20030909 Ver 1_Application_20030723

«.srNCv
~~~~.
~.~~~,..~ o ~ o ~ a 9
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
July 21, 2003 ~~' A~'~/M~ ~~~
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers U7lr 'N
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office JU(, ~ y 703
6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120 ~,~nQUA~~
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 A SECr~~N
Attention: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
Subject: Section 404/401 Individual Permit Application, 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(]); State Project No. 8.U492101; T1tR~N®: U-2524 AB & AC; USACE
Action Id 199403906; $475.00 Debit work order 8.U492101, WBS
Element 34820.1.2
Dear Sir:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to
construct a portion of the Greensboro Western Urban Loop. The project lies in
southwestern Guilford County. The proposed project involves construction of a four- to
eight-lane freeway on new location. The purpose of this letter is to make application fora ~ --;
Department of the Army permit (Section 404 Individual Permit) from the U.S. Army n =~
Corps of Engineers (USACE). Application is also made to the N.C. Division of Water ~-~ "
~~ r-
Quality (NCDWQ) fora 401 Individual Water Quality Certification (WQC), Randleman U _~
Buffer Certification and Randleman Buffer Variance.
This permit application concentrates upon two sections of TIP No. U-2524;
Sections AB and AC. These sections involve 5.23 miles of road construction on new
location. These sections are scheduled for letting in November 2003. This application
package consists of the cover letter, a concurrence form, ENG Form 4345, 8'/a" x 11"
permit drawings, figures noting the interchange of TIP Nos. I-2402A and U-2524 AB,
Randleman Buffer Addendum, Randleman Buffer Variance request, Stormwater
Management Plan, and half size plan sheets.
Purpose and Need. Construction of TIP No. U-2524 AB/AC and AB Part I will improve
east-west traffic and bypass travel around Greensboro. Construction of TIP No. U-2524
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 $OUTH WILMINGTON STREET
159$ MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598

AB/AC and AB Part I will complete connect with the I-85 Bypass of Greensboro and
provide an I-40 Bypass of Greensboro.
Summary of Impacts. Wetland and stream impacts fall under the jurisdiction of two
regulations: the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and the NC Isolated Wetlands
Regulations. Impacts to Waters of the United States from construction TIP No. U-2524
AB/AC and AB Part I total 3.87 acres of fill in wetlands, 0.10 acre of excavation in
wetlands, 0.17 acre of mechanized clearing in wetlands, 2.05 acres of fill in streams, 3.92
acres of fill ponds, and 11,525 feet of stream impacts. The NCDOT proposes to relocate
4,610 feet of stream on site resulting in an effective loss of 6,919 feet of stream.
Construction of the road project will impact 20.46 acres of Zone 1 buffers and 11.79 acres
of Zone 2 buffers.
Summary of Compensatory Mitigation. The NCDOT will provide compensatory
mitigation for 1.32 acres of wetlands and 7,171 feet of streams. These numbers reflect
earlier compensatory mitigation for impacts performed by N.C. Wetland Restoration
Program (NCWRP) for most of TIP No. U-2524 AB Part I. Compensatory mitigation for
project related impacts to wetlands will be provided at Sandy Creek Wetland Mitigation
Site and Blue Tract Mitigation Site in Moore County. Compensatory stream mitigation
will be provided at Woodlyn Way, Tick Creek and UT Bear Creek.
The total amount of compensatory buffer mitigation required for the proposed
project is 60.26 acres (2624925.6 feet2). The NCDOT proposes to make a payment to
NCWRP to compensate for these impacts.
Project Schedule and History
For funding and construction purposes, the project has been divided into seven
sections. Table 1 contains information concerning the project section, proposed termini
for each section as well as the let date for each section.
Greensboro Western Urban Loop July 15,2003
Section 404/401 Permit Application Page 2 of 17
TIP No. U-2524 AB/AC

Table 1. Information re ardin ro ect;sectioa~ terminus and iet-:dafes:
Section Section Termini Let' Date
AA SR 1546 (Guilford College Road), from South of SR 1541 September 1998
Wendover Road to North of SR 1560 Sa Road
AB From North of I-85 near Groometown to North of High November 2003
Point Road
AC From North of Norfolk Southern RR to south of I-40 November 2003
Interchan e
BA From I-40 Interchange to North of SR 2147 (West July 2003
Friendl Avenue
BB From North of SR 2147 (West Friendly Avenue) to North July 2003
of B an Boulevard
C From Bryan Boulevard to SR 2340 (Old Battleground PY 2008
Road
D From SR 2340 (Old Battleground Road) to SR 2303 PY 2008
(Lawndale Drive
TIP No. U-2524 AA
Section AA involved the relocation of a portion of SR 1546 (Guilford College
Road) from south of SR 1541 (Wendover Avenue) to north of SR 1560 (Sapp Road) and
the construction of a grade separation and interchange at relocated Guilford College Road
and Wendover Avenue. This work had logical termini and independent utility from the
remaining sections of TIP No. U-2524. This section of TIP No. U-2524 was authorized
under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 14 (USAGE Action Id 199820229, NCDWQ #
970498). TIP No. U-2524 AA was completed in January 2001.
TIP No. U-2524 BA/BB
Sections BA and BB were permitted together as these two sections had logical
termini and independent utility from the remaining sections of TIP No. U-2524. These
two section have been permitted under a Section 404 Individual Permit and 401
Individual WQC (USAGE Action Id 200221216, NCDWQ # 01-0318).
TIP No. 1-2402 A and U-2524 AB
A portion of the proposed project was previously permitted, but not constructed,
and will be referred to as "TIP No. U-2524 AB Part I" in this permit application. This
portion of the project is described in the following paral~raphs.
A portion of the wetland and stream impacts now found within TIP No. U-2524
AB (Part I) were originally included in the Section 404/401 permit for TIP No. I-2402 A,
B and C (USAGE Action Id 199502886 and NCDWQ # 98-0349). Figures 1-3 in
Attachment A depict the sites impacted under the construction of TIP No. I-2402 A and
those permitted, but not impacted, under TIP No. I-2402 A. Figures 4-6 in Attachment A
Grcensbaro Western Urban Loop July 15,2003
Section 404/401 Permit Application Page 3 of 17
TIP No. U-2524 AB/AC

show the roadway constructed under TIP No. I-2402 A and the road proposed for
construction under TIP No. U-2524 AB (Part I).
There were a total of fourteen (14) sites permitted under TIP No. I-2402 A which
are proposed for impact under TIP No. U-2524 AB Part I. These sites include Sites 7, 8,
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24 and 25 in Section AA and Site 28 from TIP No. I-
2402 AB. The permit application for TIP No. I-2402 A included the "ultimate" build for
the I-85 Bypass and listed these sites as being impacted in order to connect the I-85
Bypass with TIP No. U-2524 AB. However, the NCDOT only constructed the "interim"
design for the I-85 Bypass, thereby not impacting these jurisdictional areas connecting the
I-85 Bypass with TIP No. U-2524 AB.
To construct the interim design, the NCDOT impacted portions of Sites 7 and 25.
Figures 1-3 note sites impacted under TIP No. I-2402 A and those sites proposed for
impact under TIP No. U-2524 AB Part I. These figures provide a lay out of how TIP No.
I-2402 A and U-2524 AB connect.
As noted earlier, a description of and mitigation strategy for these fourteen sites
from TIP No. I-2402A are included with this permit application for TIP No. U-2524
AB/AC. These sites tota12.82 acres of impact to wetlands, 0.96 acre of surface waters
(natural), 0.07 acre of surface water (pond), 4,525 feet of impact. In addition, there will
be 1,887 feet of stream relocation using natural channel design. This action will result in
an effective channel loss of 2,704 linear feet.
The NCDOT mitigated these impacts by paying into the NCWRP. This portion of
the proposed project previously permitted, but not constructed, will be referred to as "TIP
No. U-2524 AB Part I" in this permit application.
NEPA Documentation
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Greensboro Western Urban
Loop was approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on June 4, 1991.
The Final EIS for the subject project was signed by FHWA on February 28, 1995. These
documents have been distributed to resource agencies for their review. The Record of
Decision (ROD) was approved on August 17, 1995.
Independent Utility and Logical Termini
The projects are in compliance with 23 CFR Part 771.111(f) which lists the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) characteristics of independent utility of a project:
(1) The project connects logical termini and is of sufficient length to address
environmental matters on a broad scope;
(2) The project is usable and a reasonable expenditure, even if no additional
transportation improvements are made in the area;
(3) The project does not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably
foreseeable transportation improvements.
Greensboro Western Urban Loop July 15,2003
Section 404/401 Permit Application Pagc 4 of 17
TIP No. U-2524 AB/AC

The proposed construction of Greensboro Western Outer Loop, involving
Sections AB Part I, AB and AC, has independent utility from the remaining section of the
project. These sections can be
considered independent of the remaining section because it meets the objectives of
"independent utility" as defined by the FHWA:
The NCDOT believes TIP No. U-2524 AB and AC meets the USACE f'or logical
termini as presented above. At a minimization meeting June 15, 2000, the USACE
agreed with NCDOT's assessment that it may apply for a Section 404 Individual Permit
for the referenced sections (AB and AC) since these sections represented logical termini.
Avoidance/ minimization steps were also performed for these two sections in conjunction
with Sections BA and BB. Sections BA and BB have been permitted thus this Section
404 permit application only involves Sections AB and AC.
Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Evaluation
The NCDOT has completed an indirect and cumulative effect (ICE) evaluation
entitled Indirect and Cumulatil~e Impact Study, dated June 2003. Copies of this document
were transmitted the the DWQ on July 2, 2003. Additional copies are attached to this
application.This report was a qualitative evaluation of the indirect and cumulative effect
and will be referred to in this application as an ICE. The ICE evaluation is qualitative
because the Randleman Buffer Rules already exist for almost all of the land affected by
proposed road project. This was confirmed in a DWQ memorandum from John Dorney
to Coleen Sullins dated May 2, 2002. The ICE documented that Hickory Creek (found in
Section AB Part I) and unnamed tributaries to South Buffalo Creek (found in Section AB)
are 303(d) list streams. A copy of this study is attached to permit application for the
USACE and NCDWQ.
The ICI concludes that notable changes in land use patterns are not expected to
result from construction of the road project. The City of Greensboro has implemented
plans, programs and regulations to protect and improve the city's lakes and streams. The
City of High Point has also adopted regulations to protect water quality. With these
existing ordinances and regulations, construction of the road project will not result in
indirect and cumulative impacts that will adversely affect water quality (ICI, 2003).
Federally Protected Species
There were no federally protected species listed by U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) when the referenced NEPA documents were completed. However, the
USFWS now lists the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) for Guilford County. The
bald eagle is listed as Threatened-Proposed for Delisting.
The NCDOT has concluded that construction of the proposed project will not
affect the bald eagle. The basis of this decision lies with the fact that none of the three
variables for habitat (close proximity and clear flight path to water, largest living tree and
open view of surrounding area) exist within the project right of way.
Greensboro Western Urban Loop July 15,2003
Section 404/401 Permit Application I'agc 5 of 17
"I'IP No. U-2524 AB/AC

Cultural Resources
The NCDOT has complied with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act. There are no archaeological sites located in the project impact areas eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places. It has also been determined by State Historic
Preservation Office that the proposed project will not affect properties found National
Register list or eligible for the list.
FEMA
The proposed project does cross floodplains and floodways which are regulated by
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) therefore no coordination was
necessary. The NCDOT committed in the FEIS to designing the project such that
floodways can carry the 100-year flood without increasing the flood water elevation more
than one foot at any given point.
Wild and Scenic River
There are no waterways in the proposed project impact area having this
classification.
Impacts to Waters of the United States
Impacts to waters of the United States cannot be avoided in order to construct the
proposed project (TIP No. U-2524 AB/AC and AB Part I). Road construction will result
in 3.87 acres of fill in wetlands, 0.10 acres of excavation in wetlands, 0.17 acre of
mechanized clearing in wetlands, 2.05 acres of fill in surface waters (natural), 3.92 acres
of fill in surface waters (pond) and 11,525 feet of stream impacts. The NCDOT will
relocate 4,610 feet of stream, resulting in a stream loss of 6,919 feet.
The proposed project lies in the Cape Fear River Basin. All of TIP No. U-2524
AB Part and AC, as well as most all of TIP No. U-2524 AB, lie in Hydrologic Unit (HU)
03030003. The two exceptions are Sites 1 and 2 of Section AB; these two sites are
located in HU 03030002.
The NCDOT has conducted wetland and stream delineations for TIP No. U-2524
AB and AC, as well as TIP No. U-2524 AB Part I. All wetland determinations were
performed using criteria outlined in 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual. The wetland delineation for Section AB Part was completed in fall 1996. The
delineations for Sections AB and AC were conducted from July 22- September 1, 1998
and from March 22-23, 1999. These delineations have been confirmed by the USACE.
The stream delineation for all these sections was conducted using guidance
provided by NCDWQ, "Field location of streams, ditches and ponding: Revision Number
Six, Working Draft, dated February 10, 1997." The stream delineation for Section AB
Part I was completed in December 1997/Janary 1998. Stream delineations for Section
Greensboro Western Urban Loop July 15,2003
Section 404/401 Permit Application Pale G of 17
TIP No. U-2524 AB/AC

AB and AC were conducted during summer 1999. These delineations have been
confirmed by the USAGE.
Wetland Impacts
Tables 2-4 describes the wetlands impacted by TIP No. U-2524 AB/AC and AB
Part I. This table includes information related to wetland impact site number, wetland
community, Division of Environmental Management (DEM) rating, and amount/type of
wetlands impacted. The DEM rating reflects a wetland evaluation using the Division of
Environmental Management (DEM) Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in
North Carolina (4`" Version). Table 5 provides a breakdown of wetland community types
impacted and wetland community types for each project section.
2 .~Z
Section AB Part 1. The total wetland impact for this section of the project ism acres.
The two predominant wetland community types are emergent seeps and headwater
forests. There is also a bottomland hardwood wetland community that will be impacted.
A portion of the wetland system at Site 25 was impacted by construction of TIP
No. I-2402A. The total wetland impact under TIP No. I-2402A was 1.02 acres, and, of
this amount, 0.64 acres will be impacted with TIP No. U-2524 AB Part I.
A comparison of wetland acreages between TIP No. I-2402 A and U-2524 AB
Part I revealed a decrease between 0.025-0.07 acre (0.01-0.03 hectare) and an increase of
0.025 acre (0.01 hectare) for several sites. These sites decreasing in the acreage by 0.025
acre include Sites 17 and 21 with Site 14 decreasing by 0.07 acre for Site 14. The increase
in acreage (0.025 acre) was for Sites 11 and 13.The net change for these sites between the
summary sheets (and for this section) is a decrease of 0.05 acre. The change in these site
impacts can be attributed to the use of computer assistance through Microstation now
versus the use of a planimeter when the 404/401 permit application was made for TIP No.
I-2402A.
Section AB, There are two jurisdictional wetland sites in this section totaling 0.13 acres.
Site 1 is located in HU 03030002 and involves impacts to an old pond that has been
drained. The vegetation in this wetland is primarily herbaceous including spotted touch
me not (Impatiens capensis) and false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica) with black willow
(Salix nigra), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) and silky dogwood (Corpus amomum)
present along the edge of the old pond. .
• Site 2: This is an alluvial wetland system located downstream of the Hester
Park Dam. This small wetland includes vegetation of tag alder (A)nus
serrulata), spotted touch me not and sweet-gum (Liquidambar styraciflua).
Site 9: This 0.21 acres pond that will be drained by the project. This system
is an isolated wetland that has been logged. The site had a DEM rating of 32
and a Cowardin classification of PFO1J (palustrine deciduous forested
wetland system that is intermittently flooded). The USAGE has determined it
does not have jurisdiction over the wetland system at Site 9 and is exempt
Greensboro Western Urban Loop July 15,2003
Section 404/401 Permit Application Page 7 of 17
TIP No. U-2524 AB/AC'

from the NC Isolated Wetland Regulations because the 30% Design (hydraulic
design) for these two sections of the road project was completed in December
1999, prior to enactment of NCAC 2H.1301.f.5.C.
Section AC. There are two wetland sites in Section AC, Sites 9 and 1B, and these
impacts total 1.19 acres. The wetland community types for these two sites are an old,
drained pond and a beaver impoundment.
• Site 9: This is a drained pond located near the existing interchange of
Wendover Road/High Point Road. Vegetation is dominated by carex (Carex
sp.), lobelia (Lobelia puberla), beak rush (Rhychospera sp.), and rush (Juncus
effusus).
• Site 1 BA: This is a beaver impoundment and former headwater forest.
Vegetation associated with this wetland includes black willow, tag alder, false
nettle, and rush. The beaver dam is located downstream from the project area.
The NCDOT plans to remove the beaver dam as part of project construction.
Stream Impacts
The proposed project predominantly crosses streams within the Randleman Lake
Reservoir although there is one crossing, an unnamed tributary (UT) to South Buffalo
Creek, that is not within this watershed. Tables 6-8 describes proposed stream impacts,
including site number, stream name, drainage type, surface water impact (natural), surface
water impact (pond), existing stream length, relocated stream length, channel loss and
amount of compensatory mitigation required. Table 9 summarizes impacts to streams
and ponds for each project section.
Section AB Part I. Impacts to streams in this section of the project involve
Hickory Creek and its unnamed tributaries, all part of HU 03030003. There are 0.96
acres of stream impacts, 0.07 acres of pond impacts, and 4,590 feet of stream impact.
The NCDOT proposes to relocate 1,887 feet of stream; thus the effective stream loss in
this section will be 2,704 feet.
The NCDOT has previously mitigated for Site 7 at a ratio of 1:1 because of the
poor quality of the stream. It flowed through a cow pasture and was heavily impacted by
livestock. The NCDOT mitigated at a ratio of 2:1 for Sites 25 and 28. There are now
additional stream impacts at Sites 7 (171 feet) and 17 (676 feet) for which NCDOT needs
to account with Section AB Part I. The compensatory mitigation required for AB Part I is
814 feet.
• Site 7: At Site 7, the stream loss at the site has been revised, from 1,123 feet to
952 feet. The stream flows through a livestock pasture and is poor in quality
from access to livestock over the years; therefore, a mitigation ratio of 1:1 was
used for the 404.401 application for TIP No. I-2402 A. There were two
stream impacts through Loop A and between Loop C and I1 Fly which were
Greensboro Western Urban Loop July 15,2003
Section 404/401 Permit Application Page K of 17
TIP No. U-2524 AB/AC

counted toward stream relocation under TIP No. I-2402A. The stream length
totaled 171 feet (52 m). Therefore, the correct total of relocation at Site 7 is
952 feet, and the NCDOT needs to mitigate (1:1 ratio as it mitigated
previously) for an additional 171 feet of compensatory mitigation at this site.
• Site 17: In the 404/401 permit application for Site 17 for TIP No. I-2402 A,
there was not a stream impact. The NCDOT has revised its characterization of
the stream and determined the drainage to be a perennial stream. The project
will impact 676 feet. A mitigation ratio of 1:1 is proposed for this stream
reach because the stream has low quality since it has been degraded by
livestock access over the years.
• Site 25At Site 25, the stream was good in quality and NCDOT mitigated for
impacts at a 2:1 ratio for impacts under TIP No. I-2402 A. The channel
relocation and most of the culvert construction has been completed under the
previous road work. The portion of Site 25 that remains to be constructed is
the remaining culvert which will impact 346 feet.
• Site 28: At this site we installed a pipe and approximately 377 feet (115 m) of
stream relocation under TIP No. I-2402A. The total amount of stream
relocation proposed under TIP No. I-2402A was 1280 feet. Under TIP No. U-
2524 AB Part I, the NCDOT proposes to relocate 935 feet. Therefore, the
NCDOT will relocate 33 feet more than it had originally planned under the
TIP No. 1-2402A permit. The increase in footage can be attributed to
meanders incorporated into the stream relocation design for this permit
application. The NCDOT proposes to apply the "additional" 33 feet toward
its compensatory mitigation needs for this section of the project.
Section AB. The predominant stream crossed in this section of the proposed project is
Reddick's Creek. There are also three UT's to Reddick's Creek traversed, as well as a
UT to South Buffalo Creek and a UT to Bull Run. Impacts to streams total 0.57 acres of
stream impacts, 0.48 acres of pond impacts, and 2,877 feet of existing stream impact.
The NCDOT will relocate 692 feet of stream, thus there will be an effective 2,186 feet of
stream channel loss on Section AB.
• Site 2: This section involves an UT to South Buffalo Creek (intermittent) and
lies in HU 03030002. This reach was determined to not have ecological
sigmificance, thereby not requiring mitigation. These impacts are 213 feet of
stream impact, 0.05 acre surface water impacts (natural) and 0.48 surface
water (pond).
• Sites 3,4,6, and 7: The NCDOT will mitigate at a ratio of 2:1 for Sites 3, 4, 6
and for that portion of Site 7 that is perennial. The intermittent portion of Site
7 will be mitigated at a ratio of 1:1. Sites 3, 4, 6 and 7 (perennial) are decent to
good quality streams with a riparian buffer. Sites 7 (intermittent) is
ecologically significant, although lacks a buffer and has livestock impacts. The
total compensatory mitigation needed for Section AB is 2,980 feet.
Greensboro Western Urban Loop July 15,2003
Section 404/401 Permit Application Page 9 of 17
TIP No. U-2524 AB/A('

Section AC. Long Branch and Bull Run are the predominate streams traversed by this
section of the proposed road project. There are also five crossings of UTs to Bull Run
and two crossing of UT's to Long Branch. There are 0.52 acres of stream impacts, 3.37
acres of pond impacts, and 4,058 linear feet of jurisdictional stream impact. As part of
project construction, 2,031 feet of stream relocation will be performed resulting in an
effective channel loss of 2,029 feet in Section AC.
The NCDOT proposes to mitigate, at a ratio of 2:1 for Sites 1, 2, 6, 7, 11 and 1
BA, and at a ratio of 1:1 for Site 3. Sites 1, 2, 6, 7, 11 and 1 BA are decent to good quality
streams with a riparian buffer. Site 3 is ecologically significant, although the intermittent
stream is very entrenched and not connected with its floodplain. The total compensatory
stream mitigation needed for Section AC is 3,377 feet.
MITIGATION
The USACE had adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ),
a wetland mitigation policy that embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical,
biological, and physical integrity of the Waters of the United States. Mitigation of
wetland and surface water impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding
impacts, minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and
compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Executive Order 11990 (Protection of
Wetlands) and Department of Transportation Order 5660.1 A (Preservation of the Nations
Wetlands), emphasize protection of the functions and values provided by wetlands.
These directives require that new construction in wetlands be avoided as much as
possible and that all practicable measures are taken to minimize or mitigate impacts to
wetlands.
The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable design
features to avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts, and to provide full compensatory
mitigation of all remaining jurisdictional impacts. Avoidance measures were taken
during the planning and NEPA compliance stages; minimization measures were
incorporated as part of the project design.
Avoidance and Minimization
An avoidance/minimization meeting was held with USACE, NCDWQ, North
Carolina Wildlife Resource (NCWRC) and USFWS. This meeting, held June 15, 2000,
involved reviewing wetlands and streams within the corridor for the Greensboro Western
Urban Loop (Sections A & B).
Concurrence. The agencies concurred at the end of the meeting that the NCDOT had
minimized wetlands and stream impacts to the maximum extent practicable. The NCDOT
agreed to use natural stream channel techniques to design stream relocations. Supporting
documentation regarding characteristics of relocation channels can be found in the
attached permit drawings. Attached to this letter is a copy of the concurrence formed by
the project team members (USACE, EPA, USFWS, NCDWQ, and NCWRC)
(Attachment B).
Greensboro Western Urban Loop July 15,2003
Section 404/401 Permit Application Page 10 of 17
T-P No. U-2524 AB/AC

Avoidance:
• The NCDOT delineated 13.17 acres of wetlands within the l 000-foot corridor
proposed for the road project. The NCDOT was able to avoid l 1.85 acres of
wetlands by placing the Urban Loop alignment as proposed for construction.
• Wetland W 1 near I-40 as described in the EIS will be completely avoided.
Minimization:
• Long Branch Relocation (Section AC, Site 2BA). Of particular concern to the
agencies was the proposed piping of Long Branch at the proposed Urban
Loop/I-40 interchange (Section AC, Site 2BA). This impact and relocation is
found on permit drawings for Section AC, Sheets 32-35 of 36, Station 101.80-
L- to 12+20-Ramp D-. Due to the substantial amount of channel impacts
associated with this stream, the agencies suggested the NCDOT relocate and
employ natural stream channel techniques when designing the channel
relocation at this site. Natural stream channel techniques has been used in the
relocation desigm. Construction of the relocated channel will be in the dry and
was included with the design plans for TIP No. U-2524BA. The decision to
include construction of the relocated channel in TIP No. U-2524 BA was
made to provide a new, stabilized stream channel capable of receiving water
near the time of construction for TIP No. U-2524 AC as Sections BA and AC
connect with one another. The NCDOT will be replanting 1.21 acres of Zone
1 (within 30 feet of the stream's top of bank) and 0.74 acres of Zone 2 (within
20 of the stream's top of bank). Vegetation to be planted includes black
willow (Salix nigra), silky dogwood (Corms amomum), green ashe (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), sycamore (Plantus accidcntalis), tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tuliperifera), and river birch (Betula nigra).
• UT #3 Reddick's Creek. The proposed road project has been placed on top of
UT #3 Reddick's Creek (Section AB, Site 3) in order to fit between two
housing developments. This impact is located on Sheets Sand l 0 of 26,
Station No. 34+00 to 37+10 -L-. The NCDOT has minimized impacts to the
stream by relocating it south of the proposed roadway. The NCDOT could not
place the stream entirely into a relocated channel due to topographic
constraints on the site. Relocating the entire stream in a new channel would
have led to severe cuts to, and the taking of, highly valued property to
accommodate the relocation and associated floodplain. The resource agencies
agreed to this minimization technique at this site. The NCDOT will be
replanting 0.67 acres of Zone 1 (within 30 feet of the stream's top of bank)
and 0.44 acres of Zone 2 (within 20 of the stream's top of bank). Vegetation to
be planted includes black willow (Salix nigra), silky dogwood (Corms
amomum), green ashe (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), sycamore (Plantus
accidentalis), tulip poplar (Liriodcndron tuliperifera), and river birch (Betula
nigra).
• All box culvert have been buried one foot. As a result there will be no impacts
to aquatic life movements.
Greensboro Wcstcni Urban Loop .luly 15,2003
Section 404/401 Permit Application Page I I of 17
TIP No. U-2524 AE3/AC

• NCDOT commits to planting 50-foot wooded buffers on each side of all
stream relocations where allowable considering design constraints and safety.
• The NCDOT met with Ms. Beth Barnes of NCDWQ and you on February 12,
2003. At this meeting, we reviewed the project's plan view, minimization
efforts and the connection of TIP No. I-2402 A with U-2524 AB. There were
no additional comments from either the DWQ or the USACE about NCDOT's
minimization efforts at this meeting.
Compensatory Mitigation
The NCDOT recognizes its need to provide compensation for wetland and stream
impacts. The NCDOT proposes the following mitigation strategy to compensate for these
impacts. Vicinity maps of these mitigation sites have been attached to this permit
application (Appendix C).
Strategy for Wetland Compensatory Mitigation
The NCDOT proposes the following strategy to mitigate for wetland impacts
associated with the project. Compensatory mitigation for wetlands will be provided for
through payment to NCWRP and at two wetland mitigation sites: Sandy Creek and Blue
Tract.
NCWRP. As noted earlier in this permit application, the NCDOT has previously paid the
NCWRP to mitigate for wetland impacts in TIP No. U-2524 AB Part I. There has been no
increase in the amount of wetland mitigation requirements for TIP No. U-2524 AB Part I.
Im ap ct~mitigated by NCWRP for this section of the project tota12.82 acres.
_.-..n-_......_ . __ _.__.--~....___-...~.-._.a-
Sandy Creek Mitigation Site. The NCDOT distributed the mitigation planning document
for this site to the resource agencies in a letter dated April 7, 1999. This 12 acre site is
located in Randolph County (HU 03030003). The site involved restoring 10 acres of
bottomland hardwood forest.
The NCDOT constructed and planted the mitigation site during Spring 2001. The
groundwater monitoring gauges were installed prior to 2001 growing season. The gauge
data gathered to date indicate that all gauges meet groundwater hydrology of greater than
11 % for 2001 growing season. The gauge data for this site were included with the
Section 404/401 permit application for Sanford Bypass (TIP No. R-2417).
The NCDOT proposes to use 1.32 acres of mitigation from Sandy Creek to satisfy
its compensatory wetland mitigation requirements for wetland impacts associated with
TIP No. U-2524 AB/AC in HU 03030003. The site has been used twice:
2.2 acres for Sanford Bypass project (TIP No. R-2417) (USACE Id
200220899 and NCDWQ 00-1432), and
0.79 acres for Greensboro Western Urban Loop (TIP No. U-2524BA/BB)
(USACE Action Id 200221216, NCDWQ # 01-0318).
Greensboro Western Urban Loop July 15,2003
Section 404/401 Permit Application Pagc 12 of 17
TIP No. U-2524 AB/AC

Blue Tract. To satisfy the remaining required compensatory mitigation, the NCDOT
proposes to use preservation credits from Blue Tract Mitigation Site. The Blue Tract lies
in Moore County (HU 0303004), an adjacent HU. The NCDOT distributed the
mitigation plan in June 2001. The NCDOT has discussed the preservation concept and
ratios with the agencies. The agencies approved the preservation and mitigation ratios
and deleted any mitigation credit for preserving streams on the site. This mitigation site
includes 64 acres of cypress-gum swamp preservation and 84.8 acres of bottomland
hardwood preservation.
The NCDOT recognizes its proposal to use the Blue Tract lies outside of the
impacted basin of HU 03030003. However, the NCDOT believes the quality of these
wetland preserved on this tract is very high, much higher than those being impacted by
the proposed road project.
Justification for using this mitigation sites lies in the fact that the NCDOT has
also worked diligently to identify, purchase and restore wetlands in HU 03030003.
However, the NCDOT's efforts to identify, purchase and restore wetlands in this HU
have yielded very little available land for wetland mitigation. The NCDOT's efforts to
identify wetland mitigation in HU 03030003 were chronicled in the original Section
404/401 permit application for TIP No. U-2524 BA/BB (August 2001).
The NCDOT proposes a higher acreage amount of mitigation at the Blue Tract.
The NCDOT and resource agencies agreed to 8:1 ratio for the site when meeting all
mitigation needs for a particular project; therefore, the NCDOT suggests using a ratio of
12:1 for the bottomland hardwood community to compensate for wetland impacts for this
road project.
The NCDOT proposes to use 7.92 acres of mitigation from the Blue Tract to
satisfy its compensatory wetland mitigation requirements for wetland impacts associated
with TIP No. U-2524 AB/AC in HU 03030003. The site has been used twice:
• 9.48 acres of bottomland hardwood wetlands for Greensboro Western Urban
Loop (TIP No. U-2524 BA/BB) (USAGE Action Id 200221216, NCDWQ #
01-0318).
• 11.05 acres of bottomland hardwood for Sanford Bypass (TIP No. R-2417) )
(USAGE Id 200220899 and NCDWQ 00-1432).
The NCDOT proposes to debit 7.92 acres of the bottomland hardwood
preservation component from Blue Tract as compensatory mitigation for impacts from
Greensboro Western Urban Loop (TIP No. U-2524 AB/AC).
Strategy, for Compensatory Stream Mitigation
The NCDOT proposes the following strategy to mitigate for stream impacts
associated with the project. The NCDOT needs to mitigate for 7,171 feet. Compensatory
mitigation for streams will be provided for at three mitigation sites: Woodlyn Way, Tick
Greensboro Western Urban Loop .luly 15,2003
Section 404/401 Permit Application Page 13 of 17
'TIP No. U-2524 AB/AC'

Creek and UT Bear Creek. Vicinity maps of these mitigation sites have been attached to
this permit application. Table 10 summarizes mitigation provided for this road project.
Table 10. Mitigation' Sites far Stream Ympacts

Site Name:... ~ Available
Miti anon
Miti anon Used Mitigation
' Remainin
Woodl Wa 1,195 1,195 0
Tick Creek 4,190 4,190 0
UT Bear Creek 3,850 1,786 2,064
Total 9,23 5 7,171 2,064
Woodlyn Way On-Site Mitigation. This stream mitigation site lies in Guilford County and
abuts the proposed project in Section AC. The NCDOT completed a mitigation plan
dated January 2002. The mitigation plan was discussed at meeting with the resource
agencies on February 7, 2002, and meeting minutes have been provided to the agencies.
There were no major changes to the plan except a comment from U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency the mitigation credits which are 1150 feet of restoration (1:1 ratio) and
45 feet of enhancement (1:1.5 ratio) with a total mitigation footage of 1180 feet.
However, the NCDOT believes full restoration credit is warranted as the mitigation
involves a Rosgen Priority I project and a total mitigation footage of 1195 feet.
The NCDOT provided 60% Design Plans of the mitigation site to the resource
agencies for their review. The NCDOT summarized comments in a memorandum to the
resource agencies dated November 25, 2002.
The NCDOT has completed the design for the project. The NCDOT will
construct the site after completion of the roadway project has been completed.
The NCDOT proposes to use the entire mitigation site to provide mitigation for
the Greensboro Western Urban Loop.
Tick Creek Mitigation Site. The Tick Creek Mitigation Site lies in Chatham County (HU
03030003). The project involves enhancing/preserving 3,733 feet of Tick Creek, which
has several rare mussel species, and conducting a Rosgen Priority I restoration (2,946
feet) for an unnamed tributary of Tick Creek.
The NCDOT described the mitigation project in a mitigation plan developed for
the site and dated September 2002. An on-site meeting was held on September 25, 2002
to review the proposed mitigation plan. Comments on the mitigation plan were
distributed in a memorandum distributed to meeting participants and dated April 11,
2003. There were no major comments affecting the proposed project. The NCDOT will
receive 1,244 feet of credit (3:1 ratio) for enhancing/preserving Tick Creek and 2,946 feet
of credit for Priority I restoration of the unnamed tributary of Tick Creek. Total
mitigation available at the site is 4,190 feet of stream footage.
The NCDOT provided 60% design plans for agency review and discussed the
plans with the resource agencies on April 15, 2003. There were no major changes in the
Greensboro Western Urban Loop J°ly 15,2003
Section 404/401 Permit Application Page 14 of 17
TIP No. U-2524 AB/AC

desi~m from the mitigation plan, and the NCDOT did not receive any comments from the
agencies which changed the design.
The NCDOT has finalized the design plans and intends to construct the project
late Summer/Fall 2003 and to plant the site after construction of the stream project is
completed.
The NCDOT intends to apply all the mitigation available at Tick Creek toward the
Greensboro Western Urban Loop (TIP No. U-2524 AB/AC).
UT Bcar Creek Mitigation Sitc. This mitigation site lies in Chatham County (HU
03030003). The project involves restoring a 3,850 feet of stream (2,150 feet UT Bear
Creek and 1,700 feet UT1 Bear Creek).
The NCDOT described the mitigation project in a mitigation plan developed for
the site and dated June 2003. The NCDOT and the resource agencies reviewed the
mitigation plan on June 18, 2003. There were no major changes or concerns about the
mitigation plan. There were minor suggestions on the plan regarding the placement of
stream crossings for vehicles and livestock.
The NCDOT has begun working to developing design plans for the stream
mitigation project. The NCDOT intends to review the design plans with the resource
agencies at 60% Design. The construction schedule for the site is Fa11 2004 with planting
to follow construction of the stream restoration project.
The NCDOT will use 1,786 feet of mitigation from UT Bear Creek. There will be
2,064 feet of mitigation remaining.
Randleman Buffers
The proposed road project impacts an area protected by the Randleman Buffer
Rules. The NCDOT has attached to this 404/401 permit application information relevant
to impacts to these buffers, entitled "Randleman Buffer Addendum" (Appendix D).
Construction of the road project will impact 20.46 acres of Zone l buffers and 11.79 acres
of Zone 2 buffers.
The NCDOT also requests a variance to the Randleman Buffer Rules. The
NCDOT cannot meet the objectives of the Randleman Buffer Rules at two sites, Sites 7
and 28 in TIP No. U-2524 AB Part I. At these two sites, the roadway project lies parallel
to the two stream reaches. The variance request is attached to this Section 404/401
permit application (Appendix E).
Regulatory Approval
Application is hereby made for a Department of the Army Section 404 Individual
Permit for the above-described activities. The proposed action also necessitates Section
401 Individual Water Quality Certification, Randleman Buffer Rule certificate, and a
Greensboro Western Urban Loop .luly 15,2003
Section 404/401 Pcnnit Application Page I S of 17
TIP No. U-2524 AE3/AC'

Randleman Buffer Rule Variance. In compliance with Section 143-215.3D(e) of the
North Carolina Administrative Code, the NCDOT asks NCDWQ to debit electronically
$475.00 to act as payment for processing the Section 401 permit application as previously
noted in this application (see Subject line). Seven copies of this application are also
provided to the NCDWQ for their review.
The NCDOT appreciates the USACE's assistance through the avoidance/
minimization process. If you have any questions about this 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. John Dorney, NCDWQ (7 copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Ms. Kathy Matthews, USEPA
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. John F. Sullivan, III, FHWA
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. J.M. Mills, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Jerry Parker, Division 7 DEO
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington (Cover Letter Only)
Greensboro Western Urban Loop July 15,2003
Section 404/401 Permit Application Page 16 of 17
TIP No. U-2524 AB/AC

Table 2. Impacts to Wetlands from TIP No. U-2524 AB Part I
Permit
Site Wetland
Community Cowardin
Classification DEM
Rating Fill
(ac) Excavation
(ac) Mechanized
Clearing (ac) Total Wetland
Impact (ac)
8 headwater,~emergent seep PFO 1 BiPEM2B 28 0.20 rv'a m~a 0.20
11 emergent see PEM2B 28 0.07 n%a n/a 0.07
12 emergent see PEM2B 28 0.02 n/a 0.02 0.04
13 emergent see PEM2B 33 0.12 n/a n/a 0.12
14 headwater/emer ent see PFOI B/PEM2B 33 1.06 n/a n/a 1.06
I S emergent see PEM2B 28 0.05 n/a n/a 0.05
16 headwater/emergent seep PFO l B/PEM2B 28 0.20 n/a n/a 0.20
17 headwater forest PFO 1 C 33 0.12 n/a n%a 0.12
21 headwater forest PFO 1 C 46 0.12 rv'a n,~a 0.12
23 headwater forest PFO 1 C 29 0.17 n~a n,'a 0.17
24 headwater forest PFO 1 C 16 0.03 n,'a rv'a 0.03
25 bottomland hardwood forest PFOIC 81 0.59 n/a 0.05 0.64
Totals 2.75 0.00 0.07 2.82
Note: PFO I Bdenotes palustrine, broad-leaved deciduous forest, that is saturated.
PEM2B denotes palustrine, emergent vegetation that is saturated.
PFO 1 C denotes palustrine, broad-leaved deciduous forest, that is seasonally saturated.
Table 3. Impacts to Wetlands from TIP No. U-2524 AB
Permit
Site Wetland
Community Cowardin
Classification DEM
Rating Fill
(ac) Excavation
(ac) Mechanized
Clearing (ac) Total Wetland
Impact (ac)
I emergent (old pond) PEM 1 B 61 0.10 n/a n/a 0.10
2 alluvial forest PFO1C 55 0.03 n/a n/a 0.03
6 headwater forest PFO I C 51 ni a ni a <0.01 <0.01
Totals 0.03 0.10 0.00 0.13
Note: PEM 1 B denotes palustrine, persistent emergent wetland system that is saturated.
PFO1C denotes palustrine deciduous forested wetland system that is seasonally flooded.
July 2003

Table 4. Impacts to Wetlands from T1P No. U-2524 AC
Permit
Site Cowardin
Classification DEM
Rating Fill
(ac) Excavation
(ac) Mechanized
Clearing (ac) Total Wetland
Impact (ac)
9 emergent (old ond) PEM1B 80 0.97 n/a 0.10 1.07
1 BA beaver impoundment PFO 1 Hb 61 0.12 n/a n/a 0.12
Totals 1.09 0.00 0.10 1.19
Note: PEM 1 B denotes palustrine, persistent emergent wetland system that is saturated.
PFO 1 Hb denotes palustrine deciduous forested wetland system that is permanently flooded due to beavers.
Table 5. Wetland Community Type Impacts by Project Section
Wetland
Community Type Section
AB (Part I) Section
AB Section
AC TotalImpact
per Type (ac)
Emergent 0.28 0.10 1.07 1.45
EmergentJheadwater 1.46 rv'a n/a 1.46
Headwater forest 0.44 <0.01 n/a 0.44
Bottomland Hardwood 0.64 n/a n/a 0.64
Alluvial forest n/a 0.03 n/a 0.03
Beaver impoundment n/a n/a 0.12 0.12
Total Impact per Section 2.82 0.13 1.19 4.13
July 2003

Table 6. Impacts to Streams and Ponds for TIP No. U-2524 AB Part I
Permit
Site
Stream Name Drainage
Type Surface Water
Impact (ac) Surface Water
Impact (Pond) (ac) Existing
Length (ft) Relocated
Length (ft) Channel
Loss (ft) Mitigation
Required (ft)
7 UT Hickory Creek Perennial 0.~7 n/a 2402 952 1450* 171
17 UT Hickor}~ Creek Perennial 0.1~ n/a 676 n/a 676 676
25 UT Hickory Creek Perennial 0.07 n/a 346 n/a 346* n%a
25b Pond n/a 0.07 n/a n/a n/a n/a
28 UT Hickory Creek Perennial 0.17 n/a 1100 935 165* (-33)
Totals 0.96 0.07 4525 1887 2704 814
"*" mitigation for channel loss originally provided by NCWRP under TIP No. I-2402 A.
Table 7. Impacts to Streams and Ponds for TIP No. U-2524 AB
Permit
Site
Stream Name Drainage
Type Surface Water
Impact (ac) Surface Water
Impact (Pond) (ac) Existing
Length (ft) Relocated
Length (ft) Channel
Loss (ft) Mitigation
Required (ft)
2 UT South Buffalo Creek Intermittent 0.05 0.48 213 0 213 0
3 UT +3 Reddick's Creek Perennial 0.26 n/a 958 692 266 532
4 UT Reddick's Creek Perennial 0.18 n/a 591 n/a 591 1182
6 Reddick's Creek Perennial 0.03 n/a 233 n/a 233 446
7 UT ~ 1 Reddick's Creek Perennial 0.01 n/a 318 n/a 318 636
Intermittent n/a 184 n~a 184 184
10 UT #10 Bull Run Intermittent 0.04 n/a 381 n/a 381 n/a
Totals 0.57 0.48 2877 692 2186 2980
July 2003

RANDLEMAN BUFFER ADDENDUM
The purpose of this addendum is to provide the N.C. Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ) with the information needed to evaluate the impacts of the project on the Randleman
Basin Riparian Buffer areas. [n addition, we are presenting material in this addendum to illustrate
that the project has been designed to comply with the Randleman Lake Water Supply Watershed:
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas (15A NCAC 02B .0250). Therefore, we request
that the NCDWQ issue an Authorization Certificate for the proposed use.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to construct a
portion of the Greensboro Western Urban Loop. The proposed project involves construction of a
four- to eight-lane freeway on new location. The majority of the proposed project lies in
Hydrologic Unit 03030003.
Coordination wish Rcrsonnel from NCDWQ and City of Greensboro
The personnel from NCDOT Hydraulics Unit met with representatives from NCDWQ
Winston-Salem Regional office on October 18, 2000 to discuss Randleman Buffer Rules. In an
attached e-mail from Mr. Larry Coble of NCDWQ, the NCDOT had met the minimum criteria
for Randleman Buffer Rules. Mr. Coble stated that the NCDOT needed to receive official
approval from local governments regarding compliance with Randlemen Buffer Rules.
The NCDOT contacted the City of Greensboro regarding compliance with Randleman
Rules. The City of Greensboro reviewed the drainage plans and "offer(ed) only a few
recommendations" to the NCDOT with respect to Randleman Buffer Rules. A cr~py of this
letter from the City of Greensboro, dated June 14, 2001, and a copy of NCDOT's response to
recommendations, have been attached to this permit application.
Since the coordination with NCUWQ field personnel and City of Greensboro staff, the
NCDOT has met with NCDWQ central office staff to review the project. Coordination with
NCDWQ staff occurred in June 2003. The NCDO'T' Hydraulics Unit and Project Development
and Environmental Development staff reviewed and discussed the design and location of the
structures with NCDWQ personnel to accomplish this goal as practicably as possible
Randleman I3uffcr Rule lmpacls
Due to the nature of this project, impacts to the riparian buffer of Reddick's Creek, Bull
Run, Long Branch and their unnamed tributaries, as well as unnamed tributaries of Ifickory
Creek, are unavoidable.
The NCDOT has minimized impacts to the streams and adjacent buffers by relocating
streams in several areas and providing on-site buffer areas for these relocated streams.
Vegetation to be planted includes black willow (Salix nigru), silky dogwood (Cornu.ti~ amomum),
green ashe (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), sycamore (I'luntus accidenlalis), tulip poplar
(I,iriodendron tuli~erifera), and river birch (I3c~ulu niKra). Calculations for impacts to the
Randleman Buffer Addendum Page I of
'fIP No. U-2524 AB/AC July 2003

buffer, available on-site mitigation and compensatory mitigation needs are presented in the
attached tables (Tables 1 A-6A).
The NCDOT's avoidance and minimization of impacts to streams and wetlands (which
are discussed previously in the "Mitigation" section of the Section 404/401 permit application)
by default represent avoidance and minimization of impacts to buffers. Drainage flowing in the
general direction of the regulated buffers was handled so the 50-foot buffer zone would not be
directly impacted. It was the goal of the NCDOT to have the project designed so that the effects
of the drainage would not result in water quality impacts to the waters of the Randleman sub
basin as required by the Randleman Basin regulations. Total impacts to buffers are 20.46 acres
to Zone 1 and 11.79 acres to Zone 2.
The NCDOT will provide on-site buffer at several impact sites, including Site 7 in
Section AB Part I, Site 3 in Section AB and Sites 1 and 3 in Section AC), through the stream
relocations proposed at these sites. The NCDO7' will provide 2.36 acres of Lone 1 on-site buffer
mitigation and 1.58 acres of Zone 2 buffer mitigation.
Within the Section 404/401 permit package is a summary of the NCDO'I' proposal to
handle stormwater discharges on TIP No. t1-2524 AB Part I and notations for handing
stormwater are found on the permit drawings for TIP No. U-2524 AB/AC.
Compensatory Mitigation for Buffer Impacts
The NCDOT has applied the appropriate ratios of 3 and 1.5 to buffer impacts minus the
on-site mitigation. The total amount of buffer mitigation required for the proposed project is
60.26 acres (2624925.6 feet2). Based on a cost of 0.97 cents per square foot, the NCDO"T will
pay $ 2,546,177.83 to the WRP to provide the necessary buffer mitigation for this project.

TablelA . Impacts to Randleman Buffer for TIP No. t,'-2524 ABl
Site
No. Road
Crossing Parallel Zone 1
(acres) Zone Z
(acres) On-Site litigation
Zone 1 (acres) On-Site Mitigation
Zone 2 (acres) Total Impact
Zone 1 (acres) Total Impact
Zone 2 (acres)
7 x 2.10 1.40 1.30 0.86 0.80 0.54
x 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80
x 0.30 0.20 0.30 020
17 x 0.80 0.50 0.80 0.50
25 x 0.40 0.30 0.40 0.30
28 x L80 1.30 1.80 1.30
Total 6.20 4.50 1.30 0.86 4.90 3.64
Table 2A. Mitigation Requirements for TIP No. U-2524 ABI
Site
No. Zone l
(acres) Zone 2
(acres) Total Mitigation
(acres)
7 5.61 2.81 8.42
17 2.40 0.75 3.15
25 1.20 0.45 1.65
28 5.40 1.95 7.35
Total 14.61 5.96 20.57
Table 3A. Impacts to Randleman Buffer Rules for TIP No. C-2524 AB

Site No. Road
Crossing
Parallel Zone 1
(acres) Zone 2
(acres) On-Site :Mitigation
Zone 1 (acres) On-Site Mitigation
Zone 2 (acres) Total Impact
Zone 1 (acres) Total Impact
Zone 2 (acres)
3 x 1.35 0.92 0.67 0.44 0.68 0.48
4 x 0.65 0.34 0.65 0.34
6 x 0.42 0.23 0.42 0.23
7 x 0.59 0.04 0.59 0.04
10 x x L03 0.30 1.03 0.30
Total 4.04 1.83 0.67 0.44 3.37 1.39

Table 4A. Mitigation Requirements for TIP \o. U-2524 AB
Site
No. Zone 1
(acres) Zone 2
(acres) Total mitigation
(acres)
3 2.04 0.72 2.76
4 1.95 0.51 2.46
6 1.26 0.35 1.61
7 1.77 0.06 1.83
10 3.09 0.45 3.54
Total 10.11 2.09 12.2
Table SA. Impacts to Randleman Buffer Rules for TIP No. U-2524 AC

Site No. Road
Crossing
Parallel Zone 1
(acres) Zone 2
(acres) On-Site M1titigation
Zone 1 (acres) On-Site mitigation
Zone 2 (acres) Total Impact
Zone 1 (acres) Total Impact
Zone 2 (acres)
l x 0.93 0.61 0.32 0.22 0.61 0.39
2 (p) x 0.54 0.36 0.54 0.36
2 (i) x 0.62 0.39 0.62 0.39
3 x 0.50 0.28 0.07 0.05 0.43 0.23
6 x 0.40 0.25 0.40 0.25
7 x 0.52 0.29 0.52 0.29
8 2.74 1.05 2.74 1.05
11 x 0.36 0.24 0.36 0.24
1 BA x 0.49 0.32 0.49 0.32
2BA x 3.11 1.68 1.21 0.74 3.11 1.68
Total 10.22 5.46 1.61 1.01 9.82 5.20
Note: Site 8 is a temporary impact involving the draining of a pond during construction of the road project.

Table 6A. Mitigation Requirements for TIP No. U-2524 AC
Site
No. Zone l
(acres) Zone 2
(acres) Total Mitigation
(acres)
1 1.83 0.59 2.42
2 O 1.62 0.54 2.16
2 (I) 1.86 0.59 2.4~
3 1.29 0.35 1.64
6 1.20 0.38 1.58
7 1.56 0.44 2.00
11 1.08 0.36 1.44
IBA 1.47 0.48 1.95
2BA 9.33 2.52 11.85
Total 21.24 6.25 27.49
Note: Site 8 is a temporary impact involving the draining of a pond during construction of the road project;
the "impact" was not considered for compensatory mitigation purposes.

"General" Major Variance Application for Randleman Buffer Rules
Part l: General Information
7.
Site No. Stream Name Best Usa e Classifcation Stream Index No.
7 UT Hickor Creek WS IV * 17-8.5-(1)
28 UT Hickor Creek WS IV * 17-8.5-(1)
Part 2: Proposed Activity
1. The NCDOT proposes to construct the ultimate roadway design for the I-85 Bypass/
Western iJrban Loop. The project for which the variance is requested is TIP No. t1-2524
AB/AC, which is a project to construct a freeway on new location from north of existing
1-85 to I-40. The western terminus of this project connects to I-40 while the western
southern terminus of the project connects with TIP No. I-2402, the southern loop of the I-
85 Greensboro Bypass (see attached map, Figures 1-3). TIP No. I-2402 is currently
under construction, and its 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) and Section 404
Permit were issued in December 1998 and May 1999, respectively. Those permits
approved both the design of an "interim" portion of I-2402 and the "ultimate" design of
the intersection of TIP Nos. U-2524 and I-2402. The "interim" design is incorporated
into the "ultimate" design. The "Randleman Rules" (15A N.C.A.C. 2B .0248 - .0251)
became effective April 1, 1999, after the 401 WQC was issued.
"Chere are two areas of concern for complying with the Randleman Buffer Rules; Site 7
and Site 28. These areas are noted on the attached plan views and corresponding
summary sheet of buffer impacts. F,ach area is located near the connection TIP Nos. I-
2402 and U-2524. The design of the project in those areas was approved in the 401 /404
permits for TIP No. I-2402.
Site 7 is a parallel impact with the NCDO'I~ relocating the stream channel along its side
fill slopes. There will be a vegetated buffer, and the NCDOT has minimized its impact to
the stream and by relocating the stream as much as it can. There are two areas as
NCDO"(' relocates the channel, at its beginning and the end, where the bui~fer requirement
of 50 feet will not he met. Generally speaking, the NCDOT believes it can mitigate on-
site for some of the buffer impacts at this site. Impacts to buffers total 2.10 acres for
7,one 1 and 1.40 acres for Lone 2.
Site 28 is a parallel impact with the NCDOT relocating the stream channel along its side
fill slopes. This site violates the bufifer rules because the NCDOT cannot relocate the
stream channel to provide the required 50 feet buffer along each side of the stream reach.
Impacts to buffers total 1.80 acres Ior "Lone 1 and 1.30 acres for "hone 2.
Randleman Bufler Variance Request Page I ot4
TIP No. U-?524 At3 July I5, ?003

2. "The proposed activity cannot be practically accomplished, reduced or
reconfigured to better minimize or eliminate disturbance to the riparian buffers than they
already have. There are several reasons. First, Sites 7 and 28 were part of the design for
ultimate design for TIP No. I-2402 and construction will be completed for this section in
September 2003. Impacts to these sites were approved under the Section 404 and 401
WQC permits issued for this project, prior to the enactment of the Randleman Buffer
Rules. However, the sites were not impacted by the on-going construction of the "interim
design" for TIP No. I-2402 and have subsequently been included with the proposed
construction of TII' No. U-2524AB.
The proposed project has been positioned parallel to the two streams. Sufficient buffer
area was not included as part of the roadway design to relocate the streams. The design
was completed in the mid 1990s when streams were relocated on-site as a minimization
technique for impacts to surface waters. The requirement for 50 foot buffers was not a
policy guideline or a rule at this time.
Second, there are topographical constraints affecting the "ultimate" design that preclude
full compliance with the Randleman Buffer Rules. To relocate the stream at Site 28 and
provide the required buffer, a considerable amount of earth would have to be moved and
as reflected on the attached cross sections.
At Site 28, the existing stream channel has a relatively broad, low valley with a low
valley slope and a Rosgen stream classification of "E". Notable characteristics are a
relatively high entrenchment ratio (10.3), low average slope (0.012), high belt width
(average of 51.3 feet) and high meander width ratio (8.3). Ideally, if the NCDOT was not
constrained by the location of the road project and topographic restrictions, the NCDO'I'
would construct a Rosgen stream type which should be present based on the existing
conditions, an "E" channel. 'I'o comply with the buffer rules (i.e., providing the
appropriate buffer and Rosgen "E" stream type), the NCDOT would have to move a
considerable amount of earth (10,800 cubic yards and $ 21,500 to remove the material)
and purchase additional right of way ($91,300). Cost of strict compliance to the buffer
rule would total $ 112,800.
The NCDOT proposes to minimize impacts to the stream reach and buffer by relocating
the stream with a narrower valley with a higher valley slope; a Rosgen stream
classification of "C". The notable characteristics of the proposed relocated reach are an
low entrenchment ratio (4.85), increased slope (0.0178), lower belt width (average of
21.0 feet) and considerably reduced meander ratio (2.5) when compared to existing
conditions (see attached morphological table for Site 28). This relocation does not
achieve the 50 foot required buffer along the stream reach.
The NCDOT has attempted to construct stream relocations in similar conditions
involving the movement of a considerable amount of earth to relocate the stream channel
(examples are TIP No. X-2D and U-2528 AA). "Che NCDO1' has attempted to relocate
the 2,100 feet of a stream channel on TIP No. X-2D on three separate occasions, and the
relocation is still not stabilized. Three times the NCDOT has taken steps to attempt
Randleman Buffer Variance Request Page 2 of4
TIP No. U-2524 AB .luly 15, 2003

stabilization of the relocated stream at a cost of over $650,000. A fourth time attempt to
stabilize the stream is currently underway. It is anticipated that the cost will rise to
$900,000.
Typically, these extensive cuts to re-create the floodplain, flood prone area and thalweg
result in placing the stream on unsuitable, unstable material. `T'he soil material may be
saprolite or clay. The result is an unstable stream channel having the tendency to
downcut thereby increasing the amount of sediment in the stream. The soil material is
also sterile, lowering the potential success of establishing vegetation on the site
correlating to success of the stream relocation work.
The NCDO"I' has taken measures to minimize impacts to the stream by proposing to
relocate the stream with a Rosgen stream classification of "C" with a series of cross
vanes to prevent downcutting and reduce velocities. This stream relocation attempts to
minimize impacts to the buffers, minimize the amount of earth moved and to maximize
the amount of buffer between the stream and road project as practicable. The NCDOT
believes it can relocate this type of stream based on topography and a review of reference
reaches.
3. As noted earlier, the NCDOT designed the project in the 1990's, and in some
areas, there is not adequate land to treat stormwater discharges to the extent prescribed by
the Randleman Buffer Rules. The NCDOT has taken steps to minimize road discharges
where practicable by installing pre-formed scour holes to allow for treatment of road
discharges. 'Chew pre-formed scour holes were not originally part of the design for the
roadway project but have been included to comply with Randleman Buffer Rules. A list
of treatment areas which meet the Randleman Buffer Rules is attached to this variance
request.
1-Iowever, there are several areas where it is not practicable to adequately treat the
stormwater discharges from the road. "Treatment cannot occur at other locations because
of site conditions or other limiting circumstances. A complete list of areas not complying
with the Randleman Buffer Rules attached to this variance request.
4. The NCDO'I' believes compensatory mitigation will be required for impacts at Site 7
and 28 to the buffer. At Site 7, the NCDOT will impact 3.17 acres (12,840 meters2) of
Zone 1 and 2.40 acres (9,691 meters2) of 7_,one 2.
The NCDO"I' will restore several acres of buffer by implementing the on-site stream
mitigation. At Site 7, the NCDOT will restore l .30 acres (5,272 meters2) of Lone 1 and
0.86 acres (3,461 meters2) of lone 2. 'T'herefore, subtracting the on-site mitigation from
the impacts, the NCDO"I' will need to mitigate for 1.87 acres of impacts to Zone l buff-ers
and 1.54 acres of Lone 2 buffers. Buffer mitigation, using the appropriate ratios, required
at Site 7 is 5.61 acres for Zone 1 buffer impacts and 2.81 acres for Zone 2 buffer impacts
for a total mitigation requirement of 8.42 acres (366,755 feet2).
Randleman Buffer Variance Request Page 3 of4
TIP No. U-2524 AB July I5, 2003

Anticipated impacts to the buffer at Site 28 total 1.80 acres in Zone 1 and 1.30 acres in
Zone 2. Mitigation required is 5.40 acres for Zone 1 buffer impacts and 1.95 acres for
Zone 2 buffer impacts for a total mitigation requirement of 7.35 acres (320,166 feet2).
The first option in providing mitigation for these buffer impacts is paying into the NC
Wetland Restoration Program (NCWRP). Mitigation needs total 15.77 acres
(686,921feet2) for Sites 7 and 28. Based on NCWRP figures for buffer mitigation (0.97
cents per square foot), the NCDOT would pay to the NCWRP $666,313.37.
A second option is to provide mitigation at the Groometown Road Mitigation Site. This
mitigation site will treat stormwater discharge from Groometown Road and provide
additional treatment of discharge from the Urban Loop (TIP No. U-2524 AB). A
mitigation plan for this site has been attached to this variance request.
5. (1) There are several difficulties and hardships which would result from the strict
application of this Rule. These difficulties include (a) the constructed interim designed
roadway project, (b) the purchase oi' additional right of way; and (c) topographic
constraints. The "ultimate" design of the interchange connecting TIP Nos. U-2524AB
and I-2402 overlaps with the "interim" design of TIP No. I-2402 which is already under
construction and will be completed in September 2003. Both the interim and ultimate
designs were permitted in 1999 in the Section 404 and 401 WQC permits for TIP No. 1-
2402. Strict application of this Rule would force NCDO'I' to abandon project TIP No. t1-
2524AB in its current form, and necessitate an extensive redesign to avoid buffer impacts
which would likely require delaying a needed project and purchasing additional right of
way. TIP No. U-2524AB and I-2402 would not be able to intersect with each other as
envisioned in the approved permits Section 404 and 401 WQC permits for TIP No. I-
2402.
Finally, if a Rosgen "E/C" stream channel is constructed at Site 28 on the described
topographical constraints, the result will be large cuts in the earth and the placement of
the relocated stream on soils which are unsuitable for construction. The NCDO1' has
attempted to construct projects in such conditions on other projects. The NCDOT has
tried numerous times to stabilize these reaches (three times on TIP No. X-2D upon which
a fourth attempt will be made). A considerable amount of money has been spent trying to
stabilize these reaches using natural stream channel techniques.
(2) The difficulties and hardships resulting from strict application of the buffer rules are
unique to this project. The NCDOT cannot move the alignment of the road project itself
to negotiate around these topographical restraints because the construction of the interim
design is nearing completion. Both the interim and ultimate designs were s~ecilically
sanctioned in the Section 404 and 401 W C ermrts for TIP No~.I~2402,_which were
issued prior to enactment of the Randleman Buffer Rules.
~c~.f tn~-ate 12u,(-es : G~~` 1 ~, t 999
~vo
Randleman Buffer Variance Request Page 4 of4
TIP No. U-2524 AB July I5, 2003

APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT I OMB APPROVAL N0.0710-003
(33 CFR 325) Expires December 31, 2004
Public reporting burden for this collection of Information is estimated to average 10 hours per response, although the majority of applications should
require 5 hours or less. This includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed,
and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of
information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of Information
Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-0302; and to the Office of Management and Budget,
Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC 20503. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
person shall be subJect to any penalty for falling to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
Please DO NOT RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction
over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authority: Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403: Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries
Act, 33 USC 1413, Section 103. Principal Purpose: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Routine
Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and local government agencies. Submission of
requested information is voluntary, however, if information is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this
application (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed
activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
I (ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE f{ILLED BY THE CORPS) ~
1. APPLICATION NO
2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 13. DATE RECEIVED
4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE F(LLED BY APPLICANT)
5. APPLICANTS NAME
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
8. AUTHORIZED AGENTS NAME AND TITLE (an agent is not regwred)
6. APPLICANTS ADDRESS
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
9. AGENTS ADDRESS
7. APPLICANTS PHONE NOs. W/AREA CODE ( 10. AGENTS PHONE NOs. W/AREA CODE
a. Residence a. Residence
b. Business 919-733-3141 b. Business
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon
request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OR PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions
U-2524AB and AC
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (it applicable) 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (it applicable)
See Tables 6 and 7 of Cover letter for list of Creeks
-- -- -
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Guilford Nc I
COUNTY STATE
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions) Section, Township, Range, LaVLon, and/or Acceasors's Parcel Number, for example.
Guilford County, Greensboro Western Urban Loop, from I-85 south of Groometown
to south of I-40 interchange;
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
ENG FORM 4345, Jul 97 EDITION OF FEB 94 IS OBSOLETE (Proponent. CECW-OR)

18. Nature Of ACtlVlty (Description of project, include all features)
Construct a four to eight lane freeway on new location
19. PfOJeCt PUfpOSe (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
Public transportation
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED ANDIOR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
Roadway fill in Wetlands and stream
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Roadway fill
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (sea instructions>
Impacts to Waters of the United States from construction TIP No. U-2524 AB/AC
and AB Part I total 3.87 acres of. fill in wetlands, 0.10 acre of excavation in
wetlands, 0.17 acre of mechanized clearing in wetlands, 2.05 acres of fill in
streams, 3.92 acres of fill ponds, and 11,525 feet of stream impacts.
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes _ No x IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be entered hare, please attach a supplemental list).
See Attached list
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State, or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
See Attached Cover Letter -Project History Section
Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building, and flood plain permits
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this application is
complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent
of the applicant.
__~.
.,~ . ~ - 7 ~1-~
SIGNATURE O APPLIC NT DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly authorized
agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly
and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or
representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry, shall
be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
ENG FORM 4345, Jul 97 EDITION OF FEB 94 IS OBSOLETE (Proponent: CECW-OR)

~ - 2~ - Zoo3
SUBJECT: Stormwater Management Plan for U-2524AB Part1, Guilford County.
Greensboro -Western Loop from North of I-85 near Groometown
Road to North of High Point Road
ROADWAY DESCRIPTION:
The U-2524AB1 project goal is to provide a connection between the new
Greensboro Bypass and existing I-40. The project is primarily a new interchange at the
Greensboro bypass and the I-40 connector. There are three existing box culverts located on
the project that are to be retained and extended. All three culverts are on Unnamed
Tributaries to Hickory Creek. There are two other jurisdictional streams that are being
relocated and several wetland sites that will be impacted.
ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION:
The Tributaries to Hickory Creek are in the Cape Fear River Basin and are a part of
the Randleman Reservoir Watershed. The stream classification for Hickory Creek is WS-IV.
The unnamed tributaries to Hickory Creek are not specified on the DENR Stream
Classification List. There are four sites that appear on the soils map. There are a total of
fifteen permitted sites on the project, with impacts totaling 1399 m (4590 ft.) of stream with
575 m (1887 ft.) of relocated stream utilizing Natural Channel Design, 10.86 ha (26.84 Ac.)
of wetlands, and 4.34 ha (10.74 ac.) of Randleman Reservoir Riparian Buffers.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND MAJOR STRUCTURES:
Best Management Practices (BMP's) utilized on this project consist of grassed swales
and preformed scour holes.
The following summarizes the locations of each BMP:
Grassed Swales
-I40SBREV-
Station 12+00 to 15+40 Lt.
Station 15+80 to 17+00 Rt.
Station 19+00 to 19+40 Lt.
Station 20+00 to 21+00 Lt.
-I1I40NB-
Station 13+40 to 15+90 Lt.
Station 19+00 to 22+00 Lt.
Station 20+GO to 20+90 Rt.
-CSLIP-
Station 17+00 to 18+00 Lt.
Station 17+00 to 18+20 Rt.
Station 18+80 to 19+C,0 Rt.
Station 18+80 to 19+8(1 Lt.

T;r.~.. U-Zs~~~~,~u~~-

-CSLIP- cont.
Station 20+20 to 22+30 Lt.
Station 21+80 to 24+40 Rt.
Station 24+80 to 2G+10 Lt.
Station 2G+10 to 27+50 Lt.
Station 28+40 to 29+40 Rt.
-IISLIP2-
Station 11+20 to 13+00 Lt.
Station 13+00 to 15+00 Lt.
-I1RPB1-
Station 14+60 to 15+60 Lt.
Station 14+60 to 15+70 Rt.
-I1FLY-
Station 12+20 to 13+50 Lt. & IZt.
Station 21+90 to 20+50 Rt.
-LoopC-
Station 12+81 Lt.
Preformed Scour Holes
Station 31+20 -CSLIP- Rt.
Station 31+88 -CSLIP- Rt.
Station 32+20 -CSLIP- Rt.
Station 31 +28 -I40SBREV- Rt.
Station 32+08 -I40SBREV- Rt.
Some outlets are not fitted with BMP's due to site conditions or other circumstances. They
are summarized below:
-I40SBREV-
• Station 11 +60 Rt. -Natural ground falls at 12%; therefore, no
preformed scour hole used. There is limited room for any other
BMP.
• Station 18+80 Lt. -This system empties into an existing ditch.
Other ways of outletting this system were investigated, but elevation
constraints would not allow.
• Station 24+20 I,t. -This system ties into the existing system on the
new I-85. Rerouting this system was investigated; however, due to
elevation constraints we could not provide treatment for this water.
• Station 28+68 Rt. - A Preformed Scour Hole was investigated for
this outlet; however, there is not enough room between the fill slope
and the stream bank to Eit the PSH properly.
~~ ~~ ~' ~
T; n ct- ~~Z~~~ I
~~~ Z~~

Station 30+05 Rt. ~ This system outlet is a 600mm (24") pipe. Per
design guidelines, the maximum pipe diameter for a preformed scour
hole is 450mm (18"). Other methods were investigated, but there is
limited space.
-I1I40NB- Station 18+60 Lt. -This system outlets into an existing system.
Rerouting this water was investigated; however, due to
elevation constraints, no other alternative was feasible.
-CSLIP- Station 25+48 and 25+88 Rt. -These pipes empty into an
existing roadside ditch on a small service road. There is no
room for any other BMP.
-I1FLY- Station 19+00 Lt. -This system empties into an existing ditch
with no room for any other BMP.
-I1RPA- Station 11+GO to 14+50 Rt. -These pipes empty into an
existing ditch with no room for any other BMP.
Major Structures
Station 31+70 -L- (Tributary to Hickory Creek) Existing 1 @ 2.7m x 1.5m (9 ft. x 5 ft.)
reinforced concrete box culvert is to be retained and extended on the outlet end.
Station 11+75 -LoopC- (Tributary to Hickory Creek) Existing 1 @ 2.4m x 1.5m (8 ft. x 5
ft.) reinforced concrete box culvert will be retained and extended on the inlet end.
Station 25+35 -CSLIP- (Tributary to Hickory Creek) Existing 1 @ 2.4m x 1.8m (8 ft. x 6 ft.)
reinforced concrete box culvert is to be retained and extended on the outlet end.
(.:A~irojcc[\3002\ 135.02(0 ?53.4;A l~ I)\l .cttcrs\ l)~,cumcn[atiun\titonmvatcr iAlana}~cmcnt Pl,in.duc
J~.(~ 03
T:p ib- u - ZsZw q. p (~atit I
S let' fk ~j off'

Natural Channel Design Summary
Unnamed Tributary to Meadow Creek (Site 7)
TIP No. U-2524AB1
State Project No. 8.U492101
Guilford County, North Carolina
Prepared by Mulkey Engineers and Consultants May 2003
This natural channel design summary is presented to the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) as part of on-site compensatory mitigation for the proposed
construction of the Greensboro Western Loop. The proposed roadway extends from
north of I-85 near Groometown Road to north of High Point Road on new location. An
unnamed tributary (UT) to Hickory Creek, situated immediately east of SR 1497 (Wiley
Davis Road) and north of existing I-85, will be relocated westward from its existing
location outside of the proposed fill limits. The UT has been identified as a perennial
stream and is part of the Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-08 (USGS Hydrologic Unit
03030002). 'A morphological table, complete with existing channel, reference reach, and
proposed reach characteristics is attached. In addition, proposed design and detail
sheets are also included with this summary. The project is within the Piedmont
physiographic province.
The headwaters associated with the UT to Hickory Creek originate at the intersection of
SR 1497 (Wiley Davis Road) and McCuiston Road. The UT flows in a southerly
direction approximately 1.7 mi (2.7 km) before converging- with Hickory Creek, then
another 5.0 mi (8.0 km) to the southwest to unite with the Deep River. The drainage
area at the project site is approximately 0.08 sq. mi (0.2 sq. km). It is considered urban
with primarily residential development. The proposed project will require the stream to
be relocated due to existing fill slope design requirements. Overall stream length will be
reduced and slope will be increased in order to correctly align the new channel with its
modified valley type.
Existing Channel
A 200-foot (61-meter) section of the single thread channel associated with the UT to
Hickory Creek was surveyed during March 2003. This section was located near Sta.
10+20 -40SBREV- Right, near the northern terminus of the proposed project area. The
surveyed reach exhibited channel characteristics similar to an E4/5b stream type, as
noted by the Rosgen Classification of Natural Rivers. The E4/5 stream type exhibits low
to moderate sinuosities, gentle to moderately steep channel gradients, and very low
channel width/depth ratios. This stream type is generally stable due to the influence of
riparian vegetation and planform resistance. Bank erosion and bedload transport rates
are typically high and the ratio of bedload to total sediment load often exceeds 50%.
These stream types are very sensitive to disturbance and tend to make significant
adverse channel adjustments to changes streambank vegetation and in flow regime and
sediment supply from the watershed (Rosgen and Silvey, 1998). However, the existing
channel at this location classes out as an E type but it is in a state of instability. The
channel is incised with a bank height ratio of around 1.3 with headcuts spaced
throughout the reach. Only one pool was found in the reach, which was dominated by
runs. The UT exhibited a bankfull cross sectional area of 4.0 sq. ft (0.37 sq. m), an
average slope of 0.015ft/ft, and a D50 of 2.0 mm. A detailed summary of existing
channel conditions is presented in attached morphological table.
1 ~ ft ~- ~ ~ ~ Z---~~ Q
Lwo t~ ~ r~4'" 5~'~'

Reference Reach
Due to the existing, unstable condition of the UT, a stable stream (UT Varnals Creek)
outside of the project area was selected as the reference reach. This channel was
selected based on its watershed components, stream type, and other general
characteristics. The reference reach channel is situated in Alamance County and
classifies as a Boa. It exhibits a drainage area of 0.24 sq. mi (0.62 sq. km) and a
bankfull cross sectional area of 7.9 sq. ft. Based on surveys, the channel is stable and
exhibits very low bank height ratios. Its valley characteristics are very comparable with
the existing channel. Little to no bank erosion was noted during the survey. A detailed
summary of reference conditions are also presented in the attached morphological table.
Proposed Channel
The proposed channel was based on dimensionless ratios derived from the reference
reach survey and data interpretation. The bankfull width will be increased from 4.1 ft
(1.25 m) to 9.0 ft (2.7 m) and the bankfull mean depth will be reduced from 1.0 ft
(0.30 m) to 0.7 ft (0.21 m). As a result, the width/depth ratio will increase to
approximately 13 from the existing 4.3 ratio. A decrease in the bankfull mean velocity
will occur with the new channel. The design stream will exhibit additional floodprone
area; however, minimal pattern will be provided due to site constraints. Slopes will be
actually decrease due to a change in the valley; however, an excess energy will be
dissipated via step/pool morphology characteristic with the B stream type. Rock cross
vanes will be the primary method influencing the step/pool morphology. These cross
vanes will be established throughout the channel in riffle sections and used to provide
grade control, center the thalweg, and protect the stream banks on both sides of the new
channel until vegetation is established. The cross vanes will also decrease shear
stresses throughout the reach. The riparian zone adjacent to the channel will be planted
with native vegetation conducive to wetter, floodplain areas.
Proposed channel stabilization characteristics are presented on the attached detail
sheet. It is anticipated that the riparian zone will be planted with native trees and shrubs
above bankfull depth and herbaceous species within the channel.
Sediment Transport
Based on pebble counts and bar samples taken along the existing channel, the D50
averages 2.0 mm and the D84 averages approximately 17.0 mm. The existing channel
exhibits a critical shear stress of 0.67 Ibs/ft2 which may entrain up to a 40 mm particle.
Based on the design, the proposed channel will exhibit a critical shear stress of
0.28 Ibs/ft2 entraining up to a 18 mm particle. This reduction in entrainment will further
reduce degradation. In addition, cross vanes will be installed throughout the riffle
sections to further reduce the possibility of additional channel degradation.
References
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), 1998.
Yadkin/Pee Dee Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan.
Rosgen, D. and L. Silvey, 1998. Field Guide for Stream Classification. Wildland
Hydrology, Inc.
J ~,(~ U~
r~n~ ~ ~2SZ~~4~
f a~n~- I
~~~ ASS

Appendix B
Variables
1. Stream type
2. Drainage area
3. Bankfull width
4. Bankfull mean depth
5. Width/depth ratio
6. Bankfull cross-sectional area

Morphological Measur Yj n ~ ~ " 1 ~ L y' q-6~
s~.,~G ~ s~
ement Table (Site 7) ~~,1~ U~
Existing

Channel Proposed

Reach
USGS Station
Reference Reach
E4/5b 64/5c N/A B4/1 a
18.5 Ac. 52 Ac. 154 Ac.
4.1 ft. 9.0 ft. 9.7 ft.
1.0ft. 0.7 ft. 0.8 ft.
4.3 13 12.7
A /~ .. 4

7. Bankfull mean velocity - --,.... ~ .,4. ~,. i.a sq. n.
5.4 ft/s 3.43 ft/s 5.23 ft/s
8. Bankfull discharge, cfs
21.6 cfs 21.6 cfs 41.3 cfs
9. Bankfull max depth
1.4 ft. 1.0 ft. 1.1 ft

10. Width of floodprone area .
35 ft. 13.5ft. 26.2 ft

11. Entrenchment ratio .
8.5 1.5 2.7
12. Meander length Range: 60-112 ft.
Avg: 88 ft. N/A 59 ft

13. Ratio of meander length to bankfull .
width 21.5 N/A g
14. Radius of curvature Range: 11.8-36 ft.
Avg:24.6 ft. N/A 13
4 ft

15. Ratio of radius of curvature to bankfull .
.
width 6 N/A 1
4
16. Belt width Range: 11.5-27 ft. .
Avg:20 ft. N/A 15 ft

17. Meander width ratio .
4.9 N/A 1
5
18. Sinuosity (stream length/valley length) .
1.2 1.0 1.2
19. Valley slope
1.90% 0.74% 4.58%
20. Average slope
1.54% 0.74% 4.05%
21. Pool slope
0.00% 0.07% 0.47%
22. Ratio of pool slope to average slope
0 0.1 0 1
23. Maximum pool depth
1.9 ft. 2.0 ft. 1.6 ft

24. Ratio of pool depth to average bankfull .
depth 1.9 3.0 1 9
25. Pool width
5.4 ft. 12.2 ft. 12.0 ft

26. Ratio of pool width to bankfull width .
1.35 1.4 1 2
27. Pool to pool spacing
"~ 50 ft. 34.5 ft

28. Ratio of pool to pool spacing to .
bankfull width 5
5
. ~ 5
~~..y ~~~r N~u~ was iwna m me exisitng channel; therefore, we cannot calculate pool to pool spacing

Natural Channel Design Summary
Unnamed Tributary to Meadow Creek (Site 28)
TIP No. U-2524AB1
State Project No. 8.U492101
Guilford County, North Carolina
Prepared by Mulkey Engineers and Consultants May 2003
This natural channel design summary is presented to the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) as part of on-site compensatory mitigation for the proposed
construction of the Greensboro Western Loop. The proposed roadway extends from
north of I-85 near Groometown Road to north of High Point Road on new location. An
unnamed tributary (UT) to Hickory Creek, situated immediately west of SR 1117 (Holden
Road) and nouh of Roberts Court Road, will be relocated southward from its existing
location outside of the proposed fill limits. The UT has been identified as a perennial
stream and is part of the Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-08 (USGS Hydrologic Unit
03030002). A morphological table, complete with existing channel, reference reach, and
proposed reach characteristics is attached. In addition, proposed design and detail
sheets are also included with this summary. The project is within the Piedmont
physiographic province.
The headwaters associated with the UT to Hickory Creek originate at the intersection of
SR 1117 (Holden Road) and SR 1392 (Drummond Road). The UT flows in a westerly
direction approximately 1.0 mi (1.6 km) before converging with Hickory Creek, then
another 5.0 mi (8.0 km) to the southwest to unite with the Deep River. The drainage
area at the project site is approximately 0.10 sq. mi (0.26 sq. km). It is considered urban
with primarily residential development. The proposed project will require the stream to
be relocated due to existing fill slope design requirements. Overall stream length will be
reduced and slope will be increased in order to correctly align the new channel with its
modified valley type.
Existing Channel
A 1600-foot (488-meter) section of the single thread channel associated with the UT to
Hickory Creek was surveyed during March 2003. This section was located near Sta.
29+20 -40SBREV- Right, near the eastern terminus of the proposed project area. The
surveyed reach exhibited channel characteristics similar to an E4/1 stream type, as
noted by the Rosgen Classification of Natural Rivers. The E4 stream type exhibits low to
moderate sinuosities, gentle to moderately steep channel gradients, and very low
channel width/depth ratios. This stream type is generally stable due to the influence of
riparian vegetation and planform resistance. Bank erosion and bedload transport rates
are typically high and the ratio of bedload to total sediment load often exceeds 50%.
These stream types are very sensitive to disturbance and tend to make significant
adverse channel adjustments to changes streambank vegetation and in flow regime and
sediment supply from the watershed (Rosgen and Silvey, 1998). The existing channel at
this location classes out as an E type and it is in a state of relative stability. The channel
has previously incised but has reestablished a small floodplain at a lower elevation. Due
to recent ice storms, there was a large amount of woody debris in the channel creating
localized instability. Significant bedrock was noted in several area along the existing
channel which is helping prevent further incision. The UT exhibited a bankfull cross
sectional area of 5.6 sq. ft (0.52 sq. m), an average slope of 0.012ft/ft, and a D50 of
sl-~efi-~ ~:~~ ~S-

2.5mm. A detailed summary of existing channel conditions is presented in attached
morphological table.
Reference Reach
Even though the existing channel is relatively stable, a stable stream (UT Lake Jeanette)
outside of the project area was selected as the reference reach. This channel was
selected based on its watershed components, stream type, and other general
characteristics. The reference reach channel is situated in Guilford County and
classifies as a C4. It exhibits a drainage area of 0.25 sq. mi (0.65 sq. km) and a bankfull
cross sectional area of 7.7 sq. ft. Based on surveys, the channel is stable and exhibits
very low bank height ratios. Its valley characteristics are very comparable with the
existing channel. Little to no bank erosion was noted during the survey. A detailed
summary of reference conditions are also presented in the attached morphological table.
Proposed Channel
The proposed channel was based on dimensionless ratios derived from the reference
reach survey, existing channel survey, and data interpretation. The bankfull width will be
increased from 6.3 ft (1.92 m) to 8.5 ft (2.6 m) and the bankfull mean depth will be
reduced from 0.9 ft (0.27 m) to 0.66 ft (0.20 m). As a result, the width/depth ratio will
increase to approximately 13 from the existing 7.0 ratio. A decrease in the bankfull
mean velocity will occur with the new channel. The design stream will exhibit additional
floodprone area to aid in stress reduction in the channel. Slopes will be increased due to
a change in the valley; however, an excess energy will be dissipated via riffle/pool
morphology characteristic and planform associated with the C stream type. Rock cross
vanes will be the primary method influencing the riffle/pool morphology. These cross
vanes will be established throughout the channel in riffle sections and used to provide
grade control, center the thalweg, and protect the stream banks on both sides of the new
channel until vegetation is established. The cross vanes will also decrease shear
stresses throughout the reach. The riparian zone adjacent to the channel will be planted
with native vegetation conducive to wetter, floodplain areas.
Proposed channel stabilization characteristics are presented on the attached detail
sheet. It is anticipated that the riparian zone will be planted with native trees and shrubs
above bankfull depth and herbaceous species within the channel.
Sediment Transport
Based on pebble counts and bar samples taken along the existing channel, the D50
averages 2.5 mm and the D84 averages approximately 30.0 mm. The existing channel
exhibits a critical shear stress of 0.54 Ibs/ft2 which may entrain up to a 35 mm particle.
Based on the design, the proposed channel will exhibit a critical shear stress of
0.59 Ibs/ft2 entraining up to a 38 mm particle. This increase in entrainment will not
induce degradation as the active bed sample produced a D84 of 40mm. In addition,
cross vanes will be installed throughout the riffle sections to further reduce the possibility
of additional channel degradation.
References
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), 1998.
Yadkin/Pee Dee Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan.
Rosgen, D. and L. Silvey, 1998. Field Guide for Stream Classification. Wildland
Hydrology, Inc.
~ ~ ~,~- U ~Z52~f IMP pug I

Appendix B Morphological Measurement Table (Site 28) S~'°`~"-~ `~ ~'
Variables Existing

Channel Proposed

Reach
USGS Station
Reference Reach
1. Stream type

2. Drainage area E4 C4 N/A C4
57Ac. - 75Ac. 57Ac. - 75Ac. 160 Ac

3. Bankfull width .
6.3 ft. 8.5 ft. 9
5 ft

4. Bankfull mean depth .
,
0.9 ft. 0.66 ft. 0
8 ft

5. Width/depth ratio .
.
6. Bankfull cross-sectional area
7
13
11.7
5.6 sq. ft. 5.6 sq. ft. 7.7 sq. ft.
7. Bankfull mean velocity
4.06 ft/s 3.9 - 4.0 ft/s 4
55 ft/s
8. Bankfull discharge, cfs .
22.7 cfs 22.7 cfs 35 cfs
9. Bankfull max depth
1.5 ft. 1.1 ft. 1
3 ft

10. Width of flnndnrnna araa
r,___ .
.

65 ft. Avg.41.3 ft. 36 ft

11. Entrenchment ratio .
10.3 4.85 3
8
12. Meander length Range: 85-150 ft. Range: 43-114.5 ft. .
Range: 29-69 ft. Avg:
Avg: 120 ft. Avg: 73 ft. 50
2 ft

13. Ratio of meander length to bankfull .
.
width 1 g 8.6 5
3
14. Radius of curvature Range: 10.2-36 ft. Range: 19-49 ft. .
Range: 5.3-22 ft.
Avg:22 ft. Avg:29.8 ft. Avg:9.7 ft.
15. Ratio of radius of curvature to bankfull
width 3.5 3.5 1
02
16. Belt width Range: 46-63 ft. Range: 11.8-35 ft. .
Range: 26-40 ft. Avg:
Avg:52.5 ft. Avg: 21.0 ft. 33 ft

17. Meander width ratio .
8.3 2.5 3
5
18. Sinuosity (stream length/valley length) .

19. Valley slope 1.35 1.02 1.35

20. Average slope 1.60% 1.85% 0.76%
U/S: 1.78%
1.20% D/S:1.66% 0
57%
21. Pool slope .
Range: 0.012-0.13%.

22. Ratio of pool slope to average slope 0.26% 0.35% Avg:0.047%
0.22 0.2 0
082
23. Maximum pool depth .
2.3 ft. 2.0 ft. 2
9 ft

24. Ratio of pool depth to average bankfull .
.
depth 2.56 3.0 3
6
25. Pool width .
8.9 ft. 12.2 ft. 10
5
26. Ratio of pool width to bankfull width .
1.41 1.4 1 1
27. Pool to pool spacing Range: 24-63 ft. Range: 20.7~54.8ft.
58.5 ft. Avg:39.4 ft. Avg:40.2 ft.
28. Ratio of pool to pool spacing to Range: 2.8-7.4 Range: 2
2-5
8
bankfull width
9.3
Avg:4.5 .
.
Avg:4.23

..
68 150 ISO
~ 158
29 61
421 2 0 Greensboro
PROJECT U-2 4AB
RT 1) 70
68
40 es
100
311 61
es 421
68 00~1ET0 2 0
- - -•--- ----- •---•--- --- __ 62
RANDOLPH CO. ~ -'-•- ~---•---
~~~®~
DIVISION ®F HIGHWA~~
GUILF®I~D C®UN'g'~
PR®JECT:B.U~d92101 (U-252~AB>P~~
~' GREENSB~RD - `VESTERN L®®P FR®M
NORTH ~OF I-85 NEAR GR®~MET®WN
TAO NORTH ~F HIG~I PINT R®AD
SHEET ~ v DF ~~ 5,~ 15.x" 03
~ NOF?H CAEOLIP~i<,,

END PROJECT
SITE 16 `
SITE 15
SITE 7
SITE 14
SITE 8 ~
END PROJECT. /
E 12
SITE 11 ti~ ~~`~
/ ~ ~5i
/~~~
~ /~ ~~.
~4.
~~d'~i'
..
i~~ ij~ ~~
~~
i~ G ~% ~f~
%~ ~~~ ~~~
*. ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~ m
~~/o~~~ j`G~~
~, s
~~ END PROJECT
`,~0
~l[7[°IE
1~'1[~l~
/SITE 17
SITE I3
/SIT
SITE 21
SITE 7
SITE 25
BEGIN PROJECT
= -= TO BURLINGTON
~~
SITE 2SB
SITE 2~
SITE 23
SITE 28
~`l~~®~
DIVISI®N ®F HIGHWAI'S
GUILF®RD C®UNTI'
PROJECT:8.U~92101 (U-252~lAB)
GREENSBORO -WESTERN LOOP FROAi
~~- NORTH OF I-85 NEAR GROOMETOWN
TO NORTH OF HIGH POINT ROAD
SHEET ~ ~ OF ~~ S / 1S / 03

-WLB wE'rLAND BOUNDARY
WETLAND
L
^,.~ ~^„
~~~~~ ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE I

~;~;~;~; ~~ ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE 2
MITIGABLE IMP
ACTS ZONE I
®
MITIGABLE IMPACTS ZONE 2
PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT

PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12"-48'
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
SINGLE TREE
• • • • • • - - WOODS LINE
- BZ RIPARIAN BUFFER ZONE
-BZ1 - RIPARIAN BUFFER ZONE 1
30 ft (9.2m)
- BZ2 -- RIPARIAN BUFFER ZONE 2
20 f t (6.1m)
FLOW DIRECTION
T-~- TOP OF BANK
--•- WE EDGE OF WATER
-- ~ -- PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
---F -- PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
-~-- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
--- NG --- NATURAL GROUND
---P~--- PROPERTY LINE
-TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-PDE - PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
--EAB-- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
--EPB-- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
----~- WATER SURFACE
x x x
x xx x x LIVE STAKES
BOULDER
- - - CORE FIBER ROLLS
DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
;~
RIP RAP
O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
^ PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE (PSH)
LEVEL SPREADER (LS)
GRASS SWALE
~ ~~~®~
l)IVISI®N ®F ~IIGHWAYS
GUILF®R~ C(DUN~'Y
PR~JECT:B.U-092101 (U-252~A8)
GREENSB~R~O - NESTERN 1.~~OP FROM
NORTH ©~F I-85 NEr~R GR®~Ob1ET®WN
TAO N~URTH GF HIGH P~DINT R0.1D
SHEET~3 ~F5 ~ s~1~;~~_;

~ ~~~~'IL,.~~1D IL~~~I~~7ID -1
-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY
I---I
PROPOSED BRIDGE
WETLAND
L
® DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
® DENOTES FILL• IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
® DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
WATER
• ~ = DENOTES MECHANIZED
•
" CLEARING
°~- ~ FLOW DIRECTION
TB
--"~-- TOP OF BANK
---- WE EDGE OF WATER
---- ~ --- PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
---~ -- PROP, LIMIT OF FILL
-~-PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
--- NG --- NATURAL GROUND
---P~`--- PROPERTY LINE
-TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-PDE - PERMANENT, DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
--EAB-- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
--EPB-- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
---~-- WATER SURFACE
x x x
x xx x x LIVE STAKES
BOULDER
- - - CORE FIBER ROLLS
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48'
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& A80VE
~•~-' SINGLE TREE
• • • • .. .. WOODS LINE
-. ~----

DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
RIP RAP
O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE

LEVEL SPREADER (L S)
~RASS SWALE
~`L~®~
I)IVISI®N ®F ~iIG]H~VAYS
GUILF®I~I) C~UN']C~
PR®JECT:8.U~92101 (U-252~d.4B)
GREENS~GRD -WESTERN L®~O~ FR®NI
NORTH ~F I-85 NEAR GR~~OMET~OWN
TAO NOD/RTH ~F~^HIGH I'~INT RDAD
SHEET (~ ~OF ~7 ~ 5,015% 03

NAD 83
I ;~~
1 ~~ ;`,
~` ` I
I
~

~ ~;~
III
III
.Y. I
I

---
a I iii ' ~ F
m I iii NN Ft
/
V I I I V 3
111 / o~ ~~
i ~I 'I / O W N W
1 ~\\ / 0
I '
ili
iii 1 ~

-~--__ 'i
_-f i i`_
. 1
~
\ ,` ,`
.,
,, .,
`

.:~`
~~ I
~ ~
9f

11 /. / 1 I
111
I IWI I
IIII I
I
I
I
~` `
'
i!
'~

~ ~
I
a` I ~
i'i' I
T 1
.~ I
ii. I
1
~
I I I w
~ ~~"
`
( a
3 ~ Q r
w <
i
I U ~ ,,, I m
PROPOSED ~ ' ~ ~
BUFFERS i i '~ ~
~ ~ ~.
~ ~
I ~ ~~
~\
I
I - ~
I I
I I
L- I-- - --
~ i~ MA
I ~
I ~
I ~
I
- - L- 1------ -
~~ ~[`' I~~ 1E~ _~~ .~
1~ .~~ ~~ .~~ ~~~~ ~~~~
~[ °1[ ' lE'; ~i
6
,~ .I ~
II ~\
_ ~ \ I
~2~
o~
1
Y
t
O
~\\\
~I
1 ~ ~~
II ~
I~I ~
II
I ~I
I I a
I ~ wi
I I ~~
I I ELL
Ilom
I
III
I I

C
~~
\\~I
-~
~~~~~~
1f~~VI~I®N ~~~ 1FIIG~WA~~Y~
~G~rI~,]F~~Idlf~ C®~IN~'~
eta©J~C'I': B.i1~d~~21rJ1 (i1-252~dr~13)
GIbEEN~13~~~1~ - ~VEbT1:1bN Z~p~P ~11~1~1
~~~ N~D1~"~"1-l ~)~ z-rzs ;v ~;.~~ ~c~~~olc~~~2.•r~~w~~

I ~. \
\ \ \ r

\ I
I
l~ \

N~ I \ \ I
`
'
I i
I ~ I
W F \ \
1 \ \
I
I I I
i 1`,`,1 ~~ ~ \ \\

~ N
83
~; ~
I , ~ ~ ~~
~
I

I I I
I
I
I \
I a`
\
PRDPDSEDI ~
BUFFERS I
;
I
\ v
I I

I I
-i \ z
I \ H
O
,~~
i
I I ~
~

I (~
lid V I \
I
I
I ~ ~
I ~ Y'. ~• ~ E W II \\ ~
i~.
~ ~°
I .
~
~
/
\
~
I ~
~
J /
\
~
O
I
I
I
3 I
~ I
' ~ I , \ \\ e~
,I

I

I
I i
"' \ I
,`

., I

I
l I
~ 11. ~ ~~ ;, t t
~. , ;

I

.
o
~ ~. ,

,; ~ \
\
~ .
I I ' `~ ~
_ \
I'
-~- . ~
~ ~ ~
I' I
I ~I''~

'~ 1
I
i I
~
I ~~I
;;

\
I ``
I ~
s
;~

~' +
N =,O ~% %
$$ M
C7 d Q

~
I mm" ~
~~

~ .
',
.
~
I
} I
n

D
D
~ M -
!: NE
Q~
K
~ F _
! ~ I
i i
11 ~~~ ~~~~ ~~
~~~0~,~~~( ®I`VI~I©N ®lF IEIIG~IW~~~
G~IJII,~~Ig~ ~C®~7N'1[°~
~~,,tt
1~1`~1«~~~~~~ 1~F~~C~~~CI':8.t1~V921I11 (U-252~fAI3)
GF2,F,ENS)fB~Id® - WFST)E;I~N -.~~~C~I-° 'F Fl,©N'I
~~;;
~~~~~1L:~ ~ N~~Ii'Q'I-I ~~I~ I-8b~ Iv~AI~ ~GIZ~~!C~~1<T;'I~'O~~N ~
~ . ~;~
~~ ~~ , '_\ lE~ L
- "I"C~ N~Dff~"'1'~l ~~~ 1HIt.H 4~~s~IN'~' i3~(~.-~\1[~

- -- -
- .... .
~I-]l~,i~, 1 ~ ;C>I~ b, `_'~6 ~" 113 '

~ '`I
~ ~1
I 'i1
~ D A ~ . LINE "D
r
~, ~
I ~ ~'
NAD B3
I `~
I ~~a ~ ~ '
rv ~ : ,,
~,~~+ ~
r ~ ~s '~'
r
N tL \V
r ` -L I ~ 1
I
N
N ~ / ~
1 .1 11 \ < ~0
ry ~ j ~ !111 LL)
0 1 i ~~ 5 ~
u 1 m i~ m
I WE 8 m " ~ 11 ~ ~
I
I ~ N N .`
Y \I' ~.
PROPOSED -a"~~~ '~
BUFFERS ~'s°°,~ws", ~ . ~~.-__
I os9~r , ..~ ~ ~ `
I s
I - _~~ ~ ~ -~ ''
I .uo 1 ~ \~.`\:
I /
H % 1 ~ 1
I 1 ~~
I tL D ~ r
5 .~ l _~ .` \ `An Z
I ~ I ~~ a \ m
I D ~ r ~ s
I IABAND)
~ ~ I I
i ,~_ r ii ~ ``\
I I I~ \ \
I I
\ ~
I - - -------- -------~---"_~ I S ~ o
I _~--. - ~----- I o s
,1~ 11 'I ~~ \~~nn 1
lid/ / ~ ''' / ~l~r I II ObO~L \ \ V
~~ - -- y I ~ ~' ,.
~~]C 1~ Illy; .~11~,~ ~~~v~~I~N ©~ ~I~~`v~~~~
~~,~~ ~G'Ug~,F®~gID ~:~UN'~I'`}°
1[.~'IIIE~.~'~~C ~~~ .~ d~'Id~rJ~CT: 8.i1~'~)`11.01 (t1-252-~,~I~)
llrr ii _ CTREENSI3~OId~ - N~ ~TI:I~N I~1D~~I' I~RI~A~I
:~ il ~ilV 'I', .-/ N~I$TI-1 ~(~l~ I-f~~> NEr~\I~ GIZ~C~ ~fl;"I'~~VN
~~!( .~ ,,~ ~~ , ~1', - 1'~ ; ~1 ~~~ ~~'~~~ ~I'1O NOIZ~'H c~l~ NIGH }~~)IN"I i3~.C-r~l~

' r ~
'

~ ` ~
LINE
~' ~ ~
~ `
~
~ _
~ o
~°
.y1
J

_
I
I ~
\\
~ W
O
/
(' F I! ~\

- I
1 1
,s -~. , r '
' ~ ~~
~
~~ ~
. - ~ o ~

\
~
N ~
_ ` ~ ;,
~
' J
a NAD 83
~ ~

M !
' I ~ ~ ~

~ "i
~."
31

~ ry

~~0
~
~ ,~
_ x ~ ~
O
~ i i 175

~
~
~
lG
N N ~
\ \
`
_ ~ +B ti~/1~ \~\
~~ \
~
~ '~~ s ~~ti ~"1s A ' ` `~~ .
Josue ~ ,~`-`

\ • ~ ~ `ASs
6 ~ ~ ,,•,~` 0.GQ G 0
_ I •1 ~ `~ ° 11/1' , X65 ~~(~ ~O~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~ '~'
~ ~ ~I \ ~\ o~~~ ~
U \ G ~
a~ ~''
`~ ~o
F y "i
I '~ ° ~,o`~G \ ~ ~ ~ Goy , m I ~
-- ~ \ .y~~ I ~ I
------- ----_. I
- . y ~ ~ba iS ~~
I[~'IL,,.E~ 1~ ~I[I~~V
~~~1C;.~~1I IDI~I~I®N ®~ I~IGI-IW~~~
~~~~~~~~CvI[`~~ PR~OJ~CT:8.U~92101 (U-252~A13D
_ GREENSIE3~RSD - WISTIERN I,~O~OP 1~F{~ONI
,I vac' IL J
N~D1~T1-I cOF d-8.5 NT: ~\R GR~O~O~~gIE?"T'!OWN
ti~~~.~~ ~~~. 1~_~ ~~~.', - "fl'~ N~CD ~"1'13 ~0~' I~IIG~I P~IN"3' R4~.~~
_~ 1L ;I 9 O ~(
SI-i~I~;"1• ~~ ~~~ ~S ~r,0~~~~~rr,~

J
~~~
~~
C
n
0
\ ~
~GQ
~65~ ~~~
~~ P~
.~

a
o~~^A \ \
~~ \~~~
IP'IL,~~ ~~~~~
~v1L'J~~ ~~~~
1~ ~ ~~~ 1~~ ,~ ~~
c,°~~~ ~~
`~~~1 C~PSS
~''' r~~ FZGP
~ \~' ~
~ X/ ~~ ~~
~. ~%
X ~~ ~%~
~/ ~ \~ ~~
\~~~/~n G2~~ i~ / oz ~ NAD 83
~, ~ v
~' Iw
~~~ ~ ~ I ~
G~ ~
ui
~ ~ -
~~~~~
®IVISI®N ®1F IFII(s1EIW~~~
~d1I1L,~~®I~I~ ~®iJN'I'~Y
I'Id~DJEC'i':8.U~92101 (U-252~d~B)
G~EENS~~DId® - W ~ST'IEI~N I,~D~DP }~ i~~DNI
N~IZ'i'I-i ~DF 1-ti:i N~.4R GR~D~D~~iET'{D~VN '~
T~CD I~~OII'i'lI DF fliI(;I-I I•'~DIN"]' i~C3,-\ID ~
__S}-IFFY ~ ~ C>I~ ~~ b °i, 113
_-
__
S ~J
.,S
~~
e'

~~
~o
2

~~
N t~ ~
G N ~
o -~
~ ~
~ ~
c
-t-

~ ~
d
C
I F
NAD 83 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
~I
I
~I
1ST ~ K
I „ '^ °
u 3 ~~
~ o _~
1 8~ ~~
m
~o
l7+
4~
C
s
I~~~
1
1
I \~
Illl
I I <
I I
II
I I
Illl E
I µµll~a
1111
1
Q
Q
I
\~
I
1
1
1
1
I
i
I
I
i
~/I
:~ !
\~
~~~~~~
~~~ ~~~~
~~~~
b ~I ~1.~ 1U/ ® Jl
I)IVISI®N ®F HIGHW~~S
GUILF®RI) C®UN'll'Y
PROJECT:8.U~492101 (U-252~dAB)
GREENSBORO -WESTERN LOOP FROM
NORTH OF I-85 NEAR GROOMETOWN
TO NORTH OF HIGH POINT ROAD
SHEE'9' Z- OF ~ S ~' 15 /~ 03
6
~1~
o~

a B
- #
~ s
~~
~~
. _ - .~
- o ~ •1 ~ ~
m iii
~' C7 1 ~
d
'•'
.` •. .
- i ,a tio~fh ~ ~, ,
~~ sD~
- ~ ~ ~ \~` I
~ ~
~;/ ~
~ ~
` \~
LIN ~, B
ry
~~0
~J
~~
~ ~~
~,
NAD 83 ~~
,~,
' s ~ 1
' ''y
1 ~ ~ ,
~'\
.. ~~ \ ``\ • .~.. a
~ o
W~~~~\ CP c~PgS
P
~ \6S0
o ~ ~~ ~2° o
I ~ ~ ~+ ` ~ as
~~ ~, G ~ , o m ~~
i I i : ~ ~ ~0~~ \ ~ ~~ ~ ~ GOV~i x I a
~' I i 0PS
'~ i ~
;""'~ Y ~ FS o Fs ~
' b~
i i ~ F
1 ll ~ V" .L ~/ V V l_~_
1~tCJ~~ 1F'If~; `C$ ID~v~s~®N ®~ ~g~~w~~~
~GU~1L1F~h~ID ~~®UN"b'~Y
~.~'I[IF~~~~~(_.~~[`';~ PR~JIECT:6.U~921~01 (U-252~d.~13)
_ GI3EFNSII3~R~D - wE~T~I~N II.,®:(51~ )riN.~19i~1
~~~ ,(~~ ~ N~OI3T~t ~1F 1-85 N~:.-~Id ta1d~LD:Or'dFT~DNN
~~~_~~~~.f Tc~~ - TAO N~01~,"Il'~I ~OF 1-IIG~H I°:OIN~' ~~D.~~
1L, ll: ~1, ~l ,~ d ~ I D

~ I

I
~ `'
I ~

A
..
NAD 831 ~
•

j~~
II .` .
~. ,
i
~EW I i
I
~ I
I ~~

I
I
~
I
I I

I

~
~
~
ti
f
I

i
~ ~ a
I ~
I '
~'
u ~
i O i
3
~ ~ I '
_---~
o

i
_ O
m I -

~~ l; 11

~ ~~
I :
I ~ i N
~'
~
~ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I w
190
~ ~
-~o ^
I Z
E~ I W ~~
' ~ m
i ~
r ~
~ o B-

~ ;~

~~~~ ~~~~
~~~' ~' ~'
~~~~~~~
~~~~
~~ A IL, IE~, = 11.. ~ ~[~ ~ ~(~
~A
~,.,
3~~}
B
6saW ~ ~1
\ I.. ..
\ \ I .. Ago
\\ \\ ~ ~
~~ I
~~. ~~ .,~^
II \~
~ ~ ~\ ~
yy ` N
~ ~ ~ Q
du ~ \
'o ~ ~
~W I ~
`` ~ v
.' \ ~~o
~ ~~ " ~
~ ~
DIVI~I®N ®F HIGHWAYS
GUILF®RI) C~UN'I'Y
PROJECT:8.U~92101 (U-252~4AB)
GREENSB~R® -WESTERN L~~P FR®M
NGRTH ®F I-85 NE,~R GR~~OMET~WN
TAO NORTH ®F HIGH I~®INT READ
SHEET 2--3 ~F ~~ S/~ l:i % 03

a
~ l` ~s
\ ~ \o
0
A
\\ c ~~~~,
\ ~ ~~0
~ ~ Q/~
\~y\GV-El7/
~ \ qG~
`~~
``
\\ y \~~
\\ ~~
\ 5 `'
~~``
~\`1
o. e.
/ , ~Nyp1E1. GHN'IGE
E
i °° ~ Y!ti D~N1.
e ° °•° ; sEE NAO
. ; •° a
;' 8.3
age
es is'
°j °° V,TE~'1'
WING ~ ° $°~~ ~~ E p~GH
P 4, ° ° e
gEG1N G ~
2 ` - CqT ~ `
~
r ~ \ \ „~
~~\7+g , I
`l~GI
~ App CS oWS~~
EIS
1
1 Z
~
~`

11

1 ~ ~~
pU~E0. ~
O 5
\

~
y ~ EN
Glf~E0.
~~
gEPlA +\9 •Spp ~
~ '
l
~ ~~'
\ ~

o° 0 •~~ ~,, 1
i~~ _•
e ,` 1 ~~ e
~~
~ .i
~ I a i ~Y
n ~
m

°' ~ ~
4. ~' ~ r
SPK'1I,L ~ ,4 i ~ Y _____~
ati ~.A1SGH ~~i t i i
'
'
\
you E I ' ~ ,y
.;%
: % ; -

., ' ,
I~ ~
~ I I ~
I I I
I I _____.
I
/r`y
1_ .lI I
I -
°'
~_~~.. F~ _ i i
y{I,.~~ R4SER t~ I it __.-s%
~~,

~
F~ . , I
.. ~1-'.,
. ~ I
<~.
~
i

~k
~~
I I \
`. `
I
~
~ ______-
_ I_I_`
'
1 EgOWS
_ _
X~X~
_
_X
- _ ~- _ _ ~X_`X ~ I I
~' _
w
--.
'- _
X~X~.X -- __ a a
- _ ~
_

~11 A~~ V ~~ V V ~t/1LL~ ~11i
~~~~~~ I)IVISI®N ®F HIGHWAY'S
GUII.F®IdI) C®UN'I'Y'
~~~~~~~ PR~JECT:8.U~92101 (U-252-0AB)

~~~!~=
~ GREENSB®R® -WESTERN L©®P FR®M
~ NORTH ®F I-85 NEAR GR®~OMET®WN
n~ ~ TIC _ ~
~ ~~ ~ r~
t1~ 1L TAO N~ORTI-I ®F HIGH P~DIN'I' R~O.A.D

o
, U'~ I
~
'
'
SHEE",~' 2. G ©F .~~ S ~O 15 ~ 03

,~ \
~~ \
\~~
\\
~, ~~
~~ \
SITE 12

,,
1'~~
,~
~` ~-~~
-,, ,.
,,
,,
-~;
,,
~ ~
y'90
B~
j
1.Om LATERAL
BASE DITCH
x
-'~
~_--.-x
s~
~~J
~ ASS
G
t

ll lls1`il~ ~Yy~~ ~Y~Y
~~~~~~~~
~~~~~-J ~ i~ 1~ ~ ~~
~- - l1, ,~,I)~I)
-~-~~' I ``s' ~
~\ ~,
SITE II ~ ,
. ~
~~F
\~
~~ ~
~ ~, ~
~-~-~~
DIVISI®N ®F' ~--IIGff-IwAYS
GUII.~~R® C.~UN'I'Y
PROJECT:B.U-09210( (U-252-0AB)
GREENSBORO -WESTERN LOOP FR~ONI
NORTH OF (-85 NE,~R GROOb[ETOWN
TAO NORTH OF H-(.H POINT' RO.~1)

~~~
I
INAD 83
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

~
~
+
I
~
I
1 N
m
~
~ o
~
~ ~ 3
I ~ ~
N
I
I a
I
~
~
19
a
IN~+ ~
~~ ~
11 I
13
U '~
O u
oo w~ o m
a
~ ry
3 W
i
H
2 ~
~ ~
N A.
rQ
.g O/f~
1/.C,~p;, ~Y~S,,,/
Os9~ I
I
~ /~ ~
~ 1 I
s~ ~
~~
d 4~
'`u`~'! 1
~,
I` ~\ W ~
h 0
~ E~
\\
ti ~
~ ~
~~

N
w~
N
,~ e ~ -
- +~ `~ `~
~~~.~~ ~Y ~11~ V'V' ~`l~ ll1/~~
~~~~~~~ I~IVI~I®N ~V I-II~GIEIW~}YS
i~ ~UIIL~®I~~D ~'®UN~'~Y
I[ ~I[IF~~~C"~°~ PI3~JIECT:8.U~492101 (U-252~4~$)
~~ ~ GI~~;EN513,DR~D - `V~ST~I~,N 6.~O~D,P I:~®NI
~,~~~1 ' 1L=~1 N~DRT~-I ~I~ I-85 N~:~I~ t~I3~D~DrY)E;'I'®WN
~~( ~' .~~ )L_,1_E;= 1~ ~ l~ ';I~~-~(~ "1~~D N,oraT~-t ~DF ~1~;~P~DIN~I~ Ia~o~~
-- -- - -

~,
~..,,
-,
~., ~~.,
.., , ...
~,
'.
~~,
~. ~~.
NAD 83 .. •.~, -
`•.~ ••~
••,
I
;..
~ ~~~
~~
~,
'~,
i•
~ ~ ,~ ~1 11
I
I
I ~ ~
1 O
1
I
I
I I
I
_j
~_ I
I
I^',` I
I
/ '
I
\ ~
w I
I`
O
1
0 ~
I
O
I
I
I
.I
I
1
1
1
l~
.3
~1°~~~~v~~~
:~ ~~(., :~\ 1[_., l~= I~ ; ,~ (I) ilk
:~,..
^v
.~
~,
~~
Q
W U
~.
~o
~W
a~ Q ~-
~~~ ~~
1
m
z
O
~ ~
~,
V

1

f
' ~ .._ - )~
~,
Q~ , .., ~
N ~ ~~ ~
~~~~~
DI'VI~IcON ®1F 1H[IG]FI`V~~'S
~GUI]L1F~Id® C~LIN"]C~'
I'R~J,~'CT:B.U~d92101 (U-252~fr~lE3)
GRIERNS~3®R~ - `V~ES'~°]ERN 1L~O~DID I:R~M
N~©IE~TH ~O~' I-E35 N~.9~R Glf1~D~OidI~'1i'~n1VN
'I'mo N~DR'-'~I ~7: I-iIGI[-3 '~~OIN~" 1~~0:~~
5~~~~I~ 3 2 ~~~~~ ~ ,~~ r ~,

~,
%

x 1

I
~I
I

I r.' !, .~

W
~ . ~ . -
I

I
I v~ .`~-i'f`s ~ ~ \ 1
I ~.__y.•4.--_. _
~++ __
IV /~~+ ~'--~_-
•;

~~~ I
~;
!: I
i

~
'
b
~~ ,
~ i
I ~ ~'i,~ I
r ~~ j;I
x
X
I V) I ' % ~ I
I i / I
1r,
11
/ ' I
I J'
1 ~ x /
-' l
° ~ +
~ ~ NAD 83 ~
I I
,~ x /
~
I ~ I
++ / I

I w
`~I
~ b I
i
~ I
`~
~
i I
~ x I
i m ~ ~ ; ~c I
~
i
(
l I W~
~,
x
~ ~ O
~eFF
~ I
~I~
-4~ +'~ E w I
+ o ~
O~
`
i
+
\ % +
I
~ I = ~
`~ xQ I W ~~
' ~
~ ~ 'ji I
' ~% I
mm
O
1 x ~ ~ /+ ~ I
_
~ I
~ ~ I
i x ' ~ u' ~\ > I

~ u3 o I
I u I
~
~ g~ nCX + I o I
I
I
'~'~ /
,,1 x / I w I
~ I
I I I
;I I i

~ ~ I • I
f'N I
I I I
' x ~
~ ~~ • z I I
~ c
-----k---.
1
\
x , ;
~
4 I I
%. H
,
1x x~_
~ ' 1
.. ..

• i i ~ ~~ ~ ,
.
I
I
• i I
~ .
\\ ~`\ ~x x
~ .. .. ..
' \
x
~ i , x--_x
\ ~
\~
, + \
\
I I ~
\
H

a %~ ~
I' \

a`~ +
l; \
~ \
~ ' \
u
~
¢ ~ \
i ~
I I ~ o ~ ~ ~
I
\
yyj ~ W 0 ~ / \\

~

~ u
o ~ I I ~ ~ ~.
~ fro

II~IL~1~ ~][I~~
~~~~~~
~~~~~~~
~~~~ ~1.~
~~~®~ ---
I)I'VISI®N ®]F HIGIHW~~S
GUI]L1F~IDI~~ C®UN~'Y
PROJECT:8.U~492101 (U-252~Qr~B>
GREENSBORO -WESTERN LOOP FROM
NORTH OF I-85 NEAR GROOMETOWN
TO NORTH OF HIGH POINT RO.~1~
SHEET 3 ~ ~OF ~S" 5 a is ~ o~

1 1 1 '
' ~1 ~\ ~\ / ~ I I
~\ .\ ~
•\ \ ' I I
..\
~., , , ,
0
''`' ~' ~ ~
~ ~\ ~" ,,
~ ~~~ ~
~ ~~,
~` ' i !
~ '~~~
I ..'.
I I;,
`, `, ; `I
~ ~',
I , ~, ~ ~ U
~.. o
~~, , •,
I , ,,;
I ,, .., . ,, , .
I ~ ..., Z
'~ Q
I `~,
'~ . ~~. w
I ~`~~ '~ J
I X
1 i i ~~
I i i i ~~
I .,
I S ~~ SI'S'~~
I ~'~ ~ ~
. , ~., +
~ STQ~PIM ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I o
I '~, '~, -
I RE 1.~GAtI ,
I `\ `,
I NAD B3 ~ ~ '•, ; '•,
I
', ', •,
I '~,
I %"
I
I ~`~`
I ' ~' `' UPPERS FO
~., ,\ ~,
I
I
-, . .
~' SITE 7
~\ , ,
~,,~ ~~.
I
I~ICe~1~T ~~~~ ~T~C~®~`'
~~~~~~ ~IVISI®N ®F HIGHWAYS
GUILF®RD C®UNTY
~~~~~~~ PR~JECT:8.U~92101 (U-252~QAB)
~7 GREENSB~R~ -WESTERN LOOP FR®M
~~~~~ ~e NORTH ~F I-85 NEAR GROGMET~WN
t~ ~ ~.~ ~~ - ~ o `~;I~ ~~~ TO NORTH ®F HIGH POINT R~OAO
--- ---- --- --11- ----- S H E E ~' 3 ~ ~ F ~ ~ S /' l ;i /l 03

x I k
I.

\\~\1
I --
'

'
I
I Z4
~
I
I
n ~
I U
/~i,i I
; /i /%
I
I ~;, I
! fo,
V ~7 ~ I ~:~'~ I
I~ ~~i/ I
'•~ x !
,~ v~ I ' I `~ ! ~ I
I ~
/,~ I
1 /
~ ~ / •I/
I
/ m x
$ I j
~ I
I
I ~ ~ l • NAD 83 I
I
~ ~
r ~ I
,I w x ~f
~ b I I
~
~, I I
I
~
~ i, I
I
,' x m , 1 ~ t I
,,` ! ~~
` T N I I I
+
•.~ I Z _
`~ x c9
;
Q
m~~ i ~ ~ I
~- ~ ~ j ~ I
~ i, I I
f
I
~
I O ~ I ,'' ~\
1
~ x
I ~ ~
I
~ I ~ I
~ ~ ~ ~
` I
N
! 73 s
I ~ I
~
~ g aq ~
} I"u I I I O
I
',~ ~ 12~ ~, I I w
~'~ x ~
,
I /
! / II I I
N I
I
•
~
l1
~ I
----~---~ I
~~ ~
'~
~I 11 I
I I
~
>~ I
~
, x

~x x__
o
o
~
/,
:
~
I
;
~ ~ I
I
~'• I ~ 9
~ 0 WW 6 SB X X . .
r --_----
~ .. ..
I ~--_..__..
..

I
•,' I
i ,
•/ ~
/, ~~

~ ` ~ x
~ n ~ x~
m
I
:' ~ I
'' ~ x x-__x-
\
~
~ I
I I W
~
~ ~ ~~\
I
/ I
: I,
1
\C.I
~ I

a %• I

/ ~ ~
N
\
~r ~ ~ , \
u~ I I; '
1 ~~
~~ `~ 1 9u+
N
~ ~

H
W ~ F ~ ~~ ~

' ~
I
; ~
\
I~~~ ~
~
I
A T E; ' LI E \
;
I~~
~ ~ I
I -
I~ICs~I~ ~~IE~ 1~T~C~®~°
~~~~~~ DIVISI®N ®F HIGHWAYS
GUILF®RD C®UNZ'Y
~,~ PROJECT: 8.U492101 (U-252~4AB)
GREENSBORO -WESTERN LOOP FROM
~~~~ ~~
NORTH ®F I-85 NEAR GROOMETOWN
~~ ~ it A ~~ _ ¶ Q I~ ~~ ~~ /f-
1L
11
~Ll~l TO NORTH OF
HIGH POINT RO.~D
-- -
.
-- ~^
- SI-IEET ~~ OF J ~ 5/~ l5%!)3

1~1 ~\ .1 '
:~ '.` '~\
•~ ,'~ ~
,,` .\ ~

.' ,.' ,, ~
~~~~ ~~
.., ., .,

A

T

i

1i 1

~ I

1

~
,
'~ ~ ;
,1 O

;.
, ;.
' O

'
`
~ ;~ ,
~
~
11I ' ,
+
/' ' Ix ~ / ~ 7
1
/ I 1 ~ I

..~. '~,
'~ '1
'1 ,1 , r ; , ~
1
~1 ~I ~l
t
~I ~ \
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~

~~ ~

I
,
~, / I
~
~
, .
,
~ `, `, `, . O °,

~ ~~. Z
i
~~ ~~~
~~' Q
i '•~. ~~
~
I ~~
~
/\ `~ 11

..

• m

1 x X X
X.
~
I r 1 ~
I l l
~~l 1

I I 1
~
~

I t
1
1 ~
O

'
\
\ `

\ (/'~~
\1J
I \ •\
~ NAD 83
I
I ~

~ ~ ~
~
1`
x
~
li
'11
' ~
I

I
I
~
S E.E S ('C ~ 7

i
•

~

'

' ~ ~`

'~ `.

~~,
'~
~,

~ '~.

~
sTR.
~ E7'1M ~EC+CC~i ~
(~ 1 ,~ ~~
~~
'•~ `

~ `•
••,
~7 ~ y ~~y
~~~l~l ~Y ~~ ~'V'
~~llJ/®~
~~~~~~ DIVISI®N ®F IHIG~IW~\YS
GUIILF®IaD C®UNTY
~~~~~~~ PROJECT:8.U~92101 <U-252~O.~B)
~7
~~~~~
~e GREENSBORO -WESTERN LOOP FROM
. NORTH OF I-85 NEAR GROOMETOWN
~~~~~ ~` ~ J1C~ - 11U (~~n/~
L~
V lL9 TO NO
RTH OF HIGH POINT RO.~D
-- ------- -- -
- -----
---- >
-SHEET J ~ `D F ~ ~ 5 /r' l :i .~ 03

-.. NAD B3
2 GI WITH
FLAT GRATE
---------- ~,-v~r-~-`---------
375
25
F,
k SPECIAL DITCH .~- ~~`~'`'~~~
~~x~ DE SEE PROFILE ~ ~ \k ~~~~
~,`x ~~
L T • ~-~ k
k
,,
.~---- `- 7 ~ -
/ LT
_CSLIP,
ONC
k~`k G
-~_h
~~~~
'" k
ALT
I_35~
--_ _ ~ ~x ___ --- ~-~-----
~v~11~ ~YV'
~~ 2[ ~D ,~ ~C'I[`'
I[ ~I`' ~ ``_~~
_~ _
,~,C , . ~~ iL, IE = IC ; ~~ ~~~~~
A~ ~~~~
I~IVISI®N ®1F ]HI~~ZVA~'~
GUIILF®~~ c®uN T~
I'R~OJE C;T: 8.U~921~1 (U-^^>52-0.-~I~)
GREENSI~~ORcO -WESTERN Lc0(~1~ ~R®,~g
NORTH ~CDI+ I-85 NEAR GROGOMIET~DWN
TAD N~ORT~-i ®E I-3IC~H I~~OINT F~~.O.~D

2 GI WITH
FLAT GRATE
25 f60 26 +00
i
30+60
_J
N 78° 15' 35!
-40SBREV -
7
_CSLIP- f-
-~_ -_
~r
I / ~~~~
I II `I .~~--_1__--
--ii--~ f~\---
LATERAL 3 `~~~~ ~~ ~< ~~~~ ~,•\
;i~~~L
V-DITCH -- ~~
~~
,~
---- --- \~~450 r .
x
.x-max ~xr-X ~~
x--X~ -- ~
NAD 83 I
~C Eq RE i
~ ~ q NOF~C ~ i
~~~~ ~~~~
l~ ;~ VI~~ ~E:;~ ~t~,1
_, ~ ~,
~l~/ ~~~
x-
I~IVISIcDN cp1F' ~IIGIFI~~~~
GIJI~,L~~~~ ~©i1N'I'SY
~'R~JEC"I':8.L1-092L~U1 (U-252~4.~~)
GREENS33~OIt~O -WESTERN L~~Dp FR(~iti'd
NORTH Q~~ I-~35 NE~~R GR~D~DbIET~D~VN
TAD N ~O(.R'1'H X01: H I G I-I F~~OI N'i' RED A D
~~HEI;"I~ _l' 'n ]' ~~ 6,% 2 1% 11.3

- _ - - _ - - - - _ ' I CABCE G/R .S Z tUU
- -- - -- - - -4-- - - - - - -- -- - --
-L- I I -- -- - -
I I ea °
r -----------------------
--------
li -----
II
t-t---------------------------------
----------------------
-----------
e~e-~ ~os® zcl I I
- ~as,°ea ~~ losom ~~ I
RET ~ ° '~ ~ 2cl
r~ e®•~ /~T I ,~~~~~ ~ REMOVE
I~ I I ~ ~~ h
r- \~- _~-~ -ISM'` ~ ~~~
__ ~L~~~J E~~N~UIDE \
'-------'-.--_' J --- j ST.kkA~A.AA7J6-+U579TER ` \\\ \ //i
I I ~ //
I I I I I I `\ ~~i
L--J t-~ F~ ',
I I I I
2 GI WITH FLAT GRA f:~ ~ I -'
FLAT GRATE 775 I- T- I I I AI R3~ 4.3'.49.7' E -`fOSBREV-
~-~ I
~ _ ~ I
~ ~~ I
/ ~ ~~L
J i~ FUT'GRATE
~"~" II-I .~ J--1 -L--
I ___ _
~I~~~ Ic`J'~P-~ -~-
\ \ ~`\\ I</1~
~`
- '~
I
i
i
i
~~
A'
EST. Q,~ TONS CL-B RIP RAP I
EST. 4,3_ SM FILTER FABRIC
Loyal Order Of Moose
~~,.~~ ~~T~~
_CSLIP_
~~ 2GI WITH >
£ a FUT GRATE ^' o
'Z' ° I m``n.
ON S ~ ~
{
'V'OIiCN FOR N -'-~~~ f
SILT BASIN 'A' _.~' ~-x'
" q,
occcnoucn
CL 'I' RIPRAP ~'
85 CM DDE ~~ ~
50 MTONS
90 SM FF
.-~
-~ .'~
~:
~ZGa ,.._~ ,.
I
;_
~~
I I
',1 ~ ~ ~•.
~~ ~~~
//` ,i
` ~I NAD
I ,I , I
83
I,,
~`%~j ~
'. ' ~I'' I
`\ ~ `t,n;
R ~, ~^~-
~-'~ Jessle W. Morgon
~IE~[`'~.,AZ~' III
~~~I'f'; s~~.~
~ ~~~~~~
~IVI~IcON ®F 1~~~(a1~I~V.~~S
~IJI1L1F©I$~ CIO'UN'd"lY
d~RID,I~;CT:8.Li~921~0y (2I-252~J~1B)
C~I~,IE~NS~~O~~D - ~~F5'Y'IEI~N LIO~O>I' 1F~3~ONII
N~~~'I'H I©~ I-t~5 ~I:~R ~t~F~lO101~1[~ET~OWN
'fl'~O N~©I~"I°~-I IDF ~HI~~=1 ~~IOI~iT RIC~.al~

- - - - - - _ _ I I CABLE G/R ,32 f
-L- - -- - - I I - - - - -- - - - -- - - -
---------- I I A8 0
---------------
- - I--
----------------
-------------------- -------
-----
II ------------
I I
---------------------- II
----------- ------f-~------------------
----------
-------- -----
zcl II -------------------
0~esae~ ~05~
a~__ REr__'___----'=50®m~~J I
(`\ 1T I I za
I \\ //I I 1 ~~~~^~ ~ REMOVE
I~----~- _~-1 11I.4``-- t----. ~ / y ~~
Et~ SH~ULDE \
--------_'_'._-.~~ =~ J~ 8E~ G TIER \\\\ /~~
I I ~9
I I \ /
z IIGI wITH i I I I I T_
2 GI WRH I I I -40SBRE1/-
FLATGRATE aTS FL~I?cRAT~ I ~•;~\,;~ , N 83'43',49.7"E
:- r s
~ // L _I 2GI
~ I
/ / -
I I ~ _ ~- agD
-
~ /

i ,~~
~ ~~
££ 2GI WITH
FLAT GRATE a
^' o
_GSLIP- ~ a

-G ITH-
- ~ ~:• ~ ~
~
' ra
I O Os
~~
r FIAT GRATE I I ~
~ J
Ir-I .~ ! ~ 19
I I - ~,
i
~~f-+~I-
,~`r i -'V' DITCH FOR
SILT BASIN 'A' 1P ~` ~ l
~+
~_x.
_ _
~~
N r
~~\~ `~ ~ ~I
, J
1 ~ S
_
~
~ T~\ \ I
ri
\I. \
~ x
.LrS-'x--.-
X K
x
PREFORMED
~
-
~ '~ ~~~ m0
\ \
\ -
.~y~
-+~
I SCOUR HOLE
~1 ~ ~~ N ~ ~
\ ~ - X PR
F
_
\
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~`S
\ ~ ~ ~
~
N07E~ ~
•
e

a_ E
ORMED
SCOUR HOLE

.S~
~~
i
A,
EST. Q,~ TONS CL-B RIP RAP
EST. 4,~ SM FILTER FABRIC
loyal Order Of Moose

Cl 'I' RIPRAP
85 CM DDE
50 MTONS
90 SM FF
{"': w~/,
.•~:
NAp 83
Jessie W. Morgan
i i ~ T`
•r
r ~,
-.,` `.\
.,\ ,,1
' ,1
~ ~~.~
. \
•1
I ,~
~ i
i i
i'
~' ~
i /
°II° IE'; ' ~ u~
~T~CII~~~[°
IrIVISI®N ®~ I-IICIFIW~~~
GUIL~~R1[~ CcO~TN'I'~Y
PR,DJE~'T:8.U~92101 (U-252-0.~I3>
GREENSBIDR'D - WI;S'g'EIdN L~~P ~FRIO~I
NIDI~TI-I IDF I-85 NE.Q~R IGR®ION1ET10WN
'l('~D N1~RTT-3 tDF~ ~I(~1~9 IDIDIN'1' ~I
O.~I1
-S~IE~T TJ_ OI'
~f> /r' ') ~I ! 03

.~~ • vv I I CABLE C/R 32+00
-~- - - - - -- I I - - - - - -- - - - -- - - -
I I ee °
---------------------------r --------------------------------
---------------------------I-~-----------------
---------------
II
~ II
II
----------------------------
fi1----------------------------------
---------------------------
s~ m m _oso zcl I I
RET a •~ scl
\\ e ~ ~~~ I ~~~~ ` ~ REMOVE
I \ / / ~
r---~- J{~-E \
---------------L J s \\\\ / /~~
\ ~
I I I I \~~~
L---~ ~--I ~.
I I I
2 GI WITH FLT GRATES I I I •` ~~
FLIT GRATE 375 _ _ ~- I I ~ ~ , ; 83' 43',49.T E -40SBREV-
~~ I I _
_CSLIP
zGl +00
/ / I
-/ - I
~ -I GI ~
,- a5D
/% ~ I I
/ / ~ ~,
A 2G1 WRH
FUT GRATE A
"' o
~~ ~ o
~
_CSLIP-
/7 -~ %
/ %
rNN ' o
N~
-
~ ~-6~-WVTH-
FLAT GRATE
~ I ~
~ I
O
~ Y ~_~
~ ~ f
~
19
° T N Foa
-
~ _
,
~.
If-~ '~~ J ---~}
N 11 r ~
' ~\\ ~
~
1
~ ~

' '~ /~n x---x-
~" . a .
PREFORMED
SCOUR HOLE
-
-
N r .
~
,~ ~\
~
~
I
~ ~
~(~ f ~ 1~
~
1~
~ _
~ PREFORMED 4
SCOUR HOLE 4
\
~ \~\
~ ~ ~~
~
~ x r
i ~:

X450 x
.~x~t V1~EL0 W ,' C x x-~
~

~
CL 'I' RIPRAP
05 CM DDE /•
%
/•
~ 40
x"~k ~~x S
A 50 MTONS
90 SM FF
~"~~ '
~ _~ ~ •~••~
/
LITERAL
V
DIT
'~- `''~4 ----- ~ •''_- ----
-^~-
~
-
CH
/ r~-~ I
EST. Q,~ TONS CL-B RIP RAP

/ EST -
i•
\~
~
•
. 4,~ SM FILTER FABRIC \
r'
\,
•
/ ~
•~
\
/ 1
1
~
`
/ 1
/ `
` ~
/ ~

~ ~ '~ •'~ , I ''~ i ~
_ NAD B3
~~ Loyal Ordar Ofi Moose ~ ~ ;•i _
/
~ ~~ i~ ' I i~
• -
..
' I %
~' ! ~

\•\ i i ~ F J assle W, Morgan

l - Ll ~ .l~ `~. J ~~ 1.J
~~~~~
~I~I~~~ON ~~ 1(-~g~][~VV~~~
~ZTg1L.,]FlDlfg~ C'I©~IN'lL°~
IDI3ID.I~CT:8.U~92101 (U-2b`?-0.~I3)
GIa~IENSI3IDI~© - ~'IESTIiRN LIDID~ 1FI31DNI
NIDRTH IDF I-85 N~.~~I~ (IIKIDID~'I~TIOWN
TID NIOI~TI-I IOF HIGH I~IDIl~"I, I~10:~\I~
~_
~Hr ~T ~ ~~ S 5 ~I, ~~al ~~ ~~~,>

F
~ I ~
-~ ~ ---
F
C ------
-- ------
~ -4OSBREV- ~ ~ ~ ,
29 +00 29 +40
-CSLIP- ~'~ 2 GI WITH
P~,, ~ ~ FLAT GRATE
1 y ~ r ;' /37
~' ,/ E
t i O ~~~ O~G _.._/
W N ~~~r~1~n-
O ------ -~ ~' - - ~~,
- .~
.~{-x--
x
REMOVE
C~-B RIP RAP
yV/FILTER FABRIC
~~1'~11~ ~Y ~~ V'V'
1~'C~1~~
~~~~ ~A~~C~~s~
lI `l~' IT; ~u~ ~,
y~ ` IIr t(
~~~ ,114, !l_l ~L !i 1. n'1~~~~~~~~
__
' P ~ - ~ .~ FILL EXIST lNG ~:
~o.o P ,~ ~/i CHANNEL
~. X40.3
x x x-
i
i
i
~ NAp B3
• I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~T I(~
~IVISI®N cO1F ][-IIG]hIWA~S
GUI]L)~'Olf~® C®LTN"I'Y
PR~JI/C`I': S.U-0921'01 (U-252~AB)
(~REI;NSSORD - WESTERN L®~OI~ FR~t~M
NORTH ~DF I-85 WEAR GR~D~MFT~D~VN
' T~C~ N~OR`I'H ;~F ;III~~H PINT I~DAI3
--;;H'EET ~ ~ CAF ~ ~--- 4' ~ ='~I ~~ D,~

i ------------ -----
--
~'~
~ ~~
} ~~ ~ -aosa~~-
~- so sG~ wlm- - _ 8
fUT GRA ¢'
-GSUP- 2GI wtTt1 - - - -
fUT GMTE _ ~
i
//~
i _ ~ -
x-
~ ` ,__,-
~x~X x~ %~ ,~ i
~ ~~ ~ _
.~ , ~=
_~ _
f -T-_
~ ._~ . t ---------- ---
~.- T` fir. ,
x~ t~ lx__-•-x-x-x
~.A .
1 ~
I D
I --~
George W. µcCulston, etd n
~ 1.659 Ha. By pMD =
Db 1712-548 NAD 83
~ ,---
z
~ m
i
~~d71b~1 ~~~ tV b ~1 ~~® 11
~ DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
°~° ~ PROJECT: 8.U492101 (U-2524AB)
GREENSBORO -WESTERN LOOP FROM
~+ ~ ~ NORTH OF I-85 NEAR GROOMETO WN
TO NORTH OF HIGH POINT ROAD
_ ~~~~~ ~°~®®® SHEET ~~ OF S~ 6/30/03

,J ,~y~ ------
~ -----u---------
- -----------

~r ~------- -- ____
-----------------
------------

a d
a~
c --

__
-- ----
_~ F
C

-------------
__------
-
_
_
------ ------~ _~__-_ ~ h~ \
----
---~
___
--- d~ ~~~
~~
GRATE
,. _ _
xx x x X~
A
-, I ' . _ .
LTDE-TDE-7DE-TDE-~DE-TDE-TDE-TDE-TDE-TDE-TDE- -TDE-
I
I
~ Mattfe B. McCuiston
0,166 Ha, by DMD
~ DB 1712-548
~~~~ ~~~~
~~~~~~
~~~~~~~
~~~~ ~~
/J I
ZDE1'j0
TDE-TDE-TDE--TD~'~ ~
I
~ NAD 83 Florence H, McCulston
~ DB 1712-551
1.659 Ha, by Tax Map
b ~`I ~~®~
DIVISION ®F HIGHNAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
PROJECT:8.U~92101 (U-252~AB)
GREENSBORO -WESTERN LOOP FRObI
NORTH OF I-85 NEAR GROOMETOIVN
TO NORTH OF~^HIGH POINT ROAD
SHEET ~' OF J ~ 5 / 15 / 03

_----~ =~ -~ V!IITH
.~ 1`?. Ft.A~' GRATE
~~~
. !~ ~ 1-
_=~~ - sip --- --- --- __ -
1~S i
~(r G4G~,
y 37~ ;- ._
` ~ -
i ~v ; r ,i
-~ - ~ ~ ~ ~E
- . REMOVE ~~ x x
x -x x x- -r---x D
i -~ ~
I ~~
~ CL-B R1F RAF ~
~ \ Z
~ ~ JJ Nat? B3 FTl
I
I
_ ~ _~
~ George W. ~teCuis~on, etaj
a
~ .
1~II~:~ ~TIC1~~
~1 ('~7`~~V' ~ ~E ~~ffi~~1 j~ AA
lid V 1 `lO ~'1 1~ 1~ 1 4Y
~~~~ ~~~
~~~I~~ = ~o~~D~~
~~~~
DIVISI®N OF HIGHS ~YS
GUILFORD COUNTY
PRO.TEC'1':8.U~49~101 {U-252AAI;}
ORI:I:NSDURO - WFSTCRN L©OP FROM
NaRTH OF I-85 NEAR GROOMETOWN
TO CVQRTIi OF HTGH POIl` T R01lI?
SH ~ i T 1}+B QF S3 7.! 10103

c
r
2
----- --------------------------- -------------- d----------'----
------
----- ---------- -------------------------------Y---------------------
D Sj ~
-~ 9
--. I,o
Z _ - --~~~-----------~
~F ---- - ---'--~ --_ -- S ~~ -
_ -
court
`~ ,i,3,~f ~ ~___~ -~~~~_~~~ - o --~ F2L EJIUSTIIG I
~'~~ ~ ' f± .' ~
~ ~10tf'jG~-
n E.
L7FjE ~i 1U~ TDt --tdE-TDE-TUT-IOE-TOE--OE-7DE-TOE- 7U£`-TDF-TGE-TUf-~~9 ~
~ t
Notf ie B. Mo[ulsian ~~ ~
~t ~ `
~ \5 } ~ ~ kl
`•~ ~ 1 ! ~ 1
~____/ I ~
rv~ ~~Li]YL __-- F'~
. ;, .
FI~~~CB H McCvIS7Gn
NfrD $3
Il lL~~~ ~~L~~i ~~11L'tLY 11
DIi~iSI~OAT OF HIGHWAYS
~ ~ ~ -~ ~~ GUIL I~R© CGUNTY'
~~A~~`,°g°~~~~'~°~(~RY PROJECT:8.U442101 (U-252~AB)
Jl~f GREENSBORO - R~ESTERN LDOP FROM
~~V~~ ~.~ FORTH OT' 3-85 NEAR GItODMETOWid
~~ ~ ~ ~ _ ¶ • ~ ~ ~ ~ TO NaRTH OF HIGH POINT 3tO~iD
1L SHELT 4~ OF ~ T ~ 30.r' 03
r
O
W
0
4]
7
3
m
s
Ol
2
3
C
~0
m
m
rn
r
r+
m
m

~~~ ~ 3
NATURAL CHANNEL DESIGN TYPICALS
DETAIL
. ~ <. T'rPICAL FLOOD PLAIN SECTION
~~ r- .Nor to Scale ) Ground
I
I~ flood PIOin
---/5R VAR. ~~
8m TO 20m
~ SEE CHANNEL DETAILS
CHANNEL DETAIL
PROPOSED RIFFLE SECTION
(Nat to 5cae I
Flootl rNA><. BANKFULL DEPTH
Plain none
TYPICAL SECTION IAT RIFFLES

~~~dllilil r PIAWs
N Ni IN fN Yl ~gYI1N
INCOifI~ I; 9LAYs
N Nr w cNTrcn~
CHANNEYL CDELTAISL
PROPOQ EBENp PIPOOLS~CTION
INOr ro sca. I
POfIT WpAL PpCL OEPTN
Fboo Ploln _y„
Q6m FEN
OUANTITES
OOE = 21000m~
BOULDERS = 400 EACH
COIR AIAT = 260mz
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC = 350m~
T/E TO EXISTNG CHANNEL
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL-
FILL EX/STING
~ CHANNEL
c~ssvavE mP~cau
SEE DETNC SEE SHEET 2
2400 '"----` -
~~ -- ~ T~
FL:^w oIREGnoN
Fll1 TO ELEV.242.4
24392
0
m
LTDE-TDE-TDE-TDE-TDE-TDE-TDE-TDE-TDE-TDE-TDE-TDE
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
TlE TO EXISTNG CHANNEL
n I ----- __ '--- __' --- _ ---
-~ ~~~~~~~"~~~iE~ PLAN VIEW ~,so~-s~~
~- ~s o
I ~ ~ T ~ ~ FLLW DIRECT/ON ,~oEiT~~
~ # 8 -TDE-TDE-TDE_ZDE~
T~~-Z~~~~-w P~fl
Sl1e~f' ~d ~ f d~ '

~~,[~ ~3

WETLAI~ P~tMCf [dlPAC'C SUh+bNARY
I WETlAI~ IMPACTS SURF,tCE WATER bibPACTS
'
SitE
No.
Sialion ~
~romlTO) ~
Slructuce Fill h
Sae ! Tye ~ Y+ldtands
ai
Tend Ftil
to 61~ands Nathan-v_ad
E,ccavation geareag
In Wetlaeds {FAeihad IiF}
(0a} (na
Fbl le SW
{Nalir2l}
tg
Fib In SW ~ ft>'rlp. FiIJ
{fond} In SW
ita ha Ezi~i~g
Ctr~nnel
FmpaUed
m tdl~ural
3n~m
t7esc~n
m;
7 12+4G T~] tiE+60 -405BRE1J- 0.139 4~.4 299
7 23+35 -CSUP- 2.4 X 1.8 RCBC 037 990_$
7 S I +72 -11LPC- 2.4 X 1.5 RCBC 032 65.4
7 7210~D -4GSBF.E1!- < Q09 &4

7 - ---
TOTALHrS'ACTS
0'23_-_
- -
----__-- _ _. -
739.8
290.1
-- 8-- i8t60 -1GSBfiEV- OA8
17 73+SURT.-L7Ftf'ft OA3
_-12 74+t?O RT. -L7RPA 0.01 < ff.0i -
t:i t5+67 RT.-1914oN& - D.OS
i4 95+00 -40SBREW- 0.43
t5 1's+60~OSBREV- I 0.42
_
t 6
`-
- L ~ -- 73+2p LT. -40S8t1EU- 0.48
t7
r ti+OG TO +3+O+J -40SBRfiV- ~ 4~& 206.b
1? ; 29+00 -3iFLY- ~ 0.45 I
21 ; t6+60 •LSFlY- 0.05
_
23 ~ 25+00 ~l7SBP.EV- 0.4~
2a _
3G+GORT.-CSLIP- <0.01 -
25 ^c&+90 ~OSBREV- 2-7 ?t 1.5 RC-8C 02S 0-02
---- ~ _
- -- --
25 28+90 ~OSBREV- 2.7 X 1-5 RCBC OD3 105.5
258 29+00 ~OSF3REV- 0.03
5a STRE~7wl RELOCATION OD7 335.`s 285

TUTALS 1.11 ~] 0 4.02 039 b.rs 4 13.78.6 575.1
1^~1JiJ 1
DIV><STGN OF H:C=HWA~iS
GUTT FORD CC.~IJNTY
PRO.IECT F3-1J492if?l {U-25~4AB7
GRSE€V3BORCt -WESTERN L{JGP FROM!
P1dRTH dF I-85 NF.IaR GR4dhifiTOVIIV
TO NORTH GF H1GH POTT<1T ROAD
nr J~7
r
iJl

Ju~~. v3
BUFFER IMPACTS SUMMARY
IMPACT

TYPE
ALLOWABLE
MITIGABLE BUFFER
REPLACEMENT

SITE NO. STRUCTURE
SIZE /TYPE
STATION (FROM/TO) ROAD
CROSSING PARALLEL
IMPACT ZONE 1
(mZ) ZONE 2
(m~) TOTAL
(m2) ZONE 1
(m2) ZONE 2
(m2) TOTAL
(m2) ZONE 1
(mz) ZONE 2
(mz)
7 11+60T016+70-40SBREV- X 8425.0 5772.6
5272.0
3461.0
7 2.41 X 1.8 RCBC 25+35 -CSLIP- X 3244.8 3142.5
7 2.4 X 1.5 RCBC 11+72 -11 LPC- X 1170.3 776.0
7 TOTAL 12840.1 9691.1
17 11+00 70 13+00 -40SBREV- X 3325.4 2187.9
25 2.7 X t5 RCBC 26+90 -40SBREV- X 1787.3 1184.7
23 28+50 TO 32+00 -40SBREV- X 7341.6 5086.3

TOTAL: 0.0 0.0 0.0 25294.4 18150.0 0.0 5272.0 3461.0
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.U492101 (U-2524A8)
GREENSBORO -WESTERN LOOP FROM
NORTH I-85 NEAR GROOMETOWN
TO NORTH OF HIGHPOINT RD.
6/26/2003
SHEET OF 5

c1c~,f ~ ~ 3
cEO-rExrrLE fAeRlc _#
notlve pfonlings
'S}ECTION A-A
`p native plantings
_--~_Pro~eci~ top of
vane wing
' SLOPE- 2 - 15%
boulders
~ ,f . I' -----------------
.,~ ;~.\
~ ~~ ~ O s4 ~
\ oa~er racks
frlLE f,cBR;C
s
sECrroN a-a
~ • o savxFUC~ oEPrt-~
- Stream Clnmd
srreom mnR Footer racKs
-NOTE: Boulders should be native quarried rock
or locolly shot rock, angular and oblong with
approximate mfnlmum dimensions ofi 1.2m x 0.9m x 0.6m and
weighing approximately (900 kg)
Larger boulders should have approximate mfnlmum
dimensions of 1.2m x 1.2m x 0.9m
Rocks should tit tightly with minimal spaces
Footer rocks should be mfnlmum ofi 2 times 'H'
In depth fiat Qravelbed streams and a mfnlmum
Ofi 3 tima.s 'N' T~ ~.,.,.~ ti,,,~ ..1____
Geotextile fiabrlc should be placed on upstream
side ofi boulders. Fabric should be overlain on
exposed boulders and burled to a minmum
depth as directed by on site engineer99. Fabric
ofio~ld~eox~eond dlpected by onnisite engines~~For
urban type protects and/or sandbed streams,
fabric should be backfilled with existing bed material.
H = 0.06m
S!-~f S `F of S-S
PLAN ~~~, CROSS VANE ROCK WEIR DETAIL

NAMES AND ADDRESSES
REFERENCE NO.
1

S
6
Goose W. McCui~Eon
MaEEie B. MoCni.Eon
ADDRESSES
1500 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1500
3910 SOUTH HOLDEN RD.
GREENSBORO, NC 2706
3~ oo S, o t x ~ E }-l I; }fi„y4y
~1R R1~ftoN ~ ~1., 83432
~1t3 S. ~1o~a¢N RArfl
6 REit~Bo0.o~ pG Z'1 yo L
3823 S ~ NoLp~ (Z0.^a
6R~~NSgQR,~, Nt 2"14oL
7 Floroncc H. McCui~Eon
NAMES
NORTH CAROLINA
DOT
WET 'N WILD EMERALD
POINTE WATER PARK
~~1.~~®~
DIVISI®N ®~ HIGHWAYS
i
GUILF®RI~ C®UN'I'Y
PROJECT:8.U~92101 fU-`152-0AB)
GREENSBORO - WESTERN LOOP FROM
N;DRTH OF I-85 NEAR GROONiET~OWN
T'O NORTH OF HIGH I'~OINT RO,~,D
SHEET ~ ~~OF ~~ t, ! '
_ - -- - - --- - - - ------- --- a0 % 03 ~

!
y /~
i
~
i

~~
QOM
i ~
END ~ ` ~~
! ,-;.
PROJECT ~\
~
~ ,
'""
U-2524AB ~~
i - _.-- .._
0
`
~
/
~ u
86
LL
/ ~ y I. .
/
/ a 3 0 0 l ~~,
/
_'/ Y °` = I

I
n i ~
1~ RD• ~
NIGH P~ I
~ 0.D.
Y7ESt ~PNOP~ -"
Sedgefiel
i
!
'"-- _-,-.
~~
I / 70
.J
~ I ~-----.~ ~
l._ i
138 -~
~1
:
as ~
i
~ ~----
- -_ J
-~
~ I BEGIN

~ PROJECT
f~ `~'
--_-_
r~
~ U-2524AB
~ ~
~
f~
/
/
~
/ ~,

,o `,
~ ~
/;
~ _
f~ ~
'

I ,•' I l~-~ ~-''~ `,
~~
V/ClNITY MAP OF PROJECT 8.U492/Ol
VICINITY MAP N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DNISION OF HIGhWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
PROJECT 8.0492/0/
U-2524AB
PROPOSED

NOT TO SCA[E GREENSBORO OUTER LOOP
SHEET lOF 26 06/03

LEGEND
-WLB-- WETLAND BOUNDARY
X LIVE
X
X STAKES
~~ WETLAND
~---W L X
X
---~ BOUL DER
DENOTES FILL IN - COIR FIBER ROLLS
WETLAND
®
NER
O ADJ
P
DENOTES FILL IN
® R PAR E~
NUMBER
SURFACE WATER
DENOTES FILL IN

SURFACE WATER
® PROPOSED BRIDGE
(POND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND ~ I PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
DENOTES TEMPORARY (DASHED LINES DENOTE
FILL IN SURFACE WATER EXISTNG STRUCTURES)
• • • ^ DENOTES MECHANIZED
••~ ••• CLEARING
SINGLE TREE
~- ~- FLOW DIRECTION r.

TB ~tiL
jr,.u{.L,ati,~ WOODS LINE
~- TOP OF BANK
WE EDGE OF WATER ^ DRAINAGE INLET

--~ -- PROP. LIMIT OF CUT ROOTWAD
--E-- PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
-~ PROP. RIGHT OF WAY VANE
--- NG--- NATURAL GROUND
---P1--- PROPERTY LINE RIP RAP
- TDE - TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT RIP RAP ENERGY
DISSIPATOR BASIN
- PDE - PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
--EAB-- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
szt BUFFER ZONE 1
--EPB-- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY azz BUFFER ZONE 2
~ WATER SURFACE PROPezz- PROPOSED BUFFER ZONE 1
- PaoPez~- PROPOSED BUFFER ZONE 2
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DN/SION OF H/GMNAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
PROJECT 8.0492/0/
U-2524AB
PROPOSED
GREENSBORO OUTER LOOP
SHEET- 2 OF 26
06/03

IMPACTED STREAM
SlT E l0
SlT E 9
~- SlT ES 59 6y 79 AND 8
` ~ IMPACTED STREAM
,l. SITES 2
f ~, AND 2A ~
;`v„ ~ G
P
1'
SlT ES 3 AND 4

_:
SlT E l
200m 0 900m
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DNISION OF HIGhWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
PROJECT 8.0492/0/
U-2524AB
PROPOSED
GREENSBORO OUTER LOOP

/ I , I / /`
u~ (/ .~
~ ~1 ~. /
I r r
I
r ~
I r
r
r
14+60 I I ~°
I
l ~ ~
E -
/2L17 ~~ I
,.. ..
\ E I ..
~ ,,, ~ I
I V U\ LL
`- \ ; \
W x ~
U .'. 1 \ ,
14+00 ~ ~ ,I
2
u
I ~ O l ~ X.
~~
• z
o ~ \
x
~ _~ .. ///
rw~ ~ ~ ~~ \
r ~1iN
r N; ~ p~C
r
/ ~ CJ ~ W
v ERNEST RAY SANDS dFLLQz
I~ OU+ZL \ Nu ~6r
~ ~JO~
I ~ , CjLL~N
i ; E-TDE-TO -TOE- -7DEr-•-7DE•
I ~~ -- --
.~
_ .. ~21~
.. .. _.
.. .. _.
E '• .. .. .. ..
~\ ` -E~

Q
X ~ 3 ~~
JJ
\
f
\~ K~
~~

o
Q
U_
3
-x- nY i ,~ . , ~ .
SlT E l
DENOTES FILL
IN WETLAND
IOm 0 20m
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DNISION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
PROJECT 8.U492lO!
U-2524AB
PROPOSED
GREENSBORO OUTER LOOP
SHEET 4 OF 26 06/03

2.68
266
264 ~~ ry
c~
2s2 tug ~
~c^ a5 ~. W
CAV
258
2.56
254
252
+2p
VPl- R}IbO~W
EL 259955
VGA 601JO17m
K- 69
QS- 9abM
EX/ST C~iCX/ND
-MO f60 +80 //f00 f20
PROFILE -SITE l
YlA
,- t
VPl- //+80,pp0
EL P58791
VLL W.(XXkn
K- 22
as- Baer,
266
264
262
260
G...JV
256
254
252
+40 -f60 -F80 /2f0i0
2m 0 4m
vERTICAL scaLE
lOm 0 20m
HORIZONTAL SCALE
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DNIS/ON OF H/GHWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
PROJECT 8.U492/0/
U-2524AB
PROPOSED
GREENSBORO OUTER LOOP
SHEEN 5 OF 26
06/03

` ~~ ~:~
~ \ ~. 4
,- ` \ X11 ~ ~ I ~~ `= ,`-'
/ / ~~\fi~~~A'Fj ' ~`A ~~_~~~6REEN580~p
I `
/ f+j ~
N ~~\_
~ J ,~
•+~D~gF,y¢\+\ i
l ~ i ar` i
+ ~ ~
t
1 O~y ~ \ I ~ / ~.
I
of ~ ~ IIII 1 l ~ ~~^~S
I~1 1~1 ~ YL2 I 1 311ca+r Z-=_,1 ~ O
~ ~___~_~ 311 ~ / x \ -~
'-~- 311 // ~ ~ ~ E'--
Twia smears cr ~s esr ~ oll ~ -, // j ~ / X ~~~~__
// .- ~~
~~. ~~ I f3 ~\ ~ ~n ~wr. ~-- i./ (t=~- .x i ~.u/1CF B• 1 DES -, _
SlT E 2 N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DNIS/ON OF HIGHWAYS
-~/LB-- WETLAND BOUNDARY GUILFORD COUNTY
~~ PROJECT 8.0492/0/
< _ ~ WETLAND U-2524AB
L
® DENOTES FILL IN PROPOSED
WETLAND lOm 0 20m GREENSBORO OUTER LOOP
SHEET 6 OF 26 05/03

2~0
268
266
264
262-
260
258 -_-
256
254 -----_--
ia~o
252- BEGlN WETLANDS ~- --```` ~`
STA 22+60 t/-
250 37m RIGHT
f80 22-00 +20 +40 f60
VPl- P3~yt'1Q'1~
~ ~~
vc- ~so~o~a„
x- ~
as- ~,atan
PROFILE -SITE 2
-L- STA 2/f80 TO 24f00
LEFT PROFILE
pro
-268
X66
X64
-262
- -260
- ir.~v~s i ~ ------
- ia~r~i ----__
-258
,~
-256
2m 0 4m
vERTICAL scALE
lOm 0 20m
HORIZONTAL SCALE
___254
-252
-250
+40 +60 +80 24-I-00
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DNlSION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
PROJECT 8.0492/0/
U-2524A8
PROPOSED
GREENSBORO OUTER LOOP
SHEET 7 OF 26
06/03
L/rV rr L/ LJYrVJ
STA 22tB7 +/-
20m LEFT
f80 23-f00 f20

\\
/ ~~
\, ` N ~ ~ --
Lb ~ ~~~~-~~`~ 6 ` > / ~ ~~ QTY OF ~~/ryr[~ i ~ ~ ;
~`~~~~~~` `'~KF~ ~ ----'~A ~~~A T, H~'$A'~J~ p SRO ~St~ ~ ' /~ ~ .
~ C -~_--.-_-__- r . ~
~ 1
i /
__ _ _ / ~ . / ~ /. ~ j
--i
i ~~ ,/ ~ ~ .
//~.. i
~ , ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~' i
% ~ O ~v~
I c j
% c~ / ~
~ a' ~ ® I
` // - h j
~, / . ~ ~ / j
I
~ ~
/ I
~~ ~ 1
;' ;' : ~~ ~
x ~ k~, / / j
SlT E 2A N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DN/SION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND) PROJECT E.U492I0/
WE EDGE OF WATER U-2524AB
PROPOSED
lOm 0 20m GREENS130R0 OUTER LOOP
SHEET 8 OF 26 06/03

p ~, JARR~T
w~ ~
,~, EpNA L.
SITE 3
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
• • • • DENOTES MECHANIZED
•• •• • • • CLEARING
NOTES:
1> ALL LONGITUDINAL SLOPES ARE LESS THAN 4%.
2) ALL GRASS SWALE SIDE SLOPES ARE NO GREATER THAN 3:1.
3) RUNOFF VELOCITIES FOR THE 2 YEAR STORM ARE 2FT/S OR LESS.
4) ALL SWALE LENGTHS ARE GREATER THAN 100FT PER ACRE OF
DRAINAGE AREA.
5) FOR RELOCATED STREAM (-L- 34+09 TO 35+00 )SEE
DETAIL 20 ON SHEET 12
lOm 0 20m
0
r
!~-
W
W
S
W
W
W
z
N
J
S
V
F
a
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ONIS/ON OF H/GNWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
PROJECT 8.0492/0/
U-2524AB
PROPOSED
GREENSBORO OUTER LOOP
SHEET 9 OF 26
06/03

W
W
W
W
N
W
z
H
-.!
U
F-
Q
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
SITES 3 AND 4
• • DENOTES MECHANIZED
•••• •• • CLEARING
NOTES:
1) ALL LONGITUDINAL SLOPES ARE LESS THAN 4%.
2) ALL GRASS SWALE SIDE SLOPES ARE NO GREATER THAN 3:1.
3) RUNOFF VELOCITIES FOR THE 2 YEAR STORM ARE 2FT/S OR LESS.
4) ALL SWALE LENGTHS ARE GREATER THAN 100FT PER ACRE OF
DRAINAGE AREA.
5) FOR RELOCATED STREAM (-L- 36+20 TO 37+i1) SEE
DETAIL 20 ON SHEET 12
IOm 0 20m
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DN/SION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
PROJECT 8.U492l0/
U-2524A8
PROPOSED
GREENSBORO OUTER LOOP
SHEET /0 OF 26
06/03
MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET 11

SITE 4
® DENOTES FILL IN . DENOTES MECHANIZED
SURFACE WATER ••~ •`• CLEARING
NOTES:
1) UPON COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION, INSTALL
ROCK BERM AT SWALE OUTFACE
2) ALL LONGITUDINAL SLOPES ARE LESS THAN 4%.
3) ALL GRASS SWALE SIDE SLOPES ARE NO GREATER THAN 3:1. /Q/p O 20m
4) RUNOFF VELOCITIES FOR THE 2 YEAR STORM ARE 2FT/S OR LESS.
5) ALL SWALE LENGTHS ARE GREATER THAN 1OHFT PER ACRE OF
DRAINAGE AREA.
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DNISION OF H/GHWAYS
GUl(FORD COUNTY
PROJECT 8.0492/0/
U-2524AB
PROPOSED
GREENSBORO OUTER LOOP
MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET 10

DETAIL 20
srRFau RF.LOrarrox
~
~, lSDm
i~
lppF VARIE VARIES
~ 2 \ A\
-~ a ~-
LN = 030m z3T5 mm CLASS B
02 = 0.30m RIP RAP W/ ~~ o
B = 09m FILTER FABRIC ~.«~ ..J
(XASS B FILTER ES7'
STATA7N TO STATKkI R/PRAP FA9R,C DOE
TLMS SY pl
-L- 34f09D00 TO -L- 35f00D00 LT
NOffSr
STREAM Rl1DC~PXri SHALL BE IXWSTRLCTEO AND STABlUZED WLTH V11ilTATiC1Y ANO/(a4
APPROVED L1tCS'2W GUNTROL XATrlAG PRKl4 TO ()VERTIAG FLAY lMt7 CHANNEL
(XWSTRIA;T YEANDERIAG LAY fLCW CHANNEL AS SlACWN ON PLANS
zA1TERYATf R!P RAP UNER TO (%!TS!(1E LY= N[ANA°Ji5
LNE WlCCLW STAKES TO 1?E PLANTLD 1N BEIIYEFX RIP RAP
DETAIL 21
srnFlur RFlocArrox
~
~ 15Dm
i~
lgo
VARIES VARIES
F
~
\ \
-~. a ~-
UI = 0.46m z 375 mm. CLASS B
L7Q = 0.46m RIP RAP W/ ~~ o
8 = l2m FIVER FABRIC ~.-«1
(XASS B FILTER ESf
STAT]CW TO STATK]Y RIPRAP FABFLC 17GE
T(1YS SY Lyl
-t- 3s+aoooo ro ~- 37+ro87B v
wvrES<
STREAM R[3DCATiCW SHALL L3E (XY15Tli1CTED AND STAB/UIED WLTH VE(YTATA]V ANO/CW
APPfd7VED 13tQ5XIM £OYTAOLYATTLAG PRAW TO A'VERTLNG FLL1Y /MO CHANNEL
LXWSTRuCT NEANL~NG L.LY' FLAY (7/ANNEL AS Sl~t71YN ON PLANS
zALTL7iNATE R1P RAP UM'Jt TO OiITS/LJE OF YEAf/DERS
CNE WILLAY STAKES TO BE PLAMfFD /N BETWEEN R1P RAP
SITE 3 -STREAM RELOCATION DETAILS
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAT/ON
DN/S/ON OF HIGhWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
PROJECT 8.U492/OI
U-2524AB
PROPOSED
GREENSBORO OUTER LOOP

268 - 268
266 ~ _ 266
264 ~
264
PROW GR,4L1E ~- S -
262- - + - 262
260 260
VPI~ J4f50~00 -
EL 25L67J

258 VC - /90DG17rn
K - ++
258
DS- //O,trnh _
256 ---- -- -- ---------
------- - 256
254 ~',__-- ~Ex~sr cRanvo
~'- 254
-l~is~i ---------- -
252 --- ---------------------
--------
~
- ,,.----.~ ----- ~ "
- 252
250 ~~P~ ~~ ~

~ - 250
248 m~¢W ~ Q
W~ w

+80
34f00 +20
+40 f60
X80 35f00 f20 - 248
f40 f60 +80
STREAM RELOCATION PROFILES
-L- STA 34-09 TO 35f00
LEFT PROFILE ~ 0 4m
vERrICAL scALE
lOm 0 20m
HORIZONTAL SCALE
N.C. DEPAR7-MENT OF TRANSPoRTATION
ONISION OF HIGHWAYS
GU/LDORD COUNTY
PROJECT 8.U492/0/
U-2524AB
PROPOSED
GREENSBORO OU7"ER LOOP
SHEET l3 OF 26
06/03

268
266
264 + ~~~
262-
260
258
256
254
I
" ~
i
252- _"y,"""
250
248-
VP!= 37f6b~00
EL 86568!
VC = E11~00LYn
K=87
QS= /KAbnh
-~_
268
26s
264
262
260
- 258
_ 256
- 254
- 252
- 250
248
~~~
YW~W
~o ~
~ ~ -----
o eN _~
W W~ W i
------------- z4 x ~s ftcec
'~--,-
~aei ~-''~----- - ---~ ,------
-~a-,-,o;-~
36-F00 +20 +40 -t60 +80 37f0~0 +20
PROFILE SITE 3, 4 AIVD STREAM RELOCATION
-L- STA 3&f00 TO 38f00
LEFT PROFILE 2m o 4m
VERTICAL SCALE
lOm 0 20m
HORIZONTAL SCALE
x-90 f60 +80 38f0i0
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DNIS/ON OF HIGHWAYS
GUILDORD COUNTY
PROJECT 8.U492/0l
U-2524A8
PROPOSED
GREENSBORO OUTER LOOP
SHEET l4 OF 26
06/03

SITES 5, 6 AND 7
-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY DENOTES FILL IN
® SURFACE WATER
L
~ ~ WETLAND • • . DENOTES MECHANIZED
~L • • •• • • • CLEARING
NOTES:
1) ALL LONGITUDINAL SLOPES ARE LESS THAN 4%.
2) ALL GRASS SWALE SIDE SLOPES ARE NO GREATER THAN 3:1.
3) RUNOFF VELOCITIES FOR THE 2 YEAR STORM ARE 2FT/S OR LESS.
4) ALL SWALE LENGTHS ARE GREATER THAN 100FT PER ACRE OF
DRAINAGE AREA.
IOm 0 20m
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DNISION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
PROJECT 8.0492/0/
U-2524AB
PROPOSED
GREENSBORO OUTER LOOP
WIFE BERMCE I. COINS ~~~''~ ~ Vn L11'IC - .7CC J17CC I 1 ~

T
~..'
W
W
W
W
W
z
N
J
S
V
H
Q
SITE 7
® OSURFA E FWATER IOm 0 20m
D DENOTES MECHANIZED
CLEARING
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ONIS/ON OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
PROJECT 8.U492/0l
U-2524AB
NOTES:
1) ALL LONGITUDINAL SLOPES ARE LESS THAN 4%.
2) ALL GRASS SWALE SIDE SLOPES ARE NO GREATER THAN 3:1.
3> RUNOFF VELOCITIES FOR THE 2 YEAR STORM ARE 2FT/S OR LESS.
4) ALL SWALE LENGTHS ARE GREATER THAN 10OFT PER ACRE OF
DRAINAGE AREA.
PROPOSED
GREENSBORO OUTER LOOP

cr,
r
w
w
x
W
W
N
W
Z
M
J
U
!--
Q
SITE 7
SARA J. DUHAN, SHtRLEY T. JAMISON,
TRUSTEES MIKE BLACI(MOOD
7ESTAMENTAREYEF TODD JAIdLSON
AMILY TRUST
lOm 0 20m
NOTES:
1) ALL LONGITUDINAL SLOPES ARE LESS THAN 4%.
2) ALL GRASS SWALE SIDE SLOPES ARE NO GREATER THAN 3:1.
3) RUNOFF VELOCITIES FOR THE 2 YEAR STORM ARE 2FT/S OR LESS.
4) ALL SWALE LENGTHS ARE GREATER THAN 100FT PER ACRE OF
DRAINAGE AREA.
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DN/S/ON OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
PROJECT 8.0492/0/
U-2524AB
PROPOSED
GREENSBORO OUTER LOOP

258 -
256 -
254 -
252 -
CROSS SECTION -SITE 5, 6, & 7
25m 0 5m
vERrICAL scat_E
5m 0 /Om
HORIZONTAL SCALE
- 258
-256
-254
-252
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAT/ON
DNISION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD CO~1N7Y
PROJECT 8.U492/Ol
U-2524A8
PROPOSED
GREENSBORO DUTER LOOP
s' -L- sy ~
45f00A00
EX. EL 25698

266
264
262_
SITE 5
260
258 ~
256
BEGIN Fll17~,WETLANDS
254 .STA 4514/ --
;'
252- END FILL IN WETLANDS -~
STA 4515/
250
BEGIN FILL IN WETLANDS
248 STA 45+65 t/-
- 90m LEFT
45-f00 +20
~cec
END FILL IN WETLANDS
STA 46+05 t/-
60m LEFT
S/TE 6
f40 f60 f80 46-00 f2O -140 ~ffi0 f80 47fO0
PROFILE SITE 5, 6, & 7
-L- STA 45f00 TO 47f00
LEFT PROFILE
2m 0 4m
vERrICAL scALE
lOm 0 2Om
HORIZONTAL SCALE
266
- 264
262
260
258
256
- 254
- 252
250
248
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DNIS/ON OF H/GHWAYS
GU/LDORD CIXINTY
PROJECT 8.U492/0/
U-2524AB
PROPOSED
GREENSBORO OUTER LOOP
SHEET /9 OF 26
06/03
VPl- 45i6TJDCJI7
EL 256Di91
vc- 6omo»,
K- 54
QS- lKhtmh
+ 0300~o z

SITE 9
-WLB- WETLAND BOUNDARY
~~ WETLAND
~---+.J L
~[11_LLLLd DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
lOm 0 20m
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DNISION OF HIGHWAYS _
GUILFORD COUNTY
PROJECT 8.U492/Ol
U-2524AB
PROPOSED
GREENSBORO OUTER LOOP

END WETLANDS
27Q-_
268_
26~
-L-
52t20.(a0i0
EX. EL. 2fi8D95
BEGIN WETLANDS
270
268
266
264
262
260
258
256
254
264
262-
26(L-
258-_
256-
25~-
CROSS SECTION - SITE 9
5m 0 /Om
HORIZONTAL SCALE
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ONIS/ON OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
25m 0 5m
PROJECT B.U492/0/
U-2524AB
VERTICAL SCALE
PROPOSED
GREENSBORO OUTER LOOP
SHEET 2/OF 26 06/03

~~,
i
SITE l0
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
• • • DENOTES MECHANIZED /0/n 0 20m
••~ ••• CLEARING
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DN/SION OF H/GhWAYS
GUllFORD COUNTY
PROJECT 8.0492/01
U-2524AB
NOTES:
1) ALL LONGITUDINAL SLOPES ARE LESS THAN 4%.
2) ALL GRASS SWALE SIDE SLOPES ARE NO GREATER THAN 3:1.
3) RUNOFF VELOCITIES FOR THE 2 YEAR STORM ARE 2FT/S OR LESS.
4) ALL SWALE LENGTHS ARE GREATER THAN 1H0FT PER ACRE DF
DRAINAGE AREA.
PROPOSED
GREENSBORO OUTER LOOP

276
274
27Z
270
268
266
BEGIN FILL IN SURFACE WATERS
264 STA 55+50
35m RIGHT
262-_ '~_,_ PROP c ~-
260
258
256
254 55-1-00
EXIST GRWND
-^~
JURISDICTIONAL STREAM -~
f20 f40 -1-60 +80
END FILL /N SURFACE WATERS
STA 56f0O f/-
94m LEFT
- 276
- 274
END PROJECT U 2524,48
~- 56f9P_583 EL 853JE
END GRAOE
+ oaso4 i _--------
- 272
- 270
- 268
- 266
- 264
=+ 3vb~
--- -262
- 260
VPl- 56f85~CD
~i ~ - 258
K- 6J
--,- ol2Gl~ RCP DS- lKaFinS
- 256
56-00 f20 f40 +60 f80 57-00 _254
PROFILE -SITE l0
-L- STA 55f00 TO 57f00
LEFT PROFILE
2m 0 4m
vERricAL scALE
lOm 0 20m
HORIZONTAL SCALE
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ON/SION OF H/GHWAYS
GUIFORD COUNTY
PROJECT 8.0492/0/
U-2524AB
PROPOSED
GREENSBORO OUTER LOOP
SHEET 23 OF 26
0'6/03

SITES 5,6,AND 7
PARCEL Il5
~- ~ROfiD ~Ac.a.ES, ~ Nc,
~~~ ~~~
PARCEL 864
S
b~~~
IJ
NCDOT
BoQA~ ~C, 21 x•107
SITE l
PARCEL N0.7 PARCEL ll6
JOHN R. SMITH AND WIFE GAYLE T. SMITH GOlNS/SNINN
3007 ROBlNH000 OR. 2605 TOPPING DRNE
GREENSBORO,NC 27408 GREENSBORO, NC 27407
PARCEL ll8
LESTER G.RNENBARK
3002 LARK DRNE
SITE 2 GREENSBORO, NC 27407
CITY OF GREENSBORO
OKA T.HESTER PARK PARCEL 823
P.O. BOX /336 NCDOT
GREENSBORO, NC 27402-3/36
PARCEL l2/
NCDOT
SITES 3 AND 4
PARCELS 7l AND 85 PARCEL l29
ClT1' OF GREENSBORO ARTHUR WOODY
DRAWER W-2 2910 CROMWELL ROAD
GREENSBORO,NC 27402 GREENSBORO, NC 27407
PARCEL 75N PARCEL l30
MIDWAY PROPERTIES,INC. TRUSTEES OF HELEN TODD JAMISON TESTAMONY
PO BOX 14868 FAMILY TRUST
GREENS80RO,NC 274/5 503 HOBBS ROAD
GREENSBORO, NC 27403
SITE 9
PARCEL N0. l32
L & S PROPERTIES
503 HOBBS ROAD
GREENSBORO, NC 27403
SATE 10
PARCEL N0. l3/
DJ-LGRIFFIN WRECKING CO.,INC.
P.0.80X 7657
GREENSBORO, NC 274/7-7657
AFFECTED PROPERTY OW NEf~S N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DN/SION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
PROJECT 8.U492/01
U-2524AB
PROPOSED
GREENSBORO OUTER LOOP
SHEET 24 OF 26 06/03

IMPACT SUMMARY
WETLAND
IMPACTS SURFACE WATER
IMPACTS BUFFER
IMPACTS NEW
BUFFERS

Site
No_ ~

Station (From/To1

tructure Size
Fill In
Wetlands
(ha)
Temp_ Fill In
Wetlands
Thal
Excavation
In Wetlands
(hat Mechanized
Clearing
(Method III)
that
Fill In SW
(Natural)
(hat
Fill In SW
(Pond)
(hat
Temp. Fill
In SW
(hat Existing
Channel
Impacted
Iml
Relocated
Channel
(ml
Enclosed
Channel
(ml
Zone
1
that
Zone
2
Thal
Zone
1
Thal
Zone
2
Thal
1 -Y1A-11+70 1200mm 0.040
2 -L- 22+75 1200mm 0.011
2A -L- 23+00 TO 23+80 0.196
3 -L-34+00 TO 37+10 1500rnm 0.078 292 211 130 0.547 0.365 0.270 0.180
4 -L-36+90 2.4m x 1.Sm 0.072 180 173 0.264 0.174
5 -L-45+41 TO 45+51
6 -L-45+65 TO 46+05 2.7m x 1.5m 0.003 0.013 71 60 0.768 0.116
7 -L-46+10 70 49+80 1350mm/1200mm 0.049 7 53 113 0.239 0.157
9 -L-52+05 TO 52+55 0.085
10 -L-56+20 1200mm 0.014 716 91 0.416 0.217

TOTALS: 0.051 0.085 0.003 0.225 0.196 812 211 507 1.634 1.029 0.270 0.180
SUFFER IMPACTS FOR PROPOSED NAT. STREAfd DESIGN
SITE 3 BZ-1 0.0226 ha.
BZ-2 0.0256 ha.
SITE 4 BZ-1 0.0710 ha.
BZ-2 0.0163 ha.
SITE 6 13.4m (44.0 ft) of tvro 750mm RCPs removed
SITE 7 LENGTH OF EXISTING STREAM IMPACTS- INTERMITTENT 56m PERENNIAL 97m
12.2m (40 ft.) of 750mm RCP removed
6.tm (20.0 ft) of 750mm RCP removed
13.4m (44.0 ft) of 750mm RCP removed
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
PROJECT: B.U492101 U-2524A8
PROPOSED GREENSBORO OUTER LOOP
SHEET 25 OF 26 06!03

GRASS SWALE SUMMARY
ENGLISH METRIC
PERMIT
SITE GRASS
SWALE
(GS)
LOCATION SIDE
SLOPES SWALE
GRADE
(%)
AREA
(ACRE) SWALE
LENGTH
(ft) BASE
WIDTH
(ft)
02
(cfs)
V2
(fUs)
Q10
(cfs)
V10
(ft/s)
AREA
(HA) SWALE
LENGTH
(m) BASE
WIDTH
(m)
Q2
(cros)
V2
(m/s)
410
(cros)
V10
(m/s)
3 GS to 183AH MED 5:1/6:1 1.03 0.54 328 1.8 1.4 2.8 1.6 0.22 100 0.05 0.44 0.08 0.49
3 GS to 183BK MED 6:1 0.91 0.62 328 2.1 1.4 3.2 1.5 0.25 100 0.06 0.43 0.09 0.47
4 GS to 191 MED 6:1 0.92 1.09 459 3.5 1.6 5.3 1.8 0.44 140 0.10 0.49 0.15 0.54
4 GS to 1RT RT 3:1 1.00 1.24 197 4 3.9 1.8 6.0 2.0 0.50 60 1.2 0.11 0.54 0.17 0.62
4 GS to 2RT RT 3:1 0.80 0.94 98 4 2.8 1.5 4.6 1.7 0.38 30 1.2 0.08 0.45 0.13 0.53
5, 6, & 7 GS to 1LT LT 5:1/6:1 1.16 0.54 262 1.8 1 5 2 8 1] 0.22 80 0.05 0.46 0.08 0.51
5, 6, & 7 GS to 1 RT RT 6:1 0.83 0.42 197 1.4 1.2 2.1 t .3 0.17 60 0.04 0.37 0.06 0 a t
5. 6, 8 7 GS to 211 MED 5:1/6:1 1.43 0.62 328 2.1 1.7 3.2 1.9 025 100 0.06 0.52 0.09 0 57
5, 6, & 7 GS to 212AH RT 6:1 0.30 1.04 131 3.5 1.0 5.3 1.1 0.42 40 0.10 0.32 0 15 0 35
5, 6, & 7 GS to 2126K RT 6:1 1.16 079 262 2.5 1.6 3.9 1.8 0.32 80 0.07 0 49 0 1 t 0 5a
5, 6. 8 7 GS to 218 MED 6:1 L10 1.04 525 3.5 1.7 5.3 1.9 0.42 160 0 10 0.52 0 t 5 -
5, 6, 8 7 GS to 219 LT 6:1 0.82 1.28 394 4.2 1.6 6.4 1.8 0.52 120 0.12 0 49 0 t 8 J ~4
5, 6, & 7 GS to 220 MED 6:1 1.01 0.49 328 1.4 1.3 2.5 1.5 0.20 100 0.04 0.40 0 07 0 4b
5, 6, & 7 GS to 221 RT 6`.1 0.81 1.53 394 4.6 1.6 7.4 1 8 0.62 120 0.13 0.50 0.21 0 56
5, 6, 8 7 GS to 222 MED 6:1 D.65 0.62 394 2.1 1.2 3.2 1.4 0.25 120 0.06 0.38 0.09 0 42
5. 6. & 7 GS to 226AH MED 5:1!6:1 0.47 0.79 459 2.5 1.1 3.9 1.3 0.32 140 0.07 0.35 0.11 0.40
5, 6, & 7 GS to 2268K MED 5:1!6:1 0.30 0.42 262 1.4 0.9 2.1 1.0 0.17 60 0.04 0.26 0.06 0.29
5, 6, & 7 GS to 227 RT 6:1 0.30 0.91 328 2.8 1.0 4.6 1.1 0.37 100 0.08 0.30 0.13 0.34
5, 6. 8 7 GS to 229 LT 6:1 0.30 0.42 197 1.4 0.8 2.1 0.9 0.17 60 0.04 025 0.06 0.28
5, 6, & 7 GS to 231 MED 6:1 0.30 1.09 722 3.5 1.0 5.3 1.1 0.44 220 0.10 0.32 0.15 0.35
5, 6, ~ 7 GS to 236 LT 6:1 0.30 1.66 591 5.3 1.1 8.1 1.3 0.67 180 0.15 0.35 0.23 0.39
5, 6, 8 7 GS to 238 RT 6:1 0.30 1.53 591 4.6 1.1 7.4 1.2 0.62 180 0.13 0.34 0.21 0.38
5, 6, & 7 GS to 239 LT 6:1 0.48 1.41 394 4.6 1.3 7.1 1.5 0.57 120 0.13 0.41 0.20 0 45
5, 6, 8 7 GS to 241 IviED 6:1 0.45 0.74 459 2.1 1.1 3.5 12 0.30 140 0.06 0.33 0.10 0.37
5, 6, 3 7 GS to 243 RT 6:1 0.48 1.46 459 4.6 1.3 7.1 1.5 0.59 140 0.13 0.41 0.20 0.45
5, 6, & 7 GS to 245 LT 6:1 1.23 1.53 197 4.6 1.9 7.4 2.1 0.62 60 0.13 0.58 0.21 0 65
5, 6, 8 7 GS to 246 MED 6:1 0.84 1.16 591 3.5 1.5 5.7 1.7 0.47 180 0.10 0.47 0 16 0 53
5, 6, & 7 GS to 247 RT 4:1/5:1 0.70 2.50 262 7.8 1.9 12.4 2.1 1.01 80 0.22 0.57 0.35 004
5, 6, 8 7 GS to 2LT LT 3:1 3.75 0.37 197 4 1.1 1.8 1.8 2.1 0.15 60 1.2 0.03 0.54 0.05 0 65
5, 6, & 7 GS to 2RT RT 3:1 3.00 0.37 262 4 1.1 1.7 1.8 2.0 0.15 80 1.2 0.03 0.51 0.05 0 61
5, 6, 8 7 GS to 3LT LT 3:1 1.17 0.37 197 4 1.1 1.2 1.8 1.4 0.15 60 1.2 0.03 0.37 0.05 0 44
5, 6, & 7 GS to 3RT RT 3:1 3.00 0.42 197 4 1.4 1.8 2.1 2.1 0.17 60 1.2 0.04 0.56 0 06 0 6a
5, 6, & 7 GS to 4LT LT 6:1 2.04 0.62 262 2.1 1.9 3.2 2.1 0.25 80 0.06 0 58 0.09 0.64
5, 6, 8 7 GS to 4RT RT 6:1 0.30 0.37 131 1.1 0.8 1.8 0.9 0.15 40 0.03 0.24 0.05 0 27
10 GS io 248 MED 5:1!6:1 0.85 0.74 328 2.1 1.4 3.5 1.6 0.30 100 0.06 0 42 0 t 0 0 a6
10 GS to 250AH LT 6:1 0.85 0.54 328 1.8 1.3 2.8 1.5 0.22 100 0A5 0 40 0.08 ~ a5
10 GS to 250BK LT 6:1 0.49 0.37 131 1.1 0.9 1.8 1.0 0.15 40 0.03 0 28 0 05 0 32
10 GS to 251 MED 5:1/6:1 0.85 0.86 394 2.8 1.5 4.2 1.6 0.35 120 0.08 0.46 0 12 0 50
10 GS to 252 RT 4:1/6:1 0.61 1.04 394 3.5 1.4 5.3 1.6 0.42 120 0.10 0.43 0.15 0 46
10 GS to 253 RT 4:1/5:1 0.30 0.37 131 1.1 0.8 1.8 1.0 0.15 40 0.03 0.25 0.05 0 29
10 GS to 255 MED 5:1/6:1 0.85 0.42 197 1.4 t2 2.1 1.4 0.17 60 0.04 0.38 0 06 0 42
10 GS to 256 MED 5:1/6:1 1.06 0.79 394 2.5 1.6 3.9 1.8 0.32 120 0.07 0 48 0 11 0 54
NOTES:
1) ALL LONGITUDINAL SLOPES ARE LESS THAN 4%.
2) ALL GRASS SWALE SIDE SLOPES ARE NO GREATER THAN 3:1.
3) ALL SWALE LENGTHS ARE GREATER THAN 100FT PER ACRE OF DRAINAGE AREA.
4) RUNOFF VELOCITIES FOR THE 2 YEAR STORM ARE 2FTiS OR LESS.
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
PROJECT 8.U492101 U-2524AB
PROPOSED GREENSBORO OUTER LOOP
SHEET 26 OF 26 06;03

~~
-~
i
SITE 11
~:. ao ~
~
~ `
412
I '
`

~ 5
! °-
SITE 7 i
GUILFORD COUNTY
`
~
~ ~
~
'SITE 6 ~ ~ _:
,
'~~ ~~
~o~e
~ ~
~
;
~
~e _
SITE-
~ :.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~.

SITE

9
m
~.
,: ~ ~~_.:;a
'
.
_

~~

~,
~
- `'~ ~

-
~o
SITE 8 ~ ~ ~',~ .~= ~
HilltO
*' ~
_ __` Rd: ~
~ ~
~: ~.
r~ ~~

~.~ L429

~.
SITE ~~ ~~ ~R ~ _
~ o ~~.
~
~
~
SITE ~3 ~
~

,_
~ SEE INSET
`~~
_
~~ _ ~ ~ d

a
~ ~~ SITE '2 °~
n.
--
~ I~ ~
o j" SITE- 1 ~~TS ,
~"
~
~
I
-
`~
~
~; ~ -
~
~ N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
f BEGIN--~ DIVISIQk~T OF HIGHWAYS
___
j , PROJECT i
~ ~
°- ~ GUILFORD COUNTY
SCALE
PROJECT: 8.U~92101 (U-25Y~AC)
.5 0 1 K/V1 GREENSBORO WESTERN LOOP
~-- LOCATION MAP _ _

LEGEND
-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY
xXXXX
O
LIVE STAKES

~ ~` WETLAND
L
® DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
® DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE WATER
• DENOTES MECHANIZED
. .
CLEARING
F- E- FLOW DIRECTION
TB
~.- TOP OF BANK
-••-•WE•- •- EDGE OF WATER
-- ~-- PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
-- F-- PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
--~- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
-- NG- --NATURAL GROUND
- - F~ - PROPERTY LINE
- TDE - TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- PDE - PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-•EAB-- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
-•EPB-- EXIST, ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
-••-•~ ••-• -••- WATER SURFACE
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
PROJECT: B.U~(92101 (U-252~AC)
GREENSBORO WESTERN LOOP
SHEET ~ OF ~~ 6/27/03
BOULDER
COIR FIBER ROLLS
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
(DASHED LINES DENOTE
EXISTNG STRUCTURES)
SINGLE TREE
-r!'!-L.~ ^-,_~`'-`' `'---r"L- W 0 0 D S L I N E
^ DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
VANE
RIP RAP
RIP RAP ENERGY
DISSIPATOR BASIN

m
r ~ ?o~~~~
a~~
l UT •9 TO BULL RUN
~ PROP R/W

C \
\ \ PREFORNEO ~~ ~ ~T WOODS
SCOUR HOLE ~t ~ ~ Rio ~

` - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -
-
F9 ~ ~
~ ~yF ~ ~,
\ y ~ ~ ~
~
~ PREFORMED GRASS $WALE
SCOUR ROLE DA= 3.03ac LsM= 34' F

450 CSP
~ ~ - -
- - - - - -
450 C$P W/
2 fLBAVS \
'
\ ~ ~?
~ ~ B= 5' D= 2' So= 0.0174 55= 3,7
W= 5, d_ I• 02= 9.92cfs V2= I.78fps W/
Z EL90W$
\ ~ ,,,~ 010= 13.ICfs V10= 1.92fps
~ P ~ \ I
'
f
~ I ~ ~
~ /
~ ~ `^~.1`~
\` GREENSBORO WESTERN LOOP C, f /
_
F ' (
~ ~ ,w~"` ~ + O~ \ \ \ SOUTHBOUND
59+00
/' --~-~
~ ~,
~, ~ ~ ,~~
.tee -L ~ `;r`~-,, \ -L-
S
.~ ~~ \

_' GRASS $WALE ~'j ~~
\
~~ P
7 ~' ~
I
\ / ~ GRA55

CA= D.I4ac Lsw= 450'
\ ^

P
f ~ ~
\
~ $WALE
so= 0.030 55= 5.6.6 M ~
? ~ENSBORO, WESTERN LOOP
\
I / .- cA= Lz6ac LSM= 490'
~~
~i 02= 1,73cfs V2= 1.96fps
010= 2.26cfs v10= 211f DS
\ /
~ ~. NOR ~HBOUND \
'
\
' ~
~ So= 0.0223 SS= 5.6,6
9
~
% \\ / -` 00= 3
2cfs VIO
L16fps

P
t?
`-+ r
\
• P 9
/C\ ~ ~'• ' +',',' PROP R/W T ...~1 ~
I
WOODS
]~ILA~N ~IIE W
~I~I°lE 1
10 0 20
. •-~ .
~. t
: ^ : ~ v
e e ~a ~
2` ~ ~~--i . ~ e a r N
1 " '~ • ~+
~.~
. ~ ,
: . a .`:
~~ • s • • •*
PERM. CHECK
DAM fTYP.)
NATURAL STREAM DESIGN
SEE SHEET OF
DENOTES MECHANIZED
CLEARING •~* ems:
+' '. 9~qy >~+• < '*' ~~
~ // P'.~'
6G
.
>
~
1
~
~
~/
'n !
`

DENOTES SURFACE ~. ~ f :.
9 ~e .'''' .~ O
r= ~` `,
WATER IMPACT S S
y / / / / ~ o~~'.',',
f f f
f \ •,~*' ~~
'
f
i
~
DENOTES SURFACE f
'~~~.
+ ~
~. '~ t
lc
'
WATER IMPACT P p ~
' E
I
(POND) : i
I D ~ ~
O ~ ``2
~ ~~~

` , ti
PREFORMED ! s' ti ~ / ~ O ' ~'~ PERM. CHECK
SCOUR MOLE r o 0~
9= 9. O= 2. / ; 1 .i H ~ ^. ~ 4~~ H ,°~tu DAM ITYP.)
J
_ _ , / ~ ~~ ~ ;.~~~' woods 4 FF~~ ~ ~ ( z
S~F~ E ti 0J. t ,
ti° off`
~ ~'i_ ~~ ( ti? ~ EL`p~ woods F e ( .~0 / h' F ---
~ls Q f. i ~ , ~ ~,Qp O ~. ~ .~0 0
/s~~ ~S h ~' GRASS SHALE
~' '~ -~-- r ~ ~} UT •7 TO BULL RUN ~ i ` OA= 2.79ac Lsv= 328'
~a `~ ~. ~+~,~~5 UT •6 TO BULL RUN S ~ so= o.olso ss= 3,3
.~F s ,~ ~ ~ ~ } r N 7 ~ 02= 10.39cfs V2_ 1.99fps
~ ~
/
K
~
~~ GREENSBORO WESTERN LOOP
DA= 0.69oc lsv= 57+' ~ \ ~
~ ), ~~ l D

;'
y`~ S
~~
~ SOUTHBOUND so= o.ae+ ss= 6.s.z
I
0 `
r} /
~ -~
/
/
i ~
r --_ 2=
.84cfs V2= 1.70fps
010= 2.40cfs Y10= 1.78fps C~ r
/ 5 fi / C~
2
r
`~ Z
~,
-~ - - m
- 450 N
~ T~ _~
T ..,. -
~ `~' D
~ t 375 -
-
* + V V GREENSBORO WESTERN LOOP
RT
/ N
/ ~`
~ ~""
~ `r a
- /
.,~ HBOUND
O
/ / 2~.
te
~, ~ ..~ ~ re ~ ~ o
_ r
~
T'
O
;.:
~ y

w `~ /~~
~:~
ma GRA95 9WALE ~ ~ ~ - _ ~
~
ry /
t-.~
~' c.:
S / /~~,~•-`~^.:~~. ;:~
~ ~ ti 3 ~. ~ ~ DA= 0.13cc lsw= 82'
sp= o.ozoe 55= 6
9
z f.Y1sl ~ "'p / ~~
RIPARIAN o
~ ~
r

n, ~

~ ~ / ~~
.
0
~

_~
- -'
C~
.
.
02= 0.39cfs V2= LlBfps
010= 0.46cfs V10= 1
22fp5
~
~
~ ~ ti _
'
/
_ `
,o ,r
/ ~
/ "„~ . ~ T
T
/
HW l ~ / ~~ ti

u ~,.~,
`` O .~ N
\
~~~
F l
w ' ti PROR'~R W `""~w~ ~
LL v t:~ PROP R/W
i •
~ N
_ ' m

~ \ ~ W r~ <.3 ~ ~ I f ~ I
2 ~ ~ ~ I ? /
~ /y _ J~ OFFSITE
$ / ~ / m / .'f
„`'L.`. "~ '~""L~,_.,J"i1 010=9.93cfs
~ ( ' / / e
t ~ ~ ~ N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATIO N
/
/,~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

W I
/ I,I I .
~
~' ~~
1C" 1~~ ~ v ~1
woods
i ~ /
~~ } 1Li Y~ GUILFORD COUNTY
~ ~~~~

10 0
20 PROJECT: 8.U~92101 (U-252~AC>

DENOTES SURFACE
WATER IMPACT
S S
DENOTES MECHANIZ
CLEARING
ED ~i4ii iii
i GREENSBORO WESTERN LOOP
i i
i
SHEET ~ OF ~G 6 / Y7 / 03

PERM. CHECK CRASS SwALE
DAM ITYP.) ~ DA= 2.79ac Lsw= 329'
So= O.O150 55= 3,3
- _ 02= 10.35cfs V2= 1.99fps
O10= 13.59cfs V10= 2.ISfps
6QD CSP W/-~ ~ -------
2 EL6OM5
o
~ GREENSBORO WESTERN LOOP
SOUTHBOUND ~"
~
~ f 65 + 00
I ~„
J
c 450 -~-
~-

w
Z ~~ GRA55 9WALE
_ _
GREENSBORO WESTERN LOOP
~ -y i DA= 0.67°~ Lsw= 329'
~
~ am
/ NORTHBOUND
~
.i so= o.oz6l 55= 5.4,6
02= 2.IScfs V2= 1.95fps
Q / ~ ~ O10= 2.86cfs VIO= 2.09fps
~ ~ ~
- -~
/402 ELBOWS + ~
f \ ~~ ----
------y--- L~\---
\~~
~ PROP R/W ~ ~ ~
SCOUR HOLE ~
/ \ ~
/ ~ 8= 5' D= 2' /
/ W= 5' d= 1'
I[~I,~N VIEW
~I~]E ~
~~
i
~o o zo

~ / ~ ~ ~.,
%~ Lr~ \c
R(~Jmm C. PREFORMED ~ itir ~~ ~
SCOUR HOLE /r3 ~ ~
8= 5' D= 2' '
R 1(E w= s a= r /r'~ / 1
/ / ~
WOODS 8 ~F~v ~ ."~::^-~r"~ ~ ,..5 ~: ;,

~ _
- _ _ _ -
-- PROP R/W ~`St • / ti~, / `^ = ~-~~~ _~-
------- 6 / / e- ~^..-...r.~-----
~ ~p~
~~~ ~
Sy
\
~
UT •5 TO BULL RUN ~ p~
173 ~
r
\
\
I "Q%

~
GREENSBORO /
/ /
r /
~ ~ $
~'•
~
/
\
WESTER
SOUTHBOUND N LOOP ~•-
~~
CRASS swALE i
'
\
- ~ // ~~\
`~ \
\
~•~

~- /

/ ~
66 ~(~
~~~
/ '?
OA= 0.29pc
Sa= 0.003
02= 0.95cfs
Lsw= 135'
55= 5.4,6
V2= 0.72fps \
\
i
/'
-~ ~ \
/ ~~ ~
'OlL
~-
O~ 010= 1.27cfs V10= 0.76fp~s -
~
,
X /
-L- ~ / ~~ -
~ ~ ~:, \
GREENS
y \ { /
BORO WEST d i RASS SWALE
N LOOP i
NORTHBOUN /
/ ceass Sw /
r / % ~~
D

~'~ /
~0
/ /
0
10
\ aLE

DA= 1.37ac Lsw= 636' - d ~ _
/ j Q- ~ / _ \
~ ~4.
' oq~ I. eac Lsw= 492'
553 0.008 5S= 5.6,6
02= 3
Sl
f
V2= 1
41f

~~ ~
/ / ~
/
\
02= ~.SScfs
10= 5
99cfs
V2= I.OSf ~ {/
V10= 1
12f~y
/ \
;~ J~ ~ /
`~ / ~ .
c
s
.
Ds
010= 4.70cfs V10= I,52fps

J ~'~~
FFSITE . . ,,,,
_
010=10
95cfs \ < `"''
_ _ - -
F .
V10=2.94fps ~ / / OFFSITE \~ ~
~ / ~ \ t.,f'" , ~
- - -
--- _---~ / /
/ 010=5.65cfs
--f~•--- F
- -
~t-
_ _-_ _-
- /
~
-~ V10=2.67fDS 3 / /
---~-J -L, ----
-
-_` ~- ~ C
F ~' $
-1 - -~
i - - --- ~ ~
~ PROP R/W~
\
waoDS W
/ ~ r \
~
\
PROP ~q~ y
j ` • l * . .~ \\\\\~; ~ .
~
DENOTES MECHANIZED *y•*~*•*•
CLEARING / Q ti
/ ~ * *2
~ ~ ~
/
-_ ~
`•'~~~
Q
~ ~

DENOTES SURFACE ~~~
T S s
warER IMPA _Q H
/ ~ ~
~ ~ /
O W
~•, ti o ¢
~ ~N ¢ /
~._
/ ~
~
- -

N
C
DEPT
OF TRANSPORTATION
C ~, ~
W I i W ~
o ~ F ~ ; ~ / ~/ F .
.
.
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
UT •5 TO BULL RUN v ~~ % 3
~
'
~ /~Q ~,
" GUILFORD COUNTY
~
10 0 20 ~I'~[v]E ~ ~
l
F
r' GREEN ORO WESTERN LOOP
:' ~ j
SHEET 6 OF ~6 6/27/03

.~ 0
~ \~ i' GREENS SOUTHBOUNDN COOP ~~ L o0
'' ~0~` ~~, 4T
-- s
i , ~ P 4~ wooDs
y / / /P / / /P ~i~> GREENSBNaRTHBEOUTND N LOOP ~
__ ~ ~F __ ~
PRO? R/{y \~
WOOD
~ \ Y%~

~..
--------~-~_ T m --
_ ~
W `-' ~ /.
~O '7A//`
`T~FJ
~~
3 ~ ~ ~,y ~ ~
W ~'
C~
~ =:~
3
F\ .( / P o
~\\
T~F P \
s ? -\ of ~ P ~~
~`~ P
,~ / D
DENOTES SURFACE
WATER IMPACT
(POND)
c^
P
T~F /
P ~~
\r ~ °c~
°F
~;. ~
P P ~T /P P
0 0~
-a
~ o
A rn
~Jl./~N ~ TO ~ \
10 0 20 I~' ~ `~ ~\
SI~~ 4 ~o~~o~

(:? POND TO BE DRAINED x ~/ / ~~~ ~ ~ -~
4:3 COH ~~~ OUR/NG y ~ t pE \
~ /O \~J
j~ TC?~ X ~ ~.
i P to \ x
"' 1 pE tee' \ ~?.
~'` i
X~ P ~y--------~ ------
,i of ~P ~ ~, o ~r~
z~O ~"/ ~ /P ~~
F ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- ~ ---------- ~ ------------------- PROP R/W PROP CL ENCE ~~' _ _F,--'',
------------------------F-------C --- ~4---------C ~ '
;~ ~ S~ ti
~' ~- L~ :J
~ .
i~ y ~ ~
f ti "' ~..;~; i^ GREENSBORO WESTERN LOOP -
73 + 0n ~ W ~ ~ ;; SOUTHBOUND 74 ~ 00
'" .. ~ 43 ~3 ~ E: ~
,:r
CJ ~
.., -~ ~~ ,:r L
i:J '~ r, r,, c7 ~ S~
fir GREENSBORO WESTERN LOOP
._ ~- :ti ~~ "' NQRTHBOtJMO
~ ~. , _ i3
lf~~,A~N ~~IEyV
~~~~ ~
~o o zo
DENOTES SURFACE
WATER IMPACT P P
(POND)

t --- J
4 -~--
t
~ -'UBItC R/w w I ~
Y LL
--+ ~ ~ -------- ~ ti} `i
~ 11 -------__ mo ~ i
~ H H
P~p~ -
~, P~Qp / /
N ~ '
--C --~--- F-- ',
U7 4 TO BULL RUN ~ S
I CRASS SWALE
DA= 0.67oc lsr= 328'
So= O.O186 SS= 6,53
02= 2.19cfs V2= 0.97fDs
O10= 2.86cfs V10= 0.52fps
74 +
~'- ~~ _ _F
------- y'- ~-
WOODS
DENOTES MECHANIZED :~~~~ ~~.
CLEARING
DENOTES SURFACE S S
WATER IMPACT
~o o Zo
i ~ ~r . -
~ -~-JEF ----------~~_
N 0
ti Gov
_~ E%i$i VJL R/A ~ ~
PROP R/W
~ /0
WOODS
• __
~f-___-__C_ -,,,,---------~-------~--
CRASS SWALE ~ ~ GRASS SWALE ~-
DA= o.43pc Lsr= zl3• ~ DA= D.zoac Lsv= 9e• f GREENSBORO WESTERN LOOP
So= 0.0186 SS= 5.8,6 m ( So= 0.0186 S5= 5.5,6 ~, SOUTHBOUND
02= I4lcfs V2= 0.39fDS / ~ S / D2= 0.64cfs V2= 0.29fps
010= I.Blcfs V10= 0.44fDS r /! ` I 010= O.BScfs V10= O.J3fps ~~
.~ i
I \/I J OO "'~ GREENSBNORTH80UND N LOOP
~\ ~~ I
1s
____ ' f- C
PROP R/W ~ Q'i.r~-f-r ~ -,,,1;- ------------- -----~~_ ---
~ _ ~
j • ~ ~~ ~ -
z ~
Q
r
~~ ~o ~ ti)
N
W O ~ O
ti
1 ~~~
~F~'
~'
~__~
l[~lLA1 N ~I lE W
~I~]E ~
/ / J _~
/ m _~~
/ i
~apP '~i
ry ~~
o ~ ° ~ ~'' `
l~ w D:

~ ~ W o l ~
~ s
~ (F f ~
b
~ ,>
1

WOODS ~ ~ r s ~ #
~
600mm s
CGYYC.SI[1 s ~ o_
~~' ,q
, ~ .. ~s
~ wooos~ ~ N.C. DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
~ ~ ~2
O
DENOTES MEC HANIZED •w**•t•~= .,,~, ~
~ ~ r DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CLEARING j~,
. . . 4~-,'-_. .
. ~ w
,
, z I _
DENOTES SUR FACE ~~ ~: Q GUILFORD COUNTY
WATER IMPACT S S GRASS SWALE ~ W Z ~'~/ o
~ l
\
~ ~
~ ~
O10= 30.3cfs VIO= 2.53fps ew \
~
'
I ~
~ .
~
\ 1
l `~" PROJECT: S
U~92101 (U-25?rIAC)
10 0 20 _
x
~ \ . ~
t .
GREENSBORO WESTERN LOOP
MILAN ~I~yV TIE ~
SHEET lCJ OF ~~' 6/27/03
GRASS S'wALE ` ~ ~

I ~
H
~ \~
~ \ ~~

I DA= 2.16ac ~ APPRCJX/lIATE
Lsw= 810'
~ y _ ~. y

I ,
Se= 0.003 GREENSBORO
55= 6
6 ~ $ ~ ~ I ~ ~ W \ ~
`~ a
,
C/n' U,1//r
02= 5
65cfs <
¢ I ~ I ;~ o
s
I w -
~

I .
Y2= 1.09fps \ PREFORMED
010= 7.42cfs H
~. z rr
~ I I I ~~~ :/ ~~ ~N W OODS
I

I V10= I,17fps '1 SCOUR HOLE
B= 5' 0= 2'
,
•
• h I' f,
k Fs- Ir
W
+
s / ~ ~t ~ }
4r
'
f
r~
~
\ w= S
G= I I".71
s
~ ~.
• ~
f L
f' P R ~"."1' 1 . ~~ '.~

PROP R/W
Y

I GRASS SWALE. C ~~~` ~ ~
~ ---

DA= 0.290c Lsw= I I' ~ -~~~~
s
= 0
003 SS= 6
6
~
}
~ I I
T
~
~--- --
-- _----- --~-_
~---~ -~--- C
~'V
o
.
,
,
F
~ ~
02= 0.74cfs V2= 0.6 fps ~ ^ I S ~. F
~
010= 0.99cfs YI~O. ,".,.~ _
GRASS S aLE r"`~'~J .

DA= 1.22P~ GRASS SWALE
~ ~ ~
~ : I ~ I ~
~k
~~ ac
Lsw= 164'
sr= z$
_5~>"~0:00~
oA= 1.uoc _
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1
I I ~
BULL RUN
~~ 5e= 0.027,
SS= 6,6
GREENSBORO WESTERN LOOP
5= 6.6
D2= 3.7Bc
s o
p Lsw~3Z -
~g 003
GRASS SWALE
~ / ~.
02= 0.81cfs SOUTHBOUND
~
V2= 0.98f s ~ S5= 6,6 1
DA= O.12ac Lsw= 66' I ~~ 010= 1.09cfs
OI = 4aeJ~ 02= 4 t Sa= 0.003 55= 6 6 W V10= 1.67f s
1 = Ps = Os = c s = ip5
010= 4 52cfs 010= 0.42cfs V10= 0.57f 5
Y10= 1.04fD5 r -[- 375
r ~.
GRASS SWALE r
GRASS SWALE
OA= I.97ac
Lsv= 761'
R
8~ ~ 00` 'f ~' ~ I
v
8~ ~ oo _~

~~
OA= 0.63ac
'
Se= 0.003
55= 6
6 ~ ~~
~ scoua ROLE ~
J S J
1
~ ~ ~ GREENSBORO WESTERN LOOP Lsr= 486
274
. ` I
I PREFORMED ~ i 55= 6.6
02= _.16cf5
0= 9' D= 2' r
I i
/ SCOUR ROLE NORTHBOUND
02= 1.94cfs
Y2= 1.06fps
C10= 6.78cfs w= S c= P
~ -3 I' ~
/
B= S' D= 2' ~~ V2= 1.92fps

V10= 1.13fp5 ` F
~ '
I
W= S' d= 1'
~~ 010= Z.98cfs
V10= 2J2fps
375 ~_ 375

375

F
~ z
~'
I w GRASS SWALE
O10= IO.BOCfs VtO= 2.95fp
s

~
1
----
-
1
ti ~~~ ~ ~ ~ F
,_
--
----- ~ ----- ---- --- - ----------
-----------

,, z

265
265

260
PROFILE GRADE
IN
RT `+72"T.D.= 260
E I
.1
L
'~.

S
~
\ ~ 600mm CONC. SILL

NATURAL GROUND . ~ _ ~ i
___~~~~
~~ /
255 ~
~~~_ /
~
__
- - - ~
~ 255
2 B 2.1m x 2.tm RCBC
PROPOSED PROFILE
250 PI- ea+zs.ooo -L- IRr.I
ELEV
VC = - ISB.t96 250
z20
0a
.
om
Gt - I-)D. BTODZ
cz -
~ I r+tz.Teaz
I
+80 80f00 t2p +40 +60 +80 8I f00 t20 +40 +5p
I~Ig®I~IIL]E
~I~~ ~ N.C.DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
10 0 20
GUILFORD COUNTY
HORIZONTAL SCALE
2.5 0 5 PROJECT: 8.U~92101 (U-252~AC)
GREENSBORO WESTERN LOOP
VERTICAL SCALE
SHEET ~ ~
~ ~'
OF
6 / Y6 / 03

_ J„-,r ~ ~
~ a~
~~~~._ !~
E7C151• RIPpRID.N ' .. i
1'~? ' ~]
~ LONE ~ soy,,;
I I y
''2 i
~~~ x /3
~~ z
l3
zoo ` ~ ~' ~
~ R10.'
EXIST • ~ ~ ~ ,
5 ~ i
r~ ~ ~~~
,~ % S
.'
~.^,-
r,
~'t
~-~ ; Z_
~~
~ r~
~~'
'S j~Y.- ~ i i : i i i ZQ~ i i i # i i XE:Try T ~-~ _
~* * i# i* i# i i i i i* i i a i#* i N OE - _
~~ / ~ 1 DE i i i i # ! ~ - i i : i - r i i~ ~ TDE
't /i i f
D fZ iii • i
I /~ ~ ii * ! i+
~* i ~ / i I
~ f i
~ _ * f/ i f il.i~
'1 ,4~-k~i iii•- iiii
_ i~ p P P P
f/h i i
tii/ i i ii
k !s*_ii*i*/
CEEB • i * e iIi * i * : P P P~ DRAIN & SEED F10HD P P
~~ i ~# i i ! i(
iYis~isis
i i i~~it i f i/ /
i i i i i i /
Q i i i i i*- /
i i i i i P
~- ! i # f P /
f i i i # ; /
i t i i i i i/
i i f# i i f
t i i i i i /
fif _! ~i *iiif.
i : : f~ i f
fi#i~i*fi#i /
: ~ ii1 /
i i # i. /
f i f
i #~# # i ~
f i f i i
i y • f i
T'DE i i l~ i i i- /
i i : i i i
_x--- iTDE i iiiisisi /
7aE#-.
~'
iii
~~ 'U~ i i i i# i i f i f t
• RlPgRlgiy @UF ~~~ i i i iiiiiiiiis:
FER ~ TOE i ~
~\~~
l3
1[~1LA~N ~~~~V
~I~"]E 8
~~ ~ 20
DENOTES MECHANIZED ** ****
CLEARING iii i i
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATERS P p
(POND)
Q
Q
w
z
U
Q

2
1~ / f j } f
i
• r TO BULL RUN ~, /
SAN BVFC`g ~~ ' •• TDE ii if~ f : .•iii i~+•e i~C '
RAP PR i ' T D~ -~ • - . • . f i ~e • 1 i • -ea
_ _ zoNE z ~ TDB - - i i i ~'' /
• . • • • • • /i i /
1 f f i/
i f• i i / i t i•• I /
• f • • t • • • , f i f ~f • f /
TQNE t + + ~ i • ( ~
+•+ffi ffif• • • 1f••• ii~i.i P - P P ff•*iq•+ii~flV'' I
/ /• • f f
• f { , /
i ! • 1+V
• f •
• f ,
Q
a
. .'• f
f • r' I
~""if +~.ii ~ /
4 i f • f ~ _ , /
Z ~i f r f f • ~ 4 ~'~`~ ~ Q~ ~~'
C . _ • • f • r :~~ .rte / ~'~Q(,~ ~ _
/~ • • • ! • f yyy~~~
/ .i i+ a•at~~ i f t~
•
/ ~f •f.r'i•f f R~4p
T$€ t
/~ f f i I~HE Z L ~j
'_' f 79 I
.: •' ~ I 1
~; . ~
~.'.' f, l4 l
,.. f ~ ~ I
f f~ 13 -~-'',,T ~--
10 0 20
R,pN eu4FER ~ ,~ L~ ,'O r
I '~ /~ X ~
t~ x'11 ~~ ~
i ~- ~:'
.~ I ~~ ~ r
1 - '.
rf I
' `,
~;~ r' i /.
~ , f. i
f ~,
~, t 3
_~ ~y ~~~ ~ 4i~ a~~ 2
MILAN ~VIIEW
TIE 8
DENOTES MECHANIZED
CLEARING •'•+i'•fi
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATERS P p
(POND)

. ` .
CLEARING ~ PROJECT: 8.U~92101 (U-Y52~AC)
10 0 20 Fi GREENSBORO WESTERN LOOP
DENOTES FILL IN
WETLANDS F F i -- ~ ~ ~( -

1 _ ,-~ \
j.
~ . ~~
~~~
r ~8 1
r. ` ~
,1 ~~, Ey ? ~~ ` OJ~F ti/
x ti z ti~~/
1N 'v3 1 QE ~ \ ~ ~ ~ i
A_ _
~ UT '2 TO LONG BRANCH
,4 .' ~'~i;j f:~ ~\\\ SCOUR HOLE ~} ~~~ i / .~' V- ~ ' l / O~~` ~
` ` v ~1 ~ ~ ~ i P ~ {. / i ~ WOODS
i N ~:. ~ i
~ p ~ ,~ ~~ O ~ ~ ~
/ < P Q
s ~e P }
/ C ~: 11 ~ F _~~
ti , \ J
`~t ~ ` 1...~ J / ~ I .~ GRASS SwALE
~~ ~~ y~~~' ~/~ ~ ---=.c . _ -~ / / ~~ 010= 12.85cfs V10= 3.Sltps
O '~ o ~ ` t 'F ~ IS __~_ - ~~
Qrk ~1 , ~ ( F ------______ ~ ~, --- 4so
~~ , ~ .
1 ~ ~ ~_
.--
DENOTES MECHANIZED ~ ``~~ F ~~ ,~ `1t WOODS o r ; ~~'
CLEARING :":~:':`. •~ ~~'~"" ~ ~ ~ s ~s,1-}'' N.C.DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
~~ ~~ "/'~ ~ DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DENOTES FILL IN ~~ GRASS SwALE +~ ~~
SURFACE WATERS S S ~` oA= z.7eao Lsr= 33P ~ '/ ~-~
So= 0.0225 55= 3.3
~ 02= S.I9cfs V2= 1.98fps
DENOTES SURFACE ~ ~ 010= 6.81cfs V10= 2.I9fps ~:.~~ i~ F~Sr: RIPAFdaN GUILFORD COUNTY
WATER IMPACT P P w >~
cPOND) ~~~1V ~1~ Vr ~,'F ~~ PROJECT: 8.U~92101 (U-252~AC)
10 0 20 ~V 1 '~~ ~ GREENSBORO WESTERN LOOP
~~~~ 11 ,~. /
SHEET `~ OF ~6 6/Y7/03

NCDOT Project No. 8.U492101
T.I.P. No. U-2524AC
Guilford County, NC
Greensboro-Western Loop from North of
Norfolk Southern Railroad to North of SR 1541.
NATURAL STREAM DESIGN
UNNAMED TRIBUTARY N0.9 TO BULL RUN
Right of -L- Project Station 58+15
Prepared by:
TranSite Consulting Engineers, Inc.
1300 Paddock Dr., Suite G-10
Raleigh, NC 27609
sn~~< l7 ~,r `F6
J~(~ U~

NATURAL STREAM DESIGN
UNNAMED TRIBUTARY NO. 9 TO BULL RUN
Right of -L- Project Station 58+15
The construction of the Greensboro -Western Loop from North of Norfolk Southern
Railroad to North of SR 1541 will require that a 0.21 hectare (0.51 acre) pond on
Unnamed Tributary No. 9 (UT #9) be drained. Once drained, a 65 meter (213') stream
will be constructed in the pond bottom. The stream will begin at the head of the drained
pond and continue downstream to the inlet of a 1200mm (48") RCP. The proposed
stream relocation is designed according to "natural channel" design principles by Dave
Rosgen.
This tributary of Bull Run drains 14.4 hectares (35.6 acres) in Guilford County. Existing
land use in the drainage basin is predominantly low density residential and undeveloped.
The Guilford County Land Use Plan shows that future land use is low to medium density
residential development.
There is no hydraulic gauge data available on this stream. Discharges were estimated
using procedures outlined in USGS Water-Resources Report 96-40$4, Estimation of
Flood-Frequency Characteristics of Small Urban Watersheds in North Carolina.
EXISTING CHANNEL
The existing condition at the proposed stream relocation site is a 0.21 (0.51 acre) hectare
pond with an average depth of 2 meters (6.5'). The pond will be drained prior to
construction and the proposed stream constructed through the natural bottom.
Shcct ~ g cil~ ~6
~w~`~- U ~

REFERENCE REACH
Since the proposed relocation site is currently a pond, a "reference reach" was surveyed
downstream of the pond outlet. The selected reach is located approximately 25 meters
downstream of the pond outlet and is 100 meters in length. This reach was chosen
because it represents the current natural stream conditions.
Based on field survey data gathered, this stream reach was classified as an ES stream.
The bed material for this reach was found to be a medium sand with some gravel. The
HEC-RAS computer model was used to determine the hydraulic characteristics of the
stream such as velocity, shear stress and stream power.
Design and morphological data for the Reference and Proposed streams are shown in the
"Morphological Measurement Table".
PROPOSED CHANNEL
The proposed stream is designed to have an ES classification. The gradient of the
proposed stream is controlled by the tie to the head of the pond upstream and the inlet of
the 1200mm (48") RCP downstream. The proposed stream is designed to have an
average bankfull depth of 0.45 meters (1.5') and an average pool depth of 0.75m (2.5').
The natural banks of the existing pond will serve as the flood prone limits for the
proposed stream.
Proposed stream stabilization is shown on the attached detail sheet and will be grass with
coir fiber matting along the entire length of both banks. The flood prone limits and other
disturbed areas will be stabilized with native woody vegetation. To aid in stability and
reduce stream gradient, cross vane rock weirs with 0.3 meter (1.0') channel drops will be
placed downstream of all meanders in the "glide section". In addition, rootwads will be
5hrcl ~_q_ c~(.`E6
Jw~ ~- ~ ~

placed along the outside of the stream bends
characteristics of the reference stream.
SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS
The stream bottom will match the
The proposed stream has a bankfull stream power of 3.15 lb/ft-s and a shear stress of 1.01
lb/ft2 as compared to 4.74 lb/ft-s and 1.31 lb/ft2 for the existing stream. While the
proposed values are lower than those of the reference stream, they indicate that the
proposed stream will transport the current sediment load without aggrading or degrading
the stream bed or banks. Additionally, 2-yr and 10-yr velocities and shear stresses were
evaluated and found to be within acceptable limits.
~~~~ ~) Shccl ~ ~~f_~~

NCDOT Project No. 8.U492101
T.I.P. No. U-2524AC
Guilford County, NC
Greensboro-Western Loop from North of
Norfolk Southern Railroad to North of SR 1541.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
PLAN
Prepared by:
TranSite Consulting Engineers, Inc.
1300 Paddock Dr., Suite G-10
Raleigh, NC 27609
J~`~ U ? ~/- z3 a~ ~F6

PROTECT INVOLVEMENT
The proposed project is 4.07 kilometers (2.54 miles) in length and will construct a portion of the
Greensboro-Western Loop from North of Norfolk Southern Railroad to North of SR 1541
on new location including and interchange at SR-1541 (Wendover Avenue). The project
also includes relocating a portion of existing SR-4126 (Bridford Parkway) and widening existing
SR-1541 (Wendover Avenue). The Greensboro-Western Loop will be an eight-lane divided
facility with grassed medians and predominantly grass swales left and right. In high fill sections,
concrete expressway gutter will be utilized.
The proposed project contains one crossing of Bull Run, five crossings of Unnamed Tributaries to
Bull Run and one crossing of an Unnamed Tributary to Long Branch. Bull Run and Long Branch
are tributaries to Randleman Lake. See Table l for a detailed list of the streams and proposed
crossings.
Table 1. Stream Crossings
Stream Name Drainage Area C1asDfi ation Proposed Structure
UT #9 to Bull Run 35.6 acres WS-I 1 @ 48" RCP
UT #7 to Bull Run 30.6 acres WS-I 1 @ 42" RCP
UT #6 to Bull Run 24.2 acres WS-I 1 @ 42" RCP
UT #5 to Bull Run 29.9 acres WS-I l @ 42" RCP
UT #4 to Bull Run 58.9 acres WS-I 1 @ 54" RCP
Bull Run 0.57 mi' WS-I 2 @ 8' x 7' RCBC
UT #2 to Long Branch 20.4 acres WS-I 1 @ 36" RCP
UT -Unnamed Tributary
In accordance with 15A NCAC 02B .0248, "All waters of the Randleman Lake (Deep River)
water supply watershed are classified for water supply uses and designated by the Environmental
Mana~~ement Commission as a Critical Water Supply Watershed pursuant to G.S. 143-214.5(b).
J SWMP-I
it ~f -2 sL~~ C

Based on the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Classifications of the impacted
streams, all of the sites listed in Table I require "Special Consideration".
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
The project is located within the City of Greensboro Corporate Limits and Unincorporated are~-s
of Guilford County. The project is located entirely within the drainage basin of the Randleman
Lake and is therefore subject to the requirements of 15A NCAC 2B .0250, Randleman Lake
Water Supply Watershed; Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas. The purpose of these
rules are to protect and preserve the riparian buffers along all streams that drain into the
Randleman Lake and maintain their nutrient removal functions.
The Randleman Buffer Rules require that a 50-foot wide riparian buffer directly adjacent to
surface waters that drain into the Randleman Reservoir be maintained. The Rule also requires
that concentrated runoff from new ditches or manmade conveyances be converted to diffused
flow before the runoff enters the riparian buffer.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs)
As noted in Table 1, the proposed project contains seven jurisdictional stream crossings. All
seven crossings meet the requirements of 15A NCAC 2B .0251 requiring treatment of storrnwater
nrnoff. The following discusses each Site and its proposed BMPs:
Site 1- UT #9 to Bull Run (-L- Sta. 58+20)
The proposed work at Site 1 involves constnrction of -L- on new location, a 1 @ 48" RCP and
213 linear feet of natural stream through the drained pond. To facilitate formation of a natural
stream bed through the pipe, the upstream and downstream inverts will be buried a minimum of
0.5'. The natural stream is designed in accordance with Rosgen techniques for natural stream
design and has an ES Stream Classification. Based on "Level Spreader" design criteria in
Forested Areas, the Northwest, Southwest and Southeast quadrants surrounding the existing and
proposed streams have natural ground slopes through the buffer in excess of 6~Io and therefore arc
not suitable for installation of level spreaders. In the Northeast quadrant, the natural ground is

grassed but the slope through the buffer exceeds the 8°lo threshold for level spreaders. Since level
spreader design criteria can not be met, grass swales, enhanced grass swales and pre-formed scour
holes will be used to provide treatment of stormwater.
~~la-~3
Site 2 - UT #7 to Bull Run (-L- Sta. 62+02)
The proposed work at Site 2 involves construction of -L- on new location and a 1 @ 42" RCP.
To facilitate formation of a natural stream bed through the pipe, the upstream and downstream
inverts will be buried a minimum of 0.5'. No runoff from the proposed roadway is discharged
into this stream.
Site 2 - UT #6 to Bull Run (-L- Sta. 63+42)
The proposed work at Site 2 involves construction of -L- on new location and a 1 @ 42" RCP.
To facilitate formation of a natural stream bed through the pipe, the upstream and downstream
inverts will be buried a minimum of 0.5'. Based on "Level Spreader" design criteria in Forested
Areas, the Northeast, Northwest, Southwest and Southeast quadrants surrounding the stream have
natural ground slopes through the buffer in excess of 6% and therefore are not suitable for
installation of level spreaders. Additionally, in the Southeast quadrant an offsite drainage feature
has been relocated to the toe of fill. Since level spreader design criteria can not be met, grass
swales, enhanced grass swales and apre-formed scour hole will be used to provide treatment of
stormwater.
Site 3 - UT #5 to Bull Run (-L- Sta. 66+15)
The proposed work at Site 2 involves construction of -L- on new location and a l @ 42" RCP.
To facilitate formation of a natural stream bed through the pipe, the upstream anti downstream
inverts will be buried a minimum of O.S. In the Northeast and Southeast quadrants, offsite
drainage features preclude the use of level spreaders. In the Northwest and Southwest quadrants,
irregular natural topography is not suitable for level spreaders. Since level spreader design
criteria can not be met, grass swales and a preformed scour hole will be used to provide treatment
of stormwater.
SWMP-?
5~'~# Z6 ~~ ~G

Site 4 - UT #5 to Bull Run (-L- Sta. 74+74)
The proposed work at this location involves the construction of -L- nn new location and a l @
54" RCP. To facilitate formation of a natural stream bed through the pipe, the upstream and
downstream inverts will be buried a minimum of 0.5'. In the Northwest and Southwest
quadrants, the presence of existing right of way for the extension of Ruffin Road precludes the
use of level spreaders. In the Northeast and Southeast quadrants, irregular natural topography is
not suitable for level spreaders. Since level spreader design criteria can not be met, grass swales
will be used to provide treatment of stormwater.
Site 7 -Bull Run (-L- Sta. 80+61)
The proposed work at this location involves the construction of -L- on new location and a 2 @ 8'
x 7' RCBC. The RCBC inverte will he hnriPrl ~ minimum „r i n> .,.,.....o.,.-.. ,...., a....._..._____ ._
facilitate formation of a natural stream bed through the RCBC length. Additionally, a 2.0'
concrete sill in the left RCBC barrel restricts daily and low flows to the right barrel. In [he
Northwest and Southwest quadrants, irregular natural topography and the presence of Ruffin
Road preclude the use of level spreaders. In the Northeast and Southeast quadrants, irregular
natural topography also precludes the use of level spreaders. Since level spreader design criteria
can not be met, grass swales and preformed scour holes will be used to provide treatment of
stormwater.
Site 11 - UT #2 to Long Branch (-RPR- Sta 2+52)
The proposed work at this location involves the construction of Ramp B on new location and a 1
@ 36" RCP. To facilitate formation of a natural stream bed through the pipe, the upstream and
downstream inverts will be buried a minimum of 0.5'. The Northeast and Southeast quadrants
are located within the proposed interchange and are not suitable for installation of level spreaders.
In the Southwest quadrant, the slope of natural ground through the buffer is in excess of 6% and
therefore are not suitable for installation of level spreaders. Since level spreader design criteria
can not be met, grass swales and a preformed scour hole will be used to provide treatment of
stormwater.
''11 1 jn~- U ` ~s z- ~,q ~
~w~ ~- U 3 s~vn~tt~--t
S~f~ Z7 0~ ~( 6

See Table 2 for a detailed list of the BMP locations.
DESIGN DETAILS
Design details for the enhanced grass swales, variable width base ditches and preformed scour
holes are shown on the Roadway Design plans.
,~w~~-~3
SWMP-~

Table 2. BMP Locations
BMP Location Plan Sheet
Enhanced Grass Swale -L- 58+25 to 59+20 (Lt) 4, 5
-L- 63+80 to 64+80 (Lt) 6
Grass Swale -L- 57+00 to 57+80 (M) 4
-L- 57+80 to 59+20 (M) 4, 5
-L- 59+20 to 60+80 (M) 5
-L- 61+70 to 63+55 (M) 5, 6
-L- 63+55 to 63+80 (M) 6
-L- 63+80 to 64+80 (M) 6
-L- 64+80 to 66+49 (M) 6, 7
-L- 66+49 to 66+90 (M) 7
-L- 66+90 to 68+40 (M) 7
-L- 68+40 to 70+20 (M) 7, 8
-L- 71+58 to 73+00 (M) 8, 9
-L- 73+00 to 74+00 (M) 9
-L- 74+00 to 74+65 (M) 9
-L- 74+65 to 74+90 (M) 9
-L- 74+90 to 76+25 (M) 9, 10
-L- 75+10 to 76+25 (Lt) 9, 10
-L- 75+30 to 76+25 (Rt) 9, 10
-L- 76+25 to 77+21 (Lt) 10
-L- 76+25 to 77+29 (M) 10
-L- 76+25 to 77+36 (Rt) 10
-L- 77+60 to 79+68 (Lt) ] 0, 11
-L- 77+65 to 79+68 (M) ] 0, 11
-L- 77+70 to 79+68 (Rt) 10, 11
-L- 79+68 to 80+10 (Lt) 11
-L- 79+68 to 81 +30 (M) l 1
-L- 79+68 to 79+90 (R) 11
-L- 81+30 to 81+80 (M) 1 1
-L- 81+80 to 83+28 (M) 11, 12
-L- 91+70 to 94+70 (M) 14
-L- 92+40 to 93+66 (Rt) 14
-L- 94+70 to 95+50 (M) 14
-L- 95+50 to 95+65 (M) 14
-RPA- 1 +02 to 2+48 (Lt) ] 4
-RPB- 2+55 to 3+56 (Lt) 14
`~ V 5~~ Z~(~ ~6

Table 2. BMP Locations (Cont.)
Pre-formed Scour Holes -L- 57+20 (Lt) 4
-L- 64+40 (Rt) 6
-L- 80+35 (Rt) l 1
-L- 87+37 (Lt) 11
-RPB- 2+65 (Rt) 14
Natural Stream Design -L- ]0+46 to 11+23 (Lt) 4
JAL ~ 3 SWMP-7 (t~1~ (~`~2,sz- ~~
s~ 3

\ \ \ \ ` ~~epNKM~pt
~ .~ i .\ \ SPE~~p~
~
I ~ I

;~

~~ ~ \

peo
\ MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INC. '
~- °z \ P~~~ ~ ~

~ _.~ __,
i
~ _~~~ ,/

~~
~ i~~ //
i~ /~ ~
,' , , ~ ' /.
~~~ ~~
~~ .
~~
~~ i~
~~ ~
- ~ ~
,, ,,.
,-
GLpRR OPH µ~C~``pN
~~o
0
F
/ / // ~~
~ / ~~ ~
lGi• /
\\ \ ~ ~pRRO
•`-i~~" • O O O (^ HELEN
~+ J ,1)
a N m
rv I '1I ~ T
x~~ ~ ~
Ir- '
SCALE
20m IOm 0 20m
~/~ DENOTES FILL IN
~////%//~{ W E T L A N D
~~ DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
D' DENOTES MECHANIZED
CLEARING
SITE RIBA
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
8.U492 10 I U-2524~G
SCALE AS SHOWNr~
SHEET 3 ~ OF `t' 6 `~'~'~I 2'~3

~\o~
O~

u
h-
U
P~
/'~/~ 4W
~ jt' ml
~ ~' ~~ ~~r~• W
MATCH~INE~ Iq
S-T~ 2 .QA
SCALE
i-
20m IOm 0 20m
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
DENOTES MECHANIZED
CLEARING
/~ ~
4
u
i~, i
~, r~
7~
7~
iW /
~ /
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT Of TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
8.U49210 I U-2524A~t
GREENSBORO WESTERN URBAN LOOP
SCALE AS SHOWN ~~ ~~'fl
SHEET~~ OF ~6 (o ``Zfj i ~,~~?~
~-+ N
~ ~
~ ~~
~~~~~~
~ ~

MATCHLINE 2
I I\ ~ ~ I
I ~ ~
~ I
I I~ I ~
I II N ~ I~ I
I I\ ~
I I I I I, I ,~ ~
N 1 I I ~ ,rte I ~~,~~
W W I ~ I ~,~ ~
~o -
0
I"~l_ ---
m \ \ ~ -
W ~" ~,
' ~ ~ ~ I 1
~ t, ~ '~ $
, ~, ~ \
,
I \
,
`~ I ~I w~ I `~~ ~ 1
' '' I I I~ I I ~~ ~~ 1
,III
, II ~ ~
,
I ~ \\
,
' ~ \
,
I ~
, I ~ ~ ~
'~ I ~ ~ ~1 -
r~1
,
\ i ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I \ ~
1~ ~ ~ \
, ` ~ ~
3N 1 ~,'~~
`I ~ \ ~
, s~
, ~'4 \ ~
'~ 1 ~ ~~ \
l ' I ~ .r ~
~,,
MATCHL~I E~ f e~~~'" ~~
N NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
S,~ ~ ~~ DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
8.U4921O1 U-2524
SCALE GREENSBORO WESTERN UR9AN LOOP
20m IOm 0 20m
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
SCALE AS SHOWN[ [ 'R~ 65E'~
SHEET 33 OF T v ~p1~~0~

i i~ ~
ii ~
ii ~
~i
~ ~
.. ~ 1~
i i ~ ~i
i i , ~i
# ~ i~
~ ~
1 ~~
. , .,
~~ l%-
_~
~~-,
_,
~- ~
~~ ~
~1T~ 2 ~
SCALE
--~
,-
20m IOm 0 20m
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
~~5~
~a
~'~
P~
o
,'
,,~,~
~~~ f ,
~~.~,~~
M A T C H ~ I N E ~ -InOTIJ /`ADAI WA f1CDADT-ICWT nC TDAUCDnoT-rl~

ITEM EXISTING
STREAM REFERENCE
STREAM PROPOSED
RELOCATION
STREAM NAME LONG BRANCH N/A LONG BRANCH
DRAINAGE AREA (DA) 166 ha. 166 ha.
CHANNEL SLOPE (S) .0065 .0068
BANKFUL WIDTH (Wbk{') 2.76M 4.40M
MEAN DEPTH (dbkf) 0.66M 0.44M
BANKFUL X-SECTION ARE 1.81M 2 1.92M2
WIDTH/DEPTH RATIO 4.18 ~ 10.0
Maximum DEPTH (d mbkf) 0.76M 0.60M
WIDTH Flood-Prone Area
f e g0.7M 17.4M
ENTRENCHMENT RATIO 14.75 3.95
CHANNEL MATERIALS: D50 3mm 3mm
SINUOSITY (K) 1.15 1.05
MEANDERS:
AVG. LENGTH 12.5M 40.OM
AVG. AMPLITUDE 3.87M 8.OM
AVG. RADIUS IO.OM IO.OM
DISCHARGES:
0 BANKFULL 2.70cros 2.65cros
02 3.73cros 8.94cros
010 9.25cros 17.85cros
VELOCITY:
V BANKFULL 0.43M/S 0.58M/S
V2 0.44M/S 0.91M/S
VIO 0.57M/S 1.08M/S
CLASSIFICATION E3 E3
STREAM DESCRIPTION AND
CLASSIFICATION DATA
SITE #2t3A

NATURAL CHANNEL DESIGN TYPICALS
DETAIL N
vAR. TYPICAL FLOOD PLAIN SECTION Natural
I 3.Om (Not to Scote 1 Ground
8/.-
2 Flood Plcin ~
Future :~ _ .L
FIII Slope VAR. Z °/ ~VAR.
0 TO 9.4m 0.6 TO .4m I.2m
SEE CHANNEL DETAILS
Roor ^io Loc
r• u• w
CHANNEL DETAIL
PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION
lhat To Scar 1
B~1alFOLL DEPTN
0.6m
F O PbN 7 ~ ib00 In
PWT~
TTPKK JECTgR I BET^EEN BEH1S
WHEN BACKFILLINC OVER AND AROUND FOOTER LOGS,ROOTWAD LOGS
enln euruna anrrc claw v ccrIDRE ALL COMPONENTS INCLUDING
IBOVE BANKFULL DEPTH
~II~ANNIEIL I~ILA~N ~V~IEW
~,®N~ ]~~A~N~1[~
CHANNEL DETAIL
PROPOS TYPI[A SF[TION
0 ND IMEAbDERI
I MOT TO S[al~ )
PROIrlT DEEPER UuMEL
F ~ eELar GuDE PDMT
O.Jm •T BEND
ealaFUL DFPTN
FboC Plain 7 • [pq
FIBER
i.On i0 BuRFOLL
DEPTN
FOOTEA LOG OJm aRCNOR RO[RS
wlxCE IiJ Ou. BELOr nvERil I`~0 - Io0 lei
LTR[4 SECTgR I ~T BENDS
NOTES:
NUMBER OF ROOTWADS INSTALLED TO BE DETERMINED ON SITE
ROOTWADS TO BE SPACED 4x DIAMETER OF ROOT BASE
FOOTER LOG ANCHOR ROCK TO BE PLACED ON THE DOWNSTREAM END
OF EACH FOOTER LOG SO THAT IT IS LEANING AGAINST THE LOG ON
THE SIDE AWAY FROM THE CHANNEL.
~~~~ ~ ~

U-2524 ~c. ~~,-~.- i ~ ~ Z ~,~~
Revisions for Randleman Buffer ~~o~w~~
June 10, 2003
Site IBA
1) Special ditch grade right of -L- from station 98+40 to 99+20 was eliminated.
2) Run off collected at structure #3 meets grass swale criteria. See attached chart.
3) Outlet ditch for structure #2 has been widened and flattened with 3:1 side slopes
to meet grass Swale criteria. In doing so, this eliminates the need for rip rap. See
attached chart. Due to the steep terrain at the site, apre-formed scour hole vas
not practical. However, the ditch is designed to stop short of the buffers where
the water will head up and sheet flow out of the ditch.
Site 26A
1) Ditch left of 12+00 -LSB-...all runoff (structures #19-24) is treated prior to
entering ditch except structure #15. See attached chart. A box was added at
station II+'1b -LSBr to tie to Structure #15 and discharge outside of the buffer.
Due to the size of the drainage area and slope, the rip rap could not be
eliminated from this ditch.
2) -RPC- 13+20 right... Topography would not allow for this system to discharge
to the left into the gore area. Therefore, a box was added to allow for discharge
to be directed into apre-formed scour hole at the pipe outlet in the floodplain of
the stream.
3) -RPC- 14+20 right...Topography would not allow for this system to discharge
to the left into the gore area. Therefore, apre-formed scour hole was placed at
the pipe outlet in the floodplain of the stream.
4) Structure #27 (-KPC- 1C>+00)...outlet pipe was revised to cross under -RPC-
into the gore area where grass Swale criteria is met. See attached chart.
5) Per Jenny Fleming, gore area between -RPC- and -LNB- was tightened up
previously, under Abdul Rahmani's direction, to fit stream between -RPC- and
hill. 'I'bis eliminated 3000' of culvert at this site.
sG~f#~ 3~ ~ ~6

U-2524 ~ ~ Fn~S l SA ~} 2 8A~
(metric)

Permit
Site #

Str. #

DA
(ha) required
treatment
length
(m)

actual treatment length
(m)

M 1

M 2

Base
(m)

Slope

Q2
(cros)

V2
(m/s)

Q10
(cros)

Stable?

18A 3 0.51 38.4 40+ 6 6 0.0 0.02474 0.080 0.34 0.100 Y
2 outlet 0.34 25.4 30.0 3 3 2.4 0.03 0.230 0.44 0.300 Y

21~A 15** 0.09 7.1 12.0'" 2** 2** 1.0 0.016667 0.028 0.63** 0.036 Y
19 0.15 11.3 85.0 3 3 0.0 0.0133 0.040 0.24 0.047 Y
20 0.14 10.5 60.0 6 10 0.0 0.0142 0.030 0.13 0.044 Y
21 0.10 7.5 22.0 4 10 0.0 0.006 0.030 0.09 0.040 Y
22 0.69 52.0 144.0 3 3 0.0 0.0121 0.150 0.46 0.190 Y
23 0.44 33.1 140.0 6 6 0.0 0.01 0.100 0.25 0.130 Y
24 0.38 28.6 220.0 6 6 0.0 0.025778 0.090 0.39 0.110 Y
27 0.20 15.1 75.0 3 3 0.0 0.007467 0.060 0.23 0.080 Y

Pre-formed scour holes were placed at the outlet of structure # 16A and 26 in the floodplain of stream.
Topographical constraints will not allow the systems to be discharged to the left into the gore area.
Structure #15 outlet ditch has 2:1 side slopes and is lined with rip rap.
RANDLEMAN RESERVOIR BUFFER REVISIONS
JUNE 9, 2003 S~~# 3 ~ ~ ~ 6

Project No. 8.U492101 (U- 2524AC)
Prop erty Owner List
For
Each Wetland Site
Site Stat ion No. Name Address
N0.
-L- 57+80 Lt to ~
O Franklin M. Campbell 2513 E. Woodlan Way
-L- 58+06 Lt Greensboro, NC 27407-5003
1

-L- 57+78 Lt to Peggy W. Smith 6605 Arcadiz Rd.
-L- 58+57 Rt. 2 Partnership Columbia, SC 29206
-L- 61+80 Rt, to
3
NCDOT P.O. Box 20521
-L- 62+15 Lt. Raleigh, NC 27611

-L-
62+12
Lt.
to
O
Southern Bell Britt Properties
Attn: Meldona Britt
-L- 62+32 Lt. Hwy. 200 South
2 Stanfield, NC 28163

-L- 63+38 Lt. to O Robert P. Schultheis & 5010 Hilltop Rd.
-L- 63+50 Lt. Merlyn 0. Schultheis Greensboro, NC 27407
-L- 63+38 Rt. to O Stanley Road Baptist 2500 Stanley Rd.
-L- 63+72 Rt. Church, Inc. Greensboro, NC 27407
-L- 65+58 Rt. to O Wiley A. Sykes 820 Larkwood Dr.
-L- 66+14 Rt. Greensboro, NC 27415
3

-L- 66+12 Rt. to
8 Ms. Harry L. Hennis, 5955 Church Wood Dr.
-L- 66+55 Lt. Widow Greensboro, NC 27407
4 -L- 69+78 Rt. to 9 Fred E. Hodgin & 2225 Mowbray Tr.
-L- 70+84 Rt. Ruth A. Hodgin Greensboro, NC 27407
5 -L- 68+92 Lt. to 9 Fred E. Hodgin & 2225 Mowbray Tr.
-L- 74+25 Rt. Ruth A. Hodgin Greensboro, NC 27407
6 -L- 74+69 Lt. to ~~ NCDOT P.O. Box 20521
-L- 74+84 Rt. Raleigh, NC 27611
(continued)
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
PROJECT: B.U~(92101 (U-252~AC)
GRE
E
NSBORO WESTERN LOOP
(
~
~
~
SHEET `
OF ~
6/27/03

Project No. 8.U492101 (U-2524AC)
Property Owner List
For
Each Wetland Site
Site Station No. Name Address
N0.
-L- 80+58 Lt. to
// Wendover South 1900 Interstate Tower
-L- 80+66 Lt. Associates, LP Greensboro, NC 28202
7

Susan C. Foster,
-L- 80+54 Lt. to Trustee of James A.
/2 Coomes & Frederica 5535 Wayne Rd.
-L- 80+66 Lt. Brown Coomes Greensboro, NC 27407-7316
Inter Vivos Trust
/3 Ms. Lucille Brown, 5740 Ruffin Rd.
Widow Jamestown NC 27282
8 -RPC- 0+15 Lt. to /4 Ms. Patricia M. Brown, 5740 Rufifiin Rd.
-RPC- 2+53 Lt. Widow Jamestown NC 27282
/5 NCDOT P.O. Box 20521
Raleigh, NC 27611
9 -RPC- 3+69 Lt. to /6 NCDOT P.O. Box 20521
-RPC- 5+12 Lt. Raleigh, NC 27611
10 -L- 93+55 Rt. to /~ Ralph Edward McClellan P.O. Box 7
-L- 93+78 Lt. Wanchese, NC 27981
11 -RPB- 2+59 Rt. to /8 Eunice J. Pitts 5912 Hickory Grove Rd.
-RPB- 3+06 Rt. Greensboro, NC 27409
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
PROJECT: B.U,92101 (U-252~AC)
GREENSBORO WESTERN LOOP
SHEET ~~
~~
OF
6 / 27 / 03

PROPERTY OWNERS
NAME AND ADDRESS
OWNER'S NAME J ADRES/S
~CL.(~"LAv ~ • GCfJjfj(~.~
~ $ i 8 l~ ~- l,J o~.d e-~,~-e~, C.~.~-ems,-~..~eJ
,.kJ n. ¢.enz.~i-•a-r_u, `7? • L' ° ..z 7 5< 0 ~J
Helen Carrot
('~,~- ~~~3no13
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. R~~-'-4~ , `71.C~ ' ~-7~ Z z-ao13
Clara D. McCellan ~ ~-w-r~-a-cQ.. ~ nIG D O ~ ~
c/o Ralph McCellan
L~J t.C~.i.~-nJ ..~ 2c,c,a/.'..c.~-~' l~ vz.,C c~2r~cy.,..J ~
Wilson Trucking Corp. ~
C ~iG22rca.~a-u1-„J •~f~-~'~- ~~c~`-c;l a~ik..rn C~aa~ce
p,n.$~- 9 3:3~ v
Pierce Roof Corp. b~~,~/l,,-oZ,_,. '7I•C. ~.a•7~.~.q
Duke Power Co. ~ ~'~""~`~ ~`~' ~~D ~~ i
~ ~ O p w an:3C. Mc~i4'_+c-3C .(55~~
Guilford Mills, Inc. ,~n.e..~~,.e-t'/-~-z.-o,7t.~~7~v'7
N C State Ports Authority ~` ~'~"~~`~ ~ N C~ ~ j '~c
~, Vp, '~aX; / ,~ 3o O
Ciba Geigy Corp. ~/w~@..r-+.•2t~.•-o-L[~ , n ~ .~ •7y ~
6812 Friendly Road
N C Dept. of Transportation Greensboro, NC 27410
F~-z.~.~Sz -ti~-~-~-,NC.D~T#K
Coca Cola Company
p.c T3~ ~.~c~z3
Williams Energy Ventures, Inc. .~ c~-~-cv , ~• 7 ~-1.~..1•-I ~z g
712 N. Eugene St.
Guilford County Board of Education Greensboro, NC 27401-1654
P.O. Box 3608
Amp Inc. Harrisburg, PA 17105-3608
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
'ptoPLDr~ 0,~~ iN~~vanraN PROJECT No. S.U492101 U-2524. AG
s~,1Tt .~ ZlSA GREENSBORO WESTERN URBAN LOOP FROM
~- 1 45A / Jv6.y "2sw3
SHEET~~F 'C ~
3I-aZa~
/ C7'l,,)

PROPERTY OWNERS
NAME AND ADDRESS
OWNER'S NAME ADRESS
6584 Polar Ave., Ste.340
Mid-America Apartments, L.P. Memphis, TN 38138-0612
Alfred K. Sampson, and Wife, ~ tg-~,~yQ ~ t\f C-p ~-~-'Ic
Voultine P. Sampson
Kilpatrick Associates
~.~,~Ptn-~.G; ~~C,~,L'-1~J~.-°-~...~ ~~ ~P.:ti:E'tl~t.>, ~l ~C,
~'r~r~.Ra-w b~~lUi.J
Mast Enterprises r' ~'' ~Ot~ a ~°~
u' ~-~ '~x•~ • 0 7095 - ~ 9 tv 2
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
I PROJECT No. 8.U492101 U-2524 AC
ate"- " 1 ~~' 1N~'~n~~ GREENSBORO WESTERN URBAN LOOP FROM
5a-1'~,. ~ 2'C3A
~ ~,~r Jw-Y 2.ac3
SHEET ~~ OF Z.lo

IMPACT SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS BUFFER IMPACTS

Site
No.
Station

(From/To)
Structure
Size
Fill In
Wetlands
(ha)
Temp. Fill
In Wetlands
(ha)
Excavation
In Wetlands
(ha) Mechanized
Clearing
(Method III)
(ha)
Fill In SW
(Natural)
(ha)
Fill In SW
(Pond)
(fia)
Temp. Fill
In SW
(ha} Existing
Channel
Impacted
(m)
Relocated
Channel
(m)
Enclosed
Channel
(m)
Zone
1
(ha)
Zone
2
(ha)
1 -L- 57+80 Lt 1200 0.010 0.251^ 72.8 60.5 102.7 0.378 0.242
to 58+57 Rt

2 -L- 61+80 Rt 1050 0.014 121.2 118.4 0217 0.137
to 62+33 Lt

-L- 63+38 Rt 1050 0.014 129.2 99.9 0.251 0.163
to 63+74 Rt

3 -L- 65+97 Rt 1050 0.013 78.2 © 94.3 0.204 0.122
to 66+54 Lt

4 -L- 69+58 Rt - 0.848 ~
to 70+85 Rt

5 -L- 73+02 Lt - 0.128^
to 73+61 Lt

6 -L- 74+69 Lt 1350 0.011 85.6 80.5 0.160 0.106
to 74+85 Rt

SHEET TOTAL 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.062 1.227 0.000 487.0 60.5 495.8 1.210 0.770
O DENOTES DRAINING OF POND IMPACT. POND AT SITE 5 15 A TEMPORARY IMPRCT.
zQ THIS QUANTITY REFLECTS AN 18.3m DEDUCTION FOR PIPE BEING REMOVED AND
REPLACED WITH OPEN DITCH.
~~ OF ~~
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.0492101
NCDOT T.I.P. No: U-2524AC
6!27/03

IMPACT SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS BUFFER IMPACTS

Site
No.
Station

(From/To)
Structure
Size
Fill In
Wetlands
(ha)
Temp. Fill
In Wetlands
(ha)
Excavation
In Wetlands
(ha) Mechanized
Clearing
(Method III)
(ha)
Fill In SW
(Natural)
(ha)
Fill In SW
(Pond)
(ha)
Temp. Fill
In SW
(ha) Existing
Channel
Impacted
(m)
Relocated
Channel
(m)
Enclosed
Channel
(m)
Zone
1
(ha)
Zone
2
(ha)
7 -L- 80+58 Rt
to 58+57 Rt 2 ~ 2.4 x 2.1 RCBC 0.021 104.4 75.0 0.212 0.116

8 -RPC- 0+15 Lt
to 2+53 Lt - 1.634 +^ 1.108 0.488

9 -L- 3+68 Lt - 0.392 0 041
to 5+12 Lt

10 -L- 93+55 Rt - 0.015 ~
to 93+78 Lt

11 -RPB- 2+94 Lt
to 3+42 Lt 900 0.007 0.217 74.1 61.2 0.147 0.107

SHEET TOTAL 0.392 0.000 0.000 0.041 0.028 1.866 0.000 178.5 0.0 136.2 1.467 711
0
PROJECT TOTAL 0.392 0.000 0.000 0.041 0.090 3.093 0.000 665.5 60.5 632.0 2.677 .
1.481
I N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTA
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
,^ DENOTES DRAINING OF POND IMPACT. POND AT SITE 8 IS A TEMPORARY IMPACT.
GUILFORD COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.U492101
NCDOT T.I.P. No: U-2524AC
OF T
6/27/03

IMPACT SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS BUFFER IMPACTS

Site
No.
Station

(FromlTo)
Structure
Size
Fill In
Wetlands
ha)
Temp. Fill
In Wetlands
ha)
Excavation
In Wetlands
(ha) Mechanized
Clearing
(Method III)
(ha)
Fill In SW
(Natural)
(ha
Fill In SW
(Pond)
ha
Temp. Fill
In SW
ha) Existing
Channel
Impacted
m)
Relocated
Channel
(m)
Zone
1
ha
Zone
2
ha)
16A' 98+00 -L- 1500 RCP 0.05 0.00 0.00 <0.01 <9.01 0.17 13 0 0.20 0.13

2BA 101+g0 .L- I 2 .1 x 2.1 RCBC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 925 540 1.67 1.12
12+zo-RP o-

TOTALS : 0.05 0 0 0 0.11 0.17 0 938 540 1.87 1.25
SITE i -BEAVER IMPOUNDMENT AREA A TEMPORARY IMPACT WILL OCCUR IN ADDITION TO
ABOVE LISTED QUANTITIES DUE TO TEMPORARY LOWERING OF WATER LEVEL
METHOD III CLEARING IN WETLANDS f3.OM BEYOND CONSTRUCTION LIMfT51
Buller restoration at SFte 2BA is 0.49 ha for Zone 1 and 0.30 ha for Zona 2

Attachment A

_'
;~. ~ ~ -~
~, , ~ iN
Oo+yV
' ~ ~-+~
,~ ~Q.
~b
•;~ `
~~>
~,~ /y ~,
~; ~:
~I ~
1 i 1_ ~
I 1 "t ,,,o
~ 1 • ,r - -
v ~ u 1- '~ 11 '~'
y~ i
~ it
\ 1- 1
II rr
/
~I 00~ p~ '1 I /~ (
4 I / ~
x1
+J r- I
Oa ~`
Y ~L

0
1Mp10C7lTrl~ 7' ~.fwCR4if~ uw~E.~
-n'r ~ _- 2y' 02 ~4c
peapos~ ~, P~~r v~toL'e..
-rim -r~• u -asz~ ea C-~ Z
~ peeN- ~~) y t,E,V l aus ly
uu•,n~,e, -riP ~ 2 Z4o2A
w
f 8
VyfJ
'\ Q
a
a
8
rtou'rn cnttor.tc+n ~tsrntrrrorsr+'r ot~ •rtcA;rsPOtt'Pn.'ION
UL'/I~I(iN Ole ULGII4tAY:;
GUtLi~ORD COUtI'L"(
Pt~.ot~or;t:u .-os rttt:~~.ttr;uc,t+o n•rrnc:;
trut~ ; -rt . :;ou'rn r,r r;tu•a•at::o~it~o
~.~~ •+n::;'. r,r uttuwr•ur,tu ac,r.u c::a-; s'~z,
~v ~y 2003
~d I ~ ~
u ~1 ~N
'arc ~
N
~~.~ . ,_ ` ~ ., 00
4
001'ryy \ I. 'I ~y , i
(((` ~ I ro ~
,I ~ ,
''~ ;
,~ i ~ ~ 'gill
~~ ~ ~ a~
~~, ' i{

/%
a) '
~/ /
L1 l1 ~ / "~
it ~L~ 7
H - ~ ~ cF~ m/~ O/
,J / ,,o
/ l1 ~l `' 1J l / / ~~
W u) .n ~ F\/
~U ~ r , ~ _~_ •,,
Q ~~~ ~ n ~ 4 y .r ~yQry ~ ~ ri
1 w n o r +~ 3j~ ~` ~_
i
'Y) ~.
~v ~ ~ ; ~ ~
H Q ~ ~ o u, ~
Z ~ <F
W ~ U7 ~ ._
~ ~ ~~
~,
'd ' ~ O
Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Q
d L N~~~
~L~. r `V
~I ~ ?
o
2 ~N ~ ~ ~ T
~ ~~ ~
~µ
N ~ ~ \~ ~
~ W ~~~' Op
71 ~ f S2 ~
~ ~~ -~ ,~ a
~ ~ o
o i a
c ~ a
! i a £
~ ~ ~ ~ i Q ~
Q ~~. ~~~
N ~ N i
~ N ~ ~ ~ i °O{ate
~ NORTH CnROLINA DEPnRTME2IT OF TRANSPORTATIOtf
y ~ Q .r ~ DIVISZON OF iIICRHAYS
'1'rr~ ~Fl ~r C ~ GUZLFORD COUNTY
,~ ~
o.ua~zJOI I-zaoznD
r ~ ~ ~
;' I
~~ j PROPOSED I-OS CREEifSDORO ^YPASS
(, ) ~' I FROM SOUT11 OF US-220
v / I I TO NEST OF EI11-EUGEIIE ST. (SR-J]OO)
SCALE n5 SIIOH1f r~~V~~ 2
;~I,ll,t :;MEET 01' A~.M,E~fT
~'~I it 1~ Ju~Y 2003

III .~
I~~
I Il
i';
I
n`~ I ~.
~ ,,,
s-~~ ~
I ~~
~ ~
11' `\
I, \`I
UJ rQ"~ ~1'',
~_ .~ it
~l
~~\{
~~
~~
.~ J
_~ o
~~ ~ti
,,,
4
1
9 lei
•~~
~l
~ ~~'
M t
~_~
~~
~ ~~ V /
I -~ \ ~~1tlDy ~
~I ~ v/i~ ~
1 _ ~
r ~ ,` I ~c5~
W
J ~
./~
`V t'
t ~
Q
a
a ~
8
N
__/.J=' i
- - ~~ r ~~ I I ~(~ 87 cols
QOtr3~ ~~~ III ~~^ sb ~~~'
\~~ ~ /rte ~ '~~ ~~/}~~ ~ ~,
d~\ •I I I I N ~~ ~ ~
" ~., ~ .b S b'b~o
Q~s 1
df~ I IIO ~~ N ~ ~~rt ~ b2~
~~ I I II, ~, h v ~ y~
a
~~~ I ~~~~ ~ / '
LLII `^ /~ ~
., , ~.__ .
,.
uo+os ~- , III ~I
,d
~,~ ~''~,_ I II
°9:~ it ~~~ ~
V
~c
s
~~
~~
o)-
~ ~

H
4 ~
r_ N ~
~a-
•~
z
7
~~
r4
N
~~
H
~-
Q
~ ~ ~~ S
d~
~~w
tK)R:II CnROLINn DI:PnR'I';1Et!'C OF 'i'Itl~I1S['ORTATION
UI'/: IUtt OF IIIGIIWAYS
O.Uh7"l.301 i-'l.htlli~i~
t-rr,,~osl:i) :-ns ratr;t.u:.r;r,ar) u•rc~n:;:;
;~r.~~:~ r-r~ carrri r, r• crcr•.ral:nr)I+~,
•ir~ 71C5'I' ~Ji' U('Jit4h1u;i1) Rtii,U (:;kp-;.5'1'l.~
::ui.:~.•r ~r~ ~t~r A
J~ ~~ 2~3

`~,l-
l, L~ 7
,~\~ t 1 it~• ~ Jcti \
,\ ~ N f Lf J~ b~
~~ >,o
\ ~\
L~ye~D
,~--
~ V~ ~`
~ ~
\1 00+~~
1
x
c~a
°~1 a
U1,~~
V 11
'~ '. 1
' ~l
~'
Oo+~ G ~ ~ ,
•, I ~ ''
1~ i I '
7
~~, I
'`
/~ /
Tf P ~ T- 2SIo2 A
-^ AIM-•
1~
I
/~
I~~Lr/W
L`-•-~ -n'r ~ U - as z4- Aa '~ z
`~<~
r J ~~
~._
ttOLYCII CnROf.2ttA UL"PAftTM6tl'L' OI" T[tA[ISPOIt'CATIdN
UIVLSIOFI OF IIiGIIt•7A'!:;
,UiLFUKU rOUtl'P'!
rs.ua~zsul [-zaoznn ,I
I
PR(iPO:;IiU i-OS GRIiIaI,;ISUNG Il'INA ~
i'RUt4 i-rS:i ..^,011'['11 GI• (:Rha{;i:;[SURU
'L'O 'r1iL:;'L' Oir URUt7I1pNL RGl,U i ;;lt- i '.`I "L j
L~i~~H,~s~-r A

illy
i~
~ ~~-
i ~,
~~ ~ ;
~~
i--~~ ~
~ 1~`~-
1
11 `\
.1 ~~,
Ov+O`'1 1`x`1 1\

(I ~~
~~
:i J
~i
' ,`,
.,
~ ,a
a ,.,
~~
. ~c,
FI
' N
S ~t
1 V~
I '' ~ I \\ /
~ ~~~ l~l -
~/ I ~ I - d~ ' r~~%c
1a ( add>s~ ~-' ~ ~i ` ')~
.~
J g
Jl
Q
a
8
N
~~ c
~+~ L Ild ~ ~7 ~, ~ o0'~SE' ~ry/ b~,
~~ ~ I Igo ~ ;~ ~ A~ ' : ~ ~ ,y? oti
.,
~I ~ Igo ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ (;~ ~' ~~w
' I S i .~~ ~; ~ / / u~
-III I~.
iC
u~~ 1 I~ ~~
i I ) '.~~/
oo+a ~ '~' ~, III
+
b'' .tip ~s I I ~
-11~- 00+
iS 31~
L~.N ~
__-----
,.. -T-; P ~• =2.402 A
\l t# , 1~1
~~:
1'
%,, ~~ ~
` +•.; ~, ~
~ • ~ ,t
OG.
'`O~, ,
~~S ''/y/
7 /y
7~
~~ ~ U~Z~4' Q~
pair T
HgR'fll CAI'.OLINA DI:PnIt'[:1C:N'f' OF 't'ItANSPOnTATION
UIVLSIOU OF IIIGIIPlAY;
GULL.L'oRU CGUfIT7
+1.Uh7"l.701 I-1.h02nn
L'RUI'q:;lil1 L -l15 f;111;1::I:;IlfiRO I1'(PAG:;
i~llG;4 f -fl i ::QU"'II f)L~ G{!i:h:N:;IlOPU
'Cf) illi:;'[' fJL~ UN.I)I9L1f)NU I'~)AU (JR- L a'1 % j
~ ~•`t 2or,~3

(~
Q
~~
N!
J
I
~ u) ~~-
U
a. ''j ~'
N ~r)
H~
Q
Z
1L1l~t
w ^r
r "
LL
~_
N
v ~" .7r
J4ti C
h~~~~ Ci
a
~~ iJ
~Oyf ~ ~ ^ C1
~. G
r
~ i
S~
a
V
H
h
i N
W ~
Q. Y.
r ~
0
`7-

~~ ~
~ ~i
~ ~1
n
~r
,^ `~
o ~
~+
,,,
1 ~•1
'r`
J l(1

//
<~ r i
n `: ~Y
~i 1
1 s ` / ,~
~ ~ ' -C
j- `T ~ / ~ V r L7/
= •u
~ ul
J f~
<y
~ ~ ~ ~„
_ ~~.~
- ~^ b ~ ~ / ,
~~ ~ \ ~.
i ~ ~ ~J'
'~ C
~ ~. `

~f
.i /

}-- ~
~~
~~\ '^Q
~~

-~~
/ i
~ ~
i
I
I
C ~
x
IL )
6
~,
1 ~
i~1~
7 ~ `l
r '' °O~`s
w
~ $
J1
O
a
a
8
00+0~
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMEtfT OF TRANSPORTA7
DIVISION OF t[IGIiHAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
O.U472301 I-2402AD
PROPOSED I-OS CREElf560R0 DYPASS
FROM SOUTiI OF US-220
TO WEST OF ELM-EUGENE ST. (SR-7700)
SCALE AS SItOWtf ~ ~V~ ~
;!IFFY OF k1~~Fn~.~f .~
~~v4 ?~eo3
r
~ J
~\ ; ~
~V

Attachment B

Attachment B

Section 40~INEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
f.;oncuri•ence Paint l~'a. 4.: Avoidance and minimization
Project Name/llescription: Greensboro Western Urbsn ~.oop fror.Z north of 1-85 near
Groomto~vn Road to north of Aryan $ouletiard, Guilford Co~inty, ~l'C, TIP Project U-
2~24 A Fi B A.iD 1`i9`I o390.~
Av~7idance and minimization meatiures include:
1) Re-location of L~mg Branch in open channel to the maximum extent practicable.
2) Avoidance of Wetland W I near T-~0.
3) Planting of SO foot wooded buffers on each side of all streanl relocations when:
sllolvable considering desi~Yn Constraints and safety.
The Proiect Team has concurred on this date of ___.Iune 15, 200
witYt the avoidance acid minimization mc:asu:e~ taken to date, as shown on life prelir_Yinaty
de.:is*n presented on this date, as indicated by the Signatures belo /,
USACE ~ _ l~'CDO"I' t ~ ~,~j~
USEI'A -'~
NCDW ~_ ~ /
NCDCR ~
~'
USF iV$ ~~
` '9`_"'"
NCWl2C ~ .~~ ~-;~,~-~~'
/ ,~
FI~V.~ ~
tt~~ ~
:~~:

.1rUi.-07-0tst 09 :21 hRQM: WA'V'ER MGdtNT RECIdK 4 S d ~ 484 562 X3343 PAGE 1/'1
Section 404lNEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No, 4.: Av-oidancc and miziimization
Project NamelDascription: Grcrxxsborp Westsri, Urban Loop from north of Y-SS near
Groorntown Road to north of Bryan Boulevard, Guilford County, NC, TIl' project U-
2524 P. & B; AXD.199443906
Avoid ee and mirl.i}~ization measures include:
„~
1) ~.e-location of?<.oq, B~azzcJa ua vpen ehanxcel to the maximum extent Qracticable.
2) Avoidance of W#ls~nd 1~1 near 1-40.
3) planting of SO foot wood8d bwffers on each side of all stream rciocations where auow-able
co~deribg drsi~a constraints and safety.
'f'hc project Team has concurred on this date of _Yuxxe X S. 2()0(3
with the avoidance and minimization measures taken to date, as shown ou the preiirninary
dcsi~a pxcsezxtcd oa this data as indicated by the si~atures below.
'USAGE NCllOT
1VCllWQ NC WRC
itiC3CR ~:--i4~'A ,k

~; •,
Section 404/NF..PA 1\4erger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 4.: Avoidance snd minimization
C~~pl7
Project Name/Description: Greensboro Western CJrban Loop from north of I-85 near
Groomtown Road to north of Bryan Boulevard, Cruilford County, I~'C, '1'1F Project 0-
2524 A ~: ~; Alb 199403906
Avoidance and minimization measures include:
1) Re-location of Long Branch in open channzl to the maximuan exter-t practicable.
2) Avoidance of Westland WI near T-40.
3) Planting of SO toot wooded buffers on each side of all stream relocstiars where
allowable co~~ideruig design constraints ;ind safety.
The Project Team ~~s c;oncurred on this date of June 15 2000
>>rit!1 the avoidance and minimization measures taken to date, as shown on the preliminary
desigi presented on this date, as indicated by the signatures below.
USACF ?\7CBOT
US i/P
T`T
~T
rJSFWS
NCWRC
i' ~l r~i 1

07/18f00 TL~E zs: as t",~; r 919 856 Q556
'~' 1~ ~3 7
us~~s-x~L~rr~. `c
~\" \^/ /
Section ~~Od.~'NEPA Merger Project Team IViAeti.ng A,greernen:
~n,cizt~rasce Point I~'u. 4.: AYaidanc~ and minimi7stioz~
1:'roject ~rame/De$erintion: ~rreensboz~o Wester Urban loop Sroin north of 1-~5 r_oa:
' Gs~oomtown Road to nort_~ of Bryan. Aoulcvarcl, ~-uilfor~t County, ~1~, '1`~' PrcJcct
U~2~~~ A ~x B; ASI? fl~~4t1~9~6
Atmidartct an~-i ;ztinimi.zation meaSUxC.~ ~.secluce:
1) Re-fccation of T.~rig $r~.nch an ope:~ chan*~el to the ma.~ir~uut eartent pr~~.cticable.
~1 ~.voic~nce ©f aietlancl V4'1 near t-fit';.
:~? P13.r:tirg of ~Q fnot waadcd buff'ez~ on each side v£ a]1 s;re~ relocations where
allow+:~bfe %onsiderir+..~ desi~- ~nstraints and .aiet}~,
The l~roie: t Team has eancurreci ©tz this date of Ju.nc_15, ~OOc~
~xith the avaidaslcs amW snirimizativn measzu~es takez~ to dale, "cs Shown on ;hc preliminary
dosi~c prc:,,cnted o~. this data, a:, indi~i©d by thn si~aturc; hclcw.
`i..i.~A «.f~~:~ f

~~C~~~'
ri ~V.
~ooz
w
~t
M*
M.
~;

Attachment C

r~ I Hrr%1~'ll, 01 Irr ',n% ~ / % ~~
:-;,,x<
r
r r ~ ~
' i ,, .. r '' ~ i~~ ~ ~ fir/ ' / '• '~~~ ~sl.~~r~
' 1 ~~ ' ~~' . / ~~~`•t1~t i `~~ ~ ~' / 1 ~ ~~
7
~ ,
•
~ ~\ ,) \ ~
(emu
;I
~~.. _ ~ r -
'j- L ?`"r;;Edwa r ;
... { : _:.. ! n _
._ rcl r
/~
. f~ _ _
(~ /
_ /~. fJ _.,,77 : ~:~ 'L-Y:-f-" -o--~Y i ,.w.. t. .." ~ i/'r' J ~l li ll~-'~/~ (. I_.. ~ - -~i i :~~ l-_,..~ z4.,~
,. i ° // y., ~ ,I
1 ~r I i / r ~`
/ i ~\ ~ i
,. _
t ~ a "; / ~
~ _
r~~
.J (r.-j
(ate ~ r-" • ..,~ G' / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~,
,`_.. ,
:5
1:
_ j
,.~--~_ 1111 ~ ~ ~ / r ---- i ~ ~ ~ i t ~ '' ; .~
`~ ~ (,.~ `1- .~~ _,) I ~ ~\~ ~ ~ .~, ` ~ ~ lily(`, _~, r L;
~ J 1 ~~ ..~ ~;; ~ ~~..J~ ~%.i ~ ~ '~ ~ "1;/,_~ '> i rte.,, '-•_,~
\,lv ~. '1 © ~.J
~\ _~1(
/`~- ,
.:>n
~ . 1,
ti ~1 \~~\ ) `t /
~ \ ) i
~. ~ ~ -,
_ `.% i.
Project Study Area Boundary ~= .~~ ~
0 2000 `,. ~4~`,'~,. ~..1f'~ ~',~~, ~;
2000 _ `_ ~ ,\ ,' ~ ' ~ ~ :,; i~ ..;'
--
_ Feet r`"w~..,~ ,-:'' ), "r
_ \ i ~11
Source: USGS Digital Rester Grep .. ~ ..,,~ ;
Beor Creek (1970) and Slier city (t 969) Gluadrengles •' r:'_~i, r \ I
.. .. I til ~ t' ` _
l?n~~irunmcnt.-I
ticrviccs, inc.
..~
~._. ...
~ ~~«1 \~ L

Fi~.urc: t
Project: ER02026,01
Uatc; June 2003
Project Location Map
UT Bear Creek Mitigation Plan
Chatham County, North Carolina
\ `~ ~' ~1
``1\((rr`77 ~ (i\ ...
U`t
~i ~.; ~ ~ .
1 ~ `--ti
1 `~
~I ~

... _ _ ~.
11. ~
p ~ ~~"~a["~4r~ ~ lv F ~ ` s., i' :i- _. .. _- ~ ~ j' f,^,ti r tom`"
,. ~ / -~; .
'" " B M 566. ~ ~ ~ _,` ' , . `; .:
SOURCE: ~:,U S GEOLOGICAL SURVE'( MAPS.
7 S MINUTE QUADRANGLE. GRAYS CHAPEL NC 1974
2000 0 2000 Feet
~-
AtT~~-^^~' t FIGURE 2
F a H r H~ T E c H VICINITY MAP
:anrJ/ CreNk `~/etla~d Mili~ahnn it?
.~. fycn vrr~nrr~.n~,rr,;r ~ rr, , -,rnrnrr.
R.lnrJolph !:o~lnty, North r;arohna

Y , i -
l / _
~ ~ _ ~
-'°- ~
I~' Z~ ~ /(~ ' ~ ' - ~ j ~ ~ ~~ ill - -- ~ ~r
i ~ i ~(` i
~< <~', ~ ~= ~ r.
1, ,yl ~ ~~ ~ ~/
/ ~ ~.
Watershed - , ~ ~' ~~ ~~ a ~ 1 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Area Total ~ , : ~ ~~ ;~; .~ ~ ~ = = 45.6 Acres ~ ~'~~ ,~
113.3 Acr®s ~ - ~\ '- _-~ \ _
- .~
_ ~ A 1 i~ I Yi~ _I ~ _ - ~~- ~ ---~~-~ ~ _. _-,__
~~._~_~1 _ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ - ~ 67.7 Acres - -
v1 I
~ ( 1 / _- ki ~ ~~ ~~~ _ 6
~ ~ -' ~; ~~ / ~ -_ ~ I _ i
_ 1 ~,
•~ .~-' ~ I ~~, ~~ ~ -- _- 1
~ ~ ~, _ ~~ ~ ~ i i
-
- ~ ~ - -
i / ~ -_
--~ - ~~ -
_ ,.
- - ~ ~ _ 1 ~
~~~ ~ ~ - / -
~ ~ ~ ~. ~
~. _ ~ _
- ~ -
i
," ~
_,.
'v
- - ,' ~ - --
- ~,
~, /~~~~ _ _~ ~ c~-
[~ .'• • ~,•~~ ~ North Carolina -Department of Transportation
I; Division of Highways
Legend ~• Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
© Approximate Site Boundary ~"
Q Watershed Boundaries
- - - • Row FIGURE 3
Proposed Greensboro Western SITE MAP
Urban Loop Alignment Q-q~c,yr~,,~ C
Woodlyn Way Stream Mitigation Plan
Greensboro Western Urban Loop, Guilford County
500 0 500 1000 Feet
~~

1SGS Quadrangles:
NC, 1969, Photoinspected 1988;
NE, NC, 1970 Photoinspected 1980
A~; ._ \ ~ y •~ .-,~ _ ~;^"~ ,,`~- ~ • TRIB-WATERSHED ARE %_ t~~ 1, (: ~~,~ + ,
.~ •~ ~,,r
~.~,. ;,,ti ~!C`': ~,;•-, ~ ~~:~."~',t. , ~ .~ -'' I\.;~- ~/' ~~ .15 S UARE MILES ~~ ; i l ~,n~ , , / ~Y
r {t'I ., i N,
,~~- ~ ~ f-'~,+r~ ~ WATERSHED AREA `' ~ ,, "'~" J .~~ - ~~• ;; ` '/, ~ ~~~ Ir ~, ~~ ~ ~;-~~~
y~~,~ _ ,~ .;~ 20.4 SQUARE MILES s %~ -~_ ; ~ 1. l,. ,~ ; ,~,M ~~
' ~
~;~Jr ~~ ~n`.*. ~ f ,'_..1i-^-~~....~~~~.''~\~`~rl~ ~ rij~~- \~ `v/ !' I~L f ~_~ i~~. /'•; ~ r '• ._~""/,~%/r,`
J ~J ~ ~i_ ~ 1 / ((~ ' i _ - i / 11 =-;~ '• ~ ~ I~~ , '~ I FN~,'pb ~ .. ~ / J•1 ' ~~ I~r
'~ I -J~ ~ .~,~ ~ ~/l4 f / / ,' r +~li '~~' L./~ ((~`'~'~ ~ // - is~~_ ,i/ ~ )r`i ~ ,~ is .7~`•' O ':~'.. I . ~°~ 1~ti
~. t'y7~ ! \/ ~i/ ~1 / `;'~ \i~ n'{I. ~ \`~i~ !~ .~l ~/~~ ~+ ~. ~ ~ ~J ! -, j ~~ ~ ~ ~t71 i // / i ` . '• ~•• ~ \ 'r'i%~ +V;~.
.. w ` ~ / IJ 'r ~./ft ~ in. ll~[ ~ ~\ _._ %// . ri. + d~~.'J/~ .%, ~ 4,~__ I _ 1\~ ~~. ~+t,~~/ `.
I+ '+.~ t~~ a I J ~~il " ` ~ - ,l~ ~ (-+ 1. ~~ ~ 9J~,, +~~~ ~ ~\I ~0°`~' `\~~ \ - ~' ti /~~lf. ~~ lJ ti~~ . J.
\.°~~.) .UJ •/rti •+r" ,:~~. °~ ~ "-1~1 ` III",~J li~i1'1 `""+' I~ 1,ltk ~ i.• -v,. .~- .-~Y
,; 1°1'~ "i, . ~ ~~ / ^"> t-"``J'' ;J ti~ "'` 1~`. ~ t ~ t 1/~ 1W$rC 1 .3 F ~ 76 ,,t.,• ~~, SITE
`,. 71 _ ~~ ~) ./ I; ' ~ `", i ~~~.r~tl1 \~fil °~+ 11~ l'M I \1 + ,~~•~ 'y / ° ~' ~,,fM f'~`~ +~_. ~~ Sys.
r> is ,'•~ I ~ 1•'~~" ~.
titer 1~ p ~ .••` _ ~ 1'\~r.~1 ~ ~ _.:. y',•r ~ ~ r'-i"~~r ~' ~ 1 _~~ + f T ~ .. , ~ ;// ;
- ~~, ~ \ , ~ ~ .' I ~ s ~ ~ S'- ~ "fir;
~\ \ l`~ ~lrfl _~~ I _ I! ~~ -•3+..1I "~ \Y'~ !'"~ 1 4 ~,,..r t~. ~ .p)' .P
~.-
. _. , ,
1`~..~~ i~- /p-~~ ~rr,~'i''~\-~,•, ~ ~i ~((~-,, ,~ r.~,•~ \ ~f, ~(,"_ ~•}S~~ •.~u7 ~1,}y,~,„, ft,~r qx, r'~!`
r ~ _ _ f ~' ' i ~ ~ .' tiy,,
' 'q' ~~ i~ .' ~~~ :~.~~'; ~,,~\ ~ \ ~; "' ":,~~ , "= North Carolina -Department of Transportation
;~'.,~ „`. ~ ~~ >, 1 `\'; +li ~' I f - Division of Highways
~~ a ~i\ ,.,. 1 l~ :\~ ~\~ Project Development and Environmental Analysis Br2
~ I ; .,
'rte Me w + c+ ~ \..~ f ,1 ,1.
~,
~~. ~ Hod ~ ,: ~; ~~ ~~ 1 ~ ~; 1~~;) i ~•"/ .' ~:.
I. ~ ~
\ /
.rt tS~-1 A ( ,
~'• n~,~ ~: .x.9;1 f' , ~~ r / ~ ~°",o
FIGURE 4
WATERSHED
RESTORATION PLAN
TICK CREEK
CHATHAM COUNTY
0.5 0 0.5 1 Mile:
_..--

O ~• Il • f fa I ;:, I. t
t~ 1wY. a~'~t~'~ l'" ~ ~ r ``.~ ~~. f F ~~ ~ 7•. J~t , ,r .' 'y uR'Pt p~• '~ -~
t~H 'N; ~p~ ~ ~,-. ~.~~J .''~UC~•. ' ~.}v: ~~!* l~V~ c J ~,~ri' ~,,'1"tYI,~~~'
l.. ~. •~ ` ~ ~ ~ l l 'J ~ Y'R
-/ ' L~-~ " 1 r/na. ,~, .;. ):... /• 1v~, QK7»~y ~~~' ~, t . ~, tc .r p,4 \ ~.~...
:'1 a .e~ ~ ~~' • ..F~ ~ 3•• •~ ,~ i ,~. ~ ,s
\ ~`; eel. ''. .: jt ~. 4 ~~4a'~•~•/~~. J o~ \ I~"
. ~ ,. ~ _ ~ tom(
Y-- :, .~--! • r .. ~ ,"~,!a°.~" ' j.j . aj~ t ,.~*7 ~' ' ~ ~ >! 1. ~ ^-•\\~ i~ ~ ?~'
• f-r y,y S " - i3 :e"hy,>, ~h ~ • ~!r it .~i~ i _ 1.. ' ±~~:~3r~, ( ~\
~ ~ .- 1\
w" ~yYY {"'~~1;! .Jis, ~`...xl Y '~l,~r}v'• ~ ~ ~" ~ ~ jar
.~~ ..1• ~ v ~y~ -^ /~ ~k~M.a i y~, fit ~ ! '~+ 'x1' sF
/ / ~'` '!a'`;~~ Xn~ 'fit ;i*. ~~` '~is" ~t! .. ~ M.. r.1' _ _..f K ~.~ I/
(/ }
~ ~
/~; ~ .
1~,
1 ~ ~ (r / o]~~ \
~ / ~ ~ '`.
- ..
~' r
,,
,,~ -, .
•O :r
lip\\\` , ~,~~~ --~ ~ ~~'! 'I ~~M--~ ~ =~ ~
`~ ~ _ ~ ~~ `/~.~~lJ~i./~"\`•.' 'I ~ ••~ ~-. \ ~-1 ~ll If1 l -ice j1_ ~i/~,1~/~.%^ ~~L -i
--~ C' -_ ~~ ~~ - _ ~ ,)`,~.• /I.~ „i .tip ~
- ~ .,...
- --- - - -
••euT C
USGS Quads: 1" = 2,000' Blue Tract Vicinity Map ~ ~~~^~ ~~'~
~ ,~~.
Niagara and . -- __ ___- ---1 a-`~ In (~r~3~c~ ~ ',,.,.,;,
bass j
/~ 2000 0 2000 F~.~:t I
`~ '~~'
~.

Appendix D

RANDLEMAN BUFFER ADDENDUM
The purpose of this addendum is to provide the N.C. Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ) with the information needed to evaluate the impacts of the project on the Randleman
Basin Riparian Buffer areas. In addition, we are presenting material in this addendum to illustrate
that the project has been designed to comply with the Randleman Lake Water Supply Watershed:
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas (15A NCAC 02B .0250). Therefore, we request
that the NCDWQ issue an Authorization Certificate for the proposed use.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to construct a
portion of the Greensboro Western Urban Loop. The proposed project involves construction of a
four- to eight-lane freeway on new location. The majority of the proposed project lies in
Hydrologic Unit 03030003.
Coordination with personnel from NCDWQ and City of Greensboro
The personnel from NCDOT Hydraulics Unit met with representatives from NCDWQ
Winston-Salem Regional office on October 18, 2000 to discuss Randleman Buffer Rules. In an
attached e-mail from Mr. Larry Coble of NCDWQ, the NCDOT had met the minimum criteria
for Randleman Buffer Rules. Mr. Coble stated that the NCDOT needed to receive official
approval from local governments regarding compliance with Randlemen Buffer Rules.
The NCDOT contacted the City of Greensboro regarding compliance with Randleman
Rules. The City of Greensboro reviewed the drainage plans and "offer(ed) only a few
recommendations" to the NCDOT with respect to Randleman Buffer Rules. A copy of this
letter from the City of Greensboro, dated June 14, 2001, and a copy of NCDOT's response to
recommendations, have been attached to this permit application.
Since the coordination with NCDWQ field personnel and City of Greensboro staff, the
NCDOT has met with NCDWQ central office staff to review the project. Coordination with
NCDWQ staff occurred in June 2003. The NCDOT Hydraulics Unit and Project Development
and Environmental Development staff reviewed and discussed the design and location of the
structures with NCDWQ personnel to accomplish this goal as practicably as possible
Randleman Buffer Rule Impacts
Due to the nature of this project, impacts to the riparian buffer of Reddick's Creek, Bull
Run, Long Branch and their unnamed tributaries, as well as unnamed tributaries of Hickory
Creek, are unavoidable.
The NCDOT has minimized impacts to the streams and adjacent buffers by relocating
streams in several areas and providing on-site buffer areas for these relocated streams.
Vegetation to be planted includes black willow (Salix nigra), silky dogwood (Corpus amomum),
green ashe (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), sycamore (Plautus accidentalis), tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tuliperifera), and river birch (Betula nigra). Calculations for impacts to the
Randleman Buffer Addendum Page 1 of
TIP No. U-2524 AB/AC July 2003

buffer, available on-site mitigation and compensatory mitigation needs are presented in the
attached tables (Tables IA-6A).
The NCDOT's avoidance and minimization of impacts to streams and wetlands'(which
are discussed previously in the "Mitigation" section of the Section 404/401 permit application)
by default represent avoidance and minimization of impacts to buffers. Drainage flowing in the
general direction of the regulated buffers was handled so the 50-foot buffer zone would not be
directly impacted. It was the goal of the NCDOT to have the project designed so that the effects
of the drainage would not result in water quality impacts to the waters of the Randleman sub
basin as required by the Randleman Basin regulations. Total impacts to buffers are 20.46 acres
to Zone 1 and 11.79 acres to Zone 2.
The NCDOT will provide on-site buffer at several impact sites, including Site 7 in
Section AB Part I, Site 3 in Section AB and Sites 1 and 3 in Section AC), through the stream
relocations proposed at these sites. The NCDOT will provide 2.36 acres of Zone 1 on-site buffer
mitigation and 1.58 acres of Zone 2 buffer mitigation.
Within the Section 404/401 permit package is a summary of the NCDOT proposal to
handle stormwater discharges on TIP No. U-2524 AB Part I and notations for handing
stormwater are found on the permit drawings for TIP No. U-2524 AB/AC.
Compensatory Mitigation for Buffer Impacts
The NCDOT has applied the appropriate ratios of 3 and 1.5 to buffer impacts minus the
on-site mitigation. The total amount of buffer mitigation required for the proposed project is
60.26 acres (2624925.6 feet2). Based on a cost of 0.97 cents per square foot, the NCDOT will
pay $ 2,546,177.83 to the WRP to provide the necessary buffer mitigation for this project.

TablelA . Impacts to Randleman Buffer for TIP No. U-2524 ABl
Site
No. Road
Crossing Parallel Zone 1
(acres) Zone Z
(acres) On-Site 1ltitigation
Zone 1 (acres) On-Site Mitigation
Zone 2 (acres) Total Impact
Zone 1 (acres) Total Impact
Zone 2 (acres)
7 x 2.10 1.40 1.30 0.86 0.80 0.54
x 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80
x 0.30 0.20 0.30 0.20
17 x 0.80 0.50 0.80 0.50
25 x 0.40 0.30 0.40 0.30
28 x 1.80 1.30 1.80 1.30
Total 6.20 4.50 1.30 0.86 4.90 3.64
Table 2A. Mitigation Requirements for TIP No. U-2524 ABl
Site
No. Zone 1
(acres) Zone 2
(acres) Total Mitigation
(acres)
7 5.61 2.81 8.42
17 2.40 0.75 3.15
25 1.20 0.45 1.65
28 5.40 1.95 7.35
Total 14.61 5.96 20.57
Table 3A. Impacts to Randleman Buffer Rules for TIP No. U-2524 AB

Site No. Road
Crossing
Parallel Zone 1
(acres) Zone 2
(acres) On-Site Mitigation
Zone I (acres) On-Site Mitigation
Zone 2 (acres) Total Impact
Zone 1 (acres) Total Impact
Zone 2 (acres)
3 x 1.35 0.92 0.67 0.44 0.68 0.48
4 x 0.65 0.34 0.65 0.34
6 x 0.42 0.23 0.42 0.23
7 x 0.59 0.04 0.59 0.04
10 x x 1.03 0.30 1.03 0.30
Total 4.04 1.83 0.67 0.44 337 1.39
~~y ~3

Table 4A. Mitigation Requirements for TIP No. U-2524 AB
Site
No. Zone 1
(acres) Zone 2
(acres) Total Mitigation
(acres)
3 2.04 0.72 2.76
4 1.95 0.51 2.46
6 1.26 0.35 1.61
7 1.77 0.06 1.83
10 3.09 0.45 3.54
Total 10.11 2.09 12.2
Table SA. Impacts to Randleman Buffer Rules for TIP No. U-2524 AC

Site No. Road
Crossing
Parallel Zone 1
(acres) Zone 2
(acres) On-Site Mitigation
Zone 1 (acres) On-Site Mitigation
Zone 2 (acres) Total Impact
Zone 1 (acres) Total Impact
Zone 2 (acres)
1 x 0.93 0.61 0.32 0.22 0.61 0.39
2 (p) x 0.54 036 0.54 0.36
2 (i) x 0.62 0.39 0.62 0.39
3 x 0.50 0.28 0.07 0.05 0.43 0.23
6 x 0.40 0.25 0.40 0.25
7 x 0.52 0.29 0.52 0.29
8 2.74 I.OS 2.74 1.05
11 x 0.36 0.24 036 0.24
IBA x 0.49 0:32 0.49 0.32
2BA x 3.11 1.68 1.21 0.74 3.11 1.68
Total 10.22 5.46 1.61 1.01 9.82 5.20
Note: Site 8 is a temporary impact involving the draining of a pond during construction of the road project.
~ ~Y Zoo3

Table 6A. Mitigation Requirements for TIP No. U-2524 AC
Site
No. Zone 1
(acres) Zone 2
(acres) Total Mitigation
(acres)
1 1.83 0.59 2.42
2 (p) 1.62 0.54 2.16
2 (>) 1.86 0.59 2.45
3 1.29 0.35 1.64
6 1.20 0.38 1.58
7 1.56 0.44 2.00
11 1.08 0.36 1.44
1BA 1.47 0.48 1.95
2BA 9.33 2.52 11.85
Total 21.24 6.25 27.49
Note: Site 8 is a temporary impact involving the draining of a pond during construction of the road project;
the "impact" was not considered for compensatory mitigation purposes.
~~~ ~3

Appendix E

DRAFT VERSION 2
02/26/02
a e eceive eques
State of North Carolina, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality
"General" Major Variance Application Form
From the Randleman Lake Water Supply Watershed: Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas
Rule (Randleman Buffer Rule) for PUBLIC ROAD CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENT &
MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES (As approved by the Water Quality Committee of the Environmental
Management Commission on February 14, 2002)
NOTE:
To constitute a complete application, all of the information requested in this form
must be provided. Incomplete applications will be returned to the applicant. The
original and two copies of the completed "General" Variance Application Form and
any attachments must be sent to the DWQ 401/Wetlands Certification Unit, 1650 Mail
Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650, [phone] and one copy needs to be sent
to the Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority (PTRWA), 2216 W. Meadowview Rd.,
Wilmington Bldg., Suite 204, Greensboro, NC 27407, [phone] to constitute a
complete submittal. Thls form maybe photocopied for use as an original.
Part 1: General Information
(Please include attachments if the room provided is insufficient.)
1. Applicant's name (the Division Engineer, project manager, person responsible for project):
C-a~-~ ~~ ~ P~ . ~ ~ '~ ~ 2F ~-ro~ ~I ~b~ -C~'co~ A
2. Print Owner/Signing Official (person legally responsible for the property and its compliance)
Name: ~~ ~ ~, T~h . ~
Title: `t~i~4 c-~oQ...
Street address: IS'-i8 M~~~ ~~U~t~, G~~~.--
City, State, Zip: Tz.~-~ ~ cQ N ~-c- 2,~~ ~~~ - ~ s4g,
Telephone: (~11g) x-33 - 3 ~ `~ I
Fax: q i~) ~3 ~ - ~~~i ~{-
3. Contact person who can answer questions about the proposed project:
Name: ~'~L~~~ ~C~9
Telephone: ~i~ ) ~ ~s - I ~~~
Fax: n ~°~) ~ iS - t szZ
Email ~ ~ '~~ ~~ • U~
4. Project Name (Subdivision, facility, or establishment name -consistent with project name on
plans, specifications, letters, operation and maintenance agreements, etc.):
.-~~ r.! s'~2.~~ ~~ FiTF,~ IJ ~e.~ti l.~'t'~ ~ -~-iQ -~ y -Z ~, ~~- ~, l ~:, C
5. Project Location:
Street address:
City, State, Zip:
County:
(emu, L, ~~
"General" Variance Application Form (RANDLEMAN)

DRAFT VERSION 2
2/26/02
Latitude/longitude:
6. Directions to site from nearest major intersection (Also, attach an 8'/z x 11 copy of the portion
of the USGS topographic map and soil survey indicating the location and boundaries of the
site):

Stream to be impacted by the proposed activity:
Stream name (for unnamed streams label as "UT" to the nearest named stream):
Stream classification [as identified within the Schedule of Classifications 15A NCAC 2B .0311
(Cape Fear River Basin)]: ~2 ~~.~
8. Which of the following permits/approvals will be required or have been received already for
this project?
Required: Received: Date received:
Permit Type:
401 Certification/404 Permit
Others (specify)
Part 2: Proposed Activity
(Please include attachments if the room provided is insufficient.)
1. Description of proposed activity [Also, please attach a map of sufficient detail (such as
construction or site plans) to accurately delineate the boundaries of the land to be utilized in
carrying out the activity, the location and dimension of any disturbance in the riparian buffers
associated with the activity, and the extent of riparian buffers on the land. Include the area
of buffer Impact in ftz for each zones.:

2. State reasons why this plan for the proposed activity cannot be practically accomplished,
reduced or reconfigured to better minimize or eliminate disturbance to the riparian buffers:
~D ~'~~~
3. If sheet flow of concentrated runoff cannot be achieved prior to entering the buffers, then
please provide information on any on-site stormwater management facilities (e.g., grassed
swales, extended detention wetlands, etc.) that will be used to control nutrients and attenuate
flow (attach construction details and site locations of these plans):
"General" Variance Application Form (RANDLEMAN), page 2

DRAFT VERSION 2
2/26/02
4. How do you intend to provide mitigation if required under Condition No. 7 of the variance?
(Attach a Mitigation Plan if you intend to satisfy the mitigation requirement through the
restoration of riparian buffers.)

5. Please provide an explanation of the following:
(1) The practical difficulties or hardships that would result from the strict application of this
Rule.

(2) How these difficulties or hardships result from conditions that are unique to the property
involved.
~ c~-~ ~ ~
Part 3: Agent Authorization
If you wish to designate submittal authority to another individual or firm so that they may provide
information on your behalf, please complete this section:
Designated agent (individual or firm):
Mailing address:
City, State, Zip:
Telephone:
Fax:
Email:
Part 4: Applicant's Certification
I, _ (print or type name of person
listed in Part I, Item 2), certify that the information included on this permit application form is
correct, that the project will be constructed in conformance with the approved plans and that the
deed restrictions in accordance with Part 5 of this form will be recorded with all required permit
conditions.
Signature:
Date:
Title:
NC Division of W,aiar (.2i.i~:afily ((:)WC~) 1'ieclrnunl I~ri~ul l~e~;i~mal WUII".I' Auth~n~il,y (I''IRbb'Al
"General" Variance Application Form (RANDLEMAN), page 3

"General" Major Variance Application for Randleman Buffer Rules
Part 1: General Information
7.
Site No. Stream Name Best Usage Classifcation Stream Index No.
7 UT Hickory Creek WS IV * 17-8.5-(1)
28 UT Hickory Creek WS IV * 17-8.5-(1)
Part 2: Proposed Activity
1. The NCDOT proposes to construct the ultimate roadway design for the I-85 Bypass/
Western Urban Loop. The project for which the variance is requested is TIP No. U-2524
AB/AC, which is a project to construct a freeway on new location from north of existing
I-85 to I-40. The western terminus of this project connects to I-40 while the western
southern terminus of the project connects with TIP No. I-2402, the southern loop of the I-
85 Greensboro Bypass (see attached map, Figures 1-3). TIP No. I-2402 is currently
under construction, and its 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) and Section 404
Permit were issued in December 1998 and May 1999, respectively. Those permits
approved both the design of an "interim" portion of I-2402 and the "ultimate" design of
the intersection of TIP Nos. U-2524 and I-2402. The "interim" design is incorporated
into the "ultimate" design. The "Randleman Rules" (15A N.C.A.C. 2B .0248 - .0251)
became effective April 1, 1999, after the 401 WQC was issued.
There are two areas of concern for complying with the Randleman Buffer Rules; Site 7
and Site 28. These areas are noted on the attached plan views and corresponding
summary sheet of buffer impacts. Each area is located near the connection TIP Nos. I-
2402 and U-2524. The design of the project in those areas was approved in the 401/404
permits for TIP No. I-2402.
Site 7 is a parallel impact with the NCDOT relocating the stream channel along its side
fill slopes. There will be a vegetated buffer, and the NCDOT has minimized its impact to
the stream and by relocating the stream as much as it can. There are two areas as
NCDOT relocates the channel, at its beginning and the end, where the buffer requirement
of 50 feet will not be met. Generally speaking, the NCDOT believes it can mitigate on-
site for some of the buffer impacts at this site. Impacts to buffers tota12.10 acres for
Zone 1 and 1.40 acres for Zone 2.
Site 28 is a parallel impact with the NCDOT relocating the stream channel along its side
fill slopes. This site violates the buffer rules because the NCDOT cannot relocate the
stream channel to provide the required 50 feet buffer along each side of the stream reach.
Impacts to buffers total 1.80 acres for Zone 1 and 1.30 acres for Zone 2.
Randleman Buffer Variance Request Page 1 of4
TIP No. U-2524 AB July 15, 2003

2. The proposed activity cannot be practically accomplished, reduced or
reconfigured to better minimize or eliminate disturbance to the riparian buffers than they
already have. There are several reasons. First, Sites 7-and 28 were part of the design for
ultimate design for TIP No. I-2402 and construction will be completed for this section in
September 2003. Impacts to these sites were approved under the Section 404 and 401
WQC permits issued for this project, prior to the enactment of the Randleman Buffer
Rules. However, the sites were not impacted by the on-going construction of the "interim
design" for TIP No. I-2402 and have subsequently been included with the proposed
construction of TIP No. U-2524AB.
The proposed project has been positioned parallel to the two streams. Sufficient buffer
area was not included as part of the roadway design to relocate the streams. The design
was completed in the mid 1990s when streams were relocated on-site as a minimization
technique for impacts to surface waters. The requirement for 50 foot buffers was not a
policy guideline or a rule at this time.
Second, there are topographical constraints affecting the "ultimate" design that preclude
full compliance with the Randleman Buffer Rules. To relocate the stream at Site 28 and
provide the required buffer, a considerable amount of earth would have to be moved and
as reflected on the attached cross sections.
At Site 28, the existing stream channel has a relatively broad, low valley with a low
valley slope and a Rosgen stream classification of "E". Notable characteristics are a
relatively high entrenchment ratio (10.3), low average slope (0.012), high belt width
(average of 51.3 feet) and high meander width ratio (8.3). Ideally, if the NCDOT was not
constrained by the location of the road project and topographic restrictions, the NCDOT
would construct a Rosgen stream type which should be present based on the existing
conditions, an "E" channel. To comply with the buffer rules (i.e., providing the
appropriate buffer and Rosgen "E" stream type), the NCDOT would have to move a
considerable amount of earth (10,800 cubic yards and $ 21,500 to remove the material)
and purchase additional right of way ($91,300). Cost of strict compliance to the buffer
rule would total $ 112,800.
The NCDOT proposes to minimize impacts to the stream reach and buffer by relocating
the stream with a narrower valley with a higher valley slope; a Rosgen stream
classification of "C". The notable characteristics of the proposed relocated reach are an
low entrenchment ratio (4.85), increased slope (0.0178), lower belt width (average of
21.0 feet) and considerably reduced meander ratio (2.5) when compared to existing
conditions (see attached morphological table for Site 28). This relocation does not
achieve the 50 foot required buffer along the stream reach.
The NCDOT has attempted to construct stream relocations in similar conditions
involving the movement of a considerable amount of earth to relocate the stream channel
(examples are TIP No. X-2D and U-2528 AA). The NCDOT has attempted to relocate
the 2,100 feet of a stream channel on TIP No. X-2D on three separate occasions, and the
relocation is still not stabilized. Three times the NCDOT has taken steps to attempt
Randleman Buffer Variance Request Page 2 of4
TIP No. U-2524 AB July 15, 2003

stabilization of the relocated stream at a cost of over $650,000. A fourth time attempt to
stabilize the stream is currently underway. It is anticipated that the cost will rise to
$900,000.
Typically, these extensive cuts to re-create the floodplain, flood prone area and thalweg
result in placing the stream on unsuitable, unstable material. The soil material may be
saprolite or clay. The result is an unstable stream channel having the tendency to
downcut thereby increasing the amount of sediment in the stream. The soil material is
also sterile, lowering the potential success of establishing vegetation on the site
correlating to success of the stream relocation work.
The NCDOT has taken measures to minimize impacts to the stream by proposing to
relocate the stream with a Rosgen stream classification of "C" with a series of cross
vanes to prevent downcutting and reduce velocities. This stream relocation attempts to
minimize impacts to the buffers, minimize the amount of earth moved and to maximize
the amount of buffer between the stream and road project as practicable. The NCDOT
believes it can relocate this type of stream based on topography and a review of reference
reaches.
3. As noted earlier, the NCDOT designed the project in the 1990's, and in some
areas, there is not adequate land to treat stormwater discharges to the extent prescribed by
the Randleman Buffer Rules. The NCDOT has taken steps to minimize road discharges
where practicable by installing pre-formed scour holes to allow for treatment of road
discharges. These pre-formed scour holes were not originally part of the design for the
roadway project but have been included to comply with Randleman Buffer Rules. A list
of treatment areas which meet the Randleman Buffer Rules is attached to this variance
request.
However, there are several areas where it is not practicable to adequately treat the
stormwater discharges from the road. Treatment cannot occur at other locations because
of site conditions or other limiting circumstances. A complete list of areas not complying
with the Randleman Buffer Rules attached to this variance request.
4. The NCDOT believes compensatory mitigation will be required for impacts at Site 7
and 28 to the buffer. At Site 7, the NCDOT will impact 3.17 acres (12,840 meters2) of
Zone 1 and 2.40 acres (9,691 meters2) of Zone 2.
The NCDOT will restore several acres of buffer by implementing the on-site stream
mitigation. At Site 7, the NCDOT will restore 1.30 acres (5,272 meters2) of Zone 1 and
0.86 acres (3,461 meters2) of Zone 2. Therefore, subtracting the on-site mitigation from
the impacts, the NCDOT will need to mitigate for 1.87 acres of impacts to Zone 1 buffers
and 1.54 acres of Zone 2 buffers. Buffer mitigation, using the appropriate ratios, required
at Site 7 is 5.61 acres for Zone 1 buffer impacts and 2.81 acres for Zone 2 buffer impacts
for a total mitigation requirement of 8.42 acres (366,755 feet2).
Randleman Buffer Variance Request Page 3 of4
TIP No. U-2524 AB July 15, 2003

Anticipated impacts to the buffer at Site 28 total 1.80 acres in Zone 1 and 1.30 acres in
Zone 2. Mitigation required is 5.40 acres for Zone 1 buffer impacts and 1.95 acres for
Zone 2 buffer impacts for a total mitigation requirement of 7.35 acres (320,166 feet2).
The first option in providing mitigation for these buffer impacts is paying into the NC
Wetland Restoration Program (NCWRP). Mitigation needs total 15.77 acres
(686,921feet2) for Sites 7 and 28. Based on NCWRP figures for buffer mitigation (0.97
cents per square foot), the NCDOT would pay to the NCWRP $666,313.37.
A second option is to provide mitigation at the Groometown Road Mitigation Site. This
mitigation site will treat stormwater discharge from Groometown Road and provide
additional treatment of discharge from the Urban Loop (TIP No. U-2524 AB). A
mitigation plan for this site has been attached to this variance request.
5. (1) There are several difficulties and hardships which would result from the strict
application of this Rule. These difficulties include (a) the constructed interim designed
roadway project, (b) the purchase of additional right of way; and (c) topographic
constraints. The "ultimate" design of the interchange connecting TIP Nos. U-2524AB
and I-2402 overlaps with the "interim" design of TIP No. I-2402 which is already under
construction and will be completed in September 2003. Both the interim and ultimate
designs were permitted in 1999 in the Section 404 and 401 WQC permits for TIP No. I-
2402. Strict application of this Rule would force NCDOT to abandon project TIP No. U-
2524AB in its current form, and necessitate an extensive redesign to avoid buffer impacts
which would likely require delaying a needed project and purchasing additional right of
way. TIP No. U-2524AB and I-2402 would not be able to intersect with each other as
envisioned in the approved permits Section 404 and 401 WQC permits for TIP No. I-
2402.
Finally, if a Rosgen "E/C" stream channel is constructed at Site 28 on the described
topographical constraints, the result will be large cuts in the earth and the placement of
the relocated stream on soils which are unsuitable for construction. The NCDOT has
attempted to construct projects in such conditions on other projects. The NCDOT has
tried numerous times to stabilize these reaches (three times on TIP No. X-2D upon which
a fourth attempt will be made). A considerable amount of money has been spent trying to
stabilize these reaches using natural stream channel techniques.
(2) The difficulties and hardships resulting from strict application of the buffer rules are
unique to this project. The NCDOT cannot move the alignment of the road project itself
to negotiate around these topographical restraints because the construction of the interim
design is nearing completion. Both the interim and ultimate designs were specifically
sanctioned in the Section 404 and 401 WQC permits for TIP No. I-2402, which were
issued prior to enactment of the Randleman Buffer Rules.
Randleman Buffer Variance Request Page 4 of4
TIP No. U-2524 AB July 15, 2003

SUBJECT: Stormwater Management. Plan for U-2524AB Part1, Guilford County.
Greensboro -Western Loop from North of I-85 near Groometown
Road to North of High Point Road
ROADWAY DESCRIPTION:
The U-2524AB1 project goal is to provide a connection between the new
Greensboro Bypass and existing I-40. The project is primarily a new interchange at the
Greensboro bypass and the I-40 connector. There are three existing box culverts located on
the project that are to be retained and extended. All three culverts are on Unnamed
Tributaries to Hickory Creek. There are two other jurisdictional streams that are being
relocated and several wetland sites that will be impacted.
ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION:
The Tributaries to Hickory Creek are in the Cape Fear River Basin and are a part of
the Randleman Reservoir Watershed. The stream classification for Hickory Creek is WS-IV.
The unnamed tributaries to Hickory Creek are not specified on the DENR Stream
Classification List. There are four sites that appear on the soils map. There are a total of
fifteen permitted sites on the project, with impacts totaling 1399 m (4590 ft.) of stream with
575 m (1887 ft.) of relocated stream utilizing Natural Channel Design, 10.86 ha (26.84 Ac.)
of wetlands, and 4.34 ha (10.74 ac.) of Randleman Reservoir Riparian Buffers.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND MAJOR STRUCTURES:
Best Management Practices (BMP's) utilized on this project consist of grassed swales
and preformed scour holes.
The following summarizes the locations of each BMP:
Grassed Swales
-I40SBREV-
Station 12+00 to 15+40 Lt.
Station 15+80 to 17+00 Rt.
Station 19+00 to 19+40 Lt.
Station 20+00 to 21 +00 Lt.
-I1I40NB-
Station 13+40 to 15+90 Lt.
Station 19+00 to 22+00 Lt.
Station 20+60 to 20+90 Rt.
-CSLIP-
Station 17+00 to 18+00 Lt.
Station 17+00 to 18+20 Rt.
Station 18+80 to 19+60 Rt.
Station 18+80 to 19+80 Lt.
~l~nnaJ '~tfRR. V'OQ,i~lCg~
~•, u( ?~3

-CSLIP- cont.
Station 20+20 to 22+30 Lt.
Station 21+80 to 24+40 Rt.
Station 24+80 to 26+10 Lt.
Station 26+10 to 27+50 Lt.
Station 28+40 to 29+40 Rt.
-IISLIP2-
Station 11+20 to 13+00 Lt.
Station 13+00 to 15+00 Lt.
-I1RPB1-
Station 14+60 to 15+60 Lt.
Station 14+60 to 15+70 Rt.
-I1FLY-
Station 12+20 to 13+50 Lt. & Rt.
Station 21+90 to 20+50 Rt.
-LoopC-
Station 12+81 Lt.
Preformed Scour Holes
Station 31+20 -CSLIP- Rt.
Station 31+88 -CSLIP- Rt.
Station 32+20 -CSLIP- Rt.
Station 31+28 -I40SBREV- Rt.
Station 32+08 -I40SBREV- Rt.
Some outlets are not fitted with BMP's due to site conditions or other circumstances. They
are summarized below:
-I40SBREV-
• Station 11+60 Rt. -Natural ground falls at 12%; therefore, no
preformed scour hole used. There is limited room for any other
BMP.
• Station 18+80 Lt. -This system empties into an existing ditch.
Other ways of outletting this system were investigated, but elevation
constraints would not allow.
• Station 24+20 Lt. -This system ties into the existing system on the
new I-85. Rerouting this system was investigated; however, due to
elevation constraints we could not provide treatrnent for this water.
• Station 28+68 Rt. - A Preformed Scour Hole was investigated for
this outlet; however, there is not enough room between the fill slope
and the stream bank to fit the PSH properly.

• Station 30+05 Rt. -This system outlet is a 600mm (24") pipe. Per
design guidelines, the maximum pipe diameter for a preformed scour
hole is 450mm (18"). Other methods were investigated, but there is
limited space.
-I1I40NB- Station 18+60 Lt. -This system outlets into an existing system.
Rerouting this water was investigated; however, due to
elevation constraints, no other alternative was feasible.
-CSLIP- Station 25+48 and 25+88 Rt. -These pipes empty into an
existing roadside ditch on a small service road. There is no
room for any other BMP.
-I1FLY- Station 19+00 Lt. -This system empties into an existing ditch
with no room for any other BMP.
-I1RPA- Station 11 +60 to 14+50 Rt. -These pipes empty into an
existing ditch with no room for any other BMP.
Major Structures
Station 31+70 -L- (Tributary to Hickory Creek) Existing 1 @ 2.7m x 1.5m (9 ft. x 5 ft.)
reinforced concrete box culvert is to be retained and extended on the outlet end.
Station 11+75 -LoopC- (Tributary to Hickory Creek) Existing 1 @ 2.4m x 1.Sm (8 ft. x 5
ft.) reinforced concrete box culvert will be retained and extended on the inlet end.
Station 25+35 -CSLIP- (Tributary to Hickory Creek) Existing 1 @ 2.4m x 1.8m (8 ft. x 6 ft.)
reinforced concrete box culvert is to be retained and extended on the outlet end.
G:\rmjcct\2002\135.02(0-352.1,\fi1)\1.cttcto\Oc~cumcntati<m\Stormw;~tcr ~'~IanaRctncut Plan.duc

Natural Channel Design Summary
Unnamed Tributary to Meadow Creek (Site 7)
TIP No. U-2524AB1
State Project No. 8.U492101
Guilford County, North Carolina
Prepared by Mulkey Engineers and Consultants May 2003
This natural channel design summary is presented to the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) as part of on-site compensatory mitigation for the proposed
construction of the Greensboro Western Loop. The proposed roadway extends from
north of I-85 near Groometown Road to north of High Point Road on new location. An
unnamed tributary (UT) to Hickory Creek, situated immediately east of SR 1497 (Wiley
Davis Road) and north of existing I-85, will be relocated westward from its existing
location outside of the proposed fill limits. The UT has been identified as a perennial
stream and is part of the Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-08 (USGS Hydrologic Unit
03030002). 'A morphological table, complete with existing channel, reference reach, and
proposed reach characteristics is attached. In addition, proposed design and detail
sheets are also included with this summary. The project is within the Piedmont
physiographic province.
The headwaters associated with the UT to Hickory Creek originate at the intersection of
SR 1497 (Wiley Davis Road) and McCuiston Road. The UT flows in a southerly
direction approximately 1.7 mi (2.7 km) before converging with Hickory Creek, then
another 5.0 mi (8.0 km) to the southwest to unite with the Deep River. The drainage
area at the project site is approximately 0.08 sq. mi (0.2 sq. km). It is considered urban
with primarily residential development. The proposed project will require the stream to
be relocated due to existing fill slope design requirements. Overall stream length will be
reduced and slope will be increased in order to correctly align the new channel with its
modified valley type.
Existing Channel
A 200-foot (61-meter) section of the single thread channel associated with the UT to
Hickory Creek was surveyed during March 2003. This section was located near Sta.
10+20 -40SBREV- Right, near the northern terminus of the proposed project area. The
surveyed reach exhibited channel characteristics similar to an E4/5b stream type, as
noted by the Rosgen Classification of Natural Rivers. The E4/5 stream type exhibits low
to moderate sinuosities, gentle to moderately steep channel gradients, and very low
channel width/depth ratios. This stream type is generally stable due to the influence of
riparian vegetation and planform resistance. Bank erosion and bedload transport rates
are typically high and the ratio of bedload to total sediment load often exceeds 50%.
These stream types are very sensitive to disturbance and tend to make significant
adverse channel adjustments to changes streambank vegetation and in flow regime and
sediment supply from the watershed (Rosgen and Silvey, 1998). However, the existing
channel at this location classes out as an E type but it is in a state of instability. The
channel is incised with a bank height ratio of around 1.3 with headcuts spaced
throughout the reach. Only one pool was found in the reach, which was dominated by
runs. The UT exhibited a bankfull cross sectional area of 4.0 sq. ft (0.37 sq. m), an
average slope of 0.015ft/ft, and a D50 of 2.0 mm. A detailed summary of existing
channel conditions is presented in attached morphological table.

Reference Reach
Due to the existing, unstable condition of the UT, a stable stream (UT Varnals Creek)
outside of the project area was selected as the reference reach. This channel was
selected based on its watershed components, stream type, and other general
characteristics. The reference reach channel is situated in Alamance County and
classifies as a Boa. It exhibits a drainage area of 0.24 sq. mi (0.62 sq. km) and a
bankfull cross sectional area of 7.9 sq. ft. Based on surveys, the channel is stable and
exhibits very low bank height ratios. Its valley characteristics are very comparable with
the existing channel. Little to no bank erosion was noted during the survey. A detailed
summary of reference conditions are also presented in the attached morphological table.
Proposed Channel
The proposed channel was based on dimensionless ratios derived from the reference
reach survey and data interpretation. The bankfull width will be increased from 4.1 ft
(1.25 m) to 9.0 ft (2.7 m) and the bankfull mean depth will be reduced from 1.0 ft
(0.30 m) to 0.7 ft (0.21 m). As a result, the width/depth ratio will increase to
approximately 13 from the existing 4.3 ratio. A decrease in the bankfull mean velocity
will occur with the new channel. The design stream will exhibit additional floodprone
area; however, minimal pattern will be provided due to site constraints. Slopes will be
actually decrease due to a change in the valley; however, an excess energy will be
dissipated via step/pool morphology characteristic with the B stream type. Rock cross
vanes will be the primary method influencing the step/pool morphology. These cross
vanes will be established throughout the channel in riffle sections and used to provide
grade control, center the thalweg, and protect the stream banks on both sides of the new
channel until vegetation is established. The cross vanes will also decrease shear
stresses throughout the reach. The riparian zone adjacent to the channel will be planted
with native vegetation conducive to wetter, floodplain areas.
Proposed channel stabilization characteristics are presented on the attached detail
sheet. It is anticipated that the riparian zone will be planted with native trees and shrubs
above bankfull depth and herbaceous species within the channel.
Sediment Transport
Based on pebble counts and bar samples taken along the existing channel, the D50
averages 2.0 mm and the D84 averages approximately 17.0 mm. The existing channel
exhibits a critical shear stress of 0.67 Ibs/ft2 which may entrain up to a 40 mm particle.
Based on the design, the proposed channel will exhibit a critical shear stress of
0.28 Ibs/ftz entraining up to a 18 mm particle. This reduction in entrainment will further
reduce degradation. In addition, cross vanes will be installed throughout the riffle
sections to further reduce the possibility of additional channel degradation.
References
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), 1998.
Yadkin/Pee Dee Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan.
Rosgen, D. and L. Silvey, 1998. Field Guide for Stream Classification. Wildland
Hydrology, Inc.

Appendix B Morphological M<:.Aasurement Table (Site 7)
Variables Existing Proposed
USGS Station
Reference Reach
Channel Reach
1. Stream type
E4/5b 64/5c N/A B4/1 a
2. Drainage area
18.5 Ac. 52 Ac. 154 Ac

3. Bankfull width .
4.1 ft. 9.0 ft. 9
7 ft

4. Bankfull mean depth .
.
1.0 ft. 0.7 ft. 0
8 ft

5. Width/depth ratio .
.

6. Bankfull cross-sectional area 4.3 13 12.7
4.0 sq. ft. 6.3 sq. ft. 7.9 sq. ft.
7. Bankfull mean velocity
5.4 ft/s 3.43 ft/s 5
23 ft/s
8. Bankfull discharge, cfs .
21.6 cfs 21.6 cis 41
3 cfs
9. Bankfull max depth .
1.4 ft. 1.0 ft. 1
1 ft

10. Width of floodprone area .
.
35 ft. 13.5ft. 26
2 ft

11. Entrenchment ratio .
.
8.5 1.5 2
7
12. Meander length Range: 60-112 ft. .
Avg: 88 ft. N/A 59 ft

13. Ratio of meander length to bankfull .
width 21.5 N/A g
14. Radius of curvature Range: 11:8-36 ft.
Avg:24.6 ft. N/A 13
4 ft

15. Ratio of radius of curvature to bankfull .
.
width 6 N/A 1
4
16. Belt width Range: 11.5-27 ft. .
Avg:20 ft. N/A 15 ft

17. Meander width ratio .
4.9 N/A 1
5
18. Sinuosity (stream length/valley length) .
1.2 1.0 1 2
19. Valley slope
1.90% 0.74% 4
58%
20. Average slope .
1.54% 0.74% 4.05%
21. Pool slope
0.00% 0.07% 0.47%
22. Ratio of pool slope to average slope
0 0.1 0 1
23. Maximum pool depth
1.9 ft. 2.0 ft. 1
6 ft

24. Ratio of pool depth to average bankfull .
.
depth 1.9 3.0 1
9
25. Pool width .
5.4 ft. 12.2 ft. 12
0 ft

26. Ratio of pool width to bankfull width .
.
1.35 1.4 1 2
27. Pool to pool spacing
"' 50 ft. 34.5 ft

28. Ratio of pool to pool spacing to .
bankfull width .. 5 5
3
"" Only one pool was found in the exisitng channel; therefore, we cannot calculate pool to pool spacing

Natural Channel Design Summary
Unnamed Tributary to Meadow Creek (Site 28)
TIP No. U-2524A61
State Project No. 8.U492101
Guilford County, North Carolina
Prepared by Mulkey Engineers and Consultants May 2003
This natural channel design summary is presented to the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) as part of on-site compensatory mitigation for the proposed
construction of the Greensboro Western Loop. The proposed roadway extends from
north of I-85 near Groometown Road to north of High Point Road on new location. An
unnamed tributary (UT) to Hickory Creek, situated immediately west of SR 1117 (Holden
Road) and north of Roberts Court Road, will be relocated southward from its existing
location outside of the proposed fill limits. The UT has been identified as a perennial
stream and is part of the Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-08 (USGS Hydrologic Unit
03030002). A morphological table, complete with existing channel, reference reach, and
proposed reach characteristics is attached. In addition, proposed design and detail
sheets are also included with this summary. The project is within the Piedmont
physiographic province.
The headwaters associated with the UT to Hickory Creek originate at the intersection of
SR 1117 (Holden Road) and SR 1392 (Drummond Road). The UT flows in a westerly
direction approximately 1.0 mi (1.6 km) before converging with Hickory Creek, then
another 5.0 mi (8.0 km) to the southwest to unite with the Deep River. The drainage
area at the project site is approximately 0.10 sq. mi (0.26 sq. km). It is considered urban
with primarily residential development. The proposed project will require the stream to
be relocated due to existing fill slope design requirements. Overall stream length will be
reduced and slope will be increased in order to correctly align the new channel with its
modified valley type.
Existing Channel
A 1600-foot (488-meter) section of the single thread channel associated with the UT to
Hickory Creek was surveyed during March 2003. This section was located near Sta.
29+20 -40SBREV- Right, near the eastern terminus of the proposed project area. The
surveyed reach exhibited channel characteristics similar to an E4/1 stream type, as
noted by the Rosgen Classification of Natural Rivers. The E4 stream type exhibits low to
moderate sinuosities, gentle to moderately steep channel gradients, and very low
channel width/depth ratios. This stream type is generally stable due to the influence of
riparian vegetation and planform resistance. Bank erosion and bedload transport rates
are typically high and the ratio of bedload to total sediment load often exceeds 50%.
These stream types are very sensitive to disturbance and tend to make significant
adverse channel adjustments to changes streambank vegetation and inflow regime and
sediment supply from the watershed (Rosgen and Silvey, 1998). The existing channel at
this location classes out as an E type and it is in a state of relative stability. The channel
has previously incised but has reestablished a small floodplain at a lower elevation. Due
to recent ice storms, there was a large amount of woody debris in the channel creating
localized instability. Significant bedrock was noted in several area along the existing
channel which is helping prevent further incision. The UT exhibited G bankfull cross
sectional area of 5.6 sq. ft (0.52 sq. m), an average slope of 0.012ft/ft, and a D50 of

2.5mm. A detailed summary of existing channel conditions is presented in attached
morphological table.
Reference Reach
Even though. the existing channel is relatively stable, a stable stream (UT Lake Jeanette)
outside of the project area was selected as the reference reach. This channel was
selected based on its watershed components, stream type, and other general
characteristics. The reference reach channel is situated in Guilford County and
classifies as a C4. It exhibits a drainage area of 0.25 sq. mi (0.65 sq. km) and a bankfull
cross sectional area of 7.7 sq. ft. Based on surveys, the channel is stable and exhibits
very low bank height ratios. Its valley characteristics are very comparable with the
existing channel. Little to no bank erosion was noted during the survey. A detailed
summary of reference conditions are also presented in the attached morphological table.
Proposed Channel
The proposed channel was based on dimensionless ratios derived from the reference
reach survey, existing channel survey, and data interpretation. The bankfull width will be
increased from 6.3 ft (1.92 m) to 8.5 ft (2.6 m) and the bankfull mean depth will be
reduced from 0.9 ft (0.27 m) to 0.66 ft (0.20 m). As a result, the width/depth ratio will
increase to approximately 13 from the existing 7.0 ratio. A decrease in the bankfull
mean velocity will occur with the new channel. The design stream will exhibit additional
floodprone area to aid in stress reduction in the channel. Slopes will be increased due to
a change in the valley; however, an excess energy will be dissipated via riffle/pool
morphology characteristic and planform associated with the C stream type. Rock cross
vanes will be the primary method influencing the riffle/pool morphology. These cross
vanes will be established throughout the channel in riffle sections and used to provide
grade control, center the thalweg, and protect the stream banks on both sides of the new
channel until vegetation is established. The cross vanes will also decrease shear
stresses throughout the reach.. The riparian zone adjacent to the channel will be planted
with native vegetation conducive to wetter, floodplain areas.
Proposed channel stabilization characteristics are presented on the attached detail
sheet. It is anticipated that the riparian zone will be planted with native trees and shrubs
above bankfull depth and herbaceous species within the channel.
Sediment Transport.
Based on pebble counts and bar samples taken along the existing channel, the D50
averages 2.5 mm and the D84 averages approximately 30.0 mm. The existing channel
exhibits a critical shear stress of 0.54 Ibs/ft2 which may entrain up to a 35 mm particle.
Based on the design, the proposed channel will exhibit a critical shear stress of
0.59 Ibs/ftz entraining up to a 38 mm particle. This increase in entrainment will not
induce degradation as the active bed sample produced a D84 of 40mm. In addition,
cross vanes will be installed throughout the riffle sections to further reduce the possibility
of additional channel degradation.
References
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), 1998.
Yadkin/Pee Dee Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan.
Rosgen, D. and L. Silvey, 1998. Field Guide for Stream Classification. Wildland
Hydrology, Inc.

Appendix B Morphological Measurement Table (Site 28)

Variables Existing

Channel Proposed

Reach
USGS Station
Reference Reach
1. Stream type

2. Drainage area E4 C4 N/A C4

3. Bankfull width 57Ac. - 75Ac. 57Ac. - 75Ac. 160 Ac.

4. Bankfull mean depth 6.3 ft. 8.5 ft. 9.5 ft.

5. Width/depth ratio 0.9 ft. 0.66 ft. 0.8 ft.
7 13 11
7
6. Bankfull cross-sectional area
.

7. Bankfull mean velocit 5.6 sq. ft. 5.6 sq. ft. 7.7 sq. ft.
y
4.06 ft/s
3.9 - 4.0 ft/s
4
5

8. Bankfull discharge
cfs .
5 ft/s
,
9. Bankfull max depth 22.7 cfs 22.7 cfs 35 cfs
1.5 ft. 1.1 ft.

10. Width of floodprone area 1.3 ft.

11. Entrenchment ratio
65 ft. Range: 32 - 56 ft.
Avg.41.3 ft.
36 ft.
10.3 4.85 3

12. Meander length
R
8 .8

13. Ratio of meander len
th to bankf
ll ange:
5-150 ft.
Avg: 120 ft. Range: 43-114.5 ft.
Avg: 73 ft. Range: 29-69 ft. Avg
50.2 ft. :
g
u
width 1 9 8.6

14. Radius of curvature
R 5.3

15. Ratio of radius of curvature to b
kf
ll ange: 10.2-36 ft.
Avg:22 ft. Range: 19-49 ft.
Avg:29.8 ft. Range: 5.3-22 ft.
Avg:9.7 ft.
an
u
width 3.5 3.5

16. Belt width
R 1.02

17. Meander width ratio ange: 46-63 ft.
Avg:52.5 ft. Range: 11.8-35 ft.
Avg: 21.0 ft. Range: 26-40 ft. Avg
33 ft. :
8.3 2.5 3

18. Sinuosity (stream len
thlvall
l
th .5
g
eng
ey
)
1.35
1.02

19. Valley slope 1.35
1.60% 1.85%

20
Average slope 0.76%
.
1.20% U/S: 1.78%
D/S:1.66%

21. Pool slope 0.57%

22. Ratio of pool slope to avera
e sl
0.26%
0.35% Range: 0.012-0.13%.
Avg:0.047%
g
ope
0.22
0.2
0
082
23. Maximum pool de
th .
p 2.3 ft. 2.0 ft. 2
9 ft

24. Ratio of pool depth to avera
e b
kf
ll .
.
g
an
u
depth 2,56 3.0

25. Pool width 3.6
8.9 ft. 12.2 ft. 10

26. Ratio of pool width to bankfull width .5
1.41 1.4 1
1
27. Pool to pool spacin :
g

28. Ratio of pool to pool s
acin
t
58.5 ft. Range: 24-63 ft.
Avg:39.4 ft. Range: 20.7-54.8ft.
Avg:40.2 ft.
p
g
o
bankfull width
g,3 Ran e: 2.8-7.4
Av 4.,5
9
Range: 2.2-5.8
Avg:4.23

68 I50
~ 158
42 I 2 0
PROJECT U-2 .
RT 1)
68
40
311
es
68 00~1ET0 ~
~~~~~~~~
1~11.~1L
29 ~ 61
reensbo
70
42 I
~I~BR_
RANDOLPH CO, -'-_-62 •-•-••
~~~®~
]~IVISI®N ®F HIGHWAYS
GUII.F®R~ C®UNT'Y
PR®JECT:8.U~92101 <U-252~~B)
GREENSB;OR~O - NESTERN LQ3®P FR©M
NGRTH ~F I-85 NE.~R GR®~MET®WN
TAO NORTH OF HIGFI PINT R®t~D
SHEET OF 5.~ 15,E 03
i ~ P H ~F~~L~N

END PROJECT
SITE 16
SITE 15 ~
SITE 7
SITE 1~
SITE 8 -
END PROJECT
~ ~- ~. __
~ . --
.,, s;- , 6
. ,
~h~ ~,~ j i
~o~ `~
~~ END PROJECT
f
/SITE 17
SITE 13
SITE 12
SITE 11 ,~
/ ~ phi
~ //%0 4.
4~~
~4~~
i ~ld'~i
~~4~
~o '
\ \ ida~~' SITE 7
SITE 25 ~ BEGIN PROJECT
Iyl[A~l~
~~ SITE 24
- _ s ~s _
_ _- '_ - ______ -___ -= ~ TO .BURLINGTON
_~~
i' ~ a a SITE 25B
SITE 21
SITE 23 SITE 28
l~! ~~®~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
PROJECT:8.U~92101 (U-2524AB)
GREENSBORO -WESTERN LOOP FRODI
k NORTH OF I-85 NEAR GROOMETOWN
TO NORTH OF HIGH POINT ROAD
SHEET OF 5 015 ~ 03

L ~~~~~~ ~,~~~~~
-•4JLB WE`fLAND BOUNDARY
`~
~--~
PROPOSED BRIDGE
WETLAND
L
~~~~~
^,:~:,^,::.
~~~~~
ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE I
`
~`~`~`.`~
.. .. ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE 2
MITIGABLE IMPAC
TS ZONE I
®
MITIGABLE IMPACTS ZONE 2
- BZ RIPARIAN BUFFER ZONE
-BZ1 -- RIPARIAN BUFFER ZONE 1
30 ft (9.2m)
- BZ2 - RIPARIAN BUFFER ZONE 2
20 f t (6.1m)
FLOW DIRECTION
-'t.~ TOP OF BANK
-••• WE EDGE OF WATER
-- ~ -- PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
---F -- PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
~- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
--- NG --- NATURAL GROUND
---~-- PROPERTY LINE
-TOE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-POE - PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
--EAB-- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
--EPB-- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
----~--- WATER SURFACE
xx xXx x x LIVE STAKES
BOULDER
- - - CORE FIBER ROLLS
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12"-4 B'
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
~j & ABOVE
~•^-' SINGLE TREE
•• •• •• .. WOODS LINE
DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
RIP RAP
O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
^ PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE (PSH>
LEVEL SPREADER (LS)
GRASS SWALE
I)IVISI®N ®F HIGHWAYS
GUII.F®R~ C®UNTY
PR©JECT:B.U-092101 (U-252~O~B)
GREENSE~R® - tiVESTERN LG~P FR©M
NGRTH ®F I-85 NE.~R GR®~3rIET®tiVN
TG N~DRTH GF HIGH P®INT R~.~D
SHEET ~F 5 415 ~' 03

~Y~Y ~~~~~~ ~~`1~~~~
-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY
WETLAND
L
® DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
® DENOTES FILL' IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
® DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
WATER
" DENOTES MECHANIZED
"»'"'» • CLEARING
-} -~ FLOW DIRECTION
TB
-~- TOP OF BANK
-"' WE EDGE OF WATER
---- ~ --- PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
----F--- PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
-~--PROP, RIGHT OF WAY
--- NG --- NATURAL GROUND
---P~-- PROPERTY LINE
- TDE - TEMP, DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-PDE- PERMANENT, DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
--EAB-- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
--EPB-- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
---~- WATER SURFACE
x x x
x xx x x LIVE STAKES
BOULDER
-- - - CORE FIBER ROLLS
PROPOSED BRIDGE
~~ PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
~"'-'~ PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48'
(DASHED LINES DENDTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
SINGLE TREE
~~ -- •- .. WOODS LINE

DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
RIP RAP
O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE
LEVEL SPREADER (LS>
~RASS SWALE
I)IVISI®N ®F HIGH'6VAYS
GUILF®KD C®UN~'~
PRGJECT:8.U~092101 (U-252~VAB)
GREENSB~DR® -WESTERN L®~OP FR®bf
NORTH ~F I-85 NEAR GRG~DMET~OWN
TAO NORTH ®F HIGH PINT R~lAD
SHEET ®F 5 ~ 15 /I 03

,~
-~"
r- -4as~~-
~~ ~ - 2GI W177
-CSIVP- Fut G1
2G1 WffT4 -----
FUT GRATE _ ,
x~x~ -
;~ ,
,_~-.
~- ~'~^
t'-_--
~~
~~~~~I ~~~ 9Y
~' ~' ~'
~ ~~~~~~~
i
~~~~ ~~
a
g
/~L

RIP
r. ~I
'J
_~, -- ~~~
;xr
/ ------------------------------T----
------- ~
---- ~

~~ ~rt"-~ / ~ H .
I D
I ~
Ceorga W. McCulston, atai n
1.659 Ha. BY OMO =
~ Db 1712-548 NAB 83
~ r
z
i m
i
--~---------------------------c~
b \ ~~®~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
PROJECT:8.U492101 (U-2524AB)
GREENSBORO -WESTERN LOOP FRODI
NORTH OF I-85 NEAR GROOMETONN
TO NORTH OF HIGH POINT ROAD
SHEET OF
6®30003

--------- - --- -
8---------
-----------
-
~ ~~~
1~ ----

---------------------------- -----------
-----------
----------------
~------- -------------------- -------
-------------
---
~ o
-------------
-----
a '~
f~-~ --------------------------= --------------- ----___ F____--~-~-----------,,
\
! ~
- .. ~~ _I
~~
\ -
~~
i I I ~(o
,~ i~ OE#'
LTDE-TDE-TDE-TDE-~DE-TDE-TDE-TDE-TDE-TDE-TDE- -TDE-TDE-TDE-TDE-~D~ I
I I
I I NAD 83 Florence H. McCulston
I I De mz-ss1
I Mattle B. McCulston I 1'659 Ha. by Tax Ma
I 0.166 Ha, b I p
I OB 1712-548 DMD I
I I
i~~wT ~j g~[ I
ll ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1LS ~ b ~1 'l/ ~ ® 11
~~~~~~
~~~~~~~
~~~~ ~~
~~~~11e 1Lo~®®®
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
PROJECT:8.U~92101 (U-252~AB)
GREENSBORO - ~PESTERN LOOP FROM
NORTH OF I-85 NEAR GROOMETONN
TO NORTH OF HIGH POINT ROAD
SHEET OF
5/15/03

------------
------------------
-----------------------------------1-----------------
-
----
-----
------------
------------1------
D oe~ ---------
~

-------- B
------------------
--------
- -----------
_
-
-------------- -9-----------------

-------------------- - -----
- - -

~_ Iza
Z --- ~-
~~----
~
rT1 F
-------
-- --_- as

F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - h
e~ ~~ \
~ --
375
o
LTDE-TDE-TOE-TDE-~~DE-TDE-TDE-TDE
I
I
I
I
I
I
FUT
C~t1AR
FLAT GRATE
o° 400 CS
'~ V42 ELBQb($`
- - -
-,. ~_ ~ 1
'jQE~
TDE-TDE-TDE-TDE-TDE-TDE-TDE-TDE-~DE~SO~jDE
I
Mottle B. McCulston ~
~~~~ ~~~~
~~~~~~
~~~~ ~~
I
I
I
I
NAD 83
/~ ~1`
-x~-xxx-
.A
Florence H. McCuistan
~`V~®~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
_ GUILFORD COUNTY
PROJECT:8.U~d92101 (U-252~AB)
GREENSBORO -WESTERN LOOP FROM
NORTH OF I-85 NEAR GROOMETOWN
TO NORTH OF HIGH POINT ROAD
SHEET OF
5/15/03 ~

NATURAL CHANNEL DESIGN TYPICALS
DETAIL I
dart. T'fPICAL FLOOD PLAIN SECTION
rr, (Not to Scale ) Natural
round
2 Flood Plain
~uTUrE r .L\
". ~ vAR. VAR.
8m TO 20m
SEE CHANNEL DETAILS
'~, CHANNEL DETAIL
PROPOSED RIFFLE SECTION
rrar ro sw. 1
Papa ~wx. eaNtFLLL pEPTN
Plain Pboc
iTPIC1L SECTgN 11T RFFLES
CHANNEL DETAIL
PROPOSED TYPI A CTION
Q BENp (POOLSf
1 Nor •o x7l. 1
PWtrt s / ~ ~ ~/' POOL
..o..o~
P~IMIN r PIAIlS
M Mi III Ut it1Yi1~
IIlCOIiPI E 9LAIl8
M Ni ql ppiYtill~
OUANTITES
DDE = 21000m~
BOULDERS = 400 EACH
COUt MAT = 260mz
CEOTEXTILE FABRIC = 350m~
TlE TO EX/STNG
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
/FILL EXISTING
CHANNEL
cROSSVavE mPrcau
sEE oETac, sEE srrEEt 2
24030~~~
FLOW DIRECTION
FILL TO ELEV.2424
24392
--I
0
m
-TDE-TDE-TDE-TDE-TDE-TDE-TDE-TDE-TDE-TDE-TDE-TDE
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
TIE TO EXISTNG CHANNEL
~~AN~~E~ P~A~I VIEW jo~,~~~
~S ~~S pE
~-. , T ~ FLOW D/RECTION ',~DEi1~
~~ I E 2 8 -TDE-TDE-TDE_Z~E

B
a

.4
.s
~
~

O N
3~

- 11 //
x h
Z
a
h
T ~ os9~

LIN ~B
/+ N
~~0
.CC~
\ ~
NAD 83 ~
\~\
\~\~
I .,~ 1 .
~ e ~ . ~1 \
~ ~~~ 1, ~\
i~ ii ~ ~
i
~ , ~
i ~ ~
i \ ``\
\ ~
..
S \ \
\ \
i,
~,
;i ,
~~~N V :L 1U `7V
I~ lCI ~' 1~' 1~ ~.
~~~I`':~E :i
~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ - it ; ~ ,~ ~~
~J
W`Q- G~
RAP
~~\ PSS `
5
S ~~ ~ ~ ~~1 •~oW
s
~ ~~
- i
~GSC FS ~~ .. _.,r
~ boo I__
F
IDIVISI®N ®]F 1H[~GI~-IW~~S
GUI1LlF®I3ID C®~TN~'~'
PR®JECT:B.U~d921~1 (U-252~d.~~)
GREENS®R~D -WESTERN -.®~OP FRD1~1
N~)1T~ ~E 1-85 NE.-~R GR~D~ONIET~CDWN
T~C~ N~O,'~TI-I ~D'F g-3I(~~-I ~~OINT I~~O.~Ii

I '~,`~.`~.. I
I ; ~;`• I

I
I '1 .,. 1
I . ~
I ~
;'~ I \
I "' I \
I iii I
I i~i -- I \
~ I \
a I iii ~
ii
~ ~
~ I
i
/ ~
1 1• ~ I/ ~ ~ ry ~
y ~' ,1 1
I
0
I ~~•~~~~~~~~, ~~ M
I ~2~ I
~ I
I
~lil ~ ~
NAD 83 ~ fjj 1 ~ i II
1' I
------i i i`_ I I
I
`•~;;\; ,, I ~~
J 900 MW 6 SB / ~
//~~
tth-
1 I I
''J
NNN
~
I
,
~ I
~. ,.
I II I `

J

jW~l I
I
II
~
_
~
I
I
I I I ~ ~
I
~ I
I I
` I
~ I /. I
! /
i
o
i
4 I J i
a
.'i I ~~
I .
I
'" I ~ ~
i
I ' W
ail ~ ~
I ~ ~ ^
I o 1
I u wZm'- ~

!
I \\
~II \\
l
I ~ ll
l \

~ ' Q i
\
I
•
1
'/ _ I
I
I
I / i •
I H
I I ~\
II

I
PROPOSED ~ ••' ~

,r

~ I
I s
I I W V
{$~ "_
"-
BUFFERS i i '', 1 I
.
I
I
~
I • E W
~
I
. ~~•~,
I
" a I l o
I
I I ~'
I ~
' ~ 1
~ o I I~I
~ ' =''
/
I
I I `• ~ •• III I
u -t Ili
11 m 1
I
1 \~
",~,~~~
I I
1 \
. .. \ \
o

I I
I 11
i,, 1
: \~
I
I
j(~ }~ ~ ~(
I
~ ~ v~~l ®N ~~ ~IG~w~~~
~ GLl1 1.F~13~~ C®LIN'~'~
~r llcc
1L ~~.c~~,~~~ P R ©JE CT:B.U~~>2101 (U-252~r~1~)
GRE E N SI 3~R ~ - NEbTERN 1,®c~p 'FR~DbS

d. ~ Jl Jl 1L ./ :/

lv~td ~ ir;t ~~r 1-ti5 N;I~;.-~K GR~O~A~d2;'~T'~C~~\T
T'(~ N.C)R"1'r] ~(>~ 1FI1(iQ-I ~'~iN"1" R~(~.~R
,,~>>~:~~ ~>,.~ ~I/ ~>~Il ol>

i -~ .i
I ;.
..

\\

~
U ui
_ ~.
~ ~

I t ~ .. \ \

'~ '- ~ .. ~

..
/' ~q
~'M ..
~\ \\ .. II .. Ac~O
~
I
I i i ,i W ~ \

-
I
,\
1 E
~
O ~
~ \ \
~

I I
~ N 83
I
~
,~ ~
~ ~~
I ' i
\
I I I I\ a
3 ~ FER ~- I ~ ' v
I '
I ~ ~
\ z
I ~
~ ~ -\L'
~ I
\ o

I I •
~
~ i .
~s ~ \

j I
I
~
~!
~
\\
° 1
~'

I I
~ 1
E

'
l _
1
~\
\
- ~ -' ~'~ \ ~ N0

I ~ I ~ .~'; i \ ~
~

.. ~
i
l nn 111 .`
~. ~ ;~~
~t~ t \
- I , I 1 ,{
,. ;; ...
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
- , ~,~ \
- , ,.~ \
I ~~ \
~`'~~ ~
'.
- ~~;
~ w
- _~~
~ y~+ ,,
j m~N ,,,
~ ~ d
,~
~ ~,
~ ~~
~,
- ~ ~ i ' NE ~
,~
~ ~ ;,;
~ ~ `~ -
~~~I~~_f~ ~~ ®IVI~I©N ®lF ]EIIIGg-TWA.~t'~
~IIII.~®KID ~C®~JN~['~
1~~1~.c~i~~/ 11 ~' ~R~JIEC"S':8.t1•d<)21~ll1 (Li-252~d~~3)
~ ~ GRF,ENS13®I~® - WE~TiERN L~(D~1~ 'E~ Id®N~
~~ 1C~ rl N~C)~? "Q'~[ ~C~6~ I-F35 N~ .~Fb ~GI3~~C~I~1[~;'-~'©~VN ~
I
-"C9 N~C)]f~"d'1H ~~~ 'H1Cz~-I ~~L~IN'~' }3~(~.;t~
...
-~-- - 1~, I~, >I~ <<>~~ ~ ~ ~~,, ~ o,
~ `'

1 ~ \
~ ,i
~ D,~ A ~ , LINE "D
i
' ~ I
~ II,
' NAD 83 '•
I -
I •~Q ~ ~ : r'
~,~'+ f
} N ~ tJ /
I p ~SSSF ~~
LL7Z N u~. ~ % ~ %
I ` I 'If
2 I ~
ri N -L ~ n
,~ ~~0
~ h ~ ~ I ~ 5~ 5 ~
u ~ m II m
I g m u ~ .. ~.
N \
I 4
I ~ y ~ '• •~
_ ~ Y ~\
PROPOSED •a"~'lh ~~
BUFFERS ~'S~y~d1sti ~ ~~
I ' 0 9~ I ~~~:~' 11
~ i~ I ~ ~
- ~~
I ~~ ~ I~
y ~~ ~ \ _ -
I ` \\
I =
I ~ a ~ : r--
I ~ .. i (~ ~ . \ r~l
I e ~ ~ ~ i \
I IABANDI
I /~ •' B .~ II ..
~ ~ I~ \ \\
I / ~• .. ~ i~ \\
~~
I I \
I \
'~f~ -~,~ \
~W --- / \ \
I ------------- --- -~---- - I s
I _- -~-~ r----- I ° \ ~ ~
I, -~, ~e ~ ~I ~
,.~ ~ s
i / I ISFO I i 0P'
~7 ~ y ~~y +
~~I`~$lE,r~11~'~[ I~IVISI®N ®1F' 1HIGI-IW~\~~
~\~ `~ ~~ ~UI1LF®I$I~ C~~TN'I'`l'
~~~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ `y RR~CDJECT: 8.U~92101 (L1-252-~ r~B)
C. _ GREENST3~OR~0 - NESTERN L~i)F~ ER~I~!
~y~v~?l,~ ~/ N~}1T~~ ~3~ 4-85 NEr~R GFZ~C~~(E~'~~VN I~
i
-- - -- -- ~ ~ t, t~,;

J
--~,.:
ti
650 `~Ni
~~S

-~

U
~---

m\
O
1[` 11~, ~ 1 ~ ~Y ~ ~ V'V'
~~~~~~
~y~v~I~
S ~~
.,S
,,
~~~
~~t
~O
~~
Off'
G ~~~1 LPSS ~~
~YV , \~` ~GP G
/~~~~
~E ~ - .
X
,~
~. ,~
~, ,,
\~, J~
G v I
~~ / ~ i p I NAD 83
~ ~' I
G~~ ~ \ x i~
~ ~ I
~~~~~
~~VISI®N ®~ ]E~ICaIHWA~~
GUIILIF®I$d~ ~®LJN'I'~'
I'R~OJEC"I':8.U~92101 (U-2524A13)
GREENS%~R~D -WESTERN L~~~~ FR~NI
N~DRT--I DOE I-BS NEAR GR~~ONIET~C~~VN
TIC) N~DRTIH ~©E B-IIG~I ~~3INT Rs).~\d~
/~
/X

,--_~
o D: r

~,
~ .r~ ~
~~
~
~~ :
~
11
p i i 975
m 1 ~ ~; ~.
d
~,
- I .e tio~1h~'.
~ '~~ s ~oy~V1sti~
~J ° D~ I
/ I
LIME : v\\
~ `~
NAD 83 ~
~.d ~ \ \~~
q~ ~~
I \ ',lr v~ s ~ \
I e ~ 1~ \ ,~~~' o aye ~~e
_' ~ `~ ^ ~~ X65 ~~N ~p~
(~ \ ~~ s Yl~~p~
~ r ~' ~
I •.,r(•,
l a- ~ + ~ ~
I
~~~ \~ ~\ Go~~0. s~
~ ~ ~ ~`~~~ e "Ps
O S~ Pc '
~.
~~ ;~ ` ~ ~~~ 111 ~ ~ ,~~'>~
- y i ~ F 60 ~,S \
i }}~~ y ~( y y ~ F \
~~` ~d V V' ~~ VV
~~~~~~~ DIVISION ®lF ~iIGI-IWA~S
GUIILF~RD ~;'~UN'1C~
~~'~1 ~~~1~~~~ II'R~C3JECT: 8.U~92101 (U-252~Or~~)
_ GREENS~~R~ -WESTERN L~D~P FR~DNI
~~~~ J NORTH ~~ II-85 NE.~R GR©~ONtE'II'~OWN
~~C' ~ ~_II_, ~E ' ~1~~~~1.9~O~I) TAD NiO3~Ti-3 ~~~ H1GN P~D1NT R~~.~~
------- - -- --- -- - -- - -- SH L III`]' ~tJ }' ----- -- ~6 G~ ,> -0 03

Tu.l
~~ ~~
. _~_
f
NATURAL CHANNEL DESIGN TYPICALS
CHANNEL DETAIL
nL SLOPE PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION
LO. an I xot to Sca. 1
L+Si_
eunruL OEPltl
's .lu
~"r~
TTPr:aL SECTgN I aT IOFiLES
NOTEa LSa[E; !S POOLI
CHANNEL DETAIL
ELL SLOPE PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION 0 POOL
L Ilbt to Sco4 )
' f I c-e.w~uL oErTn
TTPICaL SECTION = aT POOLS
NOTES LK 8aNC5 YITM CON F@ER YdTiHO TO BlMFfS_L FLEYaiION
T7'PI[LL : WFFtEI'
b K N ! [ ~~'
o i
R [ b
CHANNEL PLAN VIEW
SITE # 7 ~°
i

w rT !r Er yr Eu.rror
!WC@!f~ E FIAN!
w wr w [wiTlS[ilr
OUANTITES
DOE _ ~OSOmT
BOULDERS = 230 EACH 1230 70NSi
COIR YAT = pOOm7
CEOTEXTILE FABRIC = 220mz
T/E TO EXISTING CHANNEL
f~5~4Y ff~4a4'
S =
STrYCTIl1E • !w. EIEr. Y1[TLLl FLEY.
1 zu.73. zn.rs.
E Tu. p. Nr.1M
7 I.I.S.. !u.lM
1 21[.]Y 2U.fr.
s to.:z. xua7.
[ Ul.Ol. 21l.7l.
7 2.7.51. Nl.zS.
[ T17. T5. tu.w.
! 217.L1. T17.51.
w ~ za.15. :.r. rl.
„ 217.7V 2.T. [..
IT :1r.zO. E1r.A
11 z.r.w. z11al.
~. zoc.>y z1T.z5.
u i.c.rw za.w.
I[ 2.[.70[ Ni.![ti
~I
- _ I