20061862 Ver 2_Individual_20070509

Kimley-Horn
? ? and Associates, Inc.
May 8, 2007
Mr. Ian McMillan
Project Manager, 401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
NC Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Blvd.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Re: DWQ Project # 20061862 - Modification to 401 Certification
Shoppes at Bush Hill
Guilford/Randolph County
Archdale, North Carolina
Dear Mr. McMillan:
Thank you and Annette Lucas for meeting with our project team on April 20,
2007, to review our final stormwater plan and discuss modifications to our
existing 401 certification dated February 23, 2007, for the referenced
development. A copy of the original Corps of Engineers application form 4345
is enclosed, along with the revised permit support document and project plans,
which have all been updated to reflect the current site plan showing the Weant
Road/NC 62 intersection shifted further to the east as required by NCDOT to
allow for greater spacing to the I-85 interstate ramps.
As we discussed during the meeting, the new site plan has resulted in a slight
modification to the development plan, including the addition of approximately 4
acres of land. As a result of these modifications, the proposed permanent
impacts to streams and wetlands have been reduced by 0.01 acre of permanent
wetland fill, while the temporary impacts have been reduced by 0.01 acre of
wetland and 21 linear feet of stream channel. We request that a modified 401
Water Quality Certification be issued that shows the reduced impacts. A table
that lists all proposed impacts is included in the Executive Summary of the
permit support document.
The impacts to the Randleman Buffer have also been updated to reflect the
elimination of the temporary stream crossing, and the addition of a small impact
to Zone 2 of the buffer required for siting a wetland detention basin for the Light
Industrial portion of the project. This impact was required in order to ensure
proper drainage to the basin. The buffer impacts for the entire project now total
16,988 square feet of Zone 1, and 16,988 square feet of Zone 2. These impacts
are included in a table in the Executive Summary.
'
? rr
?,,,,.;;'?.
c? ..a
MAY 00
06 . 1 86 2 V4
PAYMENT
RECEIVED
¦
P.0 Box 33068
Raleigh, North Carolina
27636-3068
¦ , ' "t
TEL [phone] RIi 7t 7 } `ACH
FAX [phone]
Mr. Ian McMillan, May 8, 2007, Pg. 2
As part of this modification request, we would also like an extension of the
compensatory mitigation fulfillment utilizing the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) as outlined in condition #7, which requires payment one month
from the date of the approval of the 401 certification. Because we are still
awaiting issuance of the 404 permit, we would like to request an additional 60
days to make the payment to EEP.
In addition, condition # 9 states that a final stormwater management plan shall be
submitted within 60 days of issuance of the 401 certification. For the purposes of
flexibility, we request that condition # 9 be modified to allow the option for a
phased stormwater approval. A final stormwater plan, dated April 26, 2007, was
recently submitted by Wolverton & Associates under a separate cover for DWQ
review. A planting plan to accompany the final stormwater plan is currently
being prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates and will be submitted for your
review on May 11, 2007.
Thank you for your assistance with this matter. If there is anything we can do to
facilitate your expedited review of this medication request, please don't hesitate
to contact me at [phone].
Very truly yours,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Beth Reed
Project Manager
Enclosures
Copy: Todd Schneider
Theo Stone
Annette Lucas
06 1 86 2 V?,
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Project Summary Sheet
Project Name: Shoppes at Bush Hill (Revision to Permit Application)
Applicant Name and Address: Archdale Partners, LLC
5Attn: Todd Schneider
530 Huber Park Court
Weldon Springs, MO 63304
Telephone Number: [phone]
Type of Request: ? Nationwide PCN (NWP # ) ® Individual Permit Application
? Jurisdictional Determination ? Other:
Included Attachments: ® Project Plans ® USGS Map ® NRCS Soil Survey
® Agent Authorization ? Delineation Sketch ® Delineation Survey
® Data Forms (Up & Wet) ® NCDWQ Stream Forms ® USACE Stream Forms
® NCEEP Confirmation ® Aerial Photo ® Site Photos
® Agency Correspondence ® Other:Hydro Report, Floodplain Maps, Support Document
Check if applicable: ? CAMA County ? Trout County ? Isolated Waters
? Section 7, ESA ? Section 106, NHPA ? EFH
® Mitigation Proposed (® NC EEP ? On-Site ? Off-Site ? Other)
County: Guilford and Randolph Nearest City/Town: Archdale
Waterway: Muddy Creek
H.U.C.:03030003
Property Size (acres): 160
Site Coordinates (in decimal degrees): 35.9185 ON
River Basin: Cape Fear
USGS Quad Name: High Point East
Approx. Size of Jurisdiction on Site (acres): 3.06
79.9383 °W
Project Location: The project site is located within the southeast quadrant of the U.S. Interstate 85/ N.C. State Highway 62
interchange in Archdale, Guilford and Randolph Counties, North Carolina.
Site Description: The entire project site is approximately 160 acres in size. The project site is comprised of agricultural
fields separated by several mixed-hardwood forested areas, which are generally located along the streams and in low areas.
Impact Summary (if applicable): The project as proposed will result in the permanent placement of fill into 1.57 acres of
wetland. 0.54 acres of oven water, and 305 linear feet of stream channel, including 125 linear feet of perennial stream
channel with indicators of important aquatic function. The project will also result in the temporary dewatering of 1.93 acres
of open water. A detailed description of the proposed impacts is included in Section 1.3 of the attached permit application
support document.
Open Water Wetland Stream Channel
NWP (ac) (ac) Unimportant A uatic Function Important A uatic Function
# Temp. Perm. Tem . Perm.
Temp. Perm. Temp. Perm. If ac if ac if ac if Ac
IP 1.93 0.54 0 1.57 0 0 180 0.02 0 0 125 0.02

Total 1.93 0.54 0 1.57 0 0 180 0.02 0 0 125 0.02
Total Permanent Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 2.15
Kimley-Horn Contact: Beth Reed
¦
P.0 Box 33068
Raleigh, North Carolina
27636-3068
Direct Number: 919-677-2073
¦
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
06 • 1 86 2 v2.
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT 04tB APPROVAL NO.0710-(X)03
(33 C'FR 325) Expires December 31. 2004
The Public 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 222024302; and to the Office of Management and Budget,
Paperwork Reduction Project (07 1 0-0003 1. Washington, DC 20503. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control
number. Plcasc 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
Authorities: 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 he 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.
(ITEMS I THRU d TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO. '_. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED T 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLET) BY APPLICANT)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME 8. AUTI IORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE (an agent is not required)
Archdale Partners, LLC Beth Reed
Attn: Todd Schneider Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
530 Huber Park Court Post Office Box 33068
Weldon Springs, MO 63304 Raleigh, NC 27636-3068
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOS. WiAREA CODE 10. AGENT'S PHONE NOS. W%AREA CODE
a. Residence NA a. Residence NA
b. Business [phone] b. Business [phone]
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize Kimle -I lom and Associates. Inc. to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to
furnish, upon request, supplementalint' ation in support of this permit application.

APPLI NT'S SIGNATURE DATE
NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see insinrctiunsi
The Shoppes at Bush Hill
13. NAME OF WATERBODY. IF KNOWN (ill applicable) 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS afappitcable)
Muddy Creek and unnamed tributaries to Muddy Creek 1820 - 1840 Weant Road, I ligh Point, NC 27263
in the Cape Fear River Basin
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Guilford & Randolph North Carolina
COUNTY STATE
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions)
Coordinates (in decimal degrees) for the center of the site are 35.9185° N, 799383° W.
17. DIRECTIONS TO T1 1E SITE
The project site is located within the Southeast quadrant of the U.S. Interstate 85! N.C. State Highway 62 interchange in Archdale. Guilford and
Randolph Counties, North Carolina. From Exit 1 i I on U.S. Interstate 85, travel east on NC Highway 62 for approximately 400 feet, turn south on to
Weant Road. The site is located on the west side of Weant Road, approximately 1500 feet south of NC Highway 62.
ENG FORM 4345, Jul 97 EDITION OF FEB 94 IS OBSELETE (Proponent: CEC W-OR)
19, Nature of Activity (Description of projecI. include all,leortrres)
The project is a 156-acre mixed-use development, which will include the construction of a retail center with two anchor stores, several retail shops,
out-parcels, an office development. two multi-family residential sections, a light industrial development area, along with transportation. parking, and
stonnwater facilities. A detailed description of the project purpose is provided in Section 13 of the attached permit application support document.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reoson or purpose of the project. see instructionsi
The basic project purpose for the proposed activity is to provide a mixed-use development in the Archdale area, in Guilford and Randolph Counties,
North Carolina. The project is necessary to meet the local demand for commercial, retail, and light industrial space in the area. A more complete
description of the project purpose is provided in Section 2.0 of the attached permit application support document.
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND%OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED I
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
The discharge of fill, including earthen material, culverts, and riprap, is required to construct the main access road across the site. parking areas,
building pads, and a utility crossing. The proposed crossing of the perennial stream channel and the pond are necessary to provide transportation
access to high ground portions of the site. The temporary disturbance for the utility crossing is necessary to provide a connection to the city sewer
system located on the opposite side of the stream and adjacent wetland. The placement of fill material into wetlands and intermittent stream channels
is necessary to construct building pads required for development of the site. Because of the type of facility proposed and the extensive grading
required by site conditions, the wetland impacts arc unavoidable. The proposed site plan represents the least damaging practicable alternative,
considering both off=site and on-site alternatives. Additionally, mitigation will be provided to offset the proposed impact to wetlands. Additional
information, including a detailed alternatives analysis, and measures taken to avoid and minimize impacts, have been included in Section 5.0 of the
attached permit application support document.
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Construction of the site will require the discharge of earthen fill and backfill material, riprap, concrete culverts and wing walls, and the temporary
placement of excavated material within streams, wetlands, and open waters on the project site. The total volume estimated to be discharges is
approximately 35,000 cubic yards of earthen fill, 10 cubic yards of concrete (culverts and wing walls), and 20 cubic yards of riprap (dissipater pads
and slope stabilization).
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
The project as proposed will result in the permanent placement of till into 1.58 acres of wetland. 0.54 acres of open water, and 305 linear feet of stream
channel, including 125 linear feet of perennial stream channel with indicators of important aquatic function. The project will also result in the
temporary placement of fill into 0.01 acres of wctland and 21 linear feet of stream channel, and the temporary dewatering of 1.93 acres of open water.
The detailed description of the proposed impacts is included in Section 1.3 of the attached permit application support document.
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes No -l' 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 here,
please attach a supplemental list).
Addresses of adjoining property owners are included in Appendix I I of the attached permit application support document.
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals./Denials Received from other Federal. State, or Laval Agencies for Work Described in This Application
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
NCDiv. of Water Quality 401 Certification To Be Determined Concurrent with 404 NA NA
NC Div. of Land Quality Sediment and Erosion Control Permit To Be Determined Application Pending NA NA
City of Archdale High Density Dcvctopmcnt Permit To Be Determined Application Pending NA NA
City of Archdale Watershed Protection Pennit To Be Determined Application Pending NA NA
City of Archdale Zoning Permit To Be Determined Application Pending NA NA
Guilford County Floodplain Development Permit To Be Determined Application Pending NA NA
`Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building and flood plain permits I
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 undert ke the work described herein or am acting as the
duly a zed a ent of th licant.
a a/o
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT 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 t i 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 S 10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
06 • 1 8 6 2 VI
INDIVIDUAL PERMIT APPLICATION SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION
Shoppes at Bush Hill
Guilford & Randolph County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
Archdale Partners, LLC
530 Huber Park Court
Weldon Springs, MO 63304
Prepared by:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Post Office Box 33068
Raleigh, NC 27636-3068
May 8, 2007
©Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2007
Executive Summary
This document is intended to provide supplementary information in support of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' (USACE) preparation of the Public Notice, Environmental Assessment, Finding of No Significant
Impact, Statement of Findings, and review and compliance determination according to the 404(b)(1)
guidelines for the proposed Shoppes at Bush Hill mixed-use development, in Archdale, North Carolina.
Applicant: Archdale Partners, LLC
Attn: Mr. Todd Schneider 6 $ (j 2 V ?,
530 Huber Park Court Weldon Sprigs, MO 63304
Date of Original Application: December 1, 2006 (Date of Revision: May 8, 2007)
USACE Action ID: 200620747
NCDWQ #: 20061862
Location: The project site is located within the southeast quadrant of the U.S. Interstate 85/ N.C. State
Highway 62 interchange in Archdale, Guilford and Randolph Counties, North Carolina. Coordinates (in
decimal degrees) for the center of the site are 35.9185° N, 79.9383° W. The project site contains stream
channels and adjacent wetlands that form the headwaters of first order tributaries that flow into Muddy Creek
downstream of the property. Muddy Creek is a tributary to the Cape Fear River and the Atlantic Ocean.
Existing Site Conditions: The entire project site is approximately 160 acres in size. The project site is
comprised of agricultural fields separated by several mixed-hardwood forested areas, which are generally
located along the streams and in low areas. U.S. Interstate 85 runs along the northwest boundary of the tract,
and land located to the south and east is primarily comprised of moderate to low density residential
subdivisions. The property contains three tributaries totaling 3,826 linear feet of perennial channel and 574
linear feet of intermittent channel, as well as eleven wetland areas totaling 3.06 acres in size. The site has
three separate watersheds that all drain to unnamed tributaries to Muddy Creek. One of the perennial stream
channels flows through a 2.47-acre pond that is located near the center of the site.
Applicant's Stated Purpose: The basic project purpose for the proposed activity is to provide a mixed-use
development in the Archdale area, in Guilford and Randolph Counties, North Carolina. The applicant has
stated that the project is necessary to meet the local demands for commercial, retail, and light industrial space
in the area. The proposed project would include two anchor tenants consisting of a ±149,000-square foot
Wal-Mart Supercenter and a ±140,000-square foot Lowe's home improvement store, along with several retail
shops and out-parcels, 28 acres of light industrial space, 5-acre office development, and two multi-family
residential areas with a combined area of approximately 16 acres. The applicant has also identified several
alternatives that could reduce or avoid impacts to waters of the U.S.; however, they have provided
information to show that these alternatives are not practicable and would not meet the project purpose and
need. While the activities proposed in the permit have a direct impact on streams and wetlands, the presence
of waters of the U.S. is not central to the primary purpose of the activity. Based on this assessment, the
proposed activities are not water dependent, and less damaging practicable alternatives, which involve no fill
in streams and wetlands, are therefore presumed to be available. A review of alternative development plans,
including those that reduce or avoid impacts to waters of the U.S., is included in Section 5.0 of this document.
11CF1 IGmley-Han
and Associates, Inc.
Project Description: The project is a 160-acre mixed-use development, which would include the
construction of a retail center with two anchor stores, several retail shops, out-parcels, an office development,
two multi-family residential sections, and a light industrial development area, along with transportation,
parking, and stormwater facilities. Development of the site requires the placement of fill material into
wetlands and intermittent streams for the construction of the building and parking pads for the anchor stores
(Wal-Mart and Lowe's), retail spaces, light industrial parcel, and two of the outlots. Fill would also be
required for construction of an east-west access road through the site connecting Weant Road with Aldridge
Road. Perennial stream and open water impacts are limited to a single perpendicular road crossing of the
stream and open water associated with the access road. Total permanent impacts for the proposed
development would be 1.57 acres of non-riparian wetland, 0.54-acre of open water, 125 linear feet of
perennial stream channel, and 180 linear feet of intermittent unimportant channel. Temporary project impacts
total 1.93 acres associated with dewatering the open water/pond. Previously proposed utility line impacts of
0.01-acre of non-riparian wetland, 21 linear feet of perennial stream channel have been avoided by utilizing
directional drilling. Additionally, 0.01 acre of fill for the construction pad for the Lowe's (Impact 7, Wetland
K) has been avoided with the addition of a retaining wall at the edge of the fill pad. The project will also
result in impacts to the Randleman Buffers in three areas, with a total of 16,988 square feet of impact to Zone
1, and 16,988 square feet to Zone 2. All impacts are detailed on the table on the following page.
Mitigation: The applicant proposes to mitigate for permanent impacts to wetlands associated with the project
by providing payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) sufficient for the
restoration of 2.67 acres of non-riparian wetlands (0.47 acre for 1:1 ratio of emergent/scrub-shrub wetland
impact, 2.2 acres for 2:1 ratio of forested wetland impact) within the Cape Fear River Basin (HUC
03030003). Avoidance and minimization measures employed during project design reduced permanent
stream impacts to less than 150 linear feet. The design also preserves the majority of the Randleman Stream
Buffers with the creation of approximately 30 acres of common space; therefore, no stream mitigation is
proposed.
Other Required Authorizations: Other required authorizations to be obtained prior to construction of the
proposed work include an individual 401 Water Quality Certification from the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality (NCDWQ), a sediment and erosion control permit from the North Carolina Division of Land
Quality, a High Density Development permit, a Zoning permit, and a Watershed Protection permit from the
City of Archdale, and a Floodplain Development Permit from Guilford County.
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH): Based upon the location of the project and the minimal impacts predicted, we
believe the proposed project will not adversely impact EFH or associated fisheries managed by the South
Atlantic or Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Councils or the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Cultural Resources: Following consultation with the latest published version of the National Register of
Historic Places, as well as scoping correspondence received from the North Carolina Department of Cultural
Resources - State Historic Preservation Office (dated 9/1/06), no registered properties, or properties listed as
being eligible for inclusion therein are located within the project area or will be affected by the proposed
work.
Endangered Species: Based upon consultation with the latest North Carolina Natural Heritage Database,
field surveys, the scoping correspondence received from the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (dated
8/18/06), and the "no affect" determination letter received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (e-mail
correspondence dated 10/26/06), no threatened or endangered species are known to be located in the
immediate area of the proposed project. Therefore, we anticipate a finding of no effect on federally listed
endangered or threatened species or their formally designated critical habitat, pursuant to the Endangered
Species Act of 1973.
CIMMFI Kim?y?HOrn
std Assoaates, Inc.
06.1862V2
Impact Summary
Wetland Imnarts & Mitigation

Impact Shown
Type of Temporary Permanent
Mitigation
Required
Number Feature on Wetland Type of Impact Impacts Impacts Ratio* Mitigation
Fi ure: (Acres) Acres

1 Wetland
6 Forested,
Utility -Avoided
0.00
0
2:1
0
L Ri arian

2 Wetland
8&9 Forested, Road Crossing
0
0.09
2:1
0.18
I Non-Riparian & Parkin Fill

3 Wetland
12 Scrub-Shrub, Construction Pad
0
0.47
1:1
0.47
C Non-Riparian & Parkin Fill

4 Wetland
12 Forested, Construction Pad
0
0.09
2:1
0.18
E Non-Riparian & Parkin Fill

5 Wetland
12 Forested, Construction Pad
0
0.34
2:1
0.68
F Non-Riparian & Parkin Fill

6 Wetland
12 Forested, Construction Pad
0
0.58
2:1
1.16
G Non-Riparian & Parkin Fill
7 Wetland 13 Forested, Fill - Avoided 0 0 2:1 0
K Non-Riparian
Wetland Impact Total s: 0.00 1.57 2.67
*As determined by the USACE on April 18, 2006
Open Water Impacts
Impact Shown Type of Open Temporary Permanent
Number Feature on Water Type of Impact Impacts Impacts
Figure: (Acres) (Acres)
8 Pond 10 Pond Dewatering 1.93 0
for Construction
9 Pond 10& Pond Road Crossing Fill 0 0.54
11 & Culvert
Open Water Impact Totals: 1.93 0.54
Stream Impacts
Shown Temporary Temporary Permanent Permanent
Impact Feature on Type of Type of Impact Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts
N
umber Figure: Stream (Feet) (Acres) Feet (Acres)
10 Stream 7 6 Perennial, Utility - Avoided 0 0 0 0
Important
11 Stream 1 6 & 7 Perennial Road Crossing Fill 0 0 95 0.01
Important & Culvert
12 Stream 1 6 Perennial Riprap Dissipater Pad 0 0 30 0.01
Important

13
Stream 5
12 Intermittent Construction Pad
0
0
76
0.01
Unimportant & Parkin Fill

14
Stream 6
12 Intermittent Construction Pad
0
0
104
0.01
Unimportant & Parkin Fill
Perennial Stream Im act Totals: 0 0 125 0.02
Intermittent/Unimportant Stream Impact Totals: 0 0 180 0.02
Total Combined Stream Impact: 0 0 305 0.04
Total Loss of Waters of the U.S. Acres : 2.15
Total Temporary Impact to Waters of the U.S. Acres : 1.93
Randleman Buffer Imnacts
Impact Number Feature Shown on Figure: Type of Impact Zone 1 (Square Feet) Zone 2 (Square Feet)
11 & 12 Stream 1 6 Road Crossing 7,841 (0.18 ac) 6,534 (0.15 ac)
9 Pond 8 & 9 Road Crossing 7,405 (0.17 ac) 5,227 (0.12 ac)
NA - Buffer Only Stream 3 14 Road Crossing 1,742 0.04 ac 5,227 (0.12 ac
Impact Totals 16,988 0.39 ac 16,988 0.39 ac
WASSO?
C ? _._ ? Ciilt2&, Inc.
Contents
1.0 Location, Existing Site Conditions, Project Description, Changes to Project .......................... 7
1.1 Location .......................................................................................................................... . 7
1.2 Existing Site Conditions ................................................................................................. . 7
1.2.1 Land Use ............................................................................................................. . 7
1.2.2 Topography ......................................................................................................... . 7
1.2.3 Streams and Wetlands ......................................................................................... . 8
1.2.4 Soils .................................................................................................................... 10
1.2.5 Vegetation .......................................................................................................... 10
1.2.6 Protected Species and Habitat ............................................................................ 10
1.2.7 Historical and/or Archaeological Sites .............................................................. 10
1.2.8 Regulated Floodplain ......................................................................................... 11
1.3 Project Description ......................................................................................................... 11
1.4 Changes to Project ......................................................................................................... 13
2.0 Project Purpose ....................................................................................................................... 13
3.0 Scope of Analysis: .................................................................................................................. 13
4.0 Other Federal, State, and Local Authorizations Obtained or Required and Pending ............. 14
4.1 State water quality certification (401) ............................................................................ 14
4.2 Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Consistency Determination ................................... 14
4.3 Sediment and Erosion Control Permit ........................................................................... 14
4.4 City of Archdale Permits ............................................................................................... 14
4.5 Floodplain Development Permit .................................................................................... 14
5.0 Alternatives [33 CFR 320.4(b)(4), 40 CFR 230.10]: .............................................................. 14
5.1 Avoidance (No action, uplands, and availability of other sites): ................................... 15
5. 1.1 No Action/Upland-Only Alternative .................................................................. 16
5.1.2 Off-Site Alternatives .......................................................................................... 17
5.1.3 Preferred (Proposed) Alternative ....................................................................... 19
5.2 Minimization (modified project designs, etc.) ............................................................... 19
5.2.1 On-Site Alternatives ........................................................................................... 20
5.2.2 On-Site Minimization of Unavoidable Impacts ................................................. 21
5.3 Conclusions of Alternatives Analysis ............................................................................ 22
6.0 Evaluation of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines: ................................................................................. 22
6.1 Factual determinations ................................................................................................... 22
6.1.1 Physical substrate ............................................................................................... 22
6.1.2 Water circulation, fluctuation, and salinity ........................................................ 23
6.1.3 Suspended particulate/turbidity ......................................................................... 23
6.1.4 Contaminant availability .................................................................................... 24
6.1.5 Aquatic ecosystem effects .................................................................................. 24
6.1.6 Proposed disposal site ........................................................................................ 24
6.1.7 Cumulative effects ............................................................................................. 24
6.1.8 Secondary effects ............................................................................................... 26
7.0 Public Interest Review ............................................................................................................ 27
7.1 Public Interest Factors .................................................................................................... 27
7.1.1 Conservation ...................................................................................................... 27
7.1.2 Economics .......................................................................................................... 27
4 ©-" Km4-Hom
rd Ass Wes, Inc.
8.0
5
7.1.3 Aesthetics .....................................................................................
7.1.4 General environmental concerns (33CFR320.4(p)) .....................
7.1.5 Wetlands (33CFR320.4(b)) ..........................................................
7.1.6 Historic and cultural resources (33CFR320.4(e)) ........................
7.1.7 Fish and wildlife values (33CFR320.4(c)) ...................................
7.1.8 Flood hazards ...............................................................................
7.1.9 Floodplain values (33CFR320.4(1)) .............................................
7.1.10 Land use .......................................................................................
7.1.11 Navigation (33CFR320.4(o)) .......................................................
7.1.12 Shore erosion and accretion .........................................................
7.1.13 Recreation ....................................................................................
7.1.14 Water supply (33CFR320.4(m)) ..................................................
7.1.15 Water quality (also 33CFR320.4(d)) ...........................................
7.1.16 Energy needs (33CFR320.4(n)) ...................................................
7.1.17 Safety ...........................................................................................
7.1.18 Food and fiber production ............................................................
7.1.19 Mineral needs ...........................................................
7.1.20 Considerations of property ownership ....................
7.2 Need for Proposed Project ..................................................
7.3 Alternative Locations ..........................................................
7.4 Permanence of Effects ........................................................
7.5 Threatened or Endangered Species .....................................
7.6 Corps Wetland Policy .........................................................
7.7 Cumulative and Secondary Impacts ....................................
7.8 Essential Fisheries Habitat ..................................................
Conclusions ..................................................................................
........... 27
........... 27
........... 28
........... 28
........... 28
........... 29
I0
............... 29
............... 29
............... 29
............... 29
............... 30
............... 30
............... 30
............... 30
............... 30
............... 30
........................................... 30
........................................... 31
........................................... 31
........................................... 31
........................................... 31
........................................... 32
........................................... 32
........................................... 32
........................................... 32
??? IGndeyHom
and ksoc&s, Inc.
Figures
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Figure 2: USGS Topographic Map (High Point East Quadrangle)
Figure 3: Soil Survey (Guilford and Randolph County)
Figure 4: Delineation of Waters of the U.S.
Figure 5: Overall Site Plan
Figure 6: Impact 1, 10, 11, and 12 Detail
Figure 7: Impact 11 Cross Section
Figure 8: Impact 2 Detail
Figure 9: Impact 2 Cross Section
Figure 10: Impact 8 and 9 Detail
Figure 11: Impact 8 Cross Section
Figure 12: Impact 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, and 14 Detail
Figure 13: Impact 7 Detail
Figure 14: Residential Area Detail
Appendices
Appendix A: Project Alternatives
Appendix B: Agency Coordination
Appendix C: Wetland and Stream Data Forms
Appendix D: Stormwater/Hydrology Report
Appendix E: Aerial Photograph
Appendix F: Floodplain and Watershed Mapping
Appendix G: Site Photographs
Appendix H: Adjacent Property Owners
Appendix I: Agent Authorization Form
6 © _ F1 I n*-Horn
ard Ass ca *, Inc.
1.0 Location, Existing Site Conditions, Project Description,
Changes to Project
1.1 Location
The project site is located within the southeast quadrant of the U.S. Interstate 85/ N.C. State
Highway 62 interchange in Archdale, Guilford and Randolph Counties, North Carolina.
Coordinates (in decimal degrees) for the center of the site are 35.9185° N, 79.9383° W. The
project site contains stream channels and adjacent wetlands that form the headwaters of first
order tributaries that flow into Muddy Creek downstream of the property. Muddy Creek is a
tributary to the Cape Fear River and the Atlantic Ocean. Figure 1 (Vicinity Map) and Figure
2 (USGS Topographic Map) show the project location.
1.2 Existing Site Conditions
The entire project site is approximately 160 acres in size. The project site is comprised of
agricultural fields separated by several mixed-hardwood forested areas, which are generally
located along the streams and in low areas. U.S. Interstate 85 runs along the northwest
boundary of the tract, and land located to the south and east is primarily comprised of
moderate to low density residential subdivisions.
The property contains three tributaries totaling 3,826 linear feet of perennial channel and 574
linear feet of intermittent channel, as well as eleven wetland areas totaling 3.06 acres in size.
The site has two separate watersheds that all drain to unnamed tributaries to Muddy Creek.
One of the perennial stream channels flows through a 2.47-acre pond that is located near the
center of the site. Appendix E shows an aerial photograph of the project site and on-site
photographs are included in Appendix G.
1.2.1 Land Use
Land located adjacent to the project site primarily consists of moderate to low density
residential subdivisions and agricultural fields to the south and east. Interstate 85
forms the northwest project boundary. A gas station is located adjacent to the
northern portion of the site with frontage along the NC Highway 62/Weant Road
intersection, otherwise there are no additional commercial developments in the
southeast quadrant of the I-85/NC Highway 62 interchange. A gas station and hotel
are located in the southwest quadrant of the interchange. A church is located
immediately south of the project site along Weant Road. According to a future land
use map (Appendix A) that reflects Archdale's future growth and zoning, the project
site is located in an area designated as Highway Business to Light Industrial.
1.2.2 Topography
Topographically, the proposed site is located near the upper reaches of three UT's to
Muddy Creek (Streams 1, 2, and 3). The site is located within three separate
watersheds separated by a ridgeline along Weant Road as shown on the figure
included as Appendix F. The larger watershed (Watershed A) located to the west of
Weant Road contains two first-order perennial UTs to Muddy Creek (Streams 1 and
2) which originate off-site. The watershed is bound to the north by NC Highway 62
C2M?d -? KimleyA?m
ssociates, Inc.
and drains underneath Interstate 85 onto the project site. Approximately 212 acres
drain to the point where the two stream channels confluence and exit the project site;
about 56% of this area is made up of the proposed development site. The second,
smaller watershed located to the east of Weant Road (Watershed B), contains one
first-order intermittent/perennial UT to Muddy Creek (Stream 3). This watershed is
bound to the north by NC Highway 62 at the northern boundary of the project site.
Approximately 25 acres drain to the point where the stream channel exists the project
site; approximately 64 % of this area is made up of the proposed development site.
The third watershed (Watershed C), located in the southern portion of the project site,
originates from a headwater wetland (Wetland K) located at the southern most project
boundary and continues off-site via a first-order intermittent UT to Muddy Creek.
Approximately 39 acres drain to the point where the intermittent stream confluences
with Muddy Creek; about 51% of this area is made up of the proposed development
site.
The project is located in the central piedmont physiographic region and has a
consistently rolling terrain with moderately steep slopes. The topography of the
project area varies from a high elevation of approximately 840 feet above mean sea
level (MSL) near the northern portions of the site adjacent to NC Highway 62 to a
low of approximately 750 feet MSL where Streams 1 and 2 confluence and exit the
property.
1.2.3 Streams and Wetlands
Figure 4 shows the delineated jurisdictional areas evaluated by Kimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc. (KHA) staff and reviewed by US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) representative Todd Tugwell on April 18, 2006 within the project site. The
project site contains 3.06 acres of jurisdictional wetlands, 2.47 acres of jurisdictional
open water, and 4,400 linear feet of jurisdictional stream (3,826 linear feet perennial
and 574 linear feet intermittent). NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms, USACE
Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets, and USACE wetland and upland data forms
are included in Appendix C.
Stream 1 is a perennial channel that originates from a small pond located just off the
site north of Interstate 85. The channel enters the project site through a culvert
underneath I-85. There is a small emergent wetland pocket (Wetland H; 0.05-acre)
located adjacent to the stream as it enters the project site. Wetland H appears to have
been created as a sediment basin possibly during the construction of I-85. The total
length of Stream 1 within the project site is approximately 1,121 linear feet. The
stream received a NCDWQ classification rating of 40, which indicates the stream is
perennial, and a USACE stream quality assessment worksheet score of 60.
Stream 2 is a perennial channel that originates just off the site, north of Interstate 85.
The channel enters the project site through a culvert underneath I-85 and flows from
north to south across the site. There is a riparian forested wetland (Wetland A; 0.57-
acre) located adjacent to the stream, as well as a non-riparian emergent linear wet
seep (Wetland B; 0.15-acre) which provide additional hydrologic input into the
northern reach of the stream. Approximately 55 linear feet of intermittent
"unimportant" stream channel (Stream 4) discharges from Wetland B into Stream 2.
?M_ C ? an*-,II
d Assoaates, Inc.
Downstream from Wetland A, Stream 2 discharges into a 2.47-acre open water/pond.
Wetland G (0.58-acre), Wetland F (0.34-acre) and Wetland E (0.09-acre) are non-
riparian forested wetland seeps that emerge from the hillside and discharge into a
scrub-shrub wetland (Wetland C; 0.47-acre) located adjacent to the pond.
Approximately 104 linear feet of intermittent stream channel (Stream 6) is located
immediately upslope of Wetland G. In addition, approximately 76 linear feet of
intermittent "unimportant" channel (Stream 5) is located between Wetland F and G.
Stream 2 outlets from the pond via a culvert and continues flowing south/southeast
through the project site until it confluences with Stream 1 near the southern boundary
of the project where the combined channels discharge into Muddy Creek
approximately 175 feet south of the project site. Wetland 1(0.12-acre) and Wetland
D (0.01-acre) are non-riparian forested wetland seeps that provide additional
hydrologic input into the southern reach of the stream. The total length of Stream 2
within the subject property is approximately 2,315 linear feet (674 if upstream of the
pond and 1,641 if downstream of the pond). Stream 2 received a NCDWQ
classification rating of 33, which indicates the stream is perennial and a USACE
stream quality assessment worksheet score of 74.
Stream 3 originates from an emergent/scrub-shrub wetland seep (Wetland J; 0.30-
acre) located to the east of Weant Road. The upper reach (approximately 339 linear
feet) of this system was determined to be an intermittent "unimportant" stream by the
USACE as it was lacking aquatic function (habitat and hydrology to support more
than minimal aquatic life). The channel goes sub-terrain near the middle of the site.
Below where the intermittent channel resurfaces, a large headcut is located
downstream. Downstream from the headcut, the channel exhibits perennial aquatic
function. The length of the perennial reach of Stream 3 within the project site is
approximately 390 linear feet. The intermittent reach of Stream 3 received a
NCDWQ classification rating of 25 and a USACE stream quality assessment
worksheet score of 61. The perennial reach of Stream 3 scored a 36 on the NCDWQ
classification and a 58 on the USACE stream quality assessment worksheet.
Wetland K, located near the south-central portion of the site, is a non-riparian
forested seep (0.38-acre) which provides hydrologic input to an unnamed tributary to
Muddy Creek located off-site. Wetland L is a riparian, forested wetland located
outside the project site. This wetland area was delineated due to the proposed sewer
line that would extend from the project site to an existing off-site sewer line located
in this area, however the development plan was modified to eliminate this crossing by
directionally drilling.
Wetland A functions as a riparian forested wetland located near the upper portion of a
watershed adjacent to a perennial stream system. The primary function of Wetland A
is flood storage, the treatment of nutrients and sediment, streambank stabilization, and
terrestrial/aquatic habitat. Wetland A is the highest functioning wetland system
within the project site. The balance of the on-site wetlands are a combination of non-
riparian emergent/scrub-shrub (Wetlands B, C, and J) and non-riparian forested
wetlands (Wetlands E,F,G and 1) hydraulically driven by groundwater seepage. The
primary function of these systems would be aquatic habitat for amphibian breeding
?E__ C aand? A -11 ssociates1
, Inc.
and groundwater recharge. Both riparian and non-riparian wetland types are common
in the North Carolina piedmont, and have few unique or exceptional qualities.
1.2.4 Soils
Most of the soils within the higher elevations of the project site are classified by the
USDA Soil Surveys for Guilford and Randolph Counties as Enon Fine Sandy Loam
and Appling Sandy Loam (Figure 3). These well-drained soils are commonly located
on upland ridges and side slopes as well as interstream divides. This includes the
agricultural fields, forested areas, and the drainage ways along Streams 1 and 3. The
soil located within the drainage way of Stream 2 is classified as Chewacla sandy
loam. This nearly level, somewhat poorly drained soil is commonly located within
the floodplain areas of streams.
1.2.5 Vegetation
Wetlands A, E, F, G, I, and K are forested systems dominated red maple (Acer
rubrum), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera),
and black willow (Salix nigra). Understory and herbaceous species in the forested
wetlands include Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), microstegium (Microstegium
vimineum), and rush (Juncus effuses). With the exception of riparian Wetland, A
which receives surface flow from Stream 2, the remaining non-riparian forested
wetlands receive hydrologic input primarily from groundwater seepage.
Wetlands B, C, D, H, and J are successional scrub-shrub and emergent wetlands
dominated by rush (Juncus effuses), spike rush (Eleocharis spp.), and wax myrtle
(Myrica cerifera). The vegetation in the wetland portions of the project area ranges
from facultative to obligate, suggesting that the soils on the site are regularly
saturated throughout the year, but that they may dry out in the summer months or
during periods of drought.
1.2.6 Protected Species and Habitat
Based upon consultation with the latest North Carolina Natural Heritage Database,
field surveys, the scoping correspondence received from the N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission (dated 8/18/06), and the "no affect" determination letter received from
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (e-mail correspondence dated 10/26/06), no
threatened or endangered species are known to be located in the immediate area of the
proposed project. Accordingly, we anticipate a finding of no effect on federally listed
endangered or threatened species or their formally designated critical habitat,
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Copies of the correspondence from
the NCWRC and the USFWS are included in Appendix B.
1.2.7 Historical and/or Archaeological Sites
Following consultation with the latest published version of the National Register of
Historic Places as well as scoping correspondence received from the North Carolina
Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic Preservation Office dated 9/1/06
(included in Appendix B), no registered properties or properties listed as being
10 © IC?IeY-HOm
? and ASSOaates, Inc.
eligible for inclusion therein are located within the project area or will be affected by
the proposed work.
1.2.8 Regulated Floodplain
Streams 1 and 2, both unnamed tributaries to Muddy Creek, are within regulated
floodplain within the project site. Stream 3, also an unnamed tributary to Muddy
Creek is not located within a 100-year floodplain. Appendix F includes a map of the
FEMA-designated floodplain through the project site.
1.3 Project Description
The project is a 160-acre mixed-use development, which would include the construction of a
retail center with two anchor stores, several retail shops, out-parcels, an office development,
two multi-family residential sections, a light industrial development area, along with
transportation, parking, and stormwater facilities. The specific sections of the development
plan are identified on the overall site plan, Figure 5. Site preparation would begin with the
mechanized clearing of vegetation from the site and installation of erosion control devices
around the construction site. Development of the site requires the placement of fill material
into wetlands and intermittent streams for the construction of the building and parking pads
for the anchor stores (Wal-Mart and Lowe's), retail spaces, light industrial parcel, and two of
the outlots. Fill would also be required for construction of an east-west access road through
the site connecting Weant Road with Aldridge Road. Perennial stream and open water
impacts are limited to a perpendicular road crossing of the stream and another across the
pond for construction of the east-west access road. Figure 5 shows the overall site plan while
Figures 6 thru 14 show the impact details for each jurisdictional encroachment. Total
permanent impacts for the proposed development would be 1.57 acres of non-riparian
wetland, 0.54-acre of open water, 125 linear feet of perennial stream channel, and 180 linear
feet of intermittent unimportant channel. Temporary project impacts total 1.93 acres
associated with dewatering the open water/pond. Previously proposed utility line impacts of
0.01-acre of non-riparian wetland, 21 linear feet of perennial stream channel have been
avoided by utilizing directional drilling. Additionally, 0.01 acre of fill for the construction
pad for the Lowe's (Impact 7, Wetland K) has been avoided with the addition of a retaining
wall at the edge of the fill pad. The project will also result in impacts to the Randleman
Buffers in three areas, with a total of 16,988 square feet of impact to Zone 1, and 16,988 square feet
to Zone 2. All impacts are detailed on the summary table on the following page.
The applicant proposes to mitigate for permanent impacts to wetlands associated with the
project by providing payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(NCEEP) sufficient for the restoration of 2.67 acres of non-riparian wetlands (0.47 acre for
1:1 ratio of emergent/scrub-shrub wetland impact, 2.2 acres for 2:1 ratio of forested wetland
impact) within the Cape Fear River Basin (HUC 03030003). A letter from NCEEP that
verifies their willingness to accept the proposed mitigation is included in Appendix B.
Avoidance and minimization measures were employed during project design that reduced
permanent stream impacts to less than 150 linear feet. The design also preserves the majority
of the Randleman Stream Buffers with the creation of approximately 30 acres of common
space; therefore, no stream mitigation is proposed.
11 ?n.-"
? ns?tes, Inc.
Table 1: Impact Summary
W.A.-] imn?rte Rs Mitiontinn

Impact
Type of Temporary Permanent Mitigation Required
Number Feature I Wetland Type of Impact Impacts Impacts *
Ratio* Mitigation
:
F (Acres (Acres

I ' and
We'
6 Forested,
Utility - Avoided
0.00
0
2:1
0
L Riparian

2 Wetland
8&9 Forested, Road Crossing 0 0.09 2:1 0.18
I Non-Riparian & Parkin Fill

3 Wetland
12 Scrub-Shrub, Construction Pad
0
0.47
1:1
0.47
C Non-Riparian & Parkin Fill

4 Wetland
12 Forested, Construction Pad
0
0.09
2:1
0.18
E Non-Riparian & Parkin Fill

5 Wetland
12 Forested, Construction Pad
0
0.34
2:1
0.68
F Non-Riparian & Parkin Fill

6 Wetland
12 Forested, Construction Pad
0
0.58
2:1
1.16
G Non-Riparian & Parkin Fill
7 Wetland 13 Forested, Fill - Avoided 0 0 2:1 0
K Non-Riparian
Wetland Impact Tota ls: 0.00 1.57 2.67
*As determined by the USACE on April 18, 2006
nnpn Water impacts
Shown Temporary Permanent
Impact Feature on Type of Open Type of Impact Impacts Impacts
Number Figure: Water (Acres) (Acres)
8 Pond 10 Pond Dewatering 1.93 0
for Construction
9 Pond 10& Pond Road Crossing Fill 0 0.54
11 & Culvert
Open Water Impact Totals: 1.93 0.54
Q+ m imnaota
Shown Temporary Temporary Permanent Permanent
Impact Feature on Type of Type of Impact Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts
Number Figure: Stream (Feet) (Acres) (Feet) (Acres)
10 Stream 7 6 Perennial, Utility - Avoided 0 0 0 0
Important
11 Stream 1 6 & 7 Perennial Road Crossing Fill 0 0 95 0.01
Important & Culvert
12 Stream 1 6 Perennial Riprap Dissipater Pad 0 0 30 0.01
Important

13
Stream 5
12 Intermittent Construction Pad
0
0
76
0.01
Unimportant & Parkin Fill

14
Stream 6
12 Intermittent Construction Pad
0
0
104
0.01
Unimportant & Parkin Fill
Perennial Stream Impact Totals: 0 0 125 0.02
Intermittent/Unimportant Stream Impact Totals: 0 0 180 0.02
Total Combined Stream Impact: 0 0 305 0.04
Total Loss of Waters of the U.S. Acres : 2.15
Total Temporary Impact to Waters of the U.S. (Acres : 1.93
Randleman Ruffpr imnacts
Impact Number Feature Shown on Figure: Type of Impact Zone 1 (Square Feet) Zone 2 (Square Feet)
11 & 12 Stream 1 6 Road Crossing 7,841 (0.18 ac) 6,534 (0.15 ac)
9 Pond 8 & 9 Road Crossing 7,405 (0.17 ac) 5,227 (0.12 ac)
NA - Buffer Only Stream 3 14 Road Crossing 1,742 (0.04 ac 5,227 (0.12 ac
Impact Totals 16,988 0.39 ac 16,988 (0.39 ac
C12 OF-1 IW*-f'IO,I
and Assaaates, InC.
1.4 Changes to Project
Following the initial review of the project and publication of the public notice, several
changes were made as a result of minor modifications to the project extents and design.
Approximately 4 acres of land was included within the project boundary in the northeast
corner of the site. This addition was necessary in order to comply with NCDOT
requirements for the distance along NC 62 between the interchange with US I-85 and the
intersection of Weant Road. This addition resulted in several minor changes to the layout of
the development. No additional wetland, stream, or open water impacts occurred as a result of
this realignment. The proposed sewer crossing of Muddy Creek has been relocated and
redesigned using directional drill rather than an open cut method. Also, the small 0.01 acre
fill at the back of the Lowe's building pad has been avoided by using a retaining wall to
prevent the toe of slope from extending into the wetland.
2.0 Project Purpose
The basic project purpose for the proposed activity is to provide a mixed-use commercial
development in the Archdale, North Carolina area. The Archdale area is currently underserved by
retail shopping facilities, and the continued development of residential subdivisions around southern
High Point has increased the regional demand for these types of services. The proposed site was
identified following a review of available properties with respect to specific site-selection criteria.
The overall project includes a light industrial complex, an office park, and two small multi-family
residential areas in addition to the commercial retail complex. Alternative sites were identified;
however, none of the off-site alternatives met the require site-selection criteria (see the alternatives
discussion below). The applicant has also evaluated several on-site alternatives that could avoid or
reduce impacts to waters of the U.S., but these alternatives were determined to be impracticable and
unable to meet the project purpose and need.
Discharges into waters of the U.S. associated with the proposed undertaking include activities
intended to access or create usable space (i.e., high ground). This includes the construction of road
crossings required to access high ground and the placement of earthen fill necessary to establish
grade for parking lots and building pads. None of these activities requires siting in a special aquatic
site. Accordingly, the proposed project is not considered water dependent, and less damaging
practicable alternatives, which involve no fill in streams or wetlands, are therefore presumed to be
available. It is also presumed that those alternatives have less adverse impact to the aquatic
ecosystem. A review of the alternate plans, including those that reduce or avoid impacts to waters of
the U.S., is included in Section 5 of this document.
3.0 Scope of Analysis:
The primary financial beneficiary of the proposed work would be the applicant, Archdale Partners,
LCC, a privately owned corporation. Other than the requirement to obtain a Section 404 permit, no
other federal involvement in the proposed work is required. There are no practicable alternatives to
the proposed plans that would further avoid or minimize impacts to waters of the U.S., and the
project would not meet the applicant's purpose and need but for the proposed impacts. Additionally,
the proposed project site contains several stream and wetland systems that divide the property into
several smaller sections of high ground. The primary road system is proposed to cross a stream
channel, a pond, and several wetland areas spaced out across the project site. The bulk of the
proposed impacts would result from the construction of the two anchor stores that cannot be located
13 C=wn /'ISS0v11*dA+lan
gat2S, Inc.
to avoid impacts to streams and/or wetlands subject to Section 404 permit requirements.
Accordingly, impacts to waters of the U.S. are essential for the development of the project as a
whole, and the associated scope of analysis extends to the limits of the project (i.e., the entire 160-
acre property).
4.0 Other Federal, State, and Local Authorizations Obtained or
Required and Pending
4.1 State water quality certification (401)
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) 401 certification application is
submitted concurrent to this 404 permit application. DWQ will also review the proposed
plans for compliance with state stormwater requirements.
4.2 Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Consistency Determination
A North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (DCM) consistency determination/permit
is not required.
4.3 Sediment and Erosion Control Permit
Areas within the City of Archdale require Sediment and Erosion Control Plan approval by
the North Carolina Division of Land Quality prior to any site disturbance occurring. Land
within Guilford County will be reviewed by the state and not by Guilford County because the
City of Archdale will annex the land prior to commencement of the project. This approval is
pending.
4.4 City of Archdale Permits
A High Density Development Permit is required from the City of Archdale prior to
development of the site. The review process for this permit includes an evaluation of the
proposed plans to ensure compliance with the Randleman Buffer Rules, and approval of the
proposed stormwater control measures, including the detention of the first inch rainfall for
sites with up to 70% impervious surfaces. The city also issues a Watershed Protection Permit
and a Zoning Permit if required for any land use changes. All permits from the City of
Archdale will be obtained prior to the commencement of construction on the site.
4.5 Floodplain Development Permit
A Floodplain Development Permit is required from Guilford County for the placement of fill
within the 100-year regulated floodplain. Fill within the FEMA-regulated floodway of a
stream may also require a state review to determine consistency with FEMA regulations, and
the issuance of a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) or Letter of Map Revision based on fill
(LOMR-F).
5.0 Alternatives [33 CFR 320.4(b)(4), 40 CFR 230.10]:
The purpose of the proposed development is the construction of a mixed-use facility to serve the
Archdale area. As part of the development process, numerous on-site and off-site alternatives were
evaluated. Based on the factors considered below, the applicant has demonstrated there are no off-
14 M Awdstm, Inc.
Q
site alternatives that would allow Archdale Partners to avoid impacts to waters of the U.S., and the
least damaging practicable alternative has been selected. The applicant has also demonstrated that
alternative on-site plans were considered, along with the environmental consequences of each plan,
and that the proposed alternative represents the minimum amount of impact to aquatic resources
while still meeting the project purpose.
5.1 Avoidance (No action, uplands, and availability of other sites):
As stated in the project purpose, the service area for the proposed development is the City of
Archdale, NC and the immediately adjacent areas, including both Randolph and Guilford
counties. The selection of the Archdale area for the proposed project is due in part by the
type of development proposed, but also by the specific retailers associated with the
development, Wal-Mart and Lowe's. In this case, the project applicant, Archdale Partners, is
working exclusively with these retailers, who are trying to establish a presence in the
Archdale area. Accordingly, the geographic search area for the review of project alternatives
includes the Archdale city limits as well as unincorporated portions of Randolph and
Guilford Counties in the immediate vicinity of the city. The following criteria were used in
the evaluation of potential sites:
• Parcel Size - In order to have a viable commercial development, the project site must be
large enough to support two anchor stores, a Wal-Mart Super Center with approximately
149,000 square feet of floor space, and a Lowe's Home Improvement Store with
approximately 140,000 square feet of floor space, along with the required transportation,
parking, utilities, and stormwater facilities. Additionally, to make these types of
commercial ventures financially viable, the project must also support outlots or other
amenities. This is in order to attract consumer traffic, but also because a substantial
portion of the revenue generated by the project results from the sale or lease of outlots.
Ideally, the project should include gas stations, convenience stores, restaurants, or other
amenities that attract highway traffic. This is particularly important for the proposed
project, where a portion of the site patronage would come from the adjacent highway.
For this project, a minimum of 80 acres is required, including 20 to 25 acres for each
anchor store (with parking), and an additional 30 to 40 acres for outlots, access roads,
stormwater ponds, and utilities. Additional acreage allows for the inclusion of other uses,
but is not required.
• Transportation Access - Potential sites must also have convenient transportation access
to the highway corridor and to the local population base. Highway frontage is beneficial
for the development, but the distance on surface roads from the interstate to potential
sites is a critical factor. Consideration must be given to how increased traffic will be
routed to the site, how it will affect the local community, whether the roadways between
the site and the highway system need to be improved (possibly resulting in additional
impacts to streams and wetlands), and if the distance is long enough to discourage
highway traffic from using the site. The Archdale area has two highway interchanges,
exits 111 and 113. The distances to the nearest interstate exits to the north and south of
these exits are 5 miles and 3 miles, respectively. In both cases, the surrounding land is
too rural to support a major retail development. As a result, the property search focused
on sites in close proximity to these exits.
[]=FJ I(h*-H=
15
Assodges, Inc.
the least damaging alternative, it is not practicable, and does not support the project
purpose and need. Due to the type of development proposed, sites must support
substantial grading activities required to prepare building footprints, transportation
corridors, parking areas, and utilities. It is preferable to plan the development so that
the retail sites are located near each other. This reduces the number of roads and
parking lots that must be constructed, and provides for more convenient shopping.
Separating the anchors from one another or from the outlots would also lead to a
reduction in the value of the outlots, which is tied to their proximity to the anchor
stores. As a result, the proposed development requires the disturbance of a large,
contiguous area, measuring 50 or more acres in size.
With regard to upland-only alternatives on other sites, the requirement for a large,
graded platform would likely conflict with environmental constraints. Archdale is
located in the central piedmont portion of the state, which typically has dissected
landscapes with numerous stream systems. Local soils also tend to form numerous
wetland seeps. As a result, it is unlikely that most sites, including the alternatives
identified during the site search, would support a large development without any
impacts to streams or wetlands. On the proposed site, the no action alternative would
require the extensive use of retaining walls to limit the extent of fill and the
construction of bridges to access several portions of the site. This alternative would
also require breaking the retail center into several separate parts and spreading them
across the site. While it may be technically possible to construct the proposed
development without direct impacts to the jurisdictional areas, to do so would
substantially increase the cost of the project, reduce the public and private benefit,
limit economic return, and fail to meet the stated purpose of the project.
5.1.2 Off-Site Alternatives
The alternatives search identified several parcels or groups of parcels within the
Archdale project area that met the acreage requirement. A map, entitled Potential
Development, which depicts undeveloped parcels within the Archdale city limits that
are greater than 25 acres in size is attached as Appendix A. Nine parcels were
determined to be large enough to support the proposed development by themselves.
All but three of those properties, which are discussed later, were located more than
two miles by surface roads from the nearest interstate exits, too far to be considered
as viable candidates. Additionally, this search did not identify any assemblages of
smaller parcels that would be potential alternatives. Several parcels located south of
the proposed project, shown on the map as parcels 18, 28, 33, and 35 could be
combined to create the required acreage, though any combination would not meet
several of the site selection criteria. The properties lack good highway access and
frontage, they would require substantial surface road improvements and rezoning
from residential to business, and the narrow configuration of the properties would not
fit the building pads.
Parcels located just outside the city limits were also considered in the alternatives
analysis. Several large properties are located east of the proposed project site
adjacent to NC Highway 62, but they lack water and sewer service, which terminate
just beyond the intersection of Weant Road and NC 62. These properties also lack
17 c2 rl lGmley?Hart
? ?] and Assoaates, Inc.
the required zoning and have limited interstate access. The three remaining sites,
identified as numbers 1, 9, and 4, are discussed below:
• Parcel Number I- This 273-acre parcel is located south of NC 62, east of Trinity
Road, and west of Archdale Road. It is bisected by English Farm Road. The site
is separated from Interstate 85 by a smaller wooded tract. The site is within the
City of Archdale, and if both the main parcel and the smaller wooded tract to the
south could be obtained, the site would have interstate frontage; however, neither
Trinity Road nor Archdale Road have exits where they intersect with the
interstate. The nearest access is exit 111, which would require routing traffic for
more than a mile through a residential area. It is also likely that development of
the site would result in environmental impacts equal to the proposed site. There is
a pond and a sizable stream network, including the main branch of Muddy Creek
on the site. Based on frequency of wetland seeps found on the proposed site, it is
also likely that there are numerous wetland areas that would be disturbed by a
large development.
Parcel Number 9 - This site is an 81-acre parcel located south of the proposed
project site. The land is currently in pasture, and there is a pond and several
stream channels that cross much of the site, though the streams are likely to be in
poor condition because of past use of the land. Although the site is fairly close to
the exit 111 via Weant Road, traffic access to the property would be through a
residential area. Utility access to the site is not a constraint, but the land use
planning for the tract is for traditional neighborhood development, not
commercial use. In summary, development of the site would result in impacts to
degraded stream channels, the site is relatively small, and its location severely
limits the development potential for the type of project proposed.
• Parcel Number 4 - This site is currently made up of agricultural fields and forest
cover, and is located on the north side of NC 62, several hundred feet west of
Interstate 85. The site could potentially be combined with Parcel 21 on the south
side of NC 62 to provide a total of 180 acres. Together these parcels would meet
the acreage requirements and provide excellent frontage and access to the
interstate. With the exception of the back of parcel 4, the land use plan for the
property is for commercial development, and utility services could be provided by
the city. Because of the potential of these tracts, the owners were contacted.
They stated that they are not willing to sell the land, but did agree to give the
applicant the first right of refusal. Even if the land were available, it is likely the
proposed development would require impacts to streams and wetland comparable
with the impacts on the proposed site. The parcels contain two ponds and several
stream channels. Also these parcels are in close proximity to the proposed site,
and have similar soil and landscape conditions. As a result, there is a high
probability that the wooded portions of the site contain numerous wetland areas, a
possibility supported by the fact that these areas have not been cleared for
agricultural use.
18 C:_M_ Y'
?d Assoaates, Inc.
site. The only impacts to waters of the U.S. from these activities would include filling 0.09
acres of wetland for the light industrial complex parking, as depicted on Figure 8.
5.2.1 On-Site Alternatives
The majority of the proposed impact to streams and wetlands would result from
construction of the retail portion of the project (i.e., the Wal-Mart, the Lowe's, and
the outlots). Due to the requirements of the anchor stores, it is not possible to relocate
them in such a way that the impact to wetlands is further minimized. As previously
discussed, the anchor stores would require extensive grading to prepare a pad for the
building and parking. On the proposed site, it is not practical to grade around the
wetland areas. For example, the proposed fill for outlot # 8 is approximately 17 to 20
feet deep, and in order to eliminate impacts to these wetlands, the final grade would
cut back into the surrounding roads and parking areas approximately 40 feet on all
sides, even at a 2:1 slope. This alteration would an unacceptable loss of parking and
commercial space on the site, and the cost of using retaining walls to minimize these
slopes would make the project financially impracticable.
The design of the parking lots is another consideration. In order for the parking areas
to be safe and functional, they need to be relatively flat and located as close as
possible to the stores. The buildings should have truck access around the sides and
back of the stores to separate freight trucks from parking traffic. It is also preferable
to keep the outlots in the same area as the anchors because it creates a more
functional shopping experience. Even if the outlots were relocated to other portions
of the site, the grading necessary for the anchors and their associated parking would
likely affect the same amount of wetlands. Because of these factors, it is not
practicable to consider relocating the anchor stores on the site.
The amount of grading is also a limiting factor in the location of the proposed light
industrial complex. The possibility of moving the buildings closer to Interstate 85
was considered, but this option is not practicable due to the extent of earthmoving
that would be necessary to construct a pad for the building and parking.
Alternatively, if the buildings were built on an elevated platform to reduce the
earthwork, the entrance drive to the access road bisecting the site would be too steep.
Another consideration in the arrangement of the site is the location of the roads,
utilities and stormwater. The location of the road through the site was set in an effort
to maximize the use of high ground while avoiding impacts to the streams and buffers
bisecting the site. Stormwater ponds and utility corridors were also located to avoid
impacts to streams, buffers, and wetlands. Because of the size and limited
configurations of this portion of the development, there are no other practicable site
layouts that would result in reduced impacts to streams and wetlands. The following
alternatives were considered in the original site design process:
• The site layout in Appendix A entitled P-9, dated March 6, 2006, proposed to take
the main road across the site and curve it to the north rather than utilize Weant
Road as the primary access into the site. This layout represents an entirely retail
use of the site, eliminating the light industrial use, and residential areas in lieu of
several smaller retail spaces and 18 outlots. In addition to the impacts associated
1220 Mand -n w1md*A "Ic
ssoaa#es, InC.
with the proposed layout, this layout would impact the wetland and stream system
to the east of Weant Road, and the linear wetland northwest of the pond. The
additional impact would have been approximately 0.45 acres of wetland and 795
linear feet of stream channel.
• The alternative site design entitled P-1 in Appendix A, dated March 22, 2006, is
another layout that is strictly retail. This option moves the main access road
slightly to the west, but would still result in substantially increase impacts over
the proposed layout.
The layout in Appendix A entitled CS-3, dated April 4, 2006, is closer to the
proposed site plan, as it uses Weant Road as a primary access into the site. The
plan includes 15 outlots, additional retail space, and a residential area. This
alternative also avoids most of the impacts to the wetland and stream system to
the east of Weant Road, but compared to the proposed alternative, it would result
in additional impacts to two additional wetland areas totaling 0.24 acres, and a
second stream crossing measuring approximately 100 feet in length.
• The alternative design in Appendix A entitled Site Review Concept Plan, dated
September 15, 2006, is closer to the proposed plan, however it includes three
additional stream crossings and two additional outlots adjacent to the interstate
that would require wetland impacts. This plan would result in several hundred
additional feet of stream impact and another 0.15 acre of wetland impact.
5.2.2 On-Site Minimization of Unavoidable Impacts
In addition to modifying the general layout of the site, the applicant has also
implemented the following measures to minimize the unavoidable impacts.
The initial site proposal included several additional outlots, including one located
immediately south of the Lowe's along Weant Road, but the applicant agreed to
eliminate this impact, thereby avoiding 0.37 acres of wetland impact. Unlike the
outlots along the proposed east-west access road, elimination of this outlot did not
cause substantial and unacceptable changes to the parking field. A small wetland
impact (0.01 acres) is still required in this area as a result of the fill slope for the
Lowe's building pad.
• Parking spaces occupy a substantial percentage of the useable space on the site.
In designing the parking, the applicant used the minimum number of spaces per
the City of Archdale standards. The cost of providing deck parking as a measure
to reduce their associated impact would be prohibitively expensive.
• The road crossing of the perennial stream channel was designed with 2:1 fill
slopes and wing walls to limit the extent of impact to the stream. Additionally,
other graded slopes on the site would be designed at a 2:1 slope wherever possible
to reduce the reach of fill.
• The layout of the site minimizes the impact to the Randleman stream buffers,
which would be crossed in only four locations, including three road crossings and
a utility line crossing located off-site. In all cases, the crossings are required to
access high ground.
21 CE n
• The site was designed to reduce impacts to wetlands as much as possible. While
construction of the building pad for the retail area would result in the unavoidable
loss of 1.48 acres of wetland, the riparian wetlands north of the pond and the
headwater wetland upstream of the residential area have been avoided.
• Stormwater management would be provided with the construction of five
stormwater ponds, each serving a separate section of the development. The ponds
would all be built on high ground, outside of the Randleman buffer.
• The access road into the residential area was relocated to cross within a break in
the stream system. This modification eliminated impacts to the stream system
and reduced the impact to the Randleman buffer.
• The overall site plan includes the preservation of approximately 30 acres of
common area. This includes most of the streams and stream buffers on the site.
• The main road across the site was designed to cross the pond in order to limit
impacts to streams and wetlands. Additionally, the pond would be drained to
allow construction of the road, but would be refilled following construction to
preserve the open water habitat.
• Wetland impacts that were proposed in the original application located south of
the Lowe's have been avoided using a retaining wall, eliminating 0.01 acre of
impact.
• The utility corridor for the sewer line crossing south of the site would be
constructed using directional drill techniques to eliminate impacts.
5.3 Conclusions of Alternatives Analysis
The applicant has provided information regarding the site selection process, and has
reviewed several sites in the project search area. This analysis demonstrates that there are no
off-site alternatives that would meet the project purpose and need and result in reduced
impacts to waters of the U.S. The applicant has also addressed on-site alternatives, including
a discussion of the limitations to the site design process, such as grading, topography, traffic
flow, etc. The evaluation has also address alternate site configurations and efforts made by
the applicant to minimize impacts to streams and wetlands, and to attempt to locate
unavoidable impacts in areas that support the least aquatic function. After reviewing the
alternatives and the efforts made to avoid and minimize impacts to the aquatic environment,
we believe that the proposed plan represents the least damaging practicable alternative.
6.0 Evaluation of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines:
6.1 Factual determinations
6.1.1 Physical substrate
The site is currently used for agricultural purposes, with forested buffers located
along the streams. The current condition of the streams is somewhat degraded as a
result of past agricultural use of the site. Runoff from the fields has led to some
down-cutting of the streams and loss of in-stream habitat. The stream substrate has
22
23
1111111110 F1 Kmley-Nan
111111111 _. and Ass Mes, Inc.
©M- C ?*-Flom
and Assoaates, Inc.
tracts of land. Based on this estimate, the overall secondary effects on aquatic
resources associated with this project are not more than minimal.
7.0 Public Interest Review
7.1 Public Interest Factors
7.1.1 Conservation
The proposed development does not include the permanent conservation of any
stream or wetland areas on site; however, stream corridors within the project area are
subject to the Randleman Stream Buffers, which extend 100 feet from perennial
streams and 50 feet from intermittent streams. Impacts to the Randleman Buffer have
been limited to three crossings. Additionally, the development plan calls for the
creation of approximately 30 acres of common area, which would include a
substantial portion of the riparian area located on the site. The mitigation payment to
the NCEEP would also be used to restore and preserve stream corridors and wetland
areas elsewhere in the Cape Fear River Basin.
7.1.2 Economics
The applicant would be the primary beneficiary of the sale of commercial outlots and
lease of retail properties on the site. The project would help meet regional demand
for commercial space (retail, office), light industrial, and multi-family residential
space. It would also provide an overall benefit to the local economy, and would
result in increases in local, state, and federal tax revenues. The development would
also result temporary job opportunities during construction of the facility, and
permanent employment as the businesses hire management and sales staff. The
anticipated cumulative and secondary effects resulting from the proposed
development have been considered in this document and it is not expected that the
project would lead to lead to additional growth-induced impacts.
7.1.3 Aesthetics
The project would be the first major commercial development at the intersection of
N.C. Highway 62 and Interstate 85. The project would generate additional noise and
light relative to the residential and agricultural uses that are currently located in the
vicinity. The City of Archdale has zoned the land adjacent to the two freeway
interchanges that access the downtown area (Exit 111 and Exit 113) for highway
business to light industrial use. As suburban sprawl from High Point encroaches on
the northern side of Archdale, development pressure has been growing, and additional
commercial construction along the I-85 corridor is expected to continue. As a result,
commercial development would not cause disharmony in the aesthetics of the
community or planned future growth of the region.
7.1.4 General environmental concerns (33CFR320.4(p))
The overall impact to the environment as a result of the construction would be
minimal. Temporary increases in sediment, construction noise, traffic levels, etc.,
would be expected during construction of the project. Long-term impacts to
27 C: _F1 Knieyr-Han
111111111 wd A=W%, Inc.
wetlands, streams, and fish and wildlife would primarily result from the loss of
existing aquatic and terrestrial habitat and by changes to the watershed, though these
effects would be somewhat offset by functions provided by stormwater facilities and
by the mitigation offered by the applicant. The proposed plan also avoids impacts to
the majority of the streams and riparian zones located on the site. Consideration was
also given to the environmental justice of the proposed project. Stormwater
generated by the increases in impervious surfaces would be retained on-site,
preventing potential negative impacts to persons living or owning land with the
floodplain downstream of the project. Additionally, the surrounding region is not
occupied any particular minority or ethnic group, so the proposed activity should not
lead to environmental justice concerns.
7.1.5 Wetlands (33CFR320.4(b))
There are a total of 3.06 acres of wetlands on the project site, which have been
delineated and verified. The project would result in the loss of 1.57 acres of
headwater wetland that currently provide some nutrient filtering, sediment removal,
and aquatic habitat. The special aquatic sites that would be disturbed are non-riparian
forested and scrub-shrub wetlands that are not high quality or unique. The functions
provided by these areas has also been compromised by on-going agricultural use of
the surrounding fields. The applicant would mitigate for unavoidable impacts to
wetlands by payment into the NCEEP program. Some of the lost wetlands functions,
such as the nutrient and sediment filtering capabilities, would also be replaced by
construction of the on-site treatment facilities.
7.1.6 Historic and cultural resources (33CFR320.4(e))
There are no known or suspected historic or cultural resources located within the
permit area, and no impact to any of these resources would result from the project.
The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) was contacted and verified that no registered properties, or properties
listed as being eligible for inclusion therein are located within the project area or
would be affected by the proposed work. See Appendix B for correspondence from
the SHPO.
7.1.7 Fish and wildlife values (33CFR320.4(c))
The project would not be expected to result in more than minimal permanent adverse
effects to fish or wildlife values. During construction, it is likely that many aquatic
and terrestrial animals would be lost, along with their habitat. The type of habitat on
the site includes open water, forested wetland and upland areas, in-stream and
riparian habitat, and agricultural fields. The proposed plans have only minimal
impacts to the riparian systems, and as a result also avoid impacts to forested areas on
the site in favor of high ground and cleared fields. The US Fish and Wildlife Service
was contacted and has concurred that there are no occurrences of federally listed
species or species of concern in the vicinity of the project site, and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service did not object to issuance of the permit. See Appendix B for
correspondence from the USFWS.
28 and Associates, Inc.
I'M" 'I'M
7.1.8 Flood hazards
The project would not be expected to have an impact on the overall hazard of
flooding downstream of the project site. The development would result in increases
to impervious surface within the watershed, but this increase would be offset by the
retention of stormwater originating on-site in five stormwater ponds. Additionally,
the project is located at the upper end of the watershed, so there is minimal risk of
causing flooding upstream of the proposed fill sites.
7.1.9 Floodplain values (33CFR320.4(I))
Pursuant to Executive Order 11988, consideration has been given to the effect of the
proposed project toward reducing the risk of flood loss, minimizing the impact of
floods on human safety, health and welfare, and restoring and preserving the natural
and beneficial values served by floodplains. Portions of the site are located with the
100-year floodplain. A small portion of the floodplain would be filled to allow for
development of the site. Additionally the project would result in the conversion of a
substantial portion of the site to impervious surface. Stormwater generated by the
project would be directed to five detention basins, to be constructed in compliance
with state guidelines for stormwater management. The stormwater basins would be
constructed outside of the floodplain. The development plan would also result in the
creation of approximately 30 acres of common area, including the majority of the
floodplain on the site, which would be protected from future development.
Accordingly, the project should not result in measurable impacts to the functions or
value of these areas. See Appendix F for a map of the FEMA-designated floodplain.
7.1.10 Land use
As proposed, the commercial center would result in the conversion of agricultural
land to a mixed-use commercial and residential development. While this is a major
shift in land use, the project would remain consistent with local zoning requirements
and the city's long range planning goals. Additionally, the project is located
immediately adjacent to the interstate corridor where commercial development is
generally anticipated to occur.
7.1.11 Navigation (33CFR320.4(o))
The project is located on a non-navigable waterway. Accordingly, consideration of
the project's effect on navigation is not applicable.
7.1.12 Shore erosion and accretion
There is a pond located on the project site, however the size of the pond is too small
for winds to form erosive wave action. Accordingly, shore erosion and/or accretion is
not expected to occur.
7.1.13 Recreation
The project is intended to provide retail shopping opportunities for the surrounding
community, which may be considered to be a recreational activity. Otherwise, the
project is not expected to effect regional recreational opportunities.
29 ?Mand Ass-n mIl*d A HOm
cdates, Inc.
7.1.14 Water supply (33CFR320.4(m))
The development would draw from local water supply sources, but it is not expected
to add more than minimal demand to the local water supply system. Water and sewer
services have already been provided to the site, so no additional impact from
construction of these utilities is anticipated. Due to the relatively small size of the
project, there should be no appreciable effect to ground water recharge within the
region.
7.1.15 Water quality (also 33CFR320.4(d))
No major impacts to water quality are expected. Temporary increases in turbidity
during construction, loss of nutrient removal capacity of the filled wetlands, and some
discharge of pollutants and nutrients in the runoff could result. It is anticipated that
construction of the stormwater treatment facilities should offset long-term impacts by
removing sediments, nutrients, and other pollutants from treated stormwater, and by
attenuating peak flows downstream. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality is
required to review the proposed plans and provide a state 401 Water Quality
Certification prior to construction of the project.
7.1.16 Energy needs (33CFR320.4(n))
The proposed project would add additional requirements to the local electrical grid.
The additional demand would peak during the summer, when air conditioner use is
greatest. Given the size of the project and type of services provided (i.e, no heavy
industrial sites), the additional load would be minimal relative to local demand.
7.1.17 Safety
The project has been designed in accordance with local traffic safety regulations, and
should not result in result in additional safety concerns. During construction of the
project, all applicable safety standards would be observed.
7.1.18 Food and fiber production
The project site was historically used for the production of agricultural goods, and
existing fields would be converted into a non-agricultural use. Relative to the amount
of agricultural land in the region, the effect of this conversion would be negligible.
7.1.19 Mineral needs
The project has not historically been used for the production of mineral products, so
consideration of mineral needs is not applicable.
7.1.20 Considerations of property ownership
Adjacent landowners may be affected as a result of the proximity of their property to
the project. It is possible that adjacent landowners may experience increased
commercial interest in their property, leading to higher value and resulting tax rate.
However, the use of the land would be consistent with the designated zoning, and the
owner's right to reasonable, private use of their land.
30 ? =ilfld n v111d 1AhHOR1
SSOCI?IBS, lfIC.
7.2 Need for Proposed Project
The applicant has established a need for the proposed impacts based upon necessity to utilize
available high ground on the site and the economic benefit that they would realize from the
project. The public would benefit from the project through the construction of residential
units, a local retail development, offering shopping, a home improvement center, mini-
storage, restaurants, employment opportunities, and resulting economic benefits.
Specifically, the local, state, and federal economy would benefit substantially from the
increased tax revenues that would be generated, and from the temporary and permanent jobs
that would be created. Furthermore, the applicant would be in a better position to meet
market demand for commercial and residential developments in the area.
7.3 Alternative Locations
See Section 5 for a discussion of alternatives.
7.4 Permanence of Effects
The project benefits to the applicant and public, including the construction and use of the
retail and residential spaces, employment opportunities, and economic benefits to the
applicant and public, are expected to last throughout the life of the development. The
detrimental effects of the project, including the effect of the project on the aquatic
environment (e.g., loss of habitat, water quality degradation, increased stormwater, etc.)
would generally be permanent. Impacts associated with construction of the project, which
may include construction noise, increases in downstream turbidity, and disruptions in traffic
patterns, should only last for the duration of site construction.
7.5 Threatened or Endangered Species
Examination of the list of federally protected species known to occur in Guilford and
Randolph counties indicates the potential presence of the three species listed as either
threatened or endangered occurring in the project vicinity. In Guilford County, the
threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is known to occur. In general, ideal habitat
for the bald eagle in piedmont North Carolina includes large, accessible nesting trees,
preferably conifers, in close proximity to large bodies of open water for foraging. This type
of habitat is not present on the project site, and no nest trees were observed during site
reconnaissance. In Randolph County, the Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas) and
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) are known to occur. Both species are listed
as endangered. The Cape Fear shiner is a fish species that occurs in medium size streams to
small rivers. Accordingly, habitat for the shiner is not present on the project site.
Schweinitz's sunflower is commonly found in sunny to semi-sunny habitats that have
recently been disturbed, including along roadsides, and in power line clearings, old pastures,
woodland openings. Examination of the site did not preclude the presence of suitable habitat
for the Schweinitz's sunflower. Following the initial examination of the site, the USFWS
was consulted and recommended that the site be surveyed for the potential presence of
Schweinitz's sunflower. A similar species of sunflower, identified as Maximillian sunflower
(H. maximilianii) was identified on the project site, however Schweinitz's sunflower was
determined not to be present. Confirmation of this determination was made during an on-site
investigation conducted by a representative of the USFWS on October 11, 2006 (Appendix
31 ?MMM n w"*xldA H0171
?M.wGte$, (f1C,
B). Based upon the above, there are no known occurrences of species listed as threatened or
endangered on the project site.
7.6 Corps Wetland Policy
The project would result in the loss of 1.57 acre of wetland and 305 linear feet of stream
channel (125 linear feet perennial stream and 180 linear feet of intermittent unimportant
channel), along with the functions that are provided by these waters of the U.S. It has been
demonstrated that the proposed plans represent the least damaging practicable alternative.
Much of the functional loss would be replaced with the proposed mitigation, which would
result in the of 2.67 acres of non-riparian wetlands (0.47 acre for 1:1 ratio of
emergent/scrub-shrub wetland impact, 2.2 acres for 2:1 ratio of forested wetland impact
within the Cape Fear River Basin - HUC 03030003). Avoidance and minimization measures
employed during project design reduced permanent stream impacts to less than 150 linear
feet; therefore, no stream mitigation is proposed. This functional replacement, when
considered in comparison to the type and extent of the proposed impacts, outweighs the
detrimental effects of the project.
7.7 Cumulative and Secondary Impacts
See Section 6.1.7 and 6.1.8 for a discussion of Cumulative and Secondary Impacts.
7.8 Essential Fisheries Habitat
The project is located in central piedmont portion of the state. Based on previous
coordination with the USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Essential Fish
Habitat (EFH) is located along coastal areas and major tributaries east of the project site.
Additionally, there are numerous dams across the streams and rivers downstream of the
project site that reduce the extent of the fish habitat. Accordingly, the proposed development
is anticipated to have no impact to designated EFH.
8.0 Conclusions
This document contains a review of possible off-site and on-site alternatives, measures taken to
avoid and minimize impacts to the aquatic environment, and mitigation sufficient to offset the
unavoidable loss of wetland and stream function that would occur as a result of the project.
Based upon the review contained in this document, we believe that the project as proposed
represents the least damaging practicable alternative pursuant to Clean Water Act regulations and
USACE wetlands policy.
32 1: =F1 IGrr*-H m
and Assoaates, Inc.

j'?"---
G
-
Rd 1254
Bisbee-Dr
t y 1351
Brandy-Rd
River-Rd-n
a
Project Location 1 a
/
a?Rd T
d 9c.
O
'
Ki % tRD W
r a -Y

m .`c rnm° 'a
m
.
_
C)

5
y
?. ?
Ix

= a

a?a a ?l
O 1480 ;p d/?Ra a

?
?
a a woe e
E 'U• Nf15 1 t0 (n \
ti
T ?
J
_ Co Q
Lake•Ave K ar^5 Poe D
E m N o
Y?\C h
aS a
7R

Fed' ?J5 ?
5 Mc Way-Dr &) / )
t?heLAve ?I
/ 1?/Coxq I d
9
\ttngSt \g5 Abbie-Ave / ?

d
R 1
N Model-Faun-Rd--o
c„ .. ° E-SpnRd

0? ? c
c O(eSae?

a
a

I of Linda-Rf

Tulare D

' IC T m Gaines-Ave ??`P??
~ J N F m)
Frale r
y-Rd ? .E a
BelrnontDr??
- 610 °`
Rd
0
C-hecke-R;d--? ? 4019
aryo 62

Arthur Ave
,1Y
pa Feld-Av
!

v

r
l
0 Janiee-Ave
Swathmore-Ave `0` N
m Ralph Or m m o,
N> °

m
c r

3 e'
Playground -Rd Stratford-Rd
den Ter .o
¢ f? e D
m °
E ca ° y
E
e 1
10 r-Lunaf'D• r 1
Elliott-St r
Archdal Englewodd t Ja
e•BI x m
° r Lonita-St v
0 01
e a
am ma pr o 1
°re
1 Sh u.
Ebb'
Bean-Rd

c ?
\'\00,
P
11
ia n Huff Rd Project Boundary
'
y• ale- t
1683
0 o P6 p
ro `' la\

^? a
o??? food-Ave

Hilltop. pr 1925
I 00

0o qPa. ? ???

r I
a
?
m P
om ve
w 3182 Ora O
p rn
v? /
a
D
9 9t ?Qa Robin-Cir a?a Qa
Jr
oole-Rd
r?
3141 1854 a
?
1653 Trinity-Rd 1 Robin-Ln 1570
1606 1922 Ganter-L-
1819
p`.
1702
1661 0 1724 1674
I Lane-Dr
J 6
c
a .
V
?o f-
ID Tony St c U
= 1984 1927
% 1570
? 3103 v m' a? 9
o`-Ronniedale•Rd
2

C
-
-R I 4`0
'GlennWheIo S'
o? Y o•,Q
a 1571 e.ar Square Rd 1928
1747
d•?° vc? 0 1566
S? 1697
1932
1530
m
3133 0
?r 1846 1746
ja
nde?
f W
m
efe Rd
U
,k ?n er\cer? N
m jl JI SP
`c
t
1556
1564 '
l
Cir
1704 SPIIIrnan-Dr 1°
w W F
1531
r? 1004 1780 1781 S
3110 1566

0

Cod 1526
0 0.25 0.5 1
•-Rd
b e
3230 To
= 1557 1868 1888 y<n
3113 1801 /
L/
Jill•Dr 1533 Mies
Title Vicinity Map Figure 1
Project Shoppes at Bush Hill USACE AID # 200620747
Applicant: Date of Public Notice:
Archdale Partners, LLC Shoppes At Bush Hill County: Guilford and Randolph
530 Huber Park Court Vicinity Map Waterway: Muddy Creek
Weldon Springs, MO 63304 Sheet 1 of 14 River Basin: Cape Fear
T\pn\012781000 Archdale Retail Prepared by Laura Lang [gin wi
Dev\Individual_Pemit\FIGURES\Archdale_IP.,.Figure Block_UTDATED.doc
° ?• a?? . • e •' eta ??`' L - o -
4
i
{
Jackmm
mite'
i. ; > r + 9 • / ?.' I
taY A`..
?Vm
`!•,'?jr1_?' ?' J . d? t, ,,,.r ,'?-. ?, 'k' - a 's - t . // ?? 1 ? • ` •' Pine Grove
OU f "L" *A
*. , Providence
Ch ail ,.- • .?, ??'c.,' j'r ?G) - ..
BM 846
i
_ I
.? jE'? Y ( 11.1?1t
Randolph
•
f
°
t 9' `may' W E
A- S
s 1 ,?
9• e "'O •° °6 i 1,000 2,000 4,000
;.
_ -, Feet
Title USGS Topographic Map (High Point East, NC, 1950, photorevised 1982) Figure 2
Project Shoppes at Bush Hill USACE AID # 200620747
Applicant: Date of Public Notice:
Archdale Partners, LLC Shoppes At Bush Hill County: Guilford and Randolph
530 Huber Park Court USGS Map Waterway: Muddy Creek
Weldon Springs, MO 63304 Sheet 2 of 14 River Basin: Cape Fear
T:\pn\012781000 Archdale Retail Prepared by Laura Lang
Dev\lnd ividual_Pemi it\F IGUR ES\A rchdale_IP_Figure_B lock_UP DATED.doe

_,F

r
T:\pn\012781000 Archdale Retail Prepared by Laura Lang
Dev\lndivid ual_Pe-it\FIGUR ES\A rch dale_IP_Figure_61ock_UP DATED.do c
Stream 2 Wetland C Wetland G Stream 6
(upstream of pond) 0.47 ac 0.58 ac 104 LF
674 LF
Wetland A
0.57 ac
Wetland B l
0.15 ac etland J
0.30 ac
Wetland I y ( Stream 3
0.12 ac Stream 4 729 LF
55 LF Stream 5 /
/ 76 LF
Wetland H
0.05 ac Pond ?-
2.47 ac

Wetland F
Stream 1 0.34 ac
1121 LF
Wetland E
0.09 ac
:.gym Wetland K
0.38 ac
Wetland D
Wetland L / 0.01 ac
0.31 ac
Stream 7
Stream 2
N (downstream of pond)
1641LF Legend
W E Property Boundary
s Pond
S - Intermittent Stream
0 325 650 1,300 Perennial Stream
1
Feet , Wetland
Title Delineation of Waters of U.S. Map Figure 4
Project Shoppes at Bush Hill USACE AID # 200620747
Applicant: Date of Public Notice:
Archdale Partners, LLC Shoppes At Bush Hill County: Guilford and Randolph
530 Huber Park Court Delineation Map Waterway: Muddy Creek
Weldon Springs, MO 63304 Sheet 4 of 14 River Basin: Cape Fear
T:\pn\012781000 Archdale Retail Prepared by Laura Lang [2n I== ix
DWIndividual_Petmit\FIGURES\Archdale_IP_Figure_Block UPDATED.doc
Commercial

Fi
Ali
Wa.-Muwr
Light Industrial JJ / !?

i 1
Office
_ ,11

Figure 14

r
1
(,
LOWS
Residential
•• ?
J

i urV13
e
Figur
6 ,

Residential
N
w E
S
Tilt overai ate Plan Figme, 5 of 14
Project Shoppee at Bush HE uSACE AID 0 200620747
Appicant: Date of Pubic Notice:
Archdale Partners, LLC Shoppee At Bush Hill County Guilford and Randolph
530 Huber Park Court Overall Site Plan Waterway Muddy Creek
Weldon Springs, MO 63304 River Basle: Cape Fear

1 I Randleman
R
'
S
Buffer

Impact Area #11 I (

Stream Disturbanc
e \
=95 LF ?

- - Zone 1 Impact (Road Crossing) = I I
0.18 Ac.
I \
Zone 2 Impact Road Crossing and \
Pond Grading) = 0.15 Ac.

Impact Area #12
Stream Disturbance
Rip Rap Dissipater
Pad=30 LF
Impact Area #10
Stream Disturbance
Eliminated
Impact Area #1
Wetland Disturbance
Eliminated Wetland
Limits
N
200' 0 100' 200
w
S
Title Impact 1,10,11 and 12 Detaill Figure 6 of 14
Project Shoppee at Bush Hi USACE AID • 200620747
Applicant.
Shoppes At Bush Hi!
Date of Pubic Notlce,
Archdale Partners, LLC
530 Huber Park Court
Impact 1, 10, 11 and 12 County Guilford and Randolph
Waterway. Muddy Creek
Weldon Springs, MO 63304 Detail River Basin: Cape Fear
Proposed
Road Bed
772 772
768 - -_ -? 768
764 764
760 _? ----? -_? 760
756 756
752 752
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Proposed 8'X8' Existing Ground
Box Culvert
Title Impact 11 Crow Section Rgure 7 of 14
Project Shoppee at Bush F1111111 USACE AID f 200620747
Applicant
Date of Pubic Notice
Archdale Partners, LLC Shoppes At Bush Hill County- Guilford and Randolph
530 Huber Park Court Impact 11 Cross Section Waterway- Muddy Creek
Weldon Springs, MO 63304 River Bash} Cape Fear

Impact Area #2 /
Wetland Fill
=0.09 Ac.
i /

/
-14

Wetland,,
Limits ? / /

N
100
0

J
/ l`?
S
Title Irnpact 2 Dotal Figure 8 of 14
Project %wppes at Bush HE USAGE AID f 200620747
Appicant

Archdale Partners, LLC

Shoppes At Bush Hill
Date of Punic Notice
County Guilford and Randolph
530 Huber Park Court
Weldon Springs, MO 63304 Impact 2 Detal Waterway Muddy Creek
Fiver Bash Cape Fear
Proposed
Road Bed
784 784
780 780
776 ` ?- ?_ _ - - 776
772 - --?- - - - - 772
768 768
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Existing Ground
Title Impact 2 Cross Section Rgure 9 of 14
Project Shoppee at Dish HE USACE AID f 200620747
Appicant, Date of Pubic Nobow
Archdale Partners, LLC Shoppes At Bush Hill County Guilford and Randolph
530 Huber Park Court Impact 2 Cross Section Waterway Muddy Creek
Weldon Springs, MO 63304 River Bash- Cape Fear
I
J I I I ?
I Randleman
Stream Bu ffe
I
Impact Area #8 I y.. W. 1 I
I
Temporary Dewatering - - 1
=1.93 Ac. I
I . . Zo
Vd e 1 1 pact (both
17A
I
c.
s) = .

J
.. .- 1
{tFRANO
1
Y

. /
/
Zone 2
sides)
_Impact (both
0.12Ac.
/

Z

?
Pond
\
Limits - -
Impa t Area #9
/ . /
I Ope Water
/ / I I Fill= .54 Ac.
N /
I I \
'
'
_ 04- 200
100
- 0
w

Title "act 8 and 9 Detd FlIgtre 10 of 14
Project Shoppee at Bueh HE USACE AID 0 200620747
Applicant: Date of Pubic Notice
Archdale Partners, LLC Shoppes At Bush Hiu County Guilford an d Randolph
530 Huber Park Court Impact 8 and 9 Detail Waterway Muddy C reek
Weldon Springs, MO 63304 River Baeh Cape Fear
MINEENNEEN!
Proposed
Road Bed
796 796
792 792
788 788
784 784
780 ---- -------- - 780
776 776
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Proposed Existing Ground
8'X8' Box
Culvert
Title Impact 8 Cross Section Rose 11 of 14
Project Shopper at Bush HE USACE AID • 200620747
Appicant
Date of Pubic Notlcc
Archdale Partners, LLC Shoppes At Bush Hill County- Guilford and Randolph
530 Huber Park Court Impact 8 Cross Section Waterway Muddy Creek
Weldon Springs, MO 63304
1000000 River Bash+ Cape Fear
Impact Area #14
/ TOM Fill=104 LF
mportant/inter /ittent)

WAL-MART
,
> I ?
I ?

Impact Area #6 '
Wetland Fill=
0.58 Ac. I
?a

w
Impact Area #

--- -- w

I
1
WetlandFill
`
=0.47 A
c.
Impact Area
#13
Stream Fill= -j 6 LF
(unimportant intermittent)

enwn e
w
f ?
N Impact Area #4
400' Wetland Fill 0 200' 400' Impact Area #5
„ E I =0.09 Ac. I I I Wetland Fill
=0.34 Ac.
S
Tide Impact 3, 4, 5, 6,13 and 14 Dotal (Commercial Area) Figure 12 of 14
Project Shoppee at Bush HE USACE AD f 200620747
Appkanr
Shoppes At Bush Hill
Date of Pubic Notice
Archdale Partners, LLC
530 Huber Park Court
Impact 3, 4 5 6,13 and County` Guilford and Randolph
Waterway Muddy Creek
Weldon Springs, MO 63304 14 Detai RNer Basin Cape Fear

II
1 ?

I I
?
LOWENS
des
\
;DO

i
.. I

Impact Area #7
Wetland Impact
` Eliminated
N
400'
0 200' 400'
w B
S
Title Impact 7 Detail (Comawdel Area) FUre 13 of 14
Project Shoppee at Bush Hi USACE AID 200620747
Applicant..

Archdale Partners, LLC

Shoppea At Bush Hill
Date of Pubic Notice:
County: Guilford and Randolph
530 Huber Park Court
Weldon Springs, MO 63304 Impact 7 Detail Waterway: Muddy Creek
Rlver Bash Cape Fear
Road Access Through
No -Jurisdictional
Ch nnel Break
/
tland
its
fact
iced b
i I r? ning
Wpl -
' ? Stre m
. j I Beg'n Stream
? ? r
i
Z
one 1 Im
ac
f
= 0.0 Ac.
Randleman
1 Stream Buffer
1
1
\h
otmoT OEM Ems
1 ?? 1

Zone 2 Impac
1 ? = 0.12Ac.

I I
N
400'
0 200' 400
w S
S
Title Reddettal Area Dotal Figure 14 of 14
Project Shoppes at Bush HE USACE AID f 200620747
ApWant Date of Pubic Notice,
Archdale Partners, LLC Shoppes At Bush Hill County Guilford and Randolph
530 Huber Park Court Residetial Area Detail Waterway: Muddy Creek
Weldon Springs, MO 63304 FWw Bain: Cape Fear
Appendix A: Project Alternatives
N
I 7
N
e°

W

G1
N
0
f° N .--. M V ?D --? R N (or) N 00 [- M O "C ?c M 00 O CT Lr) M Lf) t-- N N ? R W) ? M kf) 00 Ln N O kn O
Lr?
U 00 - C7, Q? , M ?n M ?n m
M V) Cn M N O DD U N O O 00 ? v V n M N Cr O o0 O O
U M o0 --? M M 00 r- ? Le 1 ?n N rq* O O O ("7; ? ? 01 ? ? " r ?
l? ?O O? N N N O
?' N N •--? ????????????? M M M M M M M M M M M M M M N N N N N N N N N N N
a
N M ? t vi I'D l - 00 O? O --? N M I* V') \O l - 00 0? O r - N M V W) ?O l- 00 C ? O ^-? N M ? ? ? r- o0 0? O N M ct v1 ?O l- 00 ? O ;;-
^ N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M T .1,
V' 'R 7 C' ?n
U
CO
L
O
A
a?
0
a
1
i
?J
H
1 Y v ?
M
?I W
1
rl
0
U)
(D
L-
0
Q
U)_ LO
U N
E A
0 J U)
_ N
LU U W Q H
W
J
U) I
N
r-
Lq
0
0
U
I ?
as
M31A
aO DOIa 60 VW
w Ob'
O O N01311 o Jyg
1
0 S1NOWl3 ¢

• • • • • • ?a0 NIOI 0
0 >
N??IM'3l0 0

OO 4901 o
1?1? • !-7) N006916V > G

???? ?I o o ac
?' ?oooM153a ? 3; ,.
0
P
EN
5? 3
L p,
(/?' `J gg?N
/W? NLT(
cn
LL
V;
co
J
R0
° LL a
02 3
LL w
dd W
F
I
3
w
O z
m
?° Sid o
yk
w
Oa 831NVO 9 >? U
z
? z a
~ Oa YpaV"IM
Z N o
U a3dSVf
N
S3 3
n0
S
30 a N33a0 nOOf1W V R o
IAVN

OR m
DR

r
?
-?..?..?
N 0 3 Sil 3?°jy?
tt IPRIG? f
OY

• 6
?•?
?•
??s 3na3 ?
?.
Q ?
,
O
O
E O N
CO K
d
° P

20 •?
, z
Da
anND nalv3
i
d3 w > Z
TON RD
J

?? o ?
w

lf 010 I < 80 331 SON ¢ w
n
tlV 3 I b3NO `
IV
VO o
ON :z
¢ N
o Q 3?
is
KAn RRIS RD
YNI A 1S 1SOd
a) a)
(6 C E
? a
C C
C T
N
s ? ? rn E ?
m t m
J m m 'o a) LF a) pp
p L N ? 7 pp cn +? _U L
G? C_ C N z O 0 _C 0 fB O O QI Q
C 'a_ (d O O O L a) L
J N Z 'm in s C > > >
7 7 N ?, >. T T p> .p N Z 0 U
m CO -0 E a m m m o 0 0 Li LL LL Z, °-
J 'UO 3 N j tL LL LL LL () a) a) a) a) a) N °_ -p N U)
T L L C L .! +? «+ .! U U U U m p) m -p a) p a)
U z= CD z J 21: 2 2 0 0 0 O to 05 05 ?j LL O
0V99Z 'ON `NOS83333f
'
N
37
1N3WdM3/0CI 31lSW3f :,kO
- N
sa4DI00ssy 6 U01-laAlOM 'ON ,1FN
nOO GNOWH318 V a?03iIno IWIH08V Z J
n
1N3WdM3A34 IV1383MOO 43SOdO8d
allu 3oafoid
mM 0-V99Z 'ON `NM13333r
' s
OT
1N3WdMIA3O 3ilSW3f :J.8 J m
s
sa;OlOOssy ?q uO;aanlOM ?N-uNn00 UNOWHOI2J V ciRilIng mvcm02ib'
1N3W
Ol Z
M
d
3A34 WOH3WW00 03SOdOHd s
aRU }oaf-d
li

fn
'±'N li

yj N
U 1i ti

In
0
N LL: L,
NW li
L?
Env)
w vi v> 41V "i,6,6 vi fN li

W W U
000QQQ

(n
Q
U6 U
Q

_.. J<DO
.

ENO U
p
<NO

no

'22 (n
N

00
O
O 0
' 00
P":
O,

1?0 (?O(00p
O, O, O+ 4

NU)$
.y
? ?}}
n--Z ;g,+, rntp
M
..
. YMM

"I
> r _

pN? }

?

NO O

? N
nM\ N

._pp >,
,D !
NN

MN
t?\ N

iA app } Oh
[VN
NOJ O,
MM N
MM In

?N\

?O N
? Vl'. -,n 0 w,ON

C; M O r7

Y N N?NnN
M A
NNNM
MN J N J } ?O,

Q Q Q Q Q Z
w F- F- LLJ F LLI w a °

J

Q V) Z
R' Q Z
Y
M
F Z
Y U

J
S Z
X NM7
S000
=S Z
y
K W - FQ

Y Q ?N U 1pp

Q f
m
a

W JJJ Q

d a
o

J

o K

N
a Q U

ZZ
QN
a Q

?
UUU
z
ZZZZ
Q
QQN a F-
a OHO
?a ? LLJ amUazJ w

JJJ
O?
(n
- ° y7
:
?j

`
?i aaa

rrr ??o

d QO
x
r^g a d

° O

a I d

z° O
??-
o?< I I I R
a
zzz-w JJ
O
aa_ _ ?
F
O
?_ aaaz J
00
0
_o
0
o?
r-QL
O 0
I
I? y
a
i o
i
a
II ? ?
? o
0o
Q T
?T
;I' A7
a
c e.. ..a
b r?' ,.O
b b
• .b
0 0 ?N
r??3
G
JI <I w
Q n a '
U
Z
> ?i e
O
P
-- --
--
03
Q m U O W W U
a
0
0
Q /
A
0t98Z 'ON `NO J]-J-J3 m
` o I`?
37
1NHWdOlIAH(I 3ilSA? :),0 g
'N-,11Nf10O CNOWHOI2J )8 mjojj inn 1VOHO?Jd o

1NlAc 0MIA3a Id10211AA03 0ISOd02Jd N
_ o
ali 4aafojd
¦ Ol
. m
? i OJ 1 i
j ?
a
13
10
a ,X 0w\\22iLkR~ \- C41fNHNHU .. .
k
_ -- -- -O O OCff
I

Q
Q
L-Li
N _O? -
z
Z Q
a? oa
Q ? Z a _
VW WN
O \ LL
V
I?

W90'NYSq rW 41dA0 du?M\W+?¢l-m?YC?1YY i?3 I
llal - OOR 41 W - YMWO 1®1
m
U
t•
0
t•
w
t•
16
b
I ?
z
d ?
O t.. ?
I Y
s e
r?
?
d
i
? N
Z
U
z
L_
1 ?
I
I
/
U
? z
V ?gn
Z ??59
gsg g e
Go
/ gk3
/ "Z
Ila z
1 1
I rv U 1
1 aim -n GC..
Tod-
• R
1 1 1 t`
? 1 l ?a
Il 11 ? ? ao ?3
? 1 e
O
I
1
1
z •
® 0
o
p N?
E
p
10 h g
O
U

a?
p ¢, 8 °o
N
R3 O ? s
g
? ? ? `q U 2

U
rr???? E 5
a

Q A ?? d s

aueaM
peo-d
?aou o ?
o----o c
uo!rnoololl w[7 0?0 Po??Y
%
` o
aw ?
r?.
J u ?$
cf? ? r:
>A
i
?, Ago
dr
.od \ ,
1 ?
li
I , r
i
I
1
1
' r
1

a 7? ?a
111 a 1M
I s ? ,§7°.9. :?: ?a sr a seas ? :: Sgt`\y^- F u-- l
E 3kk 3 * k`. tt kk 35 k k3 ? v `?a
^CG ,6 C E C E C E E E p E,
g,a i`,Ef as ? ?E,d?a ? € ?? ?? ,?r-'
Fail I?=_ pm?y? m ?/

? Ill s ?? l lll l ? I
llll f ?. - - = ??
l
_ : = l es 6 a ^ s as sa s c a

a. 1
- s
0
\\ aU
E' •
_ _ g Y
J$mA$m??% %%% nlLr %Y,%d % J - a,
vRF? ° mm?£ cam =£+ ? P
s.ca ?a sa=a= ca,aa??cr a ?`i? s, ;?
;? z iEi a c?:• - LIP!
eLE 6?:ia x_C taE _P _33f3?.? .Y°_- v 3.a
peog agpupl`d
u d '
U
O a< 1
O.
w o,]O
0.' v

`' I
Appendix B: Agency Coordination
?? North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 9
Richard B. Hamilton, Executive Director
18 August 2006
Ms. Beth Reed, Project Manager
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 33068
Raleigh, NC 27636-3068
Subject: Request for Information on a Proposed Mixed-Use Development, Archdale, Guilford and
Randolph Counties, North Carolina.
Dear Ms. Reed:
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
document and we are familiar with the habitat values of the area. Our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661 et seq.) and North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113-131 et seq.).
Archdale Partners, LLC proposes to construct a mixed-use development on approximately 160
acres in Archdale. Current land use is agriculture and mixed hardwood forest. The site drains to
unnamed tributaries to Muddy Creek in the Cape Fear River basin.
There are records for the state special concern Greensboro burrowing crayfish (Cambarus
catagius) near in the proposed project site. Although we are not aware of any federally listed aquatic or
terrestrial wildlife species within or adjacent to the project area, we suggest you consult with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service at [phone] regarding potential impacts to federally listed species. The
proposed project site is not located within or adjacent to N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission game
lands.
If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at [phone].
Sincerely,
Shari L. Bryant
Piedmont Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation. Program
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries - 1721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] - Fax: [phone]
a'd SZ9l,-Ebb-9EE queRag -I,S dggcIo go 131 2nd
Tugwell, Todd
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 4:06 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd
Subject: Archdale project
Hi Todd
Thanks for your phone call this afternoon.
With regards to Beth Reed's July 25, 2006 letter requesting endangered species information
related to the Archdale Partners, LLC prooposed mixed use development at the intersection
of NC Highway 62 and NC 1162 in Archdale, Guilford and Randolph counties, North Carolina,
this email serves as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) response pursuant to
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
) (Act).
Based on my recommendation that the area be surveyed for Schweinitz's sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzii), Ms. Laura Lang of your staff conducted a survey and found a
questionable sunflower resembling H. schweinitzii.
Ms. Moni Bates and I met Ms. Lang in the field on October 11, 2006 and determined that the
sunflower in question is actually Maximilian's sunflower (H. maximilianii), a species that
is not protected by the Act.
Given the information gathered during our site visit, I believe that the subject project
will have no affect on H. schweinitzii or any other federally listed species.
We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act have been satisfied. We
remind you that obligations under section 7 consultation must be reconsidered if: (1) new
information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or
critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is subsequently
modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or, (3) a new species is
listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions or
comments regarding our response, please contact Mr. Dale W.
Suiter of this office at [phone], Ext. 18 [e-mail].
Dale Suiter
Endangered Species Biologist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
phone - 919-85.6-4520 ext. 18
fax - 919-856-4556
email - [e-mail]
-VA Q? RR ECD Vr ` -
- SEP 0 5 ?O()5
»@?. KIMLEY-HOpbi?
ENVIR_
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
September 1, 2006
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
Beth Reed
Kimley-Horn and Associates
PO Box 33068
Raleigh, NC 27636
Re: Proposed Mixed-Use Development, Highway 62 and NC 1162, Archdale, Guildford and Randolph
Counties, ER 06-2051
Dear Ms. Reed:
Thank you for your letter of July 25, 2006, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic resources that would be
affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the undertaking as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763, ext. 246. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Peter Sandbeck
Location Marling Address Telephone/Fax
'ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 (919)7334763/733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801
Nth 7 290
Pht "'v-
Ecosystem
PROGRAM
November 21, 2006
Todd Schnieder
Archdale Partners, LLC
530 Huber Park Ct.
Weldon Springs, MD 63304
Project: Archdale Retail Development County: Guilford/Randolf
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NC EEP) is willing :o
accept payment for impacts associated with the above referenced project. This letter replaces an earlier one dated April 20,
2006. Please note that this decision does not assure that the payment will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as
mitigation for project impacts. It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact these agencies to determine if payment to the
NC EEP will be approved.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter. If we have not received a copy of the issued 404
Permit1401 Certification within this time frame, this acceptance will expire. It is the applicant's responsibility to send
copies of the 404/401/LAMA permits to NC EEP. Once NC EEP receives a copy of the 404 Permit and/or the 401
Certification an invoice will he issued and payment must be made.
Based on the information supplied by you the impacts that may require compensatory mitigation are summarized in the
following table.
River Basin Wetlands Stream Buffer Buffer
Cataloging (Acres) (Linear Feet) Zone 1 Zone 2
Unit (Sq. Ft.) (Sq. Ft.)
Riparian Non-Riparian Coastal Marsh Cold Cool Warm
Cape Fear 0 2.2 0 0 0 125 0 0
03030003
Upon receipt of payment, EEP will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation for the permitted impacts
up to a 2:1 mitigation-to-impact ratio, (buffers, Zane I at a 3:1 ratio and Zone 2 at a 1.5:1 ratio). The type and amount of the
compensatory mitigation will be as specified in the Section 404 Permit and/or 401 Water Quality Certification, and/or
CAMA Permit. The mitigation will be performed in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the N. C.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers dated November 4, 1998.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at [phone].
Sincerely,
lam D Gilmore, PE
Director
cc: Cyndi Karoly, Wetlands/401 Unit
Todd Tugwell, USACE-Raleigh
Daryl Lamb, DWQ- Winston-Salem
File
RP..StDYl yL9... F ... PYDte&l yl9 ow f &t&
AYkvn
AMR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 91 9-71 5-0476 / www.nceep.net

OCT 2 5 .'i1lh
ARGHDALE PLANNING/ZONING DEPAR'i'M EN
307 Balfour Drive
P. 0. Box 14068
Archdale, NC 27263
Jeffrey D. Wells, Planning Director
October 19, 2006
Ms. Cyndi xaroly
Supervisor, 401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
NC Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Blvd.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Re: Weak Road/NC 62 development site.
Dear Sir/Madam,
The City of Archdale has been working with a development group out of St. Louis
that is interested in developing a 150+/- acre site located along Weant Road and NC
Highway 62 in the southeast quadrant of the Interstate 85/NC 62 interchange. The City
recently adopted a new comprehensive plan. Based on this plan, this proposed site is
designated for highway commercial and/or light industrial development. We understand
that it is the intent of the developer to erect "big box" retail, multi-tenant shopping
centers, and out-parcels for additional commercial uses. These uses are consistent with our
land use designation for the property, and would be regardless of the developer of the site.
Water and sewer service is readily available to a part of the site and has been for
years. As part of our long range Capital Improvements Plan, we are in the process of
extending these lines eastward and southward to support additional development that we
anticipate in the near future. The city is also subject to the new NPDES Phase 2
stormwater requirements. Along with our existing Randleman Lake watershed protection
measures, these additional standards will ensure that the developers of the site will be
responsible for protecting their neighbors from additional burden of stormwater runoff and
to protect the overall water quality of the area by providing appropriate best management
practices.
If you have any questions, please contact the Planning/Zoning Department at 336-431-
9141.
Respe ,
ells
Planning Director
Phone #:[phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Appendix C: Wetland and Stream Data Forms
USACE Routine Wetland
Determination Data Forms
DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: Archdale Retail Development Date: 3/14/2006
Applicant/Owner: Archdale Partners, LLC County:
Investigator: Kimley-Horn and Associates (BR) State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
Vegetation
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Acer rubrum Tree FAC
2. Liquidambar styraciflua Tree FAC+
3. Liriodendron tulipifera Tree FACU
4. Ligustrum sinense Shrub FAC
5. Microstegium vimineum Grass FAC+
6.
7.
8.
Dominant Plant Species
9.
10.
it.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACU): 83%
Remarks:
Guilford
NC
Wetland
A
Stratum Indicator
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: - (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 8 (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 6 (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
No Plot ID:
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
Inunoateo
x Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY INDICATORS:
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
X Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Suvey Data
x Fac-Neutral Test
Other
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phrase): Chewacla sandy loam Drainage Class: Somewhat poorly drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? (Y/N) Yes
Depth
inches
Horizon Matrix Color
Munsell Moist Mottle Colors
Munsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-4 A 10YR 4/1 loam sand
4-12+ B 10YR 5/1 10YR 6/6 Abundant loam sand

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
x Reducing Conditions
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Streaking in
Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Hydric Soil Present? (Y/N) Yes
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION (Y/N)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydric Soils Present? Yes
Is this sampling point a Wetland? Yes
Remarks:

DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: Archdale Retail Development Date: 3/14/2006
Applicant/Owner: Archdale Partners, LLC County: Guilford
Investigator: Kimley-Horn and Associates (BR) State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: B
Vegetation
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Juncus effusus Grass FACW 9.
2. Eleocharis spp. Grass FACW 10.
3. 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (exclud ing FACU): 100%
Remarks:
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: - (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 8 (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 6 (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY INDICATORS:
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Suvey Data
x Fac-Neutral Test
Other
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phrase): Chewacla sandy loam Drainage Class: Somewhat poorly drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? (Y/N) Yes
Depth
inches
Horizon Matrix Color
Munsell Moist Mottle Colors
Munsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-4 A 10YR 4/1 loam sand
4-12+ B 10YR 5/1 10YR 6/6 Abundant loam sand

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
x Reducing Conditions
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Streaking in
Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in remarks)
Hydric Soil Present? (Y/N) Yes
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION (Y/N)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydric Soils Present? Yes
Is this sampling point a Wetland? Yes
Remarks:

DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: Archdale Retail Development Date: 3/14/2006
Applicant/Owner: Archdale Partners, LLC County:
Investigator: Kimley-Horn and Associates (BR) State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
Vegetation
No Plot ID
Guilford
NC
Wetland
C
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Juncus effusus Grass FACW 9.
2. Eleocharis spp. Grass FACW 10.
3. Myrica cerifera Shrub FAC+ it.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Sp ecies that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACU): 100%
Remarks-
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: - (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 8 (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 6 (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
x Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY INDICATORS:
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Suvey Data
x Fac-Neutral Test
Other
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phrase): Enon fine sandy loam Drainage Class: Well drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Ultic Hapludalfs
PROFIT F nFSCRIPTION
Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? (Y/N) No
Depth
inches
Horizon Matrix Color
Munsell Moist Mottle Colors
Munsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-6 A 10YR 5/2 clay loam
6-12+ B 10YR 5/2 10YR 6/5 Abundant clay loam

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
x Reducing Conditions
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Streaking in
Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in remarks)
Hydric Soil Present? (Y/N) Yes
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION (Y/N)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydric Soils Present? Yes
Is this sampling point a Wetland? Yes
Remarks:

DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: Archdale Retail Development Date: 3/14/2006
Applicant/Owner: Archdale Partners, LLC County: Guilford
Investigator: Kimley-Horn and Associates (BR) State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: D
Vegetation
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Salix nigra Tree OBL 9.
2. Juncus spp. Grass FACW 10.
3. 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACU): 100%
Ramarks-
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: - (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 10 (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 8 (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY INDICATORS:
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Suvey Data
Fac-Neutral Test
Other
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phrase): Chewacla sandy loam Drainage Class: Somewhat poorly drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? (Y/N) Yes
Depth
inches
Horizon Matrix Color
Munsell Moist Mottle Colors
Munsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-8 A 10YR5/2 clay loam
8-12+ B 10YR5/2 10YR4/6 Abundant clay sand

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
x Reducing Conditions
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Streaking in
Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in remarks)
Hydric Soil Present? (Y/N) Yes
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION (Y/N)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydric Soils Present? Yes
Is this sampling point a Wetland? Yes
Remarks:

DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: Archdale Retail Development Date: 3/14/2006
Applicant/Owner: Archdale Partners, LLC County:
Investigator: Kimley-Horn and Associates (BR) State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
Vegetation
Dominant Plant Species Stratum
1. Acer rubrum Tree
2. Liquidambar styraciflua Tree
3. Liriodendron tulipifera Tree
4. Smilax spp. Vine
5. Juncus spp. Herb
6.
7.
8.
14.
15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACU): 100%
Remarks:
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: - (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 8 (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 6 (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
No Plot ID:
Guilford
NC
Wetland
E
Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
FAC 9.
FAC+ 10.
FACU 11.
FAC+ 12.
FACW 13.
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
Inunaatea
x Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY INDICATORS:
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Suvey Data
x Fac-Neutral Test
Other
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phrase): Enon fine sandy loam Drainage Class: Well drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Ultic Hapludalfs
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? (Y/N) No
Depth
inches
Horizon Matrix Color
Munsell Moist Mottle Colors
Munsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-6 A 10YR 4/1 sand loam
6-12+ B 10YR 5/1 10YR 6/6 Abundant sand loam

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
x Reducing Conditions
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Streaking in
Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in remarks)
Hydric Soil Present? (Y/N) Yes
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION (Y/N)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydric Soils Present? Yes
Is this sampling point a Wetland? Yes
Remarks:

DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: Archdale Retail Development Date: 3/14/2006
Applicant/Owner: Archdale Partners, LLC
County: Guilford
Investigator: Kimley-Horn and Associates (BR) State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
Vegetation
No Plot ID
NC
Wetland
F
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Acer rubrum Tree FAC 9.
2. Liquidambar styraciflua Tree FAC+ 10.
3. Liriodendron tulipifera Tree FACU 11.
4. Ligustrum sinense Shrub FAC 12.
5. Smilax spp. Vine FAC+ 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACU): 100%
Remarks:
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: - (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 8 (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 6 (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
inunaatea
x Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY INDICATORS:
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Suvey Data
x Fac-Neutral Test
Other
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phrase): Enon fine sandy loam Drainage Class: Well drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Ultic Hapludalfs
PROFILE nFSCRIPTION
Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? (Y/N) No
Depth
inches
Horizon Matrix Color
Munsell Moist Mottle Colors
Munsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-6 A 10YR 4/2 clay loam
6-12+ B 10YR 5/2 10YR 6/6 Abundant clay loam

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS
H istosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
x Reducing Conditions
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Streaking in
Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in remarks)
Hydric Soil Present? (Y/N) Yes
Remarks-
WETLAND DETERMINATION (Y/N)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydric Soils Present? Yes
Is this sampling point a Wetland? Yes
Remarks:

DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: Archdale Retail Development Date: 3/14/2006
Applicant/Owner: Archdale Partners, LLC County:
Investigator: Kimley-Horn and Associates (BR) State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
Vegetation
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Acer rubrum Tree FAC
2. Liquidambar styraciflua Tree FAC+
3. Liriodendron tulipifera Tree FACU
4. Ligustrum sinense Shrub FAC
5. Smilax spp. Vine FAC+
6.
7.
8.
Guilford
NC
Wetland
G
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACU): 100%
Remarks:
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: - (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 10 (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 6 (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
No Plot ID
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
x Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY INDICATORS:
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Suvey Data
x Fac-Neutral Test
Other
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phrase): Chewacla sandy loam Drainage Class: Somewhat poorly drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? (Y/N) Yes
Depth
inches
Horizon Matrix Color
Munsell Moist Mottle Colors
Munsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-4 A 10YR 4/1 loam sand
4-12+ B 10YR 5/1 10YR 6/6 Abundant loam sand

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
x Reducing Conditions
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Streaking in
Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Hydric Soil Present? (Y/N) Yes
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION (Y/N)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydric Soils Present? Yes
Is this sampling point a Wetland? Yes
Remarks:

DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: Archdale Retail Development Date: 3/14/2006
Applicant/Owner:
Archdale Partners, LLC
County: Guilford
Investigator: Kimley-Horn and Associates (BR) State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
Vegetation
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Microstegium vimineum Grass FAC+
2. Juncus spp. Grass FACW
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Dominant Plant Species
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
NC
Wetland
H
Stratum Indicator
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACU): 100%
Remarks:
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: - (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 10 (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 8 (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
No Plot ID:
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY INDICATORS:
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
X Water stained Leaves
Local Soil Suvey Data
Fac-Neutral Test
L-JOther
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phrase): Appling sandy loam Drainage Class: Well drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Hapludults
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? (Y/N) No
Depth
inches
Horizon Matrix Color
Munsell Moist Mottle Colors
Munsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-6 A 2.5Y5/2 10YR5/8 Abundant clay loam
6-12+ B 2.5Y5/1 7.5YR5/6 Abundant clay sand

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
x Reducing Conditions
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Streaking in
Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in remarks)
Hydric Soil Present? (Y/N) Yes
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION (Y/N)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydric Soils Present? Yes
Is this sampling point a Wetland? Yes
Remarks:
rs to be an old settling pond possibly related to 1-85 con
DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: Archdale Retail Development Date: 3/14/2006
Applicant/Owner:
Archdale Partners, LLC
County: Guilford
Investigator: Kimley-Horn and Associates (BR) State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
Vegetation
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Salix nigra Tree OBL
2. Carpinus caroliniana Tree FAC
3. Acerrubrum Tree FAC
4. Juncus spp. Grass FACW
5.
6.
7.
8.
NC
Wetland
Dominant Plant Species Stratum
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACU): 100%
Remarks:
Indicator
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: - (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 6 (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 4 (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
No Plot ID:
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
Inunaatea
x Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY INDICATORS:
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
X Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Suvey Data
Fac-Neutral Test
Other
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phrase): Appling sandy loam Drainage Class: Well drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Hapludults
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? (Y/N) No
Depth
inches
Horizon Matrix Color
Munsell Moist Mottle Colors
Munsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-10 A 2.5Y5/2 10YR5/6 Abundant clay loam
10-18 B 2.5Y4/1 10YR4/6 Abundant clay sand

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
x Reducing Conditions
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Streaking in
Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in remarks)
Hydric Soil Present? (Y/N) Yes
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION (Y/N)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydric Soils Present? Yes
Is this sampling point a Wetland? Yes
Remarks:

DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: Archdale Retail Development Date: 3/14/2006
Applicant/Owner:
Archdale Partners, LLC
County: Guilford
Investigator: Kimley-Horn and Associates (BR) State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
Vegetation
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Juncus effusus Grass FACW
2. Eleocharis spp. Grass FACW
3. Smilax spp. Vine FAC
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Dominant Plant Species
9.
NC
Wetland
J
Stratum Indicator
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACU): 100%
Remarks:
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: - (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 8 (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 6 (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
No Plot ID:
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY INDICATORS:
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Suvey Data
x Fac-Neutral Test
L-JOther
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phrase): Enon fine sandy loam Drainage Class: Well drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Ultic Hapludalfs
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? (Y/N) No
Depth
inches
Horizon Matrix Color
Munsell Moist Mottle Colors
Munsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-4 A 10YR 4/1 loam sand
4-12+ B 10YR 5/1 10YR 6/6 Abundant loam sand

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
x Reducing Conditions
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Streaking in
Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in remarks)
Hydric Soil Present? (Y/N) Yes
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION (Y/N)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydric Soils Present? Yes
Is this sampling point a Wetland? Yes
Remarks:

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: Archdale Retail Development Date: 11/09/06
Applicant / Owner: Archdale Partners, LLC County: Guilford
Investigator: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Anna Reusche) State: NC

Community ID: Forested
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Transect ID:-W4-10
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Plot ID: K
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X
(a if nppdpdl
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Acer rubrum Canopy FAC 9.
2. Liquidambarstyracijlua Canopy FAC+ 10.
3. Carpinus carolineana Canopy FAC 11.
4. Quercus phellos Sub-Can. FACW- 12.
5. Lonicera japonica Vine FAC- 13.
6. Phoradendron serotinum Herb NL 14.
7, 15.
8, 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-), 100%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other X Inundated
_ x Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
x Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) Secondary Indicators:
X Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0 (in.) x Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) _ FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Wynott-Enon Drainage Class: Well-drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Hapludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottl e Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-2 A 10 YR 2/1 sandy loam
2-12 B IOYR 4/1 l OYR 511 10% sandy clay
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes x No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes x No
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes x No
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: Archdale Retail Development Date: 11/09/06
Applicant / Owner: Archdale Partners, LLC County: Guilford
Investigator: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Anna Reusche) State: NC

Community ID: Forested
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Transect ID: W2-1
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Plot ID: L
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X
(explae
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Fazus 2randifolia Canopy FAC 9.
2. Acer rubrm Canopy FAC 10.
3. Liquidambar styraciflua Canonv FAC+ 11.
4. Lijzustrum sinense Shrub FAC 12.
5. Lonicery i ponica Vine FAC- 13.
6. Rubus areutus Vine FACU+ 14.
7._Polyginum spp. 15.
g, 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 83%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
- Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
- Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
_ x Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available - Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: - Sediment Deposits
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: NA (in.) Secondary Indicators:
x Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: NA in.) _ Water-Stained Leaves
- Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 10 (in.) - FAC-Neutral Test
- Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Wynott-Enon Drainage Class: Well-drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Hapludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-8 A 2.5Y 5/3 1OYR 5/6 10% loam
8-12+ B 2.5Y 4/2 10YR 5/6 60% sandy clay loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime -Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes x No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes x No
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes x No
Remarks:
USACE Stream Quality
Assessment Worksheets
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name:-Archdale Partners, LLC 2. Evaluator's name: _KHA (BAR)
3. Date of evaluation: 3/14/06
5. Name of stream:_UT Muddy Creek (Stream 1)
7. Approximate drainage area:_0.13 sq. mile_
9. Length of reach evaluated:-1121
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
4. Time of evaluation: 8:30am
6. River basin:_Cape Fear.
8. Stream order: -l
10. County: Guilford
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
GPS
y
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):_Propert
located in SE quadrant of I-85 and NC 62 interchange. Stream 2.
14. Proposed channel work (if any):_Road crossing
15. Recent weather conditions: Sunny, 70 degrees F
16. Site conditions at time of visit: clear,
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters -Nutrient Sensitive -X-Waters Water Supply Watershed _IV_(I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: -75-% Residential _10_% Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
15_% Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other ()
22. Bankfull width: 10-feet
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 5-feet
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) _X_Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>I 0%)
25. Channel sinuosity: -Straight Occasional bends Frequent meander -Very sinuous -X-Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream
may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score
assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 60 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature
Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering
the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score
resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or
requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet
# Ecore ion Point Range Score
Characteristics
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
I
1
Presence of now / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
4
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 5
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 4
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
,.a
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 4
d no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 I
(no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
x 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2 1
a (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
acent wetlands = max points)
(no wetlands = 0; large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 2
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
I I Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 3
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)

12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
F (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
,•y 13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5 2
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
M 14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 4
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
F
rn 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 4
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
Q
1 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 4
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0- 5 0- 5 0- 5 5
no shadin vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)

19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0- 4 0- 4 2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

22 Presence of fish 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 60
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name:-Archdale Partners, LLC 2. Evaluator's name: KHA (B
3. Date of evaluation: 3/14/06
4. Time of evaluation: 8:30am
5. Name of stream:_UT Muddy Creek (Stream 2) 6. River basin:_Cape Fear
7. Approximate drainage area:_0.21 sq mile
9. Length of reach evaluated:-2315 ft.
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
8. Stream order: -I
10. County: Guilford
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other GPS
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):_PropertX
located in SE quadrant of I-85 and NC 62 interchange. Stream 1-upstream of large pond.
14. Proposed channel work (if any):_Road crossing_
15. Recent weather conditions: Sunny, 70 degrees F
16. Site conditions at time of visit: clear,
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive -X-Waters Water Supply Watershed _IV_(I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: -75-% Residential _10_% Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
_15_% Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other ()
22. Bankfull width: 5-feet
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3-feet
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) _X_Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>I 0%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous -X-Braided channel
instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream
may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score
assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 74 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature
Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering
the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score
resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or
requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet
# Ch
t
i
ti Ecore ion Point Range or
S
arac
er
cs
s
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain c
e
I Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 5
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 2
no buffer = 0; conti ous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
a 5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 4
U no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
r.
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
4
? no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 4
06 (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0-4 0-2 4
(no wetlands = 0; lar a adjacent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 2
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
I I Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 2
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
>0 (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5 5

00 (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
W 14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 4
F (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
to 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)

16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
2
(no riffles/ripples les or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
Q
17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
3
rFr (little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
d 18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0- 5 0- 5 0- 5 5
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0- 4 0- 4 4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 2
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
C7 21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 2
O (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
04
O
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 74
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name:-Archdale Partners, LLC
3. Date of evaluation: 3/14/06
2. Evaluator's name: _KHA (BAR)
4. Time of evaluation: 8:30am
5. Name of stream:_UT Muddy Creek (Stream 3- intermitt) 6. River basin:_Cape Fear
7. Approximate drainage area:_0.04 sq. mile
9. Length of reach evaluated:-795 ft.
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
8. Stream order: 1
10. County: Guilford
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other GPS
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): Property
located in SE quadrant of I-85 and NC 62 interchange. Stream 3-intermitt.
14. Proposed channel work (if any):_Road crossing
15. Recent weather conditions: Sunny, 70 degrees F
16. Site conditions at time of visit: clear,
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive -X-Waters Water Supply Watershed _IV_(I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: -75-% Residential _10_% Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
_15_% Forested
22. Bankfull width:
2-feet
% Cleared / Logged % Other ()
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 1-feet
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) _X_Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight -Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous -X-Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream
may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score
assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 61 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering
the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score
resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or
requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet
# ti
Ch
i
t Ecore ion Point Range Score
arac
er
s
cs Coastal Piedmont Mountain
I Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 5
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 4
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 4
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
a 5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 4
U no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)

6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
3
(no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2 4
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
acent wetlands = max points)
(no wetlands = 0; large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 1
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
I I Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 1
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)

12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
3
? (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)

13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
5
.Yi severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
M 14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 2
F (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
(A 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)

16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
l
(no riffles/ripples les or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
Q
1 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
2
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
Q
18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
5
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)

19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0- 4 0- 4 4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 2
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
Q no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
14
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
M
23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
3
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)

Total Points Possible too 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 61
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name:-Archdale Partners, LLC
3. Date of evaluation: 3/14/06
5. Name of stream:_UT Muddy Creek (Stream 3- perenn)
7. Approximate drainage area:_0.04 sq mile
9. Length of reach evaluate d:-79 5 ft.
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
2. Evaluator's name: _KHA (BAR)
4. Time of evaluation: 8:30am
6. River basin:_Cape Fear_
8. Stream order: -l
10. County:_Gui
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other GPS
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): Property
located in SE quadrant of I-85 and NC 62 interchange. Stream 3-perennial.
14. Proposed channel work (if any):_Road crossing
15. Recent weather conditions: Sunny, 70 degrees F
16. Site conditions at time of visit: clear;
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known:
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluati
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: -75-% Residential
_15_% Forested
Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Nutrient Sensitive -X -Waters Water Supply Watershed _IV_(I-IV)
on point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
-10% Commercial _% Industrial Agricultural
% Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 10-feet 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 5-feet.
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) _X_Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: -Straight -Occasional bends -Frequent meander Very sinuous -X-Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream
may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score
assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 58 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering
the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score
resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or
requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet
# Ecore ion Point Range score
Characteristics
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
I Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max oints
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 5
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 4
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 4
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
.a
5 Groundwater discharge 0- 3 0- 4 0- 4 4
Q (no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2 l
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
x Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 1
a (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
acent wetlands = max points)
(no wetlands = 0; large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 l
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
I I Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 3
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)

12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
F (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
.y 13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5 2
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
r?
W 14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 2
H (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
rn I5 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 3
F (no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
Q
1 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 4
F (little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
?r
W
I8
Canopy coverage over streambed
0- 5
0- 5
0- 5
5
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)

l9 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 1
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0 -5 4
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
Q (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
07

22 Presence offish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous t es = max oints)
r23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
3
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 58
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name:-Archdale Partners, LLC
3. Date of evaluation: 3/14/06
2. Evaluator's name: _KHA (BAR)
4. Time of evaluation: 8:30am
5. Name of stream:_UT Muddy Creek (Stream 4-intermitt) 6. River basin:_Cape Fear
7. Approximate drainage area:_0.21 sq miles
8. Stream order: -l
9. Length of reach evaluated:-55 ft. 10. County:-Guilford
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
GPS
y
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):_Propert
located in SE quadrant of I-85 and NC 62 interchange. Stream 4-intermitt.
14. Proposed channel work (if any):_Road crossing
15. Recent weather conditions:
Sunny, 70 degrees F
16. Site conditions at time of visit: clear,
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive -X-Waters Water Supply Watershed _IV_(I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _75_ % Residential
_15_% Forested
22. Bankfull width: 2-feet
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%;
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends -
point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
_10_% Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
_% Cleared / Logged % Other ()
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 2-feet
_X_Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%
-Frequent meander Very sinuous -X-Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream
may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score
assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 33 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature
Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering
the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score
resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or
requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet
# Ch
i
i Ecore ion Point Range r
S
aracter
st
cs
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain co
e
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)

2 Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 1
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
a 5 Groundwater discharge 0- 3 0- 4 0- 4 4
U no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
U
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
l
rn (no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2 1
96 (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
acent wetlands = max points)
(no wetlands = 0; large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 0
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 3
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 1
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
F (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)

13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
5
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
?r
M
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
1
F no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
rn 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)

16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
I
H (no riffles/ripples les or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
d
17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
I
F (little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
r
r
M
18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
1
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)

19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 1
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
V 21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
O (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
M
23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0 -5
0
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
E
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 33
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name:-Archdale Partners, LLC
3. Date of evaluation: 3/14/06
2. Evaluator's name: _KHA (BAR)
4. Time of evaluation: 8:30am
5. Name of stream:_UT Muddy Creek (Stream 5) 6. River basin:-Cape Fear_
7. Approximate drainage area:_0.21 sq. miles 8. Stream order:-
I-9. Length of reach evaluated:76 ft. 10. County:-Guilford
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location detennined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other GPS
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):_Property
located in SE quadrant of I-85 and NC 62 interchange. Stream 5 - intermitt.
14. Proposed channel work (if any):-fill
15. Recent weather conditions: Sunny, 70 degrees F
16. Site conditions at time of visit: clear,
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive -X-Waters Water Supply Watershed _IV_(I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 75_ % Residential
_15_% Forested
22. Bankfull width: 2-feet
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%;
point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
_10_% Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
_% Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 2-feet
_X_Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends -Frequent meander Very sinuous -X-Braided channel
instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream
may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score
assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 68 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering
the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score
resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or
requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
Date
Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet
# i
i Ecore ion Point Range Score
st
cs
Character
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 5
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 4
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
a
5 Groundwater discharge 0- 3 0- 4 0- 4 4
d no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 3
(no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2 4
a+ (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 3
acent wetlands = max points)
(no wetlands = 0; large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 2
extensive channetization = 0; natural meander = max points)
l0 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 4
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 1
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)

12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5 5
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
rr
M 14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 3
F (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
rn 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 2
F (no riffles/ripples or oots = 0; well-developed = max points)
Q
1 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 3
H (little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
M 18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0- 5 0- 5 0- 5 5
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)

19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 0
Q no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 2
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 loo
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 68
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name:-Archdale Partners, LLC 2. Evaluator's name: _KHA
3. Date of evaluation: 3/14/06
4. Time of evaluation: 8:30am
5. Name of stream:_UT Muddy Creek (Stream 6-intermitt) 6. River basin:_Cape Fear
7. Approximate drainage area:_0.21 sq miles
9. Length of reach evaluated:-55 ft.
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
8. Stream order: 1
10. County:-Guilford
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
GPS
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):_Property
located in SE quadrant of I-85 and NC 62 interchange. Stream 6-intermitt.
14. Proposed channel work (if any):_Road crossing
15. Recent weather conditions:
Sunny, 70 degrees F
16. Site conditions at time of visit: clear,
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive -X-Waters Water Supply Watershed _IV_(I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: -75-% Residential _10_% Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
_15_% Forested _% Cleared / Logged % Other ()
22. Bankfull width:
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 2-feet
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) _X_Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight -Occasional bends -Frequent meander Very sinuous _X-Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream
may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score
assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse):_26 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering
the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score
resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or
requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet
# Ch
i
ti
t Ecore ion Point Range S
arac
er
cs
s
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain core
I Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 1
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 l
no buffer = 0; conti ous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
..7
5 Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
2
U no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
"" 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2 0
(no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2 1
a+ (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 0
(no wetlands = 0; large ad
acent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 0
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 3
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 1
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 1
F (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
l3 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5 3
r (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
.
14
d
14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
1
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 1
F (no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
Q
17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
1
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
Pq 18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5 1
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)

19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0- 4 0- 4 I
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

21 Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

Q
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
0
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)

Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 26
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name:-Archdale Partners, LLC
3. Date of evaluation: 3/14/06
2. Evaluator's name: _KHA (AR)
4. Time of evaluation: 8:30am
5. Name of stream:-UT Muddy Creek (Stream 7) 6. River basin:_Cape Fear
7. Approximate drainage area:_0.13 sq. mile
9. Length of reach evaluated:_1121 ft.
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
8. Stream order: 1
10. County:_GuiIford
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other GPS
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):_Property
located in SE quadrant of I-85 and NC 62 interchange. Stream 7.
14. Proposed channel work (if any):_Road crossing_
15. Recent weather conditions: Sunny, 70 degrees F
16. Site conditions at time of visit: clear,
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters -Nutrient Sensitive -X-Waters Water Supply Watershed _IV(I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: -75-% Residential _10_% Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
_15_% Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other ()
22. Bankfull width: 10-feet 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 5-feet
24. Channel slope down center of stream:
25. Channel sinuosity: -Straight
Flat (0 to 2%) _X_Gentle (2 to 4%)
Occasional bends -Frequent meander _
Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%)
Very sinuous -X-Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream
may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score
assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 69 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering
the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score
resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or
requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet
# i
i Ecore ion Point Range score
Character
st
cs
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 5
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 4
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
a
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 4
U no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
0 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 2
(no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)

' Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2 2
a (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2 2
acent wetlands = max points)
(no wetlands = 0; large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 2
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 2
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max point.
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 3
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)

12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
F (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5 2
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
M 14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 4
H (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
l5 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5 4
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 5
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
Q
I Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 4
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
M 18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5 5
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)

r
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 2
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 2
Q (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

0
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
3
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)

Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 69
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
NCDWQ Stream Identification Forms
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 3.1
Date: 3/14/2006 Project: Archdale Retail Dev Latitude:
Evaluator: BAR Site: Stream 1 Longitude:
Total Points: 40

Stream is at least intermittent
County: Guilford Other
e.g. Quad Name: High Point East
if z 19 or perennial if z 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 20 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7, Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade Control 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainage way 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS ma or other documented evidence. No = 0 Yes - 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussion in manual
B. Hvdrologv Subtotal = 9.5
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- d or growing season 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Bioloqy Subtotal = 10.5
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 b. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h on 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fun us 0 0.5 1 1.5
29b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; sAV = 2.0; Other = 0
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 3.1
Date: 3/14/2006 Project: Archdale Retail Dev Latitude:
Evaluator: BAR Site: Stream 2 Longitude:
Total Points: 33
Stream is at least intermittent County: Guilford Other e.g. Quad Name: High Point East
if z 19 or perennial if z 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 18.5 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1 a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade Control 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainage way 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS ma or other documented evidence. No = 0 Yes = 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussion in manual
R Hvrirnlnnv Suhtntal = 6.5
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or Water
in channel -- d or growing season 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C_ Bioloav Subtotal =
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 b. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h on 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fun us 0 0.5 1 1.5
29b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; sAV = 2.0; other = 0
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
One frog observed; one crayfish observed: multiple amphipods
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 3.1
Date: 3/14/2006 Project: Archdale Retail Dev Latitude:
Evaluator: BAR Site: Stream 3 - Intermit Longitude:
Total Points: 25

Stream is at least intermittent
County: Guilford Other
e.g. Quad Name: High Point East
if a 19 or perennial if z 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 11 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade Control 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainage way 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS ma or other documented evidence. No = 0 Yes= 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussion in manual
B. Hvdrolocav Subtotal =
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or Water
in channel -- dry or growing season 0 1 2
- 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biolo Subtotal =
201. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
211. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h on 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fun us 0 0.5 1 1.5
291. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; sAV = 2.0; Other = 0
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 3.1
Date: 3/14/2006 Project: Archdale Retail Dev Latitude:
Evaluator: BAR Site: Stream 3 - Pernnial Longitude:
Total Points: 36

Stream is at least intermittent
County: Guilford Other
e.g. Quad Name: High Point East
if z 19 or perennial if z 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 17.5 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade Control 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainage way 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS ma or other documented evidence. No = 0 Yes - 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussion in manual
B. Hvdrologv Subtotal = 8.5
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or Water
in channel -- d or growing season 0 1 2
- 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biology Subtotal = 10
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 b. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h on 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fun us 0 0.5 1 1.5
29b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 3.1
Date: 3/14/2006 Project: Archdale Retail Dev Latitude:
Evaluator: BAR Site: Stream 4 Longitude:
Total Points: 15.5

Stream is at least intermittent
County: Guilford Other
e.g. Quad Name: High Point East
if ? 19 or perennial if z 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 8 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade Control 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainage way 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS ma or other documented evidence. No = 0 Yes - 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussion in manual
B. Hvdroloav Subtotal = 5.5
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- d or growing season 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biology Subtotal =
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 b. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5 .
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h on 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fun us 0 0.5 1 1.5
29b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; sAV = 2.0; Other = 0
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 3.1
Date: 3/14/2006 Project: Archdale Retail Dev Latitude:
Evaluator: BAR Site: Stream 5 Longitude:
Total Points: 18.5
Stream is at least intermittent County: Guilford Other e.g. Quad Name: High Point East
if a 19 or perennial if z 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 11 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3

2. Sinuosity
0
1
2 -
3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade Control 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainage way 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS ma or other documented evidence. No = 0 Yes - 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussion in manual
B. Hydroloply Subtotal = 5.5
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or Water
in channel -- d or growing season 0 1 2
- 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biology Subtotal =
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 b. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h on 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fun us 0 0.5 1 1.5
29b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; sAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 3.1
Date: 3/14/2006 Project: Archdale Retail Dev Latitude:
Evaluator: BAR Site: Stream 6 Longitude:
Total Points: 13.5

Stream is at least intermittent
County: Guilford Other
e.g. Quad Name: High Point East
if z 19 or perennial if z 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 6.5 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1 a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade Control 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainage way 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS ma or other documented evidence. No = 0 Yes = 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussion in manual
B. H drolo Subtotal = 5
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or Water
in channel -- dry or growing season 0 1
- 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biolo Subtotal = 2
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 b. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h on 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fun us 0 0.5 1 1.5
29b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 3.1
Date: 11/9/2006 Project: Archdale Retail Dev Latitude: 35°54'50.06"N
Evaluator: AKR Site: Stream 7 Longitude: 79°56'33.36"W
Total Points:

Stream is at least intermittent
County: Guilford Other
e.g. Quad Name: High Point East
if ? 19 or perennial if z 30 45.51 1
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 25.5 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade Control 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainage way 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS ma or other documented evidence. No = 0 Yes = 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussion in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 11
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or Water
in channel -- d or growing season 0 1 2 3
-
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Bioloqy Subtotal =
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 b. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h on 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fun us 0 0.5 1 1.5
29b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
Appendix D: Stormwater/Hydrology Report
Wolverton & Associates
HYDROLOGY REPORT
SHOPS AT BUSH HILL
ARCHDALE,
GUILFORD & RANDOLPH COUNTIES, NC
W&A Project No. 06-123
April 26, 2006
WOLVERTON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
6745 SUGARLOAF PARKWAY
SUITE 100
DULUTH, GA 30097
[phone] PHONE
[phone] FAX
www.wolverton-assoc.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
2. PRE-DEVELOPED SITE CONDITIONS
3. POST-DEVELOPED SITE CONDITIONS
4. SUMMARY
APPENDICES:
APPENDIX A: Drainage Area Maps
¦ Pre-Development Drainage Map
• Post-Development Drainage Map
APPENDIX B: Calculations for Wet Detention Ponds
APPENDIX C: Outlet Control Structure Details
APPENDIX D: Culvert Sizing
APPENDIX E: Planting Table
APPENDIX F: Operations and Maintenance Agreement
Wolverton 6t Associates
HYDROLOGY STUDY
ARCHDALE RETAIL DEVELOPMENT, ARCHDALE, NC
1. INTRODUCTION
Archdale Partners, LLC is proposing to build a three-phased commercial development within the City of
Archdale, North Carolina near the Intersection of Highway 62 and Weant Road. The subject property is
within both Randolph and Guilford Counties. The site is bound by residential property to the south and
east. It is bounded by roadways to the north and west.
The development of Phase I and II will consist of developing the area along Weant Road. Phase I and II will
consist of a 153,000 square foot discount store, a 117,000 square foot home improvement store, 20,000
square feet of retail shops, residential areas, and several outparcels. This development will include
buildings, parking lots, associated utilities and shared stormwater wetland areas. Water quality and
detention will be provided for the Phase I and Phase II construction through the use of stormwater
detention wetland areas. A total of five detention wetlands are proposed. The water quality and detention
calculations assume that the Phase I and Phase H sites will be fully developed and that no additional water
quality measure will be necessary for these areas.
Phase III of the project will consist of the development of the area between Interstate 85 and the proposed
east-west road. Currently, no formal plan exists for this area. The only development in this area for Phases
I and II is the construction of Bush Hill Boulevard, the access road linking Aldridge Road and the discount
store/home improvement store area.
All of the stormwater wetland areas will be designed per the requirements of the NCDNR Stormwater Best
Management Practices, dated April 1999. The wetland areas will include a permanent pool and will be
designed to detain the first one-inch of rainfall for a period of time between two and five days. Required
Water Quality BMP's will be incorporated into the design of the ponds in order to minimize impacts to
stream and conveyance system.
The study examines the pre-developed and post-developed site hydrology based upon the design
requirements of the City of Archdale and the Randleman Lake Watershed. The ponds will provide
detention such that the one-year storm is detained to a peak flow rate less than the pre-developed peak flow
rate. The one-year, 24-hour storm value was provided by NC DNR personnel. Hydraflow Hydrographs
2004 Computer Program with an SCS-Type 11 distribution was used for analysis.
2. PRE-DEVELOPED SITE CONDITIONS
Currently the site is partially wooded with dense bush-type vegetation and grassed in the non-wooded
areas. A perennial stream bisects the central part of the site. A second stream bisects the east part of the
1
Wdverton?6c?Associates
site. Both streams are unnamed tributaries to Muddy Creek. Basin delineation, Study Points 1 and 2,
wetland areas and stream buffer areas are shown on the Predevelopment Drainage Map presented in
Appendix A. There are two drainage basins on the site, referred to as Basin 1 and Basin 2, and two
additional basins not included in the project area, Offsite 1 and Offsite 2, which contribute flow to Study
Points 1 and 2, respectively. The drainage basin hydraulic parameters are summarized below.

4011! a }#?? b s ?; on ern tra#io?n?

Basin 1 135.7 65 35.9
Offsite 1 0.5 83 35.9
Basin 2 29.4 63 29.2
Offsite 2 0.9 72 29.2
t s f C. ¢ SJ I?^ty r W? R' t "4yn P x 4.Lf i?tT. -a+s. zT`i }t n 7 .?}.

mgR
j'^"4, s hx 3'S?I.t ~s.° } } s ,+?«. ...f t
PRI DYOP>?D R I'14?
tt
40-
?,t ? ' T? tat Plc`T 1 oNY
t
Siuc3
'P1,
; Onsite Peak Plow r03f Ee Pc 1k?
t Stud
Polilt '
'`
4
r?
l
3
'
Y '' a z s ?, f.d? y
a
s i+
f
7 yy
? ? i( 1?A0?'" t?'.ls?t. J'???? ?A3 rt ??
x?ta3
'"3 sL;
?CfS? r?
y
y
c
}
Y
..t<+r-i
1 31.50 0.47 31.95
2 5.93 0.51 6.43
3. POST-DEVELOPED SITE CONDITIONS
The site will be developed in three phases. Phase I and Phase II areas are located along Weant Road.
Phase I and II will consist of a 153,000 square foot discount store, a 117,000 square foot home
improvement store, 20,000 square feet of retail shops, a multi-family development, and several outparcels.
This development will include buildings, parking lots, associated utilities and shared detention ponds.
Phase III is not addressed in this report with the exception of Bush Hill Boulevard, which links Aldridge
Road and the discount / home improvement areas.
Seven onsite drainage basins and two oflsite basins have been delineated as shown on the Post-Development
Drainage Map in Appendix A. Upon development, Basin 1 is divided into Basin 1A, which includes the
home improvement store, discount store, and shops, Basin 1B which includes Bush Hill Boulevard and an
industrial area, and Bypass 1 which includes the creek area, buffer areas and other areas that bypass the
detention ponds. Upon development, Basin 2 is divided into eight outlots, and a residential area and Bypass
2 which includes the creek/buffer area. The drainage basin hydraulic parameters are summarized below.
2
Wolverton 6t
sociates
d.r 'S ? Y,.K "??, Yi i -E t r?? !'T?r P„?? ?s?a`.?? +?t' Y?%''a?k+fr??? . `rn?`?`!"? ?
T
l
? ?4tf •3?x'?.??.e' ?1 ? ? 1
C

? c'? s.rrf?`?'h ??+a'?ux?.-?. i^•"
z'?GT????? `ar??zs9 U
is_e
I?t
m
eTi ?C??Y?e.?r??x't' i????as?'
?
" ?
eaz??
?
',.?r''t .??''?iSS'_
'?`'1 ?L31ik
-.t-?' ?s•?3?-?? ±s a"t.5 ,?a?r .. a??.x r ? ?' ?. F r*. ? ?
t
hs.>" • w
.q
??Lt= ? 1"+!,'a?. 'xtt>_c??'+
Basin 1A 56.7 92 7.0
Basin 1B 27.2 90 5.0
Bypass 1 51.8 66 35.9
Offsite 1 0.5 83 35.9
Basin 2A 10.6 95 5.0
Basin 2B 4.9 90 5.0
Basin 2C 8.4 93 5.6
Bypass 2 5.7 60 32.9
Offsite 2 0.9 68 29.2
The detention ponds are sized to detain the first one-inch of rainfall that falls on the contributing basin and
to detain the one-year, 24-hour storm such that the pre-developed peak flow rates are not exceeded.
Appendix B presents the calculations for wet detention ponds for each basin. Each of the detention ponds
will be designed as a wet pond with forebay, a permanent pool, and a micro pool. The permanent pool will
include two zones; a 0 to 9-inch zone and a 9 to 18-in zone. The permanent pool surface area will be at
least 70% of the total pool area as shown in Appendix B. A minimum of 1 foot of freeboard between the
settled embankment and the 100-year water surface elevation will be provided. The information is
summarized in Appendix B in the calculations for wet detention ponds for each pond. An emergency
spillway has been sized to pass higher flows above the runoff from the 1-inch storm. Outlet control
structures are detailed in Appendix C. A table showing wetland plantings is included in Appendix D. The
tables below summarize the ponds.
h? t? ?{L.t 4 4 1 "Iu ?'Y t
11 a:r.' '?'; ,.i.,, x.. .i t.....>,"T" ..c...... , .... ,. _ ..5:. CF ' 1....., ., i a .7 ....: S`...1?..` '.,''?
Ba§ _ WQV (ft3) 1 EYY1 O r?xri z? ?srp?tPl'ri ` J ` CI' ?}Q 11 f i?di Ael7
4 -
Tem ora L
PoQlolue T
han 3.Z {
4Q
} Y Yf JL. EV?. ?n
'Water- tt

J T r
?x ,

? ,
z
i.vt h .Viii 3J"'1 .+. S"b h fx
i? i2 "? i'x,
? n
T J s s.
xSi ?+'lk " Jnx c'3 L t 1
x. ? ? ,.'?.z '? ?? •
f
f
?
i?-Pool
?
3 ? PrOVxded ? I
ix`
t
Y x
R:ec?uiriedZ?
z bleeat?.?h5s t?
??ur
ac
?-_?t (
4
x
??
Yolume f LL
?
L,?
y
axtt Sn 3 Cn r ?
fir y's n ky
d 7c
C h s. F.
? NI y r 3 ,3? ?:.-
?
.? ft1 _ Z
u,dr
,hle?ation :, ?

IA 175,154 189,491 Yes 776.00 779.47 78q.50
1B 83,163 87,263 Yes 767.00 770.89 772.00
2A 31,976 33,042 Yes 812.00 813.99 815.00
2B 13,297 15,300 Yes 806.00 808.76 810.00
2C 23,570 25,376 Yes 820.00 822.99 824.00
wozton?6t?Associates

'
- ;? _ - i - ? ? a '?"'v.4ziJ?' sN ?at?i '?.x ? ?_ '`ei.-;e'"4Y r?,z.? iz''.`? „?} ? 7 ,'Y,`.''N 'gnu- S .C' ...h'71 rt•-...mr{t?,Pi-s--i.•c•t i'i?o"? a. i'? Ic
' ???,w i1t?t'h?i x .µ'2S fe'l?. z„saYr .sa,i..cs -`+.'fo .'?a ?,c r? n [?.? `/, I?7 tea i?£•?5? t?T.?iia?il.asF3?t
'
l3F ?:
'1-
"
1: 17? 7/,??:1Y;
y
"" S`+''lY
ititt
'i
iy
{-.i
w
?t'`
k'
?-
?
`
?
'
m ? .ieax'.a c:.1 S I? -
}`R k1 a??.?t
[
?
y
J
?
?
-
i.
,
?
,
nary.
?
i^
ei?
?i?
?::53
.
w.
4
^n
,d
S za
r
,,.=?y
L Y . -. 4?.11}'?Y1 3.'[.. ... - -'2 ? ? X{ n... +G ? ?? Gf.SUf:?YKZ?I??'? ??i.??'E? ile?.??`v 7 ^? i? . ? .;.?. Sc?.'?R:?x'.?1 iY wI? ?!•S ::.?'JSS{G.'?..'1.? „ . 3R ?s1
-.^i3Rv c. P?#`-»'"fA.3.r'.; ".•t...t?a...Yi?xr....,.aa'Y.. t«:,. •.,. ,.... z:V.. .....: ,
,
.
A"_iiy.r»?'L•J?.:.."S.-.? ` .t.'
-c{. ,{ d h 3 ^.t ''7, 'ytP d'FC sr, d acc c,. =y .:E s'.et. vi d ?"r x 7 a-- 1 3
1 efland3 ,xl?=Aec it ,,a RQvided, f?.
.
'Y '-i Tz F
y N .f
? ,

.
?4?t # y •ih.'?•?fS ,b tk
.
W
T., 1
T)e1e o ? ?? ??$2 S11? ?M 1Cx0
a? pY.ria Fc+ E'er'! 'V' i. .? u' " r^ 'fi=t a k z! fir.-r- x1. a 3ng2 a5r3 'emu a2,.5 a,:
h£?
e
?
??''
'?

?, 1?.11?Q?
?+"
i
^s_
r a u
sSr
0
?7N?
???S:,s.{
i°
a<rs
S L Saa
r--'{-c
' z f'r• -
gi '
l
l?
'
?
?
r y •e...:
a
?
r
?{
{
S
?
J
hf?sr
S,M"?O
a?.?
u?rEan
?.?s.,.: {--'s s:fi-f?.li,l? d?:Sa
is-?z xvirs..s.n.rx.?n
i,. `s'..?-r:..a ?,,.. ax,5ar•"r. ..., z. ...,. £ ;
;'..
IA 13,856 32,330 32,330 13,8S6 14,347 51,473 32,510 13,908
IB 6,647 15,509 15,509 6,647 6870 17,377 15,745 6,765
2A 2,595 6,055 6,055 2,595 7,645 15,107 7,102 2,800
2B 1,203 2,809 2,809 1,203 1,229 7,137 2,896 1,336
2C 2,012 4,697 4,697 2,012 2,038 5,514 4,715 2,543
Detention is provided such that the one-year peak flow at each study point is less in the post-development
than in the pre-development condition. The peak flows are summarized below.
h?'h? ?1f' OT DEVLOPED?,
t[y" Z'Y` }x '?^ 4 'S 21 4
' z{:i. } ?. L i f. ` hY 2 !v 'i%5::
'
1'
'
E
z.ONe"!t 1< I-IW,S
tI,STIIDY'
OIN`1
5
F c.,B 1
x
J
?'{
z
s i,
yy
r?.'
f..rl?
r[Q??M "E

Pond 1 A 9.69
Pond 1B 3.24
Bypass 13.64
Total 23.70
Pond 2A 2.02
Pond 2B 0.79
Pond 2C 2.20
Bypass 0.64
Mite 0.51
Total 5.77
f PRA DEYELQPED V S.-,-OSTmD VE OPLD

1
- du
? ''? ?
i -HPrc DPVelape?
I= _ z?-
?
ta
x z ?
.
u{'vs ?exelojzed
!R
t?xdy,Poixf ; ai.
Pe?YV ' '? ?L , ? ?? ?s
4 AE
>_-0 i
i
'
i ? L r4 jh 3 .
..... ..%?" .. ...,.•p,,.',.7' 3,.. .... ,n ?,
.
ly3 b. f ?
?L 4 )
.... y.:....z... T..? ....'ti ttr.l.. lc: - ... _:d'ix 3-i t}'-?' "L ..,i.:
1 31.95 23.70
2 6.43 5.77
4
IAT
Mlvertonv& Assoclates
4.0 SUMMARY
The plan provides water quality protection for the envisioned development through the use of five extended
detention wetlands. The wetlands are designed per the guidelines in the NCDNR Stormwater Best
Management Practices, dated April 1999. Additional design criteria shown on the Extended Detention
Wetland worksheets were also incorporated. Detention for the one-year, 24-hour SCS Storm is provided
such that the post-development peak flow rates are less than the pre-developed peak flow rates.
4?olvetton` •6??AssocWes
APPENDICES
w??
APPENDIX A.
DRAINAGE AREA MAPS
PRE-DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE MAP
POST-DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE MAP
AAT
WbMnorAssocLl&s
N ~
ac Z m
..
LLI
?- m¢ o?
Q CL
ti g
C Q W i? . at
LLI
12
W
4.0
?r'.-?.+f.
'NI+"""'
myN it-,
IS.
'Y. ct \ 5 ??`?\f` ?°1tC1 o t a
i;I,-,' C•
e 1 t
\ \ _ iGi?G ? r? R4 t t ? x ?? S =? 9 ? r t \ `t \C ? } Its ?-. ?`
;s
I, V4
tit \?, `:\ \ ? ? \ ., d sad t _, "'7><„?.x. -?- ',\ \ \ \ \` , v ??'`? ^
_Wl
94,
W A-
il?m
_:-..' Pow
F7
j f'%< F",+t?"`%`';'a??r h /?•„,',?7.,+
/
9 's
"0 N
??--, T ?`? ? ,.?_ ?. ?? \ ? ? ?'` .' ;-' , ,1 ?-? ?„? ` ?,:•^??' ??, . ?;? ;, ?, ? I; ?'?"/jam- ?' ;::
1 1 rt \ '. ? ? \ - Trrr '` 1, r -?? t;? .,a }y???. ? f ti ? _ _ r
("'+r?^•?.t/ ' it _- ?\\? _ ? \?? . ? _y'°-`?„ VY l? .i"wT.....?. ,\ . \ ? ?i\?` j ? , `, ? `. ` !?t^T'f? +ra ` ? ?? _
UZ q N q N
F-? M N c N
Z Lo Ice)
O
U CD CC) co C
D

W U
LO ICT
Lq
W
Qa r N O O
Q
r
N r N

Z Z Z I_
CJ)
W
< LL
LL LL
LL
m m m O O
y ???? \ Y n
------------
----------- ---
?-1\15?t
a -1
14e°?(` y
6MP-Ot^£Zt-90\fZt-90\90\1da0 a7!5\:Z
wd2G:t - LOOZ '9Z jdy - jouunb 2135!1
F- ?
N Z c
v
u W CL
1
°N° z Q o
01
m z O ?a
o O dg 13- LLJ
N Z r.-cwPs, W +?
L
Cl)
a K,?t ,?: > Q 3
rti+ ' 'F' Tr r \ '}° r Q i41 w
µL
V! ? Q 6
/'L
` i
r •.. < , - - ?? try' a \'' o v
• \ S

z :m
? '? . o\. ?: ?\ o ?\` f? •? i; : '.--r1r.',,,?5 r ? r ? •, ? I .1?- _ ' t I 1 ? ? ? i . {i 1 w4'`a_
,7 f
.Y 1?,1 ?•-„?i' \ `t,\ r . \ ._ I f r-t rr??z + r Y 1 , /?%
K' X
?\ sr ''?.m AY
(L
??,,,?`?.a?r. ??--- _ = I r? r ?lI t?ir;'.?,?•.!v r!'?. lei'
gh -- U Z O O uj Lo O O cD (3)

nj
f.- r? O C'7 C'7 Lc) LO LO N M
O O
V 0) rn co co 0) 0) 0) co co
Q?
co
1-
co
O

:
d
O
Q- O N O O ,- 10 06 O LO

co
4 ?
W Q
CV m
N
N N
W N
Cn
Z Z Z Z co
Fn Fn Fn - L Li w w
j? a5 CL
co m m m 0 CO m co O LL >-
m

6MP'OL^£ZL-90VZL-90\90\ida0 alIS\:Z
wdLS:l - LOOZ '9Z AV - louun6 233sn
180 Y bmt ? ,\ / ?/'' ??.. ! y??'v?? / \\ /T.? ? / , / / ' 7.. ? ..`, '?,r`l?'''j????v,' Y!! Y.y?",1 \1 .. _
i ,,o ' ; / / ? • mss=/'??Y .. \? ?? ?, i'? i r / ,,i' ' / ? ? - " .i- r
41
/ /?• ?'' I 1;'. / k re '? % / ?! : J • .. r:':L 8. ?ti 1T(,?S c'Vl"'_
`.\v` / r?ii. / \ \ /. /', %?ii ' 't:c?• .aREn !?s rc;c
r1 ji \ , / / iJT i 1 r/' / t /'rte. • `` F ?a c
RAII
I' ! ?}? df r ,r.•g ;• ;''iyc) Fl?l''rA Or"iLF \ \ \ \
Ail
1 _ •?, ?/'T ? .E' .411.E ,il,.! .).?f?1 ,?.h?° p S' _ \ ?\ \,
9.ETENTI
/774 WET A
' / / ,• ?.-r ?+? 1, ? , \ ` ? `
..'?.[•' ? \ '^ .. ./ .... '''r 't r \ 1 ? 1 ?h?'•v49
TI
mso
Zl?
?'"`.•! err 1 % r ? / ? ?..
12
GRAPHIC SCALP
,m w ,w ]°o wo
I IN nm )
1 '..h - 100 /t
WOLVERTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
JOB No. 06-123 DATE: 4/17/07 ARCHDALE, NC 1/5
06-123V10,awG
4 4
i
\ 7' /
\ ?' ?17? r t ire \ ~ ?? ! ?i ?! l // / %/ jj i / \..•?`';1
\e ht
;? z ?? t? l? (• ii I r t > }
t? t 't l / hl? \' p? m AC', -94 -7045-945-5 /.
J ?.? ?) ?? 7117 f ?? } 1I,+1'I '\ i 1 ?3 ?', t ' IC1'±;llFp;2,? rOLh,'lY- /
GII?/ /i
/ /,"com,
IYI' iYrl• AREA YIY' SI'1 i i P ? I \ 1 r()U;U (f: - SEf •PLANS
r t 5 i y I ( _ ASSOCIATE
.;A,C'St iMPROV
LVDEM
1 \ t' , ?,
INF6
/ / % ,, ?.???,r 1 i V;? FOR RE
iaaIB q , ?! ?, T?L I I I I \t?ya ` \ % / % i
R .0
!! ' J \ t\ ), e
I I I I i 1 `1 { ? ? 5 IQ?Af1'_ ? \ ?. ? \ `$ ?? '? ,?j }I?i?oi.+ •{?'•' ??????` ...-
I i t{ { I II i ` )g { a+E xEj
A L5
} I I r f , '? I ? \ t-.7. , "` b`6 sot ? ?M1\ -i .. _-
I l \ \,\ a ?M1x M1
I I ( I I 1 \ ' \\?? \.? ? ` \ ,Tg1g1-M1M1 M1 - 777.82_-..
` t
1 It t t ,' 1} \ \ \ ? \' ? ? ` \ ?? ,... " ?? a \ l _ i 172 18
I A\'\
`
'
\
1 \ \ \? \
769.22 __ - \ ...

?

'776
OZ

\ 5 ', n . s: IBb ?.-
\ \ ?• .7.g9.2 `-y ?_ --_ __. __ - _. __
•
_ _
.
\
? 187
J)a, r-'T °C-. ?.
\? \
.- ._
`• -- _
lei '? ? -,.. -_.. / •---=76!r- / ._ ?, \ _
196 75,
AND
..-• _-_•__- --
-rte -
,?.,_ •--_ \ ? i '
`
/

D
OSED
770--...
OWN -A.,
GRAPHIC SCALE
?p m ,w aw .oa
( W FEET 7
1 loo), - 1()9ft,
WOLVERTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ARCHDALE, NC 2/5
JOB No. 06-123 DATE: 4/17/07
66-123V10. DWG
10 1` ' 6 $1 fiYA
? ? I I? If ? ?( ? ror ? 1 ! l ? ( \-". ?° e? ? / 1 \' ,J \ ? S,.Y\v i'v ?• ' ?., >,+i ? •,.
OUTLO!
Ile V100/ f APR 10'1 ; h
III tl i ? f i ` 1 tf . ?`? \? •\ ? .=i' 9.?b
69 ( `?I 1 j 3, ??J_,?..y^!?`•?`"r•Y' ??? b ?1 ? //•J-' ?.f/'P'/ `11-?•?t".?`\ ?` ',?D' r• S?tn4; ?-Ct..: '' ? •
5 Ii}' )}I} t)r el s,sol 112` ?? ?I /7, .? <y it 1 \ )-4ti .1J'( AG'..-\ -3
17.2 l ?( ,\ I ?.?• ) C ` 1 ! ?1 -/ T .f?•i 'Ja' W!•\OT \ 1'l.r \ \ IYIU?
PWE \^ ?,.v .•Y\v •3?•- • r5 ^,. o
1 too i /? h,` \ \.. ?"' • \` 1.., o 0
e2ys ?t z e to3 i' e,b 9t ?; 1 / \ \ _ iot; , r y %t ° ?r•s `
.1 ?' ` 1 Y ?? \ \ , ) \ ;v'c ''114: E ." •TY•.
f ( ' n T 90 \ ri l J ?? \\ \ ??
I ?r 1136
all.
1-6
3i
139 ! W i ` \ xd 1 I\ '^~ ?? \??\' \`\ \ 1 \
?;,?', 20N ? \
tr`' \ \\...? \? \ \.. 1 rpg
I J r , I lI ?0lW Ilt ,+ \ ?,
u U)
OUTWIT
9 t g ES ,` r` \; "? .? \ ao
, N111
Ell
815.
86 PH. ''did J.9t? . 1 c*?" 1 ?\ ) •? \
+ 1 +??I ` 1 [?i / 8J 815.20
•,1 1 ,`I o ' '\ \, i• \. ?. ?r, x>-•---
1
, +- 1' , ••; _oy >,?, :?? ?- , 4 "? .\,\q \ .\ `r ILL .. • `i? \
1' / ? e ?5 ? is , ? 1\ \ ?\ ,\ \ l_ '•:\ `,? \ .?
t , ? •158 ?.. ` ? ? ? ? ? ' •\ ?\\__
! r 1! ? .. } 7 6,O.b0 A \ , 1Q.5? ' ` Bl \??, \ \ ' ' "` y.
815.,0 , 83 • LYJ\
1 I Y W
7;es2 s.?
165 1 ? I .t j , f _i-1_ LC i ° r 1?,1 ? 1t ` * ? - -• ' I 1 t .'+ 1 ' ?+_;_r>...\ ? \ \ ?.
rI
I I :?r '• ?' .$9, ••--
1;` o
I ?`? I a I ? +• -__. __'3; _rw°?,.?" ?. ?,.?--a , =: _ _ ? ?`•n?' i n ° ,. ..c . 1 /A%• ' C .. •1.,.'T l \`
ETINT{01?1........;.
. i :??•`_ CvK.ETLAND.S
SEE PLANS Y W?r LVERTPN .&.
ASSOCI'ATE f ORj PRQF(OSCO w :r ( ?1 7•. S \ 1 1 • t..t , ` \ `fie '+` \ , f
IMPROVEMENTS T. '.. ANT_R?' t n °V n f?•_, `JV r.J ?, 1 \ a%a \ lo! j ,
GRAPHIC SCALE
(1wmerl
1 fach - 100t1
WOLVERTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ARCHDALE, NC 3/5
JOB No. 06-123 DATE: 4/17/07
vo- ILJV IV. 0.1
?r
? >• ' " l 102 v ? (?rT IN .. .
ae' «1vmT \\
pivE L -
-41
J/ F•'
01?

i
1 ', a
i 810.'50 ??,? '\
?!a3fo.so

R Y rr } I i5
v ((J / ''

0` i 4 '1
GRAPHIC SCALE
i tpch ? I00 it
I WOLVERTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. I ARCHDALE, NC 4/5 I
JOB No. 06-123 DATE: 4/17/07
06-123Vt0.DWG
1 ?\
?i + ! DETENTION ??? \
\\ \ ?`? '? \ WETLANDS `
2113 %0'
', \ \` `\ ,\ .,..\ -• ?'7';';4N=PT'I?F3Uh?•? FC?7??
(\ '` \ \ \t \ .._.. _. SECTIO)? , r\w :3\ i
?`•,, ` \ PD, 4 I?G. \751\`} 1
. I
! ' 1L (•. .y..%?, r' LAN!-
1, it o? 1 i. t_ 0.20 / , i \ ' \ NIV
9Ja i\ J 126 121 r/? J \ 1
w\ CL A
/ , n o f! 'TI
ACRES , ( ..Fr" 2882 ! /o i! 1 I??QI / I ! ? ?.
lr>f / j / I f 01 l !
O ! ! i
,J 114 f .: ' ?•, ° - ?? • f t I 1 NI V
U- T044 ?f i i S! 1 %,1 7 .w
C tACREc ?rl ! ,lo,
--: - I o
`\.0- i v/
M1 17
./ /
1J6 ' _r 7 e, f eee r ..?.i r' :6PIT%?, ?j lr
131 rr I ?1 ? j t {/ J?r'7?lCi.??t;; ':Yv f
?.a 823.5
-.1f1;?,,,y?t-7?"v`: ••u?71i'?._._I O i
J \ 829.1 f• 1.? 117 < J e i .1
iaR?1?t?,•,? lcxt .r.,, P; . ? fJj l p % I ? '-..•-•,L. ? ?;%".. ".? is 1
13D
843: ` i 1 r ;
.r l f ._0' 23. so I+ ?n,,.."._?.` Sy
" a `? I 1 1f J ??1 ??IiV 1)\ (1
„y ` Ik s23 ?18 ±ACR ;P r' j C
CAR?+V>,_+4,iiTG."J r
1-4
y.? I ?? : h l DET f?TIbN (?} c'
?? ) Ql, i !! WET?ANDS \.. ., -
.. t. _t- `X , \` ? i. .?a`?""Y"YY'v'Y'Y-Y_?1-_L__ - •w..!'Fa •
,"
V1MO? \AREA'-EAST .
I 7 ? V t 4.6? tACRES
I" ! C 1 ?' 1, ? yY,, ?,r• '':' ?- '' ,
? ,+??J?7 ,^• ,,. ' /?:ti'I.:y:," i^?Y`i!? ;r%rY1,??% ?Z„ ^? v' ?-I` ?"`v? ry
LLOT ? 'I`4 .?-•-f?e'`? ? `? ), "? r..Y? }; / ,.d ±? `'K,4 ^``\t 1 ?n ,,
GRAPHIC SCALE
w0 +e ,00 x0 ao
IN MET )
7 i.0h = 300 (t
WOLVERTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
JOB No. 06-123 DATE: 4/17/07 ARCHDALE, NC 5/5
06-123VI0.0WG
APPENDIX B
CALCULATIONS FOR WET DETENTION PONDS
Mbherrvn
JOB
AXT SHEET NO. OF

Wolvelton & ASSOCIates CALCULATED BY DATE
CHECKED BY DATE
SCALE

0. 762- ?
q6 A-f,

0
G ? w Co 3

C) PD Pte.

Zcl, Z M ti? _ _
°? L LS

,-^- f a J?? OF
IXT
. ..??
Wo-lverton & Associates
JOB
SHEET NO. _
CALCULATED BY
CHECKED BY _
SCALE
OF _
DATE
DATE
_ ?t J

J2

?LcJ PC:-'`..y _ t >_a4- Erb G,, =S

+..,
0S, I
_ Ut3D F n ? . o - c.. ?.

To
pc>:tic) 2 C
?0 40
>oo r,r?
13 AL Cti= 98
55 l?C c, k)
= ??-
=??
D, 30 At cA?)

JOB
SHEET NO. _
Wolverton &. Associates CALCULATED BY
CHECKED BY _
SCALE
OF
DATE
DATE

_ 1?-2 (P?CDN(J /O, (v.Z /k MtrtiwtuM f M
tr'daL. A??
z

........
pol Z C3
p 6, (2

d ?opl?,
Imp

7
_ lk 2Ck v i°a Z) -
4,q 5 P
M
M i, tv t M t,t M _C' co

/,5 !`
ivv

rv l
L
M tit M . Dc?(li .-
cxt ?
?
2

!57„ (moo©?., f 2.v ?? kt Z
??2??i ? 20 3 Z. M N ??I
JOB
Pond Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve v9.02 Wednesday, Apr 18, 2007
Pond No. 1 - pond 1 a
Pond Data
Contours - User-defined contour areas. Conic method used for volume calculation. Begining Elevation = 776.00 ft
Stage 1 Storage Table
Stage (ft) Elevation (ft) Contour area (sgft) Incr. Storage (cuft) Total storage (cult)
0.00 776.00 112,828 0 0
4.00 780.00 159,229 541,402 541,402
Culvert I Orifice Structures
[A] [B] [C]
Rise (in) = 36.00 5.75 0.00
Span (in) = 36.00 5.75 0.00
No. Barrels = 1 1 0
Invert El. (ft) = 773.00 776.00 0.00
Length (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00
Slope (%) = 0.00 0.00 0.00
N-Value = .013 .013 .013
Orifice Coeff. = 0.60 0.60 0.60
Multi-Stage = nla Yes No
Stage I Storage / Discharge Table
Stage Storage Elevation Civ A
ft cult ft cis
0.00 0 776.00 0.00
0.40 54,140 776.40 41.68
0.80 108,281 776.80 41.68
1.20 162,421 777.20 41.68
1.60 216,561 777.60 41.68
2.00 270,701 778.00 41.68
2.40 324,841 778.40 41.68
2.80 378,982 778.80 45.51
3.20 433,122 779.20 62.22
3.60 487,262 779.60 69.73
4.00 541,402 780.00 75.00
Weir Structures
[PrtRsr] [A] [B] [C] [D]
0.00 Crest Len (ft) = 8.00 12.00 50.00 0.00
0.00 Crest El. (ft) = 777.40 778.00 778.00 0.00
0 Weir Coeff. = 3.33 3.33 2.60 3.33
0.00 Weir Type = Rect Rect Broad -
0.00 Multistage = Yes No No No
n/a
nla
0.60 Exfil.(inlhr) = 0.000 (by Wet area)
No TW Elev. (ft) = 0.00
Note: Culvert/Orifice outflows are analyzed under inlet and outlet control. Weir risers are checked for orifice conditions
Civ B Clv C PrtRsr Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Exfil User Total
CfS efs cis cfs cfs cis cfs cfs Cfs cfs
0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00
0.35 - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.35
0.65 - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.65
0.85 - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.85
1.01 - - 2.38 0.00 0.00 - - - 3.40
1.15 - - 12.38 0.00 0.00 - - - 13.54
1.28 - - 26.64 10.11 32.90 - - - 70.93
1.38 - - 44.14 28.60 93.05 - - - 167.16
1.01 - - 61.20 52.54 170.93 - - - 285.69
0.82 - - 68.90 80.89 263.16 - - - 413.77
0.70 - - 74.30 113.02 367.70 - - - 555.72
Pond Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by intelisolve v9.02 Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
Pond No. 5 - pond 1 b
Pond Data
Contours - User-defined contour areas. Conic method used for volume calculation. Begining Elevation = 767.00 ft
Stage / Storage Table
Stage (ft) Elevation (ft) Contour area (sgft) Incr. Storage (cuft) Total storage (cuff)
0.00 767.00 46,757 0 0
5.00 772.00 70,409 290,876 290,876
Culvert / Orifice Structures Weir Structures
[A] [B] [C] [PrfRsr] [A] [B] [C] [D]
Rise (in) = 36.00 3.00 6.00 0.00 Crest Len (ft) = 2.00 0.00 30.00 0.00
Span (in) = 36.00 3.00 216.00 0.00 Crest El. (ft) = 768.50 0.00 769.50 0.00
No. Barrels = 1 1 1 0 Weir Coeff. = 3.33 3.33 2.60 3.33
Invert El. (ft) = 763.00 767.00 769.50 0.00 Weir Type = Red - Broad -
Length (ft) = 70.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Multistage = Yes No No No
Slope M = 0.50 0.00 0.00 n/a
N-Value = .013 .013 .013 n/a
Orifice Coeff. = 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 WIL(inlhr) = 0.000 (by Wet area)
Multi-Stage = n/a Yes No No TW Elev. (ft) = 0.00
Stage I Storage / Discharge Table
Note: Culveril00fice outflows are analyzed under inlet and outlet control. Weir risers are chocked for orifice conditions.
Stage Storage Elevation Civ A Civ B Civ C PrfRsr Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Exfiil User Total
ft cult ft cfs cis cfs cis cfs cfs cfs cis; c% cfs cis
0.00 0 767.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 - - - 0.00
0.50 29,088 767.50 46.56 0.14 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 - - -- 0.14
1.00 58,175 768.00 46.56 0.22 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 - - - 0.22
1.50 87,263 768.50 46.56 0.28 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 - - - 0.28
2.00 116,350 769.00 46.56 0.32 0.00 - 2.35 - 0.00 - - - 2.68
2.50 145,438 769.50 46.56 0.36 0.00 - 6.66 - 0.00 - - - 7.02
3.00 174,526 770.00 46.56 0.40 21.67 - 12.24 - 27.58 - - - 61.88
3.50 203,613 770.50 46.56 0.43 37.53 - 18.84 - 78.00 - - - 134.80
4.00 232,701 771.00 46.56 0.47 46.45 - 26.33 - 143.30 - - - 218.54
4.50 261,788 771.50 46.56 0.49 57.33 - 34.61 - 220.62 - - - 31104
5.00 290,876 772.00 46.56 0.52 65.00 - 43.61 - 308.32 - - - 417.46
Pond Report
Hydrafiow Hydrographs by Intelisolve v9.02
Pond No. 2 - pond 2a
Pond Data
Contours - User-defined contour areas. Conic method used for volume calculation. Begining Elevation = 812.00 ft
Stage / Storage Table
Stage (ft) Elevation (ft) Contour area (sgft)
0.00 612.00 33,101
3.00 815.00 52,170
Culvert/ Orifice Structures
[A] [B] [C]
Rise (In) = 30.00 2.20 0.00
Span (in) = 30.00 2.20 0.00
No. Barrels = 1 1 0
Invert El. (ft) = 809.00 812.00 0.00
Length (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00
Slope (%) = 0.00 0.00 0.00
N-Value = .013 .013 .013
Orifice Coeff. = 0.60 0.60 0.60
Multistage = n/a Yes No
Stage 1 Storage / Discharge Table
Stage Storage Elevation Clv A
ft cult ft cfs
0.00 0 812.00 0.00
0.30 12,681 812.30 31.26
0.60 25,363 812.60 31.26
0.90 38,044 812.90 31.26
1.20 50,726 813.20 31.26
1.50 63,407 813.50 31.26
1.80 76,088 813.80 31.26
2.10 88,770 814.10 35.08
2.40 101,451 814.40 46.15
2.70 114,133 814.70 48.92
3.00 126,814 815.00 50.98
Incr. Storage (cuft) Total storage (cult)
0 0
126,814 126,814
Weir Structures
Wednesday, Apr 18, 2007
[PrfRSr] [A] [B] [C] [D]
0.00 Crest Len (ft) = 1.00 19.00 80.00 0.00
0.00 Crest El. (ft) = 812.70 813.50 813.50 0.00
0 Weir Coeff. = 3.33 3.33 2.60 3.33
0.00 Weir Type = Rect Rect Broad -
0.00 Multistage = Yes Yes No No
n/a
n/a
0.60 Exfil.(Inlhr) = 0.000 (by Wet area)
No TW Elev. (ft) = 0.00
Note; CulverWffiioe outnows are analyzed under inlet and outlet control. Weir risers are checked for orifice conditions
Civ B Civ C PrfRsr Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Exfil User Total
cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cis cis
0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00
0.06 - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - --- 0.06
0.09 - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.09
0.11 - - 0.30 0100 0.00 - - - 0.41
0.13 - - 1.18 0.00 0.00 - - - 1.31
0.15 - - 2.38 0.00 0.00 - - - 2.53
0.17 - - 3.84 10.39 34.17 - - --- 48.57
0.16 - 5.52 29.40 96.65 - - - 131.73
0.07 - - 4.53 41.54 177.56 - - - 223.71
0.05 - - 4.18 44.68 273.39 - - - 322.30
0.04 - - 3.99 46.95 382.12 - - - 433.10
Pond Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by intelisolve v9.02
Pond No. 3 - pond 2b
Pond Data
Contours - User-defined contour areas. Conic method used for volume calculation. Begining Elevation = 806.00 It
Stage I Storage Table
Stage (ft) Elevation (ft) Contour area (sqft) Incr. Storage (cuft) Total storage (cult)
0.00 806.00 12,598 0 0
4.00 810.00 20,511 65,572 65,572
Culvert I Orifice Structures
[A] [B] [C]
Rise (in) = 30.00 1.50 0.00
Span (in) = 30.00 1.50 0.00
No. Barrels = 1 1 0
Invert El. (ft) = 803.00 806.00 0.00
Length (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00
Slope (%) = 0.00 0.00 0.00
N-Value = .013 .013 .013
Orifice Coeff. = 0.60 0.60 0.60
Multistage = n/a Yes No
Stage I Storage 1 Discharge Table
Stage Storage Elevation Civ A
ft cuft ft aft
0.00 0 806.00 0.00
0.40 6,557 806.40 31.26
0.80 13,114 806.80 31.26
1.20 19,672 807.20 31.26
1.60 26,229 807.60 31.26
2.00 32,786 808.00 31.26
2.40 39,343 808.40 31.26
2.80 45,900 808.80 38.22
3.20 52,457 809.20 50.98
3.60 59,015 809.60 54.00
4.00 65,572 810.00 56.32
Weir Structures
Wednesday, Apr 18, 2007
[PrFRsr] [A] [B] IC] [D]
0.00 Crest Len (ft) = 1.00 19.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 Crest El. (ft) = 806.90 808.20 0.00 0.00
0 Weir Coeff. = 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33
0.00 Weir Type = Rect Real - -
0,00 Multi-Stage = Yes Yes No No
n/a
n/a
0.60 Exfil.on/hr) = 0.000 (by Wet area)
No TW Elev. (ft) = 0.00
Note: CulvertlOrifioe outflows are analyzed under inlet and outlet control. Weir risers are checked for orifice conditions
Clv B CIV C PrtRsr Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Exfil User Total
cfs cfs cfs cfs efs cfs cis cfs cis cfs
0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - - - - 0.00
0.03 - - 0.00 0.00 - - - - 0.03
0.05 - - 0.00 0.00 - - - - 0.05
0.06 - - 0.55 0.00 - - - - 0.61
0.07 - - 1.95 0.00 -- - - - 2.02
0.08 - - 3.84 0.00 - - - 3.92
0.09 - - 6.12 5.66 - - - - 11.87
0.08 - - 8.72 29.42 - - - - 38.22
0.03 - - 6.09 44.86 - - - 50.98
0.02 - - 5.35 48.62 - - - - 53.99
0.02 - - 4.96 51.34 - - - - 56.31
Pond Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by tntelisolve v9.02 Wednesday, Apr 18, 2007
Pond No. 4 - pond 2c
Pond Data
Contours - User-defined contour areas. Conic method used for volume calculation. Begining Elevation = 820.00 ft
Stage / Storage Table
Stage (ft) Elevation (ft) Contour area (sgft) Incr. Storage (cult) Total storage (cult)
0.00 820.00 14,087 0 0
4.00 824.00 29,109 84,586 84,586
Culvert / Orifice Structures
[A] [B] [C]
Rise (in) = 36.00 1.75 0.00
Span (in) = 36.00 1.75 0.00
No. Barrels = 1 1 0
Invert El. (ft) = 817.00 820.00 0.00
Length (it) = 0.00 0.00 0.00
Slope (%) = 0.00 0.00 0.00
N-Value = .013 .013 .013
Orifice Coeff. = 0.60 0.60 0.60
Multistage = n/a Yes No
Stage I Storage / Discharge Table
Stage Storage Elevation Civ A
it cult it cis
0.00 0 820.00 0.00
0.40 8,459 820.40 41.68
0.80 16,917 820.80 41.68
1.20 25,376 821.20 41.68
1.60 33,834 821.60 41.68
2.00 42,293 822.00 41.68
2.40 50,752 822.40 41.68
2.80 59,210 822.80 58.82
3.20 67,669 823.20 70.75
3.60 76,127 823.60 75.35
4.00 84,586 824.00 78.94
Weir Structures
[PrfRsr] [A] [s] [C] [D]
0.00 Crest Len (ft) = 0.50 19.50 0.00 0.00
0.00 Crest EL (ft) = 821.20 821.90 0.00 0.00
0 Weir Coeff. = 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33
0.00 Weir Type = Rect Rect - -
0.00 Multistage = Yes Yes No No
n/a
n/a
0.60 Exfil.(in/hr) = 0.000 (by Wet area)
No TW Elev. (ft) = 0.00
Note: Culvert/Orifioe oufFlows are analyzed under inlet and outlet control, Weir risers are checked for orifice conditions
Clv B Clv C PrfRsr Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D ExFI User Total
cis cis cis cfs cfs cis cis cis cis cis
0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - - - - 0.00
0.05 - - 0.00 0.00 - - - - 0.05
0.07 - - 0.00 0.00 - - - - 0.07
0.09 - - 0.00 0.00 - - - - 0.09
0.10 - - 0.42 0.00 - - - - 0.52
0.11 - - 1.19 2.06 - - - - 3.36
0.12 - - 2.19 22.97 - - - - 2518
0.09 - - 3.27 55.46 - - - - 56.82
0.05 - - 2.84 67.85 - - - - 70.74
0.04 - - 2.74 72.57 - - - - 75.35
0.03 - - 2.70 76.19 - - - - 78.92
DWQ Project No.
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY - 401 EXTENDED DETENTION (and POCKET*) WETLAND WORKSHEET
1. PROJECT INFORMATION (please complete the following information):
Project Name: _ Shops at Bush Hill, Guilford and Randolph Counties,
Contact Person: Phone Number: ( 1
For projects with multiple basins, specify which basin this worksheet applies to: Wetland 1A
Permanent Pool Elevation 776.00 ft. (elevation of the orifice invert out)
Temporary Pool Elevation 777.40 ft, (elevation of the outlet structure invert in)
_
Permanent Pool Surface Area 112.238
_ sq. ft. (water surface area at permanent pool elevation)
Drainage Area 56.7 ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Impervious Area _ 50.5 ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Forebay Surface Area _ 14.347 sq, ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 15%)*
Marsh 0"-9" Surface Area _ 51,473 sq. ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 35%)*
Marsh 9"-18" Surface Area 32,510 sq. ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 35%)*
Micro Pool Surface Area 13,908 sq, ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 15%)*
_
Temporary Pool Volume 189,491 cu. ft. (volume detained on top of the permanent pool)
_
SA/DA used _ 3.74 (surface area to drainage area ratio)*
Diameter of Orifice _„ 575 in. (draw down orifice diameter)
II. REQUIRED ITEMS CHECKLIST
Initial in the space provided to Indicate the following design requirements have been met and supporting documentation is attached. If a
requirement has not been met, attach an explanation of why. At a minimum, a complete stormwater management plan submittal includes
a worksheet for each BMP, design calculations, plans and specifications showing all BMPs and outlet structure details, a detailed
drainage plan and a fully executed operation and maintenance agreement. An incomplete submittal package will result in a request for
additional information and will substantially delay final review and approval of the project
Applicants Initials
x The temporary pool controls runoff from the 1 inch rain.
x The basin side slopes are no steeper than 3:1.
x A planting plan for the marsh areas with plant species and densities is provided.
x Vegetation above the permanent pool elevation is specified.
x An emergency drain is provided to drain the basin.
x The temporary pool draws down in 2 to 5 days.
X Sediment storage is provided in the permanent pool.
x A sediment disposal area is provided.
x Access is provided for maintenance.
x A site specific, signed and notarized operation and maintenance agreement is provided,
x The drainage area (including any offsite area) is delineated on a site plan.
x Access is provided for maintenance.
x Plan details for the wetland are provided.
x Plan details for the inlet and outlet are provided.
X A site specific operation and maintenance agreement, signed and notarized by the responsible party is provided (see
hftp:/fh2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/ncweUands/0andm.doc).
* Pocket Wetlands have different design parameters and are only assumed to remove 35% TSS - See pp. 19 and 20 of the NC DENR
Stormwater BMP Manual, April 1999. 10% open water, 50% high marsh, 40% low marsh,
DWQ Project No.
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY • 401 EXTENDED DETENTION (and POCKET*) WETLAND WORKSHEET
t. PROJECT INFORMATION (please complete the following information):
Project Name : Shops at Bush Hill Guilford and Randolph Counties,
Contact Person: Phone Number: )
For projects with multiple basins, specify which basin this worksheet applies to: Wetland 1 B
Permanent Pool Elevation 767.00 ft. (elevation of the orifice invert out)
Temporary Pool Elevation 768.50 ft. (elevation of the outlet structure invert In)
_
Permanent Pool Surface Area _4&757 sq. ft. (water surface area at permanent pool elevation)
Drainage Area 27.2
T ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Impervious Area 21.8 ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Forebay Surface Area _ 6,647 sq. ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 15%)*
Marsh 0"-9" Surface Area -17,177 sq. ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 35%)*
Marsh 9"-18" Surface Area 15y 745 sq, ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 35%)*
Micro Pool Surface Area 6,765 sq. ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 15%)*
_
Temporary Pool Volume 87 87,263 cu. ft. (volume detained on top of the permanent pool)
-
SA/DA used _ 3.74 (surface area to drainage area ratio)*
Diameter of Orifice _ 1.0 in. (draw down orifice diameter)
II. REQUIRED ITEMS CHECKLIST
Initial in the space provided to indicate the following design requirements have been met and supporting documentation is attached. If a
requirement has not been met, attach an explanation of why. At a minimum, a complete stormwater management plan submittal includes
a worksheet for each BMP, design calculations, plans and specifications showing all BMPs and outlet structure details, a detailed
drainage plan and a fully executed operation and maintenance agreement. An Incomplete submittal package will result In a request for
additional information and will substantially delay final review and approval of the project
Applicants Initials
x The temporary pool controls runoff from the 1 inch rain.
x The basin side slopes are no steeper than 3:1,
x _A planting plan for the marsh areas with plant species and densities is provided.
x Vegetation above the permanent pool elevation is specified.
x An emergency drain is provided to drain the basin.
x The temporary pool draws down in 2 to 5 days.
x Sediment storage Is provided in the permanent pool.
x A sediment disposal area is provided.
x Access is provided for maintenance.
x A site specific, signed and notarized operation and maintenance agreement Is provided.
x The drainage area (including any offsite area) is delineated on a site plan.
x Access is provided for maintenance.
x Plan details for the wetland are provided.
x Plan details for the inlet and outlet are provided.
x A site specific operation and maintenance agreement, signed and notarized by the responsible party is provided (see
http:llh2o.ehnr, state.nc.usfncwetiandsloandm.doc).
* Pocket Wetlands have different design parameters and are only assumed to remove 35% TSS - See pp. 19 and 20 of the NC DENR
Stormwater BMP Manual, April 1999.10% open water, 50% high marsh, 40% low marsh.
DWQ Project
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY - 401 EXTENDED DETENTION (and POCKET*) WETLAND WORKSHEET
t. PROJECT INFORMATION (please complete the following information):
Project Name : Shops at Bush Hill, Guilford and Randolph Counties,
Contact Person: Phone Number: ( L
For projects with multiple basins, specify which basin this worksheet applies to: Wetland 2A
Permanent Pool Elevation _ 812.00 ft. (elevation of the orifice invert out)
Temporary Pool Elevation _ 812.7 ft. (elevation of the outlet structure invert in)
Permanent Pool Surface Area _ 32.564 sq. It. (water surface area at permanent pool elevation)
Drainage Area 10.62 ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Impervious Area 10.41 ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Forebay Surface Area -7-,645 sq, ft, (at permanent pool elevation approximately 15%)*
Marsh 0"-9" Surface Area _ 15.107 sq. ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 35%)*
Marsh 9"-18" Surface Area _ 7,102 sq. ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 35%)*
Micro Pool Surface Area _ 2,800 sq. ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 15%)*
Temporary Pool Volume -33.042 cu. ft. (volume detained on top of the permanent pool)
SA/DA used _ 3.74 (surface area to drainage area ratio)*
Diameter of Orifice 2.2 in. (draw down orifice diameter)
ll. REQUIRED ITEMS CHECKLIST
Initial in the space provided to Indicate the following design requirements have been met and supporting documentation is attached. If a
requirement has not been met, attach an explanation of why. At a minimum, a complete stormwater management plan submittal includes
a worksheet for each BMP, design calculations, plans and specifications showing all BMPs and outlet structure details, a detailed
drainage plan and a fully executed operation and maintenance agreement. An incomplete submittal package will result in a request for
additional information and will substantially delay final review and approval of the project
Applicants Initials
x The temporary pool controls runoff from the 1 inch rain,
X The basin side slopes are no steeper than 3:1.
x A planting plan for the marsh areas with plant species and densities is provided,
X Vegetation above the permanent pool elevation is specified.
x An emergency drain is provided to drain the basin,
x The temporary pool draws down In 2 to 5 days.
X Sediment storage is provided in the permanent pool.
X A sediment disposal area is provided.
x Access is provided for maintenance.
X A site specific, signed and notarized operation and maintenance agreement is provided.
x The drainage area (including any offsite area) is delineated on a site plan.
x Access Is provided for maintenance.
x Plan details for the wetland are provided.
x Plan details for the inlet and outlet are provided.
x A site specific operation and maintenance agreement, signed and notarized by the responsible party is provided (see
http:llh2o.ehnr,state.nc.uslncwetiandsloandm.doc).
* Pocket Wetlands have different design parameters and are only assumed to remove 35% TSS - See pp. 19 and 20 of the NC DENR
Stormwater BMP Manual, April 1999.10% open water, 50% high marsh, 40% low marsh.
DWQ Project No.
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY - 401 EXTENDED DETENTION (and POCKET*) WETLAND WORKSHEET
1. PROJECT INFORMATION (please complete the following information):
Project Name : -Shops at Bush Will, Guilford and Randolph Counties,
Contact Person: Phone Number: { )
For projects with multiple baslns, specify which basin this worksheet applies to: Wetland 2B
Permanent Pool Elevation _ 806.00 ft. (elevation of the orifice invert out)
Temporary Pool Elevation 806.9 ft. (elevation of the outlet structure invert in)

Permanent Pool Surface Area _ 12.598 sq. ft. (water surface area at permanent pool elevation)
Drainage Area _ 4.93 ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Impervious Area _ 3.80 ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Forebay Surface Area -1,229 sq. ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 15%)*
Marsh 0"-9" Surface Area -7 137 sq. ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 35%)*
Marsh 9"-18" Surface Area M 2.896 sq. ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 35%)*
Micro Pool Surface Area 1,336 sq. ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 15%)*
_
Temporary Pool Volume „ _,15,300 cu. ft, (volume detained on top of the permanent pool)

SAIDA used _ 3.74 (surface area to drainage area ratio)*
Diameter of Orifice 1.5 in, (draw down orifice diameter)
II. REQUIRED ITEMS CHECKLIST
Initial In the space provided to Indicate the following design requirements have been met and supporting documentation is attached. If a
requirement has not been met, attach an explanation of why. At a minimum, a complete stormwater management plan submittal includes
a worksheet for each BMP, design calculations, plans and specifications showing all BMPs and outlet structure details, a detailed
drainage plan and a fully executed operation and maintenance agreement. An incomplete submittal package will result in a request for
additional information and will substantially delay final review and approval of the project
ADDlicants Initials
x The temporary pool controls runoff from the 1 inch rain.
x The basin side slopes are no steeper than 3:1.
x A planting plan for the marsh areas with plant species and densities is provided,
x Vegetation above the permanent pool elevation is specified.
x An emergency drain Is provided to drain the basin.
x The temporary pool draws down in 2 to 5 days.
x Sediment storage is provided in the permanent pool.
x A sediment disposal area is provided.
x Access is provided for maintenance.
x A site specific, signed and notarized operation and maintenance agreement is provided.
x The drainage area (including any offsite area) is delineated on a site plan.
x Access is provided for maintenance.
x Plan details for the wetland are provided.
x Plan details for the inlet and outlet are provided.
x A site specific operation and maintenance agreement, signed and notarized by the responsible party is provided (see
http:llh2o.ehnr.state, nc.usincwetiandsloand m.doc).
* Pocket Wetlands have different design parameters and ate only assumed to remove 35% TSS - See pp. 19 and 20 of the NC DENR
Stormwater BMP Manual, April 1999. 10% open water, 50% high marsh, 40% low marsh.
DWQ Project No.
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY - 401 EXTENDED DETENTION (and POCKET*) WETLAND WORKSHEET
1. PROJECT INFORMATION (please complete the following information):
Project Name : -Shops at Bush Hill, Guilford and Randolph Counties,
Contact Person: Phone Number: t )
For projects with multiple basins, specify which basin this worksheet applies to: Wetland 2C
Permanent Pool Elevation _ 820.00 ft. (elevation of the orifice Invert out)
Temporary Pool Elevation 821.2 ft. (elevation of the outlet structure invert in)
_
Permanent Pool Surface Area _ 14.810 sq, ft. (water surface area at permanent pool elevation)
Drainage Area _ 8.24 ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Impervious Area _ 6.76 ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Forebay Surface Area 2,038 sq. ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 15%)*
Marsh 0"-9" Surface Area _ 5,x14 sq, ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 35%)*
Marsh 9"-18" Surface Area _ 4,715 sq. ft, (at permanent pool elevation approximately 35%)*
Micro Pool Surface Area 2,543 sq. ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 15%)*
_
Temporary Pool Volume 25,376 cu, ft, (volume detained on top of the permanent pool)
-
SA/DA used _ 3.74 (surface area to drainage area ratio)*
Diameter of Orifice _ 1.75 in. (draw down orifice diameter)
II. REQUIRED ITEMS CHECKLIST
Initial in the space provided to indicate the following design requirements have been met and supporting documentation is attached. If a
requirement has not been met, attach an explanation of why. At a minimum, a complete stormwater management plan submittal Includes
a worksheet for each BMP, design calculations, plans and specifications showing all BMPs and outlet structure details, a detailed
drainage plan and a fully executed operation and maintenance agreement. An incomplete submittal package will result in a request for
additional information and will substantially delay final review and approval of the project
Applicants Initials
x The temporary pool controls runoff from the 1 inch rain,
x The basin side slopes are no steeper than 3:1.
x A planting plan for the marsh areas with plant species and densities Is provided.
x Vegetation above the permanent pool elevation is specified.
x An emergency drain is provided to drain the basin,
x The temporary pool draws down in 2 to 5 days,
x Sediment storage is provided in the permanent pool.
x A sediment disposal area is provided.
x Access is provided for maintenance.
x A site specific, signed and notarized operation and maintenance agreement is provided,
x The drainage area (including any offslte area) is delineated on a site plan.
x Access is provided for maintenance.
x Plan details for the wetland are provided.
x Plan details for the Inlet and outlet are provided.
x A site specific operation and maintenance agreement, signed and notarized by the responsible party is provided (see
hUp:/rn2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands/oandm.doo).
* Pocket Wetlands have different design parameters and are only assumed to remove 35% TSS - See pp. 19 and 20 of the NC DENR
Stormwater BMP Manual, April 1999.10% open water, 50% high marsh, 40% low marsh.
Water Quality Volume
Basin 1A
Area = 56.7'' acres = 2469852" sf
%imp = 89 (as a whole number)
WQV = 1.0 (Rv)As/12 (CO
Where Rv = 0.05 + 1(0.009) in
1= Percent Impervious as as a whole number
As = On-site area to be treated (so
IWQV = 175,164 cf
Z:\Documents\2006\06-123\hydro\06-123 Water Quality Worksheepond1 R1t_xls
Water Quality Bleeddown Orifice
Basin 1A
A =(WQV / t) / (0.6 x (64.4 x h / 2)^0.5)
_ ;.1y754, cf
Where, WQV = water quality volume (cf)
t =172800 sec (48 hours)
h = average head on orifice centroid (ft)
h = ( 777A - 776.0) / 2 = 6.7 ft
WQ elev Orifice inv
A = 0.178sq feet or, 25.62y,sq inches
Using the formula for area of a circle and solving for the diameter,
A = 3.1416 (dia)^2/4
dia = (A " 4 / 3.1416)^0.5
dia = 5.tf inches
Use 53 inch Diameter Orifice at Inv Elev = 7M0
Z:1Documents12006106-1231hydro106-123 Water Quality Worksheepondl R1t.xls
Water Quality Bleeddown Orifice
Basin 1 B
9.7
A =(WQV, 78.4
Where, WQV = water quality volume (cf) = 83,136 cf
t =302400 sec (3.5 days)
h = average head on orifice centroid (ft)
h = { 769.5> - 768.0) 1 2 = 0 8, ft
WQ elev Orifice inv
A = 0.047; sq feet or, 67 1 sq inches
Using the formula for area of a circle and solving for the diameter,
A = 3.1416 (dia)42 / 4
dia= (A `4/3.1416)^0.5
dia = 2.92 inches
Use 3:6 inch Diameter Orifice at Inv Elev = 767.0
Z:\Documents\2006k06-123\hydro\06-123 Water Quality WorksheepondlbR1t.xls
Water Quality Volume
Basin 2A
Area = 10.62; acres = 462607' sf
%Imp = 86,. (as a whole number)
WQV = 1.0 (Rv)As/12 (co
Where Rv = 0.05 + 1(0.009) = 0.82 in
I = Percent Impervious as as a whole number
As = On-site area to be treated (sf)
IWQV = .... 31,766 cf
Z:1Documents12006106-123\hydro106-123 Water Quality WorksheetPond R12A.xls
Water Quality Bleeddown Orifice
Basin 2A
9.7
A =(WQV, 78.4
Where, WQV = water quality volume (cf) = 31,7&6 cf
t =302400 sec (3.5 days)
h = average head on orifice centroid (ft)
h={' 8'271 - 812.d / 2 = 0:4!ft
WQ elev Orifke inv
A= 0,026" sq feet or, 3.75sq inches
Using the formula for area of a circle and solving for the diameter,
A = 3.1416 (dia)"2 / 4
dia=(A*4/3.1416)^0.5
dia = 2.19 inches
Use 22, inch Diameter Orifice at Inv Elev = 812.Q
Z:1Documents12006106-1231hydro106-123 Water Quality WorksheetPond R12A.xls
Water Quality Volume
Basin 2B
Area = 4.93 acres = 214751sf
%Imp = 77 (as a whole number)
WQV = 1.0 (Rv)As/12 (cf)
Where Rv = 0.05 + 1(0.009) = O'743 ; in
I = Percent Impervious as as a whole number
As = On-site area to be treated (sQ
IWQV = 13,297 cf
Z:\Documents\2006\06-1231hydro\06-123 Water Quality WorksheetPond R12B.xls
Water Quality Bleeddown Orifice
Basin 2B
9.7
A =(WQV 78.4
Where, WQV = water quality volume (cf) - 13497 cf
t =302400 sec (3.5 days)
h = average head on orifice centroid (ft)
h = ( 806 9i f - 806.0 } / 2 = 0.4'; ft
WQ elev Orifice inv
A = 0.010,. sq feet or, 1.39, sq inches
Using the formula for area of a circle and solving for the diameter,
A=3.1416(dia)"2/4
dia = (A * 4 / 3.1416)^0.5
dia = 1.33 inches
I Use 1,5' Inch Diameter Orifice at Inv Elev = ;806.0
Z:1Documents12006106-1231hydro106-123 Water Quality WorksheetPond R12B.As
Water Quality Volume
Basin 2C
Area = 8.24 acres = 3589,3 ; sf
%imp = 82 (as a whole number)
WQV = 1.0 (Rv)As/12 (cf)
Where Rv = 0.05 + 1 (0.009) = . 0 788 in
I = Percent Impervious as as a whole number
As = On-site area to be treated (sf)
IWQV = 23,5701: cf
Z:\Documents\2006\06-123\hydro\06-123 Water Quality WorksheetPond R12C.xls
Water Quality Bleeddown Orifice
Basin 2C
9.7
A =(WQV 78.4
Where, WQV = water quality volume (cf) = 23,570 l:cf
t =302400 sec (3.5 days)
h = average head on orifice centroid (ft)
h = ( A21,2% - 820.0; > 2
WQ elev Orifice inv
A = 0.015 sq feet or, 2:13 sq inches
Using the formula for area of a circle and solving for the diameter,
A = 3.1416 (dia)^2/4
dia = (A * 4 / 3.1416)^0.5
dia = 1.66:' inches
Use 1.8 inch Diameter Orifice at Inv Elev = .,820.0
Z:1Documents12006106-1231hydro106-123 Water Quality WorksheetPond R12C.xls
Hydrograph Return Period Recap HydraflowHydrographsbylntelisolvev9.02
Hyd. Hydrograph Inflow Peak Outflow (cfs) Hydrograph
i
ti
d
No. type Hyd(s) p
on
escr
(origin) 1-Yr 2-Yr 3-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 25 Yr 50 Yr 100•Yr
1 SCS Runoff - 31.50 - - - - 329.59 Basin 1A pre onsite
2 SCS Runoff - 0.467 - ---- - - 1.786 Basin 1 B pre offsite
3 Combine 1,2 31.95 - - - 331.37 sum of flows to SP#1
5 SCS Runoff 5.934 - - 75.75 Basin 2A pre onsite
6 SCS Runoff 0.508 - - - - 3.131 Basin 2B pre offsite
7 Combine 5,6 6.433 - - - - 78.87 sum of flows to SP#2
9 SCS Runoff 183.46 - - 515.35 basin 1a post
10 Combine 2,9 183.67 - - 516.28 sum of flows to pond 1
11 Reservoir 10 9.693 - - - - 371.82 route pond 1a
12 SCS Runoff - 90.03 -- - - 266.34 basin 1b
13 Reservoir 12 3.204 - -- - - -- - - - 199.73 route pond 1b
14 SCS Runoff 13.64 --- - - 130.41 Basin .1 b post onsite bypass
15 Combine 11, 13, 1 23.70 - - -- 647.62 sum of flows to SP#1
17 SCS Runoff 41.46 ---- - - ---- 108.67 basin 2a
18 Reservoir 17 2.033 - - - - - 99.76 route pond 2a
19 SCS Runoff 16.32 -- -- 48.27 basin 2b
20 Reservoir 19 0.793 ---- - -- -- - - - --- -- 35.55 route pond 2b
21 SCS Runoff 30.32 - - -- - 83.09 basin 2c
22 Reservoir 21 2.201 ---- - - -- -- -- - 64.41 route pond 2c
23 SCS Runoff - 0.641 - --- --- - 12.12 bypass 2
25 Combine 6, 18, 20, 225.781 - - - -- - 206.27 sum of flows to SP#2
Proj, file: 06-123v10.gpw Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
Hydrograph Summary Report HydraflowHydrographsbylntelisolvev9.02
Hyd.
No. Hydrograph
type
(origin) Peak
flow
(cfs) Time
interval
(min) Time to
peak
(min) Hyd.
volume
(tuft) Inflow
hyd(s) Maximum
elevation
(ft) Total
strge used
(cult) Hydrograph
description
1 SCS Runoff 31.50 1 739 215,428 - - Basin 1A pre onsite
2 SCS Runoff 0.467 1 736 2,167 - - - Basin 1B pre offsite
3 Combine 31.95 1 739 217,595 1,2 - - sum of flows to SP#1
5 SCS Runoff 5.934 1 735 39,265 - - - Basin 2A pre onsite
6 SCS Runoff 0.508 1 733 2,335 - --- Basin 2B pre offsite
7 Combine 6,433 1 735 41,600 6,6 - - sum of flows to SP#2
9 SCS Runoff 183.46 1 718 403,435 - - - basin 1a post
10 Combine 183.67 1 718 405,601 2,9 - - sum of flows to pond 1
11 Reservoir 9.693 1 779 291,381 10 777.85 250,178 route pond 1a
12 SCS Runoff 90.03 1 717 187,122 - - - basin 1b
13 Reservoir 3.204 1 819 117,890 12 769.06 119,871 route pond 1 b
14 SCS Runoff 13.64 1 739 88,965 - - Basin 1 b past onsite bypass
15 Combine 23.70 1 744 498,237 11, 13, 14 - - sum of flows to SP#1
17 SCS Runoff 41.46 1 717 91,173 - - basin 2a
18 Reservoir 2.033 1 777 67,830 17 813.38 58,220 route pond 2a
19 SCS Runoff 16.32 1 717 33,916 - - basin 2b
20 Reservoir 0.793 1 783 24,061 19 807.25 20,519 route pond 2b
21 SCS Runoff 30.32 1 717 64,819 - - - basin 2c
22 Reservoir 2.201 1 752 44,119 21 621.84 38,841 route pond 2c
23 SCS Runoff 0.641 1 740 5,741 - - bypass 2
25 Combine 5.781 1 74B 144,086 6, 18, 20, 2, 23-- - sum of flows to SP#2
06-123v10.gpw Return Period: 1 Year Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
H yd rog ra p h Summary Report Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve v9.02
Hyd.
No. Hydrograph
type
(origin) Peak
flow
(cfs) Time
Interval
(min) Time to
peak
(min) Hyd.
volume
(cuft) Inflow
hyd(s) Maximum
elevation
(ft) Total
strge used
(cuft) Hydrograph
description
1 SCS Runoff 329.59 1 736 1,536,978 - Basin 1A pre onsite
2 SCS Runoff 1.786 1 735 8,260 - - Basin 1 B pre offsite
3 Combine 331.37 1 736 1,545,238 1,2 - - sum of flows to SP#1
5 SCS Runoff 75.75 1 732 309,584 - - - Basin 2A pre onsite
6 SCS Runoff 3.131 1 731 12,510 - - - Basin 2B pre offsite
7 Combine 78.87 1 732 322,093 5,6 sum of flows to SP#2
9 SCS Runoff 515.35 1 718 1,215,045 - - - basin Sa post
10 Combine 516.28 1 718 1,223,305 2,9 - sum of flows to pond 1
11 Reservoir 371.82 1 722 1,103,202 10 779.47 469,528 route pond 1a
12 SCS Runoff 266.34 1 717 592,923 - - - basin 1 b
13 Reservoir 199.73 1 721 521,240 12 770.89 226,168 route pond 1b
14 SCS Runoff 130.41 1 736 605,967 - - - Basin 1b post onsite bypass
15 Combine 647.62 1 722 2,230,410 11, 13, 14 - sum of flows to SP#1
17 SCS Runoff 108.67 1 717 254,662 - - - basin 2a
18 Reservoir 99.76 1 719 230,401 17 813.98 83,895 route pond 2a
19 SCS Runoff 48.27 1 717 107,467 - - basin 2b
20 Reservoir 35.55 1 721 97,184 19 808.76 45,234 route pond 2b
21 SCS Runoff 83.09 1 717 190,360 - basin 2c
22 Reservoir 64.41 1 720 169,066 21 822.99 63,177 route pond 2c
23 SCS Runoff 12.12 1 734 53,816 - bypass 2
25 Combine 205.27 1 720 562,977 6, 18, 20, 2, 23- sum of flows to SP#2
06-123v10.gpw Return Period: 100 Year Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve v9.02 Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
Hyd. No. 1
Basin 1A pre onsite
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 31.50 cfs
Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak = 739 min
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 215,428 cuft
Drainage area = 135.700 ac Curve number = 65
Basin Slope = 0.0% Hydraulic length = Oft
Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 35.90 min
Total precip. = 2.84 in Distribution = Type II
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
Basin 1A pre onsite
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 1 --1 Year Q (cfis)
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0 00
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
Time (min)
--- Hyd No. 1
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve v9.02
Hyd. No. 2
Basin 1 B pre offsite
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff
Storm frequency = 1 yrs
Time interval = 1 min
Drainage area = 0.450 ac
Basin Slope = 0.0%
Tc method = TR55
Total precip. = 2.84 in
Storm duration = 24 hrs
Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
Peak discharge = 0.467 cfs
Time to peak = 736 min
Hyd. volume = 2,167 cuft
Curve number = 83
Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Time of conc. (Tc) = 35.90 min
Distribution = Type II
Shape factor = 484
Basin 1 B pre offsite
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 2 --1 Year Q (cfs)
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
o no
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
Time (min)
_. Hyd No. 2
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve v9.02
Hyd. No. 3
sum of flows to SP#1
Hydrograph type = Combine
Storm frequency = 1 yrs
Time interval = 1 min
Inflow hyds. = 1, 2
Q (Cfs)
35.00
sum of flows to SP#1
Hyd. No. 3 --1 Year
30.00
25.00
Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
Peak discharge = 31.95 cfs
Time to peak = 739 min
Hyd. volume = 217,595 cuft
Contrib. drain. area= 136.150 ac
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
Q (cfs)
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
Time (min)
--- Hyd No. 3 Hyd No. 1 -- Hyd No. 2
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve v9.02 Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
Hyd. No, 5
Basin 2A pre onsite
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 5.934 cfs
Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak = 735 min
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 39,265 cult
Drainage area = 29.400 ac Curve number = 63
Basin Slope = 0.0% Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 29.20 min
Total precip. = 2.84 in Distribution = Type ll
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
Q (Cfs)
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
Q (Cfs)
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00 -1 1 1 .,,., 1 ..1 I 11 1 1 i I i i -1_ 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
Time (min)
- Hyd No. 5
Basin 2A pre onsite
Hyd. No. 5 --1 Year
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve v9.02
Hyd. No. 6
Basin 2B pre offsite
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff
Storm frequency = 1 yrs
Time interval = 1 min
Drainage area = 0.900 ac
Basin Slope = 0.0%
Tc method = TR55
Total precip. = 2.84 in
Storm duration = 24 hrs
Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
Peak discharge = 0.508 cfs
Time to peak = 733 min
Hyd. volume = 2,335 cuft
Curve number = 72
Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Time of conc. (Tc) = 29.20 min
Distribution = Type II
Shape factor = 484
Basin 2B pre offsite
Q {cfs) Hyd. No. 6 -1 Year Q (cfs)
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0 00
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
Time (min)
Hyd No. 6
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve v9.02
Hyd. No. 7
sum of flows to SP#2
Hydrograph type = Combine
Storm frequency = 1 yrs
Time interval = 1 min
Inflow hyds. = 5, 6
Q (cfs)
7.00
sum of flows to SP#2
Hyd. No. 7 -1 Year
6.00
5.00
Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
Peak discharge = 6.433 cfs
Time to peak = 735 min
Hyd. volume = 41,600 cuft
Contrib. drain. area= 30.300 ac
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
Q (cfs)
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00 irrrrrn 1 1 1 1 n J ..r.+..r> I r 1 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
Time (min)
--- Hyd No. 7 ----- Hyd No. 5 Hyd No. 6
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by tntelisolve v9.02
Hyd. No. 9
basin 1 a post
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff
Storm frequency = 1 yrs
Time interval = 1 min
Drainage area = 56.700 ac
Basin Slope = 0.0%
Tc method = TR55
Total precip. = 2.84 in
Storm duration = 24 hrs
Q (cfs)
210.00
basin 1a post
Hyd. No. 9 --1 Year
180.00
150.00
Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
Peak discharge = 183.46 cfs
Time to peak = 718 min
Hyd. volume = 403,435 cuft
Curve number = 92
Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Time of conc. (Tc) = 7.00 min
Distribution = Type II
Shape factor = 484
120.00
90.00
60.00
30.00
Q (cfs)
210.00
180.00
150.00
120.00
90.00
60.00
30.00
0.00 1 .. I - J-I L. i 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320
Hyd No. 9 Time (min)
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve v9.02 Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
Hyd. No. 10
sum of flows to pond 1
Hydrograph type = Combine Peak discharge = 183.67 cfs
Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak = 718 min
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 405,601 cuft
Inflow hyds. = 2, 9 Contrib. drain. area= 57.150 ac
Q (cfs)
210.00
180.00
150.00
120.00
90.00
60.00
30.00
Q (cfs)
210.00
180.00
150.00
120.00
90.00
60.00
30.00
0.00 1 1-- ? ---- 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320
Time (min)
- Hyd No. 10 -y- Hyd No. 2 Hyd No. 9
sum of flows to pond 9
Hyd. No. 10 --1 Year
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve v9.02 Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
Hyd. No. 11
route pond 1 a
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 9.693 cfs
Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak = 779 min
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 291,381 cuft
Inflow hyd. No. = 10 - sum of flows to pond 1 Max. Elevation = 777.85 ft
Reservoir name = pond la Max. Storage = 250,178 cuft
Storage Indication method used.
Q (cfs)
210.00
180.00
150.00
120.00
90.00
60.00
30.00
Q (cfs)
210.00
180.00
150.00
120.00
90.00
60.00
30.00
0.00 0.00
0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000
--- Hyd No. 11 --- Hyd No. 10 [D-DI1Tl Total storage used = 250,178 cuft Time (min)
route pond 1a
Hyd. No. 11 --1 Year
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Infelisolve v9.02
Hyd. No. 12
basin I b
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff
Storm frequency = 1 yrs
Time interval
Drainage area
Basin Slope
Tc method
Total precip.
Storm duration
1 min
27.200 ac
0.0%
USER
2.84 in
24 hrs
basin 1 b
Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
Peak discharge = 90.03 cfs
Time to peak
Hyd. volume
Curve number
Hydraulic length
Time of conc. (Tc)
Distribution
Shape factor
717 min
187,122 cult
90
Oft
5.00 min
Type II
484
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 12 -1 Year Q (cfs)
100.00 100.00
90.00 90.00
80.00 80.00
70.00 70.00
60.00 60.00
50.00 50.00
40.00 40.00
30.00 30.00
20.00 20.00
10.00 10.00
0.00 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320
Hyd No. 12 Time (min)
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve v9.02 Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
Hyd. No. 13
route pond lb
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 3.204 cfs
Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak = 819 min
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 117,890 cuft
Inflow hyd. No. = 12 -basin 1b Max. Elevation = 769.06 ft
Reservoir name = pond 1 b Max. Storage = 119,871 cuft
Storage Indication method used.
Q (cfs)
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0 00
route pond 1b
Hyd. No. 13 --1 Year
0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700
Hyd No. 13 Hyd No. 12 .,..,.. Total storage used= 119,871 cult
Q (cfs)
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
3000
Time (min)
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve v9.02
Hyd. No. 14
Basin 1 b post onsite bypass
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff
Storm frequency = 1 yrs
Time interval = 1 min
Drainage area = 51.800 ac
Basin Slope = 0.0%
Tc method = TR55
Total precip. = 2.84 in
Storm duration = 24 hrs
Q (cfs)
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
Q (cfs)
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00 I 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 %? 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
Time (min)
Hyd No. 14
Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
Peak discharge = 13.64 cfs
Time to peak = 739 min
Hyd. volume = 88,965 cuft
Curve number = 66
Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Time of conc. (Tc) = 35.90 min
Distribution = Type II
Shape factor = 484
Basin 1b post onsite bypass
Hyd. No. 14 -1 Year
Hydrograph Report
HydraHow Hydrographs by Intelisolve v9.02
Hyd. No. 15
sum of flows to SP#1
Hydrograph type = Combine
Storm frequency = 1 yrs
Time interval = 1 min
Inflow hyds. = 11, 13, 14
Q (cfs)
24.00
20.00
16.00
12.00
8.00
4.00
Q (cfs)
24.00
20.00
16.00
12.00
8.00
4.00
0.00 i 1 7 i i '% I_ - ' 0.00
0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000
Hyd No. 15 Hyd No. 11 Hyd No. 13 Hyd No. 14 Time (min)
sum of flows to SP#1
Hyd. No. 15 --1 Year
Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
Peak discharge = 23.70 cfs
Time to peak = 744 min
Hyd. volume = 498,237 cuft
Contrib. drain. area= 51.800 ac
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve v9.02
Hyd. No. 17
basin 2a
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff
Storm frequency = 1 yrs
Time interval
Drainage area
Basin Slope
Tc method
Total precip.
Storm duration
1 min
10.620 ac
0.0%
USER
2.84 in
24 hrs
Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
Peak discharge = 41.46 cfs
Time to peak = 717 min
Hyd. volume = 91,173 cuft
Curve number = 95
Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Time of conc. (Tc) = 5.00 min
Distribution = Type 11
Shape factor = 484
basin 2a
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 17 --1 Year Q MS)
50.00 50.00
40.00 40.00
30.00 30.00
20.00 20.00
10.00 10.00
0.00 -j- IJT: 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200
Hyd No. 17 Time (min)
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisoive v9.02
Hyd. No. 18
route pond 2a
Hydrograph type = Reservoir
Storm frequency = 1 yrs
Time interval = 1 min
Inflow hyd. No. = 17 -basin 2a
Reservoir name = pond 2a
Storage Indication method used.
Q (cfs)
50.00
Peak discharge
Time to peak
Hyd. volume
Max. Elevation
Max. Storage
route pond 2a
Hyd. No. 18 -1 Year
40.00
30.00
Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
= 2.033 cfs
= 777 min
= 67,830 cult
= 813.38 ft
= 58,220 cuft
20.00
10.00
0.00 1
0 300
Hyd No. 18
600 900 1200
---- Hyd No. 17
1500 1800 2100 2400 2700
I!a_I_i.._.L Total storage used = 58,220 cuft
Q (cfs)
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
-1- 0.00
3000
Time (min)
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intellsolve v9.02 Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
Hyd. No. 19
basin 2b
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 16.32 cfs
Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak = 717 min
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 33,916 cuft
Drainage area = 4.930 ac Curve number = 90
Basin Slope = 0.0% Hydraulic length = Oft
Tc method = USER Time of conc. (Tc) = 5.00 min
Total precip. = 2.84 in Distribution = Type ll
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
Q (cfs)
18.00
basin 2b
Hyd. No. 19 -1 Year
15.00
12.00
9.00
6.00
3.00
0.00 -1 '
0 120 240
- Hyd No_ 19
360 480 600 720 840
Q (cfs)
18.00
15.00
12.00
9.00
6.00
3.00
0.00
960 1080 1200 1320
Time (min)
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve v9.02 Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
Hyd. No. 20
route pond 2b
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 0.793 cfs
Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak = 783 min
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 24,061 cuft
Inflow hyd. No. = 19 -basin 2b Max. Elevation = 807.25 ft
Reservoir name = pond 2b Max. Storage = 20,519 cuft
Storage Indication method used.
Q (cfs)
18.00
15.00
12.00
9.00
6.00
3.00
0.00 1
0 300
- Hyd No. 20
route pond 2b
Hyd. No. 20 --1 Year
600 900 1200
--- Hyd No. 19
1500 1800 2100 2400 2700
'..1.TT1ILLIJ.l Total storage used = 20,519 cult
Q (cfs)
18.00
15.00
12.00
9.00
6.00
3.00
-1 0.00
3000
Time (min)
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve v9.02
Hyd. No. 21
basin 2c
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff
Storm frequency = 1 yrs
Time interval = 1 min
Drainage area = 8.240 ac
Basin Slope = 0.0%
Tc method = TR55
Total precip. = 2.84 in
Storm duration = 24 hrs
Q (cfs)
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0 120 240
Hyd No. 21
basin 2c
Hyd. No. 21 --1 Year
Q (cfs)
35.00
Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
Peak discharge = 30.32 cfs
Time to peak = 717 min
Hyd. volume = 64,819 cult
Curve number = 93
Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Time of conc. (Tc) = 5.60 min
Distribution = Type II
Shape factor = 484
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
I.r.rn I J 0.00
360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320
Time (min)
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve v9.02 Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
Hyd. No. 22
route pond 2c
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 2.201 cfs
Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak = 752 min
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 44,119 cuft
Inflow hyd. No. = 21 - basin 2c Max. Elevation = 821.84 ft
Reservoir name = pond 2c Max. Storage = 38,841 cuft
Storage Indication method used.
Q (cfs)
35.00
route pond 2c
Hyd. No. 22 --1 Year
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00 ' -- 1-
- 0 300
--- Hyd No. 22
600
Q (cfs)
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
F _ , ?-r-- I I ' 0.00
900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000
Time (mitt)
Hyd No. 21 =Fj-STJ Total storage used = 38,841 cult
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve v9.02 Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
Hyd. No. 23
bypass 2
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 0.641 cfs
Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak = 740 min
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 5,741 cuft
Drainage area = 5.730 ac Curve number = 60
Basin Slope = 0.0% Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 32.90 min
Total precip. = 2.84 in Distribution = Type II
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
bypass 2
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 23 --1 Year Q (cfs)
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0 00
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
Hyd No. 23 Time (min)
Hydrograph Report
Hydratlow Hydrographs by Intelisolve v9.02 Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
Hyd. No. 25
sum of flows to SP#2
Hydrograph type = Combine Peak discharge = 5.781 cfs
Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak = 748 min
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 144,086 cuft
Inflow hyds. = 6, 18, 20, 22, 23 Contrib. drain. area= 6.630 ac
sum of flows to SP#2
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 25 --1 Year Q (cfs)
6.00 6.00
5.00 5.00
4.00 4.00
3.00 3.00
2.00 2.00
1.00- A 1.00
-1- -MMOOMM
0.00 0.00
0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000
Hyd No. 25 --- Hyd No. 6 -- Hyd No. 18 Hyd No. 20 Time (min)
Hyd No. 22 Hyd No. 23
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve v9.02
Hyd. No. 1
Basin 1A pre onsite
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff
Storm frequency = 100 yrs
Time interval = 1 min
Drainage area = 135.700 ac
Basin Slope = 0.0%
Tc method = TR55
Total precip. = 7.00 in
Storm duration = 24 hrs
Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
Peak discharge = 329.59 cfs
Time to peak = 736 min
Hyd. volume = 1,536,978 tuft
Curve number = 65
Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Time of conc. (Tc) = 35.90 min
Distribution = Type II
Shape factor = 484
Q {cfs)
350.00
Basin 7A pre onsite
Hyd. No. 1 -100 Year
300.00
250.00
200.00
150.00
100.00
50.00
Q (cfs)
350.00
300.00
250.00
200.00
150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00 I I I I I ' I 1 l 1 I I ,-*, ' 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
Hyd No. 1 Time (min)
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intellsolve v9.02
Hyd. No. 2
Basin 1 B pre offsite
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff
Storm frequency = 100 yrs
Time interval = 1 min
Drainage area = 0.450 ac
Basin Slope = 0.0%
Tc method = TR55
Total precip. = 7.00 in
Storm duration = 24 hrs
Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
Peak discharge = 1.786 cfs
Time to peak = 735 min
Hyd. volume = 8,260 cuft
Curve number = 83
Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Time of conc. (Tc) = 35.90 min
Distribution = Type 11
Shape factor = 484
Q (cfs)
2.00
Basin IB pre offsite
Hyd. No. 2 -100 Year
1.00
0.00 -L
0
120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960
Q (cfs)
2.00
1.00
i 0.00
1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
Time (min)
---- Hyd No. 2
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by In#ellsolve v9.02 Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
Hyd. No. 3
sum of flows to SP#1
Hydrograph type = Combine Peak discharge = 331.37 cfs
Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 736 min
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 1,545,238 cult
Inflow hyds. = 1, 2 Contrib. drain. area= 136.150 ac
Q (cfs)
350.00
300.00
250.00
200.00
150.00
100.00
50.00
Q (cfs)
350M
300.00
250.00
200.00
150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00 I ' , i ?r¦rw?rrrrr?¦¦¦r?¦¦?.?i? ??¦I I r r r ?` ¦ rte- 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
Hyd No. 3 - Hyd No. 1 --¦ Hyd No. 2 Time (min)
sum of flows to SP#1
Hyd. No. 3 --100 Year
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve v9.02
Hyd. No. 5
Basin 2A pre onsite
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff
Storm frequency = 100 yrs
Time interval
Drainage area
Basin Slope
Tc method
Total precip.
Storm duration
1 min
29.400 ac
0.0%
TR55
7.00 in
24 hrs
Time to peak = 732 min
Hyd. volume = 309,584 cuft
Curve number = 63
Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Time of conc. (Tc) = 29.20 min
Distribution = Type II
Shape factor = 484
Q (cfs)
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
Q (cfs)
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00 1 t I I I i r¦ „- I I I I I II--J 1 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
---- Hyd No. 5 Time (min)
Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
Peak discharge = 75.75 cfs
Basin 2A pre onsite
Hyd. No. 5 -100 Year
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisoive v9.02
Hyd. No. 6
Basin 2B pre offsite
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff
Storm frequency = 100 yrs
Time interval
Drainage area
Basin Slope
Tc method
Total precip.
Storm duration
1 min
0.900 ac
0.0%
TR55
7.00 in
24 hrs
Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
Peak discharge = 3.131 cfs
Time to peak = 731 min
Hyd. volume = 12,510 cult
Curve number = 72
Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Time of conc. (Tc) = 29.20 min
Distribution = Type II
Shape factor = 484
Q (cfs)
4.00
Basin 2B pre offsite
Hyd. No. 6 -100 Year
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00 -L
0
120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960
Hyd No. 6
Q (cfs)
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
' 0.00
1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
Time (min)
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs. by Intelisolve v9.02
Hyd. No. 7
sum of flows to SP#2
Hydrograph type = Combine
Storm frequency = 100 yrs
Time interval = 1 min
Inflow hyds. = 5, 6
Q (Cfs)
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
Q (cfs)
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00 1 1 1 .. . , 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
Hyd No. 7 Hyd No. 5 Hyd No. 6 Time (min)
sum of flows to SP#2
Hyd. No. 7 -- 100 Year
Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
Peak discharge = 78.87 cfs
Time to peak = 732 min
Hyd. volume = 322,093 cuft
Contrib. drain. area= 30.300 ac
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by In#elisolve v9.02
Hyd. No. 9
basin 1 a post
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff
Storm frequency = 100 yrs
Time interval = 1 min
Drainage area = 56.700 ac
Basin Slope = 0.0%
Tc method = TR55
Total precip. = 7.00 in
Storm duration = 24 hrs
Q (cfs)
560.00
490.00
420.00
350.00
280.00
210.00
140.00
70.00
Q (cfs)
560.00
490.00
420.00
350.00
280.00
210.00
140.00
70.00
0.00 ' 1 1 ' 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200
Hyd No. 9 Time (min)
basin la post
Hyd. No. 9 -100 Year
Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
Peak discharge = 515.35 cfs
Time to peak = 718 min
Hyd. volume = 1,215,045 cuft
Curve number = 92
Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Time of conc. (Tc) = 7.00 min
Distribution = Type II
Shape factor = 484
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intellsolve v9.02
Hyd. No. 10
sum of flows to pond 1
Hydrograph type = Combine
Storm frequency = 100 yrs
Time interval = 1 min
Inflow hyds. = 2, 9
Q (cfs)
560.00
490.00
420.00
350.00
280.00
210.00
140.00
70.00
Q (cfs)
560.00
490.00
420.00
350.00
280.00
210.00
140.00
70.00
0.00 ' 1 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200
--- Hyd No. 10 -- Hyd No. 2 Hyd No. 9 Time (min)
sum of flows to pond 1
Hyd. No. 10 --100 Year
Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
Peak discharge = 516.28 cfs
Time to peak = 718 min
Hyd. volume = 1,223,305 cuft
Contrib. drain. area= 57.150 ac
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve v9.02 Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
Hyd. No. 11
route pond 1 a
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 371.82 cfs
Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 722 min
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 1,103,202 cuft
Inflow hyd. No. = 10 - sum of flows to pond 1 Max. Elevation = 779.47 ft
Reservoir name = pond 1 a Max. Storage = 469,528 cuft
Storage Indication method used.
route pond la
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 11 --100 Year Q (cfs)
560.00
490.00
420.00
350.00
280.00
210.00
140.00
70.00
0 00
560.00
490.00
420.00
350.00
280.00
210.00
140.00
70.00
0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
Time (min)
- Hyd No. 11 - Hyd No. 10 [i rI7 1313 Total storage used = 469,528 cuft
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve v9.02 Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
Hyd. No. 12
basin 1 b
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 266.34 cfs
Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 717 min
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 592,923 cuft
Drainage area = 27.200 ac Curve number = 90
Basin Slope = 0.0% Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = USER Time of conc. (Tc) = 5.00 min
Total precip. = 7.00 in Distribution = Type II
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
Q (cfs)
280.00
240.00
200.00
160.00
120.00
80.00
40.00
0.00 ' „1
0 120 240 360 480 600 720
- Hyd No. 12
basin lb
Hyd. No. 12 - 100 Year
Q (cfs)
280.00
240.00
200.00
160.00
120.00
80.00
40.00
' 0.00
840 960 1080 1200
Time (min)
Hydrograph Report
Hydraftow Hydrographs by Intelisolve v9.02
Hyd. No. 13
route pond lb
Hydrograph type = Reservoir
Storm frequency = 100 yrs
Time interval = 1 min
Inflow hyd. No. = 12 -basin 1b
Reservoir name = pond lb
Storage Indication method used.
Q (cfs)
280.00
240.00
200.00
160.00
120.00
80.00
40.00
240.00
200.00
160.00
120.00
80.00
40.00
0.00 s-- 1 1 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
- Hyd No. 13 Hyd No. 12 Tiff _i. _ , _,i Total storage used = 226,168 cult Time (min)
route pond 1 b
Hyd. No. 13 -100 Year
Q (cfs)
280.00
Peak discharge
Time to peak
Hyd. volume
Max. Elevation
Max. Storage
Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
= 199.73 cfs
= 721 min
= 521,240 cuft
= 770.89 ft
= 226,168 cuft
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve v9.02
Hyd. No. 14
Basin 1 b post onsite bypass
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff
Storm frequency = 100 yrs
Time interval = 1 min
Drainage area 51.800 ac
Basin Slope = 0.0%
Tc method = TR55
Total precip. = 7.00 in
Storm duration = 24 hrs
Q (cfs)
140.00
120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
Q (cfs)
140.00
120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00 1 1 , 1 I I I 1 I I t I 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
- Hyd No. 14 Time (min)
Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
Peak discharge = 130.41 cfs
Time to peak = 736 min
Hyd. volume = 605,967 cuft
Curve number = 66
Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Time of conc. (Tc) = 35.90 min
Distribution = Type II
Shape factor = 484
Basin 1 b post onsite bypass
Hyd. No. 14 -100 Year
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve v9.02
Hyd. No, 15
sum of flows to SP#1
Hydrograph type = Combine
Storm frequency = 100 yrs
Time interval = 1 min
Inflow hyds. = 11, 13, 14
Q (cfs)
720.00
630.00
540.00
450.00
360.00
270.00
180.00
90.00
Q (cfs)
720.00
630.00
540.00
450.00
360.00
270.00
180.00
90.00
0.00 ? ...?-- 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
- Hyd No. 15 --- Hyd No, 11 Hyd No. 13 --- Hyd No. 14 Time (min)
sum of flows to SP#1
Hyd. No. 15 --100 Year
Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
Peak discharge = 647.62 cfs
Time to peak = 722 min
Hyd. volume = 2,230,410 cult
Contrib. drain. area= 51.800 ac
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisoive v9.02
Hyd. No. 17
basin 2a
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff
Storm frequency = 100 yrs
Time interval
Drainage area
Basin Slope
Tc method
Total precip.
Storm duration
Q (cfs)
120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00 L
0 120 240
--- Hyd No. 17
1 min
10.620 ac
0.0%
USER
7.00 in
24 hrs
basin 2a
Hyd. No. 17 --100 Year
Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
Peak discharge = 108.67 cfs
Time to peak = 717 min
Hyd. volume = 254,662 cuft
Curve number = 95
Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Time of canc. (Tc) = 5.00 min
Distribution = Type Il
Shape factor = 484
360 480 600 720 840 960
Q (cfs)
120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
' 0.00
1080 1200
Time (min)
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve vg.02 Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
Hyd. No. 18
route pond 2a
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 99.76 cfs
Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 719 min
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 230,401 cuft
Inflow hyd. No. = 17 -basin 2a Max. Elevation = 813.98 ft
Reservoir name = pond 2a Max. Storage = 83,895 cuft
Storage Indication method used.
Q (cfs)
120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
Q (cfs)
120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00 =--- 1 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
--- Hyd No. 18 Hyd No. 17 T1TDT7j_ Total storage used = 83,895 cuff Time (min)
route pond 2a
Hyd. No. 18 -100 Year
Hydrograph Report
Hydrafiow Hydrographs by Intelisolve v9.02 Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
Hyd. No. 19
basin 2b
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 48.27 cfs
Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 717 min
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 107,467 cuft
Drainage area = 4.930 ac Curve number = 90
Basin Slope = 0.0% Hydraulic length = Oft
Tc method = USER Time of conc. (Tc) = 5.00 min
Total precip. = 7.00 in Distribution = Type II
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
Q (cfs)
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00 1
0 120 240
Hyd No. 19
basin 2b
Hyd. No. 19 --100 Year
360 480 600 720 840 960 1080
Q (cfs)
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
-- 0.00
1200
Time (min)
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve v9.02
Hyd. No. 20
route pond 2b
Hydrograph type = Reservoir
Storm frequency = 100 yrs
Time interval = 1 min
Inflow hyd. No. = 19 -basin 2b
Reservoir name = pond 2b
Storage Indication method used.
route pond 2b
Peak discharge
Time to peak
Hyd. volume
Max. Elevation
Max. Storage
Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
= 35.55 cfs
= 721 min
= 97,184 cuft
= 808.76 ft
= 45,234 cuft
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 20 --100 Year Q (cfs)
50.00 50.00
40.00 40.00
30.00 30.00
20.00 20.00
10.00 10.00
0.00 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
Time (min)
--- Hyd No. 20 Hyd No. 19 !.,.. _ ,..W._...., Total storage used = 45,234 cult

Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisohre v9.02 Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
Hyd. No. 21
basin 2c
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 83.09 cfs
Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 717 min
Time interval = 1 min Hyd..volume = 190,360 cuft
Drainage area = 8.240 ac Curve number = 93
Basin Slope = 0.0% Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 5.60 min
Total precip. = 7.00 in Distribution = Type II
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
basin 2c
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 21 -100 Year
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0 00
Q (cfs)
0 120 240 360 480 600
Hyd No. 21
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
720 840 960 1080 1200
Time (min)
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve v9.02 Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
Hyd. No. 22
route pond 2c
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 64.41 cfs
Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 720 min
Time interval = 1 min Hyd. volume = 169,066 cuft
Inflow hyd. No. = 21 - basin 2c Max. Elevation = 822.99 ft
Reservoir name = pond 2c Max. Storage = 63,177 cuft
Storage Indication method used.
Q (cfs)
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
Q (cfs)
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00 ' ' ' 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
Hyd No. 22 - Hyd No. 21 LU=- , Total storage used = 63,177 cult Time (min)
route pond 2c
Hyd. No. 22 -100 Year
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve v9.02
Hyd. No. 23
bypass 2
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff
Storm frequency = 100 yrs
Time interval = 1 min
Drainage area = 5.730 ac
Basin Slope = 0.0%
Tc method = TR55
Total precip. = 7.00 in
Storm duration = 24 hrs
Q (cfs)
14.00
bypass 2
Hyd. No. 23 --100 Year
12.00
10.00
Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
Peak discharge = 12.12 cfs
Time to peak = 734 min
Hyd. volume = 53,816 cuft
Curve number = 60
Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Time of canc. (Tc) = 32.90 min
Distribution = Type II
Shape factor = 484
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
Q (cfs)
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00 I i i i i I C I i I i , , `1_ 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
- Hyd No. 23 Time (min)
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intellsolve v9.02
Hyd. No. 25
sum of flows to SP#2
Hydrograph type = Combine
Storm frequency = 100 yrs
Time interval = 1 min
Inflow hyds. = 6, 18, 20, 22, 23
Q (cfs)
210.00
180.00
150.00
120.00
90.00
60.00
30.00
Q (cfs)
210.00
180.00
150.00
120.00
90.00
60.00
30.00
0.00 l 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
Time (min)
-- Hyd No. 25 Hyd No. 6 --- Hyd No. 18 -- Hyd No. 20
Hyd No. 22 Hyd No. 23
sum of flows to SP#2
Hyd. No. 25 -100 Year
Thursday, Apr 26, 2007
Peak discharge = 206.27 cfs
Time to peak = 720 min
Hyd. volume = 562,977 tuft
Contrib. drain. area= 6.630 ac
APPENDIX C
OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE DETAILS
-1 T
V+?otverton st nssocwes
N
n
cps
F= 0

z _ W
?? 3 d F
N
C-4 W

'
:
.
w w
7
/
In F- u ^

` z
O ?z
oa
v I OC `w
V
m
z
0
W
I-
e
a w
? n t\ n
W Q Z

Z U
u
e 3 $Q 2WOJ
.o r- ; H Z U w
em
o b
? Z away
w ?w
wo
o

Q

? o
? Z

°S O
o
w
G?
?
t
-
U

V)
J J
w
S g

0

z
z i-
J
j' i (n
j N W O Z
ii-- < 77
2
888

O
j Z
.
'J

II rr9 W ?"

?r. '

Y

U a
I r?f

O lPE W
?W
??
J
r7®J
q
R
?
11 ?

4•
Nrc ?i
O

'z

LL cc 0
'

O
,
0 W o O co 0

fi ? n n ?
09

r

°m
°
? Z z 9$ w

? owo
d ?b
o

c
?
O
?

8 O

03 a
W

F?-
V
D

J
3. O
z

z
0

0
=
a W
yL
?
y

?

; ? WW

N W Q z
z
c
c
m<2<2m
W .
? 1- 4W
J
? Vv
Si
z

/
=
O
r
b /
8 ? ? / to
n
/ I o
~ „
? I'wTl U
?
g
:
J

i

A

S o

Z u.
z

? a
d LJj N c`l M
V
k! ?
? a0 CO N

?j
&
?
4
F Oz6
b .iE '- V
Z W
I(x
y
?Rl w ?
O
so b O W

? Z

o?
m
I
ti
Of
V)
J
Of

? z

? U
s w
Yt ?

3? , z
b / o

8 / n cn
u • 9 (n

# I

n
WW
? a
? b
yJ s U Z
?
Z
O
< p?
g Z V
w c .J LLJ
a U
o F W < 0 2_ ."? O
? p
j
` v
VIz ?
W Q
f
5
1 05 LLJ
O
z z
o -
v
b 0
y
w
$
•'.?r' 0 0 0
w L>iJ O O! N
0 W
a V W
O
W
W
? o 0
0
>
y ?
5 O z
z z? >.
Q
o
a
a? r w
~ ?ZwaU.
?a w< > '

o w O
?1D z
W 3

LL
O
O

02
m
I

U

U
o
? z h-
r V
i w

? -j V)
z
z
Y a r (D Z
g

< a a

Z

U
V)

cn
F ? Q

W

w a
o
a
?
?n
K>
n®w

Ui C',
i
-?
S t
fir` O ?n
r > W T

z ?z

W ` L
W W O N Oi
Ud C
N N
a N
y 00 00 CO

C
Z
O
J
--
-

rom a_
?
w

v

F-

J
3 0

z

6 s I-
i rZS :
O Z

3° z
'
O

LLJ
UP
v?
r V)
/ O
U

b

m
as
w
?
A'
j
5
,
t
y
740G1
APPENDIX D
CULVERT SIZING
%mbbm ton'bt` Wdates
c?
CHART 8
12
ciA
C.= o,?-?
PC , - ate
Goo
11
590
EXAMPLE
1o 400 r x T eox Or-7504
cm w 15 crab!
e 30D inlet ]W HW
D (R)
8 (1) 1.75 3.5
200 (2) 1.80 3.8
(3) zas ?.1
r
5
0
O a
to
x
3
2
L- 1
BUREAU OF PUBUD ROADS JAM 1063
b5 CJ5
(1) (2) (3) t, ?J t
g 0 10
=r g b o4
..0 7 8 l_
5 6 e C.i,?-? V CA-
5
a 5
a
a
3
C 3
100 ' ! ,(r
50 / (LL9 .5 1.5 I L] f'T ?S
-40
0
CD -
30 /
PLE r
0 20/ qr 1.9 i?
0.9 V
An9fe or
YVL?M
/ 4a Mars
a
8
0 9 0.9
/ x
6 .
0.
.r
6
5 WALL SCALE WING
7
0.7
a D FLARE 0.8
(t) 3e° to Te
3 (2) upondis, .8 0.8
(a) Os(cmewoto 0.3
2 sr sides)
8.3 0.3
To us* *Ws (s) or 0) ore)sst
horkontr* to acts (Ih thm
uss atrsfa» t pncifn.d afx mrovah 0 4
1 D amt Q S=W; or ravsras as
Y7ustwwL
0.9 OA DA
4
0.6
-
0.35 0.35
D.5 m
HEADWATER DEPTH
FOR BOX CULVERTS
WITH INLET CONTROL
4B-10
Cnvtnnett County Manual CH4
C- f A
Z?
i'Z(' 0 c,
-7D
CHART 8
C
O
8
m
0
T
OUMU OF PUSL}O ROADS JAN. 1983
?yc
(1) (21 (3)
MCANIPLE
rxYBox Q-75cfs g
7 9
= 10
Q/B a 15 di;fft 6 7 6
7
Mlet l g
D (fQ s
5 6
(1) 1.76 3.5
(2) 100 3 8 4 5
4
1 d
(3) 2.05
. 4
3
3
3
2
2
. ? 1.5
i
2
.q,s )
0 UAo 0?D
F.7(AdVWLE
1.0
1 Od-
Angle 0.9 1.0 1.0 I J p}1(
m of
m rf f
vWngwaa - cc ? . V
Ro"
A) VAN WALL 0.7 0.7
} SCAI E FLARE 0.0
(s} We to76°
(2j s0`wwii;°
f9} g°(sstenaions 0.5
or stdsa)
0.9 0.5
7o me two (2) or (J) P".t
hod[oyde b, to eca}e (1), then
use st attdd inched One through 0.4
0 and Q UNION or twetee as
Bturtreted.
0.4 0.4
0.30 0.35 0.35
HEADWATER DEPTH
FOR BOX CULVERTS
WITH INLET CONTROL
4B-10
Gwinnott County Manual CH4
APPENDIX E
PLANTING TABLE
III
MblMtD 6l ASWCWW
AL L
y L
w L
ea
y

c c c c b 0

ch ri y uci
ag

is O

G f: C> 0 C)

O
O
z z

GG° w;" -
OD
'? : • N

V
Q

ry m Q a. o to U
Lu
-; v?
, ,; J U t0 ?

2 IT c 'Fu 45

tr ?: c '0)

?1 r a a U) U
{ r?
Y ~ UJ
Ud LL,
"
Z
?&Yat
?smc ..Q
j,
UI J
Z ?.
g
02z

APPENDIX F
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT

WETLAND DETENTION BASIN OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
The wetland detention basin system is defined as the wetland detention basin,. pretreatment including forebays
and the vegetated filter if one is provided.
Maintenance activities shall be performed as follows:
1. After every significant runoff producing rainfall event and at least monthly.
a. Inspect the wetland detention basin system for sediment accumulation, erosion, trash accumulation,
vegetated cover, and general condition,
b. Check and clear the orifice of any obstructions such that drawdown of the temporary pool occurs within
2 to 5 days as designed.
2. Repair eroded areas immediately, re-seed as necessary to maintain good vegetative cover, mow
vegetative oover to maintain a maximum height of six inches, and remove trash as needed.
3. Inspect and repair the collection system (.e. catch basins, piping, swales, dprop, etc.) quarterly to
maintain proper functioning.
4. Remove accumulated sediment from the wetland detention basin•system semi-annually or when depth is
reduced to T59/9 of the original design depth (see diagram below). Removed sediment shall be disposed
of in an appropriate manner and shall be handled in a manner that will not adversely impact water quality
(i.e. stockpiling near a wetland detention basin or stream, etc.).
The measuring device used to determine the sediment elevation shall be such that it will give an accurate
depth reading and not readily penetrate, into accumulated sediments.
If the elevation of the marsh areas exceed the permanent pool elevation, the sediment should be removed
to design levels. This shall be performed by removing the upper 6 inches of soil and stockpiling It. Then
the marsh area shall be excavated six Inches below design elevations. Afterwards the stockpiled soil
should be spread over the marsh surface, The soil should not be stockpiled for more than two weeks.
When the permanent pool depth reads feet in the forebay and micro-pool, the sediment shall be
removed.
BASIN DIAGRAM
(fill in the blanks)
Permanent. Pool Elevation
Sediment F?moval EI- 75%
Sediment Removal Elevation
Bottom E vation _ 5yo --------------------------.. . ?._._.
FOREBAY MAIN POND
5. Wetland planting densities in the marsh areas should be maintained by replanting bare areas as needed.
Wetland plants should be encouraged to grow in the marsh areas.
Page I of 2 .
6. If the basin must be drained for an emergency or to perform maintenance, the flushing of sediment
through the emergency drain shall be minimized to the maximum extent practical.
7. Ail components of the wetland detention basin system shall be maintained in good working order.
8. Level spreaders or other structures that provide diffuse flow shall be maintained every six months. All
accumulated sediment and debris shall be removed from the structure, and a level elevation shall be
maintained across the entire flow spreading structure. Any down gradient erosion must be repaired and/or
replanted as necessary.
1 acknowledge and agree by my signature below that I am responsible for the performance of the seven
maintenance procedures listed above. I agree to notify dWQ of any problems with the system or prior to any
changes to the system or responsible party.
Thomas K. Walker, Trustee of Thomas K. Walker Trust
Print name:^u/t/a dated 3/28/90,, as emend2d
Titie• Aut:ho.rized Member - Archdale Partners, L..L.C.
Note: The legally responsible party. should not be a homeowners assoolation unless more than 50% of the
lots have been sold and a resident of the subdivision has been named the president,
i, Mard a Eta ina . a Notary Publio for the State of Missouri. ,
St. Charles 4 M.
County dofierebycertifythat Thomas K. Walker, Trustee & '4 *"- r. lUcMale
of
personally appeared before me this 2gthday of November taers ? 2 06 , and adknowledge the due
execution of the forgoing wetland. detention basin maintenance requirements. Witness my hand and official
seal,
'Vol"

?
MARIAMMG
:?4?
?"??: htyCa?eBion6?lte8
:SPAT. suoikGoinly

SEAL
,
My commission expires 11/412009
Page 2 of 2
SEDIMENT CLEAN-OUT DEPTHS

1 Q EB.? % _ MICRO POOL
P C RN NLN'l' '?

PO, D Sediment Sediment
POOL

In
Bottom,
Removal Bottom
Removal

L VATIUN>
Elevation....;
Elevation Elevation .
Elevation .
t.
la t
.
1A 773.00 773.75 772.00 773.00 776.00
1B 764.00 764.50 763.00 763.75 767.00
2A 809.00 809.50 809.00 809.50 812.00
2B 803.00 803.50 804.00 804.50 806.00
2C 817.00 817.50 816.00 816.75 820.00
Appendix E: Aerial Photograph
Ell !
-
r

x
r

ex
4
JO
x

x.

s
w.
7
r

:

•
r
A
#
N, yfiY

Nib
e '
a °
r

o ?.
z

• I
'

N
fi -
K
` r' Legend
W E
4 El Property Boundary
?? *€ 4,

S

t
rol
S Pond
a %44 - - Intermittent Stream
0 325 650 1,300 Perennial Stream
Feet , / s
.s Wetland

Title 2005 Aerial Photography Map
Project Shoppes at Bush Hill USACE AID # 200620747
Applicant: Date of Public Notice:
Archdale Partners, LLC Shoppes At Bush Hill County: Guilford and Randolph
530 Huber Park Court Aerial Map Waterway: Muddy Creek
Weldon Springs, MO 63304 River Basin: Cape Fear
T:\pn\012781000 Archdale Retail Dev\lndividual_Pennit\FIGURES\Archdale_IP_Aerial_Map.doc Prepared by Laura Lang r: -" = a.,
Appendix F: Floodplain and Watershed Mapping

N
W E
S
0 325 650 1,300
1
I ?
Feet
FLOOD HAZARD DEFINITIONS:
Legend Zone AE
Zones AE corresponds to the 1-percent annual chance floodplains
Property Boundary that are determined in the Flood Insurance Study by detailed
methods of analysis.
AE
Zones B, C, and X
AEFW Zones B, C, and X are the flood insurance rate zones that

® SHADED X correspond to areas outside the 1-percent annual chance floodplain,
areas of 1-percent annual chance sheet flow flooding where
average depths are less than 1 foot, areas of 1-percent annual
chance stream flooding where the contributing drainage area is less
Source: North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Information System (FMIS) than 1 square mile, or areas protected from the 1-percent annual
http://www.ncfloodmaps.com/ chance flood by levees.
Title FEMA Flood Hazard Map
Project Shoppes at Bush Hill USACE AID # 200620747
Applicant: Date of Public Notice:
Archdale Partners, LLC Shoppes At Bush Hill County: Guilford and Randolph
530 Huber Park Court Floodplain Map Waterway: Muddy Creek
Weldon Springs, MO 63304 River Basin: Cape Fear
T:\pn\012781000 Archdale Retail Dev\lndividual_Pennit\FIGURES\Archdale_IP_FEMA_Map.doc Prepared by Laura Lang Czn ne _m
aL w1 ? L4 . ?? , ? q ? y. ? • t
Watershed A: • r
,• •? 212 ac ,
mar- 119 ac within Project Boundary
•?' • • i
• o Watershed B:
'... 25 ac
?, • 16 ac within Project Boundary
• 829 -?.. ;. - , .
t ' • `-ate,:,, • '
OIL
t
• e Z f
• • 1 ? 1 lIIIJJJJ n i ? 5 •f•? •
I
r
• ? .?. " :. : ?rr."gym
I
r
p
y r •
%
IrrQ A
r
y. Watershed C: i I .
39 ac
• N
20 ac within Project Boundary
W E
Property Boundary
{ • 0 500 1,000 2,000
1 r ' Feet
Title Watershed Area Map
Project Shoppes at Bush Hill USACE AID # 200620747
Applicant: Date of Public Notice:
Archdale Partners, LLC ShWate sh Bush Hill County: Guilford and Randolph
530 Huber Park Court Watershed Map Waterway: Muddy Creek
Weldon Springs, MO 63304 River Basin: Cape Fear
UprM2781000 Archdale Retail Prepared by Laura Lang [ten '°'
Dev\lndividual-Permit\PIGURES?Atrchdale IP_Watenhed_Map.doc
Appendix G: Site Photographs
Photograph 1. Southwest view of project site; note pond in central portion of site.
:t
? ?. ,?, fe4?TS
411
t? d44 tY`?1! filar r v' v} ??sa z
#st P (I rff ?? i+yn q r
's5ti r ,v M r'° !) /J]}!} } A's?,„ o- ! tq?. M1 Ida }..y/?y ' ?a tl 11
yy rF': 6 `r .y / q ? ' ^ M '"'F 'fem. + ? ff
? ? dt }' ? r8 ?( J s i r '? ? f 't4 i$ s i pry '' y?? ?'?? '?? ? "`? _? Sk
04
•?tG ?r vCf, +`nt* d)
Photograph 2. Southeast view of project site looking down linear emergent Wetland B into riparian forested Wetland A
Title Site Photographs Photo Page 1
Project Shoppes at Bush Hill USACE AID # 200620747
Applicant: Date of Public Notice:
Archdale Partners, LLC County: Guilford and Randolph
530 Huber Park Court Shoppes At Bush Hill Waterway: Muddy Creek
Weldon Springs, MO 63304 River Basin: Cape Fear
T:',pn\012781000 Archdale Retail Dev\Indiv dual_Permit\Permit Prepared by Laura Lang
Document\Pholos\Archdale IP Photo Block.doc

....?
'?
?
•
f?•
? ?
a
•
.IT^
,.
'?
4
t?
?' ?'
.
.
. ! 7b
A
l
l
'
4
F
4; Y
x f
1
tz'a.r(l
r +d1+ _,?' h f -.

yyry??? r

1' '' r rf d a r1
C,s
?j -
Photograph 3. North view of emergent/scrub-shrub Wetland J
*T,y yr 4-.. ??K ,[' ??. r •IkY j;?vFr f
'0 4 sl 'k .? ') lti? rr Acf
>„^
ti
u
14rf 5 ) ?
o t
?``
!?
a
r
}
.i
1' ?' ,f,
?
1
? ?
h 1
?l
S
I 1
i ??
'
. e r ?kn

t >t ?
eg)r
b + < L t ;
'?, k r „ t ! ks ' it t R kl 4
'Jkm ? r,? r n 1 i ; ?a Sir • ?.
ti =„4
d
'"
V
Y 10 1 "11`s l
4
" #
,
?
e
. ?
? tl'1
a
11yy/)
fi.
?
? „ 4 tl V , F
?
"?Y
?
?{?
.,?r
^1'
F
a
'
p?:9 w ? a J r .,r,? ?,. 3 vcryp? .
lF. }y , f ? '? •i ? ?61a
E
°
t S
E I i
,
,h
Ir
r
A n
11
r
k,
. '
44,
?"l '?t ;.
. < 1?".'tt
.#e y?,?rt?e„? -_? •"?'"?` ?KK; M? i ?
„
a
`?
.
?;g ?`?
' '`'?''??
?14
,
?
x
y,
t.
9
'?& ? ,tM
`

• ? T
•
` S' ,
,..f } y V?l
,r
. 'e'o-...
d .
J
?1
?
4
y1y Ac

Photograph 4. Northeast view of non-riparian forested Wetland G (typical representation of on-site forested wetlands).
Title Site Photographs Photo Page 2
Project Shoppes at Bush Hill USACE AID # 200620747
Applicant: Date of Public Notice:
Archdale Partners, LLC County: Guilford and Randolph
530 Huber Park Court Shoppes At Bush Hill Waterway: Muddy Creek
Weldon Springs, MO 63304 River Basin: Cape Fear
T:',pd,012781000 Archdale Rctail DMndmdual Pcrmi \Permil Prepared by Laura Lang CC" re?i m r,iti
DOcumennPhmos\Archdale IP Pholo 81ock.doc

41

Lt i b-{ L? ry r?5 tla A?#y?a`5? ? +1 '
?p 4l`.e: X? f
b f J ?'y ? ? 1
i
P

'
01
"?" j
« r "; 3 d6
?
.
't ? x? ,,Y,•y $y i ?y?i? .(t?...? ,}? ,?, .?.??3r
`
?t D??k -"

?.
ye At
E
,

914
,. :d tr y
;ao- src f 4oxr?P??f r? 4?y`.
.. y
X,
%
t"
'
?
{
y Sb 0.R+' 1 {. i` tia
R
Wh
`ly y
y
.,
Photograph 5. North view of riparian emergent Wetland H.

Al,
` ..
?
1 1
ff }} i

ef
y '4
. , pN e J • {d
? "'. t
..- .i»••,•-
b
'
,
l
`
e
4
°?
1 ro
r
I
r ?
?i4
v
'i'?a
Vl'" \q
Yv j
t
YY
?
? f -
3e
'M g, c;?,.
rg1p.
"
11 ??.J?.Y i
'
ra
?
, ?•
t-iTM r ?
h
4W-a
ti

to ?r'• ??trv` ,. 1
- In
x?_ 1 yy
Photograph 6. East view of non-riparian forested Wetand F.
Title Site Photographs Photo Page 3
Project Shoppes at Bush Hill USACE AID # 200620747
Applicant: Date of Public Notice:
Archdale Partners, LLC County: Guilford and Randolph
530 Huber Park Court Shoppes At Bush Hill Waterway: Muddy Creek
Weldon Springs, MO 63304 River Basin: Cape Fear
T:\pn\01278100O Archdale Retail Dev\buividual PernmiTernut Prepared by Laura Lang r_ zF1 wl "= 1.
Document\Photos\Archdale IP Photo Bi,ick.doc
? t.
a F ? t ,K
4 a
t a r
ve ?
+rn'
a

Photograph 8. Northwest view of perennial Stream 1.

Y _
Title Site Photographs Photo Page 4
Project Shoppes at Bush Hill USACE AID # 200620747
Applicant: Date of Public Notice:
Archdale Partners, LLC County: Guilford and Randolph
530 Huber Park Court Shoppes At Bush Hill Waterway: Muddy Creek
Weldon Springs, MO 63304 River Basin: Cape Fear
T:\pa\012781000 Archdale Retail Dev\lndivid,al Pcrmit\Peaan Prepared by Laura Lang C??, stlNVMaia.
Doe,ment\Photos\Archdale IP Photo Block.doc
Appendix H: Adjacent Property Owners
Guilford County
Keun P. Jon, Nan Soon Jon and Jeson Chi
P. O. Box 321
Jamestown, NC 27282
CNS Inc.
P. O. Box 321
Jamestown, NC 27282
Coastal Business Partners
1771 NC 62 West
Archdale, NC 27263
Fred and Aileen Ravis
1763 NC 62 West
High Point, NC 27263
Diep Thanh and Mary Khai
7002 Bluewood Court
High Point, NC 27263
Clarence and Fay Thomas
7004 Bluewood Court
High Point, NC 27263-9404
Rufus F. Laws, Jr. and wife, Frances Laws
7006 Bluewood Court
High Point, NC 27263-9404
Robert and Patricia Grant
7008 Bluewood Court
High Point, NC 27263
Laura Auman
7010 Bluewood Court
High Point, NC 27263-9404
Don and Betty Ingram
7011 Bluewood Court
High Point, NC 27263-9404
BTCM: 333350V I
Clifford Hill
1612 KerseyValley Road
High Point, NC 27263-9412
Wayne Luquer, Sr. and wife, Rebecca
6505 Staffordshire Drive
High Point, NC 27263-9469
Jerry Frazier and wife, Jeanette
6502 Staffordshire Drive
High Point, NC 27263-9469
Charma Reynolds
6418 Staffordshire Drive
High Point, NC 27263
Jack and Betty sue Locklear
1841 Weant Road
High Point, NC 27265
David Harvell
6610 Chadwick Drive
High Point, NC 27263
Richard and Nancy Harward
6608 Chadwick Drive
High Point, NC 27263-9407
Phillip and Frances Brown
7100 Chanterelle Drive
High Point, NC 27263-9408
Randolph CountX
First Church of God in High Point
7009 Weant Road
Archdale, NC 27263
Thomas and Donna Kearnes
7004 Weant Road
Archdale, NC 27263-7951
BTCM: 333350V I
Michael and Janice Wilson
7026 Weant Road
Archdale, NC 27263
Charles and Evelyn Marsh
3409 Longview Drive
Archdale, NC 27263-2433
John and Iva Roland
5814 Appling Road
Archdale, NC 27263
Mary Bogle
3413 Longview Drive
Archdale, NC 27263
Scott and Sherry Palmer
3415 Longview Drive
Archdale, NC 27263
Archdale Pilgrim Holiness Church
7000 Tulane Drive
Archdale, NC 27263
City of Archdale
P. O. Box 14068
Archdale, NC 27263
Todd Prevost
104 Jacob Court
Archdale, NC 27263
Michael and Jill Burgess
201 Simmons Creek Court
Archdale, NC 27263
John and Kimberly Clark
203 Simmons Creek Court
Archdale, NC 27263
Martha and Darrell Bullock
204 Simmons Creek Court
Archdale, NC 27263
BTCM: 333350VI
Christina Jackson
119 Hope Valley Road
Archdale, NC 27263
Christopher and Ginger Crites
123 Hope Valley Drive
Archdale, NC 27263
Kenny and Shayland Edwards
125 Hope Valley Road
Archdale, NC 27263
Donald and Mary Crafton
127 Hope Valley Road
Archdale, NC 27263
BTCM:333350VI
Appendix I: Agent Authorization Form
Letter of Authorization
Archdale Partners, LLC. authorizes Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. to act as
our limited agent to prepare and coordinate in the application to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers for 404/401 permits and jurisdictional determinations
associated with the Archdale commercial/retail development located in Archdale,
Guilford County, North Carolina. Authorization will terminate on either final
agency action or upon written notification from either parties involved.
(Signature of ent)
7 0
Date
i ` , ~
g t 1 ~t ,
1R E ~ '1 t I ~ i
~I i ~ ^ N ! i1 r 1 ~ Ir r y,
o 4 l~ ~ 7 ~I - / / r , ,
y~ i7 I /i ' f~ ~1 r
i' 1 i i~ ; ;
i t~ ~ I r ~ i / i U '
b' j ; jr /
f i S 1 s t' t; ~ ~ t I~~ F'
l i ~ + i • tr. 1.' f ~ 'i f, ~ F! .r i fl. r' ' F
q. ~ ' ,j
- ~ ; r r F i / ' 1
f . , ~ ~ _
7.., .,Gp r,P - ,r t ~ . t. _ + f i
fr f 1 f~ j ~~i I i may.
% ' . r r I F , i
~ . 5~ / ' ~ ~ / i i ~ IN i t ~ i / F
r' f / i ~ f, . I Ir f .fjt
I i /r f - ~ r I
i I / r ~ /
t I 1 ~ ~ i~ t J
1 i / r /
,7 ~ i r j ~i ~ ' ~ ~ t
~ , ~ ~ 1 i .I ;I t ' ~ I I J~j I 7 ~ 1, \ ' ' 4 .
< I ~ r ~ ~ t \ t 1 ~I ~ ~ t j % f, ~
I / I; l j a,l' ~'t
~ `1 t i f,l a i ,r - j~ - ~ 1, ~ E ~ ~ ~ ~ rF , . , , I t~ ~ ~ ~ C I.
. ~ i ~ ' i r t I i r ~ ~ I j I - r t r i.~ + ~ I f tt ~>;tr.. X1'1 t
~ I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ .n ~ j ! ~ ~ ~ ~ t , I t , 1, 1 t i 3 r F -
a I j `I ~ I i . + i ~ $ ~ t ` I ~ ~
N ~ j I ~'~c ~ I ( .a a i i ~ r
s , ~ I ? ~ ~ I I i ~ I . I I j { ~ _ ! ~ i ~ ~ ~ +I + f._. ,
r.y I . ' j ~ ~ i f - ..L..1.... r ~ , , ~ I j 't f ! i t ~ z. C.. i t l i f ~ I- ..F .t ' ~ 1 ~ 1
I ~ ~ f i ~ l • i as ~ ~ # \ ~ v t ) , t `t t i ~ ~ l
i 1 I r i AAN7 C f ~ j s ~ i i j i I ~ f I Z t 1 //v~\ i'~. J i
\ i ~ I \ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ' ~ l I ~ ~ ,
\ \ I i fry ' ` f ~ ~ i i i ~ ~ , of ~ f 1 1 + f \ ~ i ~ 11 ~ ~ ~ f
J ~ ~'w \ 1`. . . ~ . ~ 1 / ; I ~ i ' . . ! ~ - ~ , r ~ ~ r ~ {
/ ` ' " + ~ . _ . I f u : _ ..w.._ - t- ~ ~ ~
~ I i ~ _ t ' . ~ i
i ~ i ! I r i' I i! i i f 1! 1 t' t'" . 1 _ _Y . , ~ j '
! ~ t 1 ~ j r....l ~ I r ~ j ~ ~ tt 1 t
~ C:. ~ f~ % ~t~L . j I WARE~iQU~E t ~ ~ ` • I° r' i_~ ~ ~1 r'; t + ~ R ~ j~.~ ~ t, lift, r'`l tif¢Ai~-~ t t . ~ ~ ~ ti,
1 ~ ,~r 1 ~ v r' , ~ t n ~ , + ~ ! r + . ~ i _ ~ CIE r . , ~ 1 t ~ ~ " ~ r . . _ _ _ _ _ • ~ ~ ? i ; f X11 Rf' I , . ~ i ~
f ~ \ ~ f f \ ~ ri ` ~~~y! l i ~
_-~/t)FFiCE AST ,C 5
k \ ~ ~ ~ \ ~l I \ ~ ~ \ . Y I I x~-__ ~r t ~ ~ F, t ~

~ \ . , • ~ C3 t ~ ~
~ i i • kruwr I ~ , i ? ~ I i 1 ; ~l r f-- _ ~ . - i la~,l ._.w w _.t'~ ~ ~ - - ~ t ; ~
t t t w 1 I . . . . . . . + •f /r \ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i -
( ~ !t f f !t { 1Q2,420 SF ~ \ yi + \ c \ ~ C t ~ ~ y ~ ~ 1 ' ~ j '1
\ ~ $ f ~ I I i j , \ ~ ~ ~ • , co v} , . • n ?r __..i.... ~ f f ~ r
\ \ ~ ~ r 1 ~1
f ~1 l•% r/- \ ,111.1 ~ \ ` ` / ! I ~ { ! 1 .
r - , i i
l ' I:: ~ , 1 1. J ,tip .t \ ~ i'-~. f I ;r ( '1 l ~ \ \ \ I ~ jj 1
i f' I • , + \ 11 ~ ~ \ . \ ~n to iii li ~ 1~+1t,,\~`,t``. ~ ` \ ` ' \ '4 4 . ~ t -7 ~ 1. I `I
i / ! C i i ~"1 ~ 1 i « f
i ~ _.1 i ` - ! \l ~ \ ~ iI ~ I " ~ ~ i
~.....t~NT I !
L ~ E
ti ~ ; Z ~ ~ k ~ ~ ~f % ~ I ~ E ' I r, lj ri i lr i ! i t f I ~t 1 i i •1 l: r W 1 i J ~ 1, /!r ~ /r l- (f ~ ' 1 .y , , i 'i I t 4 ~ } J / ll 'i ~ 1, / S , , . ~`i + l r-
~ ~ AE~'AIL ~ ~ t ~ ~ , i .5 , Si i }
_ s 1 , s ` ~ '~«..?r/ ~ ~ . Syr / . 1 ' ~ ` I ~ , 1 ( 1 t
x j 1 ! n t ~i yi
`1 ~ J ; / ` I ,4 , 1';i ,1 ~ t~
V ~~•i { ~}l '~`1;
~ f i . . ~ . !.lip i ~ i /
/ If ~ \ , li r
, ~ ~ ~ ~ fg~ i CpA~ l f 4,.~r' + - t~
~ ' ti ~ 6° T,. , f ~ ~ ~,~,~t' ~ ~ ~ ~ ,,d k N ~ a
PERENNIAL STREAM 7 ,i ` ;i IS 1 r - f t _.i...-.- rl • - r ~ ~ f ~ ~ , ~ f.n~y` - f: a
ti, ~i ~ i /T ti ,~J- ~ 1. _ t t f~' ya 00
~ ~`G ~ - ~ j r irk ~
~ E i A,r CF y~~ f I .`h; ~ it I'{~ i ~ ` _ i i \J r. ~ , , ~ k s P~ ~~9 4`~, . ,~~~r ~lr~ fA4. I7y
i ~ t ~t ~}i 1~ f k I ' ~ ,
~+j~i~ ,I
it
~ , J
.
'may r 4 i f
t f ' S N
~ ~ ' .....--...-..,a-.,.,,_~ j
I "r_ w E
f, ~l ~l f `Z ~
1~ 1~ \ ~ ' i S
/ J \
w 1 ~ ~ ~
d i \ r i \ t
l
06 1862\/ 2
Title Figure of 14
Pr t et Bush HN USACE AID # 200620747
Date of Public Notice:
Archdale Partners LLC 530 Huber Park Court 1r ~ CoMtT. Guilford and Randolph 'all Site Plan
Weldon S rin s, MO 63304 P 9 Watwva • Muddy Creek Y' Ewer EWdkV Cape Fear