20030909 Ver 1_Other Documents_20031125

sr?EO?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Attention: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
Subject: Section 404/401 Individual Permit, Guilford County, Greensboro
Western Urban Loop, from I-85 south of Groometown to south of I-40
interchange; Federal Aid Project No. STPNHF-NHF- 124-1 (1); State
Project No. 8.U492101; TIP No. U-2524 AB & AC; USACE Action Id
200321137; DWQ #$36399 C) 3 0 70
Dear Sir:
As you are aware, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
received a Section 404 Individual Permit, dated October 30, 2003, to construct a portion
of the Greensboro Western Urban Loop (TIP No. U-2524 AB/AC). The project will
impact 11,460 feet of stream, 4.14 acres of wetlands, and 8.62 acres of ponds along the
drainages of Long Branch, Reddicks Creek and its unnamed tributaries, unnamed
tributaries of Bull Run, South Buffalo Creek, and Hickory Creek. The purpose of this
letter is adhere to Condition Oj) of the 404 permit and Condition (16) of the 401 Water
Quality Certification (WQC).
November 25, 2003

LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
The reference conditions involve the submittal of design plans for these two
sections of the project. Attached to this letter are half size copies of the design plans for
the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and two copies for the N.C. Division of
Water Quality (NCDWQ). The permit drawings sent with the 404/401 permit application
are reflected accurately on final design plans.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
"ALEIGH NC 27899-1598
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.DOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
The NCDOT appreciates the USACE and DWQ's assistance in helping to meet
the project's let schedule. If you have any questions about this project and its permit
application, please contact Mr. Phillip Todd at [phone].
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: Mr. Jo t!JPr4JY,P,1CDwQ,
Mr. - .nderson, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. J.M. Mills, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Jerry Parker, Division 7 DEO

FIGURE 2
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION FORMS
lCOSCIPH(V
1101 Il.nn(:s Slrcct stiitc ]0I 10166h, NC '001 'I'dC1)1unic: ')I').N 'N 1, F;IX W).828.351",
November 30, 2001
Ms. Cynthia Van der Wiele
NC Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Blvd.
Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
RE: Concurrence for Western Greensboro Loop
TIP (U-2524) Sections C and D
Guilford County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Van der Wiele,
A
00-046.12
EcoScience Corporation (ESC) has been retained by the NC Department of Transportation (DOT) to
perform a Section 404 delineation for the proposed Western Greensboro Loop in Guilford County, North
Carolina. The proposed road facility is part of DOT Transportation Improvement Project (TIP) U-2524.
As we discussed through our telephone conversation, I would like to request your concurrence on our
methodology used to delineate jurisdictional areas as part of this project. We agreed to meet in
GE ?en boro at 9.30 a.m. on Monday, December 10, 2001. I told you that I would prepare information
regarding the project, and send the information along with some mapping that would indicate our meeting
location.
Please find attached to this letter a map indicating our meeting location at a Phillips 66 gas station on the
southeastern corner of the intersection between Battleground Avenue (US-421) and Cotswold Avenue
(Figure 1), complete Routine Wetland Determination forms based on the 1987 delineation manual (Figure
2), and a set of figures indicating the locations of jurisdictional areas and corresponding wetland data forms
(Figures 3A-F).
Please call me if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance on this project.
Yours truly,
ECOSCIENCE CO ORATION
Matthew T. Cusack
Project Scientist II
Attachments
11 t?}^"? - r
1111
rl 01

N
0 0.8 1.6 Miles
EcoScience
Battleground
Wendover Avenue
GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA
Meeting Location for
Agency Site Visit
Western Greensboro Loop
U-2524
uilford Countv, North Carolina

Lee Street
Route 6
1111
Exit 228
DATL LsC #
Dec 2001 00-046.12
SCALE: DWN BY MT
Dec 2001 CKD BY:
FIGURE 1
i i ll

DATA FORM u? ..
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: (_'MMS611n d 6x (.ooil? Date: 10/1 /ZDDl
Applicant/Owner: AICDM- ` County: &
Investigator: State: C.
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? 0
disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
ntl
i
ifi
0 Community ID:
Transact ID:
y
ca
gn
Is the site s
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
0 Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse)
vtCit 114 r rurv
Stratum Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. .1fu o,.gv,o G
?+
09 9.
10.
2. Crarrviy amAtpMi &
-ME 11.
3. V01yonr
4. _JFACI-
$j 12.
13.
6. e? -
/Z
15.
7.
a. 16.

Percent of Dominant Species that an OBL, FACW or I Q(
VIIJ/
FAC (excluding FAC-)
i
Remarks: I
MVUnULUUT
Recorded Date (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
-Aerial Photographs Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-Other
No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
- Drift Lines
-
Sediment Deposits
d
s
Drainage Pattems in Wetlan
Field Observations: S ondery Indicators 12 or more required):
l Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water. 1 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: lin.) -Soil Survey Data
Local
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0-12 (in.) -
Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
.`
SOILS

Map Unit Name 1
Drainage Class: I yell card r,
(Series and Phase): Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: Yeses
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Texture,
Mottle Colors Mottle
Concretions,
)inches) Horizon (Mu ell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure. etc.
p- 2 A 7 5),R q 0A
2- -12_' CSI 16 ?Y rJ i
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_Histosol -.Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor -
-Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
Aquic Moisture Regime -Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
U d Vegetation Present? `\ o (Circle)
Hydrophytic
to Present? No
(Circle)
Wetlan A H y ro gy
Hydric Soils Present? es No `I Is this sampling Point Within a Wetland? ( Yes) No
Remarks: We ahj 52eM5 4o been 'y 6P-01Ae a I4-0
.5iyeq,- ex4V*-?ely je?a > 6'' Approved by HQUSACE 2192

HJL
8/93

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
0 987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site' ieen56b-o 0,Ar Loop,
Date: / I ZOV
d'
Applicant/Owner: N T)Crf County:
Investigator: c State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes® Community ID:_
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?o Transact ID: Klb
is the area a potential Problem Area? Ye o Plot ID, K1)0:7
(If needed, explain on reverse)
vr.uc I H11V111

Stratum Indicator Domiannt Plant Species
Qgminant Plant Soecias
P-A c. U 9.
1'
10. 'rw, I?x ?eFt?? iq
2, I-C V 1 AI'1
3. -Eh G 11.
4. z 12-
S. u -A-t- 13.
6. D=1.s NI 14.
7. 1 C. C J) n A---4A tA ?L 1 B.
Q 16.
S. S'A
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or L I b
FAC (excluding FAC-)
Remarks: yq c qq ?j
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
-
-Aerial Photographs -inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Other
No Recorded Data Available
? -
-Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
-
Sediment Deposits
-
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
_
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):

(i
>IZ
) -Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
^•
.
Depth of Surface Water: Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: ^y 1Z- (i^•) Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: y Q_ -(In.) -
FAC-Neutral Test
_
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name Drainage Class:I-(
(Series and Phase): ? Field Observations \
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No
Profile Description: Texture,
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle
Concretions, Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
(inched Horizon IMunsell Molstl
-? a 7 )Xql& A N ?oa
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_Histosol ,-Concretions
_Histic Epipedon ,-High Organic Contsnt in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_Aquic Moisture Regime -Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils List
-
Olsyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Remarks:
No Circle) I (Circle)
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92

HJL
8/93
l ?C"
K L <.b I
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Gpf-mi (? aua.6 Lo4> 02 _ ay to 1 Z Date: Z (--1 o i
Applicant/Owner. L-Z?:,c3"( County: 61-oL-+ o,Q-b
Investigator: I-oAp I?Sov-&yL.S tGOSG???vC,4' State: /J C_
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? es o Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? es,* Transect ID: G?CT??1r?
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes, go) Plot ID: 1 c (x l
(If needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicato
1. -LA, S C4 9.
2. t 1 VV" Sad, cjuw? {
-' O$L 1o.
3. QCI4608A yi f4l'h' cc ?
?
/ ??c 11.
4. Sa pct-S+er S S 68L 12.
5. A lyi u S s4m1U 1 efr- S 'f ,4c w -f- 13.
6. gye?Vr` ,c. CA H T7ACW_f 14.
7. V 'FA C_ is.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or
FAC (excluding FAC-)
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream. Lake or Tide Gauge
aAerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Other Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
_No Recorded Data Available -
-Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):

Depth of Surface Water: O 2
(in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
'jLe
,Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: In.) -Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (In.) _
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: k p #' TµaTu $ Gvrf '+ I cv?pl??? 6?cr Icy
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): 1A- Drainage Class:
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No .
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
s) won (Munsell Moistl
(inch
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions.
(Munseil M
i
tl Ab
d
t St
t
/C
e
4 o
s
un
ontras
ance
ructure, e
c.
nonce su??
8 ID YR S - nova s4?
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosoi _ Concretions'
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content In Surface layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Usted on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conjigans, Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_
-vQleyed ow-Chroma ors _
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Y No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ea No
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92
HJL
8/93 ''
It. .
(./ P L??? w c c1l I
O 1
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: ? yJS?o?-o Loup 00 -NO, 112- Date: Z o?? o I
Applicant/Owner: N (_'E> OT County: (:f- r o2,D
Investigator: 7-0;)o -9 S L Ca SC'44_N -E State: N L
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? a No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes 6J) Transect ID: 1.1?LA??
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID: Wc40 1
(If needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Soeciea
__ Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. TapuS Gjr4NG?? yul?c FACU 9.
2. V hurt???-? oeer4l,yn, M _ 10.
3. P(OS-P-10S Vrr1?hlGhc T FAQ.. 11.
a.QX\/dei'Jr?vrr arbor^evn' l 12.
S. (a )OfCL-s V'_I Dr a 'FAC.LA 13.
S. 00, S ?c. 7 Acu 14.
7. IvX i C o?2?u,? (c t(,At., s ?fI L 1 b.
a. 1 s.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or o
Z
FAC (excluding FAC-) 9
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
- Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs _Inundated
Other -Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
No Recorded Data Available -
-Drift Lines
-Sediment Deposits
-Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Q -Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water:
(in) _Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: y (? (in.) -Local Soil Survey Data
_FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: > I Z (in.) -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: A c i,) L pHaTo r 1/t' 17h1 TvOO GR4M l L JVL•Yt t? ,

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): ^! I ./? Drainage Class:
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No .
Profile Descriotion•
Depth Matrix Color
(inches) won (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions.
IMunsell Moist) Abu
trast St
d
/C

r A 7. S - Y9 51 ?,-
n
ance
on
ructure. etc.
Z-?Z B 7.S-
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ ConcrWonr
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Solis List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: U-
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Remarks:
Yes o ircie) (Circle)
Yes o
Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetiand? Yes
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92
HJL
8/93
/ 4 N ?Z) ?_9 VV - ' I , I*,--.?
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Date: y O C- = o y I
Applicant/Owner: N C DoT County: - ?,
Investigator: State: Ne.
jOws No Community ID:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? es(Q Transact ID: 41/4
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yeq119 Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse
vF:nFTATInN
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Domi nant Plant Spe cies Stratum Indicator
1. P?G1cvi< aC%'?,,?41s G ?PCL/-,j 9. V
2. f_/GX 1 1U r i ?'/!",/"Ap,'Cc C FA C_ L/i 1a. V' "
3. A.PJ (I-, y FAL 11. P,e??i1Pn0?'

17
( (i(?jivUr (G()(r<
FAC-
FA C-
12.
L-oY,C

-
?L1c
r4

6.?o- ?v„pv' a cy?', r c? 1 ( fACL,J ? 14.
7. C r a G 'J m ih e ww) ( 'F4 C f 16.
1A
s S
?RG? -f
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are 09L. FACW or t?.2
FAC (excluding FAC-)
Remarks: ti I/-)--
HYDROLOGY
x Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary indicators:
7-Aarial Photographs Inundated
ZSaturated In Upper 12 Inches
-Other Water Marks
No Recorded Data Available
_ _
-Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
•
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Water-Stained
_ Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) -Local Soil Survey Data
_FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: On.) -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: +1P?'c 1 ??u J? -D pvcOV e/ ..y
I J ,
v
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): N /a-- Drainage Class:
Reid Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): /k- Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No .
Profile Descriotion•
Depth Matrix Color
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Colon Mottle
(Munseli Moist) Abundance/Contrast
Texture. Concretions.
Structure
etc

?)-2 A- 7-5-yK .
.
2- S 104 6?3 -7 YR
?'lZ X32- l'py2 sal 7.5 y2 I0G w,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions'
_ Hisdc Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _
_ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
leyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Remarks: N ?No (Circle) (Circle)
No
No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Ye No
Approved by HQUSACE 2192
HJL
8/93
01 NJ?.o _)F?- .
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1198.7 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: ("S S 0 Date: 0 C-7 ri0 0.)
Applicant/Owner: N Co' oT County:
Investigator: Mk-t-T a.ISA-UG L Co Sc. f ,uGt State: N L
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the she? es o Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? es Transect ID: N Co
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse
v?rt=rnTtnN '
Dominant Plant Spades St nilum Indicator
FA-L- Domi
B. nant Plant Species S tratum Indicator
TAC -
ZL t a ? 4 rr ?cf S4 rZ (?c, (fG A c- 10. SVv\ V> f ? ill y c? ? vl 'c V SA L
3. ?cNc G ??jc C, FAf U 11. El.1G,i4 V.V) 'I e?? }-4 ?QLfi
4. r?O hV s C(,tr()? it,i??c S ?? 12. S c?54 S U
s. a?UC.- s f?b,fC_ S fAGU 13. I FAC-
o. I? r ? b c,?2o? h S FA C, vJ 14.
7. Pf v?U t SAD v+C S ?Atv 16.
,g, F1 ?cr?l?,r . s ?A C- 1e.
Percent of Dominant Spades that are OBL. FACW or 2
FAC (excluding FAC-)
Remarks: N I /?-
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream. Leke or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
tiAerial Photographs Inundated
ySeturated in Upper 12 Inches
Other Water Marks
._No Recorded Data Available -Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
_Dndnage Patterns in Wetlands
Reld Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: fin.) _-Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water In Pit: (in.) -Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Sog• ((n.) _
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: ov u l c-y.
Np c c ?--? 5
.
SOILS
Map Unit Name • 11
(Series and Phase): Iv Drainage Class:
ll Reid Observations
..
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No .
Profile Descriotion•
Depth Matrix Color
(inches) Horizon 1Munsell Moist)
Mottle Color Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(Munsell Moist) Abunda
/C
t
t St
t

?- 1 o yR i? nce
ras
on ructure. e
c.
i (7C, V-n
'(Z{ 6 ?d yp? ?' Ylo _ Sc f ?? 61 wi
Hydric Soil Indicator:
Histosol _ Concretions'
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content In Surface layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking In Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Glayed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: UPI A,-
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytlc Vegetation Present? es N (Circle)
(Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? ee N
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes !No
Remarks: N k- I
Approved by HQUSACE 2192
HJL
8/93
(1/? i? ?I? Vv L7-, '-/'J')
DATA FORM M f f,
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ProjectlSite• G S o Date: 1-r 'y o y '03,
Applicant/Owner: /j L VT County: U I l_ r_0 f -r]
Investigator: f'V! A- -r Cu ac X C? a Sc 'E" C' State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yefi;.Nd Transect ID: /Yl DC> 2
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Ye No Plot ID: W
(if needed, explain on reverse
vr=taclrrww
Dominant Plant Species Strip Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
c? ??i you ?I.?
v
?
( ? QC'{' 9.
?,
j
?
1.
2. HU s S?-r?Ul?k? S
?AClnl "?
10.
3. C-- rAL 11.
4. ! a X i yr U QC?.41 H_ S_:^/ (1/Gt v? c_ S ??1 C W 12.
S. U i bul yj L)?ti T ?C?' FAt, 13.
g. COIe1ILAS 4W1nMu,M s CW'f -14.

8. 18.
Percent of Dominant Species that am OBL. FACW or
?
FAC (excluding FAC•) J V

Remarks: I
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream. Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs 1 ndated
aaturnted in Upper 12 inches
-Other Water Marks
No Recorded Data Available -
Drift Lines
-
Sediment Deposits
-
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: -
Secondary indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: r (in.) -
water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data

(in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: -
FAC-Neutral Test
a
Depth to Saturated Soil: l (in.I _
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: ?",-?T3 S IM'f(-? T 0DV'P1A,1L oVCr
may,
SUILti
Map Unit Name.
(Series and Phase):
Drainage Class:
Reid Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No
Profile Descriation:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colon Mottle Texture. Concretions,
(inchesi Horizon IMunseil Moistl (Munsell Moistl Abundance/Contrast Stru=re, etc.
l ?? ( C (G. ?vc
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
_
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
_
Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
'>?Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Condlti _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
?Gieyed o ow- hroma olors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Remarks:
No (Circle) (Circle)
Yes No
es No is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? es No
Approved by HQUSACE 2192

N
HJL
8/93 -
14
,
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
/ylr ?
Project/Site- 6)s Date:
Applicant/Owner: A)& o7- County:
Investigator: M9'? G? s''k-K_ t c, SU r?? State: N?-

Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? as o Community ID:

I
s the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yeil o Transect ID: 114 D 1 ? 2-
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Ye 111o Plot ID: vP_
(If needed, explain on reverse
.VVVaP%I1V..
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Stratum
1. v V ?W K S yl Irq I l? 1? H ?, C_ /
9. -?/Vt ?z>c ?U ?? r? i? V Fi4G
fG S C S
2. ?A 10.
I
3. 1/lgyi c c/ S'`y14Cil?u?S ?? 11.
a. (TA-KC?-, C',1w ,- bw e I ,? N I 12.
13.
6. 00.5 c Yvl u ? T •? ? ors ?? (,/PL- '14.

S. 4 C_-c- I ^on k( _f 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or Z U
FAC (excluding FAC•) v

I /?-
Ramer a:
HYDROLOGY
Recarded Data (Describe in Remarks):
V Wed" Hydrology Indicators:
,
.
Stream. Lake or Tide Gauge Pommy Indicators:
-
Aerial Photographs Irarndated
U
12 I
h
I
_
es
pper
nc
Saturated
n
-Other Water Marks
No Recorded Data Available -Drift Lines
-Sediment Deposits _
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands -
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: 0n.1 -Water-Stained Leaves
-Local Soil Survey Data _
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Sad: (In.) _
-Other (Explain in Remarks)

(h C a'4j f
arks: N L)
R
- -
em
al
S LS
Map Unit Name.
(Series and Phase):
Drainage Class:
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confine Mapped Type: Yes No
Profile Descriation:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munseiil Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure etc.
-? A- l o l k' l Cll SG h ?y G
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosoi _ Concretions
_
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
_
Sulfdic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Usted on Local Hydric Soils List
_
_ Reducing Conditions _ Usted on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: 40
tnrc-rt Akin n=T;:PMINQTInN
C
ircle) (Circle)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes QO
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes /?
Hydric Soils Present? Yes C)9J Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks: A///J-
-Approved by MUUZDAUt Zryc

.N

HJL
8/93 -

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
0 98.7 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: , ?,? .. a ., ?... 00 - o4' . ; y. Date:
Applicant/Owner: County: i -
Investigator: _"t'" State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID: U/?;11 /IA9
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: w0I / z -
(If needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator

1. Inv., J/ ?( C(1 V 1 G V1 C;
T 9.
2. Y) ! g?- 1 ?b 10.
3. L??al?ll i?w ?jo? "I'?(,,' ?;?4 rn<. 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
S. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or
FAC (excluding FAC-)
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
?4erial Photographs -Inundated
Other -Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
- Water Marks
-No Recorded Data Available -
-Drift Lines
-Sediment Deposits
-Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
-'° Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water. -
(in.) -
-Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) -Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
n i
Remarks: 0 1.., ( } OJ ?' ('
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Drainage Class:
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No .
Profile Descriotion-
Depth Matrix Color
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) IMunsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure. etc.

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Usted on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION

n.,
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
No (Circle)
Yes 01)
Yes No
(Circle)
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes ? No,
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92
HJL
8/93

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 .COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: ( , . t " "c' ? „ , . , ,( , 0,9 Oc ((, , i 7 Date: ( U 0C': -( Z. ? I
Applicant/Owner: County: .
Investigator: 7? !? -? ?•?' State: /.)
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? YesciU Transect ID: /) 14
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes,No) Plot ID: (?I-{ I?.
(If needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 OF L_ 9.
2. A 01J lo.
3. 'T/J TA.. ,..) "t 11.
4. DI?11?V)wl Y?y?lOPtll)?(UtclCCi I ? 12.
b. ?uXr?lu s ocmvi!yfywiC4 •7 ?C.(/J 13.
6. V ? Ol_C l rP_ti?? l? s 7 ffi c 14.
7. is.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or
FAC (excluding FAC-) 71 lJ J `_)
Remarks:
L__
i
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Watland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs -Inundated
Saturated In Upper 12 Inches
Other
- Water Marks
-No Recorded Data Available -
-Drift Lines
-Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: (in.l 2water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: r L (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
,FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 _(in.) -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
.:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Drainage Class:
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No .
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) IMunsell Moistl Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
10
7 ?
10 YP -7, YP
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions'
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
e?aD No (Circle) (Circle)
Welland Hydrology Present? s? No
Hydric Sails Present? (YSs 1)1o Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? YesNo
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92

N
HJL
8/93

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: ' Date:
Applicant/Owner: A) I 'v" ' County:
Investigator: State: k)L
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Nes No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes, No) Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes N; Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse
vFrFTATinrd
Dominant Plant Species Stratum IQdicato Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9.
2. V
3.
4. 12.
13.
6. / fir,,, 14.
7. rI?r

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or I
FAC (excluding FAC-)
Rome a: mvnROLnnY

Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream. Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
;<, Aerial Photographs Inundated
gSaturated in Upper 12 Inches
Other
- Water Marks
No Recorded Data Available Drift Linea
-Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water (in.) Water-Stained
_ Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) -Local Sail Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
l
Depth to Saturated Soil: l (in.) _
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: /
I

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): d ' Drainage Class:
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No .
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc,

y
Hydric Sail Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretionr
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content In Surface layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or?low-Chroma Coors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION

L
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
?Ye No (Circle)
Yea No
Yes --? No
(Circle)
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes) No
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 2192
HJL
8/93
10

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
11987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: < Date:
Applicant/Owner: County:
Investigator: State: /v G.
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transact ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: 1 ^ =
11 (if needed, explain on reverse
vc%3CINIRJIv
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
c _

3. P
?
4. -?I. r-
12.
S. 'Tf 13.
6. CO.lh,,. 14.
7. IA A 16.
a. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or
/
FAC (excluding FAC-)
Remarks:
n t vnvw?a r
VRecorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Aerial Photographs -Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-Other Water Marks
No Recorded Data Available -
-Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
-
d
s
Drainage Patterns in Wetlan
Feld Observations: Sec-ondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) -
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) -
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: i t
I

SOILS
Map Unit Name.
(Series and Phase): ° Drainage Class:
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): / Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No
Profile Descriation:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc,
P)
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gleyed or Law-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? IYes) No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No)
Hydric Sails Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes (.No
I
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92
HJL
8/93 - ''

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
11987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Date: )' a
Applicant/Owner: J.i
'
County:
Investigator: (Nun ?, . ,1, State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No) Transect ID: 1'J4
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse
Irk. CT A Tit Au
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9.

3. Z.
4. 12.

6. /?a r kp (WL- '14.
7. V

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or
FAC (excluding FAC-)
Remarks: G-
uve?n?? ??.v
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream. Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
__ Inundated
Aerial Photographs
a- -
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-
-Other Water Marks
No Recorded Data Available -
Drift Lines
-
-Sediment Deposits
-Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Feld Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) FAC•Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

cnll c
Map Unit Name.
(Series and Phase): Drainage Class:
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No
Profile Descrintion:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc,

?'7 t?', 1) y(' 7 ( n
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
_ Suifidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or taw-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes , No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes, ? No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes ) No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes . )No
Remarks: 0 /1
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92
HJL
8/93 -
P
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
0987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: ' Date: '
Applicant/Owner: i County:
Investigator: State: 01:'
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? (.Yes No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes,.NQ? Transect ID: / j,) I
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes; No Plot 10://"
(If needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species d atum Indicator

,'

12. V f i _
4.
L
0 13.
_
14.
7.">>

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or
FAC (excluding FAC-)
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: -
Lake or Tide Gauge
Stream Primary Indicators:
, Inundated _
.Le.,_ Aerial Photographs -Saturated in Upper 12 Inches -
Other Water Marks
No Recorded Data Available -
-Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
-
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands -
-
Secondary indicators 12 or more required):
Field Observations: Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) -
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) - _FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depth to Saturated Sail: (in.l
Remarks:

1\
cnn c
Map Unit Name.
(Series and Phase): / Drainage Class:
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No
Profile Descrintion:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(incheal Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moistl Abundance/Contrast Structure etc.

Hydric Sail Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions-
_
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: r J ! r
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes i No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Nq)
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No) Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No J
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 21y2
HJL
8/93 -

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 .COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site. Date: lc) ? ' '
Applicant/Owner: County:
Investigator: 11 State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? 'Yes)No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes. No) Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No) Plot ID: ?i
(If needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Spec ies Stratum Indicator

2. (?"' Kyly 1? ?`? h) 10.

4.-?????..'.,„/ !; f 12.'?G.r???r'rU(.i• ., _I,A,

? To 14.

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or
FAC (excluding FAC-)
Remarks: ' I I I\
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
-
/Aerial Photographs -Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-Other _
Water Marks
_No Recorded Data Available -
-Drift Lines
-Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water (in) -
-Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) -Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
?? r
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Drainage Class:
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): i ' Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No .
Profile Descriotion:
Depth Matrix Color
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moistl (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure. etc.

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions'
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Qleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
------------
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
"Yes-) No (Circle)
Yes N_o
Yes No
(Circle)
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks: N V
Approved by HQUSACE 2192
HJL
8/93 '•

-77 v-1 L
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
0 98.7 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: G ` Date:
Applicant/Owner: /VG•? 'T County
Investigator: /1A State: /IJ
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? a No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? es?l I Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes t Plot ID: J
(If needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species SJMtU Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
f,4 CI/J 9. ?Q2i?INl?G G /Nd?-« /-f f?1CW-f
2. GAr J , J'n ?,? v"- L ?'A L
. 6-
i o. / rh /?? 7 I P..N r_ - G , S
q
FA C y'
3. &+4 to l1 S , I
fA-(_ ?V 11. 1/0f i/r e? i
r? I l a V ?q L
r
12. V i iS fU?c?t 1u? iC I? ?L1 L.-
S.?quI?U???J 4 If C-4- 13. P6vf e
s. (Jl. I rn ?,c c rr v c ?-, S F? (o 14.
7. s u? A-5 1s.
8. suu'?tnr ,t C?lnuus C??L 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or
FAC (
l
di
FAC
)
?Z
exc
u
ng
- y
t
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream. Lake or ride Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photo
ra
hs Inundated
p
g
Other E?aturated in Upper 12 Inches
-
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
_ -Drift Lines
-Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: -
Seca dary Indicators (2 or more required):

Depth of Surface Water: in
) Oxidized Root Channels it Upper 12 Inches
. Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.I -Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.I _
-Other (Explain in Remar!cs)

Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
14 ?
(Series and Phase): Drainage Class:
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No .
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure. etc.
-12 A. l0 yf- s z 7 S YK (o I o4y
_
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions-
- Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? es No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? a No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes Na Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? es No
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92
HJL
8/93

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(198.7 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: C/1=c ?._i,I ' a >, ;; ;)) o (v' 7 Date:
Applicant/Owner: County: C ?ci? . i > -r r
Investigator State: /V ?'-
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Ye No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Transect ID: W&. 'i Ae, a
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes flPlot ID: Wt. 2.. {
(If needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum d c t r
1. eO? 9VA >GU ! "J 4^ / r?l
9.
2. I?i1(J ?I ?' i^ G.V? GSn S?, J f { j n ( r/J 10.
3. V c?el, c?J? 11.
4. CL"
i 12.
5. /air.v, HV+`,l?/GHic? 13.
6. 14.
7./ Cr c_ rv, _ .L GU x ; nV 15.
B. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or
FAC (excluding FAC-) I UO
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
ra
hs
V
Aerial Photo Inundated
p
_
g
Other Saturated In Upper 12 Inches
- Water Marks
-No Recorded Data Available -
-Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: (in) -
y/Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) -Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: Jin.) _
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
'v
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): 1,1 f ; Drainage Class:
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No .
Profile Descriotion:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions'
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content In Surface layer in Sandy Sails
Suifidic Odor - Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed an Local Hydric Sails List
Reducing Conditions _
_ Listed on National Hydric Sails List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ,'Yeq)
No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes) No
Hydric Soils Present? tYes) No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? 'Yes% No
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92
HJL
8193

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 .COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: 00 01-011 Date: c? (")I
Applicant/Owner: County: . ?++ I .,)'-
Investigator: State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist an the site? (Yeg?Vo Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Ye&1W-' Transect ID: 1A11- ?.
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes-No) Plot ID: WE- 2rI?
(If needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION -
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. ?U 6(A 5 G r 4, 1 A 5 S T/1(' () .-+-• 9.
2. ?)k') r>+ T-46 (A 10.

5. (?J eYr_in, ?pCW 13.
6. CGS c G I u?l- 14.
7. 1- c.?LA S YUrci
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or
FAC (excluding FAC-) 1
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
-
ra
hs
DerialPhoto Inundated
p
g
Other _
ySaturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
_No Recorded Data Available -
-Drift Lines
-Sediment Deposits
-Drainage Pattems in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: "- (in.) -
-Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: } (21 (in) -Local Soil Survey Data
_FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: ?J (in.) -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Drainage Class:
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No .
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colons Mottle Texture. Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) - Munsell Moistl Abundance/Contrast Structure. etc.

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions'
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Sails
Suifidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Sails
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
T
1"<-,Reducing Conditions ^
_ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YesCircle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydric Soils Present? Yes -Nis this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No )
C-9
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 2192
HJL
8/93

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(198.7 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: ? Date:
Applicant/Owner County:
Investigator: f State: / i
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? (Yes No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes,W1 Transact ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes'No) Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species S tratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator

2. 10.
}
4. hl 12.
6.?l?r? 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or
FAC (excluding FAC-)
Remarks: N V "I i
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Watland Hydrology Indicators:
-
-Stream. Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Inundated i
Aerial Photographs d i
U
12 I
n
pper
nches
Saturate
-Other 2water Marks
_No Recorded Data Available -Drift Lines
-Sediment Deposits
-Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) -Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) -Local Soil Survey Data
-
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: j'

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): ( Drainage Class:
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No .
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions.
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosoi _ Concretions,
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content In Surface layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
l_--Aqu(c Moisture Regime - Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions - Listed on National Hydric Soils List
( Ieyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
i
Remarks: / rt
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ?Ye) No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yeas No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes ± No
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92
HJL
8/93
w
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
098.7 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Date:
Applicant/Owner: County: -
Investigator: IM/" State: /'v
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Ye? No Community ID:
la the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? YesNo) Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No) Plot ID: ?-
(if needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator

?, ! ! r
T' 9.
2. V

-
1
?-
10.

4. 12.
6.? ,., 1, , . r
13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
S. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or
J)
FAC (excluding FAC-) ,
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream. Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs -Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Other y
Water Marks
_No Recorded Data Available Drift Lines
-Sediment Deposits
-Drainage Pattems in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) -
Water-Stained Leaves
-
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) -
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: ??, O• / ' I , .'

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phasel: r Drainage Class:
Reid Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): l'? l Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No .
Profile Descrietion:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colons Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moistl Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretionr
_ Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking In Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gleyed or low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)

°,? p,
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION

ti
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Yes.) No (Circle)
Yes Ikp?
Yes No)
(Circle)
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes Nod
Remarks: I I
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92
HJL
8/93

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
0 98.7 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: ' Date:
Applicant/Owner: Al County: ?;.
Investigator: State: /V
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? les)No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes(09) Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes,No) Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Suedes Stratum dicato

2.
w 10.

4. 12.
S. 13.
6. 14.

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or
FAC (excluding FAC-)
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
?--/
hs
D7Aeri
ra
l Ph
t Inundated
p
a
og
o
Other Ekaturated in Upper 12 Inches
- Water Marks
No Recorded Data Available -
-Drift Lines
-Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: o dary Indicators (2 or more required):
S
7
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Water-Stained
Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _
-Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in,) _
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
I
(Series and Phase): N Drainage Class:
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: Yea No .
Profile Descriotion:
Depth Matrix Color
Mottle Colors Motde Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moistl Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
u Y

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions,
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor ` Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed an Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gieyed or Low-Chroma Colors _
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Remarks: 0 1, , ..
Yes') No (Circle) (Circle)
:.. ..
Yep,) No
Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? es? No
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92
HJL
8/93
e
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: ' Date: 7.7 r;
Applicant/Owner: N County:
Investigator: %,f`n State: ??-
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: U/?? ?? !?
(If needed, explain on reverse - 1 A
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator

2. 10.
3. IJ 11.
4.??? 12.
6. 13.
s. i?
14.

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or
FAC (excluding FAC-)
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream. Lake or ride Gauge Primary Indicators:
S?srialPhotographs -Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
::
Other -
Water Marks
No Recorded Data Available -
Drift Unes
-
Sediment Deposits
-
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) -Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) -Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: ?? 1? ?.

I i i r

SOILS
Map Unit Name
?
(Series and Phase): n)
? Drainage Class:

T
S
b Field Observations
axonomy (
u
group): Confirm Mapped Type: , Yea No .
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
Mottle Colony Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon IMunsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosoi _ Concretions'
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime ! Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Qleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Yea) No (Circle)
Yes N-9 -
Yes Yes No >
(Circle)
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks: /N / n
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92
HJL
8/93
r

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: C . ? Date:
Applicant/Owner: 1) County:
Investigator: State: J "
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes)No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No) Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes_No) Plot ID:
L--(If needed, explain on reverse
vctiav_ +r+Iwiv
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species S tratum Indicator

c/.,;?
2 n`r
.
31. ff? C.
4 12
13.
6. 14.
1 ?_1 16.

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or ..?
FAC (excluding FAC-)
Remarks:
n 9 uflvwv I

Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
V
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
- Inundated

Aerial Photographs
?
'77Saturrated in Upper 12 Inches
? Sa
-Other Water Marks
No Recorded Data Available -
Drift Lines
-
Sediment Deposits
-
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: -
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
: Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) -
FAC•Neutral Test
>
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) Other (Explain in Remarks)
-
Remarks:

nn C.
Map Unit Name.
(Series and Phase): Drainage Class:
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No
Profile Descriation:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions,
H
i (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure etc.
(inches)
or
zon
?o yr C) V1

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol
_ Histic Epipedon
_ Sulfidic Odor
,Aquic Moisture Regime
.Reducing Conditions,._.
Gle ed or ow-Chroma [,'Mors
Remarks:
_ Concretions-
- High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
_ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Listed on Local Hydric Soils Ust
_ Usted on National Hydric Soils Ust
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
\AIC'rl ANIM nt_-rl=annrnreTlnN
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Remarks: It. .
Yes) No (Circle! (Circle)
'yosi No
Yes) No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? (Yss -- No
Approvea oy nuuamur- L,-.
HJL
8/93

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DE'I•ERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Date: /
Applicant/Owner: County:
Investigator: C` % J State: f l
Do Normal Circumstances exist an the site? (Y@s)INO Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes, Nod Transect ID: ) 46
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No) Plat ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum -Indicator porninant Plant Species Stratum Indicat
r?A
,
`
2 10.
.

12.

is.
8. -

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL• FACW or
FAC (excluding FAC-)
Remarks: rJ (/ "
HYDROLOGY

Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Inundated
.Photographs - -Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Other
Water Marks
_
No Recorded Data Available -
-Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
-
tterns in Wetlands
P
i
a
nage
Dra
-
Secondary indicators (2 or more required):
Feld Observations: Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) -
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Local
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (i^•) -
Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.)
Remarks:
I'

Vv,VV
Map Unit Name.
(Series and Phase): Drainage Class:
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munseil Moist) (Munsell Moistl Abundance/Contrast Structure etc.
c
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions-
_
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Usted on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)

k A,-
Remarks: f
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes) No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ' No?
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No ) Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes (No )
Remarks: r) ' /1
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92
HJL
8/93 -
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
11987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
. r ?1
All f
Project/Site:
Date:

<.;..w.
Applicant/Owner: N
County. r, ; >
Investigator: State: !1A

Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes ,j11? Transect ID:
NO
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes N.•....? Plot ID: 0(' {
(if needed, explain on reverse
vtut I H I lulu
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Domi nant Plant Species Stratum
r
Indicat
YA?- 9.
.{- 10.
3. S .?.L

14.

8. c
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or .;
FAC (excluding FAC•)
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream. Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Aerial Photographs '.?_$aturated in Upper 12 Inches -
Other Water Marks
-
No Recorded Data Available -
-Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
-
y
d
i
W
l
P
s
an
n
et
atterns
Drainage
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: -(in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) -
FAC-Neutral Test
_
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depth to Saturated Sail: (in.)

Remarks: `
.j %J aLJ
Map Unit Name.
(Series and Phase):
Drainage Cs
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mattis Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munseil Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure etc-

Hydric Sail Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions'
_
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Sails
_
Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
y Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
,/Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
urrrr ARM n=T=0f1nenreTlnnl
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Yes ) No (Circle)
Yes ) No
Yes) No
(Circle)
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes \ No
Remarks:
Approvea oy muuaAur- Liz-
HJL ,
8/93 -

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
411
Date: l S ; (/OV 2.00 1
Project/Site:
?1 ?J u"T County:
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator: State: /
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? LY Na Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situationl? . Yes Transect ID: 877C
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes a Plot ID: 1911
(If needed. explain on reverse
?
")(3 /G
Percent of Dominant Species that am OBL. FACW or J FAC (excluding FAC-)
vEGETATIU M
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum indicator
?
-versus uhr?
1 G FAC
.
2. Peru V( FA(_LA uLi-c
3. L.igit, <?'//oGt??v ? (?S f?C f
------ttt 11.
<
4. rofYlus ??Ur < AC (A 12.
/
nG
5. pf'mv5 .}.,rD?P S fAC,(. 13.
?
6. Gr k. QY-(, c c S FACQ,, '14.

7. Lu mt V-) at) VV)
Cu H t C 4
15.
8. l GGlu ! G C.?
1 r
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream. Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Inundated
:?4erial Photographs .--Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Other Water Marks
-
No Recorded Data Available -Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Patterns in Wetlands
i
D
nage
ra
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Feld Observations: Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: (in.l -Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depth to Saturated Sail: (in.) -
Remarks: (?)
SOILS

Map Unit Name.
(Series and Phase): Drainage Ciass-
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) ?(Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
_
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
_
Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hyddc Soils List
_
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: el - S
wc'rt enln n=T;:QMIIUATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Yes No irclel
Yes o
Yes No
(Circle)
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks: N 1 A
Approved by HUUSAL-t G1t'4
HJL
8/93 -
f?(,
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 .COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: f ;_tl ;.fs.,r•' ? ')orl Date: y 1
Applicant/Owner: County: ui ?_ ; r? rr !'?
Investigator: State: N C;
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? es No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes(No Transact ID: Ul('7(,f?n?>
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes( ' o_ Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum d a or Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. PO U1nn Sr' '4 0v' i_f o L_ 9.
2- ce(4lAu" F_1 031. 10.

4. fr 11t(S _S 'YJ i ! :. i r S ?C.VJ 12.
5. er ?, ..?,, , "T Cw 13.
6. TX k IAn^P C' C k I I od"r, C (A) `( 14.
7. rel?S? ?ra 1/'r l?,I(t 0B L_ 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or /
I or) `'
FAC (excluding FAC-) '
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Derial Photographs Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Other
- Water Marks
-No Recorded Data Available -
-Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):

(in.)
Depth of Surface Water: ? Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
J Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in,) 7FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: L/ (in.) -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: OVJ' W, 4" I1 . -0. &1/-" ( . ;.
1 i

lw.

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Drainage Class:
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No .
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
(inches) Horizon (Munseil Moist)
D 1. G4 10 YL-?Z

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol
_ Hlstic Epipedon
Suifidic Odor
L<Aquic Moisture Regime
X Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Remarks:
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(Munseil Moistl Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
_ Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
_ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ("ies) No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? ?Yes? No
Hydric Soils Present? ??es No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? 1/_es No
I Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92
HJL
8/93 ''

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: 1-2 Date: 2-") f
Applicant/Owner: County: G u?
Investigator: State: /V
c
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? No Community ID: (A)c_AA A-_)
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes ?W Transact ID: IA9 0('11
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID:
(if needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum dicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1
CUf ?? gnu S ((e f!) Ilf? ic
1. l
1
? ?--
S.
(r
)
2. LI f; oc?!'?:!?un ?U?lp? FPJG - lo.

4. fo I s-, 12.
5. 13.
6. LIQILIda? 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or ?
FAC (excluding FAC-) ( ?
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
-
Aerial Photographs -Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Other
- yWater Marks
-No Recorded Data Available -Drift Lines
-Sediment Deposits
-Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) -
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
EtAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Sail: f2- (in.) -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Drainage Class:
Reid Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No .
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
(incheal Horizon (Munseli Moist)
Mottle Colors Mottle
fMunsell Moi
t) Ab
d
lC
t
t
Texture. Concretions.
S
s
un
ance
on
ras tructure. atc.
cl1 r'l LCD ?? `7 ?.. S G vt,) i oC'
(o soyA _ fah d
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretionr
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking In Sandy Sails
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed an Local Hydric Sails List
_ Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Sails List
_ Oleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Remarks:
s? No_ (Circle) (Circle)
Yes *
Yes Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Approved by HQUSACE 2192
HJL
8/93

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1198.7 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)

-? '
Project/Site:
Date: l ??, t r
Applicant/Owner: -T' County F W"
Investigator: M 2 : A-c,/:.:, L < . ? ' . • ? ..?
r_
State: AJ
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? (y;s Ao Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes I Transect ID: _77) E" ` £3
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes,/No Plot ID: we V. Ar k)
(if needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Domina
t Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
n
1. ?VU//(?•, /j1/ Ar,uk - C? j/)<.-hi° 9-
2. 10.

12.
5. 14N"C4' CG/Jlt, 6
- ?' /)C W 13.
6. /mss rr. (AFL 14.
7. Su""yr????d CC'/huu<; }? DEZ- 15.

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or 7J,
FAC (excluding FAC-)
Remarks: NIA
HYDROLOGY
ZRacorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetiand Hydrology Indicators:
,
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
__
?,/Aeriai Photographs -inundated
. -Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Other
-Other Water Marks
-No Recorded Data Available Drift Lines
-Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
-
Field Observations: ondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Sec
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) -Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) -Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
?-
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): N I Drainage Class:
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No .
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moistl (Munsell Maistl Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ H)stosol _ Concretions,
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Sails
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed an Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
?,QIeyed or Low-Chroma Colors _
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: VIA--
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? s> No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? 'Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetiand? 1?es j No
Remarks: f \) 1 lp .--
Approved by HQUSACE 2192
HJL
''
8193

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1198.7 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site.. Date:
Applicant/Owner: County: C-7-u,_.;
Investigator: M.4 State: / 1 ,..
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? /Yes) No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes.NVpJ Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No) Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum d or Stratum Indicator
Dominant Plant Species
1. /
g,
2./?ei 10.

i
?ri????s??r??
4
12
. .
b./yNV_< .S;=i.r{rw c S ?< U
f? 13.
6. /20`. - IT )
?w l? 14.
7.
8. CU c7O?/I/vr? C? r??i?J?u/w f? T?? t-t 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or 't
FAC (excluding FAC-)
Remarks.
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake or ride Gauge Primary Indicators:
-
Tj-?4erial Photographs -Inundated
-
Other
Other ::Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
- Water Marks
-No Recorded Data Available -Drift Lines
-Sediment Deposits
_Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) -
-Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) -Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Drainage Class:
Reid Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No .
Profile Descriotion:
Depth Matrix Color
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions.
(Inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions'
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content In Surface layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low•Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Nit Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes N l
,...
Hydric Soils Present? Yes KNo Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes 'No
Remarks: r) ! ,4..
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92
HJL
8193
EcoScience
Corporation
1101 Haynes Street. State 101
Raleigh, North Carolina 27804
Ph 919 828 3433
Fax [phone]
Client:
North Carolina
Department of Transportatio
pro ject:
Western Greensboro Loo
Sections C and D
TT-
LEGEND
N112524 Comdor
Q Pond
M Stream
® Wetland
r Location of Wetland Data Form
Dwn By. Date:
MTC Dec 200,
Ckd By: Scale:
GRM As Shown
ESC Project No: 00-046.12
FIGURE
3A
t
.:?. Fr4?w ? .. MFF01=MFF1 - ole
MBB01=MBB10 Western Greensboro Loo
Sections C and D
K003 a?..,?,?
7 *fij9 ?.v 1, _ ? ?, ? :911, ?~?r
M ?, E •.. Title:
4
- r? Plan Sheet
?, f
} ". , { i yJ.?tl1 eE r' Y A
Dwn By: Date:
00
MTC Dec 2001
Ckd By: Scale:
?.:.1 G R M As Shown
?? ~? ?' • 7 ESC Project No:
00-046.12
4 r.
! T
FIGURE
3D
¦
LEGEND
NU-2524 Corridor
Q Pond
? tream
®'uWetland
r Location of Wetland Data Form
OAT,-FORM
7r, I --WAR.

0 200 400 Feet ;,?? ?`
A
i - - - v v ,n - . a yrq>. ..i..
r
4 , F xa .41 Project:
r w
4 S fit/ ?
l 1 d.'
F Western Greensboro Loo
Sections C and D
Yr , 7 . ''- Title:
t
•R ., ' _ Plan Sheet
y s ? r " wry .
:.r..> p?. r ,? t fis' ?' a a?y
?r
k
??* -?
m

.

?I
i
I?

i.
i
i
?I
i
i
r'
r i i
ii
i
i
? I
j
??
I

? I

I

?

i?

I

i i

I
'?
i
i
,r •?; ? ?
I
i
? ?
??
? i
;Jfy

" SITE 2
his site is located west of Groometown Road, between Broadadres Drive arf4 Atfanthus Street
Figure 2-1). The site consists of an ephemeral channel that becomes intermittent near the
terminus of the site. Currently the site is wooded. The proposed Western Loop will pass to the
north of the site (Preliminary Roadway Plan, Sheet 10).
Site Description
An ephemeral channel begins at a culvert under Groometown Road and drains to the west.
Initially, it is a fairly large channel but eventually disappears about 300 feet downstream as it
Cnters the study area. This upper section of the channel appears to have been constructed or
channelized during improvements to Groometown Road, as evidenced by remnants of check
Hams within the channel. Although the channel "disappears" about 200 feet west of
Groometown Road another channel is soon formed. Based upon DWQ guidelines, the second
channel is also ephemeral. The channel remains ephemeral until a drainage ditch enters from the
porth. At this point the channel becomes intermittent. This ditch is in the right-of-way for the
proposed Western Loop, and was determined to be ephemeral as well.
if
Five cross-sections were examined on the site to demonstrate the differences in the channel in
fhe down-valley direction. Cross-section one was taken in the ephemeral drainage ditch cut along
the east edge of the site behind the houses. There is clear evidence of a spoil pile to the left of the
channel. Top-of-bank cross-sectional area measurements yielded a cross-sectional area of 10.5
square feet, clearly larger then the predicted cross-sectional area for a 7.5-acre (0.01 square mile)
drainage basin (See Figure 2-2). The channel has steep vertical banks with moderate vegetation.
Cross-section 2 was taken below the Groometown Road culvert. There is evidence of
Ghannelization and historic check dams, presumably from the expansion of Groometown Road.
Initially, this cross-section looks very stable. The top-of-bank cross-sectional area is 24.1 square
feet, larger than the predicted cross-sectional area for a 50-acre (0.08 square mile) drainage
basin. Approximately 200 feet below the Groometown Road culvert, the channel disperses
throughout the floodplain. At this point it becomes obvious that the larger channel upstream was
cut at some time in the recent past and is not a free-formed channel. Cross-section 3 shows the
cross-section of the channel just prior to dispersing throughout the floodplain. Cross-section 4
shows the channel and the floodplain once the channel has dispersed. The drainage ditch can be
seen along the right edge of the floodplain.
The channel becomes intermittent approximately 50 feet above the proposed right of way. Cross-
section 5 was taken within the right-of-way limits where the existing channel is perennial. The
channel was not in stable condition at this cross section. The bank height ratio was 1.9 and a top-
of-bank cross-sectional area was 13.5 square feet. There were bankfull indicators present with a
bankfull cross sectional area of 4.3 square feet, which compares favorably with the area
predicted from the regional curves for the 58-acre (0.9 square mile) basin size. This cross-section
yielded a BEHI of High (score of 33) mostly because of the bank height ratio, sparse root
density, and poor vegetation cover along the banks.
,f 3dX,-Q, EGG: ?? s )/ 7cV iii
t-tu' , .

Residences and a few businesses characterize the adjacent area along Groometown Road. Two
existing subdivisions are located to the north and south adjacent to the site. Local zoning is
shown on Figure 2-3.
Soils
The Guilford County Soil Survey shows soils on the site mapped as Iredell fine sandy loam, and
Enon fine sandy loam (Figure 2-4). Both the Iredell and Enon soils are underlain by heavy clays
that have a high or very high shrink-swell potential. Although neither soil was confirmed at the
site, the soils observed exhibited some characteristics of both soil series.
Based on onsite evaluation, the soils at the site are sandy at the surface and underlain by heavy
sandy clay at 16 to 24 inches. The sandy surface material was deeper in places and is possibly
depositional. The sandy clay subsurface material exhibited some expansive soil properties. These
soils were saturated at 10 to 22 inches with a seasonal high water table at 8 to 14 inches below
ground surface. These would not be classified as hydric soils. Individual auger borings did show
some areas of hydric soils, a few of which meet the criteria for jurisdictional wetlands. A small
linear area of hydric soils exists along the south side of the drainage ditch.
Vegetation
The vegetation at the study site is a mature hardwood forest consisting of red maple, sweet gum,
green ash, black gum, multiflora rose, autumn olive, privet, greenbriar, dogwood, and poison ivy.
Vegetative cover for the site area is 90 to 100%.
Conceptual Mitigation
The drainage feature on the site was determined to be ephemeral. Therefore, no potential for
stream restoration exists at this site. There does appear to be high potential for the creation of
storm water wetlands. Based on the soils, a slight hydrologic input should allow for the creation
of wetlands in the floodplain where the seasonal high water table already appears to be close to
the surface. The stormwater generated and channeled by the proposed highway and developed
areas can provide adequate hydrology for a stormwater wetland system.
The soils at the site appear suitable for creation of wetlands. The mapped soils have a heavy clay
subsoil with expansive mineralogy. This expansive clay is desirable for creating ponds or
wetlands because it reduces infiltration and allows for ponding of water on the surface.
Current design indicates that roadway drainage adjacent to the site is routed to the north side of
the road and into a culvert that bypasses the proposed mitigation site. Earth Tech recommends
that the roadway design be modified to route stormwater into the proposed stormwater wetland
area to help provide adequate hydrology.
The potential wetland mitigation area ranges from approximately 1 to 1.5 acres. Figure 2-5
shows a conceptualization of the proposed stormwater wetland.
Water Budget
41
:. The primary source of water will be runoff that is directed from the watershed through the
culvert at Groometown Road. A review of the preliminary construction drawings indicates that
drainage from the east side of Groometown Road will be discharged into a ditch along the south
side of the road. This ditch eventually drains to an inlet and a stormwater sewer system which
- day-lights at the culvert at Groometown Road and at the head of Site 2.
A preliminary water budget indicates that excess water will be available from November to
March in 5 of 9 years.
Currently, drainage for this portion of the proposed Western Loop is discharged to the north. It
will be necessary to reroute drainage to the south to create additional hydrology.
5
R Landowners
Two landowners own most of the site. The approximate property boundaries are shown on
Figure 2-6.
1. Boren family.
2. The City of Greensboro
Both of the above listed property owners are adjacent to the proposed western loop and are
among those which Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch (PDEA) requested
not be contacted by NCDOT right-of-way personnel.
3

,
- -- - STREAM r-
it
CONSTRUCTED /
WETLAND "000

Legend -
© Site 2 Boundary
•--- ROW
Proposed Alignment
On-Site Stream Mitigation Feasibility Studies
Greensboro Outer Loop, Guilford County
200 0 200 400 Feet
-

O

F O? NOIn C.4 It
North Carolina - Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
r
SITE 2
FIGURE 2-5
CONCEPTUAL PLAN
-

kill

bf i 82

?FP
,

s ? ?
aM n? y
,4
? r 1
` , g

ry? A
•'nrt' S 1. °? .
_ n t
.. 1,
I
.r

A' i.Y Y( •f O4
W Rd ... ? .
: Vandalfia
' s * : IA . ,
?? Noe1n q,?
Soils North Carolina - Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
EnB Enon fine sandy loam Project Development and Environmental Analysis 13t
EnC Enon fine sandy loam ?ea1..N-
EuB Enon-Urban land complex SITE 2
IrB Iredell fine sandy loam FIGURE 2-4
MhB2 Mecklenburg sandy clay loam
SOILS
M
Legend On-Site Stream Mitigation Feasibility Studies
p she 2 Boundary Greensboro Outer Loop, Guilford County
Q Watershed Area
` ROW
q Proposed Alignment
- ti 500 0 500 1000 Fe
i-- Source: Soil Survey of Guitford
County, North Carolina, 1975,
Sheet 33.
I?
+oer1

7l? fib (G? `'`'`

?ada,? a s r?1 SITE 4
Site 4 is located to the east of Woodlyn Way and south of Hilltop Road as shown on Figure 4-1.
it consists of a stream that flows into an existing pond that is directly in the path of the proposed
Western Loop (Preliminary roadway Plans, Sheet 4 and 5). The stream flows out of the pond
through a narrow valley and under Woodlyn Way.
Site Description
The stream channel begins near Hilltop Road and flows into a 0.6-acre pond that will be drained
for the road construction. Above the pond, the stream is intermittent and flows through a mature
hardwood forest. The stream flows out of the pond through a narrow steep valley for
approximately 600-feet before a tributary enters from the south. The channel in this steep reach
?s severely incised with a bank height ratio of 3.2 in the riffle examined. The stream type is a G
fn the Rosgen classification system. Below the tributary a defined floodplain is present and the
channel becomes less incised in the downstream direction. To the stream left are several private
fesidences. In this area, the native vegetation along the floodplain has been removed and mown
grass has been planted up to the stream bank. The channel flows straight for approximately 200
feet, then begins to meander through an unmowed meadow before it crosses under Woodlyn
?Vay. Although, the channel is not incised in this section, the channel has very little habitat
> ecause of the lack-Qf significant bedform characteristics and poor floodplain vegetation.
Two cross-sections were examined in the reach above the tributary, one riffle and one pool.
Bankfull cross-sectional area for the riffle is 3.2 square feet with a top-of-bank cross-sectional
area of 20 square feet. The North Carolina Hydraulic Geometry Regional Curve predicts a cross-
sectional area of 3.8 square feet for a watershed of 0.08 square miles. A pool cross-section
examined in the same reach yielded a cross-sectional area of 4.4 square feet. The channel has
very low sinuosity with segments of severe erosion and large areas of undercut banks. No
pattern measurements were conducted because the stream lacks a defined pattern. Downstream
of the tributary confluence the bank height ratio reduces to 1.0 in the riffle cross section
examined. Bankfull cross-sectional area for the riffle below the tributary confluence is 5.9
square feet. The North Carolina Hydraulic Geometry Regional Curve predicts a cross-sectional
area of 6.7 square feet for a watershed of 0.18 square miles. All cross-sections and BEHI forms
can be found at the end of this section.
The tributary is also severely degraded. Although no cross-sections were taken along the
tributary, it was plainly evident that the channel was severely incised and would benefit from
natural channel stabilization.
The general topography of the watershed is hilly with many small drainage features; the stream
generally flows from east to west. Downstream of the tributary, the narrow valley begins to
widen and the channel becomes more sinuous and reduces its slope. The drainage area of the
tributary is 62.2 acres (0.1 square miles). The drainage area of the main channel above the
tributary is 49.6 acres (0.08 square miles). Figure 4-2 shows the entire watershed area.
The adjacent area is characterized by open wooded areas, residences, and a subdivision on the
southern border. A housing development is presently being constructed approximately 300 feet
upstream on the tributary from its confluence with the stream. Local zoning is shown on Figure
4-3.
Soils
The Guilford County Soil Survey shows Enon fine sandy loam soils occupying the site. A field
investigation indicated that most soils adjacent to the stream channel are sandy loams. Hydric
soil characteristics (low chroma and mottling) were observed at 15-18 inches in some floodplain
locations. A map showing the soils is provided as Figure 4-4.
Vegetation
Three separate vegetative communities are present. From the pond to approximately 100 feet
below the confluence with the tributary both sides of the channel are vegetated with mature
hardwood forest dominated by oaks, American beech, tulip poplar, and sweetgum. Down the
valley, the vegetation consists of young successional growth. A 200-foot section on the left bank
about 100 feet below the confluence with the tributary contains mown lawn to the edge of the
stream bank. Vegetation along the channel and floodplain consists of sweet gum, river birch,
alder, blackberry, elderberry, fireweed, sedges, rushes, multiflora rose, and various other weeds.
Feasibility of Restoration
This site has good stream restoration and minor wetland mitigation potential. Preliminary
roadway plans show that the lower two thirds of the pond will be filled because of highway
construction. The pond is to be drained and a natural channel 190 feet long constructed in the
pond bed. The pond receives input from a 38-acre watershed with no additional input from road
drainage. A preliminary water budget indicates that it is unlikely that sufficient water is
available to create wetlands of any size in the pond bed. It should be possible to create several
minor "pocket" wetlands adjacent to the new channel, but they will need to be small (<O.1 acre in
size).
Because of the minor amount of wetlands that could potentially be created, Earth Tech
recommends that wetland creation not be considered for this site, unless it is a natural feature in
the stream restoration process described below. Wetland restoration/creation potential exists in
the wide floodplain where the tributary joins the study stream. However, these wetland pockets
will also be relatively small (less than 0.1 acre) and should be part of the natural channel design
proposed below.
Above the pond the stream is intermittent and does not offer stream restoration opportunities.
However, below the pond there is potential for about 1,200 feet of stream restoration. The
restoration would involve constructing a stable B stream in the narrow valley for the first 600
feet below the proposed right of way. This newly constructed stream would be a structure-
controlled channel. Either the channel would have to be raised to reduce the existing bank height
ratio (preferred) or establish a new floodplain at the existing elevation. The channel would have
a tight structure spacing such as would be found in a mountain valley system. Where the valley
opens up, a C-type channel could be constructed with a new stable dimension, pattern, and
profile. This stream segment is about 400 feet long.
2
About 200 feet of the tributary could also be restored to a C-type channel. There is excellent
,,native vegetation on-site that could be salvaged for transplants, root wad structures, and wood
structures such as log vanes.
;Figure 4-5 shows a conceptualization of the possible stream restoration and wetlands creation.
.Total impaired length of stream is approximately 1180 feet measured from topographic mapping
iobtained from the City of Greensboro. Five hundred feet should qualify for 3:1 credit and 680
-should qualify for 1:1 credit, for a total of about 850 linear feet of mitigation credit.
Landowners
4
"Two landowners own most of the site. The approximate property boundaries are shown on
Figure 4-6.
?1. Randa D. Cartwright and Francis D. Randolph individually and as trustees.
=2. Annie C. Coffin
Y
Both of the above listed property owners are adjacent to the proposed western loop and are
among those which Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch (PDEA) requested
-not be contacted by NCDOT right-of-way personnel.
3

r \
------------------
V,
CONSTRUCT
CONSTRUCT STABLE B
STABLE C CHANNEL
\\ V CHANNEL A /STABLE C

\ CHANNEL
Dr.
Legend
Site 4 Boundary
- - - ROW
Proposed Alignment

/1¦

\XX
- ? w
North Carolina - Department of Transportation
F' Division of Highways
Lg Project Development and Environmental Analysis Br&.nch
F`
SITE 4
FIGURE 4-5 =
CONCEPTUAL PLAN
On-Site Stream Mitigation Feasibility Studies
Greensboro Outer Loop, Guilford County „
200 0 200 400 Feet

?.
w Y '
r w F f
w r _ p X.? , '. _ ?.ti * Pt F {i rB 'Y r .,7 9?1+" P Al
14
r
14 e ?• ^I? . ?_ r .? r 'iii'' ?? r t e ??
A' yjlP?'"''w iar'?Ir'. y •r e „ rJf{ her w •?. pry t ??+? r ay "r?
- ,N.• .*, ' ;:. ` r Pr >.'`?., c iii . '?.' I1',}?' p '
w?u, ? ? r Irt 67S A I7 f a.h
e .`?. e r ' v9'? q
41 41
n.' I
F V
F. ?* r
Y ?;4: ?i7N' c `P
?.` ?' r a.? a ^ !x ? .Y ..rte: s..
ri21 jJ
i ?., . ' ¦
P ' in
sr? cMq;
R c r? r? rF ?"? t`
%
S .}, r Yom., : .
'Q..ybtf
_? ? i R' :.-r b,?i '?:" tr" ` ? .I. ?S ?• - ^c r bin .,,?}• '•5'' c
F. - ., `„y rr r n r Yc ? •',
P r
pM
tir
%
Solis North Carolina - Department of Transportation
cos Cecil sandy loam, 2-6% slopes * Division of Highways
Ens Enon fine sandy loam, 2-6% slopes Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
EnC Enon fine sandy loam, 6-10% slopes
Eno Enon fine sandy loam, 10-15% slopes
EuB Enon-Urban land complex, 2-10% slopes SITE 4
IrB Iredell fine sandy loam, 0-4% slopes
MhB2 Mecklenberg sandy clay loam, 2-6% slopes, eroded FIGURE 4-4
MhC2 Mecklenberg sandy clay loam, 6-10% slopes, eroded
SOILS
Legend
On-Site Stream Mitigation Feasibility Studies
c::=3 Site 4 Boundary
- p Watershed Area Greensboro Outer Loop, Guilford County
ROW
Proposed Alignment
500 0 500 1000 Feet
Source: Soil Survey of GulHord
County, North Carolina, 1975,
Sheet 32.
? !5 ? ?a ?id N c .*/+?r.Gm.w-Yj?' GcJv yy- ? ?? ?? L' ? t? /r y?'N' •.4? ? .?.[ l ,.r ?'
.? sad, 1
SITE 8 /
Two separate areas were evaluated at this location, Site 8A to the south of Wendover Avenue
and Site 8B to the north of Wendover Avenue. The two sites are located to the west of the
proposed Western Loop (Figure 8-1)(Preliminary Roadway Plan, Sheets 13A & 14). Site 8A
consists of an existing wetland in the bed of a drained pond. Site 8B consists of two small ponds
and the drainageway linking them.
Site Description
Both sites are located near Wendover Avenue, which forms the divide between the two
watersheds. Site 8B is discussed first because of the lack of mitigation potential in that area.
Site 8A has wetland mitigation potential and is discussed in greater detail.
Site 8B Description
Site 8B is located north of the intersection of Guilford College Road and West Wendover
Avenue as shown on Figure 8-1. This site contains a small pond that will be drained when the
road is constructed. A small channel flowing out of the pond is incised with moderate signs of
erosion. The channel has a densely wooded floodplain. The overall drainage area is small and
the only wetlands associated with this site are downstream of the pond just above the crossing of
the new Guilford College Road. This is not a feasible stream mitigation site because when the
pond is drained it is unlikely that sufficient hydrology can be maintained to sustain flow. Also,
the reach is relatively short (500 feet). The stream flows through a bowl-shaped valley, then
under the recently relocated Guilford College Road. Below the new road, the stream has been
stabilized with a rip-rap apron. Wetland mitigation is not feasible because of the small area of
potential creation, the small watershed size and subsequent lack of hydrologic input, and the
topography of the valley, which limits the amount of excavation possible. Site 8B was
determined to have no potential for stream or wetland mitigation.
Site 8A Description
Site 8A consists of an old pond which now contains some jurisdictional wetlands. The dam fcz
the former pond has been breached and a small stream now runs through the old pond bed. The
stream is approximately 1.5 feet wide and 0.5 feet deep and in a stable condition. Below the
dam, the channel spreads out and disappears for a section into a braided channel, then re-forms
as it approaches an existing pond 350 feet downstream of the breached dam.
The old pond bed now contains 2.7 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and a small area of delineated
wetlands exists downstream of the old dam. There is also a small area of hydric soils that are not
flagged as wetlands.
The general topography of the area is hilly with the pond area occupying a local topographi'
low. The drainage area for this site is about 32 acres in size in size (Figure 8-2).
The watershed is currently a mix of residential and commercial use. A gas station and
convenience store is located on the southeast corner of Wendover Avenue and the former
Guilford College Road. Following construction of the proposed Western Loop, over 50 percent
of the watershed will be comprised of the Wendover Avenue and Western Loop interchange.
8A Soils
The Guilford County Soil Survey shows Enon fine sandy loam soils occupying the entire site.
Soils in the entire watershed are shown on Figure 8-3. Soils in the old pond bed are hydric and
there is also a small area of hydric soils located below the breached dam. The pond bed is 2.7-
acres in size and the hydric soil area below the dam is estimated to be less than 0.1-acre in size.
8A Vegetation
Most of the wetland area in the former pond bed is open with only herbaceous vegetation. The
fringes of the pond bed have small pines, sweetgum, red maple, and other shrubby vegetation.
Below the dam, medium-sized hardwoods are found. Species include red maple, white oak, red
oak, and black gum.
8A Feasibility of Restoration
Construction of the proposed Western Loop will fill a portion of the existing wetlands in the
former pond bed. Additionally, stormwater drainage from the Wendover Avenue interchange
will be discharged to two separate points in the wetland.
Site 8A appears to have potential for expanding the existing wetland area. Following
construction of the Western Loop about 1.4 acres of wetland will remain. The increase in
impervious surface as well as the direct input of stormwater should allow for the expansion of
these wetlands. Because of the input of stormwater at several points, it should be possible to
create/expand a stormwater wetland system or create a more natural bottomland hardwood
system. The existing dam should be removed and a stormwater wetland system should be
expanded down-gradient from the existing wetlands. Expansion to the west may also be
possible.
A preliminary water budget indicates that sufficient surface water should be available to
maintain and expand wetland hydrological conditions on the site. These wetlands will be
dependent upon receiving stormwater runoff from the highway. Final wetland size likely will
not exceed 3 acres in size. Figure 8-4 shows a conceptual plan for the site.
Additionally, the pond downstream from the "main" site is to be drained and used as a silt basin
during construction of the highway. Stormwater runoff from the highway will be diverted into
the pond. Following construction activities, creation of a stormwater wetland in this pond is also
very likely.
2
Landowners
Four landowners own most of the site. The approximate property boundaries are shown on
Figure 8-5.
1. Jerry Idol Strickland (NCDOT)
2. Walter Ruffin Brown Jr. and wife Patricia M. Brown
3. Patricia Townsend Brookbank
4. W.R. Brown Jr. and wife Lucille Brown
e
N
Three of the above listed property owners are adjacent to the proposed western loop and are
among those which Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch (PDEA) requested
not be contacted by NCDOT right-of-way personnel. It is unclear whether W.R Brown Jr. and
Walter Ruffin Brown, Jr. are the same individual.

L
Y
3
-40 N
X .
8
0,
ORrh, 4,
North Carolina - Department of Transportation n
Legend a Division of Highways
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Q Site 8 Boundary
?4`nro nrNS??'
ROW
Proposed Alignment SITE 8A
Existing Wetland FIGURE 8-4
CONCEPTUAL PLAN
On-Site Stream Mitigation Feasibility Studies T
Greensboro Outer Loop, Guilford County
200 0 200 400 Fedt
SITE 11
Site II is located immediately to the west of the proposed interchange of the proposed Western
Loop and Interstate 40 (I-40) (Preliminary Roadway Plan, Sheet 7). The study area extends from
south to north on both sides of the existing I-40. This area consists of two different study sites
located between Burnt Poplar Road and I-40.
Site 11A
Site I IA is located on the north side of I-40 (Figure 11-1). It consists of a small stream channel
flowing through an old drained pond that contains some wetlands.
11A Site Description
Site I IA consists of a long stream channel that begins at a culvert outfall at I-40. The stream
flows in a northerly direction. At one time, the stream had been dammed to form a small pond.
However, the dam was breached and the pond drained. Below the dam the stream merges with
the stream from Site 11B, located to the east. Wetlands currently exist in the old pond bed and
extend for a significant distance along the slope to the ramp for westbound I-40. Based on
mapping provided by NCDOT, these wetlands are about 0.8 acres in size. Dirt maintenance
roads to several nearby billboards have been constructed across the wetland.
The stream is formed from drainage from south of I-40 and from a small draw on the north side
of I-40. The small draw is to be filled during construction for the proposed Western Loop. The
presence of I-40 makes it difficult to determine the drainage area for this site. Based on available
mapping, it appears to be about 50 acres in size (Figure 11-2).
Land uses in this area are roadway, tank field, billboards near the interstate, and a scrap yard on
the north side of the stream opposite the old dam. The entire area is zoned for heavy industrial
uses (HI).
11A Soils
The Guilford County Soil Survey shows Enon fine sandy loam soils surrounding the old pond
and Iredell fine sandy loam soils in the drainageway beyond the breached dam. Enon clay loam
soils are located on the north side of the drainageway. A soil map is provided as Figure 11-3.
11A Vegetation
Vegetation in the pond bed is a mixture of herbaceous, shrubs, and scattered small trees. The
trees are sycamore, American elm, sweetgum, and red maple. Black willow and multiflora rose
make up most of the shrub layer. Wetland vegetation is primarily herbaceous, species consisting
of rushes, cattails, black willow seedlings, fireweed, sedges and grasses.
11A Feasibility of Mitigation
This site has good potential for expanding the existing 0.46-acre wetland. With the increase in
impervious surface from the new roadway construction it should be possible to expand these
wetlands creating a larger stormwater wetland system about 1.5 acres in size. Figure 114A
shows a conceptualization of the possible stormwater wetlands. Some constraints on the site are
the presence of some billboards.
Site 11B
This site is located just south of Burnt Poplar Road and to the east of Chimney Rock Road. Site
I IB is a small stream to the east of Site I IA (Figure 11-1). The stream continues into the lower
portion of Site 11A.
11B Site Description
This site consists of an open lawn with a highly eroded stream channel in front of an oil tank
field. The stream is on land owned by Marathon Oil Company. The channel is relatively
straight with large areas of severe erosion and no riparian vegetation. The channel flows under
Burnt Poplar Road, in front of an existing tank field then continues in a westerly direction behind
commercial/industrial property before joining with the stream flowing through site 11A. The
channel appears to be perennial or intermittent at least up to Burnt Poplar Road. A small,
channelized tributary enters from the north as the stream flows into Site 11B.
The drainage area for this site includes an area 25 acres or 0.04 square miles in size (Figure 11-
2). Land uses of the surrounding area are tank fields to the south and north, a truck repair shop
to the west, and a small pine stand immediately south of the stream. The entire area is zoned for
heavy industrial uses (HI). There is room for development upstream across Burnt Poplar Road.
The channel appears to have been straightened with fill material brought in on north and south
sides of the channel to construct the road and the oil tank field foundation. The channel banks
have no deep rooting vegetation along the banks. The channel is enlarging with collapsing banks
throughout the site.
Two cross-sections were examined within the project site (one riffle and one pool). The riffle
cross-section classified as an F-type channel with a bank height ratio of 2.5. Channel materials
consist of course sand to medium gravel with numerous signs of high bedload, presumably due
to, excessive bank erosion. The bankfull cross-sectional area measured at the riffle is 4.0 square
feet. The top-of-bank cross-sectional area is 23.6 square feet. The North Carolina Regional
Curve predicts 2.4 square feet but there was no data taken at a drainage this small, thus this
stream is outside the curves prediction range.
The pool examined yielded a bankfull cross-sectional area of 4.4 square feet. Both cross-
sections had signs of excessive deposition and bank erosion, low root density, and steep banks.
Both cross sections yielded a BEHI rating of Very High because of low rooting depth, minimal
surface protection, and high bank height ratio.
2
A riffle cross-section was examined approximately 50 feet down stream of site to determine if it
would be feasible to restore the section behind the commercial/industrial properties and tie this
stream into the stream that flows through site 11 A. There were no bankfull indicators present
along this reach. The channel was rip-rap lined and it seemed to be cut to its present location.
The top-of-bank cross-section was 9.3 square feet. This reach has two major constraints: the
commercial/industrial property to the north and the tank field hill slope to the south. These
constraints limit the available beltwidth of a restored channel.
11B Soils
The Guilford County Soil Survey shows Iredell fine sandy loam soils occurring throughout the
drainageway. Enon clay loam soils are mapped north of the drainageway, and Enon fine sandy
loam soils are mapped south of the drainageway. Soils in the entire watershed are shown on
Figure 11-3. The stream substrate is gravel and sand.
11B Vegetation
Bank vegetation is sparse and is limited to mowed turf grass. After passing the tank field, the
south side of the stream is occupied by medium pine trees. A parking lot is on the north side of
the channel.
11B Feasibility of Restoration
The stream reach running in front of the tank field has excellent potential for a Priority One
restoration which would raise the channel back up on its original floodplain. A new dimension,
pattern and profile could be established, as well as a riparian buffer to provide shade and rooting
mass to the restored channel. There appears to be only one utility conflict on the site. A pipeline
crosses the stream about 110 feet before it enters the woods. This pipeline should not be a major
issue since the pipeline is currently not exposed and restoration would involve raising, not
lowering, the channel. The reach below the tank field, in the woods, is not feasible because of
the location of the channel and limited beltwidth available for meanders. Figure 11-4B shows a
conceptualization of the possible stream restoration
The impaired reach to be restored is approximately 500 linear feet. With added sinuosity, the
channel could qualify for 550 to 700 feet of mitigation credit.
Landowners
Seven landowners own most of the site. The approximate property boundaries are shown on
Figure 11-5.
1. Greensboro Equipment Care Center. •
2. Marathon Ashland Petroleum Company
3. Alfred K. Sampson and wife Voutline P. Sampson
3
4. Truckworks LTD
5. Truckworks LTD
6. Truckworks LTD
7. Kirkpatrick Associates
Only one of the above listed property owners (A. Sampson and wife) are adjacent to the
proposed Western Loop and are among those which Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch (PDEA) requested not be contacted by NCDOT right-of-way personnel.
4
I

N
i
i
,
11B
etlan
?:. _-
+ - I
? I l
?:. vv v ( - ?I ?i ?I
11A
tom- ? V
X- ing,
et d
v
?? - X
North Carolina - Department of Transportation
Legend Division of Highways
r. Site l lA Boundary Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
?`OI TIlM51:.
--- ROW
Proposed Alignment SITE 11A
© Existing Wetland FIGURE 11-4A
CONCEPTUAL PLAN
On-Site Stream Mitigation Feasibility Studies
Greensboro Outer Loop, Guilford County I
__-? ? 200 0 200 400 Feet

N
O
-? Burnt Poplar Rd
+ 1
I -
-
w - CONSTRUCT
- --- STABLE C OR E ,-
CHANNEL
111113
W
o ? 11A
North Carolina - Department of Transportation
Legend Division of Highways
I.? Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
? Site 116 Boundary atiFry,o •.M??''
•--- ROW
-- Proposed Alignment SITE 11B
FIGURE 11-4B
CONCEPTUAL PLAN
On-Site Stream Mitigation Feasibility Studies
Greensboro Outer Loop, Guilford County
4
} 200 0 200 400 Feet
=Omni
.r, Y. ulK « 1 N
t
f I ,? •d" ? r ?•
Fiji
? ?.lf f7 ?l f rw y 4?r w, rc 1 .. '?" ?? ? 1+%+?'` ?' ? 4 •111:'. I 1• :,
a y7'?7 f' ? P + t .'ir t ?GG77 ' 'id' r
.g ' r t
%lM.?'? 11...:s ., -I I?? ?r• 1, H 6?'S. ° ? {?wl `?.
Rd 11B ? rya h 'hS?. -.? 1 '. y{••y . ? 1.Y f l i - ?_ IT,? `Jf?. LL' '1L .i. it r,'?.?., ,
' t
• n lil
.fir ??`_ RI-• ? ? ?' T'? ? ? '.
Il i 1
,??lF nrn rV
Soils North Carolina - Department of Transportation
CrB Coronaca clay loam Division of Highways
EnB, EnC Enon fine sandy loam, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
EoB2 Enon clay loam
EuB Enon-Urban land complex
IrB Iredell fine sandy loam SITE 11
MhB2, MhC2 Mecklenburg sandy clay loam FIGURE 11-3
MuB Mecklenburg-Urban land complex SOILS
M
Legend
Q Site 11 Boundary On-Site Stream Mitigation Feasibility Studies
Watershed Area Greensboro Outer Loop, Guilford County
ROW
Proposed Alignment
f 700 0 700 1400 Fdet
Source: Soil Survey of Guilford --?
County, North Carolina, 1975,
- Sheet 26.
_ i 1 ? i

?'
f
G
Y f
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MIC-?AEA, F. EASLEY
(iOVFRNOR
September 25, 2002
I
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
To:
Merger Team Members for TIP Project U-2524 C and D (Western Greensboro Loop)
Subject:
Meeting on Wednesday, October 16. 2002 from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. in the Board of
Transportation Room. Transportation Building, Raleigh
Purpose of meeting:
To discuss new information related to the Greensboro Western nLand resolve a
conflict with the Concurrence Point 4A alignment
A meeting has been scheduled to discuss the impacts of a Greensboro softball/soccer park
on the alignment concurred to by the merger team at the July 18, 2002 Merger Meeting.
The information that will be presented was not available at the July 18, 2002 Concurrence
Point 4A meeting.
The purpose of the upcoming meeting is to discuss a proposed slight shift in alignment. A
shift is being proposed to avoid impacting a public park when the future Greensboro
Western Loop is constructed. Soon to be under construction, the park would be protected
by Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act. However, shifting the alignment will cause an
additional 195 feet of stream impacts. Concurrence for the new proposed alignment is
sought at the October 16" meeting.
Attached are designs showing three alignments. One alignment shows the protected
corridor, a second is the alignment that was presented at the 4A merger meeting, a third
alignment reflects the proposed shift as a result of the new information about the
softball/soccer park. Impacts of each alignment are summarized in a table.
The overall proposed alignment of U-2524 C and D remains unchanged with the
exception of the section shown in the attachment.
Please call (919-733-7844 ext. 245) or email ([e-mail]. nc.us) Kristina Solberg
if you have questions prior to the October 16" meeting.
KLS
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL. ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWWNCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
Agenda
NEPA / 404 Merger Team Meeting
October 16, 2002 at 8:00 a.m.
Board Room
Transportation Building
U-2524 C & D
Western Greensboro Loop
From Bryan Boulevard to SR 2303 (Lawndale Drive)
State Project No.
F.A. Project No.
8.U492101
STP-NHF-1 24-1 (1)
1. Introductions and Meeting Purpose
2. Project Description
3. Description of Alignments
Kristina Solberg, NCDOT
Art McMillian, NCDOT
Art McMillian NCDOT
4. General Discussion and Summary Kristina Solberg, NCDOT
APPENDIX A
Maps of U-2524 C & D Alternates with tables showing impacts
APPENDIX B
Meeting minutes from July 18, 2002 Merger Meeting Concurrence Point 4A
U-2524 C & D Concurrence Point 4A REVISED Merger Meeting October 16, 2002
I
2
Section 404/ NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 4A REVISED - Avoidance and Minimization
Project Name/Description: Western Greensboro Loop, Guilford County
TIP Project No.: U-2524 C and D
F.A. Project No.: STP-NHF-124-1(1)
State Project No.: 8. U492101
Avoidance and Minimization:
Avoidance and minimization measures are described in the attached handouts.
The Project Team has concurred on this date of , with the
avoidance and minimization measures for the proposed project as stated above.
USACE
USEPA.
NCDWQ
NCWRC
GMPO
NCDOT
USFWS
NCDCR
FHWA
U-2524 C & D Concurrence Point 4A REVISED Merger Meeting October 16, 2002
Purpose of Meeting
The Merger Team for TIP Project U-2524 C and D concurred to the Point 4A
alignment proposed by NCDOT at the July 18, 2002 merger team meeting.
Following the July 18th merger meeting new information became available
concerning a proposed softball and soccer complex. It was found that the
proposed complex conflicts with the alignment that the merger team signed off on
at the July 18th meeting.
The purpose of this meeting is to submit information to the Merger Team so that
we may reach concurrence for a slight shift in alignment that was presented at
the initial Concurrence Point 4A Merger Meeting, and discuss the efforts to avoid
and minimize impacts to jurisdictional "Waters of the United States" (concurrence
point 4A) as well as avoid a potential Section 4(f) situation.
TIP Project Description
The NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program recommends construction of
a divided, multilane facility on new location for the Greensboro Western Urban
Loop. The present study includes Sections C and D of the Western Greensboro
Loop, which extends along an approximate east-west axis from a western
terminus 0.3 mile west of Oneida Road (SR 2185) to an eastern terminus 0.1
mile east of Lawndale Drive (SR 2303), a distance of approximately 15 miles with
a 1000 foot wide study corridor. The project is located in Guilford County. The
Greensboro Western Urban Loop, the 1-85 Greensboro Bypass, and the
Greensboro Eastern/Northern Urban Loop complete the proposed loop system
encircling the City of Greensboro.
The study corridor is located in a rapidly expanding area of northwestern
Greensboro in central Guilford County. Suburban and urban development
pressures are likely to continue in the area.
Natural Resources
The study corridor is located within the Cape Fear River drainage basin
(Hydrologic Unit 03030002). Two named stream systems exist within the study
corridor: Horsepen Creek and Richland Creek. The western portion of the study
corridor parallels the northwest side of Horsepen Creek while the eastern portion
of the study corridor parallels the northwest side of Richland Creek.
The study corridor hosts substantial water, forest, and wildlife resources;
however, the quality of these resources is not considered to be unique or
significant.
The study corridor contains 23,449.9 linear feet (4.4 miles) of stream and 14.98
acres of wetlands subject to COE jurisdiction and agency review. Jurisdictional
areas were defined using criteria set forth in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual (COE 1987).
U-2524 C & D Concurrence Point 4A REVISED Merger Meeting October 16, 2002
Appendix A
Maps of U-2524 C & D Alignments with impacts
• Original alignment
• 4A alignment
• Proposed revision to 4A alignment
Appendix B
Minutes from July 18, 2002 4A Merger Meeting
NEPA/404 Merger Meeting Minutes
July 18, 2002
TIP U-2524 C & D
Western Greensboro Loop
From Bryan Boulevard to SR 2303 (Lawndale Drive)
Concurrence Point 4A - Avoidance and Minimization
Guilford County, Division 7
State Project No. 8.U492101
Federal Project No. STP-NHF-124-1(1)
1:00 p.m. in the Board of Transportation Room in the Transportation Building in Raleigh
Video conference site in Greensboro
Attendance - Raleigh site:
Name Agency Phone email
Kristina Solberg NCDOT-PDEA 733-7844 x245 ksoIberg,(a)(1ot.state. nc.us
Joseph Cotton FHWA 856-4350 x103 ioe.cotton(athwa.dot..gov
Felix Davila FHWA 856-4350 x106 felix.davila(tOliwa.dot.gov
Craig McKinney Greensboro DOT/MPO 336-373-4184 craig.nick innev(&ci.,greensboro,nc.us
David Cox NFWRC 528-9886 coxdr(mail.wildlife.state.nc.us
Cindy Sharer NCDOT-PDEA 733-7844 x241 csharer(ii?dot.state.nc.us
Chris Militscher USEPA Raleigh 856-4206 militschcr.chris((i,epa.gov
Jean Manuele USACE Raleigh 876-8441 x24 Jean. B.Mall uele((-b-saw02.usace.army.miI
Tim Bassette NCDOT-PDEA 733-7844 x305 tbassette(ii,dot.state. nc.us
Art McMillan Roadway Design-NCDO T250-4016 amcmiIlanru!dot.state. nc.us
Joyce Drew Roadway Design-NCDO T250-4016 0mdrew(&dot.state.nc.us
Matt Cusack EcoScience Corporation 828-3433 Cusack(a)ecosciencenc.com
Attendance - Greensboro video conference site:
Name Agency Phone email
Brad Wall
Kristina Solberg opened the meeting by introducing TIP project U-2524 C&D and asking
everyone to introduce themselves.
Ms. Solberg followed the merger meeting agenda. During the meeting she referred to an aerial
map and several maps attached in the handout.
U-2524 C&D Merger Meeting Minutes
Comments/Discussion
TIP Project U-2524 C&D is a pipeline project - already underway when the merger process
began. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the possible wetland impacts and efforts to
avoid and minimize the jurisdictional "Waters of the United States" (concurrence point 4A).
Sections C and D of the Western Loop extend 0.3 miles west of Oneida Road (SR 2185) to 0.1
miles east of Lawndale drive (SR 2303), a total distance of 4.5 miles. This area of Greensboro is
rapidly expanding in population and development. The final EIS was signed by FHWA in 1995;
EcoScience Corporation identified jurisdictional systems in Sept-Nov 2001. Right of way is
scheduled for 4/06; LET 6/08. U-2524 AB LET in 2003; U-2524 AA is complete. U-2524 BA
& BB LET in 10/02.
The discussion of wetland areas was turned over to Matt Cusack, EcoScience Corporation. Mr.
Cusack explained the geographic detail of the project corridor and referred to the aerial map.
The eastern part of the project is primarily urban, but the western part is rural. There are two
main streams (Ilorsepen Creek and Richland Creek), wetlands, and several ponds. The study
corridor contains 23,450 linear feet of streams and 15 acres of wetlands. All stream water can be
sent through agricultural ditches, and there is a large capacity for treatment.
A gas line exists in the area. There is a small 1:1 wetland mitigation ratio area and a 1:1 portion
of Lawndale Drive, but most everything else has a 2:1 ratio. There are two ponds in the original
proposed corridor. A beech/hardwood - dominated area exists in the East Side of the project.
The meeting was then turned to Art McMillan, Roadway Design, for the discussion of avoidance
and minimization. Mr. McMillan explained that one of Roadway's main goals was to keep
stream 17 open and try to improve it, as well as minimizing the amount of box culverts.
Jean Manuele. USACE-Raleigh, asked Mr. McMillan if Roadway would be able to avoid all
impacts to Creek 19. Mr. McMillan replied that there would be some impacts to the creek just
because it crosses a road. Ms. Manuele then expressed concern over minimizing those impacts
and also maintaining flexibility with the existing development. Mr. McMillan suggested a
covered culvert for Stream 16S based on the preliminary hydraulic design. He referred to the
Battleground area and Horsepen Creek as high-quality wetlands.
Ms. Solberg referenced the handout, pointing out that Roadway had saved 10.24 acres of
wetlands. Randy Turner, NCDOT-PDEA, also acknowledged Roadway's good work. Total
bridge length on this project (including ramps) is 4000 ft. along the L-Bile.
Felix Davila, FEiWA, expressed concern of the expenditure and coordination from the agencies.
Mr. Turner replied that in this type of urban setting, such a wetland system is indispensable, and
DOT must take action to prevent destruction of those. Ms. Mauele agreed, citing this system of
wetlands as a rare ecosystem in the area. Ms. Solberg answered Mr. Davila's question about
coordination with the agencies by referring to correspondence letters.
Mr. McMillan continued, citing the broken-back curves in the design so Ponds 6 and 10 could
possibly be avoided. The proposed roadway will slightly affect the headwaters of Stream 5.
U-2524 C&D Merger Meeting Minutes 2
David Cox, NCWRC, asked if there would be any impacts to Stream 14 (Horsepen), and Mr.
McMillan replied that there would not. This is a full access controlled road. Tim Bassette,
NCDOT-PDEA, asked for a definition of a "broken-back curve." Mr. McMillan explained that it
is a road with two curves going in the same direction connected with a tangent, instead of a
single smooth curve. This was a necessary implementation to avoid wetland areas. Brad Wall,
of the Division, asked (via videoconference) if the aerial map was exactly like the filed map in
1995. Mr. McMillan replied yes, within approx. 75 feet. This concluded avoidance and
minimization discussion, and Ms. Solberg asked for any other issues or questions. The
concurrence point form was signed, and the meeting was adjourned.
KLS/mlh
U-2524 C&D Merger Meeting Minutes 3
Q
0
C?
Con
r
N
0 N
o?
r\\
\
\?h

"am
Uro ryry -____
y?
./
1
y?
PA/
, 21
Jzl?

/
i

- ti
31 b ? P'!

s TT
Y•
?
MM
?i

ti W
y

y O
? O

O
a
it

N

O
U II
Cy ?
n? V-
tn ON
? M ?p ? t? N N M p
II `t II ?
II II II II O II II II II ~" II

? f

ICJ ?),. I f . ?? ?
11, ll ) ? ,?; . r
m -
vim, O /
O N q /?
COO
U N
in,
?i
r ?n
\ / ???? \• ? \:\>>' ? ? ''' \ , -? _ ? ? fir,; "°?, ./) / f 9 ;
I y y r/? o;'y?' lyd l ?l
1*4
.,1-,
?-
0
ti
V
Z

U
? a
II

o tl' L7
,`? N iv
? ? M U e
op
II II II ??°' II I I I I ? I I II II ?

Cti I I I I
Er

Oro
,..
O N f?
N
r
1
CC)
N 1-4

:7 ,•.\i
I ?
L

----------------
J!" J?j
\\ ate,
\Y

U

i? +-

x

Q
?
L

b \f Q?

(ZI
I I
ti
N
rVVV
U

U

x N
Its
II
- try !F•

I II
to)
61

I

[Oi

"? O Q
^'l `O

a' II II II

??. ?O

n
`C

O II

?

N

II II
a

?.
^'1

II

O

Q' O
^r

? II
Ge
a'
O
U
? W
?V
N
?Nq
i
/
?•\ t?lh4
M_? \
?\ 3

I l /r

i,y,lr/,. ,,? ^r rr
moo'' / /

til
y

`__ / N 11

t] -110
Li
/A?
in
? 44
U
N
[„ O
V- ??y i;; 4 'n r`?l
V
,q ON
r?i- ? w? h0 U p ?L
?i U
is
U
i i ?llNN}}y11
17 I?? _ J
i_} v1
CCC^^^llllll
i
?~ W
L
O
A y f
Q
p
^"1
?J
U

N
0
?
i II
?

11 II II II b II

r
\? I
e8 °rN ? \
Q
h IL
/
\\ / It
W Vly ??\

/
Q /
/ i G
Ln
i
i
?`? ? • ,% ? ? ,;!{i? ayyairo""?iayyyy ? ? ?, .l ? /
y
/
17
/ V)
k _Is

M -,i1{AI x
v1
? ?

b4?
?+ qq
N
a
y

i

x b ,?

3 i 0
0
0.

qt)
O
Ile)
01.
'y
Ur?
?J
U

N
O
U ?`' II

? ha

II II II a' II it II Qy II II II II II
C'n In, 100), 101)

d' U

0.4
r?
W
i

p ra

! 'la ItM.
t ee.

I
/
6 4-
t
h
a
x
h 7
- w
0
O
O
I I
44
N
U

U ? o
II

it II 11 d' II II II IL II II II

q
O
? II II
q
?O S O p Q,

`fg
O
O
?C
N ?
C? N A
M \
A
\\\ ii?o J r
Ila
i \\ time _?

c
..IEW'U
O
U

0

e ' fir
O
O
N
N4
U

.y z .- s
;Vo
\1
1
U
N
Cj
V ? II

ho
If II II d II II If II II II
II If
CO) ON
h
?
h0 ?
0
h
O oh Ate,,
U h
Agenda
NEPA / 404 Merger Team Meeting
July 18, 2002 at 1:00 p.m.
Board Room
Transportation Building
U-2524 C & D
Western Greensboro Loop
From Bryan Boulevard to SR 2303 (Lawndale Drive)
State Project No
F.A. Project No.
8.U492101
STP-NHF-124-1(1)
1. Introductions and Meeting Purpose
2. Project Description
Kristina Solberg, NCDOT
Kristina Solberg, NCDOT
3. Description of Avoidance and Minimization Ecoscience
Art McMillian NCDOT
4. General Discussion and Summary Kristina Solberg, NCDOT
APPENDIXES
A. Map of U-2524 Alternates Studied & Comparison Tables
B. Concurrence Point 3 & Supporting Documentation
C. Maps of Jurisdictional Areas
D. Summary Table of Impacts and Avoidance Quantities
E. Potential Mitigation Sites
F. Area Maps
Page I Concurrence Meeting 4A for TIP U-2524 C & D, July 18, 2002
Section 404/ NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 4A - Avoidance and Minimization
Project Name/Description:
TIP Project No.:
F.A. Project No.:
State Project No.:
Avoidance and Minimization:
Western Greensboro Loop, Guilford County
U-2524 C and D
STP-NHF-124-1(1)
8.U492101
Avoidance and minimization measures are described in the attached handouts.
The Project Team has concurred on this date of , with the
avoidance and minimization measures for the proposed project as stated above.
USACE
USEPA
NCDWQ
NCWRC
NCDOT
USFWS
NCDCR
FHWA
GMPO
Page 2 Concurrence Meeting 4A for TIP U-2524 C & D, July 18, 2002
Purpose of Meeting
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), the Federal
Highway Administration, and the US Army Corps of Engineers have agreed that
the proposed Western Greensboro Loop should be a part of the NEPA/ Section
404 Merger Team process, due to the expectation that the project's wetland and
stream impacts will require an Individual 404 Permit from the US Army Corps of
Engineers. The project is one of several "pipeline" projects; a project underway
at the time the merger process was enacted.
Appendix A contains a map of the alternates studied, as well as tables of
comparisons of the alternatives studied. These tables are taken from the FEIS,
pages IV-59 and IV-60 respectively. Concurrence Point 3 was reached in 1M
and copies of agency letters addressing this point are included in Appendix B.
The purpose of the meeting is to submit information to the Merger Team so that
we may reach concurrence on bridge lengths and discuss the efforts to avoid and
minimize impacts to jurisdictional "Waters of the United States" (concurrence
point 4A).
TIP Project Description
The NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program recommends construction of
?tw a divided, multilane facility on new location for the Greensboro Western Urban
Cv". J - Loop. The present study includes Sections C and D of the Western Greensboro q-!
Loop, which extends along an approximate east-west axis from a western 2'
terminus 0.3 mile west of Oneida Road (SR 2185) to an eastern terminus 0.1
mile east of Lawndale Drive (SR 2303), a distance of approximately mi es wit
a 1000 foot wide study corridor. The project is located in Guilford County. The
IP ?-- Greensboro Western Urban Loop, the 1-85 Greensboro Bypass, and the
issued Greensboro Eastern/Northern Urban Loop complete the proposed loop system
a.2,52A W encircling the City of Greensboro.
The study corridor is located in a rapidly expanding area of northwestern
Greensboro in central Guilford County. Suburban and urban development
pressures are likely to continue in the area.
Project Status
A Final Environmental Impact Statement was completed for the project and
signed by the FHWA in February 1995. The preferred alternative was selected
as the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) in 1995.
Page 3 Concurrence Meeting 4A for TIP U-2524 C & D, July 18, 2002
Ecoscience conducted detailed environmental studies within the 1000-foot study
corridor from September 25 through November 16, 2001. During the field effort,
21 jurisdictional systems (nine wetlands and 12 streams) were delineated.
Ecoscience also conducted a search for potential mitigation sites within and
adjacent to the study corridor. The delineation was verified by Ms. Jean
Manuele, US Army Corp of Engineers during a December 10, 2001 site visit.
Also in attendance was Ms. Cynthia Van der Wiele from the N.C. DENR Division
of Water Quality.
Right of way is scheduled for Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2004 and Construction is
scheduled for FFY 2007.
Natural Resources
The study corridor is located within the Cape Fear River drainage basin
(Hydrologic Unit 03030002). Two named stream systems exist within the study
corridor: Horsepen Creek and Richland Creek. The western portion of the study
corridor parallels the northwest side of Horsepen Creek while the eastern portion
of the study corridor parallels the northwest side of Richland Creek.
The study corridor hosts substantial water, forest, and wildlife resources;
however, the quality of these resources is not considered to be unique or
significant.
The study corridor contains 23,449.9 linear feet (4.4 miles) of stream and 14.98
acres of wetlands subject to COE jurisdiction and agency review.
Jurisdictional areas were defined using criteria set forth in the Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual (COE 1987). The locations of these systems are
depicted by Figures 3A-3F of the Summary Report prepared by Ecoscience.
Copies of these figures may be found in Appendix C.
Avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands and streams will be
discussed at the merger meeting, including bridging and slopes of the preliminary
design of the Preferred Alternative. Appendix D contains a table of approximate
impacts and also summarizes avoidance measures.
Five sites have been identified within and adjacent to the study corridor that
provide jurisdictional area mitigation potential. Appendix E contains a summary
of these sites.
Page 4 Concurrence Meeting 4A for TIP U-2524 C & D, July 18, 2002
Appendix A
Map of Alternates Studied
Comparison Tables
Concurrence Meeting 4A for TIP U-2524 C & D, July 18, 2002
/ cRfEK. .
V
l M a. WA 8 Iy
nM SRN ?^] ? }?+ _ _?
h MOR 3
E ?^ a COI.
?SNAi
I TWIN SAR. I _ `SAT
D TRAIL- 4} IQOE HAVEN 2 SPINNAKER l J r
DIN.rr. .? Jr,NCNNE6 57 4
QI
?j qpW ryg 77
?? ?(r 22rr hl ?? rSMiNTn ltt r
W E n,? 4j ?» ,A
TAGUE RD./RNr a I n•r r:r \ cl
49 _ u/ ..7714 y .srt1 UR
A ;>
/
/
II P\QQ
I
6-
BRUSH,
Fal NOU
"I
9'' F? c \ROAE AR
T117
_ ROCK
REGEN:
,RSON?F Q1
THI OAKS,.

LN
5 I ?
I. / ]]{{,,?l? Aidy@ $ OR I ? AM HILL T
iJ Dr L' 9 TRAIL -
H? ?11 1
VII D OR
r JA
I lEASlpa
l R^ / L IN JAY KnT Of
0 N ?rA^. KI `CSl A DH GARaERP r - T \•y
pPN ? ._?? rA?CrDR - I - r ? I
BELL NP( ¢O. ''.?
HORNE I944
FtOPEyrx r Ci r ?Y ar0 rN DC 1r
N WALE r. . ? D ,?y J
P .1.?Oa - rf 'EeZ. t - AIq Pr".
ALLEN _RD N? 1bNCLE. RU CKgr RD. ( ~.
192A O C
RD Ha
__ PINELr 'nOq e J rF Y
\ M J _
Mn p?ppLL J " ,g, KrrrKKNE DA 21 AMON
NVEC .- J .i 'y? RD aV ELSIE
K A
6u - ... sco
IGRr
,a ROTA Ri
v?
PENNH 1 Q? /RGAO
LET 'IV
Jt \
ATA
1.
Fq /
9P N VI WAY/Y IR IR -l DR ?Q ii
OR. (M v\ IJ !O ?R S
12 z "{ ITS f.
N AVE LFFAT- vICNRFY- LOCgU
g
9
w) NF
to,
C Wy'
z
W
? wE37 ?
?j?,AJ?, FRIENDLY ? ??'?
41,F.
?? W w.
"-?..\
p0
-WEST GRE SBORO
?- WE T WENwvER
?'(nCl PJv -`_ I COLLEGE- r•
WALKER AVE_
51,
?C /?WE OW ER GPRDEN -- ??
r-_a LE
LIFT - -?? -_?----rte-I- ~ w w
o g ._
?l EREENSRORO _ lw'J
ax ISEUM Y
70
- PPTTEPIS Q m
Y1 r , y I~- ? ? W' -----,FLDRIOA ` ST_ \ ?
SO TN
GREENS 0 2 W
L \ b
9T pvEL 'yI -01
1 c
- HFt,1 '?!{JJ
2
p RD_
w?l
N
2000 0 2000 4000
3cele Feet
LEGENU
STUDY CORRIDOR
0 INTERCHANGES
® PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Figure
GREENSBORO WESTERN URBAN LOOP CORRIDM ALTERNATIVES
2
i
r?

a qLL==c
TABLE S-1
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPARISON OF THE FREEWAY CONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES
U-2524
Alternative
Eastern Middle Western Preferred
LENGTH (miles) 11.9 13.6 14.5 14.9
DISPLACEMENTS
Residences(minority)704(155) 965 (202) 560 (127) 336 (43)
Businesses 36 9 13 16
Other 1 2 4 1
Acreage Required
Field 69.5 91.6 127.3 133.8
Forest 260.4 305.8 244.0 247.6
Urban 104.0 112.0 159.3 159.4
Total 433.9 509.4 530.6 540.8
Acres of Prime Farmland
50 130 90 90
Acres of Wetland Habitat
42.9 21.8 14.8 20.4
Acres of Water Resources
Open Water 3.4 0 0 4.9
Bank-to-Bank 10.9 9.9 7.6 8.3
Stream Relocation 3,700 1,600 1,600 850
length (Feet)
Acres of Floodplain 81.3 55.0 54.7 44.4
Stream Crossings 21 28 24 24
Receptors Exceeding Noise
Abatement Criteria 267 154 171 199
Or with Substantial Increase
Historic Architectural 2 2 2 0
Properties Affected
4(£) Involvement- 2 1 1 0
Historic Sites
Archaeological Sites 2 1 3 0
Requiring Additional Testing
Potential Hazardous Material Site
In or Near Corridors 4 1 6 0
Concurrence Meeting 4A for TIP U-2524 C & D, July 18, 2002
TABLE S-2
ENGINEERING COMPARISON OF THE FREEWAY CONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES
U-2524 JIM
Alternative
Eastern Middle Western
Preferred
LENGTH (miles) 11.9 13.6 14.5 14.9
INTERCHANGES
7 8 8 8
OTHER STRUCTURES
Railroad 2 2 2 2
Drainage 6 3 7 7
Grade Separation 11 10 10 10
2010 TRAFFIC
(HIGH/LOW) 73,00 0/17,800 69,000/16,100 64,900/17,900 64,900/17,900
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
C/D C C C
CONSTRUCTION COST
(millions,1990) $100.4 $108.3 $100.8 $143.5*
*Preferred Alt price is based on 1993 unit prices and revised quantities
Right-of-way COST
(millions,1990) $95.1 $83.0 $77.9 $87.5*
*Preferred Alt price is based on 1993 unit prices and revised quantities
TOTAL COST
(millions 1990) $195.5 $191.3 $178.7 $231.0*
*Preferred Alt price is based on 1993 unit prices and revised quantities
Concurrence Meeting 4A for TIP U-2524 C & D, July 18, 2002
Appendix B
Concurrence Point 3
Supporting Documentation
Concurrence Meeting 4A for TIP U-2524 C & D, July 18, 2002
..
9 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 0-
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1168, X19-733-3391
Chnrleo R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Policy Development, DCIiNR
FROM., David Cox, Highway Project Cq??ator /
Habitat Conservation Program v?l
DATE: June 8, 1995
SUBJECT: Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Greensboro Western
Outer Loop, from Lawridale Drive near Cottage Place to I-85 South Near
Holdcu Road, Guilford County, North Carolina. TIP No. U-2524, SCH
Project No. 95-0843,
'Ylull ?,ublv?lttl with T4 P 14 1" Wililll% RrMllli1'INkt. %IIIului?i:111 ()4rWR (i) hnY11
reviewed the subject FEIS and are familiar with habitat vaiues in tie project area. The
purpose of this review was to assess project impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Our
comments are provided in accordance with ccriain provisions of the Nalioaal
Environmental Policy Act (42 U,S,C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended: 16 U.S.C. 661-667d),
The proposod prnjeot involves the constrxtion of a four- to eight-lane, faro way on
tiew location from 1 85 to Lawridale Drive (SR 2303), a cilsttanrr, of npproxir uLuly 15
m iii-9 1 nn lira pir oid runilwtly will liv i1 invdLua Jiy'4-41, Jill wa,tavl uFN..'133 fr&&V l ,
with interchanges at locations with major traffic rnovenicats and grade scpamtians at
minor crossroads. The proposed median width for the project vanes from a 46-foot
grassed median to a 22-foot paved median with a barrior.
Tho subject doo=ent adequately discusses benefits, social impactq, and traffic
analysis of the rnal build alternatives. The document also adequately describes
anticipated impacts to natural resources from constrtiction of the preferred alternative,
modified version of the western alternative, here after referred to as the Modifled-
Wr'stem alternative,
We support NCDOT in the selection of the preferred alternative. Our comments
on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) indicated that we favored the no-
build or western alternative. The Modified Western alternative follows the Western
alternative until it crosses Groometown Road, whcrc it than follows tic.Ewtcm
altcmativu to the southern project torminus,
j4
Memorandum '2 June 8, 1995
We are concerned about some of the Eaviro=ental Commitments included (or
?., not included) in the Summary section of the FEIS. Items of concern are;
1) Commitment G. This should be a commitment to coordinate the wetland
mitigation plan with all concerned review agencies. There should also be a
commitment to implement the wetland mitigation plan and to preserve the site
in perpetuity.
2) 't'here should be a commitment to coordinate surr= channel modifications
with the appropriate review agencies, NCDOT should commit to use "state-
ol'tho arc" dream reloesttion tecbjiulues wlm.n- lirmficnhlc,
3) Commitment I, NCDOT should commit to bridging the Horsepen Creek
crossing and a pordorl of the associated wetlands. Bridging Hotsepen Creels
and a substantial portion of the adjacent wcdaads would avoid some of the
projected wetland impacts. IfNCDOT is unable to show that welands have
been avoided where practicable, we are not likely to comment favorably on
the "404" permit application.
At this time, we concur with the FEIS for this project. However, NCDOT should
recognize that if the commitments discussed above had been included in the FEIS, these
issues could have been resolved prior to the "404" permit application, thus expediting the
review process.
Thank you for the oppportunity to review and comment on this FE15, if we can
further assist your office, please call me at [phone].
CC; Shari Bryant, District 5 Wildlife Biologist
Larry Warlick, District $ Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, NG/ES Program Manager
Howard Hall, tJSFWS, Raleigh
John Thomas, USACOE, Raleigh

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt. Jr.. Governor
Jonathan B. Howes. Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr„ P.E., Director
June 12, 1995
MEMO
A AT!WA'
37
? *
R
TO: Monica SwihartM4 ?M ,I,
FROM: John DOrne?
RE: Water Quality revia of proposed Greensboro Western
Loop
U-2524, State Project 6.498001T
Guilford County
I have reviewed the final EIS for the proposed Greensboro
Western Loop. I believe that the EIS is acceptable to DEM but
that the following items should be addressed by DOT in the 404
Permit application.
1. A draft mitigation plan should be sent to DEM as well as
the COE for review.
2. Hazardous spill catch basins should be constructed if
the stream crossing is within one mile of the critical area of
all water supplies.
3. DOT's stream relocation guidelines should be followed at
stream cro4singz.
4. Fill of wetlands should be minimized as much as possible
in the vicinity of Battleground Ave. and Horsepen Creek. The 404
Permit application should address various measures to further
minimize fill in this location.
5. Costs and logistical considerations concerning bridging
of Horsepen Creek and its adjacent wetlands should be addressed
in the permit application.
DOT is aware that endorsement of the EIS by DEM does not
preclude denial of the 401 Certification upon application if
wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practicable.
Please call me at 733-1786 if you have any questions.
greenlop.eis
cc: Eric Galamb
Central Files
Ron Linville, WSRO
David Foster
P.O. Box 29535, Rdelgh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 6096 -Yclod/ 1096 post-Cv-t r pr popor

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO August 10, 1994
Regulatory Branch
SUBJECT: Action ID. 199403906
Mr. Franklin Vick, P.E,. Manager
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning and Environmental Branch
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
eol? C E / -Dp?x
0
AUS 12 1994
ZDIVI0=SICN. OF
1
we have reviewed your letter of January 21, 1994, requesting information
for the alternatives described in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) for the Greensboro Western Urban Loop, from Lawndale Drive near Cottage
Place to I-85 South near Holden Road, Guilford County, North Carolina, TIP No.
LL-2524, State Project No. 6.498001t.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of excavated
and /or fill material into waters of the United States. The Corps of
Engineers must assess the impacts of such activities on the aquatic
environment prior to issuing Department of the Army permits. Authorization of
fill activities within the waters of the United States requires that the
project be water dependent and/or that no practicable alternatives are
available. Our initial review emphasis for NCDOT projects will focus on the
impacts to waters and or wetlands. However, if degradation to other aspects
of the natural environment (e.g., habitat of endangered species) is considered
to be of greater concern, an alternative resulting in greater aquatic loses
may be chosen as preferred. In all cases, and in accordance with the
Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
the Corps, the sequencing process of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation
of unavoidable wetland impacts will be satisfied prior to the final permit
decision.
Three primary build alternative alignments for the project were
described in detail in the aforementioned Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) document. All alternatives are for the construction of a beltway on
new locations consisting of three general corridors within the Buffalo Creek
and Horsepen Creek Basins. These corridors are identified as an Eastern
corridor, a Middle corridor, and a Western corridor. The western corridor is
the least damaging alternative. Your preferred alternative is mostly this
Western corridor with a crossover near the I-85 interchange to avoid impacts
to the historical resource concerns of the Sedgefield Stables and Celia Phelps
Church sites. Based on our review of the aforementioned document with regards
to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers perspective, we agree that the preferred
alternative is the most practical alternative of your review. However, we do
have concerns about the proposed Battleground Avenue interchange. This
interchange presents some special problems to waters and wetlands of Horsepen
Creek in regards to the functions and values they provide in their close
proximity to the Lake Brandt water supply reservoir. Avoidance and
minimization of impacts to these waters and wetlands should be maximized as
much as practical. This should include design of ramps including the use of
vertical retaining walls as opposed to sloped fill.
-2-
A conceptual mitigation plan should be included in the Final EIS with
potential sites and options. Although specific mitigation sites may not be
known at that time, the Final EIS should include those concepts of mitigation
considered for the preferred alternative, the proposed ratios of compensatory
mitigation, and the acreage of mitigation proposed according to wetland types.
Mr. John Thomas is the point of contact for processing of your
Department of the Army permit for the proposed project. Should you have
questions, please contact Mr. Thomas, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office, at
telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
V Wrig t
- egulat Branch
Copies Furnished:
Mr. Thomas Welborn, Chief
Wetlands Regulatory Section - Region
IV
Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. Larry Hardy
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. Robert Lee
District Engineer
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue
Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
Ms. L. K. (Mike) Gantt
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Appendix C
Maps of Jurisdictional Areas
Concurrence Meeting 4A for TIP U-2524 C & D, July 18, 2002

O p
??yy f0
ii ±3 N
U c'n u?
'o 00
U 0_0 0-0
U 0 NN(1 ?, a1
O N z 01
W U = m a lL
o
r

v

b
C
O
a

N

b o
c
ro
H

a?
a
rt
v

V' N
L
N o 0 0
a?
Sa
a?

41
u
M
C
N ? N N ?H
a ?

N ry \p tC1

? N Ln
? cJl yr ul
41 ?
S-1

ri)

O1
? r m o ri
UI r H N N

u)
M
C U.
cn
.
O N
~
U
O

Z
C ?
N 0
U

O ?
O
0 'D
c
cn
c
U
a^?,
?J
O
C: 0
U ? U)
O N
CL

(CS
L
O
a
+-, O
o U

• Cn
?
N ?

F-
r C
O p
N
L) U)
???Q Ow
p U) O
U 26 D M
F-- C? Z LL
2 ( .??
o
m m
.Y cn
p U III

0
Q ? r N •- N r' __. -
W
uj
J
w
E
I
1
?
z
? N E E
'$ R
n
kk
- =
k LL.
O
?.

IY r ?
N
p

N .-.
N
?U)
N
C
cu
N
?- N
E M
4-0 ?b
?(n
't If .
Appendix D
Summary Table of Impacts
and Avoidance Quantities
Concurrence Meeting 4A for TIP U-2524 C & D, July 18, 2002
U-2524 C & D Preliminary Design
STREAM. POND. & WETLAND IMPACTS
STREAMIMPACTS PONDIMPACTS WETLAND IMPACTS

SITE NUMBER
A (ft)
(ft') A
(ACRES)
(ft') A
(ACRES)

1W 4314.00 0.10
2S 726.00
4S 1524.00
5S 71.00
9S 488.00
11w 13858.00 0.32
12W 7045.00 0.16
12S 357.00
13W 50530.00 1.16
14S 100.00
16S 448.00
17S 2093.00
19S 358.00
20S 381.00

TOTAL 6546.00 75747.00 1.74

""SAVINGS
111N 13858.00 032
12W 7045.00 0.32
12S 357.00
13W 410328.00 9.42
13S 709.00
14S 535.00
15W 7899.00 01,18

TOTAL 1601.00 439130:00 `10.74

"" SHOWS AREAS SAVED BY BRIDGING
ENTIRE INTERCHANGE AT BATTLEGROUND AVE.
Appendix E
Potential Mitigation Sites
Concurrence Meeting 4A for TIP U-2524 C & D, July 18, 2002
N
0 300 600
N N
A [0! 300 600 Feet 0 300 600
?
Site 4

pO"d Potential mwaation
6hnm I... . .
stream A,fI!_9S9dI^.nrW-
Potential Mitigation Site Locations
Western Greensboro Loop (U-2524)
Guilford County, North Carolina
EcoScience
1
N
0
A r
Site 5
As
2001
046.12
N BY: NIT(
t BY: APE
4
Appendix F
Area Maps
Concurrence Meeting 4A for TIP U-2524 C & D, July 18, 2002

r,?oc,ncnoro, NC
/
/
rr ?:
LEGEND P
Nay r ??,>r:,ti ' r.
Stud Corridor' r.,
Greensboro City Limits -x' * ?? ,;R • ; ?,,ti
Streams (USGS)
"" ?J i fit( wr •1 K
}
41
r " Source: Sumrrnerlield/Lake Brandt
0 4000 8000 Feet y , f t
USGS 7.5 Quadrangles
1
Study Corridor Location Dec 2001 00-046.12
l? -
SCALE: DWN BY: MT
Western Greensboro Loop (U-2524) As Shown CKD BY: AP
Guilford County, North Carolina
EcoScierice FIGURE 1
I

W
Q
Z
m
w
oc
m
w
LL
W
d
CL
S
Z
Q
m
O
cr
Q
m
m
z
W
W
L-111 SV3HV 14011183
(33HS831VM GNb SCINTU3M d001 NVEM Na31SW OHOSSN338E)
e„6u `SNlV-W001d `S3M11 `SWb3d1S
(swBaais apnlauq Sd38WnN 311S CL-ac
S)INVS ONOA38 SONVl13M SM00r jeej
O399VlA ION 311S AN e?
SV3HV 1V0111ao 03HS831VM "g H31 ® 3nI1VNa311V O3d83d3kld ooov oooa o oooa
SNIVid00013 4dMmlmm
S3)iVl S30NVHOd31N1
SWV3WlS l oubiwoo Rams
l 7