Specialist
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
555o Seventy-Seven Center Drive
Suite 320
Charlotte, NC 28217
D (704)665 -2213
C [phone]
aker

I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
May 20, 2015
Allen Ratzlaff
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
5550 Seventy -Seven Center Dr., Ste. 320 1 Charlotte, North Carolina 28217
Office: 704.665.2200 1 Fax: [phone]
Subject: Request Review of Biological Concurrence for Northern Long Eared Bat (NLEB)
University Pointe Boulevard Extension Project (Log Number 4 -2 -10 -126)
(Formerly known as the Shopping Center Drive Alignment Project)
Charlotte, NC
Dear Mr. Ratzlaff,
On May 21, 2012, Michael Baker International (Baker) received concurrence from the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) that based on the information available at the time of
review, the proposed extension of University Pointe Boulevard (UPB) and the creation of a new
School Access Road (SAR) for James Martin Middle School (USFWS Log Number 4 -2 -10 -126)
would not affect any federally listed threatened and endangered species for Mecklenburg
County, NC; therefore, fulfilling the project's obligation to meet the requirements of Section 7(c)
of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Since that time, the USFWS listed the Myotis
septentridonalis (Northern Long Eared Bat (NLEB)) as a threatened species in Mecklenburg
County, NC on May 4, 2015. Due to this recent listing, Baker is requesting that the USFWS
review our findings and provide additional information in reference to any potential impacts
that the proposed project may have on the NLEB.
Below, Baker has included a brief description of the characteristics and habitat requirements
for the NLEB along with a biological conclusion regarding the potential project impact.
Mvotis sententrionalis (Northern Long Eared Batl
The Northern Long Eared Bat is found across much of the eastern and north central United
States (US) and throughout much of the Canadian providences. During the winter the NLEB
hibernates in caves, abandoned mines or similar types of structures, whereas in the summer
they roost under the bark or in cavities and crevices of trees and snags. The NLEB was listed as
threatened due to its potential for developing a fatal fungal disease known as white -nose
syndrome (WNS), which is rapidly spreading through the South and Midwestern US.
Though the primary threat to the NLEB is the contraction of WNS, certain activities are also
considered a threat to the species because of their decline in population and vulnerable state.
As part of the final 4(d) rule to list the NLEB as threatened, activities defined by this ruling
prohibit the purposeful take and regulate the incidental take, not otherwise exempt, of the
species within areas of the country affected by WNS, including buffer zones.
A
Global Innovation... Done Right
1w Ima _Lm KASEMAM /ffSALLYPORT * # + *PMSI

I N T E R N A T I O N A L
Data Analvsis
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
5550 Seventy -Seven Center Dr., Ste. 320 1 Charlotte, North Carolina 28217
Office: 704.665.2200 1 Fax: [phone]
Since Mecklenburg County, NC is located within the WNS buffer zone, Baker has done a cursory
office review of the project area using data collected during previous field surveys and an aerial
map from Google Earth dated 10/4/2014. Based on this review, a mature hardwood forest,
potential habitat for the NLEB, is present within the limits of disturbance for the SAR and a
small portion of the UPB extension. However, since the project's is not located within 0.25
miles of a known population and any tree clearing conducted as part of construction will occur
outside of the pup season (June 1 - July 31), a determination of "not likely to adversely affect"
has been made for the NLEB.
We are requesting that you review our findings and provide additional information and /or
comments as necessary. We have enclosed a copy of an aerial map and a USGS topographic map
that includes the proposed project site boundaries for your review.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact
us with any questions that you may have concerning this project (704- 665 - 2206).
Sincerely,
/ f
Kristi Suggs
Environmental Scientist
MICHAEL BAK1:R INTERNATIONAL.
... mi ... �. �.
_°: FwF ima —=Lm KASEjjM /ASALLYPORT *j * *PMSI

North Carolina
Department of Administration
Pat McCrory, Governor Bill Daughtridge, Jr., Secretary
October 21, 2014
Ms. Jennifer Harris
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environ. Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1548
Re: SCH File # 15- E4220 -0199; EA/FONSI; Proposed project is for the University Pointe Blvd
extension to IBM Drive. Project will include reconstruction of a portion of the CMS Access
Road. City Project Number 512 -09 -068
Dear Ms. Harris:
The above referenced environmental impact information has been reviewed through the State
Clearinghouse under the provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made in the review of this document. Because of the nature of the
comments, it has been determined that no further State Clearinghouse review action on your part is
needed for compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act. The attached comments
should be taken into consideration in project development.
Sincerely,
Cryst Best
State Environmental Review Clearinghouse
Attachments
cc: Region F
Malling Address: Telephone: [phone] Location Address:
1301 Mail Service Center Fax [phone] West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1301 State Courier #51 -01 -00 Raleigh, North Carolina
e -mail state. clearinghouse(a),doa.nc.gov
An Equal Opportunity /Affirmative Action Employer

A4*
�
CDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory
Governor
John E. Skvarla; III
Secretary
MEMORANDUM
T0: Crystal Best
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Lyn Hardison Y,31-
Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Service
Permit Assistance & Project Review Coordinator
RE: 15 -0199
Environmental Assessment /Findings of No Significant Impact
Proposed extension of University Pointe Blvd to IBM Drive, includes the reconstruction
of a portion of the CMS Access Road, City Project No. 512 -09 -068
Mecklenburg County
Date: October 15, 2014
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has completed its review. Based on the
information provided, our agencies have identified permits that may be required and offered some
guidance. The NC Wildlife Resources Commission has provided some specific information pertaining to
minimize impacts to the aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources within the project site area. The
Department encourages the applicant to continue to communicate with the agencies if any questions or
concerns arise throughout the development of the proposed project. The comments are attached for
the applicant's consideration.
The Department agencies will continue to be available to assist the applicant through the environmental
review and permitting processes.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
Attachment
1639 Mail Sev;ce Centel. Raleigh. Nodh "arolina 27699.1639
Customer Service Toll Free 1 -877 -623- 6748 ; Iniemet. wwer.ncdengo,,
Ar _gUbl opaoat my Oarnw;ve r'4mw- Fa.:L w {P, - M-",, in Dan by laycl8C D*;*r

Yv North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Lyn Hardison, Environmental Assistance and SEPA Coordinator
NCDENR Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Services
FROM: Shari L. Bryant, Western Piedmont Coordinator
Habitat Conservation
DATE: 13 October 2014
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact for University Pointe
Boulevard from Existing University Pointe Boulevard to IBM Drive, City of Charlotte,
Mecklenburg County. DENR Project No. 15 -0199.
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
subject document and we are familiar with the habitat values of the area. Our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661- 667e), North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A -1 through 113A -10; 1 NCAC
25), and North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113-131 et seq,).
The City of Charlotte proposes to extend University Pointe Boulevard (formerly Shopping Center
Drive) approximately 0.5 miles from the future [KEA Boulevard to IBM Drive, The extension also
includes construction of a portion of the CMS Access Road (James Martin Middle School Drive) from
IBM Drive to approximately 0.2 miles east of IBM drive near I -85. In addition, an alternate access road
to James Martin Middle School will be constructed to tie into an existing Vance High School access road.
Doby Creek and unnamed tributaries to Doby Creek in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River basin flow
through the project boundaries. The proposed project will impact approximately 242 linear feet of stream
channel. An existing structure over Doby Creek will be replaced with a 3 -sided or "bottomless"
reinforced concrete box culvert and will result in an approximately 0.6 foot increase in the upstream 100 -
year Base Flood Elevation. The alternate access road includes two stream crossings. Doby Creek will be
crossed with a 3 -sided or "bottomless'' reinforced concrete box culvert and will result in an approximately
2 foot increase in the upstream 100 -year Base Flood Elevation. In addition, an unnamed tributary to
Doby Creek will be crossed with a 42 -inch reinforced concrete pipe. Stormwater will not be discharged
directly into streams and will follow the Mecklenburg County Surface Water Improvement and
Management (SWIM) Buffers Ordinance.
We are concerned about impacts to the noodplain, and increases in the Base Flood Elevation. In
addition, it is important to maintain the stability of the stream channels at each of the three stream
crossings and ensure these structures provide aquatic life passage. We offer the following
recommendations to minimize impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources.
— -.. _ . --- ... ,............. . .
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries - 1721. Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699 -1721
Telephone: [phone] - Fax: [phone]

Page 2
13 October 2014
University Point Boulevard
Project No. 15 -0199
1. Culverts less than 48 inches in diameter should be buried to a depth equal to or greater than twenty
percent of their size to provide aquatic life passage. These measurements should be based on natural
thalweg depths. Perpendicular crossings and 2-1 side slopes would minimize impacts to streams and
wetlands.
2. If multiple barrels are needed, base flow barrels should be installed as detailed in #I and additional
barrels should be placed so the floors are located on the active bankfull elevation. These bankfull
barrels must be connected to active floodplain benches to provide natural dimensions for the base
flow channel with sufficient water depth during low or normal flows to accommodate aquatic fife
movements. If culverts are long and /or sufficient slopes exist, alternating baffles should be provided
that conforms to channel bends upstream and downstream, mimics natural meanders, prevents
upstream scour and downstream deposition, contains typical bed load materials, and provides resting
areas for aquatic species. If multiple barrels are used, at least one pipe or barrel should be designed
to remain dry (except for flood events) with a floor material that is easily used by terrestrial wildlife
for passage.
3. Culverts should be situated so that no channel realignment, widening, or depth changes are required.
Widening of the stream channel at the inlet or outlet of structures decreases water depth and velocity
resulting in sedimentation and reduced aquatic life passage. Flat concrete aprons between wing -
walls should not be used.
4. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner
that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should be professionally
designed, sized, and installed. Riprap placed for bank stabilization should be limited to the stream
bank below the high water mark, and vegetation should be used for stabilization above the high
water elevation.
5. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area. Sandbags, rock
berms, cofferdarns, or other diversion structures should be used to prevent excavation in flowing
water. Dewatering activities associated with culvert installations should be conducted by pumping
the effluent from the construction area into an erosion control device such as a stilling basin or silt
bag prior to entering into the stream.
6. All mechanized equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels to
minimize impacts to aquatic resources. Equipment should be inspected and maintained regularly to
prevent contamination of strearn waters from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids or other toxic
materials.
Concrete is toxic to aquatic life and should not be allowed to come in contact with surface waters
until cured_
8. Sediment and erosion controls measures should be installed prior to any land clearing or
construction. These measures should be routinely inspected and properly maintained. Excessive silt
and sediment loads can have numerous detrimental effects on aquatic resources including destruction
of spawning habitat, suffocation of eggs, and clogging of gills of aquatic species.
9. Removal of vegetation in riparian areas should be minimized. Native trees and shrubs should be
planted along the banks to reestablish the riparian zone. Temporary or permanent herbaceous
vegetation should be planted on all bare soil within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide
long -term erosion control.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further assistance,
please contact our office at (336) 449 -7625 or sltari.bl�_ant12inc�i ildlife.urg,

APA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory John E. Skvarla, III
Governor Secretary
Date: October 6, 2014
To: Linda Culpepper, Director
Division of Waste Management
Through: Jim Bateson, Superfund Section Chief
From: Pete Doorn, Special Remediation Branch Head
Subj: SEPA Project #15 -0199, University Pointe Boulevard Project, Mecklenburg County,
North Carolina
A review of the proximity of the proposed University Pointe Boulevard Project to CERCLIS and
other sites under the jurisdiction of the Superfund Section has been completed. The proposed project
involves the extension of University Pointe Boulevard over 1 -85. The project involves the construction
of a grade separated crossing over 1 -85 and access road improvements. The project will provide
increased connectivity in the Charlotte northeast corridor, improve pedestrian and bicyclist travel,
increase accessibility to James Martin Middle School, and reduce emergency response times.
Four sites were identified within a 1 -mile radius of the project as listed below and shown on
the attached map. it is appears unlikely that the project will be affected by the sites, and vice versa.
To review the files for the Inactive Hazardous Sites noted below, please refer to the following website:
http: / /porta1.ncdenr.orR /web /wm /sf- fi le- records. Please contact the Brownfields Program at
(919)707 -8200 for information regarding the Brownfields project.
Please contact me at 919.707.8369 if you have any questions.
Cc: Jim Bateson
1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1646
Phone- 919- 707 -82Dp i Internet. http-ltportal.ncdenr org;weblwrn
An Rjual Opportwsty : AfSrmaure Acton Emplo fer - mme k1 pee. by recyrk d PL�m
Est
Dir. from
Site Name
ID #
Program
i
Status
Distance
SEPA Proj.
Meridian Corporate
Site is on the Inactive Hazardous Sites
NONCD0002062
IHSB
0.1 mi
N
Center
Inventory; it is an open case
Ridge Lane Rd Dietdrin
Site is on the Inactive Hazardous Sites
Contamination
NCNO00410302
IHSB
0.2 mi
NW
Inventory; it is an open case
Tyner Street
13005 -09 -60
BF
0.5 mi
SE
Site has a Brownfields Agreement
jj
II�
Site is on the Inactive Hazardous Sites
Clinipad
NONCO0001515
IHSB
0.7 mi
S
I
I
I
I
Inventory; it is an open case
Cc: Jim Bateson
1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1646
Phone- 919- 707 -82Dp i Internet. http-ltportal.ncdenr org;weblwrn
An Rjual Opportwsty : AfSrmaure Acton Emplo fer - mme k1 pee. by recyrk d PL�m

♦ , . �{`p¢ d� x+x t n ,, fa' r�' n�
► , , r_ sk 'iP}WY ,. � � `Yr<,�, t5 � r f a^C}� �'`. {, ��,i�ttk�
• ,,� S. a s � t L Se is { �v Fr
. ♦ , � �� .:1 � +c :. 4i �r f sW"� e•� §�. k vy � � §o1�Y+? -G�
♦ ' ► • s -mom w'tt y+ ` d ,�� ti {$ +F"1
i � • "i 4 C •_2,.}^� �tr'.� r �4 1 l t „` ,' � /n i '�- �t'� `���k� � ti r'4 � . {�� w f t t � t
♦ � Z Y�r �� 4' -,� n *a��fi Y4! .Y�� t������ . .. }�f; /+ '�•'�.` ;� Ka Y may, 4?"Y �14�`k,��j`ipy t,.�iy� � �,
♦ i , +. '` �P ,. i .,.w K 4� Y!y �� `� GT��✓t�l V3
} 704>
' - ♦ .....�` f p^• "i?S� "�' �' �)��` Gam. �bk < n'� z1�.s7 �-,
£i� 7
a
,} �' �+ t � t I'4lV\�N � GG`� p-r • eW � � 5't . c t t 1,
P� t4� ': ,J. ~ '`��s:-i��`D�, \V `r"P�✓�t �j����t1�� A�'kf tR . "S - +��4..� r ���� 4.. 3` 4a�.� �" tS�1 � f j � ,
� •: �� i ;:�a cC� V � tY` n. 3: r.�at'�,,sAS. - ,,,o... �i-k ..:5 + s .. y
1 } b a }47 r✓ t ( 4 1
P �"s;Y
/*. �.,� �.r^^rT'��NS�' ,•4'�s,* r > �r1w. 4s3
_ Ft "lslr"�'~ ,Siaf i�+�.k_� 4`, "�•.q { k§y y�„ g•t( 1 Vt"_ty'�"" s ?:, ,�.'.u•.
r _t }, rt..tti{" `•R Yp' ,A'. -
4
v i t r t -.: ^ y^s` y
S i
S5?' f' Fi' r ,� § 'i 'o`ta :.9+.k .,, 'x - •.s fr ! #"' GW � \ f
ra.iw,L '�1 r• r r�?;
���.: -
x ^Nwr
♦ ;, 'a r i ' rr i# ^' _ : . y a , s ^• +m S� h`t",r.e ?i�N ;r -.s+sk t ?''�''•• ;yrt sr §4 1.�h . ,. ."? w }Z'(i �i P H'9ii' &Y � •^` _ • is i.i tv tiF ..�L +
C v�
j�i
a . ...:..
t.
.. r r...v h } a2 h ti• a ia. y��k';�,t�1t'{
fir: r f+ r a ° x. �,.F ?. Yy t •�` y ,+� .{ �,}.nyr.
r z ne r ".`�t��.-mac i sii7 �r�'•
'�F-L 'rY t � n4 H q � r �:� .�L�r ,� a.i• ;. - 3
?;Ni,.,�.t+! l �'t�k,J t e �' "' •' r ".,� 'i'�',�.e
., •ti.'N"'"• yk� �tKaM ... S. n, ; � ... _ s'.�� =a4. a� � �;�.1 {+s �y�vtriy�o,, s.. f.+ y �R qn�
"may *y+ ,',�,y,'il.��...t�+"
`3 !fir+— .l'^`_:. 7 .§y>* '• �. },
{�, - 1r e ,�Sa xNY t . o
} 'R- 'a �g `T s sr-2t;r{\`� kKy fi:
e e S ,, t� � 4` - r �' S � raj, 3� ��1� �� +"i.n � �{ �,� ,��`�U §�pi �'La+°. i .n•. £ � � , .��,,
}.� 'r" � o R,,':4�#"� "' ..;��4, �+�, w"` .�s� a � !'s r /J�v'ty ��� `Y'a .�. - ,t.;� •
.: s ° :R,,j+ } s k. ,.^ � +a } •.cyq`4i'��f`,�,d r IFS' `..:9 �.
diloSwx 1�t ffiy,t'x 4�`.F�C §"�-y��'� .�' 1• r
Wy
WO
loop, t yr1� v y . ileh
0_` }
aX i� : y e\?^•.. �c5 (. >
WIN
� e � ! � ��� � �•'� 2P i .;yc "! A
vw, '4 t, ' .ter° N.m:, x lot 1rv.m+`�
Ad
j
$ iutsR
WX Ong.
Yams
two
♦F ° :rp.Y'.� fi,.t � LYE-- ' }K

AkTM.;VA
R"A
�ICDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory John E. Skvarle, III
Governor Secretary
Date: October 10, 2014
To: Linda Culpepper, Division Director through Kathleen Lance
From: Jason Watkins, Field Operations Branch Head — Solid Waste SectionYMr
RE: PROJECT NUMBER: 15 -0199 (Mecklenburg County) — Environmental Assessment /Finding of No
Significant Impact — Proposed project Is for the University Pointe Blvd extension to IBM Drive.
The Solid Waste Section (Section) has reviewed the Environmental Assessment /Finding of No
Significant Impact document for the proposed University Pointe Blvd extension to IBM Drive
project in Mecklenburg County and has seen no adverse impact on the surrounding community and
likewise knows of no situations in the community, which would affect this project frorn a solid
waste perspective.
The City of Charlotte, NCDO'1" and /or its contractors should make every feasible effort to minimize
the generation of waste during this project, to recycle materials for which viable markets exist, and
to use recycled products and materials in the development of this project where suitable. Any waste
generated by the project that cannot be beneficially reused or recycled must be disposed of at a
waste management facility approved to manage the respective waste type. The Section strongly
recommends that the City and /or NCDOT require its contractors to provide proof of proper disposal
for all waste generated as part of the project.
Should questions arise during the project regarding solid waste management, please contact Ms.
Teresa Bradford, Environmental Senior Specialist, Solid Waste Section, at (704) 235 -2160.
Cc: Michael Scott- Section Chief
Sarah Rice, Compliance Officer
Teresa Bradford, Environmental Sr. Specialist
Dennis Shackelford, Eastern District Supervisor
Winston Salem Regional Office
585 Waughtown Street, Winston Salem, North Carolina 27107 -2241
Phone- 136- 771.50001 FAY,: 336- 771.4631
interngt htdo: /ioortaLricdenr orolweblwm
An Equal OppaiunAy 1 Aflirmabve Acft Emp:0ye: -- Made in pal by fecyrled rx4*f

AVA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory John E, Skvarla, III
Governor Secretary
October 14. 2014
To: Linda Culpepper, Director
Division of Waste Management
From: Brent Burch, Supervisor
Western Region Compliance Branch
RE: RCRA comments on NCDOT Proposed University Pointe Blvd Extension Project #15.0199
The Hazardous Waste Section has reviewed the project consisting of the extension of University
Pointe Boulevard to IBM Drive. The project will include reconstruction of a portion of CMS
Access Road. The project is located in Charlotte, ,Mecklenburg County.
The NCDOT is reminded if during the project, a solid waste is generated, they arc required to
determine if the waste is a hazardous waste. Additionally, if >220 pounds of hazardous waste is
generated in a calendar month the Hazardous Waste Section must be notified and the generator must
comply with the small quantity generator requirements. if >2200 pounds are generated in a
calendar month the Hazardous waste Section must be notified and the generator must comply with
the large quantity generator requirements.
The Hazardous Waste Section has no objection to the project as proposed.
Should any questions arise, please contact me at 828 - 321 -9585.
1646 Mail Sery ce Cenler Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1646
Phone [phone]': Inlernet htlo Rportal ncde-rorg! %,cb`Y.,m
Eei� G_carry: ABir+aI,%aA; C^Emao,.nr- Ada.,yg nG ?1tr,?:1C.''OJdG.

I
rt
State of North Carolina Reviewing Office: MRO
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number 15 -0199 Due Date: 10/13/2014
County Mecklenburg-
After review of this project it has been determined that the ENR permits) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained to order for this project ro comply +vith
North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form. All applications, information
and guidelines relative to these plans and pennits are available from the same Regional Office
Complex Source Pemut required under IS A NCAC
2D 0800
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation
❑ I control plan wrifi be required if one or more acres_ to be disturbed. Plan Filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Section) At least 30
days before beginning activity. A fee of S65 for the first acre or any part of an acre. An express review option is available with additional
fees.
®Sedimentation and erosion control must be addressed in accordance with NCDOT's approved program. Particular attention should be given
to design and installation of appropriate perimeter sediment trapping devices as well as stable smormwater conveyances and outlets.
Mining Pennit
nNorth Carolina Burning permit
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22
cotnttes in coastal N.C. with organic soils
7 f Oil Relining Facilities
On-sue inspection usual. Surety bond filed with ENR Bond amount varies
with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any arc mined greater
than one acre must be penmtted. The appropriate bond must be received
before the permit con be issued
On -site inspection by N C. Division Forest Resources if pennit exceeds 4
days
On -site inspection by N C. Division Forest Resources required ".£more that.
five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. inspections should be
requested at least ten days before actual bum is planned "
N/A
Normal Process Time
(statutory time itmr)
30 days
(90 days)
90-120 days
(N /A)
30 days
(N /A)
7 days
(15 days)
55 days
(90 days)
90 days
90 days
60 days
(90 days)
20 days
(30 days)
(30 days)
30 days
(60 days)
I day
(N /A)
I day
(N /A)
90 -120 days j
(N/A) `
If permit required, application 60 days be fore begin construction Applicant
must hire N.0 qualified engineer to. prepare plans, inspect construction
certify construction is according to ENR approved plans May also require
Dart Safety Permit permit under mosquito contro( program. And a 404 permit from Corps of 30 days
Engineers An inspection of sire is necessary to verify Hazard Classification. (60 days)
A minimum fee of $200.00 must accompany the application An additional
processing fee based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required
Jwe 16.2014 upon completion
PERMITS I
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Facilires,
i sewer system extensions & sewer systems not discharging
Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction
into state surface waters.
contracts On -site inspection Post application technical conference usual.
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface + +aier and`or
Application 180 days before begin activity On -site inspection Pre-
permit to operate and construct wasiewerer facilities
application conference usual Additionally, obtain permit to constrict
discharging into state surface waters.
wusaewater treatment facility - grained after NPDB. Reply nine, 30 days after
receipt of plans or issue of NPDES permit - whichever is later.
Water Use Permit
Preapphcalion technical conference usually necessary
O1
Well Construction Permit
Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the
installation of well
I
I I
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner
Dredge and Fill Permit
On -site inspection. Pre- appitcation conference usual Filling may require
Easement to Fill from N.0 Department of Administration and
Federal Dredge and Fill Permit
Permit to construct & operate Air Prillurion Abatement
Applicauon must be submined and permit received prior to
facilities andlor Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC
construction and operation of the source If a permit is required in ap.
(2Q.0100 thru 2Q 0300)
area Without local zoning, then there arc additional requirements and
tunebncs (2Q.0113).
l
Permit to construct & operate Transportation Facility as
Application mist be submitted at )east 90 days prior to construction or
LJ
per 15 A NCAC (2D 0800, 2Q.0601)
modification of the source
Any open burning associated with subject proposal must be
in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D 1900
Demolition or renovations of structures containing asbestos
Elmaterial
must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 20 1110
(a) (1) which requires notification and removal prior to
N(A
demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group 919 - 707.5950
Complex Source Pemut required under IS A NCAC
2D 0800
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation
❑ I control plan wrifi be required if one or more acres_ to be disturbed. Plan Filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Section) At least 30
days before beginning activity. A fee of S65 for the first acre or any part of an acre. An express review option is available with additional
fees.
®Sedimentation and erosion control must be addressed in accordance with NCDOT's approved program. Particular attention should be given
to design and installation of appropriate perimeter sediment trapping devices as well as stable smormwater conveyances and outlets.
Mining Pennit
nNorth Carolina Burning permit
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22
cotnttes in coastal N.C. with organic soils
7 f Oil Relining Facilities
On-sue inspection usual. Surety bond filed with ENR Bond amount varies
with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any arc mined greater
than one acre must be penmtted. The appropriate bond must be received
before the permit con be issued
On -site inspection by N C. Division Forest Resources if pennit exceeds 4
days
On -site inspection by N C. Division Forest Resources required ".£more that.
five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. inspections should be
requested at least ten days before actual bum is planned "
N/A
Normal Process Time
(statutory time itmr)
30 days
(90 days)
90-120 days
(N /A)
30 days
(N /A)
7 days
(15 days)
55 days
(90 days)
90 days
90 days
60 days
(90 days)
20 days
(30 days)
(30 days)
30 days
(60 days)
I day
(N /A)
I day
(N /A)
90 -120 days j
(N/A) `
If permit required, application 60 days be fore begin construction Applicant
must hire N.0 qualified engineer to. prepare plans, inspect construction
certify construction is according to ENR approved plans May also require
Dart Safety Permit permit under mosquito contro( program. And a 404 permit from Corps of 30 days
Engineers An inspection of sire is necessary to verify Hazard Classification. (60 days)
A minimum fee of $200.00 must accompany the application An additional
processing fee based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required
Jwe 16.2014 upon completion

Project Number: 15-0199 Due Date: 10/13/2014
Normal
Process Time
(statutory time fi nitl
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
File surery bond of S5,000 with ENR running to State of NC conditional that any well
10 days
❑ Permit to drill exploratory o)[ or gas well opened by drill operator shall, upon abandonment. be plugged according to ENR rules
N/A
and regulations.
Exploration Permit Application filed with ENR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit Application by
10 days
❑ Geophysiart letter No standard application form
N/A
Construction Permit Application fee based on stricture size is charged Must include descriptions &
15 -20 days
❑ State Lakes dr xvings of structure & proof of ownership of riparian property.
N/A
Q ty NIA
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification
60 days
(130daysl
❑ CAMA Permit for MAJOR development S25 0.00 tee must accompany application
SS days
(150 days)
CAMA Pernit for MINOR development S5000 fee must accompariv application
❑
22 days
(25 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or new the project area. If any monument needs to be moved ordesiroyed, please notify
❑ N.C. Geodetic Survey. Box 27687 Raleigh, NC 27611
❑ Abandonment of any wells, if required must be in accordance with Title 15A. Subchapter 2C.0100
10 Notification of the ptuper regional office is requested if'orphan" underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered during any excavation operation
I SA CAC 211 )000 (Coastal Stormwaler Rules) is required
Cmnpliance with t\t
❑
4S days
(NIA)
❑ Tar Pamlico or Neuse Riparian Butler Rules required.
Plans and specifications for the construction, expansion. or alteration of a public water system must be approved by the Division or Water
❑Resourc&Pubhc Water Supply Section prior to the award of a contract or the initiation of construction as per 15A NCAC 19C 0300 et. sec Plans and
must comply
30 days
specifications should be submitted to 1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1634. All public water supply systems
with state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements For more information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, (919) 70.9100.
11' existing water lines wi II be relocated during the construction, plans for the water line relocation must 14 submitted to the Division of Water
❑ ResourcesrRiblic Water Supply Section at 1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1634. For more information, contact the Public
30 days
Water Supply Section. (9191707 -9100
Other comments (attach additional oages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority)
Division initials No Comments
Date
comment
Review
DAQ RES
9/24/14
DWR -WQROS
(Aquifer & Surface) AHP ❑ The MRO -WQROS will defer to comments generated by WQP-
14/8/14
Transportation Permitting Unit on this DOT project.
DWR -PWS BLS ❑ Please consult with CMUD if water lines need to be relocated. CMUD has
10/1/14
delegated authority from DENR to handle water line relocation approvals,
DEMLR (LQ & SW) ZSK ❑ Erosion and Sediment Control permit is required for land disturbance of 1
10/6/14
acre or more. NPDES Permit is also required for land disturbance of 1 acre
or more. An express review is also available for Erosion and Sediment
Control Program.
DWM - UST RHT ❑ RE: Project Review form: 15 -0199
9/25/14
1 have looked through the documents for proposed project for the
University Pointe Boulevard extension to IBM Drive in Mecklenburg
County. The following comments are pertinent to my review:
1. The Mooresville Regional Office (MRO) UST Section recommends
removal of any abandoned or out -of -use petroleum USTs or petroleum
above ground storage tanks (ASTs) within the project area. The UST
Section should be contacted regarding use of any proposed or on -site
petroleum UST's or ASTs. We may be reached at 704- 663 -1699. ,
2. Any petroleum spills must be contained and the area of impact
must be properiv restored, Petroleum spills of significant quantity must
June 16,2014
i

be reported to the North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural
Resources — Division of Waste Management Underground Storage Tank
Section in the Mooresville Regional Office at 704 - 663 - 1699.
3. Any soils excavated during demolition or construction that show
evidence of petroleum contamination, such as stained soil, odors, or free
product must be reported immediately to the local Fire Marshall to
determine whether explosion or inhalation hazards exist. Also, notify the
UST Section of the Mooresville Regional Office at 704- 663 -1699.
Petroleum contaminated soils must be handled in accordance with al!
applicable regulations.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact
me at Ron.Taraban @ncdenr.gov or by phone at 704- 235 -2167.
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
❑ Asheville Regional Office Mooresville Regional Office ❑ Wilmington Regional Office
2090 US Highway 70 610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Swannanoa, NC 28778 Mooresville, NC 28115 Wilmington, NC 28405
(828) 296 -4500 (704) 663 -1699 (910) 796 -7215
❑ Fayetteville Regional Office
225 North Green Street, Suite 714
Fayetteville, NC 28301 -5043
(910) 433 -3300
)Line 16.2014
❑ Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27609
(919) 791 -4200
❑ Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square lviall
Washington, NC 27889
(252) 946 -6481
❑ Winston -Salem Regional Office
585 Waughtown Street
Winston- Salem, NC 27107
(336) 771 -5000

NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
COUNTY: MECKLENBURG
MS ELIZABETH HEATH
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
1001 MSC - AGRICULTURE BLDG
RALEIGH NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
F02: HIGHWAYS AND ROADS
STATE NUMBER: 15 -E- -4220 -0199
DATE RECEIVED: 09/16/2014
AGENCY RESPONSE: 10/13/2014
REVIEW CLOSED: 10/16/2014
CC &PS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
CENTRALINA COG
DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT INFORMATION
APPLICANT: N. C. Department of Transportation
TYPE: State Environmental Policy Act
Environmental Assessment /Finding of No Significant Impact
B, 91Q,
DESC: Proposed project is for the University Pointe Blvd extension to IBM Drive.
Project will include reconstruction of a portion of the CMS Access Road. City
Project Number 512 -09 -068
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -1301.
If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at (919)807 -2425.
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED: �O COMMENT ❑ COMMENTS ATTACHED
SIGNED BY: (jam s DATE: 10khy

NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
COUNTY: MECKLENBURG F02: HIGHWAYS AND ROADS
MS RENEE GLEDHILL- EARLEY
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
DEPT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
MSC 4617 - ARCHIVES BUILDING
RALEIGH NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
STATE NUMBER: 15 -E -4220 -0199
DATE RECEIVED: 09/16/2014
AGENCY RESPONSE: 10/13/2014
REVIEW CLOSED: 10/16/2014
CC &PS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
CENTRALINA COG��
DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT INFORMATION
APPLICANT: N. C. Department of Transportation
TYPE: State Environmental Policy Act
Environmental Assessment /Finding of No Significant Impact
DESC: Proposed project is for the University Pointe Blvd extension to IBM Drive.
Project will include reconstruction of a portion of the CMS Access Road. City
Project Number 512 -09 -068
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -1301.
If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at (919)807 -2425.
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED: NO COMMENT COMMENTS ATTACHED
SIGNED BY. �^��. � X�. ~ �-' ""` DATE: XJ
v /89/O
OCT 2094
1r� omm a

NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION �n! T�p1 fL�Cc�
INTE.''GOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
COUNTY: MECKLENBURG F02: HIGHWAYS AND ROADS
MS CARRIE ATKINSON
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
STATEWIDE PLANNING - MSC #1554
RALEIGH NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
STATE NUMBER: 15 -E- 4220 -0199
DATE RECEIVED: 09/16/2014
AGENCY RESPONSE: 10/13/2014
REVIEW CLOSED: 10/16/2014
S
� d ,
CC &PS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT �rG
CENTRALINA COG G
DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT INFORMATION
APPLICANT: N. C. Department of Transportation
TYPE: State Environmental Policy Act
Environmental Assessment /Finding of No Significant Impact
DESC: Proposed project is for the University Pointe Blvd extension to IBM Drive.
Project will include reconstruction of a portion of the CMS Access Road, City
Project Number 512 -09 -068
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental. review. Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699- 13.01.
If additional review time ism ended, please contact this office at (919)e07 -2425.
AS A RESULT OF THIS R.: '- THE FOLLO FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED: �NO COMMENT COMMENTS ATTACHED
i 27
DATE-
SIGNED BY:
(99
()CT 2014
adi
P
ti
�'

NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
bEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
COUNTY: MECKLENBURG F02: HIGHWAYS AND ROADS
MS CAROLYN PENNY
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
CC &PS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
MSC 4 4719
RALEIGH NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
STATE NUMBER: 15 -E -4220 -0199
DATE RECEIVED: 09/16/2014
AGENCY RESPONSE: 10/13/2014
REVIEW CLOSED: 10/16/2014
CIE'
CC &PS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT �[p '7
CENTRALINA COG f 201F
DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT INFORMATION
APPLICANT: N. C. Department of Transportation
TYPE: State Environmental Policy Act
Environmental Assessment /Finding of No Significant Impact
DESC: Proposed project is for the University Pointe Blvd extension to IBM Drive.
Project will include reconstruction of a portion of the CMS Access Road. City
Project Number 512 -09 -068
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -1301.
If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at (919)807 -2425.
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED:` NO COMMENT F—] COMMENTS ATTACHED
SIGNED BY:
DATE: Je d
..�}.
SEP 2014,
IS

t.%
LEGEND
Project Location
03040105
Project Site
35.298114 N, - 80.767066 W
\ I N T E R N A T I O N A L
•
University Pointe Blvd. Extension p 2 4 N VIC1111t M
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC Mlles Vicinity p
Interstates
USGS 8 -Digit HUC Codes
Major Waterways
Charlotte Boundary
-
Mecklenburg County
NC Counties
03040105
Project Site
35.298114 N, - 80.767066 W
\ I N T E R N A T I O N A L
•
University Pointe Blvd. Extension p 2 4 N VIC1111t M
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC Mlles Vicinity p

HEWI TT ASSOCIATES _
VINOY
HAGEN
'9
I •�ti —
750
18)
t�
V f ,
LEGEND
Project Area
Q Parcels
r
e
r I x'17
a i_ • J�
I Y�r rr
�■ I
1
.f
r y
r \1
rrfl r � S
r
I �
1 I .
f �1
' f I
ol
1� I
I L,
r` m
.r r-
• 0 300 600 N
University Pointe Blvd Extension 06iiiiii Feet USGS Topographic Map
� Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC
�� 1" - 600' A Derita Quadrangle

-� i f
w --
1r �6'h 1. 1• -
- G z
4
SOILS
CeB2 - Cecil sandy clay loam (Slopes 2 - 8 %) Moderatly eroded a.
CeD2 - Cecil sandy clay loam (Slopes 5 - 15 %) Moderately eroded
EnB - Enon sandy loam (Slopes 2 - 8 %)
EnD - Enon sandy loam (Slopes 8 - 15 %)
MO- Monocan loam (Slopes 0 - 2 %) Frequently flooded
MeB - Mecklenburg fine sandy loam (Slopes 2 - 8 %) t.
. PaE - Pacolet sandy loam (Slopes 15 - 25 %)
0 WkD - Wilkes loam (Slopes 8 - 15 %) _
(2007 Aerial & NRCS Soils Data, Mecklenburg County)
0 200 400
fM University Pointe Blvd Extension
Feet �% Soils Map
cxAxt.o'rT-� Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC V
1" = 400'

IrJQVL
-ts
rmdrainage
ndrainage
�a
t'iiP FeF __
Intermittent Stream
Perennial Stream
30-Ft SWIM Buffer
Existing Wetlands
T�
Via•
� . �m
n al..Meckl

J, UT4
No Impacts
LEGEND
Permanent Impact
Temporary Impact
Existinglmpacts
Existing Stormdrainage
Proposed Stormdrainage
Fill
Cut
Ditch
Ephemeral Stream
Intermittent Stream
Perennial Stream
30 -Ft SWIM Buffer
Existing Wetlands
,bi,Existing_BMPs
r T
0,
UT5
Permanent Impacts = 24.2 LF
Temporary Impacts = 10.0 LF
UT5
Permanent Impacts = 44.5 LF
Temporary Impacts =10.0 LF
O UT5
Permanent Impacts = 63.3 LF
No Temporary Impacts
Doby Creek
Permanent Impacts = None
Temporary Impacts = 215.8 LF
ON
University Pointe Boulevard o 125 250 N
Jurisdictional Impacts
cE Extension Feet Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC 1" = 125 A Inset A Map

•
�rnUniversity Pointe Boulevard Extension o 125 250 N
vers ouevar enson Jurisdictional Impacts
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC Feet
CHARLOTTE Inset set B Map
p
1„_ 125'

LEGEND
Q Project Area Q Parcels 11di �
Michael Bak-
0 300 600
University Pointe Blvd Extension Feet Project Area Map
C= Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC 1 600' 2011 Aerial

` Lill
LEGEND
Alternative Alignment Areas
= Piped
Rip Rap
Q Parcels
— Road
1. a.
•i
i
•v : 1
0 300 600
University Pointe Blvd Extension Feet
�� Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC
1 =600'
Alternative Alignment
Areas Map
2011 Aerial

•
■f■ � 7
ALAIM) I�■ 1, E.
N
University Pointe Blvd. Extension 0 125 250
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC Feet A
Flood Zone Map

May 6, 2013
Consulting Engineers
GEoSClENCE PB
CIPMP 121 West Trade Street, Suite 1950
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Attention: Mr. Daniel Bridges, P.E.
Reference: Report of Subsurface Findings and Foundation Recommendations
University Pointe Boulevard
Doby Creek Bridge Structure
Charlotte, North Carolina
Geoscience Project No. CHI 1.0007.GE
Geoscience Group, Inc. (Geoscience) has completed the subsurface exploration for the above
referenced project. The purpose of this work was to determine the general subsurface conditions at
the location of the bridge, evaluate those conditions and provide foundation recommendations for
the proposed bridge structure. This report presents our findings along with our recommendations
for this phase of the University Pointe Boulevard project.
SCOPE OFMTLOR.4TION
Field Exaloration: Seven (7) soil test borings (B4, B4A, B -5 and BC -1 through BC4) were
performed at the approximate locations shown on the enclosed Vicinity Map (Drawing No.
CH11.0007.GE -1) and Boring Location Diagram (Drawing No. CHI 1.0007.GE -IA), included in
the Appendix of this report. The boring locations were established in the field by an engineer from
Geoscience using a hand held GPS unit and the existing site features as reference. The borings
were extended to depths ranging between 15 and 27h feet below the ground surface using
continuous- flight, hollow -stem augers; drilling fluid was not used in this process.
Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the soil test borings using an automatic hammer at
designated intervals in general accordance with ASTM D 1586 -84. A correction factor (CE) has
been used for our analysis of the Standard Penetration Tests with the automatic hammer assembly;
however, the N values reported on the Test Boring Records are the field recorded values. In
conjunction with the penetration testing, split-barrel soil samples were recovered for soil
classification and potential laboratory tests. Also, `undisturbed" soil samples were obtained in soil
test boring B-4A between the approximate depths of 6 to 8 feet and 13 to 15 feet with standard
3 -inch diameter Shelby Tubes in general accordance with ASTM D 1587. All soil samples were
returned to our laboratory for observation, classification and potential testing. Elevations shown
on the Test Boring Records and referenced in this report were interpolated from a topographic
survey map provided to us by PB. The soil test borings were backfilled with auger cuttings and
patched with asphalt, where necessary, prior to leaving the site.
Laboratory Services,: The laboratory services provided for this project consisted of visual
classification of the soil samples by the project engineer. The color, texture and plasticity
characteristics were used to identify each soil sample in general accordance with the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS). The results of the visual classifications are presented on the Test
Boring Records included in the Appendix of this report.
500 Clanton Ruau Charlotte, North Caroline Telephrne facsimile
Suite K 20217 704.525.2003 704.525 2051

F9
Geoscience Project No. CH11.0007.GE
May 6, 2013
Page 2
A grain size test with hydrometer analysis was performed on a representative grab sample of the
creek bed soils. The grab sample was obtained at the location of the bridge structure. The purpose
of this laboratory testing was to determine the gradation of the creek bed soils for scour estimates.
The results of the laboratory testing are included in the Appendix of this report.
SUBSURFACE F17WEVGS
As indicated by the soil test borings, the subsurface conditions within the area of the proposed
bridge generally consist of an upper stratum of existing fill materials that are underlain by residual
soils. In addition, alluvial soils were encountered beneath the existing fill in borings B-4, BC-1
and BC -4. For engineering purposes, alluvial soils are described as those materials which have
been deposited by water, and residual soils are described as those soils which have formed from
the in place weathering of the underlying parent bedrock. The general subsurface conditions are
described below and illustrated on the Generalized Subsurface Profile, Drawing No.
CH11.0007.GE -2, included in the Appendix of this report. For soil descriptions and general
stratification at a particular boring location, the respective Test Boring Record should be reviewed.
Please note that the stratification lines designating the interface between various layers represent
approximate boundaries. The actual transition between different strata across the site will vary in
both the horizontal and vertical directions.
Asphalt pavements associated with the current school access drive were encountered at the ground
surface in soil test borings B-4, B-4A, B-5, BC -2 and BC -3. The asphalt pavements consisted of
2' /z to 3' /Z inches of asphalt underlain by 10 to 16 inches of crushed stone. In soil test borings BC -1
and BC -4, a surface layer of topsoil and roots is present to a depth of approximately 1/3 foot.
Subjacent to the groundcover at all the soil test borings, existing fill was encountered to depths
ranging between approximately 2/2 to 17 feet below the ground surface. When sampled, the
existing fill consists of a wide range of soil types including silty CLAY, clayey SILT, sandy SILT
and silty SAND soils, with varying amounts of rock fragments, concrete fragments, wood pieces
and/or trace organics. The Standard Penetration Test results within these fill materials range from
5 to 53 Blows Per Foot (BPF). However, the high resistance value of 53 BPF was influenced by
the presence of rock fragments and concrete fragments in the fill materials.
Subjacent to the existing fill in soil test borings B-4, BC -1 and BC4, alluvial soils are present to
depths ranging from approximately 6 to 17 feet below the ground surface. When sampled, the
alluvial soils consist of sandy CLAY and silty SAND soils with trace organics. The Standard
Penetration Test results within these alluvial sediments range from 1 to 18 BPF.
Residual sandy SILT and silty SAND soils are present beneath the existing fill and/or alluvial soils
in all the soil test borings, except BC -2. These residual SILT and SAND soils, where present,
extend to depths ranging from approximately 12 to 22 feet below the ground surface. The
Standard Penetration Test results within these residual SILT and SAND range from 4 to 46 BPF.
Partially weathered rock was encountered in soil test borings BC -1, BC-2, BC -3 and BC-4 at
depths ranging from approximately 12 to 22 feet below the ground surface. These depths to
partially weathered rock correspond to elevations ranging from approximately 627 to 638 feet

PB
Geosdence Project No. CH11.0007.GE
May 6, 2013
Page 3
(MSL). For engineering purposes, partially weathered rock is considered any dense residual soil
exhibiting a Standard Penetration Resistance value in excess of 100 BPF. When sampled, the
partially weathered rock generally consists of a silty SAND.
Auger refusal was encountered in soil test borings BC -1, BC-2, BC -3 and BC-4 at depths ranging
from approximately 19% to 271/2 feet below the ground surface. These depths to auger refusal
correspond to approximate elevations ranging between 621Y2 to 6351/2 feet (MSL). Generally,
auger refusal is encountered at bedrock or on top of boulders, and is indicative of materials which
will likely require rock excavation techniques for their removal.
Groundwater was encountered in soil test borings BC -1, BC -3 and BC-4 at depths ranging from
approximately 14% to 171/2 feet below the ground surface. These depths to groundwater
correspond to elevations ranging from approximately 633 to 638 feet (MSL).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This phase of the University Pointe Boulevard project will include the construction of an Oldcastle
Precast® bridge system over Doby Creek. Based on the project information provided to us, the
bridge system will have an overall span of approximately 40 feet and will have a height of
approximately 12 feet. The bridge wingwall structures will be approximately 18 to 35 feet in
length. The service vertical and lateral reaction loads for the bridge system have been estimated
to be on the order of 37 kips per linear foot and 4 kips per linear foot, respectively. It is our
understanding that the top of the structure foundations will be located near elevation 637.5 feet
(MSL). However, a scour analysis is currently being performed by PB to determine the
minimum foundation bearing elevation with regard to the anticipated depth of scour, erosion or
undermining at the design flood elevation of Doby Creek. Therefore, the top of structure
foundation elevation could change based on the scour analysis.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOhfMENDATIONS
The results of the borings represent the subsurface conditions at the test locations only. Due to the
prevailing geology, the presence of existing fill and the nature of alluvial deposits, there can be
changes in the subsurface conditions over relatively short distances that have not been disclosed by
the results of the borings performed. Therefore, if differing subsurface conditions are encountered,
we will require the opportunity to review our recommendations in light of the new information and
make any necessary changes.
PROJECT DESIGNAND CONSTRUCTION
Shallow Foundation Suvnort: As mentioned in the Project Description section of this report, the
top of the foundation will be located at elevation 637.5 feet (MSL). Based on the results of the soil
test borings and the topographic information provided to us, it appears that all of the fill and
alluvial soils will be removed during excavation for the foundation elements. After excavating to
the proposed bearing elevation, any existing fill soils and alluvial deposits remaining beneath the
foundation elements, and at least 5 feet beyond each side, should be removed and replaced with
NCDOT No. 57 stone wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi 14014' or equivalent), flowable fill or
additional foundation concrete.

PB
Geoscience Project No. CH11.0007.GE
May 6, 2013
Page 4
Provided the recommendations outlined in this report are implemented, a factored bearing
resistance of 5 kips per square foot (KSF) can be used for design of a shallow foundation system
bearing on suitable residual soils, NCDOT No. 57 stone wrapped in filter fabric and/or flowable
fill. The factored bearing resistance was calculated using a resistance factor, %, equal to 0.45.
Our bearing capacity calculations are included in the Appendix of this report. The factored bearing
resistance is that pressure which may be transmitted to the soil in excess of the minimum
surrounding overburden pressure. Minimum wall footing dimensions of 16 inches should be
maintained to reduce the possibility of a localized, "punching" type, shear failure.
Pertinent data to be included in the project plans and specifications are contained in the Notes On
Plans included in the Appendix of this report.
Settlement Potential: Based on the results of our analysis, the post-construction settlement
potential of the shallow foundations will be less than 1 -inch. Our settlement calculations are
included in the Appendix of this report.
Lateral Earth Pressures: The bridge culvert foundation walls and wingwalls should be designed
to withstand lateral earth pressures from the backfill and supported soils. Additionally, the walls
should be designed to resist the lateral components of surcharge loads occurring within a zone
defined by a plane extending up at a 45 degree angle from the base of the wall. Further, all
existing fill and alluvial soils should be removed from this zone and be replaced with a select fill
material as outlined below.
A select granular backfill consisting of an A -1 or A -3 material (AASHTO classification) should
be placed as backfill for the bridge structure and wingwalls. The A -1 classification generally
applies to a gravel or coarse SAND and the A -3 classification applies to a fine SAND. An
offsite borrow source will be required to obtain the necessary structural fill. Once the borrow
source is identified, we recommend that the material strength parameters be verified through
laboratory testing.
The backfill requirements, compaction criteria and drainage requirements should meet the
specifications set forth by Oldcastle Precast®. Qualified engineering personnel should provide
quality control during the construction phase to ensure that the specifications are met.
The sliding resistance on the base of concrete footings for the bride culvert foundation walls and
wingwalls can be calculated using the friction factor, Tan S = 0.35, and a resistance factor for
sliding, cpS7 equal to 0.90.
TemDorary Sloues: Due to the presence of existing fill and alluvial soils, temporary slopes in
confined or open excavations will likely require inclinations of 2(H):l(V) or greater. If
groundwater or excessively soft/saturated soils are encountered within the excavations, then flatter
slopes, shoring and/or dewatering will be required. Further, all temporary cut slopes should be
covered with sheets of plastic to prevent erosion and saturation of the slope face. All excavations
should conform to applicable OSHA regulations.

PB
Geoscience Project No. CH11.0007.GE
May 6, 2013
Page 5
Groundwater: Groundwater was encountered in soil test borings BC-1, BC -3 and BC-4 at depths
ranging from approximately 141 /a to 17%2 feet below the ground surface. Some temporary
dewatering will likely be required during foundation construction. Several methods for
groundwater control include pumping from sump areas, gravity ditches, closed conduits (pipes)
and/or filtered trench drains that discharge to suitable outlet areas. Additional groundwater
problems, if encountered, should be addressed in the field by an engineer from our office as they
occur.
Difficult Excavation: Partially weathered rock was encountered in soil test borings BC -1,
BC -2, BC-3 and BC-4 at depths ranging from approximately 12 to 22 feet below the ground
surface. These depths to partially weathered rock correspond to elevations ranging from
approximately 627 to 638 feet (MSL). In addition, auger refusal was encountered in soil test
borings BC -1, BC -2, BC -3 and BC-4 at depths ranging from approximately 191 /a to 27%2 feet below
the ground surface. These depths to auger refusal correspond to approximate elevations ranging
between 621 %2 to 635 %2 feet (MSL).
Based on the top of foundation elevation of 637.5 feet (MSL), some difficult excavation will
likely be encountered during foundation construction, particularly in the vicinity of boring
BC -2. Where dense soils or partially weathered rock exist, a Caterpillar 335 or similar size
backhoe equipped with rock teeth may be required to loosen these materials prior to their removal.
Very hard or very dense materials, as indicated by auger refusal, will likely require blasting or
other rock excavation techniques for their removal. If blasting is required, we recommend that it
be performed by a qualified blasting contractor.
Fill Material And Placement: As mentioned previously, a select backfill consisting of an A -1
or A -3 material (AASHTO classification) should be used for the bridge structure and wingwalls.
The backfill requirements, compaction criteria and drainage requirements should meet the
specifications set forth by Oldcastle Precast®.
All remaining structural fill used for this phase of the project could consist of sandy SILT or silty
SAND soils that are free of organic matter and debris with a low to moderate plasticity (Plasticity
Index less than 30). Also, the structural fill should exhibit a maximum dry density of at least 90
pounds per cubic foot and should be compacted to at least 95 percent of its Standard Proctor
maximum dry density. We recommend that moisture control limits, with respect to the optimum
moisture content, be established for the proposed fill soils. In addition, any fill soils placed wet of
the optimum moisture content must remain stable under heavy pneumatic-fired construction traffic.
All structural fill should be placed in lifts not exceeding twelve (12) inches loose thickness and
should be compacted to the percent compaction criteria recommended above. However, for
isolated excavations around the footing locations, behind the bridge culvert foundations
walls/wingwalls, and within any confined excavations, a hand tamper or walk- behind roller will
likely be required. While using a hand tamper or walk-behind roller, the maximum lift thickness
(loose) should not exceed 5 inches. We recommend that field density tests be performed on the fill
as it is being placed, at a frequency determined by an experienced geotechnical engineer or his
authorized representative, to verify that proper compaction is achieved.

PB
Geoscience Project No. CH11.0007.GE
May 6, 2013
Page 6
consulting Engineer-,
While compacting adjacent to the bridge structure, heavy construction equipment should maintain
a minimum horizontal distance of I": l (V). If this minimum distance cannot be maintained, the
GEQSCIENCE compaction equipment should run perpendicular, not parallel to, the long axis of the wall.
GROUP
Footing, Condiructlon: The foundation excavations must be tested by an experienced
geotechnical engineer to confirm adequate bearing conditions prior to installation of reinforcing
steel or placement of concrete. Unsuitable soils should be undercut to competent bearing
materials and backfiilled with additional foundation concrete, flowable fill or NCDOT No. 57
stone wrapped in a filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or equivalent). The horizontal and vertical extent
of any undercutting should be determined in the field during foundation construction. However,
for planning purposes, the horizontal extent of any undercutting would extend no more than 5
feet beyond the foundation limits. In addition, based on the anticipated bearing conditions, the
vertical extent of any undercutting would extend no more than 2 to 4 feet below the foundation
bearing level.
Due to the close proximity of groundwater to the foundation bearing elevation, it is imperative
that the foundations are poured on the same day that they are excavated. If the foundations
cannot be poured on the day that they are excavated, a minimum 6 -inch layer of flowable fill
must be poured into the excavation to protect the bearing soils. In addition, as noted previously,
the foundation contractor must be prepared to control any groundwater that infiltrates the
footing excavations. Water infiltrating the foundations will cause a loss of strength and
increased compressibility of the exposed bearing soils.
CLOSURE
Geoscience appreciates having had the opportunity to assist you during this phase of the project. If
you have any questions concerning the information outlined in this report, please contact us.
rr iuRUU J. aunIVU1 , r.r,.
North Carolina License No. 11453
L&13
DAM/WJS
Enclosures
File: P:/Work Files/Geoteckd2011/0007 university pointe doby creek bridge Wuchao,DOC

APPENDIX
Vicinity Map
Boring Location Diagram
Generalized Subsurface Profile
Test Boring Records
Grain Size Distribution Plot
Foundation Analysis Calculations
Notes On Plans

�_�
_ << ^',
.i
..
t
r'
� `
.��� '� � r
.:'�' � ��i a'd
1 � '
f
,, , f Y
,l
t ! f
f � _ f
i
4
� �L .
i
,� i�, � J
' Ir C
_ � ,T,
r.
E
3
�= s
��
� *+�F �� �
v �
� ,r +
�Y T i�
1i
. c ����
a
e
-s
� �
•, �

1/
000
/ / f co
co
r
5

ELEV.
boo
660
B-4
655 0:0
1.
3.0
8:0
.8.0 `
645 10.0 r
13.0 .!.
640
17.0 •.•.'
635 20:0 ..�
B.T.
NGWE
630
625
620
615
BLOW B-4A
court 0.0
9
12
6 6.0 x »
8.0
53
7
13.0• x
1 x �
15.f"
B.T.
31 NGWE
® Asphalt And Crushed Stone
Alluvial Sails
m Auger Probe Boring
® Clayey SILT/Sandy SILT
- Water Table - 24 HR
- -- - Water Table -1 HR
A - Loss of DdUtng Water
0 - Cavein Depth
\ NGWE - No Groundwater Encountered
BLOW
COUNT
- TOP OF FOWMT1CN B" nON AT OV.6 (MSL)
BC-2 BLOW BC-3 BLOW
COUNT couNr
- --
0.0 0.0
1.5 1.0 '�. 9
8 2.
3.0 12
BG1 BLOW 7
0.077 COUNT 5.5 5.5 ,'7r - 7 BC-4
12 6 0.0 RSc
8.0 B.0
2.5 8
5
12 2
a
5.5'. 7 12.0 12.0 .:..
8.0 ��� 9 13 6
>< .- ,,
638. 17.0 •�!•.` -
1r.0 5010.5- • • - 17.5'- 638-
12.0
19.4 5010 '` .0 •'•' 35
;•;• 13
A.R. - 635.6 22.0 -
• = i6' -633 & 5
17.0r NGWE
24.5 - = 5Q10.0 17
638
B--5 BLow
oauNr
142- 633.8
32 A.R. - 631.0 5010.3
• 'f.
22.0- • 1627 21.1 5010.0
5010A A.R. - 626.9
d
27.6 - 5010.0
A.R. - 621.4
( Existing Fill
0.0
0 Silly SAND
1.1
x x 3 Undieturbed Sample
GEOSCIENCE GROUP,
15
'•jW' Soft Weathered hock
13
A.R. -Auger Refusal
DRAWN BY: Ilb I APPROVED BY
15
BLOW
8.0
12
COUNT
10.0
14
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
21
WOH - Weight of Hemmer
13.0
18
14
15.0
I CH11.0007.GE - -2
20
B.T.
NGWE
142- 633.8
32 A.R. - 631.0 5010.3
• 'f.
22.0- • 1627 21.1 5010.0
5010A A.R. - 626.9
d
27.6 - 5010.0
A.R. - 621.4
( Existing Fill
0 Silly SAND
x x 3 Undieturbed Sample
GEOSCIENCE GROUP,
INC.
'•jW' Soft Weathered hock
A.R. -Auger Refusal
DRAWN BY: Ilb I APPROVED BY
I VERTICAL• AS SHOWN
B.T. - Boring Terminated
DATE 8M7111 I]
I` HORIZONTAL: N.T.S.
DOBY CREEK BRIDGE STRUCTURE
C.T. - Coring Terminated
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
WOH - Weight of Hemmer
DRAWING NUMBER
GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PROFILE
I CH11.0007.GE - -2
1\

'A0RRiG11�,P4 B-4
TEST
DAZE, DRIIJU-Dj _1 .. - -. - _ ..,,_., �_
-
n>ul:I c 'v��.�rltut
BORING
GEOSCIENCE
o: ,
^s
RECORD
GROUP, ING
pitoy n, DOBV c ,sB 11DIMIRE
i
DEPTH, FT. DESCRIPTION
Elev.
Blow • PENETRATION - BLOW COUNT*
o.n
656.0±
Count 5 10
20 30 40 so 80 100
2.5" Surface Asphalt And 14" Crushed
Stone
14
654.6
Stiff Brown And Grey Clayey Medium To
9
Fine Sandy SILT With Crushed Stone And
3.0 Trace Organics - Fill
653.0
Stiff Broom And Grey Clayey Medium To
Fine Sandy SILT With Trace Organics - Fill
12
6.0
650.0
Firm Brown And Grey Coarse To Fine
Sandy Clayey SILT With Rock Fragments
6
And Trace Organics - Fill
8.0 ,Note: Sample Moist
646.0
Stiff Brown And Grey Clayey Coarse To
Fine Sandy SILT With Rock Fragments,
10.0 Trace Organics And Concrete Fragments -
646 0
53
ill
ote: Blow Count Influenced By Rock And J
loncete
Fragments I
Firm Brown And Grey Coarse To Fine
Sandy Clayey SILT With Rock Fragments
7 it
13.0 And Wood Pieces - Fill
643,0
-\Note: Sample Moist j
Very Soft Brown And Grey Silty Medium To
Fine Sandy CLAY With Trace Organics -
1
Alluvial
Note; Sample Very Moist
17.0 639.0
Dense Olive -Brown, Brown And White
Very Sllty Medium To Fine SAND -
Residual
20.0 636.0 31
---------------- - - - - --
Boring Terminated
No Groundwater Encountered
w
f BOx>icY.4�s�i�ircti:nas�rMi`u:»: $ �SIR>aix,1� w4zi�i }r, =xa�i�
- _
.C�JR {DRltsi4VGNF�7'S�A;ST��VID -313 _ J' _
j06", RotK COW Rik 'bvbIX , - vii����•Rr�>E.;la,t�>Ei�a. -.
' TR4`iroN ;TH�,ti[Sii4ia o>� BJ.oVI'S tTF.��iY40 i.B�r(b3?Skgl' - 4 9 OF DK1U1JNG'1W -A!= $0 , CAVF- MiMPfll
� � I1�ER_ +F;G�30'�1PT.'i16r�,1e�,i 12LQII�D 3'O DBIYE'A 1:4�Dk; Wig. w�[GHT OF H411!IMBR � ' . :PAC,�E 1c O# 7 ,
�itbtarl• I: D. �` �Ai�IPI :Fd%I�P:Ca�9D:5em1,..- .Y.,...�, - __.,. -_-,,. _, - _ ��. - � . __ j

DAIS DMLMu 81'.RI ---
DRII.IM (.X)NIRaCTt?R: Sail DIMLSerrkjs_-,--
JOH'NO., _C4111 7�.G
+f?ROJF.C-T; -'-Q�9RMK JB -E 8* itu�RE
DEPTH, FT. DESCRIPTION Elev.
0.0 656.0±
6.0
8.0
13.0
Offset From Soil Test Boring B-4
Approximately 5 Feet South - Auger Probe
Boring To 6 Feet - Standard Penetration
Testing Not Performed
Standard 3 -Inch Diameter Shelby Tube
Obtained From 6 To 8 Feet
Auger Probe Boring To 13 Feet - Standard
Penetration Testing Not Performed
Standard 3-Inch Diameter Shelby Tube
Obtained From 13 To 15 Feet
am n
648.0
643.0
15.0 - -- 641.0
Boring Terminated
No Groundwater Encountered
TEST
BORING GEOSCIENCE
RECORD GROUP, INC.
131aw i PENETRATION - BLOW COUNT*
Count 5 1) 2^ 30 40 60 80 100
4 Rif- G,:VM-- 8AMFLJNQMmrB s4i im D-13$6 �`' +i MMME Milt TZST _, ..1iYATFR T•.18M - 24 HIR.
MEI;'_TS 113
;:...,, y` , 19D K- i ocb'CYXiE R>ftit`Gi+6.itiY f' _ WATER M.Ji
wPI'+�E7R''� t'ION IS �1'HE *iUNI9Bdt QI :Bi:[iW8 OF .t l40 LB. (63,S1r�J LAM OF DiEIi.LII�iG V1�4I Fat CAVE- ![.ri• DF�TS
H UNDAIER- —A i1PV'Q IN (76Z`eml RF.QT�IREDTODRR'if A IA,ttir " IC:Hi pFHA+liMfiR ... PA:,�E ± tof 1
\i3.5 1:DLfiPLI rtC:•13A�3o�l - _ _

DATE i391i..Tq.FM kj4a 1 .........
DK�L.1 TNG C'l)'�tllt�1C'TtaRa! _ ►[�; Serv_�s.
+I'ROJKT., -' CREEK J0LWj GE STRI:,CTI?ItE
DEPTH, FT. DESCRIPTION Elev.
0.0 649.0±
0.3 -\Topsoil And Roos
Firm Brown And Grey Very Silty Coarse To
Fine SAND - Fill
2.5 646.5
Stiff Reddish - Brown, Brown And Black
Coarse To Fine Very Sandy SILT - Fill
5.5 643.5
Loose Brown, Tan And Grey Very Silty
Coarse To Fine SAND - Alluvial
Note: Sample Moist
6.0 641.0
Very Loose Brown And Tan Very Silty
Medium To Fine SAND - Residual
Note: Sample Very Moist
12.0 637.0
Firm Olive -Brown, Brown, Tan And White
Slightly Micaceous Very Silty Coarse To
Fine SAND
17.0 632.0
Dense Brown And Grey Very Silty Coarse
To Fine SAND
22.0 627.0
Partially Weathered Rock When Sampled
Becomes Grey Silty Coarse To Fine SAND
27.6 621.4
Auger Refusal
TEST
BORING GEOSCIENCE
RECORD _ GROUP,
Blow • PENETRATION - BLOW COUNT*
Count 5 10 20 30 40 60 so 100
I
12 0
13 M
32 M
50/0.4
50/0.0
I
I
fr
$DYiUIG',tt�1P_tD S,4ltitll'1�,T1,`G M�T,9! �5TMt131S86 - PyRailiEmEnR T1u5'i'' = `'I:ATER')rmx - ;4,,En
>._ .. _ -_ � � � _
1'It1Vid ll'R�TIO�WjI5t7 ±NUMBER UF;B_LO V,S'l�F FlaO LB: (d3.9�cgl' ; !i " ;1[AfiS OF,,DRR'al n_G WA1TERJ MN jrCAA.114 DF.PI•H
wog 0 . ;."_­',­PAGE 1f oll 1

�'BCIRM NO-!, BC- -2 _
.DATF1PR>z.LJFJ:1
OR INGCONiRACIOR _ u l» eatw►ic
DEPTH, FT. DESCRIPTION Ems,
0.0 655.0 f
2.5" Surface Asphalt And 16" Crushed
Stone
TEST
BORING GEOSCIENCE
RECORD, GROUP, INC.
Slow • PENETRATION - BLOW COUNT*
Count 5 1) 20 30 40 60 80 100
1.5
653.5
Firm Brown, Tan And Grey Clayey Medium
To Fine Sandy SILT - Fill
6
3.0
,Note: Sample Moist
fi52.0
Firm Brown, Tan And Grey Clayey Coarse
To Fine Sandy SILT With Rock Fragments
- Fill
7 0
5.5
Note: Sample Moist
649.6
Firm Brown, Tan And Grey Clayey Coarse
To Fine Very Sandy SILT - Fill
Note: Sample Moist
6
8.0
647.0
Firm Brown, Tan And Grey Clayey Coarse
To Fine Sandy SILT With Rock Fragments
- Fill
5 OD
Note: Sample Very Moist
12.0
643.0
Stiff Brown And Grey Clayey Coarse To
Fine Sandy SILT With Trace Organics And
Rock Fragments - Fill
Note: Sample Moist
9 F
17.0 638.0
Partially Weathered Rock When Sampled
Becomes Brown And Grey Very Silty 50/0.5
Coarse To Fine SAND With Weathered
19.4 Rock Fragments - Residual 635.6
Auger Refusal 50 /0.0
No Groundwater Encountered
�DORMGAA D S4WL1Ntf::7a efb FK�i Y_?REM LLVlLNWM 1 5; • ,+Y•? :•. x, '}} 1
- - .�• - +. +'2) °� 'C.x �D -xi�13 .y' s`�`i �•'- ' "iti: jit 9 i TER�Lr
i1A7cb Rhd f�OAE'DRXLLINGMSAST—
�PEV T8A1i0>V' °iS I; J4IBl�f: QF iB OWIS OV& 46tIL (E3.5kg� +�I I'.(lfi5 OP DRR•1L iG W °A�I'kH, �'C 1 F. -t�!I DEF!'H f
'`H:�A314�,F:�I.1:I!vG' OI, �, T. i`{ 73REQ [%iIRiD'PO,DR! <<�4�f,•A�IN. - �:,+pygi�, VY�G'H'T, ©PA,AA+iM&R ..-."•�-
PACE
`%3i6ciml tsD: fiAAilt"I:F9�r1.1I3Q5cnii . _ ___ J

BpRLA %!VlIr,SAAfl!T:iTi'Gi11RE�T�t;� �i�iss�- � _ `;; _ :`• f_ russ�x�n�?�>��� _ - -_- VIrA7E1t'T;�BI�- za��x4
;OIiDR1LiLi!VGii'S.ArS'l M�D,Zi13 , - `; -
ROC>tiI CUU vii _ a:A T-AXE
*P>�!iE111ZA110�ti i5 `'[fll»NUM1�EiZ;ORBLOV4'3QF�ATI LBa16351 = '4 L "S OFD=,,LIN(;Wk='
'�.� nl .'u�.. �L��6P',( 7± stensj�i�QU >isi�n��o`nalvr:a��;atir;' - :�oH vv%icl�'or�aR � , • F�.GE � 1tof1 • ��
- - - -
- - • �+
DA E-,DR1lJED.. 8123f11_ _
_ ..,�_.
TEST
DRlUMCONTILACTOI?? - -W P&h'pj Sarvl[m
BORING
GEOSCIENCE
ro$.N0.-
'�;rt S U G
RECORD
GROUP INC.
tiPROJ _ $Y.4`RFP��RWG:_
E'_
- - - -- -- - - - -
- - - —'
DEPTH, FT. DESCRIPTION
Elev.
Blow • PENETRATION - BLOW COUNT*
0.0
655 -5f
Count 5 1) 20 30 40
60 60 100
2.5" Surface Asphalt And 10" Crushed
1.0 Stone
654.5
Stiff Brown, Tan And White Clayey Coarse
2.5 To Fine Very Sandy SILT - Fill
653.0
12
Loose Brown And Grey Very Silty Coarse
To Fine SAND - Fill
`
'
9
5.5
650.0
Firm Brown, Tan And Grey Medium To
Fine Sandy Clayey SILT - Fill
Note: Sample Moist
7
8.0
647.5
Firm Brown And Grey Clayey Coarse To
Fine Very Sandy SILT - Fill
Note: Sample Moist
6
i
12.0
643.5
Stiff Brown And Grey Clayey Coarse To
Fine Sandy SILT With Rock Fragments -
i
Fill
13 r
I
17.0
638.5
I
j
Dense Olive -Brown And Grey Very Silty
Medium To Fine SAND - Residual
;
35 11
I
22.0
633.5
Partially Weathered Rock When Sampled
Becomes Brown And Grey Very Silty
50/0.5
11 1
Coarse To Fine SAND With Weathered
Rock Fragments
24.5
631.0
50 /0.0
Auger Refusal
BpRLA %!VlIr,SAAfl!T:iTi'Gi11RE�T�t;� �i�iss�- � _ `;; _ :`• f_ russ�x�n�?�>��� _ - -_- VIrA7E1t'T;�BI�- za��x4
;OIiDR1LiLi!VGii'S.ArS'l M�D,Zi13 , - `; -
ROC>tiI CUU vii _ a:A T-AXE
*P>�!iE111ZA110�ti i5 `'[fll»NUM1�EiZ;ORBLOV4'3QF�ATI LBa16351 = '4 L "S OFD=,,LIN(;Wk='
'�.� nl .'u�.. �L��6P',( 7± stensj�i�QU >isi�n��o`nalvr:a��;atir;' - :�oH vv%icl�'or�aR � , • F�.GE � 1tof1 • ��

TEST �
PATE, iDRAIJEM .&W11 _
YB BORING GEOSCIENCE
DRH.LM C0N'1R,CCt' bR.- _ Svll Dri>tllilR Sea vices
RECORD GROUP, INC.
PROJFjC Tx ?tlBY SEEK BRTDG E MUC"rtW _ _ w
DEPTH, FT. DESCRIPTION Elev. Blow PENETRATION - BLOW COUNT*
0.0 648.0± Count 5 10 20 30 40 60 80 100
0.4 -,Topsoil And Roots ,—g47
Stiff Reddish -Brown, Brown And Tan
Slightly Micaceous Medium To Fine Sandy 14
2.5 Very Silty CLAY With Trace Organics - Fill 645.5
Firm Reddish -Brown, Brown And Grey
Clayey Very Silty Coarse To Fine SAND -
Alluvial
Note: Sample Moist 18
6.0
642.0
Firm Olive -Brown, Brown And Grey Silty
Coarse To Fine SAND - Residual
20 I O
8.0
640.0
Dense Olive - Brown, Brown, Grey And
i
White Very Silty Coarse To Fine SAND
48
12.0
636.0
Partially Weathered Rock When Sampled
Becomes Olive - Brown, Brown, Grey And
White Very Silty Coarse To Fine SAND
50/0.5 1 -= � -4 2r.
17.0
631.0
it
Partially Weathered Rock When Sampled
Becomes Grey, Black And White Very Silty
Coarse To Fine SAND
50/0.3 1
j
21.1
626.9
I
50/0 0
Auger Refusal
.
'
i
t_]El�AP�G�NiD S'A1119:Iti!iG M6T5° 5 e _. —.� - _- A TML11�1S8e r. • i� PR EiSUM'ITT WA7ERrAMX %4 ii .
CX) RED )6tIftsL+Ir!iG:�S3'S`A53ti?N'D =2113 =v.. .. •
�50�5L SQC'Ei C�OItE RiEr6!OV`1'sRY ' *y=��' A�a1T>LrR�T1HJL>E -'11 IEQt.
*Ph'lVE'III.�TI03r {iS I1:1111TA+tBiSR;U11IraBI.OW` QR;A?1�49 i • (U3J 'NI . i:I]IS.S.I)F DRE[.I1G,Vkai`liR CAVE-EN
'M,Mi ia3ii '.�:.�l�n+S+Q�i•i�A "llj4��i�. i `'1
wFiu TtFa!�1 Ea
' . PSG'' : 1�df1
.j

i�'AA'TF �D �RtLi:�D'- �= X18711 � k� • A: ,..�; , z��� »�•y�.k .
DEPTH, FT. DESCRIPTION Elev
O.n
3.5° Surface Asphalt And 10' Crushed
1.1 _ Stone
Stiff Brown, Tan And Grey Clayey Coarse
To Fine Sandy SILT With Rock Fragments
And Trace Organics - Fill
8.0
656.5 f
657.4
15
13
15
650.5
Stiff Brown And Grey Coarse To Fine
Sandy Clayey SILT With Rock Fragments
And Trace Organics - Fill
10.0 ,Note: Sample Moist 648.5
Very Stiff Brown And Grey Coarse To Fine
Sandy Clayey SILT With Rock Fragments -
Fill
13.0
Stiff Brown, Tan And Grey Clayey Medium
To Fine Sandy SILT - Residual
liiPA
21
645.5
15.0 643.5 14
---------------- - - - - --
Boring Terminated
No Groundwater Encountered
,I
l
1
i
j
BORIN44AND:5MQL.tiYG M Dd586 "'',; '- , :h r � � IPRi�RS1IREMB['ERII11� u, R- ATERSnIt nA, =Z4;im
1501% '80C1►'Cb4 RfFkb' VAIE4`I17AUL9 I1 HR.
*PeavWrR►rtovtIrs t= ;vL�Le oFt BLc>iws o> , 140131, tsas ' _ oii:�s>i►c wt�r�x i ti�s'E -�>ti �nE>1
H�UVlMkR'K g1g4(. (76:aem}!REQL1IItED T4 DRIVIirA 1,4`i�Y: �� W�yiC�T QF H,I► -
�s:� , . PA(
BARING: *.
G•EC�SGHEi�iC.:
* RE.COR,a
k+GR P,, tNe
Blow • PENETRATION - BLOW COUNT*
Count 5 17 20
30 40 60 60 100
15
13
15
650.5
Stiff Brown And Grey Coarse To Fine
Sandy Clayey SILT With Rock Fragments
And Trace Organics - Fill
10.0 ,Note: Sample Moist 648.5
Very Stiff Brown And Grey Coarse To Fine
Sandy Clayey SILT With Rock Fragments -
Fill
13.0
Stiff Brown, Tan And Grey Clayey Medium
To Fine Sandy SILT - Residual
liiPA
21
645.5
15.0 643.5 14
---------------- - - - - --
Boring Terminated
No Groundwater Encountered
,I
l
1
i
j
BORIN44AND:5MQL.tiYG M Dd586 "'',; '- , :h r � � IPRi�RS1IREMB['ERII11� u, R- ATERSnIt nA, =Z4;im
1501% '80C1►'Cb4 RfFkb' VAIE4`I17AUL9 I1 HR.
*PeavWrR►rtovtIrs t= ;vL�Le oFt BLc>iws o> , 140131, tsas ' _ oii:�s>i►c wt�r�x i ti�s'E -�>ti �nE>1
H�UVlMkR'K g1g4(. (76:aem}!REQL1IItED T4 DRIVIirA 1,4`i�Y: �� W�yiC�T QF H,I► -
�s:� , . PA(

I
1" 314' 1/2" Ir 4
100
90
SO
70
BOULI I GRAVEL
DERS COBBLES I COARSE I FINE
BORING:
Uc #1
DEPTH: NAT WC LL PL PI
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
10 16 20 40 60 100 200 270
\ 1
I
I
I
I
- I
I
I
I
}
}
I
I
I
I
I
\\I
-
I \
I
I 4�\
I
I
1.0 0.1
GRAIN SIZE IN Mill rMETERS
SAND
COARSE I MEDIUM I FINE
DEscRfFrMN OR CLASSIFICATION
2217.0' 30 28 2 Brown And Tan Clayey Silty Medium To Fine SAND
(University Pointe Boulevard - Bridge Structure Over
Doby Creek)
0.01
FINES
SILT SIZES
0.001
CLAY SM
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
JOB NO. CH11.0007.GE
SHOPPING CENTER DRIVE
Geoscience Group, Inc.
500 -K Clanton Road
Charlotte, North Carolina
60
m 50
w•
40
w
30
a
20
10
- --
--
0,
100
10
BOULI I GRAVEL
DERS COBBLES I COARSE I FINE
BORING:
Uc #1
DEPTH: NAT WC LL PL PI
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
10 16 20 40 60 100 200 270
\ 1
I
I
I
I
- I
I
I
I
}
}
I
I
I
I
I
\\I
-
I \
I
I 4�\
I
I
1.0 0.1
GRAIN SIZE IN Mill rMETERS
SAND
COARSE I MEDIUM I FINE
DEscRfFrMN OR CLASSIFICATION
2217.0' 30 28 2 Brown And Tan Clayey Silty Medium To Fine SAND
(University Pointe Boulevard - Bridge Structure Over
Doby Creek)
0.01
FINES
SILT SIZES
0.001
CLAY SM
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
JOB NO. CH11.0007.GE
SHOPPING CENTER DRIVE
Geoscience Group, Inc.
500 -K Clanton Road
Charlotte, North Carolina

408Y cRIkEK 8RIo4E $TR�1c7W/cE I Fou.ioAtlo„) A�JALIJIS I 4,JIV>�SIZ�. Poi„I�C BaultdABD f `/Z
OVAPIA CAPAcI'►y )
/ (
AgS14To •LRru gjzw4e DFSIC�J i
-
SPrc%ricAi1o�J3
rAt7oREa
BEARIA RESrs7ANcE E4, to. C •3. 1. 1- 1
1
b = RESIS]Alfir FACTOX Ii
Lh i WO,rIJAL 8E4RI.14 P^rSjwAC
Ju 8
S
FOX YR S '(SF ti LW-31 14LF !
= a'tFCCr
u 43E $- & FEET
Nita ' P RAf.E glow COWtT F'1ZOM SMAM OF Fop -s',K
i
To 1, 5 8 SELPW SM-T *„ I OF FQoiId4
O� = ';-41MAt'F ! 3 Ftrt?T '
If ER
CA = 01-4 Lp' ° 2.0 N(Q _ ..W �ER'80 "F0R A4U,4At14 V(A#*ce1
•
3
IZ
its �c F
Tot OF rbcrllA 2
-32 - 1�5►c• Z. 7-9 `tz,
r�tco = Zy•ss
p{ r 3 FEEY Dw = 6 FEET Dw' VA C f
i
0,6S
Q ^ Z9 55.8 {.o • t U,bS qh s 41-A wr
`
S 8
�6 -o 4S 7A�f le•5•sz.z -1 =0.45 (`ff;•'Ftj • 21.8 rip
4X Jt= 5-.0 I(XF TABtF C10•c
'
MEOIIrh �EIUE I'o WX SAftb
35500

DD9y MR 5RlDgC STRVE14F•r 1 FourlogTlorl NALyrls I u>,Itiv�RSl ry po►,lit 00, tcvAAJ>
i
i = VAC >r3""AAt6o PRC:11IRiMOIEF` tWiA MAP od Sol4 7Var- BoRWCS gc- l�gc- 2,8t- 3aBc•�}.i�
CA= 5S TV 6 �� 115 TfF
3• ES �, �•S•CA
F= p• S TIF (SEAR1.4 I)LfiSS,, PE OF S 16F -
go - 099`l25 �<OMS7Ar1Z1
�t = 3 NQFMA%�LY CdO(JoLiVATrO S.l.jD
I
F %'a =Z•6S �SiR►P Foolld4 } ;`15 (s7R�P Fool1A(4) .'.
w— r,33
7.5 0,98425 2.65
3! jig
I i
R
0.0x1 + 0 ♦070 - O•D41+
(Ta ccou - t J'94
A ,1T ;R Dl1 4 4rlcC aF BtAJC1�1'j .fblLS)
1
i
,w
� - I
I• F
u
I
I
• I
1 a
35500

NOTES ON PLANS
DESCRIPTION: UNIVERSITY POINTE BOULEVARD - DOBY CREEK BRIDGE STRUCTURE
CITY: Charlotte
COUNTY: Mecklenburg County
STATE: North Carolina
SPREAD FOOTINGS
1. THE CRITICAL SCOUR ELEVATION FOR THE SPREAD FOOTINGS WILL BE
DETERMINED BY PB.
2. THE SPREAD FOOTINGS ARE DESIGNED FOR A FACTORED RESISTANCE OF 2.5 TSF.
CHECK FIELD CONDITIONS FOR THE REQUIRED RESISTANCE OF 2.5 TSF BEFORE
PLACING CONCRETE.
3. FOOTING EXCAVATIONS WILL EXTEND INTO MATERIALS THAT DETERIORATES
WHEN EXPOSED TO THE ELEMENTS. CHECK FIELD CONDITIONS FOR THE
REQUIRED RESISTANCE AND PLACE CONCRETE IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE
EXCAVATION IS COMPLETED.
4. TEMPORARY GROUNDWATER CONTROL WILL LIKELY BE REQUIRED DURING
FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION. METHODS FOR TEMPORARY GROUNDWATER
CONTROL INCLUDE PUMPING FROM SUMP AREAS, GRAVITY DITCHES, CLOSED
CONDUITS AND FILTERED TRENCH DRAINS.
5. ALL STRUCTURAL BACKFILL PLACED ADJACENT TO THE OLDCASTLE PRECAST'
STRUCTURE AND WINGWALLS SHOULD CONSIST OF AN AASHTO
CLASSIFICATION A -1 OR A -3 MATERIAL.

May 6, 2013
Consulting Engineers
PB
GESCIENCE
o
GROUP Charlotte, West Trade Street, Suite 1950
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Attention: Mr. Daniel Bridges, P.E.
Reference: Report of Subsurface Findings and Foundation Recommendations
Access Road
Doby Creek Bridge Structure
Charlotte, North Carolina
Geoscience Project No. CHI 1.0007.GE
Geoscience Group, Inc. ( Geoscience) has completed the subsurface exploration for the above
referenced project. The purpose of this work was to determine the general subsurface conditions at
the location of the bridge, evaluate those conditions and provide foundation recommendations for
the proposed bridge structure. This report presents our findings along with our recommendations
for this phase of the Access Road project.
SCOPE OFMYLORATION
Field Exoloration: Six (6) soil test borings (AC -1 through ACS were performed at the
approximate locations shown on the enclosed Vicinity Map (Drawing No. CHI 1.0007.G &1) and
Boring Location Diagram (Drawing No. CHI1.0007.GE -lA), included in the Appendix of this
report. The boring locations were established in the field by an engineu from Geoscience using a
hand held GPS unit and the existing site features as reference. The soil test borings were extended
to depths ranging from approximately 2 to 191/2 feet below the ground surface using a CME 550X
drill rig and continuous- flight, hollow -stem augers. After encountering auger refusal, rock- coring
techniques were used to advance soil test borings AC -1 and AC -5 an additional 10 feet.
Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the soil test borings using an automatic hammer at
designated intervals in general accordance with ASTM D 1586 -84. A correction factor (CE) has
been used for our analysis of the Standard Penetration Tests with the automatic hammer assembly,
however, the N- values reported on the Test Boring Records are the field recorded values. In
conjunction with the penetration testing, split-barrel soil samples were recovered for soil
classification and potential laboratory tests. All soil samples were returned to our laboratory for
observation, classification and potential testing. Elevations shown on the Test Boring Records and
referenced m this report were interpolated from a topographic survey map provided to us by PB.
The soil test borings were backfilled with auger cuttings prior to leaving the site.
Laboratory Services,: The laboratory services provided for this project included visual
classification of the soil samples by the project engineer. The color, texture and plasticity
characteristics were used to identify each soil sample in general accordance with the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS). In addition, the rock cores were visually classified, and the percent
recovery (REC) and rock quality designation (RQD) values were determined for each of the rock
cores to assess the quality and soundness of the rock. The results of the visual classifications are
presented on the Test Boring Records included in the Appendix.
500 Clanton Rozd Charlotte, North Carolina Telephone facsimile
Suite K 28217 704.5252003 704,525.2051

Geoscience Project No. CH11.0007.GE
May 6, 2013
Page 2 ,
A grain size test with hydrometer analysis was performed on a representative grab sample of the
creek bed soils. The grab sample was obtained at the location of the bridge structure. The purpose
of this laboratory testing was to determine the gradation of the creek bed soils for scour estimates.
The results of the laboratory testing are included in the Appendix of this report.
SUBSURFACE FINDINGS
As indicated by the soil test borings, the subsurface conditions within the area of the proposed
bridge generally consist of a residual soil profile that has formed from the in -place weathering of
the underlying parent bedrock. The general subsurface conditions are described below and
illustrated on the Generalized Subsurface Profile, Drawing No. CHI1.0007.GE -2, included in the
Appendix of this report. For soil descriptions and general stratification at a particular boring
location, the respective Test Boring Record should be reviewed. Please note that the stratification
Imes designating the interface between various layers represent approximate boundaries. The
actual transition between different strata across the site will vary in both the horizontal and vertical
directions.
In all the soil test borings, a surface layer of topsoil and roots is present to a depth of approximately
% foot. Subjacent to the topsoil in borings AC-1, AC -2, AC -3, AC-4 and AC-6, residual clayey
SILT, sandy SILT and silty SAND soils were encountered to depths ranging from approximately 2
to 16 feet below the ground surface. The Standard Penetration Test results within these residual
SILT and SAND range from 6 to 80 BPF.
Partially weathered rock was encountered in soil test borings AC -1, AC-2 and AC -5 at the
respective depths of approximately 21 /z feet, 12 feet and ' /s foot below the ground surface. These
depths to the top of the partially weathered rock correspond to elevations ranging from
approximately 657 to 6652/9 feet (MSL). For engineering purposes, partially weathered rock is
considered any dense residual soil exhibiting a Standard Penetration Resistance value in excess of
100 BPF. When sampled, the partially weathered rock generally consists of a silty SAND.
Auger refusal was encountered in all the soil test borings at depths ranging from approximately 2
to 19%2 feet below the ground surface. The depths to auger refusal were noticeably shallower on
the east side of Doby Creek. The above depths to auger refusal correspond to approximate
elevations ranging between 649%2 to 664 feet (MSL). Generally, auger refusal is encountered at
bedrock or on top of boulders, and is indicative of materials which will likely require rock
excavation techniques for their removal.
Beneath the auger refusal depths in borings AC -1 and AC -5, rock was cored with an HQ size (21/2
inch diameter) core barrel. The results of this rock coring indicate recovery (REC) values ranging
between 90 and 100 percent, and rock quality designation (RQD) values ranging between 48 and
92 percent. The rock was visually classified as a grey and white slightly weathered fine grained
granite.

PB
Geoscience Project No. CH11.0007.GE
May 6, 2013
Page 3
Groundwater was encountered in soil test borings AC -2 and AC-3 at the respective depths of
approximately 10 and 11% feet below the ground surface. These depths to groundwater
correspond to elevations ranging from approximately 6571/3 to 659 feet (MSL).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This phase of the Access Road project will include the construction of an Oldcastle Precast®
bridge system over Doby Creek. Based on the project information provided to us, the bridge
system will have an overall span of approximately 40 feet and will have a height of
approximately 12 feet. The bridge wingwall structures will be approximately 20 to 25 feet in
length. The service vertical and lateral reaction loads for the bridge system have been estimated
to be on the order of 48 kips per linear foot and 6 kips per linear foot, respectively. It is our
understanding that the top of the structure foundations will be located near elevation 658.5 feet
(MSL). However, a scour analysis is currently being performed by PB to determine the
minimum foundation bearing elevation with regard to the anticipated depth of scour, erosion or
undermining at the design flood elevation of Doby Creek. Therefore, the top of structure
foundation elevation could change based on the scour analysis.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The results of the borings represent the subsurface conditions at the test locations only. Due to the
prevailing geology, there can be changes in the subsurface conditions over relatively short
distances that have not been disclosed by the results of the borings performed. Therefore, if
differing subsurface conditions are encountered, we will require the opportunity to review our
recommendations in light of the new information and make any necessary changes.
PROJECTDESIGNAND CONSTRUCTION
Shallow Foundation Sunk: As mentioned in the Project Description section of this report, the
top of the structure foundations will be located at elevation 658.5 feet (MSL). Based on the results
of the soil test borings and the topographic information provided to us, it appears that the bearing
conditions will consist of a combination of dense residual SAND soils, partially weathered rock
and bedrock on the west side of Doby Creek, and bedrock on the east side of Doby Creek.
Provided the recommendations outlined in this report are implemented, a factored bearing
resistance of 10 kips per square foot (KSF) can be used for design of a shallow foundation system
bearing on undisturbed dense residual SAND soils, partially weathered rock and bedrock. The
factored bearing resistance was calculated using a resistance factor, q6 equal to 0.45. Our bearing
capacity calculations are included in the Appendix of this report The factored bearing resistance
is that pressure which may be transmitted to the soil in excess of the minimum surrounding
overburden pressure. Minimum wall footing dimensions of 16 inches should be maintained to
reduce the possibility of a localized, "punching" type, shear failure.
Excavation of partially weathered rock and bedrock will be required for this project, particularly
for the foundations located on the east side of Doby Creek. Luther recommendations in this
regard are outlined in the Difficult Excavation section of this report.

Geoscience Project No. CH11.0007.GE
May 6, 2013
Page 4
Pertinent data to be included in the project plans and specifications are contained in the Notes On
Plans included in the Appendix of this report.
Settlement Potential: Foundation settlement will be negligible for those foundations bearing in
solid bedrock. However, some settlement is anticipated for the foundations bearing in dense
residual SAND soils and partially weathered rock. The post - construction settlement potential of
the shallow foundations bearing in dense residual SAND soils and partially weathered rock will be
less than !/2-inch. Our settlement calculations are included in the Appendix of this report.
Lateral Earth Pressures: The bridge culvert foundation walls and wingwalls should be designed
to withstand lateral earth pressures from the backfill and supported soils. Additionally, the walls
should be designed to resist the lateral components of surcharge loads occurring within a zone
defined by a plane extending up at a 45 degree angle from the base of the wall. Further, all
existing fill and alluvial soils should be removed from this zone and be replaced with a select fill
material as outlined below.
A select granular backfill consisting of an A -1 or A -3 material (AASHTO classification) should
be placed as backfill for the bridge structure and wingwalls. The A -1 classification generally
applies to a gravel or coarse SAND and the A -3 classification applies to a fine SAND. An
offsite borrow source will be required to obtain the necessary structural fill. Once the borrow
source is identified, we recommend that the material strength parameters be verified through
laboratory testing.
r'
The backfill requirements, compaction criteria and drainage requirements should meet the
specifications set forth by Oldcastle Precast®. Qualified engineering personnel should provide
quality control during the construction phase to ensure that the specifications are met.
The sliding resistance on the base of concrete footings for the bride culvert foundation walls and
wingwalls can be calculated using the friction factor, Tan S = 0.35, and a resistance factor for
sliding, cps, equal to 0.90.
Temnormw Slopes: Temporary slopes in confined or open excavations should perform
satisfactorily at inclinations of 1" :1(V). Steeper inclinations on the order of'fs(H):1(V) to near
vertical could probably be used for the slopes that extend into partially weathered rock or bedrock.
However, where groundwater is encountered within a cut slope, flatter slopes and additional
groundwater control will be required. All excavations should conform to applicable OSHA
regulations.
Groundwater: Groundwater was encountered in soil test borings AC -2 and AC -3 at the
respective depths of approximately 10 and 11 % feet below the ground surface. These depths to
groundwater range from approximately %z foot above to 1 % feet below the top of foundation
elevation of 658.5 feet (MSL). Therefore, temporary dewatering will likely be required during
foundation construction. Several methods for groundwater control include pumping from sump
areas, gravity ditches, closed conduits (pipes) and/or filtered trench drains that discharge to
suitable outlet areas. Additional groundwater problems, if encountered, should be addressed in
the field by an engineer from our office as they occur.

PB
Geoscience Project No. CH11.0007.GE
May 6, 2013
Page 5
Difficult Excavation: Partially weathered rock was initially encountered in soil test borings
AC -1, AC -2 and AC -5 at elevations ranging from approximately 657 to 665% feet (MSL).
These elevations to partially weathered rock range from approximately 7 % feet above to 1 % feet
below the top of foundation elevation of 658.5 feet (MSL). Also, auger refusal was encountered
in all the soil test borings at elevations ranging from approximately between 649%2 to 664 feet
(MSL). These elevations to auger refusal range from approximately 5'/2 feet above to 9 feet
below the top of foundation elevation. Therefore, a significant portion of the foundation
excavation will consist of partially weathered rock and bedrock, particularly on the east side of
Doby Creek.
Where dense soils or partially weathered rock exist, a Caterpillar 335 or similar size backhoe
equipped with rock teeth will likely be required to loosen these materials prior to their removal.
Very hard or very dense materials, as indicated by auger refusal, will likely require blasting or
other rock excavation techniques for their removal. Blasting of bedrock to achieve the bearing
grade can create fissures and cracks that could reduce the bearing pressure and increase the
compressibility of the bedrock. Therefore, a blasting program designed to minimize fracturing
and rock upheaval should be employed near the foundation bearing level.
Fill Material And Placement: As mentioned previously, a select backfill consisting of an A -1
or A -3 material (AASHTO classification) should be used for the bridge structure and wingwalls.
The backfill requirements, compaction criteria and drainage requirements should meet the
specifications set forth by Oldcastle Precast®.
All remaining structural fill used for this phase of the project could consist of sandy SILT or silty
SAND soils that are free of organic matter and debris with a low to moderate plasticity (Plasticity
Index less than 30). Also, the structural fill should exhibit a maximum dry density of at least 90
pounds per cubic foot and should be compacted to at least 95 percent of its Standard Proctor
maximum dry density. We recommend that moisture control limits, with respect to the optimum
moisture content, be established for the proposed fill soils. In addition, any fill soils placed wet of
the optimum moisture content must remain stable under heavy pneumatic -tired construction traffic.
All structural fill should be placed in lifts not exceeding twelve (12) inches loose thickness and
should be compacted to the percent compaction criteria recommended above. However, for
isolated excavations around the footing locations, behind the bridge culvert foundations
walls / wingwalls, and within any confined excavations, a band tamper or walk- behind roller will
likely be required. While using a hand tamper or walk-behind roller, the maximum lift thickness
(loose) should not exceed 5 inches. We recommend that field density tests be performed on the fill
as it is being placed, at a frequency determined by an experienced geotechnical engineer or his
authorized representative, to verify that proper compaction is achieved.
While compacting adjacent to the bridge structure, heavy constriction equipment should maintain
a minimum horizontal distance of 1(H):1(V). If this minimum distance cannot be maintained, the
compaction equipment should run perpendicular, not parallel to, the long axis of the wall.

-J
PB
Geoscience Project No. CH11.0007.GE
May 6, 2013
Page 6
Consulting Engineers
Footins Construction: The foundation excavations must be tested by an experienced
geotechmcal engineer to confirm adequate bearing conditions prior to installation of reinforcing
GEO-SCIENCE steel or placement of concrete. Unsuitable soils should be undercut to competent bearing
GROUP materials and backfilled with additional foundation concrete, flowable fill or NCDOT No. 57
stone wrapped in a filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or equivalent). The horizontal and vertical extent
of any undercutting should be determined in the field during foundation construction. However,
for planning purposes, the horizontal extent of any undercutting would extend no more than 5
feet beyond the foundation limits. In addition, based on the anticipated bearing conditions, the
vertical extent of any undercutting would extend no more than 2 to 4 feet below the foundation
bearing level.
Exposure to the environment could weaken the dense SAND soils and partially weathered rock
at the bearing level if the foundation excavations remain open for too long. Therefore, due to
the close proximity of groundwater to the foundation bearing elevation, it is imperative that the
foundation concrete is placed the same day the foundations are excavated and tested. If the
bearing soils are softened by water intrusion or exposure, the softened soils must be removed
from the foundation excavation bottom immediately prior to placing the foundation concrete.
CLOSURE
Geoscience appreciates having had the opportunity to assist you during this phase of the project. If
you have any quesons concerning the information outlined in this report, please contact us.
' /61ZQ13
North
William J. Sullivan, P.E.
North Carolina License No. 11453
DAM/WJS
Enclosures
File: P•./Work Files/Geotech/2011/0007 access mad doby creek bridge stivaumDOC

APPENDIX
Vicinity Map
Boring Location Diagram
Generalized Subsurface Profile
Test Boring Records
Grain Size Distribution Plot
Foundation Analysis Calculations
Notes On Plans

I
-4p
t A
AJ-
I
0
to
Ao 0
LID i;jjjjOff 600
- X,
.. ...........
go
U
:t

le9 x'99
IN11 (19
�UBg Lg C
I � /
/ 1
r
g
g gL 9 -~ 9/_ 9
J! 8 1,99 0 i
I
I 'I
l
I
cA 68 7
1 r
I I
c- }
1 I
I
I 1/
A C
IS R I
AC-5/
�1
m
l �-
f
l C
� �I
1
6 1
—6
� 1
0
r. 7 y
^.— 80 1
�' �. 0 5i7 � 674 '67C � � LLL 76�."�
y
ACCESS ROAD GEoSCIENCE
DOBY CREEK BRIDGE STRUCTURE 66 669570' i GROUP
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA i3 ` , 668 \ 50�K ced Road
BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM 664 0 1 ` 500-1 WC 28217
DRAWING NO. �f ' 1 0
CH11.0007.GE -1A I
° = 20' �:'' % / Phone: [phone]
SCALE: 1
' 1\ Fax: [phone]
APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION `� / l \ ` 9eos�ce9 .com www. rou
p

�ELEV.
685
680
675
670
0
655
650
645
AC-1 BLOW
COUNT M
o. T
6
2.5 • • X665.5'
5010.3
5010.0
8. 59.5'
REC=100%
RQD =48%
13.0
REQ =100%
RQD =71 %
C.T.
NGWE
640
= silty SAND
® Bedrock
® Very Clayey SILT
- TOP OF FOOTING ELEVATION AT 6M B (MG4
AC-2
BLOW
AC-3 BLOW
COUNT
0( 0.m
�J �[ 14
o.o
COUNT
15
o.o
kO` �
` 6
AC4 wim
2.5 • •
2.5r
0.
COUNT
• •
46
• 39
23
5.5q:-':
•.•.'
2'
.� 80
30
25
4.
5010.0
:•:• 10' - 659,
8.0
A.R. -662.0 '
••:�;�5
•: • -
••'T
••;• • 31 I
a
NGWC
12.0
12.0 •• :� 11.7' - 657.3'
5010.3
X.: • 36
16.0-L-1- 5010.0
5010.5
A.R. -. 653.0'
19.
50/0.0
A.R. - 649.5'
®: Soft weathered Rods
® Cayey SILT1Sandy SILT
- Water Table - 24 HR A.R. - Auger Refusal
Water Table -1 HR B.T. - Boring Terminated
t - Loss of Drilling Water C.T. -Coring Terminated
MN - Cavein Depth WOH - Welght of Hammer
`NGWE - No Groundwater Ermuntered
AC-5 BLOW
AC-6
CGknrT
I
COUNT
0( 0.m
�J �[ 14
5010.1
2.0 50.0
D (W,
A.R. - 664.0'
REC =100%
M•1_...n.
NGWE
1
REC =90%
RQD =65%
C.T.
NGWE
GEOSCIENCE GROUP, INC.
DRAVVN BY: Ijb APPROVED BY I VERTICAL; AS SHOWN
DATE &x17111 I HORIZONTAL: N.T.S.
DOBY CREEK BRIDGE STRUCTURE
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROUNA
DRAWING NUMBER
GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PROFILE CH11.0007.GE - -2

All,
�'BORMQNQ
MMV 0 6014RACIRMi 9i bifflfi
DEPTH, FT. DESCRIPTION Elev.
0.0 W8.0±
03 -\Topsoil And Roots 667.7
Loose Brown, Tan And Grey Silty Coarse
To Fine SAND - Residual
2.5
8.5
13.0
18.5
Partially Weathered Rock When Sampled
Becomes Brown, Tan And Grey Silty
Coarse To Fine SAND
Auger Refusal - Begin Rock Core Run #1
Grey And White Slightly Weathered Fine
Grained Granite
REC=100%
RQD=48%
End Rock Core Run #1 - Begin Rock Core
Run #2
Grey And White Slightly Weathered Fine
Grained Granite
REC=100%
RQD=71%
Coring Terminated
No Groundwater Encountered
665.5
659.5
655.0
649.5
201101VAND SAMUNG'M M-1SV000-15 6'
ltb= Dkk M-066" Ald'M-J�il 13
Olt 9WWtqF&146M(6A
BOF
UNG GEOS 1ENCE'
RECORD
GROUP,. INC.
Blow PENETRATION - BLOW COUNT*
Count 5 10 21 30 40 60 so 100
6
50/0.3
50/0.0
46
a
-tM61iiXR']1MT,- WINTIC111-hMe. 24M
I A, COU'RKM- WAA Vft-'T HR: t0(f
-144 IuMVF DRUA-ING WAbM rAiT.4P4 Dwra,
q4M

�BORINr;ND;
TEST ,
`'IDRilNGCCENIItACT- ORS± ► i5e ' _ BORING GEO►SGIENCE,
�
Jola X07. -- — ` _ - x
rRC�mtni GAG : RECORD GROUP;, INC:
DEPTH, FT. DESCRIPTION Elev. Blow • PENETRATION - BLOW COUNT*
0.0 669.0± Count 5 19 20 30 40 60 s0 100
0.4 Topsoil And Roots �ggg_g_ — f
Stiff Reddish -Brown, Broom And Grey
Medium To Fine Very Sandy SILT - 15
Residual
2.5 688.5
Dense Brown Very Silty Medium To Fine
SAND
45
5.5 663.5
Very Firm To Dense Brown, Grey And
White Very Silty Medium To Fine SAND
30
45 •
10:0'.
12.0 657.0
Partially Weathered Rock When Sampled '
Becomes Brown, Grey And White Silty
Coarse To Fine SAND
5010.3 «
19.5 649.5 5010.5 . 50/0.0
Auger Refusal
BORQYG 4;VI PR>i55!tB�ETTESfi .0 VfTFR'r +IB1t�2+i H1L .9 8
OR�. N G IEIS A51N i)►$113 G .
9001( CORE — Ri8i(ovi~i v W,4TvR-rAB &,- iL '
ti* 1 EtkiioN 5Xm�R W BWVA' l0 .k DRi1M W Z4
� , oOF O ( TFR rAv -n ?
t %M LF. {
-Vox WjMr0VR '4W PAGE, _of 't l
__r: - -

r'1BnICIIvG IvC ?wi,,
DAT - bRII.:Y - - RN/11l -� �_ rat, 'Et ,T ' ;
I;RII�'ING C'oz4iRACCT(9R FoD rt.
_ BORING � GEOSCIENCE
TtiB �+i�D' i•000?.r -
RECORD'-':',- GROUP,
INC
� ;� � B V C K B ?CTC'RW -
--
J
DEPTH, FT. DESCRIPTION- Y Elev. Blow a PENETRATION - BLOW COUNT*
OA 669.0± Count 5 10 21 30 40 so 80 100
0.3.\Topsoil And Roots 668.7
Firm Reddish -Brown, Brown And Grey
Slightly Micaceous Fine Sandy Very 6
Clayey SILT With Fine Roots - Residual T
2.5 Note: Sample Moist 666.5
Hard Reddish -Brown And Brown Clayey
Medium To Fine Very Sandy SILT
rS�liti�G AIYD;, �. i► MPLING3 '.V1EL'i�s's!{i,:�'i1M_D- 136'.
CtIR)!''iDRI1•�� tIa�S�$�13�I@D1.7�11i13�/ /��Y q y L&
Y loll ns Jim, NUIU �Iati VP307�1'. W_s,0 A� 140 .( '
lU#114f>:1i F�L: LI�iG�30Ilti„( 96: 1cm)1tF0 iil]btl+.1►'70,URi�')�A lA fi1«�
FRE95URt!HF;TER 7'FSF
il.Silj'.�se R0C'KC- WJ C0V1kY
V r Wei tip` DR]<tiJUNG *0
won weiG` 1ror-] #ASR
x •o .
- N
'W..4iTFR 7E:�(1Hp,�I: - 24 ML
ICR �'Q'.il�a+1�1 1pMH
PAC E '
39
5.5
663.5
Very Firm Brown, Tan And Grey Very Silty
-
Medium To Fine SAND
25
8.0
661.0
Dense Reddish -Brown, Brown And Tan
Slightly Micaceous Silty Coarse To Fine
SAND
31
12.0
657A
Dense Brown, Tan, Grey And White
Slightly Micaceous Clayey Silty Coarse To
Fine SAND
i
36
16.0
653.0
\ \i
Auger Refusal
50/0.0
rS�liti�G AIYD;, �. i► MPLING3 '.V1EL'i�s's!{i,:�'i1M_D- 136'.
CtIR)!''iDRI1•�� tIa�S�$�13�I@D1.7�11i13�/ /��Y q y L&
Y loll ns Jim, NUIU �Iati VP307�1'. W_s,0 A� 140 .( '
lU#114f>:1i F�L: LI�iG�30Ilti„( 96: 1cm)1tF0 iil]btl+.1►'70,URi�')�A lA fi1«�
FRE95URt!HF;TER 7'FSF
il.Silj'.�se R0C'KC- WJ C0V1kY
V r Wei tip` DR]<tiJUNG *0
won weiG` 1ror-] #ASR
x •o .
- N
'W..4iTFR 7E:�(1Hp,�I: - 24 ML
ICR �'Q'.il�a+1�1 1pMH
PAC E '

WORIKOMN)l
ur
]NkM DRUIEM
:]DR1LJEM-06R1:R-AQ1bFj-
fbH I M # C_� _ H 11.
90 G
'PRDJEC'i �_b_&V'CREEK
DEPTH, FT. DESCRIPTION Elev.
0.0 666.0±
0.3 -\Topsoil And Roots 6657
Very Stiff Brown And Gray Coarse To Fine
Sandy Clayey SILT With Fine Roots And
2,0 Rock Fragments - Residual 664.0
Very Dense Olive-Brown, Brown And Grey
Very Silty Coarse To Fine SAND With
Weathered Rock Fragments
4.0 662.0
Auger Refusal
No Groundwater Encountered
BORING AND s7lwLwOm ulr&�.Aww'wm
i c) D, Rit"I J NG' N W- Ea S4, rr* "W' ,113
*M. cmgjqv,is.TK2 NUMNR OF B1AVk,0P.T;�440.L'8 (O'Sho
KXMMM FAW,14--,30 M. (76.1&=) iE Qt UM YM ftl�% A 1,A IN.
TEST-
'BORING G ' EIDSCIENCE.
RECORD INC.
Blow • PENETRATION - BLOW COUNT*
Count 5 1 ) 2n 30 40 60 80 100,_
23 ?
80 Ct
50/0.0
RPCJK CORt REVOMV
,4 LJ09 CW0XnJLW;WAn
*69 WrIcAl r OF RAW&
N
WM tAME - I Hl�'
gi. on I CAVE-11.4 IDF.P'rH
PAGE -1 of I

a��i .nRUr v � i ----- TEST
ii
nxII` cYirtix.�ciox� Soli - $pRINGJ.GEOSCIENCE
�Y
PROTEkiT11 D�UBV I
CRMK�DGE��SZ�RUCTi%RE _ � ,. , •
--
DEPTH, FT. DESCRIPTION Elev. Blow PENETRATION - BLOW COUNT*
0.0 666.0± Count 5 1) so 30 40 60 ao IM
0.3 ,Topsoil And Roots r -665.7
Partially Weathered Rock When Sampled 50/0.1
Becomes Olive- Brown, Brown And Grey f
Very Silty Coarse To Fine SAND With it
Large Rods Fragments - Residual 50/0.0
4.0 662.0
Auger Refusal - Begin Rock Core Run #1
Grey And White Slightly Weathered Fine
Grained Granite
REC =100%
RQD =92%
9.0 657.0
End Rock Core Run #1 - Begin Rock Core
Run #2
Grey And White Slightly Weathered Fine
Grained Granite
REC =90%
RQD =65%
14.0 _ 652.0
Coring Terminated
No Groundwater Encountered
1�0 wlrrc ��,!vn �iAR4Pr�uvG.v4fr D -isstf "
t!o nRn.0 "r+ic� rs as f 0.2113
�i�l;,�rro�v rs'� �iuu` aF stoWS�o�;�a'i�o � iJ
li4M' WR 6; I,1. !tG 30"1N- .- (761eW UQu1111 il) r0 BRIV -k'A 1,4!N,4'
` �-
iER`T, ,kBL L - 24 HR PR S»11: A T w`A
�ral°� Racxco�r�c���a�'� - - v►- ;�����x= rarr.
i� - ii,[1W'OFDRr1,.Lk; W,ViiR JIPA +E-M IMPOk

lkilw�0_5101,17 AC-6 71
DAIY DPMUE 3 - 6/1-24.1
- --
D17II'JJNri tZ7 1tM:! G- fdi�r' DrilH_ng Seriv�a �
JOB
gRr�, ,�4���K BRIDGE�STItt7t'T[,?RE.
DEPTH, FT. DESCRIPTION Elev.
0.0, 666.0±
0.3 -\Topsoil And Roots 665.7
SO Reddish - Barron, Brown And Tan
Slightly Micaceous Clayey Coarse To Fine
2.0 Sandy SILT With Fine Roots - Residual 664.0
-\Note: Sample Moist
Auger Refusal
No Groundwater Encountered
BEST
BORING .GEOSCIENCE '
RECORD GROUP; INC:
Blow • PENETRATION - BLOW COUNT*
Count 5 10 23 30 40 60 60 100
14
5010.0
>�Rn�tc' a tvn SAtNPI.tiNG ?R Ir�S ,487%I D -ISI;6 . Am PIti�ki B'MB'I'! R -ir> m -- �4FAI'ER >T =.�Bt.E - N, MR,'
CORIEDRI AJNGMEiCIS�4RI. W2113 : -
�5 i% ROM3 -MtRLV,0V-M °'ter WATER- I'ABiC- 3I IM
*Pkl,41k'I - tflOri I5 tHF -,14 G1NBCR Ot ISLOW,, 0i", �► -14O LD. p(63 4- LOSS CIV M L IS.G) ATER Gi�iVT4N- DXM> 'H
>L m ir.Adrtr. 8'IPi. (76y�i RrAcIbmb 70 DRIVI A Ind I»V. woiq Vf:FiGHt O�:H;�MhtlPltt�
La�s��►` I! xzi ±.I: rsos� - PAGE t of 1 r

Y"
3* 2" 1 -112" 1" 3/4" yr 3/8" 4
100
90 -- - - - - -- - -- - - --
80 --
-- - - - - --
- - - - - --
60 --
- - - - - --
- - - - - --
p
3
w
40 --
- - - - - --
- - - - - --
w 30
- - - --
- - - - --
w
20 --
- --
- - - - --
to --
0
1!'0
10
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
10 16 20 40 60 100 200 270
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.0 0.1
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
BOUL I GRAVEL SAND
DERS COBBLES
COARSE I FINE COARSE MIDIUM FINE
BORING: DEPTH: NAT WC LL PL PI DESCRIPTION OR CLASSIFICATION
LAW #2 2218.0' 30 20 10 Brown And Tan Clayey Silty Medimn To Fine SAND
(Access Road - Bridge St>ructuie Over Doby Creek)
t
0.01
0.001
R0
FINES
SILT SIZES CLAY SIZES
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
JOB NO. CH11.0007.GE
SHOPPING CENTER DRIVE
Geoscience Group, Inc.
500 -K Clanton Road
Charlotte, North Carolina

DOOV CF -IzVC $R�4F STRucTuRt I mo%WpAj +p,! APIALySiS A1C�ESS 1ZDi+D ,�!
P,RIr14 CArA�n� aA5N7o LgFIt> OPO4E PES16A 'VfVlf%c nO,)S
BE j
C'Asi S+pE OF cRE6K— 6EAXW4 CO,lplT(o,J3 %JIV 66 gtDPOc�< - I
310( OF CRICK -- MAI<IW4 COfaI71Orly WL% eI< DC.,SSr SA•o SiI. S J �✓K BED `<
j � I
'A Sr- AL-3 Foit SE9RIXC - APAciT}, 8
f
�F= a FcE7 (c�+wlic) `
' Q C Wt '. DS CJb C,.j - O l Le'
y
CIL? $o Col. & TOMAI%r- H f."! I%R
I
j ¢g'n•F
z My S -�-r
55}�Ma1C' 5'TSF BLARyC GAPAtj1Y - FgyII++L'4ho7y. IokiF
� Aq
of roo'A
01-U, �f-175rcF Lis
14M 916. 810
`58-5
5� 1•(3.6`(
r! =loo 1s"ISs�r 1.6D 133 1•D8
A T >w a %J•jDA7IO,l Iz via- Cwt • Cua = a,5
80.5 • / 3 __
• w/ �• g.`IS i.R` ZB.g.rir- usg 4 IoY�F
o , U]ir k11iM1k'irp rMSs•+IPEMCT%X vq} A 6A:&O o� JAI,- T rwr $a1 wcr
IcAa IOo Tsr-'I IN 250T�T
� K d ono= 0.94•Iz5 - ca,�atA.*r
1,33 R z.5 fir. Si�►1G
;t W 3• Cg Zo *S EA, w•a�h
SIC rAap
T`Z =2.165
2.65 z•5 '3 } • y3 5, 1,S,ZS
4,"5 )
y(� o.otbS + o.d137 - 0.030{ 1 ° 0.36"
I46r.E4>E. gy 15% TO At(,var PR Dls7tdAffA tE OF E6*49 rolt,S
SIM
355M

NOTES ON PLANS
DESCRIPTION: ACCESS ROAD - DOBY CREEK BRIDGE STRUCTURE
CITY: Charlotte
COUNTY: Mecklenburg County
STATE: North Carolina
SPREAD FOOTINGS
1. THE CRITICAL SCOUR ELEVATION FOR THE SPREAD FOOTINGS WILL BE
DETERMINED BY PB.
2. THE SPREAD FOOTINGS ARE DESIGNED FOR A FACTORED RESISTANCE OF 5 TSF.
CHECK FIELD CONDITIONS FOR THE REQUIRED RESISTANCE OF 5 TSF BEFORE
PLACING CONCRETE.
3. FOOTING EXCAVATIONS WILL EXTEND INTO MATERIALS THAT DETERIORATES
WHEN EXPOSED TO THE ELEMENTS. CHECK FIELD CONDITIONS FOR THE
REQUIRED RESISTANCE AND PLACE CONCRETE IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE
EXCAVATION IS COMPLETED.
4. TEMPORARY GROUNDWATER CONTROL WILL LIKELY BE REQUIRED DURING
FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION. METHODS FOR TEMPORARY GROUNDWATER
CONTROL INCLUDE PUMPING FROM SUMP AREAS, GRAVITY DITCHES, CLOSED
CONDUITS AND FILTERED TRENCH DRAINS.
5. ALL STRUCTURAL BACKFILL PLACED ADJACENT TO THE OLDCASTLE PRECAST®
STRUCTURE AND WINGWALLS SHOULD CONSIST OF AN AASHTO
CLASSIFICATION A -1 OR A -3 MATERIAL.

AGENT CERTIFICATION OF AUTHORIZATION
I Dan Leaver , representing Citv of Charlotte hereby certify that. I have authorized Kristi
Suggs of Michael Baker Enaineerinp, Inc. to act on my behalf and take all actions
necessary to the processing, issuance, and acceptance of this jurisdictional detennination and /or
pen-nit and any and all standard and special conditions attached.
We hereby certify that the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate to
the best of our lulowledge.
pplicant's signature
Date
Agent' signat e—� j
Date
/-%3 -/5
Completion of this form will allow the agent to sign all future application correspondence.
Documenit
Page 1 of 1