Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20061862 Ver 2_Individual_20070509Kimley-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 919 677 2000 RIi 7t 7 } `ACH FAX 919 677 2050 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 (919) 677-2073. 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: (636) 300-4567 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 919 677 2000 FAX 919 677 2050 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 (636) 300-4567 b. Business (919) 677-2073 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 (919) 856-4520 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 (336) 449-7625. 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: (919) 707-0220 - Fax: (919) 707-0028 a'd SZ9l,-Ebb-9EE queRag -I,S dggcIo go 131 2nd Tugwell, Todd From: Dale_Suiter@fws.gov 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 (919) 856-4520, Ext. 18 or.Dale-Suiter@fws.gov. 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 - Dale_Suiter@fws.gov -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 (919)733-6547/715-4801 SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 (919)733-6545/715-4801 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 (919) 716-1921. 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 #:(336)431-6807 Email: jwells@archdale-nc.gov 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 (770) 447-8999 PHONE (770) 447-9070 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