20071995 Ver 1_Individual_20071128

..
Y
1000 W. Morehead, Suite 200
Post Office Box 35624
Charlotte, NC 28235
[phone]
[phone] FAX
3505 Koyer Blvd., Suite 205
Duluth, GA 30096
[phone]
[phone] FAX
4348 Southpoint Boulevard
Suite 310
Jacksonville, FL 32216
[phone]
[phone] FAX
1C300 Midlothian Turnpike
Suite 302
Richmond, \/A 23235
[phone]
(804) 378-G923 FAX
454 S. Anderson Road
Suite3, BTC 517
Business Technology Center
Rock Hl~i, SC 29730
[phone]
[phone] FAX
4975 LaCross Road
Suite 314
Charleston, SC 29406
[phone]
1843) 329-1049
;s739 National Drive
Suite 128
i;aleiyh.. NC 27612
(919)791-010c
[phone] FAX
6405 Metcalf
Suite 516
Overland Park, KS 66202
[phone]
[phone] (Fax)
07-1995
STVIR~~LI`~ I WHITEHEAD ASSOCIATES, INC. `k~ ~ ~ `
Consulting Engineers Charlotte Atlanta Jacksonville Richmond 9 t ~ I _` t - t
Raleigh Kansas City Charleston Rock Hill
To: NCDENR Division of Water Quality
Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
WE ARE SENDING YOU:
I~~ II II ~~ O~ ~ o ~ IJV~IJUU~~Lr-\~~
Date: 11/21/07 Job No. 3202
Attention: Ian McMillan

RE: Individual 404 Permit Application
Hartley Drive Widening and Extension
High Point, Guilford County, NC
Attached Under separate cover ~ ~((; ~ ~~ ~5i ~~,~
via the followin items: ~/ U
Shop Drawings Prints Specifications NQV 2 ~ 2001
Copy of Letter Plans
Change Order Samples 1ME11~1NQ~MIpSTATEftt3RANCH
Copies Date No. Description
5 11/20/07 1 Individual Permit Application
The se are transm itted as checked below:
For Approval Approved as submitted
For your use Approved as noted
As requested Returned for corrections
For Bids Due For review & comment
Remarks
Resubmit copies for approval
Submit copies for distribution
Return corrected prints
Prints returned after loan to us
Attached, please find five copies of the Individual Permit application for the Hartley Drive Widening
and Extension Project for the City of High Point in Guilford County, NC. A Jurisdictional
Determination request submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was also submitted to your
office on April 24, 2006 and a field review was conducted by Mr. Daryl Lamb. If you need any
additional information or have questions, please do not hesitate to contact Michael lagnocco at
[phone].
Thank you
Copy to Keith Pugh, P.E., City of High Signed Michael lagnocco, PWS
Point, NC
If enclosures are not as indicated, kindly notify us at once
N:\PROJ\3202\HighPoint-Charlotte\Environmental\Permit\GVdC.l7ransmi!tal Ind Permit.doc

Corps Submittal Cover Sheet
Please provide the following information:
1. Project Name: Hartley Drive Widening and Extension
2. Name of Property Owner/Applicant: City of High Point, NC
3. Name of Consultant/Agent: STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates
4. Related/Previous Action I.D. number(s): #2006-20795
5. Site Address: Hartley Drive Right of Way, High Point, NC ,~„ J
6. Subdivision Name: N/A ~~ ,~ ,~
7. City: City of High Point, NC ~
~~~
8. County: Guilford and Davidson ltd
C~~
9. Lat: 35.990226° N Long: 80.041024 ° W (decimal degrees please)
l0.Quadrangle Name: High Point West, NC
11.Waterway: Unnamed tributary to Rich Fork
~7 :..
. ~:
12.Watershed: Yadkin-Pee Dee
-- q ~, ~.
13.Requested Action: Individual Permit ~-j "~

1

STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates
1000 West Morehead Street. Suite 200
Charlotte, North Carolina 28208
[phone] fax:[phone]
November 20, 2007
Via FEDERAL EXPRESS
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27614
Attention: Mr. Andy Williams
Subject: Request for Individual Permit
Hartley Drive Widening and Extension
City of High Point, Guilford County, NC
USACE Action I.D. #2006-20795
RWA Project No. 3202
Dear Mr. Williams:
On behalf of the City of High Point, STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates, Inc. (STV/RWA)
is submitting an ENG Form 4345 application form (Attachment A) and Supplemental
Information (Attachment B) pursuant to obtaining a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) Section 404 Individual Permit (IP). The City of High Point has proposed
extending and widening the existing Hartley Drive from US 311 (North Main Street)
approximately 6,000 feet to the west, to the intersection of Westover Drive and Shadow
Valley Road. The City of High Point has contracted STV/RWA to be the acting agent
and perform wetland-permitting services for this project that is called "Hartley Drive
Widening and Extension". Accompanying figures related to this permit request are
included in Attachment C.
Proposed Project Description
The project corridor is approximately 20.661 acres in size and is located in the northwest
portion of the City of High Point. The project corridor is largely located within the
existing city-owned Hartley Drive right-of--way (R/W) (Attachment C, Figures 1 through
4). Existing R/W widths vary from 90 feet to 110 feet across a majority of the proposed
corridor. Additional R/W has been acquired in the western portion of the project
corridor, at an approximate length of 1000 feet and approximate width of 100 feet.
an employee-owned company providing qualin~ serrice since 1912

STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates
Mr. Andy Williams
November 20, 2007
Page 2
Preliminary engineering plans for the proposed Hartley Drive Widening and Extension
are located in Attachment J. The project site extends from Station 10+45.16 which is
located at the intersection of Hartley Drive and US 311 (North Main Street) in the eastern
portion of the project area, to Station 70+51.79 in the western portion of the project area
(Attachment J -Sheets 4 through 8). The entire project length is approximately 6,000
feet. The existing portion of Hartley Drive located within the project corridor will be
widened from station 10+45.16 east to approximately the beginning of the proposed span
bridge at station 31+43.17, for a total of 2,098.01 feet. New roadway will be constructed
from the beginning of the span bridge at station 31+43.17 to the existing intersection of
Westover Drive and Calloway Farm Road at approximately station 66+77.31, for a total
length of 3,534.14 feet. The remaining 374.48 feet of the western end of the project
corridor roadway will taper down to two lanes to match the existing Westover Drive.
The pavement on a portion of the existing Westover Drive will be removed (Attachment J
- Sheet 8) and a new intersection for Hartley Drive and Westover Drive will be
constructed.
The rolling hills and valleys in the project area that will be crossed by the proposed
extension of Hartley Drive present a challenging topography. This topography will
require extensive cutting and/or filling to achieve the required grades for the roadway.
New construction easements will be required in areas where the proposed cut and fill
limits exceed the existing R/W. Existing 15 feet wide utility easements along the existing
portion of Hartley Drive will be maintained.
A new four-lane roadway, span bridge, and roadway stormwater collection and treatment
systems are proposed for the extension portion of this project. The existing two-lane
portion of Hartley Dive extending west from US 311 will be widened. to four lanes. A
portion of Westover Drive in the eastern portion of the project area will need to be
relocated in order to create a new intersection of Hartley Drive and Westover Drive. A
five foot wide sidewalk will be constructed in many portions of the proposed roadway,
and curb and gutters will direct stormwater runoff into the proposed stormwater
management system.
Ten typical cross-sections of the proposed roadway are presented in Sheet numbers 2,
2A, 2B, and 2C. Sheets 4 through 8 provide a plan view of the proposed facility,
including the left hand turn lanes, medians, sidewalks, and stormwater management
basins.
The type of construction work that will be required for this project includes: clearing,
grading, drainage, paving, signing, and marking. There will also be the construction of
guardrails, sidewalks, culverts and the span bridge structure. A portion of an existing
sanitary sewer that crossed the project R/W will be relocated. A raised median will be
constructed in portions of the proposed roadway, and will vary from 4 feet wide to 22.5

STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates
Mr. Andy Williams
November 20, 2007
Page 3
feet wide. A painted median will be used in other areas and will vary from 0 to 22 feet
wide. The median strip will be minimized in areas that impact jurisdictional wetlands
and streams.
Construction easements will be used in areas located outside of the existing R/W for
some of the required slope work. Three stream channels and two freshwater wetlands are
located within the R/W, and total approximately 656 linear feet (lf) of streams and 0.368
acre (16,034 sq. ft.) of freshwater wetlands. Stream channel impacts that would result
from the construction of the proposed roadway will be minimized to the greatest extent
practicable by building a bridge approximately 250 feet long and 70 wide over the largest
stream, an unnamed tributary (UT) of Rich Fork that is located within the R/W. The
remaining stream and wetland crossings and associated impacts are unavoidable
(described below) in order to extend the roadway to the intersection of Westover Drive
and Shadow Valley Road while staying within the Hartley Drive R/W and minimizing
disturbance to existing residences bordering the R/W. The project corridor R/W extends
from the City of High Point into Davidson County.
Purpose and Need
The purpose of the project is to provide much needed improved access to US 311 (North
Main Street) and the City of High Point from the rapidly expanding residential areas
located to the west of the city. The goal is to also reduce the traffic on Westover Drive,
which currently navigates through a large, long-established residential area located along
that roadway. Safety concerns regarding the large volume of traffic that currently travel
on Westover Drive are also a concern that would be alleviated by the proposed extension
of Hartley Drive.
If serviceable today, traffic projections for the Hartley Drive Extension estimate a volume
of about 9,000 vehicles per day (vpd). By 2030, daily volumes are expected to exceed
17,500 vpd. The existing R/W for Hartley Drive crosses streams and wetlands, and
construction of the roadway will require the crossing of these natural land features. The
proposed roadway would connect the residential developments located in Davidson
County, located to the west of the City of High Point, to the City of High Point at US 311
(North Main Street). The estimated costs for design, R/W acquisition and construction, is
$9,000,000. These costs would be covered by a bond previously approved by the citizens
of High Point.
Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
The wetlands within the project corridor were delineated in March, 2006. The request for
a Jurisdictional Determination was submitted to the USACE on April 24, 2006
(Attachment D). The field review was conducted on May 8th, 2006 with Todd Tugwell,

STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates
Mr. Andy Williams
November 20, 2007
Page 4
then of the USACE and Daryl Lamb of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ). The boundaries of the delineated wetlands were confirmed and the
subsequent survey of the wetland delineation was submitted in September, 2006. Since
the request for JD was submitted and the USACE field verified the jurisdictional
boundaries prior to June 5, 2007 (i.e., pre-Rapanos guidance), it is the applicant's
understanding that the USACE will sign off on this JD with the applicant's approval; the
applicant's approval is hereby given.
The results of the on-site field review conducted by STV/RWA indicate two
jurisdictional wetland areas (Wetlands F and GG) and three stream channels located
within the project comdor (Streams 1, 2, and 4). See Attachment C -Figures 5 through 8
for the approximate size and location of each of these features. Representative
photographs of the wetland areas and stream channels are included in Attachment E.
Jurisdictional Wetland Areas
Wetland GG is a palustrine forested wetland area located west of the existing terminus of
Hartley Drive in the eastern portion of the project corridor (Attachment C -Figure 6).
This is the largest of the wetland areas delineated in the project corridor encompassing
0.201 acre, and is located adjacent to the YMCA picnic area, at the existing terminus of
Hartley Drive. This wetland receives stormwater runoff from Hartley Drive, which is
conveyed from the roadway through ditches and culverts, down the hill to the wetland.
Other hydrological sources include runoff from properties located to the north of the
wetland, and the occasional overflow from the stream channel located to the west. A
small palustrine emergent wetland comprises a small portion of this wetland area in the
portion disturbed by a sanitary sewer line. The wetland drains from the emergent portion,
through a culvert located underneath the picnic areas dirt road, directly into the stream
channel.
The overstory of Wetland GG is dominated by sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red
maple (Ater rubrum), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) with some American
elm (Ubnus americana). The understory vegetation includes ironwood (Carpinus
caroliniana), American holly (Ilex opaca), Eastern redcedar (Juniperus virginiana) and
highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosurn). Vines of Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica) and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) are found throughout the forested
portion of the wetland. The emergent portion of Wetland GG is dominated by reed
canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus) and tearthumb
(Polygonum sp.). More information on the individual wetland parameters associated with
Wetland GG can be found on the Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms in
Attachment F - DP4. This wetland scored a rating of 58 on the wetland rating worksheet
(See Attachment I).

STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates
Mr. Andy Williams
November 20, 2007
Page 5
Wetland F is a palustrine forested wetland located in and around the ephemeral (non-
jurisdictional) and intermittent stream channels located between Hartley Drive and
Ingleside Drive in the central portion of the project comdor, and south of the apartment
complex located north of the project corridor and east of Ingleside Drive (See Attachment
C, Figure 7). Wetland F, encompassing 0.042 acre, has an overstory dominated by red
maple and American sycamore. The understory is mostly absent with an occasional
smooth blackhaw (Viburnum prunifolium) and groundcover is mostly absent. Vines of
Japanese honeysuckle and briars (Smilax sp.) are prevalent. More information on the
individual wetland parameters associated with Wetland F can be found on the Routine
Wetland Determination Data Form in Attachment F - DP3. This wetland scored a rating
of 64 on the wetland rating worksheet (See Attachment I).
Jurisdictional Streams
Three stream channels are located within the project corridor. Two of the streams would
be classified as perennial, and one included intermittent and perennial reaches according
to the NCDWQ Stream Identification Forms and regulatory field review. All are
unnamed tributaries to Rich Fork in the Yadkin-Pee Dee drainage basin.
Stream 1 (S1) is a jurisdictional channel located in the western portion of the project
corridor between Ingleside Drive and Westover Drive (Attachment C -Figure 8). This
stream begins at the Westgate Road residential development located to the north and
flows to the southwest into the project corridor. This first order stream received a score
of 52 on the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet (Attachment E, Worksheet
S1). This stream has been categorized as intermittent with unimportant aquatic function
north (upstream) of the proposed construction limits, and perennial important for the
remaining portion located within the project corridor.
Stream 2 (S2) is a jurisdictional channel located in the western portion of the project
corridor between Ingleside Drive and Westover Drive (Attachment C -Figure 8). This
stream begins at the Embers Road and Westgate Road residential development located to
the north and flows to the southwest where it is joined by an intermittent tributary north
of the project corridor, and then flows south into the project comdor where is joined by
Stream 1. This second order stream received a score of 57 on the USACE Stream
Quality Assessment Worksheet and is a perennial important channel (Attachment E,
Worksheet S2).
Stream 4 (S4) is a perennial important stream located in the eastern portion of the project
site, west of Wetland GG near the existing terminus of Hartley Drive (Attachment C,
Figure 6). This stream begins near US 311, north of Westover Drive and flows to the
southwest where it is joined by other tributaries before flowing south into the project
corridor. This second order stream is the largest drainage feature in the project area and

STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates
Mr. Andy Williams
November 20, 2007
Page 6
received a score of 55 on the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet
(Attachment E, Worksheet S4).
Note: The final Hartley Drive Widening and Extension project corridor differs slightly
from the project corridor defined by the wetland survey prepared for the initial
jurisdictional determination request. The final design determined that a slightly larger
project corridor was needed for the Hartley Drive Extension and Widening to
accommodate the proposed construction. The wetland delineation that was completed for
the jurisdictional determination was conducted in a project corridor larger than the final
construction limits, and all of the on-site wetlands were confirmed as accurately
delineated by the USACE.
Alternatives Analysis
As per Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1), a thorough consideration of project
alternatives was conducted to ensure that the proposed project represents the least
environmentally damaging alternative that meets the purpose and need of the project.
Alternative 1: Two-lane roadway -The alternative plan of constructing a new roadway
with two lanes was considered for the extension of Hartley Drive. This alternative would
remove the Hartley Drive widening portion of the proposed project from the planned
roadway improvements, and would allow for a smaller, less expensive bridge and
roadway to be constructed. Due to the fact that Hartley Drive is predominantly afour-
lane road through the town, (and only becomes a two lane road west of Main Street)
makes this alternative inconsistent with the character of the majority of the roadway.
Alternative 2: Four-lane divided roadway -The alternative that would construct afour-
lane divided facility was considered for the proposed Hartley Drive Extension.
Constructing the proposed Hartley Drive Extension as a four-lane divided road would
require a larger amount of area than the currently proposed four-lane undivided design.
The need for a wider construction footprint through the project corridor would incur
additional environmental impacts to the regulated features which are oriented
perpendicular to the right-of--way (R/W). The benefits of having a divided roadway did
not justify the additional impacts that would be caused by the construction of a divided
facility. Therefore, this alternative has been rejected.
Alternative 3: Build roadway on alternate aligmment -The alternative that would build a
roadway on a different alignment was also considered. This alternative would require the
City of High Point to purchase new R/W between Main Street and Westover Drive. This
may not be possible due to the recent development that has occurred immediately to the
south of the existing Hartley Drive R/W, and the residential development that exists to
the north of the existing Hartley Drive R/W. Although it may be possible to extend either

STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates
Mr. Andy Williams
November 20, 2007
Page 7
West Parris Avenue or Homestead Avenue (Attachment C, Figures 1 and 2) westward to
connect to Shadow Valley Road, these plans would impact a larger amount of wetlands
and perennial stream (based on aerial photo analysis and anticipated longitudinal impacts
as opposed to the perpendicular impacts of the recommended alternative) and would not
provide the direct route into the City of High Point from the western side of town that is
desired to relieve traffic congestion.
Alternative 4: No Build -The no build alternative has been rejected since it would not
achieve the goals of the project to reduce traffic on Westover Drive and connect existing
development located west of the City of High Point to US 311 (North Main Street).
Impacts to Waters of the U.S.
The proposed project consists of the construction of a roadway, bridge and the associated
stormwater management systems. Proposed plans for the roadway will result in impacts
to approximately 518 if of two jurisdictional perennial streams. Approximately 506 if of
streams will be impacted by filling and piping, and approximately 12 if of stream will be
impacted by excavation. In addition, impacts to wetlands potentially resulting from site
grading (fill and excavation), stormwater management, mechanized vegetation clearing
and utility installation will encompass 0.349 acre (15,156 sq. ft.).
The stream crossing in the eastern portion of the project site (Stream 4) will be bridged
and will not result in any fill impacts to this perennial important stream channel.
Construction impacts to Stream 4 are also not anticipated. Minor shading impacts to
portions of Stream 4 would occur, but are not anticipated to be detrimental to the water
quality and/or biota. See Attachment G -Photos 4 and 5; Attachment C -Figures 6 and
9.
The second area of stream crossings (Streams 1 and 2) will require the relocation of the
Stream 1 channel, and the installation of 200 linear feet (lf) of 60" diameter reinforced
concrete pipe (RCP) underneath the proposed roadway to provide continued conveyance
of the stream flow (Attachment C -Figures 8 and 11). The bottom portion of the pipe
will be buried 12 inches below the existing steam bed to ensure continued stream flow
and passage of aquatic organisms in periods of low flow conditions. Stabilization of the
pipe outlet will require that 0.003 acre (131 sq. ft.) of stream channel bottom be
excavated and backfilled with rip-rap resulting in 12 if of stream channel excavation
impacts. Approximately 157 if of Stream 1 and 349 if of Stream 2 will be impacted of
this crossing by the fill required to achieve the proposed grade of the roadway for a total
impact of 518 if (Attachment C -Figures 8 and 11). See Attachment G -Photos 11, 12,
and 13. Approximately 140 if of Stream 1 will be relocated outside of the proposed
limits of construction.

STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates
Mr. Andy Williams
November 20, 2007
Page 8
Note: Crossing the two streams at the determined location is required to connect the
proposed Hartley Drive to the existing Westover Drive within the R/W that was
dedicated by the City. Shifting the alignment of the proposed Hartley Drive from the
existing R/W is not feasible due to the design constraints imposed by the proximity of
adjacent residential developments and the topography of the project corridor.
The wetland area designated as Wetland GG would be impacted by the fill needed for the
bridge. The crossing of Wetland GG will impact a total of approximately 0.291 acre
(12,648 sq. ft.) of wetlands. Approximately 0.271 acre (11,794 sq. ft.) of the wetland
would be impacted by the fill required to achieve the proposed grade for the roadway
approach and bridge abutment (Attachment C -Figures 6 and 9). An approximately
0.006 acre (264 sq. ft.) portion of Wetland GG would be impacted by the excavation of
the drainage ditch on the south side of the toe of the slope created for the bridge
abutment. Approximately 0.014 acre (590 sq. ft.) of Wetland GG will experience
mechanized clearing impacts required for construction. See Attachment G -Photos 6
and 7.
The wetland area designated at Wetland F (See Attachment G -Photo 10; Attachment C
- Figures 7 and 10) would be impacted by the fill and excavation that is required to
achieve the proposed grade of the roadway, and the installation of 120 if of 42" RCP that
is required for the continued conveyance of the waters that drain from the upland areas to
the north. The crossing of Wetland F will impact a total of approximately 0.058 acre
(2,508 sq. ft.) of wetland. Fill impacts are proposed for 0.054 acre (2,362 sq. ft.) of
wetlands, while 0.004 acre (146 sq. ft.) of wetland will be impacted by the excavation
that is required for the drainage pipe outlet. Upon completion of the excavation,
approximately 13 cubic yards of rip-rap will be placed at the drainage pipe outlet.
Proposed stream impacts are summarized in Table 1 below. Reference Attachment C,
Figures 6 and 8 for locations of stream impacts. Reference Attachment C, Figures 9 and
11 for cross sections of the stream crossing areas.

STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates
Mr. Andy Williams
November 20, 2007
Table 1
Summary of Estimated Stream Impacts
Page 9
Jurisdictional
Area Type of
Jurisdictional Area Permanent
Im act (Y/N) Length of
Im act (lf) Area of
Im act (ft2)
Stream 1 Intermittent Stream Yes -Fill 157 871
Stream 2 Perennial Stream Yes -Fill 349 3006
Stream 2 Perennial Stream Yes-
Excavation 12 131
Permanent Impact Totals:
'Ii5 II ~F,vvo 1L
Wetland impacts will result from site grading, culvert installation, drainage ditch
excavation, roadway construction, and clearing. Two palustrine forested wetland areas
are within the proposed roadway footprint and will be impacted by the proposed project.
Proposed fill impacts are summarized in Table 2 below. Reference Attachment C,
Figures 6 and 7 for locations of wetland impacts. Reference Attachment C, Figures 9 and
10 for cross sections of the wetland crossing areas.
Table 2
Summary of Estimated Wetland Impacts
Jurisdictional
Area Type of
Jurisdictional Area Permanent Impact
(Y/N) Area of Impact
Wetland F Forested Wetland Yes -Fill 0.054 acre (2,362 sq. ft.)
Wetland F Forested Wetland Yes -Excavation 0.004 acre (146 sq. ft.)
Wetland GG Forested Wetland Yes -Fill 0.271 acre (11,794 s . ft.)
Wetland GG Forested Wetland Yes -Excavation 0.006 acre (264 sq. ft.)
Wetland GG Forested Wetland Yes -Clearing 0.014 acre (590 sq. ft.)
Permanent Impact Totals:
u.s4y acre ~1~,I~o sq. II.~
Activities on the project site involving impacts to waters of the U.S. will be required to
follow the conditions of the Individual Permit, and applicable State consistency
conditions.
Compensatory Mitigation Plan
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has defined mitigation in 40 CFR Part
1508.20 to include: avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing
impacts over time, and compensating for impacts. Three general types of mitigation

STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates
Mr. Andy Williams
November 20, 2007
Page 10
include avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation. Mitigation efforts for this
project included avoidance and minimization of impacts to jurisdictional waters of the
U.S., stream relocation, and proposed payments to the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP).
Avoidance and Minimization
In an effort to avoid and minimize impacts to jurisdictional stream crossings (Streams 1,
2, and 4) and wetlands, measures and strategies have been considered and utilized
throughout the project planning process. These strategies and reduction measures include
the following:
• Utilizing a span bridge at an approximate cost of $1.92 million, as opposed to the
original plan to pipe Stream 4.
• Maintaining a minimum of 3 to 1 slopes when grading the sides of the roadways
within the wetlands (steeper slopes in these areas are not recommended based on
geotechnical findings).
• Increasing slopes to 2:1 at the proposed bridge and in cut areas to minimize
footprint of disturbance.
• Utilizing a retaining wall at the span bridge.
• Utilizing a headwall at the piped. discharge point for Stream 2 and Wetland F (up-
gradient of Stream 3).
• Reducing median widths at the bridge and Stream 1 and Stream 2 crossings to 4
feet.
• Relocation of approximately 140 if of Stream 1 channel to an area outside of the
proposed construction limits. The relocation of the existing sanitary sewer line is
proposed to make the relocation of the stream feasible. This stream relocation
will reduce fill impacts to Stream 1 from the proposed crossing, and would allow
for the continued conveyance of water into Stream 2. The relocation is made
feasible by the corresponding relocation of the existing sewer*
The relocated Stream 1 channel will be constructed to closely mimic stable reference
conditions along the existing channel. The new channel would be designed to provide
stable dimension, pattern, and profile along with riffle and pool habitat. The approximate
area to be used for the relocation of the upper portion of the Stream 1 channel is shown
on Attachment C -Figure 8.
*This relocation strategy is the result of discussions with the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers Regulatory Specialist during the on-site field review of jurisdictional
boundaries.
Compensatory Mitigation

STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates
Mr. Andy Williams
November 20, 2007
Page 11
It is the applicant's desire to utilize the NCDENR EEP to meet the remaining obligations
of the project. During the field review of jurisdictional boundaries, the USACE
regulatory representative stated that the EEP could be utilized for mitigation for project
impacts. A letter has been sent to the EEP requesting acceptance of an In-Lieu Fee
Payment to the EEP as the method to provide compensatory mitigation for the proposed
impacts to the wetlands, and stream channels. The EEP has provided a letter stating that
they were willing to accept payment for impacts associated with the project (Attachment
H -Agency Correspondence). The fee for one acre of non-riparian wetland impacts
purchased from the EEP is $14,676 (valid from 7/1/07 until 7/1/08). Mitigation credits
are sold by the EEP in one-quarter acre increments. Therefore, the compensatory
wetland impact fee for the project is 0.349 acre of wetland impacts (at a 1 to 1 mitigation
to impacts ratio) would be $7,338.00 (0.5 acre). The fee for a linear foot of stream
impacts purchased from the EEP is $245 (valid from 7/1/07 until 7/1/08). Therefore, the
compensatory stream impact fee for the projects 378 if of net stream impact (518 if minus
the 140 if of stream relocation) would be $92,610.00. The combined fee for both wetland
and stream impacts would be $99,948.00.
Protected Species
STV/RWA conducted a protected species habitat assessment and review of the project
area in March, 2006. Prior to the field site visit, STV/RWA reviewed the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database, which provided existing data concerning
the potential occurrence of federally threatened and endangered species in Guilford and
Davidson Counties.
The lists of federally endangered and threatened species known to occur in Guilford and
Davidson Counties were reviewed, and evaluations were performed to determine the
likelihood of the presence of each species within the project study area. STV/RWA
Environmental Scientists Steven Busbee and Brandon Phillips conducted field reviews in
March, 2006, and areas in the project study area that matched descriptions of preferred
habitat for the federally protected species listed below were classified as potential
protected species habitat. On-site field reviews, encompassing approximately 40 man
hours, revealed that the majority of the project study area consists of hardwood forest,
mixed pine/hardwood forest, and maintained and disturbed roadside.
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucoceplralus)*
The bald eagle is currently listed in the NC Natural Heritage Database as a federally
threatened species, although it was de-listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on June
28, 2007. Female bald eagles are approximately 35 to 37 inches long while the male bald
eagles are approximately 30 to 34 inches. Adults tend to have ablackish-brown back and
breast with a white neck, head, and tail and a yellow bill. Juveniles tend to be brown and
white with a black bill. This bird nests in mature live pines or cypress trees in the transition

STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates
Mr. Andy Williams
November 20, 2007
Page 12
zone between mature forests and large bodies of water. Nests are very large, up to six feet
in width, and constructed of large sticks and soft materials such as dead vegetation,
grasses, and pine needles. Nesting trees are usually less than two miles from open water.
Winter roosts are usually in mature trees, similar to nesting trees, but may be somewhat
farther from water.
No individuals of this species were observed during STV/RWA's field survey. The
survey revealed a lack of large bodies of water in the project vicinity and no suitable
nesting or roosting habitat within the project study area. Therefore, based on the habitat
requirements for bald eagle and the lack of available preferred habitat identified within
the project study area, the proposed project should have no effect on this species.
Correspondence with NCNHP did not indicate any known records within a mile of the
proposed project area (Attachment H).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzia~*
Schweinitz's sunflower is a perennial herb limited to the Piedmont of North and South
Carolina that grows from one to two meters tall from a cluster of tuberous roots. The
sunflower consists of a flower with a yellow disk and ray flowers formed on small heads.
The disc is less than 1.5 cm across and the petals are 2 to 3 cm long. The lanceolate
leaves are opposite on the lower stem and alternate near the flowers. The typical habitat
for this plant includes roadsides, old pastures, transmission line R/W, open areas, and
edges of upland woods. Periodically maintained R/Ws are typically considered good
potential habitat for the Schweinitz's sunflower. Major characteristics of soils associated
with suitable Schweinitz's sunflower habitat include thin soils, soils on upland
interstream flats or gentle slopes, those which are clayey in texture (and often with
substantial rock fragments), those which have a high shrink-swell capacity, and those
which vary over the course of the year from very wet to very dry. Flowering occurs from
August to the first frost of the year.
No individuals of this species were observed during STV/RWA's field survey. The
survey revealed some areas of roadsides, R/W's and edges of upland woods within the
project area that may be suitable for Schweinitz's sunflower. Records indicate that
populations exist within Davidson County. Correspondence with NCNHP did not
indicate any known populations within a mile of the proposed project area (Attachment
H).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
*Reference: UFWS. 2005. North Carolina's Threatened and Endangered Species.
[web application]. Available: htt~//www ncnhp ors/Pales/herita~edata.html
Accessed: Apri12006 and July 2007.
More specific website: htt~•//nc-es fws ~~ov/plant/schwsun.html

STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates
Mr. Andy Williams
November 20, 2007
Page 13
In addition to on-site field reviews, information was requested from the USFWS in a
letter dated April 13, 2006 regarding protected species information within the project
study area. In a letter dated May 23, 2006, the USFWS indicated that their records do not
indicate the known presence of any federally protected species within or near the project
study area (Attachment H).
Cultural Resources
According to Peter Sandbeck at the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), there are
no known historic resources within the project vicinity that would be affected by this
project (Attachment H).
Stormwater Management
A Stormwater Management Plan has been prepared for this project to document the
design process and to develop the Stormwater management system for the roadway
development. STV/RWA and the City of High Point understand and are committed to
providing a stormwater management plan that achieves erosion and sediment control
during construction and provides treatment of Stormwater runoff .
A Stormwater diversion ditch will be excavated on the south side of the toe of the slope
created for the bridge abutment. A portion of this excavation will impact the palustrine
forested wetlands identified as Wetland GG. This vegetated ditch will intercept the
Stormwater runoff from the adjacent apartment complex, and direct it around the toe of
the slope towards Stream 4. The stormwater runoff will sheet flow via alevel-spreader
into the existing vegetated floodplain of Stream 4 (See Attachment C -Figure 6).
Two new detention basins and one existing detention basin (to be relocated) are proposed
for the collection and treatment of Stormwater runoff from the proposed roadway and
bridge. The first proposed detention basin will be constructed on the northeastern side of
the project corridor, on the YMCA property near the existing terminus of Hartley Drive.
This detention basin will collect roadway Stormwater in catch basins that are proposed to
be placed in the newly widened portions of the existing roadway. The outlet of the
detention basin will use alevel-spreader at the discharge point to allow the treated
Stormwater to sheet flow west, towards Stream 4.
The existing small detention basin that is located on the west side of Ingleside Drive,
within the Hartley Drive R/W, will be impacted by the proposed project. The current
location of this detention basin within the project R/W will necessitate the relocation of
the detention basin to an area outside of the proposed construction limits. The
stormwater management plan proposes to relocate this detention basin to the north,

STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates
Mr. Andy Williams Page 14
November 20, 2007
outside of the proposed limits of construction. New catch basins will be constructed
around the proposed intersection of Hartley Drive and Ingleside Drive to collect roadway
stormwater. The relocated detention basin will continue to drain to an existing outfall
basin that is located adjacent to Ingleside Drive to the southeast, by extending the
existing piping that connects the existing basins.
A third detention basin will be constructed at the western end of the project corridor, in
an area now used as the Westover Drive R/W. The relocation of a portion of Westover
Drive is proposed as part of this project, in order to create the new intersection of Hartley
Drive and Westover Drive. This relocation of Westover Drive and the removal of a
portion of the former Westover Drive roadway will allow the third detention basin to be
built on the northeast corner of the proposed Hartley Drive-Westover Drive intersection.
New catch basins will be constructed around the proposed intersection of Hartley Drive
and Westover Drive, as well as the proposed intersection of Hartley Drive and Shadow
Valley Road to collect roadway stormwater. The outlet of the detention basin will use a
level-spreader at the discharge point to allow the treated stormwater to sheet flow north,
into an existing field currently used as pasture adjacent to the existing portion of
Westover Drive.
Stormwater runoff from the bridge deck will be handled by two catch basins that will be
located on either side of the roadway on the downslope end of the bridge. There will also
be two catch basins on the upslope end of the bridge to intercept stormwater runoff
before it reaches the bridge. The NCDOT "Guidelines for Drainage Studies and
Hydraulic Design" was used for the design criteria.
Indirect Cumulative Impacts
The Section 401 Water Quality Certification Program requires that the NCDWQ
determine that a project "does not result in cumulative impacts, based upon past or
reasonably anticipated future impacts, that cause or will cause a violation of downstream
water quality standards" (15A NCAC 2H).
Cumulative impacts of this proposed roadway extension project have been evaluated on
the basis of Section 401 Certification policy, which requires an examination of
cumulative impacts as they relate to downstream water quality standards. Impacts
associated with the development of the proposed project include, but are not necessarily
limited to, non-point source pollution emanating from storm-water runoff, direct stream
impacts, and wetland reduction impacts. An environmental inventory of the study area
was completed to identify potentially affected water bodies, their characteristics, water
quality classifications, relevant water quality protection regulations, and the general
extent of current impervious cover within the watersheds. This assessment establishes a
cause and effect relationship between past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future

STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates
Mr. Andy Williams Page 15
November 20, 2007
actions and downstream water quality. The principal surface water features located in the
study area are tributaries to Rich Fork Creek. Rich Fork Creek is a Class C Water
(Stream Index Number 12-119-7), and is listed as an impaired water on the State's Clean
Water Act Section 303(d) list. Rich Fork Creek is on the EPA 303(d) list for impairment
due to nutrients, fecal coliform and dissolved oxygen. Rich Fork Creek is located
approximately 3,960 feet (0.75 miles) downstream from the confluence of Stream 1 and
2.
In accord with 15A NCAC 2H, an Indirect Cumulative Impact (ICI) Assessment has been
completed for the Hartley Drive Extension and Widening project (further described
below). This assessment is intended to demonstrate whether the direct impacts of the
proposed project have the potential to cause indirect and cumulative effects resulting
from the incremental affects of the Hartley Drive Extension and Widening and other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities in the study area. The methodology
for performing this review was in general accordance with NCDOT/NCDENR's
Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Impacts of Transportation Projects in
North Carolina (Volumes I and II. 2001, State of North Carolina Department of
Transportation and Environmental and Natural Resources, prepared by The Louis Berger
Group), per DWQ's DRAFT Internal Policy on Cumulative Impacts and the 401 Water
Quality Certification and Isolated Wetlands Programs Guidance (October 3, 2002).
Future growth within the immediate study area could potentially have negative
environmental impacts, including, but not limited to, increased traffic, noise, air
pollution, and run-off from impervious surfaces. However, development is limited by the
roadway design, and the existing land uses adjacent to the proposed facility. Also, any
additional proposed development would be subject to numerous City and County-wide
regulations and policies that take a proactive approach in managing development and
growth while minimizing potential associated impacts within the City and County.
The areas surrounding the Hartley Drive widening are zoned as public and institutional,
shopping center and roadway business district. The limited remaining vacant parcels
surrounding the proposed Hartley Drive extension are zoned as single family residential,
multi-family residential, and planned unit development. Although there are undeveloped
parcels, the roadway design does not promote the construction of driveway tie-ins to the
proposed road due to the sloping nature of the areas topography as well as the use of
medians. Significant filling and grading would be required for the development of
residential parcels adjacent to the proposed roadway.
Guilford County and the City of High Point have taken and continue to take a proactive
approach in managing development and growth within the County and City, while taking
into consideration public health and interests, as well as natural resources. Potential
impacts to the unnamed tributaries within the Rich Fork Creek watershed resulting from

STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates
Mr. Andy Williams
November 20, 2007
Page 16
development activities would be limited by soil erosion and sediment control rules,
floodplain management rules, storm water management rules, and a variety of land use
policies including infrastructure expansion guidance, development guidance, and
annexation guidance, implemented by the City of High Point and Guilford County.
Based on limited development opportunities in the study area, and controls on future
development, it is concluded that the Hartley Drive Extension and Widening project
would not significantly contribute to indirect and cumulative impacts. Direct impacts of
the project to waters of the U.S. will be adequately mitigated through the Section 404/401
process. Violations of downstream water quality standards are therefore not anticipated.
Closin
Your prompt decision in this matter and corresponding processing of this permit will be
greatly appreciated. Please do not hesitate to contact either of the undersigned at 704-
372-1885, if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
STV/RALPH WHITEHEAD ASSOCIATES, INC.
.,
Brandon Phillips, C. .M.M. ichael A. Ia
Sr. Environmental Specialist Senior Scienti
Attachments: Attachment A: ENG 4345 Form
Attachment B: Supplemental Information
Attachment C: Figures
Attachment D: Request for Jurisdictional Determination
Attachment E: Stream Quality Assessment Forms
Attachment F: Routine Wetland Determination Form
Attachment G: Photographs
Attachment H: Agency Correspondence
Attachment I: Wetland Rating Worksheets
Attachment J: Engineering Plans
P.W.S.
cc: Keith Pugh, P.E., City of High Point
Ian McMillan, DWQ (5 copies)

ATTACHMENT A
ENG 4345 FORM

APPL1CATfOf+1 r-OR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
f33 CFfi' 32~J
QI~A~'AP~ROVAL NO. 0710.0003
F~cpatea Dacenber 31, 2004
- - ------
'The public lwrden for this colfiection of information is sastimat,ed to average 10 hours per r~eaponse, althougf~ the maiority 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 calfection of infamsaatian. Send commetlts regarding this burden estimate ar any other aspect of this coikction of
information. intruding suggestions far raducing this burdtsn, to Department of DsfrEnse, Vitashirtgt~aft Hiir3dsjtibrters Service Directorate of fnforma;ion
Operations and Reports. 1.215 Jafterson Davis Highway. Suite 1204, Artingwn, NA 2~2U2-43(33; and to tfis Df~ice •9f Nlanagemertt and Bud~pet,
Paperwork Reduction Project {0710-04133{, Wsahington, DC 24603. Raapandents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law,
no person shalM be subject to any penalty for f~'urg to compry with a collection afi inf~rnnatrstn if it dcea oat display a currently valid OMB carttrol
number. Please DO NOT RETURN your farm to either of those addresses. Compistad applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having
jurisdiction over the rotation of the proposed activity,
FRINACY ACTs7AT1`IUIENT
Autl'saircies: Riverrc and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 4133, Chart Water Act, Section 404, 33 lf$C 13'44: Marine Protection , Rese~eh Pod
Sanctuaries Act, 33 USG 1et13, Section 103. Principal purpose; Infarmatian provided an this faint waif tse used in evacuating the applicatien for a
permit. Routine Uses: This information may be shared vuith the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and focal government aganaias.
Submission of req-seatad infarnsatlon is voluntary, however, if information is oat provided the permit application cannot be evafuated rwr can a permit
tae issuai#.
Orsa set of eriginal drawings ar good reproducible Copies which aFsow the location and character of the propo~sad activty must ba attached to this
appircatiort {see sample .drawangs and instructional and be etxbmittad to ifae District Et;ginsar ltavirtg jurisdiction over the location of the proposed
activity. An appi'rCatian t2tat is oat corrtpleted in tint wrTl lte r+eturnad.
1. A?PLiCAT1,ON NO. ~ 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 13. DATE RECEIVED ' 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
lTEif+lS BELOW T 8F fi'LLEiQ BY A?Pt1rG
5, APPLICANT'a NAME B, AUTHORIZED AGENT'S F4AME AND TITLE Inn agvvit is rna~ requhcd)
City of High Point Mr. Michael lagnocco, P.W.S.
Senior Environmental Scientist
i:. APPLICANT'S AB[?RESS $. AGENT'S Ai?DRESS
P.O. Box 230 STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates, Inc.
High Point, NC 27261 1000 W. Morehead Street, Suite 200
Attention: Mr. Keith Pugh Charlotte. NC 28208
?._ APPLICANT'S PHOAtE NOS. W~AREA CODE 10, AGENT'S Pl-iON.E NOS. WIAREA CODE

a, Residence a. Res{dehee
b. Suueess 336-883-3195 ~ b. Business 704-372-1885
11, STATEAiFENT (3F AUThi0Ri7AT1tlN
I hereby authorize, r. IC ae ago to act in my behalf as my agent in tfia processing of this application and to
nrrnish, upon request, supplamantal information in support of this permit application.
~U~~~~ _ 7-{1-0
APPLtCANT'S SIGNATURE ~ DATE
12. PROJECT NAME Ott TITLE rsee,riSYrucringc.
Hartley Drive Widening and Extension
NOV 2 g 2007
l3., f~lAfvfE O~ WATER(30DY, IF KNOWt~f !rl Bp~ficrt,~ret
Unnamed tributaries to Rich Fork
Creek
15, LOCATEON OP PROJECT
Guilford NC
COUNTY STATE
D
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS f1~e~p/~'±catt.•lei DENR - WA7cR D.i~iLITY
WETlANOS MID STDRbR^/AT'rk biL'vVL'h
Hartley Drive Right-of-Way
':~. OTi•tEfl LOCATEON DESCRIPTiO'NS. IF KNOVNN, lseeiftsaudmns)
Lat/Long: 35°5s'26"N, 80°02'20"W In Decimal Degrees = 35.990226° N & 80.041024° W
17. DlRECTI0N5 Tfl THE SITE
From Charlotte, take I-85 north to Exit for South Main Street (Route 311) to High Point. Go through High
Point until road changes to North Main Street and take left onto Hartley Drive. The project area is within the
Hartley Drive Right of Way from North Main Street west to Westover Drive
R ui 7 EDCTiON OF FES 94 1S OBSOLETE, iProponent: CECW-ORl

~: ,

18. Nature of ft+Gtlvity I~cseriptro.~ a+prq+oa, x~cA;~ ~rJ rr»rwcsl
See Attached Supplemental Information
19. Project Purpose rneacrPae,u,e~raason ur r+wt~+c of me pre>~+cr, acre in~rracrmns;
See Attached Supplemental Information
USE BLOCKS ~0-22 IF DRED(3EU ANDlOR FILL, MATERIAL IS TO BE DI&CtiARGED
20, Reason(s) for Discharge
See Attached Supplemental Information
2i. Typelr} of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
See Attached Supplemental Information
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled ce~r. hrso-ucr,nrro,
See Attached Supplemental Information
23, [s Any Portion of the bwork Already Gompiete? Yes No X IF YES, DESCRIBE ThIE COMPLETED VdORK
24. AcicErasses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whale Property Adjoins the Watarbody (If mare than can ba entered here,
please aCt3ch a supplemental listl.
See Attached Supplemental Information
2.5. Ust of Other Certifications or ApprovaislDenials Recsivad from other Federal, State or Local Agencies for Wark Described in This Application,
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
"'Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building and flood plain permit:
28. /~sR#it2ltien is }t~fcby made for a permit dY pEtrtiit5 to authorize the work described in this application. I certrfy that the information in tftis
application is complete and accurate. I further rectify that ! possess th au Drily to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the
duly authorized agent of the applicant.
1Z ~
51GNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE F A T DATE
The application must be Signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (a licantl ar it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has begirt filled out and signed.
1. USACE Jurisdictional 2006-20795 4/24/06 Pending
Determination
78 U,S-C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of eny department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfutly falsifie^>, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a malarial fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or user any false v/riting or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent rtatemenaa or entry, shall be fined not more than 310,000 ur imprisoned not mare than ftva years 6f both.

ATTACHMENT B
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Hartley Drive Extension and Widening, Guilford County
Individual Permit Application
Supplemental Information
18. Nature of Activity.
The project corridor is approximately 20.661 acres in size and is located in the northwest
portion of the City of High Point. The project corridor is largely located within the
existing city-owned Hartley Drive right-of--way (R/W) (Attachment C, Figures 1 through
4). Existing R/W widths vary from 90 feet to 110 feet across a majority of the proposed
corridor. Additional R/W has been acquired in the western portion of the project
corridor, at an approximate length of 1000 feet and approximate width of 100 feet.
Preliminary engineering plans for the proposed Hartley Drive Widening and Extension
are located in Attachment J. The project site extends from Station 10+45.16 which is
located at the intersection of Hartley Drive and US 311 (North Main Street) in the eastern
portion of the project area, to Station 70+51.79 in the western portion of the project area
(Attachment J -Sheets 4 through 8). The entire project length is approximately 6,000
feet. The existing portion of Hartley Drive located within the project corridor will be
widened from station 10+45.16 east to approximately the beginning of the proposed span
bridge at station 31+43.17, for a total of 2,098.01 feet. New roadway will be constructed
from the beginning of the span bridge at station 31+43.17 to the existing intersection of
Westover Drive and Calloway Farm Road at approximately station 66+77.31, for a total
length of 3,534.14 feet. The remaining 374.48 feet of the western end of the project
comdor roadway will taper down to two lanes to match the existing Westover Drive.
The pavement on a portion of the existing Westover Drive will be removed (Attachment J
- Sheet 8) and a new intersection for Hartley Drive and Westover Drive will be
constructed.
The rolling hills and valleys in the project area that will be crossed by the proposed
extension of Hartley Drive present a challenging topography. This topography will
require extensive cutting and/or filling to achieve the required grades for the roadway.
New construction easements will be required in areas where the proposed cut and fill
limits exceed the existing R/W. Existing 15 feet wide utility easements along the existing
portion of Hartley Drive will be maintained.
A new four-lane roadway, span bridge, and roadway stormwater collection and treatment
systems are proposed for the extension portion of this project. The existing two-lane
portion of Hartley Dive extending west from US 311 will be widened to four lanes. A
portion of Westover Drive in the eastern portion of the project area will need to be
relocated in order to create a new intersection of Hartley Drive and Westover Drive. A
five foot wide sidewalk will be constructed in many portions of the proposed roadway,
and curb and gutters will direct stormwater runoff into the proposed stormwater
management system.
Ten typical cross-sections of the proposed roadway are presented in Sheet numbers 2,
2A, 2B, and 2C (Attachment J). Sheets 4 through 8 provide a plan view of the proposed
facility, including the left hand turn lanes, medians, sidewalks, and stormwater
management basins.
Page 1 of 12

Hartley Drive Extension and Widening, Guilford County
Individual Permit Application
Supplemental Information
The type of construction work that will be required for this project includes: clearing,
grading, drainage, paving, signing, and marking. There will also be the construction of
guardrails, sidewalks, culverts and the span bridge structure. A portion of an existing
sanitary sewer that crossed the project R/W will be relocated. A raised median will be
constructed in portions of the proposed roadway, and will vary from 4 feet wide to 22.5
feet wide. A painted median will be used in other areas and will vary from 0 to 22 feet
wide. The median strip will be minimized in areas that impact jurisdictional wetlands
and streams.
Construction easements will be used in areas located outside of the existing R/W for
some of the required slope work. Three stream channels and two freshwater wetlands are
located within the R/W, and total approximately 656 linear feet (lf) of streams and 0.368
acre (16,034 sq. ft.) of freshwater wetlands. Stream channel impacts that would result
from the construction of the proposed roadway will be minimized to the greatest extent
practicable by building a bridge approximately 250 feet long and 70 wide over the largest
stream, an unnamed tributary (UT) of Rich Fork that is located within the R/W. The
remaining stream and wetland crossings and associated impacts are unavoidable
(described below) in order to extend the roadway to the intersection of Westover Drive
and Shadow Valley Road while staying within the Hartley Drive R/W and minimizing
disturbance to existing residences bordering the R/W. The project corridor R/W extends
from the City of High Point in Guilford County, into Davidson County.
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has defined mitigation in 40 CFR Part
1508.20 to include: avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing
impacts over time, and compensating for impacts. Three general types of mitigation
include avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation. Mitigation efforts for this
project included avoidance and minimization of impacts to jurisdictional waters of the
U.S., stream relocation, and proposed payments to the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP).
Avoidance and Minimization
In an effort to avoid and minimize impacts to jurisdictional stream crossings (Streams 1,
2, and 4) and wetlands, measures and strategies have been considered and utilized
throughout the project planning process. These strategies and reduction measures include
the following:
• Utilizing a span bridge at an approximate cost of $1.92 million, as opposed to the
original plan to pipe Stream 4.
• Maintaining a minimum of 3 to 1 slopes when grading the sides of the roadways
within the wetlands (steeper slopes in these areas are not recommended based on
geotechnical findings).
• Increasing slopes to 2:1 at the proposed bridge and in cut areas to minimize
footprint of disturbance.
• Utilizing a retaining wall at the span bridge.
Page 2 of 12

Hartley Drive Extension and Widening, Guilford County
Individual Permit Application
Supplemental Information
• Utilizing a headwall at the piped discharge point for Stream 2 and Wetland F (up-
gradient of Stream 3).
• Reducing median widths at the bridge and Stream 1 and Stream 2 crossings to 4
feet.
• Relocation of approximately 140 if of Stream 1 channel to an area outside of the
proposed construction limits. The relocation of the existing sanitary sewer line is
proposed to make the relocation of the stream feasible. This stream relocation
will reduce fill impacts to Stream 1 from the proposed crossing, and would allow
for the continued conveyance of water into Stream 2. The relocation is made
feasible by the corresponding relocation of the existing sewer*
The relocated Stream 1 channel will be constructed to closely mimic stable reference
conditions along the existing channel. The new channel would be designed to provide
stable dimension, pattern, and profile along with riffle and pool habitat. The approximate
area to be used for the relocation of the upper portion of the Stream 1 channel is shown
on Attachment C -Figure 8.
*This relocation strategy is the result of discussions with the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers Regulatory Specialist during the on-site field review of jurisdictional
boundaries.
Compensatory Mitigation
It is the applicant's desire to utilize the NCDENR EEP to meet the remaining obligations
of the project. During the field review of jurisdictional boundaries, the USACE
regulatory representative stated that the EEP could be utilized for mitigation for project
impacts. A letter has been sent to the EEP requesting acceptance of an In-Lieu Fee
Payment to the EEP as the method to provide compensatory mitigation for the proposed
impacts to the wetlands, and stream channels. The EEP has provided a letter stating that
they were willing to accept payment for impacts associated with the project (Attachment
H -Agency Correspondence). The fee for one acre of non-riparian wetland impacts
purchased from the EEP is $14,676 (valid from 7/1/07 until 7/1/08). Mitigation credits
are sold by the EEP in one-quarter acre increments. Therefore, the compensatory
wetland impact fee for the project is 0.349 acre of wetland impacts (at a 1 to 1 mitigation
to impacts ratio) would be $7,338.00 (0.5 acre). The fee for a linear foot of stream
impacts purchased from the EEP is $245 (valid from 7/1/07 until 7/1/08). Therefore, the
compensatory stream impact fee for the projects 378 if of net stream impact (518 if minus
the 1401f of stream relocation) would be $92,610.00. The combined fee for both. wetland
and stream impacts would be $99,948.00.
Stormwater Management
A Stormwater Management Plan has been prepared for this project to document the
design process and to develop the Stormwater management system for the roadway
development. STV/RWA and the City of High Point understand and are committed to
providing a stormwater management plan that achieves erosion and sediment control
during construction and provides treatment of stormwater runoff.
Page 3 of 12

Hartley Drive Extension and Widening, Guilford County
Individual Permit Application
Supplemental Information
A stormwater diversion ditch will be excavated on the south side of the toe of the slope
created for the bridge abutment. A portion of this excavation will impact the palustrine
forested wetlands identified as Wetland GG. This vegetated ditch will intercept the
stormwater runoff from the adjacent apartment complex, and direct it around the toe of
the slope towards Stream 4. The stormwater runoff will sheet flow via alevel-spreader
into the existing vegetated floodplain of Stream 4 (See Attachment C -Figure 6).
Two new detention basins and one existing detention basin (to be relocated) are proposed
for the collection and treatment of stormwater runoff from the proposed roadway and
bridge. The first proposed detention basin will be constructed on the northeastern side of
the project corridor, on the YMCA property near the existing terminus of Hartley Drive.
This detention basin will collect roadway stormwater in catch basins that are proposed to
be placed in the newly widened portions of the existing roadway. The outlet of the
detention basin will use alevel-spreader at the discharge point to allow the treated
stormwater to sheet flow west, towards Stream 4.
The existing small detention basin that is located on the west side of Ingleside Drive,
within the Hartley Drive R/W, will be impacted by the proposed project. The current
location of this detention basin within the project R/W will necessitate the relocation of
the detention basin to an area outside of the proposed construction limits. The
stormwater management plan proposes to relocate this detention basin to the north,
outside of the proposed limits of construction. New catch basins will be constructed
around the proposed intersection of Hartley Drive and Ingleside Drive to collect roadway
stormwater. The relocated detention basin will continue to drain to an existing outfall
basin that is located adjacent to Ingleside Drive to the southeast, by extending the
existing piping that connects the existing basins.
A third detention basin will be constructed at the western end of the project comdor, in
an area now used as the Westover Drive R/W. The relocation of a portion of Westover
Drive is proposed as part of this project, in order to create the new intersection of Hartley
Drive and Westover Drive. This relocation of Westover Drive and the removal of a
portion of the former Westover Drive roadway will allow the third detention basin to be
built on the northeast corner of the proposed Hartley Drive-Westover Drive intersection.
New catch basins will be constructed around the proposed intersection of Hartley Drive
and Westover Drive, as well as the proposed intersection of Hartley Drive and Shadow
Valley Road to collect roadway stormwater. The outlet of the detention basin will use a
level-spreader at the discharge point to allow the treated stormwater to sheet flow north,
into an existing field currently used as pasture adjacent to the existing portion of
Westover Drive.
Stormwater runoff from the bridge deck will be handled by two catch basins that will be
located on either side of the roadway on the downslope end of the bridge. There will also
be two catch basins on the upslope end of the bridge to intercept stormwater runoff
Page 4 of 12

Hartley Drive Extension and Widening, Guilford County
Individual Permit Application
Supplemental Information
before it reaches the bridge. The NCDOT "Guidelines for Drainage Studies and
Hydraulic Design" was used for the design criteria.
19. Project Purpose.
The purpose of the project is to provide much needed improved access to US 311 (North
Main Street) and the City of High Point from the rapidly expanding residential areas
located to the west of the city. The goal is to also reduce the traffic on Westover Drive,
which currently navigates through a large, long-established residential area located along
that roadway. Safety concerns regarding the large volume of traffic that currently travel
on Westover Drive are also a concern that would be alleviated by the proposed extension
of Hartley Drive.
If serviceable today, traffic projections for the Hartley Drive Extension estimate a volume
of about 9,000 vehicles per day (vpd). By 2030, daily volumes are expected to exceed
17,500 vpd. The existing R/W for Hartley Drive crosses streams and wetlands, and
construction of the roadway will require the crossing of these natural land features. The
proposed roadway would connect the residential developments located in Davidson
County, located to the west of the City of High Point, to the City of High Point at US 311
(North Main Street). The estimated costs for design, R/W acquisition and construction, is
$9,000,000. These costs would be covered by a bond previously approved by the citizens
of High Point.
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
The proposed project consists of the construction of a roadway, bridge and stormwater
management systems. The proposed roadway would connect the residential
developments located to the west of the City of High Point, to the City's North Main
Street (US 311). Waters of the U.S. are situated perpendicular to the existing R/W
corridor previously dedicated to accommodate this project. Despite project planning and
design efforts to avoid and minimize impacts to waters of the U.S. to the maximum
extent practicable, impacts to waters and wetlands are unavoidable. The minor fill
proposed at Wetland GG is required to achieve the bridge crossing over Stream 4. Fill is
required to achieve the proposed grade of the roadway at Wetland F and fill is also
required to achieve the proposed grade of the roadway at Streams 1 and 2. The project as
currently proposed represents the least environmentally damaging practical alternative
the achieves the purpose and need of the project and thereby meets the 404(b)1
guidelines.
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Clean fill will be trucked into the site to be used to level areas, or shore up slopes in the
graded portions on either side of the proposed roadway. The use of imported clean fill
will be minimized to the greatest extent practicable by using it only in areas where there
is a deficit in the amount of soil remaining from the cut and fill operations.
Page 5 of 12

Hartley Drive Extension and Widening, Guilford County
Individual Permit Application
Supplemental Information
Wetland GG will be impacted by approximately 9,487 cubic yards of fill that is required
to achieve the bridge crossing over Stream 4 (Attachment C -Figure 9).
Wetland F will be impacted by approximately 700 cubic yards of fill that is required to
achieve the proposed grade of the roadway (Attachment C -Figure 10). Rip-rap will be
used to stabilize the portion of the proposed culvert at the outlet of the pipe.
Approximately 13 cubic yards of rip-rap is proposed for the outlet discharge point.
Streams 1 and 2 will be impacted by approximately 2,585 cubic yards of fill that is
required to achieve that proposed grade of the roadway (Attachment C -Figure 11).
Approximately 19.44 cubic yards of material will be excavated from the lower portion of
Stream 2, where the culvert discharge point is proposed. Rip-rap will be used to stabilize
the portion of the proposed culvert at the outlet of the pipe. Approximately 28 cubic
yards of rip-rap is proposed for the outlet discharge point.
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled
The wetlands within the project corridor were delineated in March, 2006. The request for
a Jurisdictional Determination (JD) was submitted to the USAGE on April 24, 2006
(Attachment D). The field review was conducted on May 8th, 2006 with Todd Tugwell,
then of the USAGE and Daryl Lamb of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ). The boundaries of the delineated wetlands were confirmed and the
subsequent survey of the wetland delineation was submitted in September, 2006. Since
the request for JD was submitted and the USACE field verified the jurisdictional
boundaries prior to June 5, 2007 (i.e., pre-Rapanos guidance), it is the applicant's
understanding that the USAGE will sign off on this JD with the applicant's approval; the
applicant's approval is hereby given.
The results of the on-site field review conducted by STV/RWA indicate two
jurisdictional wetland areas (Wetlands F and GG) and three stream channels located
within the project corridor (Streams 1, 2, and 4). See Attachment C -Figures 5 through 8
for the approximate size and location of each of these features. Representative
photographs of the wetland areas and stream channels are included in Attachment E.
Jurisdictional Wetland Areas
Wetland GG is a palustrine forested wetland area located west of the existing terminus of
Hartley Drive in the eastern portion of the project corridor (Attachment C -Figure 6).
This is the largest of the wetland areas delineated in the project corridor encompassing
0.201 acre, and is located adjacent to the YMCA picnic area, at the existing terminus of
Hartley Drive. This wetland receives stormwater runoff from Hartley Drive, which is
conveyed from the roadway through ditches and culverts, down the hill to the wetland.
Other hydrological sources include runoff from properties located to the north of the
wetland, and the occasional overflow from the stream channel located to the west. A
Page 6 of 12

Hartley Drive Extension and Widening, Guilford County
Individual Permit Application
Supplemental Information
small palustrine emergent wetland comprises a small portion of this wetland area in the
portion disturbed by a sanitary sewer line. The wetland drains from the emergent portion,
through a culvert located underneath the picnic areas dirt road, directly into the stream
channel.
The overstory of Wetland GG is dominated by sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red
maple (Ater rubrum), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) with some American
elm (Ulmus americana). The understory vegetation includes ironwood (Carpinus
caroliniana), American holly (Ilex opaca), Eastern redcedar (Juniperus virginiana) and
highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum). Vines of Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica) and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) are found throughout the forested
portion of the wetland. The emergent portion of Wetland GG is dominated by reed
canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus) and tearthumb
(Polygonum sp.). More information on the individual wetland parameters associated with
Wetland GG can be found on the Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms in
Attachment F - DP4. This wetland scored a rating of 58 on the wetland rating worksheet
(See Attachment I).
Wetland F is a palustrine forested wetland located in and around the ephemeral (non-
jurisdictional) and intermittent stream channels located between Hartley Drive and
Ingleside Drive in the central portion of the project corridor, and south of the apartment
complex located north of the project corridor and east of Ingleside Drive (See Attachment
C, Figure 7). Wetland F, encompassing 0.042 acre, has an overstory dominated by red
maple and American sycamore. The understory is mostly absent with an occasional
smooth blackhaw (Viburnum prunifolium) and groundcover is mostly absent. Vines of
Japanese honeysuckle and briars (Smilax sp.) are prevalent. More information on the
individual wetland parameters associated with Wetland F can be found on the Routine
Wetland Determination Data Form in Attachment F - DP3. This wetland scored a rating
of 64 on the wetland rating worksheet (See Attachment I).
Jurisdictional Streams
Three stream. channels are located within the project corridor. Two of the streams would
be classified as perennial, and one included intermittent and perennial reaches according
to the NCDWQ Stream Identification Forms and regulatory field review. All are
unnamed tributaries to Rich Fork in the Yadkin-Pee Dee drainage basin.
Stream 1 (Sl) is a jurisdictional channel located in the western portion of the project
corridor between Ingleside Drive and Westover Drive (Attachment C -Figure 8). This
stream begins at the Westgate Road residential development located to the north and
flows to the southwest into the project corridor. This first order stream received a score
of 52 on the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet (Attachment E, Worksheet
S1). This stream has been categorized as intermittent with unimportant aquatic function
north (upstream) of the proposed construction limits, and perennial important for the
remaining portion located within the project corridor.
Page 7 of 12

Hartley Drive Extension and Widening, Guilford County
Individual Permit Application
Supplemental Information
Stream 2 (S2) is a jurisdictional channel located in the western portion of the project
corridor between Ingleside Drive and Westover Drive (Attachment C -Figure 8). This
stream begins at the Embers Road and Westgate Road residential development located to
the north and flows to the southwest where it is joined by an intermittent tributary north
of the project corridor, and then flows south into the project corridor where is joined by
Stream 1. This second order stream received a score of 57 on the USAGE Stream
Quality Assessment Worksheet and is a perennial important channel (Attachment E,
Worksheet S2).
Stream 4 (S4) is a perennial important stream located in the eastern portion of the project
site, west of Wetland GG near the existing terminus of Hartley Drive (Attachment C,
Figure 6). This stream begins near US 311, north of Westover Drive and flows to the
southwest where it is joined by other tributaries before flowing south into the project
corridor. This second order stream is the largest drainage feature in the project area and
received a score of 55 on the USAGE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet
(Attachment E, Worksheet S4).
Note: The final Hartley Drive Widening and Extension project corridor differs slightly
from the project corridor defined by the wetland survey prepared for the initial
jurisdictional determination request. The final design determined that a slightly larger
project corridor was needed for the Hartley Drive Extension and Widening to
accommodate the proposed construction. The wetland delineation that was completed for
the jurisdictional determination was conducted in a project corridor larger than the final
construction limits, and all of the on-site wetlands were confirmed as accurately
delineated by the USAGE.
The proposed project consists of the construction of a roadway, bridge and the associated
stormwater management systems. Proposed plans for the roadway will result in impacts
to approximately 518 if of two jurisdictional perennial streams. Approximately 506 if of
streams will be impacted by filling and piping, and approximately 12 if of stream will be
impacted by excavation. In addition, impacts to wetlands potentially resulting from site
grading (fill and excavation), stormwater management, mechanized vegetation clearing
and utility installation will encompass 0.349 acre (15,156 sq. ft.).
The stream crossing in the eastern portion of the project site (Stream 4) will be bridged
and will not result in any fill impacts to this perennial important stream channel.
Construction impacts to Stream 4 are also not anticipated. Minor shading impacts to
portions of Stream 4 would occur, but are not anticipated to be detrimental to the water
quality and/or biota. See Attachment G -Photos 4 and 5; Attachment C -Figures 6 and
9.
The second area of stream crossings (Streams 1 and 2) will require the relocation of the
Stream 1 channel, and the installation of 200 linear feet (lf) of 60" diameter reinforced
concrete pipe (RCP) underneath the proposed roadway to provide continued conveyance
of the stream flow (Attachment C -Figures 8 and 11). The bottom portion of the pipe
Page 8 of 12

Hartley Drive Extension and Widening, Guilford County
Individual Permit Application
Supplemental Information
will be buried 12 inches below the existing steam bed to ensure continued stream flow
and passage of aquatic organisms in periods of low flow conditions. Stabilization of the
pipe outlet will require that 0.003 acre (131 sq. ft.) of stream channel bottom be
excavated and backfilled with rip-rap resulting in 12 if of stream channel excavation
impacts. Approximately 157 if of Stream 1 and 349 if of Stream 2 will be impacted at
this crossing by the fill required. to achieve the proposed grade of the roadway for a total
impact of 518 if (Attachment C -Figures 8 and 11). See Attachment G -Photos 11, 12,
and 13. Approximately 140 if of Stream 1 will be relocated outside of the proposed
limits of construction.
Note: Crossing the two streams at the determined location is required to connect the
proposed Hartley Drive to the existing Westover Drive within the R/W that was
dedicated by the City. Shifting the alignment of the proposed Hartley Drive from the
existing R/W is not feasible due to the design constraints imposed by the proximity of
adjacent residential developments and the topography of the project corridor.
The wetland area designated as Wetland GG would be impacted by the fill needed for the
bridge. The crossing of Wetland GG will impact a total of approximately 0.291 acre
(12,648 sq. ft.) of wetlands. Approximately 0.271 acre (11,794 sq. ft.) of the wetland
would be impacted by the fill required to achieve the proposed grade for the roadway
approach and bridge abutment (Attachment C -Figures 6 and 9). An approximately
0.006 acre (264 sq. ft.) portion of Wetland GG would be impacted by the excavation of
the drainage ditch on the south side of the toe of the slope created for the bridge
abutment. Approximately 0.014 acre (590 sq. ft.) of Wetland GG will experience
mechanized clearing impacts required for construction. See Attachment G -Photos 6
and 7.
The wetland area designated at Wetland F (See Attachment G -Photo 10; Attachment C
- Figures 7 and 10) would be impacted by the fill and excavation that is required to
achieve the proposed grade of the roadway, and the installation of 120 if of 42" RCP that
is required for the continued conveyance of the waters that drain from the upland areas to
the north. The crossing of Wetland F will impact a total of approximately 0.058 acre
(2,508 sq. ft.) of wetland. Fill impacts are proposed for 0.054 acre (2,362 sq. ft.) of
wetlands, while 0.004 acre (146 sq. ft.) of wetland will be impacted by the excavation
that is required for the drainage pipe outlet. Upon completion of the excavation,
approximately 13 cubic yards of rip-rap will be placed at the drainage pipe outlet.
Proposed stream impacts are summarized in Table 1 below. Reference Attachment C,
Figures 6 and 8 for locations of stream impacts. Reference Attachment C, Figures 9 and
11 for cross sections of the stream crossing areas.
Page 9 of 12

Hartley Drive Extension and Widening, Guilford County
Individual Permit Application
Supplemental Information
Table 1
Summary of Estimated Stream Impacts
Jurisdictional
Area Type of
Jurisdictional Area Permanent
Im act (Y/l~ Length of
Im act (lf) Area of
Im act (ft2)
Stream 1 Intermittent Stream Yes -Fill 157 871
Stream 2 Perennial Stream Yes -Fill 349 3006
Stream 2 Perennial Stream Yes-
Excavation 12 131
Permanent Impact Totals:
51 ti 11 4,UUYS IL
Wetland impacts will result from site grading, culvert installation, drainage ditch
excavation, roadway construction, and clearing. Two palustrine forested wetland areas
are within the proposed roadway footprint and will be impacted by the proposed project.
Proposed fill impacts are summarized in Table 2 below. Reference Attachment C,
Figures 6 and 7 for locations of wetland impacts. Reference Attachment C, Figures 9 and
10 for cross sections of the wetland crossing areas.
Table 2
Summary of Estimated Wetland Impacts
Jurisdictional
Area Type of
Jurisdictional Area Permanent Impact
(Y/1~ Area of Impact
Wetland F Forested Wetland Yes -Fill 0.054 acre (2,362 sq. ft.)
Wetland F Forested Wetland Yes -Excavation 0.004 acre (146 sq. ft.)
Wetland GG Forested Wetland Yes -Fill 0.271 acre (11,794 sq. ft.)
Wetland GG Forested Wetland Yes -Excavation 0.006 acre (264 sq. ft.)
Wetland GG Forested Wetland Yes -Clearing 0.014 acre (590 sq. ft.)
Permanent Impact Totals:
u.s4y acre il~,l~d sq. Ii.)
Activities on the project site involving impacts to waters of the U.S. will be required to
follow the conditions of the Individual Permit, and applicable State consistency
conditions.
Page 10 of 12

Hartley Drive Extension and Widening, Guilford County
Individual Permit Application
Supplemental Information
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property
Adjoins the Waterbody
A printed set of labels of the following property owners has been included for your
convenience.
Leroy C. Jr. and Alicia A. Bradley Phillip Jason and Angela C. Byerly
5937 Election Oak Drive 942 Saint Ann Drive
High Point, NC 27265 High Point, NC 27265
Young Mens Christian Association Barbara E. and Danny C. Loggins
P.O. Box 6258 932 Saint Ann Drive
High Point, NC 27262-6258 High Point, NC 27265
David L. Towery William Carl Niemela, Jr.
938 Saint Ann Drive 934 Saint Ann Drive
High Point, NC 27265 High Point, NC 27265
Fox Hollow LTD Dale R. Britt
1004 Farnam St., Suite 400 P.O. Box 235
Omaha, NE 68102-1885 Morehead City, NC 28557
North Main Properties LLC North Pointe Marketplace
823 N. Elm St. P.O. Box 13247
Greensboro, NC 27401 Kansas City, MO 64199
Village at Irving Park LLC Larry R. and Mary L. Wall
P.O. Box 29244 897 Londonderry Drive
Greensboro, NC 27429-9244 High Point, NC 27265
Melissa Jane Strom Benjamine E. Horne
938 Saint Ann Drive 712 W. Parris Ave.
High Point, NC 27265 High Point, NC 27265
HCRI Skeet Club Manor Thomas B. Fluharty
P.O. Box 1475 714 W. Parris Ave.
Toledo, OH 43603-1475 High Point, NC 27265
Betty L. Liston Avalon Subdivision
2620-1A Ingleside Drive 603-F Eastchester Drive
High Point, NC 27265 High Point, NC 27265
Page 11 of 12

Hartley Drive Extension and Widening, Guilford County
Individual Permit Application
Supplemental Information
Ridge Franklin LLC
P.O. Box 19691
Raleigh, NC 27619-9691
Randall B. Thompson
900 Westover Drive
High Point, NC 27265-2746
Cheryl Chapman
802 Westover Drive
High Point, NC 27265-2747
Westover Partners LLC
1220 Eastchester Drive
High Point, NC 27265-2748
Grace Y. Cecil
291 Ken Dan St.
High Point, NC 27265-1783
Rick L. and Julie B Grady
P.O. Box 6684
High Point, NC 27262
Harold E. McCandless
901 C Westover Drive
High Point, NC 27265
Gerald Dale and Lynda Faye Kearns
807 Westover Drive
Lexington, NC 27295
Aleataes B. Joyce
341 Imperial Drive
High Point, NC 27265-1825
Page 12 of 12

ATTACHMENT C
FIGURES

IPQ9iE'S? -
~~
~~'- ?~,
~~" ~r
~ ~ ~~
~Id Plink Rd ~
~~~~ Ltti
C~~'
~~Srp der ~r
~~'r,
t ~
~s
~,yay r
~-aKtfurrt ~n 1,.~zt~~y
l:
l ~
~~ ,rirY1 l
4~y
~a~ r
~~O ~'~ r4
fr ~
s
'~
0.
aav,dsvn Rd n
r
D~tin~ison ct ~
c~ 2DD~ F,1apQues#, Inc

~ ~ ~~
~~ ~, '~ 4`
~~ 2
~~~~
~~t~
L] r
~ , ~ r,
~; ~. Project Vicinity *gtcstr,dge Dr :~
~~
~, ~ a
`~ ,e pine Ridge Gr ~.
~^ o
7fcdgcaack `~Q~'
I ,. I Park ~~u a
~Y ~3JR.5 ,gyN O
Car- y~dory 4r
v! HomeS~zad~
X2006 N?~~1TEQ
Scale as shown
'` STV/Ralph Whitehead
.~ Associates, Inc.
Hartley Drive Widening and Extension Site Location Map
~~I Davidson and Guilford Counties, NC FIGURE 1
North Carolina Vicinity Map

North Carolina Vicinity Map
N
~-
~~ ~ 4y ~ ~5 ~_o.l 1 t Cpl ~ 3` ~~°` ~.._
1 m ~
mn ' i
'~ STV/Ralph Whitehead
~._ Associates, Inc.
Not to Scale
Hartley Drive Widening and Extension U.S.G.S. Location Map
Davidson and Guilford Counties, NC FIGURE 2

.~
a
r,
Q
D
~.
M
Y
U
U
z
0
U
0
.~
D
w
0
a,
>_
0
'o
w
Mapped Soil Units in Project Area N
Poindexter and Zion sandy foams, 2 to 8 percent slopes (PnB)
Poindexter and Zion sandy foams, 8 to 1~ percent slopes (PnD)
Poindexter and Zion sandy foams, 1~ to 25 percent slopes (PnE)
~` STV/Ralph Whitehead
~ ,, Associates, Inc.
Hartley Drive Widening and Extension Soil Survey
Davidson County, NC
Davidson and Guilford Counties, NC FIGURE 3
Not to Scale

r`
r`
o,
r.
Q
D
..
r
M
U
z
0
U
~.
~°
._
V
w
0
a,
U
L
O
c::
N
1\'Iapped Soil Units in Project Area
Wilkes sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes (WkC)
Wilkes sandy loam. I S to 45 percent slopes (WkE)
Che~~~acla sandy loam (Ch)
Enon-Urban Land complex, 2 to 10 percent slopes (EuB)
'' STV/Ralph Whitehead
t
.}._ Associates, Inc.
Hartley Drive Widening and Extension Soil Survey
Guilford County, NC
Davidson and Guilford Counties, NC FIGURE 4
N
Not to Scale

APPLICANT: CITY OF HIGH POINT LOCATION: HARTLEY DRIVE
ACTIVITY: ROADWAY EXTENSION COUNTY: GUILFORD/DAVIDSON
ROUTE: HARTLEY DRIVE STATE: NORTH CAROLINA
PROJECT#: 32 d20(df~. TASK 40® DATE: 06/ 14/07
SCALE: 1 " = 6afd'
oc~
L S
`~ ~
o ~~; SEE FIGURE 7
i ~ i r~ ~
~ SEE ,FIGURE 6 ¢ -_=;;,.,,
~.'/_~,
- `~ '- 1?~
O
L-~...
~ ..~~ ~~
~~
~~

ho ~ ~
- 3~ ~ <
x `` F!~; .
~ - o
f r1E 5 ~ !~' 4; J
1 TZ~' pR
,.<
N~ .:
. , ,,
-- ;. r
~' \_
/ ~,
_1
~~~'~
~~~
STV/RALPH WHITEHEAD ASSOCIATES
1000 W. MOREHEAD ST.
SUITE 200
CHARLOTTE. NORTH CAROLINA 28208
HARTLEY DRIVE EXTENSION
0 ft 600 ft CITY OF HIGH POINT, NC
PROJECT OVERVIEW
SCALE FIGURE 5
PHONE q~[phone] FAX ~~[phone]

LEGEND
PERMANENT PALUSTRINE FORESTED
WETLAND FILL IMPACT (0.271 AC)
PERMANENT PALUSTRINE FORESTED
WETLAND CLEARING IMPACT (0.014 AC)
PERMANENT PALUSTRINE FORESTED
WETLAND EXCAVATION (0.006 AC)
STREAM FILL IMPACT
(0 AC; 0 LF)
WETLAND BOUNDARY: ----~a----
STREAM BOUNDARY: ---
EROSION CONTROL FENCING LINE:
f nNCTRi I('TIf1N I II(AITC. .~ s
~.-:~~ F
_Exl. ~
~1~~ ~XISn~ro ~ ! _
_ I ~\
I ~--
` / ~
~'~
~_~ /~
EROSION CONTROL I ~°
FENCING LINE ~"'
PERMANENT PALUSTRINE FORESTED
"' WETLAND FILL IMPACT
+/- 11,794 SF = 0.271 AC
PERMANENT PALUSTRINE RESTED
WETLAND CLEARIN IMPACT
+/- 590 SF = 0.014 AC
APPLICANT: C I TY OF HIGH POINT LOCATION: HARTLEY DRIVE
ACTIVITY: ROADWAY EXTENSION COUNTY: GUILFORD/DAVIDSON
STATE: NORTH CAROLINA
ROUTE: HARTLEY DRIVE DATE: 06/14/f~7
PROJECT#: 3202>a0a ~ TASK 40(~ SCALE: 1 " = 88'
1~"W
PERMANENT PALUSTRINE FORESTED
WETLAND EXCAVATION IMPACT
+/- 264 SF = 0.006 AC
~A
c
~~~ ~~ .
;,-
.y` " ~ f
'~~
.~ ,
~' ~ :~~
~i
,'
~~ ''~~~~
~= , - ~ .:~
~~. ~ti; ~
i '~ ; ~: /
i ~ : ~> /
~s ,
,~~, j.
~ ~ ~ i ,
i ' ' ` .`I
i ~ 0,
~,
/ ~ ~~
! ~ ~ '4,
~- `~-
~ ~ ~,, I,
~, '
~,
~ ~;' ~, ~
~ ~ i ~ 1 ~, ,
/` ~
~. 1 _; ~,-
~~% „i i ~_
~ ~>
-~;~; .I .
j~
t ~ !~' , ;
_, ,~
'-
i~ ' ~~ 5
r.~ ,,
~~, ~,
., ~ ~--
/ .- ~
' % ' ~ c
Cf `~ ~ ; Exlsfi
;~ 1;..: , .. , Y pRN E
~/ _ ;'
/ -~
sf F ~ ~
>9 R~ j / ~ c c ~
c
~~ ~~
~~ c
' C
z~
PROPOSED BRIDGE ABUTMENT
STREAM 4
1 ~
,_~ 1.,
`'' ~ `0 ft 80 ft
SCALE
STV/RALPH WHITEHEAD ASSOCIATES
1000 W. MOREHEAD ST.
SUITE 200
CHARLOTTE. NORTH CAROLINA 28208
HARTLEY DRIVE EXTENSION
CITY OF HIGH POINT. NC
SITE PLAN (FIGURE 6)
PHONE °: (704) 3T2-1885 FAX `: [phone]

LEGEND
PERMANENT PALUSTRINE FORESTED
WETLAND FILL IMPACT (0.054 AC)
PERMANENT PALUSTRINE FORESTED
WETLAND CLEARING IMPACT (0 AC)
PERMANENT PALUSTRINE FORESTED
WETLAND EXCAVATION (0.004 AC)
STREAM FILL IMPACT
(0 AC; 0 LF)
WETLAND BOUNDARY:
STREAM BOUNDARY:
EROSION CONTROL FENCING LINE:
CONSTRUCTION LIMITS:

c
~. /~ / /
r'
PERMANENT':P.ALUSTRINE FORESTED
~', WETLAND FILL IMPACT
~~.,+/- 2,362 SF = 0.054 AC EROSION CONTROL
FENCINCr-LINE
PROP; HEADWALL
,.,, ~ ~c
APPLICANT: CITY OF HIGH POINT
ACTIVITY: ROADWAY EXTENSION
ROUTE: HARTLEY DRIVE
PROJECT#: 320200m, TASK 400
RIPRAP APRON
`"` " 180 SF
13 CY
PERMANENT PALUSTRINE FORESTED
WETLAND EXCAVATION IMPACT
+/- 146 SF = 0.004 AC
PROP. HEADWALL-~
STREAM 3 BEGINS
A

B
~J
s
120 LF 42' RCP
',
;y
LOCATION: HARTLEY DRIVE
COUNTY: GUILFORD/DAVIDSON
STATE: NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: (d6/ 14/f~7
SCALE: 1 " = 8(~'
EROSION CONTROL
FENCING LINE
INSET A
~ /
~~
~ ~
',q ~~
- / ~
F
Z~
Erb
B~\~
\c
v, ~~ ;
;.\Q~ \ -
~~
HART
BEY DRIVE
-. N
~~5 24.~W
~ ~/~ R
,~_~ ~
~~~-~_
~`.
'`~ ,
`, ~ ft 80 t
"~,L SCALD ~
I
45
~ /
i
! ~~ ~ R
,~`s~
O
~ ~~
/ti '~~w ~f
~' / u

STV/RALPH WHITEHEAD ASSOCIATES
1000 W. MOREHEAD ST.
SUITE 200
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28208
HARTLEY DRIVE EXTENSION
CITY OF HIGH POINT NC
SITE PLAN (FIGURE 7)
PHONE ': [phone] FAX ~: [phone]
,;~ ~

LEGEND
PERMANENT PALUSTRINE FORESTED
WETLAND FILL IMPACT (0 AC)
PERMANENT STREAM
EXCAVATION IMPACT (0.003 AC; 12 LF)
STREAM FILL IMPACT
(0.089 AC; 506 LF)
WETLAND BOUNDARY:
STREAM BOUNDARY:
EROSION CONTROL FENCING LINE:
CONSTRUCTION LIMITS:
~~
\ \
~~.. ~ ~~
C
NSET A
APPLICANT: CITY OF HIGH POINT
ACTIVITY: ROADWAY EXTENSION
----"L"- -- -
Fx~`~~~ \
\ijy .
ROUTE: HARTLEY DRIVE
PROJECT#: 3202000, TASK 400
SEE INSET A
FOR DETAILS
1~
1
;1. ,1 C
~~~
e\~~\
F
200 LF 60' RCP
F
EROSION CONTROL
FENCING LINE ,
/\ ~\ /;
//f.-`. STREAM RELOCATION
(CONCEPTUAL)
/`
~~ `PERMANENT STREAM 2 FILL IMPACT
/ = 0.069 AC, 349 LF

LOCATION: HARTLEY DRIVE
COUNTY: GUILFORD/DAVIDSON
STATE: NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: 06/14/07
SCALE: 1 " = 80'
~'
e
c
t h~
~:, / ~/
~1~~r
~ ,.
1 ~
!)
t ~
\\ ~
1 / _
\ (` '~
0
( 55
x
/~
~~~-~~~
~,~;~~: .
/ _-
~_,._
:"~.
PERMANENT STREAM I FILL IMPACT
~= 0.020 AC,157, LF ~
~!\C~C~~ ~ __
SRI VE
ft
o~ ~
\~
c ~
EROSION CONTROL ~ ~
FENCING LINE
STVlRALPH WHITEHEAD ASSOCIATES
1000 W.MOREHEAD ST.
SUITE 200
CHARLOTTE. NORTH CAROLINA 28208
HARTLEY DRIVE EXTENSION
CITY OF HIGH POINT NC
SITE PLAN (FIGURE 8)
PHONE ': [phone] FAX s: (7041 372-3393

CROSS SECTION
VOLUME OF FILL IN WETLAND CALCULATION
AREA OF WETLAND FILL IMPACT = 11,794 SF
AVERAGE FILL HEIGHT = 20 FT
VOLUME OF FILL = 11,794 SF X 20 FT = 235,880 CF
= 8,736.30 CY
CROSS SECTION A-A
-HARTLEY- STA. 31+50
PROPOSED -
CENTERLINE
19.25' 86.68'
PROPOSED
GROUND
830 ft
825 ft
820 fit
815 ft
BIO ft
eos fit
B00 ft
-WETLAND
EXCAVATION
IMPACT
PROPOSED
TOE OF FILL DITCH
EXISTING
GROUND
VOLUME OF EXCAVATION IN WETLAND CALCULATION
AREA OF WETLAND EXCAVATION IMPACT = 264 SF
AVERAGE EXCAVATION DEPTH = 3 FT
VOLUME OF EXCAVATION = 264 SF X 3 FT = 792 CF
= 29.33 CY
26.75' 26.75' 3'
~GRADESED
a

WETLAND
FILL IMPACT
WETLAND
CLEARING
IMPACT
0 ft 20 ft
SCALE
STV/RALPH WHITEHEAD ASSOCIATES
1000 W.MOREHEAD ST.
SUITE 200
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28208
HARTLEY DRIVE EXTENSION
CITY OF HIGH POINT NC
CROSS SECTION (FIGURE 9)
PHONE ': [phone] FAX ': [phone]

CROSS SECTION
VOLUME OF FILL IN WETLAND CALCULATION
AREA OF WETLAND FILL IMPACT = 2,362 SF
AVERAGE FILL HEIGHT = 8 FT
VOLUME OF FILL = 2,362 SF X 8 FT = 18,896 CF
= 699.85 CY
PROPOSED
GROUND
840 ft
835 ft
830 ft
825 ft
820 fit
CROSS SECTION B-B
-HARTLEY-
PROPOSED -~
CENTERLINE
EXISTING
GROUND
WETLAND
EXCAVATION IMPACT

WETLAND
FILL IMPACT
VOLUME OF EXCAVATION IN WETLAND CALCULATION
AREA OF WETLAND EXCAVATION IMPACT = 146 SF
AVERAGE EXCAVATION DEPTH = 2 FT
VOLUME OF EXCAVATION = 146 SF X 2 FT = 292 CF
= 10.81 CY
i5.08' 27.62'
PROPOSED
GRADE

STV/RALPH WHITEHEAD ASSOCIATES
1000 W.MOREHEAD STo
SUITE 200
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28208
HARTLEY DRIVE EXTENSION
0 ft 20 ft CITY OF HIGH POINT. NC
CROSS SECTION (FIGURE 10)
SCALE PHONE °: [phone] FAX °: (7041 372-3393

CROSS SECTION
VOLUME OF FILL IN STREAM CALCULATION
AREA OF STREAM FILL IMPACT = 0.089 AC = 3,877 SF
AVERAGE FILL HEIGHT = 18 FT
VOLUME OF FILL = 3.877 SF X 18 FT = 69,786 CF
= 2,584.67 CY
CROSS SECTION C-C
-HARTLEY-
PROPOSED -~
CENTERLINt

PROPOSED
GROUND
ezo rr
e~ f+
~o rt _ ~
805 ft
800 N
IMPACT
EXISTING
GROUND
VOLUME OF EXCAVATION IN STREAM CALCULATION
AREA OF STREAM EXCAVATION IMPACT = 105 SF
AVERAGE EXCAVATION DEPTH = 5 FT
VOLUME OF EXCAVATION = 105 SF X 5 FT = 525 CF
= 19.44 CY
IMPACT
0 ft 25 ft
SCALE
s

STV/RALPH WHITEHEAD ASSOCIATES
1000 W. MOREHEAD ST.
SUITE 200
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28208
HARTLEY DRIVE EXTENSION
CITY OF HIGH POINT NC
CROSS SECTION (FIGURE il)
PHONE ': [phone] FAX ~: [phone]

ATTACHMENT D
REQUEST FOR JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION

STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates
1000 West Morehead Street, Suite 200
Charlotte, North Carolina 28208
[phone] fax:[phone]
September 14, 2006
Mr. Todd Tugwell
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
SUBJECT: Jurisdictional Determination -Request for Survey Certification
Approximate 26-Acre Bartley Drive Extension Site
Guilford and Davidson County, North Carolina
RWA Project No. 3202
Dear Mr. Tugwell:
On behalf of the City of High Point, STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates, Inc. (STV/RWA) is requesting
signed certification from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) of the location and extent of
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and wetlands on the subject site. The Request for a Jurisdictional
Determination was sent to your office on April 26, 2006, and the delineated boundaries of the waters of
the U.S., and wetlands were confirmed by you in the field on May 8, 2006.
The enclosed survey sets of the boundaries of waters of the U.S. and wetlands on the subject site was
performed by Mulkey Engineers of Charlotte, NC and the survey plats have been signed and sealed by
Professional Surveyor, J. David Lee, NCPLS L-4175 of Mulkey Engineers. Baseline points are noted on
each sheet. The locations of the Data Points are depicted on Figure 1 of the enclosed sets. Please add the
Army Corps Action ID to each sheet to be certified.
Please sign the 4 sets of maps in the spaces provided to certify the plats as accurate and return 3 of the
sets to Brandon Phillips at STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates. Please feel free to contact us at (704) 372-
1885 Ext. 1068 (Mike Iagnocco) or Ext. 1016 (Brandon Phillips) should you have any questions or
concerns regarding this request.
Sincerely,
STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates, Inc.
/~~
Brandon J. Phillip C.H.M.M.
Senior Environmental Specialist
Attachment -Waters of the U.S. and Wetlands Boundary Map (4 sets)
Cc: Keith Pugh, P.E., City of High Point
nn employee-owned company providing qunlity service since 1912

Legend
~ Data Points ~
o~
a Hartley Drive Project Area M
Wetlands Q
Waters of the U.S. ~
Streams
Streets
I, J. Da~~id Lee, II, NCPLS L-4175, cerdE<~ that dus plat was drawn under m~ supervision from an
actual field sun ey conducted under m~ supenision on the date of ~pcil dh, 2006. \~'itness m~
original signature and seal this 12~h d~~dt-~~~C~drle
I ~~+%l//
Lee, II, NCPLS L
`! '~ ;SURV ~'~
. q ~~
gr~rr~i p L 105,
~_ - ~Z-~
Date
Hartley Drive Widening and Extension
Davidson and Guilford Counties, NC
G~
\~'i
Stream 1
ST ANN DR. 1
-~
"This certifies that this copy of this plat idenfifies as waters and
wetlands all areas of wafers and wetlands regulated pursuant to
Section 404 of fhe Clean WaterAct as determined by the
undersigned on this date. Unless there is a change in the law, or
ourpublished regulations, this determination maybe relied on for a
period not to exceed free years from this date. This determination
was made utilizing the 1987 Carps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual."
~ U.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineersRepresentative
Title
I Date
Notes:
t. Jurisdictional Waters of the U.5 were delineated by Ralph
Whitehead Associates, Inc. on March 28, 2006. Jurisdictional
wetland boundaries have been marked in the field and have
been verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This map is
intended for planning purposes only.
2. Boundaries of the wetlands were flagged and surveyed.
:,
~i
0 245 490 980
l l l l l l l l l
Figure 2

2
Wetland GG
pR•
Figure 4
Areas for Wetlands and Waters of the t1.S.
Figure 3 ` ~~ Areas for Wetlands

~~ Wetland F: 0.042 Acre 1861.18 Sq. Ft.
`~` ~"""`
P•3 Wetland GG: 0.201 Acre 8856.09 Sq. Ft.
® ~~ Total.' 0.243Acre 10717.27 Sq. Ft.
DP-2
O~~
Areas for Waters of the U.S.
°-"'
Strea 4 ~~ ~=m_- amt Stream 1: 0.005 Acre 256.22 Sq. Ft. 58.93 Linear Ff.
l Stream 2: 0.040 Acre 1768.65 Sq. Ft. 218.80 Linear Ft.
Wetland F ~%°'~ ~I'ti`~IppE Stream 4: 0.089 Acre 3895.47 Sq. Ft. 158.01 Linear Ft.
i

Waters of the U.S. and
Wetlands Boundary Map
FIGURE 1
orb 6.19.06
RALPH WHITEHEAD ASSOCIATES SURVEYED BY PREPARED OY CHECKED BY APPROVED 9Y DATE
CQNSULTWG ENGINEERS szo2-oo0 1"=aoo' SHEET of
JOB No. SCALE GI51 C,SD FILE PATH ~ 4
Total: 0.134 Acre 5920.34 Sq Ft. 435.74 Linear Ft.

Legend
• Wetland GPS Points
• Data Points
Hartley Drive Project Area
Wetlands
Waters of the U.S.
2 ft Contours
----- Base Line
~ #5 Rebar and Cap
:~
I, J. David Lee, II, NCPLS L-41 /5, certi<T that this plat was drawn under me supen~ision from an
actual field survey conducted under my supervision on the date of April 5~h, 2006.1C`itness m~
original signature and seal this Ugh doe of]ult, 2006.
0
v,
~I ~I ~I
avid Lee, II, NCPLS L-4T ~ : ~ ~ Date
9:
~~ ~~L41
~•~'G 0
s '•~ O a
~ ~
~ ,u
~~ '•~,.. 4•;'
r~~r`f~Vip w, J^ .``4
'~Nlt~
D•11A
BL-303 ~ ~ I I
817,242.5324 N~
1, 691, 225.8613 E
Combined Factor = 0.99992021
gR?
b
~~i
817,298.8154N ~ _~' °Z~534'3s"E
1,690,881.7403E ~~'
Combined Factor = 099992021
2
1 1 1 1° ~ E-11
I~ ~ I 1 / ~ I 1 1 1 1 11 1 ~ 1 1 1~D•11~~ y E-10
"This certifies that this copy of this plat identifies as waters arid
wetlands all areas of waters and wetlands regulated pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as determined by the
undersigned on this date. Unless there is a change in the law, or
our published regulations, this determination may be retied on for a
period not to exceed five years Irom this date. This determination
was made utilizing the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual."
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Representative
2
4~'I
Title
Date
Notes:
1. Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S were delineated by Ralph
Whitehead Associates, Inc. on March 28, 2006. Jurisdictional
wetland boundaries have been marked in the field and have
been verifed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This map is
intended for planning purposes only.
2. Boundaries of the wetlands were flagged and surveyed.
0 25 \ 50
100 feet
ti
w`'i
b
~~ 'bti%
D•5A
b1i
~,A
3Q
6 ~~~
~~`b
RALPH WHITEHEAD ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Hartley Drive Widening and Extension
Davidson and Guilford Counties, NC
Line C
6A S 75°21'51" W 22.49'
7 S 11 ° 9'44" W 10.64'
8 S 32° 51' S0" W 28.36'
9 S 13° 0'41" E 28.90'
10 S 6° 55' 49" W 16.10'
11 S 50° 21' 23" E 17.62'
12 S 79°41'38" E 31.14'
f 3 S 38° 22' 39" E 28.31'
Line D
5A N 48° 3' 31" W 8.82'
6 N 78° 39'14" W 28.16'
7 N 45° 22' 25" W 31.10'
8 N 2° 15' 35" W 27,87'
9 N 46° 48' 39" W 13.21'
10 N 66° 51' 26" W 49,54'
11 N 8° 43' 08" W 54.40'
Line E
6A S 68° 32' 33" W 16.07'
7 S 7° 12'51" W 12.95'
8 S 36° 4' 40" W 27.72'
9 N 75° 54' 21 " W 39.03'
10 N 48° 47' S5" W 17.54'
11 N 14° 59'13" W 23.56'
12 N 10° 25' 47" W 22.10'
Terminal Lines
T1 S 76° 46' 49" E 3.12'
T2 S 75° 24' S7" E 11.22'
T3 S 74° 54'10" E 14.19'
Areas for Waters of the U.S.
Stream 1: 0.005 Acre
256.22 Sq. Ft.
58.93 Linear Ft.
Stream 2: 0.040 Acre
1768.65 Sq. Ft.
218.80 Linear Ff.
SURVEYED BY
3202.000
cos ND
ar6
PREPARED BY
1°=40'
SCALE
Waters of the U.S. and
Wetlands Boundary Map
FIGURE 2
6.21.06
CHECKED BY APPROVED BY DATE
SHEET OF
GIST CAD FILE PATH 2 4

Legend
• Wetland GPS Points
• Data Points
Hartley Drive Project Area
~'[11~ Wetlands
'~,~ Waters of the U.S.
Streets
2 ft Contours
~ #5 Rebar and Cap
----- Base Line
BL-308 ~}' -'~-~_
816,938.6251N
1, 692, 284.5300 E
Combined Factor = 0, 99992021
Hartley
"This cerfifies that this copy of this plat identifies as waters and
wetlands all areas of waters and wetlands regulated pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean WaterAct as determined by the
undersigned on this date. Unless there is a change in the law, or ~
our published regulations, this determination may be relied on for a ~
period not fo exceed five years from this date. This determination
was made utilizing the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual."
5
p
p
I, J. Dacnd Lee, 11, NCPLS L-4175, certih that this plat was drawn Dndet mt supen-ision from an
actual field surs~ec conducted under mt~ supen-ision on CITe date of dpril 5 ~", 2006, l1'itness nn~ Hartley Drive Wldenl rig and Extension
J
original signature and seal this 12~~~'k[2~G~1f~~9 06.
~
A Davidson and Guilford Counti es
NC
~~~.
~r,~~
~1H e~A
~aeeeo
~ o
Q ,
`
e~
/
°o
C
..~%yl 4 ~.
QL~.9 ; ~ ~ /2 -C~ G
Q 862
acid Lee, II, NCPL9.-415 ~l r ~ Date
.
:y2 ~.:
' ~
0 0`~

e
a
'
~~~
' ,~°'' Rv'° ~~ "~, Line F

°
'
"

'
'
,,/~O
D
°~, 5A S 0
24
22
E 26.75
Prie
troo~~' ~ 6 S 47° 1'44" E 10.02'
7 S 12° 55' 44" W 25.66'
8 S 13° 14' 04" E 14.25'
9 N71° 3'26" E 24.41'
10 N 18° 27' 19" W 10.45'
11 N 12° 19' S9" E 18.81'
12 N 18° 15' 01 " E 29.47'
13 N 39° 31' 38" E 6.45'
H rtle Driv 90' i ht-oi wa Terminal Line
Wetl rid F T1 N 84° 30' S0" W 34.13'
. ___ •9
---. Area for Wetland F
a
F•1T ~
~ 0.042 Acre
t , %''
hh~ 1861.18 Sq. Ft.
F 12 ' o~ BL-309,
F•7b~~ ~ 816,886.1545N
~ i 5 / 1,692,521.2654 E
~ 1 '~ 6 Combin ~d Fact~r = 0.9999 ~21
p
c~
,N
p
A
N
F•1
p
A
ip
~ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Representative
~ Ttle
I Date
Notes:
1. Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S were delineated by Ralph
Whitehead Associates, Inc. on March 28, 2D06. Jurisdictional
wetland boundaries have been marked in the field and have
been verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This map is
intended for planning purposes only.
2. Boundaries of the wetlands were flagged and surveyed.
I 0 1 25
100 feet
p
IA
m
l~
Waters of the U.S. and
Wetlands Boundary Map
FIGURE 3
A , I
('+ p
a orb 6.21.06
p SURVEYED BY PREPARED BY CHECKED BY PPPROVED BY DATE
a ~ ~ RALPH WHITEHEAD ASSOCIATES
~" CONSULTING ENGINEERS azoz-ooo r'=ao' SHEET Dr
JOB N0. SCALE GIST CAD FILE PATH 3 Q
~~
,N

Legend
• Data Points
• Wetland GPS Points
Hartley Drive Project Area
Wetlands
~l Waters of the U.S.
Streets
2 ft Contours
----- Base Line
~ #5 Rebar and Cap
m
v/
I, J. David Lee, II, NCPLS L-4175, cerufi~ that this plat was drawn under mp supenision from an
actual field suwe~ conducted under me su ~~~ n the dare of Apri15~, 2006.1Cimess mr
original signature and seal this 13'h d~~~~}'P1~~f f~~'~.
• -v- ~
d Lee, II, NCPLS L -1
l2 -U6
Date
c( ''•~•a
\~~+ ~D
GG
GG-12
!r col
sI~~~
816,988.0995 N (~'
1,693,208.5066E lJ
Combined Factor = 0.99992021
"This certifies that this copy of this plat identr'fies as waters and
wetlands all areas of waters and wetlands regulated pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as determined by the
undersigned on this date. Unless there is a change in the law, or
our published regulations, this determination maybe relied on for a
period not fo exceed h've years from this date. This determination
was made utilizing the ?987 Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual." I-1t
I-12.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Representative
Title
Date
Notes:
t. Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S were delineated by Ralph
Whitehead Assodiates, Inc. on March 28, 2006. Jurisdletional
wetland boundaries have been marked in the fell and have
been verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This map is
intended for planning purposes only.
2. Boundaries of the wetlands were flagged and surveyed.
O
ND J
~0 F
9
\~2
~i' I-7
~ a:
v
1-g• nee
/, H-8
~'~ ~~ G
j~ H-7 GG-1
~6
~H ~~
0
0
Hartley Drive Widening and Extension
Davidson a nd Guilford Counties, NC
ry
~
° Line H
5 N 46° 55'50" E 23,61'
~
~; 6 N 42° 57' 05" E 44.26'
7 N 73° 2'49" E 31.11'
8 N 11° 5'42" E 27.35'
9 N 40° 34' 43" E 35.39'
Line I
4A S 49° 51' 46" W 4.43'
5 S 33° 30' 53" W 17.20'
6 S 17° 25' 09" W 15.19'
7 S 63° 4'44" W 23.47'
8 S 37° 53'41" W 24.89'
9 5 41 ° 6' 08" W 36.29'
10 S 61° 51' 15" W 26.77'
11 S 32° 20' 15" W 9.61'
12 S 26° 10' 14" W 3.77'
BL-313 T1 S 80° 39' 23" W 41,42'
G-17 ~ (817,039.2394 N T2 $ 79° 7' O6" W 44.20'
~ 1,693,536.6898E
k Combined Factor = 0.99992021
'
~ Line GG
GG•t
-
~
~ 1 S47°38'34" E 29.70'
~
~ t
1s 5'r 2A N 28° 13' 31" E 12.01
,W
--% ,1s°~ a ' 3 N 78° 8' 02" E 37.51
3 13 GG-14 ~ 4 S 41°15'38" E 14.41'
- 5 N 9A N 9° 13' 30" W 11.25'
N 10 N 1°26'37" W 18.61'
11 N 18° 52'01" W 29.83'
12 N 64° 44' S9" E 16,24'
'-t t 13 N 88° 45' 24" E 27.60'
,Wa 14 S 68° 29' S4" E 19.15'
0' t 15 N 17° 7' 06" W 17.61'
f
t o le 16 N 77° 8' 11" W 33.00'
17 N 1°41'13" E 11.33'
9 28A S 45° 47' 25" W 29.89'
29 S 35° 11' 30" W 68.83'
T1 N 78°47'59" E 71.35'
~
~ T2 N 19° 28' 22" E 46.92'
Areas for Wetlands and Waters of the U.S
Stream 4: 0.089 Acre
q 3895.47 Sq. Ft.
158.01 Linear Ff.
Wetland GG: 0.201 Acre
8856.09 Sq. Ft.
RALPH WHITEHEAD ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
arb
SURVEYED BY PREPARED 6Y
3202.000 1 "~0'
JOB ND. SCALE
Waters of the U.S. and
Wetlands Boundary Map
FIGURE 4
CHECKED 6Y I APPROVED BY
GISI CAD FILE PATH
6.11.06
DATE
SHEET OF
4 4
~, /
I-1
4

ATTACHMENT E
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT FORMS

OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
S1-Intermittent Important Stream 1
..,
r' `,
..r.
,~, ; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET „ - ~ ~ ~ ~~~
;P 9
1. Applicant's Name: City_of High Point, NC 2. Evaluator's Name: Steven BusbeeBrandon Phillips
3. Date of Evaluation: 3-23-06
5. Name of Stream: UT to Rich Fork
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 25 acres
4. Time of Evaluation: 10:30 am
6. River Basin: Yadkin/Pee-Dee
8. Stream Order: First
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: SO if 10. County: Guilford
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Huh Point take N. Main St. (US 3111 north and
turn left onto Westover Dr Take Westover approximately 2000 feet west and turn left on Ingleside Dr.. Take Ingleside
approximately 1000 feet south to detention basin at the start of the new Eastwood Homes development. Go approximately 800 feet to
the west throu h the woods to the stream.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N 35°59'28.22" W 80°02'37.55"
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): N/A
14. Recent Weather Conditions: Rain within the past 48 hours clear and cool
15. Site conditions at time of visit: sunny 55 degrees
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES ~O If yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YE~
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 40 % Residential % Commercial _% Industrial % Agricultural
60 % Forested ~% Cleared /Logged _% Other ( )
21. Bankfull Width: 2' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 1.5'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight -Occasional Bends X Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -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): 52 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature ~ Date ~/Z- 3 /°
This channel evaluation form is inte ed to be u ed only as a guide to assist landowners an environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order 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 05/03. To Comment, please ca11 9 1 9-876-844 1 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSIiEET
S1-Intermittent Important Stream 1

Y `~~ ~
'~t* ~ ~.~a~~~ -~eChtlD rf~lri
I ~ -
'x ~ ~~- ~ ~~~
~
~
~ 1 ~ Presence of flour ! }iersistent'Iiaols ~nstrea~ ~
, 0-5 0-4 - 0 5
' 2
{no flow or saturation = 0 strop ' #low = max points) ~: ,
~'
2 Evidence of past human alteration
..
0-b '
0-5
0-$~.
4
{extensive alteration = 0; no alterati©n = max points)
i '- Riparian zone" ,
'
(no buffer = 0; confi ous wide'buff'er
= max points)

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
..,
0-5
0-4
0
-4
3
(extensive. dischar es = O; no dischar es =max points)' ,
Groundwa#er discharge. `
{no dischar e = 0; span s, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
ZJ~
,~..~~

6
' Presence of adjacent,floodpiain
: -~

0-4

0-4

0-2

1
~
~-, _
(no floodpiain = fl; extensive floodpiairi = max points)
~' Entrenchment / floodplain access ,
-
~,_ 7
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent floodin = max points) 5
,'0 0-4 - 0-2 2

8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
0 - 6
0 - 4
0 - 2
1
{no wetlands = O; lar e adjacent wetlands = max points)
- Cliannehsinuosity ~~
9
(extensive channelization = O; natural neander.= max points)- 0- 5 0 4 0- 3 3
~. ;
10 y~ ~ediment anpu~' ~

.. r -~
- {extensive deposition° 0, tittle •or no sediment = max points
0-5-'
fl-4 _
0-4
2
,, ~
; :Size & di~ersiiy of channel .bed substra#e; :
.,
~
,;.
r ", ~ 11 _
{fine, homo enous~° ?0;1`ar e di~eise saes `=Tnax'points) - ~0 -~ . ;;p 5 1
~~ Evidence of ehannel incision ar widening' '~~ '

~ ;r.a
12
~ . _ ..
(deeply incised = D; stable-bed &'banks = max ~oints3
0-5
0. 4
0 Sr, 4
_
,,~.~'
13 '. , . Presence of major bank#ailur~es
,. ~
~r1 y k `
0-S
0-5 -
0=5
4
4
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stablef3anlcs;= max points)
' ' Raot depth ai-d 'densi#~'on books '` 0 - 3 0 - 4 fl - 5 2
` ~ (no risible roots ~; ~.lense roots throw hoot = max points)
~`
~, ''
15 Impact by agreculture orLvestack production -
.M.
•r ~~;.~• a~n .~~ ...,... '-.
Y
'
... 0-5 "
.. '0-~4
0 ~" -
4
;;? ts
ub
stantial act ~; no Evidence Amax points) -
- _
~ -' Presence of riffle pooUripple-pool cou~plezes - `' ~ '
,
w-=
~ _
s ar liools - O'well-developed = max points] "
(no riffles/npple _ '
• ,- . - I~abitat compleuty .'; ..
h
bit
t= 0
f
i
wen
d h
i
t
1„~ {tittle or no
a
a
re
t; var
;
e
ab
ta
s = max points)

~
Canopy coverage over"streamlied

~ 18 .. ,.
( ~0; continuous canoe • = max points)
no shadin ve etation - 0-5 0-5 0-5 4

•; Substrate embeddedness

, ~,
19 ~.
(deep] embedded O'loose sftructure, -max): ~
~ ,
,. 0 = 4 0 - 4 1
` .
j Presence'of streammvertebrates
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max points)
~ ~ Presence of amphibians.
fl ~ (no evidence = 0, co~nion, numerous es = max points),.
''~
O
,
22 "Presence offish'
~,. ,. ~ ,.
0 ~
0 - 4
0 - 4
0
,
~ (no evidence= 0, common; numerous es -.max points) -
~
Evidence of w~ldhfe use
~
23 (no evidence =.0; abundant~vidence =max points) •~ :0 - 6 0 ~ 4
5 3
b .,
y3
L ^'I
{{
N 1A~' Y S ~~ I
.'_~
r~; f+~r~" dC/C.~iS.~~{.. ~ ;'t ~' o,~i~11~LL~ ~[1~V
~ ~ sh° M _ ~i ~~
_ .~3~~7'w. _
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 03/23/2006 Project: Hartley Drive Extension Latitude: 35°59'28.22" N
Evaluator: S. Busbee/B. Phillips Site: Stream 1 Longitude: g0°02'37.55" W
Total Points: Other Intermittent Important UT to
Stream is at least intermittenf ~1 Q oo County: GUllford e.g. Quad Name: Rich Forl<
if? 19 or erennial if ? 30 L.O •
A. Geomor hology (Subtotal = 12.5 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1 a. Continuous bed and bank 2.0 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 2.0 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 1.0 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 1.0 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 1.0 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 2.0 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0.0 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1.0 0 1 2 3
9' Natural levees 0.0 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 1.0 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence. 0.0
No = 0
Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
o u,,,-ice.. ~.,.,.~ ~C~ ~h+nFo1 - ~i ~ \
-~, ~ -
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 1.0
0
1
2
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel --dry or growing season 2.0 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 0.5 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphicfeatures) present?1.5 No = 0 Yes = 1.5
(` Rin lnrni (Qi ih+n1'al c Q nn \
20°. Fibrous roots in channel 3.0 3 2 1 0
21 b. Rooted plants in channel 3.0 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0.0 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0.0 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacterialfungus. 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed 0.00 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 1y tocuses on the presence or aquatic or weuana pianis.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
Presence of frogs

OFFICE USE ONLY: DACE AID# DWQ #
S2 -Perennial Stream 2
~, ; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET , -'~~
1. Applicant's Name: City of High Point, NC 2. Evaluator's Name: Steven BusbeeBrandon Phillips
3. Date of Evaluation: 3-23-06
5. Name of Stream: UT to Rich Fork
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 45 acres
4. Time of Evaluation: 11:30 am
6. River Basin: Yadkin/Pee-Dee
8. Stream Order: second
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 2001f 10. County: Guilford
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From Hiph Point take N. Main St. (US 311) north and
turn left onto Westover Dr Take Westover approximately 2000 feet west and turn left on Ingleside Dr.. Take Ingleside
a~proximate1~1000 feet south to detention basin at the start of the new Eastwood Homes development. Go approximately 850 feet to
the west throu h the woods to the stream.
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N 35°59'26.73" W 80°02'38.05"
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): N/A
14. Recent Weather Conditions: Rain within the past 48 hours clear and cool
15. Site conditions at time of visit: sunny 58 degrees
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-N)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES ~If yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YE NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YE NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 20 % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
80 % Forested _% Cleared /Logged _% Other ( )
21. Bankfull Width: 5-10' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 2-3'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight -Occasional Bends _Frequent Meander X Very Sinuous -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):
Comments:
L
Evaluator's Signature Date 3 Z ~
This channel evaluation form is int nded to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and envi onmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order 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 05/03. To Comment, please ca11919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SZ -Perennial Stream 2
~
~~
' ~~~ ~~
~
`~ -
tt 11~7
~y{~~~J
^
:.
M fa
fix{'
. r ~~i'S^t ~i~~-„ ^'k'd~, .~~t~-~.- `.~" `w-c ~~~~~, a
F' ~.~ _ ~ '~ }j'xs,'
Presence of flow 1 persistentpools in stream
~
-
points)
(no flow arsaturation = U strop flow = max
2 Evidence of past human alteration D _ h " "0 ~ • , a - 5 4
~~ {extensive alteration = 0; no alteration"= max points) .
?° 3 ~, :Riparian zone ' ' '
~ '• fl b 0. 4 - 0-S ~ 3
~
{no buffer = D; Conti ous; wide buffer = maac points) - ~ _
f ~~ 4 Evidence of nutrient or•chemica! discharges 4 _ ~ ,~- ±0 q ~ 0 _ 4 '~ 3
(extensive dischar es = 0; no dischar es = max points)
a
5 Groundwater discharge 0- 3 0 4 -.` ~ 0- 4 1
U , (no dischar e = 0; sprin s, seeps; wetlands; etc. = max points)
,..,
6 Presence ofadjacen# floodplain .. : D _ ~ ©- 4." -- D - 2 1
rn ~ (no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain= max points)
lain access-
Entrenchment /flood
~ p 0- 5 fl- 4' 0- 2 1
a-, (deepl entrenched = 0; frequent floodin ° max points)" '
8 Presence` of adjacent wetlands 0 - 6 0 ~} ~ ~ 0 - 2 0
(no wetlands = D; lar e adjacent wetlands = max points)
9' Channel sinuosity
~ ~` 0-5 0 4: 0-3 - 4
oints)
(extensive: channelization = 0; natural meander- max
w~ ~ `Sediment'input : ;~ .. `- :
'
r no sediment , ~ points)` .
(extensive deposition= O; little o
~'' 11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate :- ~
{fine, homo enous = 0; lar e, diverse sizes =znax pouits) -` ~ ~,
~:
~` 12 Evidence"of_ channel incision or widemng'~,
' fl ~'~ ~ 0 4 • D - $. 3
{deepl incised fl; stable bed Bi 3~anlcs :max oints) ~ ~ ~
~" Presence ~of uajor bank failures ~ ` ~ Q ~

13
~'
` 0 - $ ~ ~ : 0 ="~ 2

.
.
osion- 0; no erosion, stab
(severe er ~ - le banks max points)
_ .
t ~ .
' Root depth and dens-ty; on panks

~ (no visible roots 0; dense roots throu hout max points) ~.
~~
;
r
15 ~ . Impact ~y agriculture or livestocitproductiQn
"'
„
"
.-
~," ,. ~ ~
0 4
4 - 5
4
.
~ in#s)
niax
o
(substantial.mpact =0; n© evidence
' f' - ~ 16 Presence of riffle-pooUripple=pool co leges :.
>~
0 3
~ ~0 5T~
~ ` 0-6 n.
3
~• (no riffles/ripples or pools - D; well-developed max points)
~ 1
~' 17 ~ .Habitat complexity,'; .,-' 0- 6 ~~ 0 6~ 0 6 4
~~' (little or no habitat= 0; frequent, varied habitats max points) " ~ ..

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
~ - _ _ ~~ ~ ~
(no shadin ve etation = 0; continuous canoe max points)
~ 0-5
' -
0-5 -
' .
~-5
4
19 ~_. Substrate embeddedness •
~~
= ~'~ ~ ~"`
O; loosestructure =max)
(deepl
embedded ~ ,

~0 Presence'of stream invertebrates
:. ~ ~?
A-4
D-5:
0-5
3

~' (no evidence = 0; common, numerous es max .points}
' ~
~ ~ -

~`.
21 Presence of am hibians
. `
.. ,: p.- ti '~"
=. 0 4
0-q ~ '
,' D.-4
2
~'; (no evidence= 0; common; numerous es = max points] ;
" ~':.
+'~ ~ 22 Presence offish
~ - ~
fl 4' ~ 0' 4" ~0 - 4 0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous es ='max points)
Evidence of wildlife use
{no evidence = 0; abundant`evidence = max points)
~
,
_ _ - ~

* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
4

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 03/23/2006 Project: Bartle Drive Extension Latitude: 35°59'26.73" N
Evaluator: S. Busbee/B. Phillips site: Stream 2 Longitude: 80°02'38.05" W
Total Points: Other Perennial UT to Rich Fork
Stream is at least intermittent County:
39 00 Guilford e.g. Quad Name:
if ? 19 or erenniaJ if ? 30 •
A. Geomorpholog (subtotal = 23.0 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1 °. Continuous bed and bank 3.0 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 3.0 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 2,0 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 3.0 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 1.0 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 2.0 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0.0 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 2.0 0 1 2 3
9° Natural levees 0.0 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 2.0 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existin
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence. 3.0
No = 0
Yes = 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
cc ~
~. ~ ~yu~.,~~ar ~,~..,ti..,,u,
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 1.0
0
1
2
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel --dry or growing season 2.0 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.0 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Vlfrack lines) p.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? 1.5 No = 0 Yes = 1.5

20~'. Fibrous roots in channel 3.0 3 2 1 0
21 °. Rooted plants in channel 3.0 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish -~ 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0.0 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0.0 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 ~. Wetland plants in streambed 0.00 FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
` Items 20 antl "L1 focus on the presence or upiana prams, neni ca wcuaca ~~~ ~~~~ N~~~~~~~~ ~~ oy~~~~~ ~~ •~~•~~~~~ r~~~~•~~
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
Presence of crayfish and frogs.

OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
S3 -Intermittent Important Stream 3
~~
~ ~ ; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET ,,~- - ~ ~~ ~`
:,,
1. Applicant's Name: City of High Point, NC 2. Evaluator's Name: Steven BusbeeBrandon Phillips
3. Date of Evaluation: 3-23-06 4. Time of Evaluation: 1:30 pm
5. Name of Stream: UT to Rich Fork 6. River Basin: Yadkin/Pee-Dee
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 20 acres 8. Stream Order: First
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 501f 10. County: Guilford
11. Locarion of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From High Point take N. Main St. (US 3111 north and
ttun left onto Westover Dr Take Westover proximately 2000 feet west and turn left on Ingleside Dr.. Take Ingleside
~proximate1~1000 feet south to detention basin at the start of the new Eastwood Homes development. Go approximately 700 feet to
the east thro~h the woods to the stream, south of the apartment complex
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N 35°59'20.48" W 80°02'21.12"
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): N/A
14. Recent Weather Conditions: Rain within the past 48 hours clear and cool
15. Site conditions at time of visit: sunny 60 degrees
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters -Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES ~O If yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 70 % Residential % Commercial % Industrial _% Agricultural
30 % Forested % Cleared /Logged _% Other ( )
21. Bankfull Width: 3' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): I.5'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight -Occasional Bends X Frequent Meander Very Sinuous _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 ] 00, with a score of
100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 49 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature ~ i,J~>~ Date Z b
This channel evaluation form is inte ed to be used only as a guide to assist landowners an environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order 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 05/03. To Comment, please ca11919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
CZ _ TntPrmittPnt Tmnnrtant stream 3
~
- - 3i'~~f~MA/~~1 i1C -JC ~. '
L
»y~' +J F,s1ff~~ ~''aa/J5S~,~~~5~.~
~
L~~"~ rJ~
~~ ~ 1 ~ Q
~~~ S ..~+t~~~-JX4X~~'
_
~
g~~
K
Y h
~ r CHA~~i ~ ~ ~
~,
~
-, ~ ti .. ~~ lA1iJlV

_
~ ~_ ,.~,...
. l Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream p _ 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 J 2
'- {no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points)
Evidence of past human alteration p. 6 0- 5 0 -S 4
2 (extensive alteration = 0; no alterafion ° max points)

~ Riparian zone p_ 6 0- 4 0- 5 4
(no buffer = 0; Conti uous, wide buffer ° max points)
' ! Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
3
i 4 (extensive dischar es = O; no dischar es = max points)

~ S Groundwater discharge p- 3 0- 4' 0- 4 •" 1
'` (no dischar e = 0; sprin s, seeps, wetlands, etc. = maxpoints)
v Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
2
r~, 6 (no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)

Entrenchment /floodplain access
' ~ _ $ 0 - 4 ' 0 - 2 2
~` 7 '"
.:(deeply entrenched. = 0; frequent floodi = max points)
Presence of adjacent. wetlands 0- 6 0- 4 '0 - 2 2
8 {no wetlands = 0; lar e adj acent wetlands = max points)

9 Channel sinuosity 0- 7 0- 4 -0- 3 2
. (extensive channeiization = 0; natural meander = max points)

10 ~ Sediment m ut
p 0 - ~ ' 0 - 4 ' 0 - 4 ~ ' ` , 2
~., -
.
(extensive deposition= O; little-or no~sediinent - rnax points)

~
1
Size & diversity of channel;bed substrate. A ~.. C
~ ; ~
_ 0 _ 4
p _ ~ ~'
1
~

I ~,_~ 1 (fine, homogenous =-0; lar e, diverse sizes= max points) .~:_~ ~, - ,_. ~~~
..:,
~~" -~ -':.Evidence of channel'mcisionnrwidening,,; :~~0 ~ ~. 0_~ ~ ~
~~0 5 ~~ 1
R ~ (deeply incised = 0; stable bed.~i Banks = max pouits) .
?
13 Presence of ma'or bankfailures
~,, 0-~ 0-5 ~
0=~ 1
(severe erosion = O; no erosion, stable banks = mac points) .
~" Roof depth and'densityon banks ~ _ ~ - 0 - 4' 0 5
_
. 2

~ 14 (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throu bout = maxpoints) ~ , .
.
~~

~~~ ~
Impact by agriculture or hvestock production ~
(` 0 - 5
0 4 --
0 -
5
4
,~
,_ 15

(substantial impact °0; no evidence -:max points) .
~4 6 Presence of riffle-pooUnpple=pool complexes 0- 3 0 S ~ n 0- 6 1
' 1 (no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
~ 17
P ty
,
a 0 b ~ 0 - 6 . 0 - 6 2
`
~ { 0; fre
uent, varied Habitats = max point
little~or no habitat = q s) ~ ?
, 18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0 ~ -,~ 0 ~ 0 _ $ 4
~ (no shadin ve etation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)

, 19 Substrate embeddedness
~ ~
"
0 - 4
~ 0 = 4 ~
2
4 (deeply embedded = O; loose structure =~max) ~
'~~ ~r~~~`~: ~ ': J
Presence flf stream invertebrates
0-4
0-5
0-5
2
20 _
(no e~ridence = 0; common, numerous es = max points)

~ ~ 1 Presence of amphibians 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 3
'~`` (no e~~idence = 0; common, numerous types -max points).
a., Presence of fish
'0 22
'
0-4 0-4
0-4
0
es = max points)
=u--+,- (no evidence = 0; common, numerous
` ~~~~ ~~ Evidence of wildlife use ,
,, ~,
23
0-b 0 5
4 5
2
_
(na evidence ° 0; abundant evidence = max points)

_., --
' ~
~~ ~ 1~
` f x ~ ~~~

,
_~
~~{I.Ya
t r•i _ ~ .

). .~ ~~ -

.
R
<TT(~~,
e ~~ri~
's~elll: t'
~O t'. also
R~

'
Ey.- _,i
k r.Y~... f fa
r! +"u
T
ae
~s
~.

.~
L

,

9

* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 9.5 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 1.0 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 1.0 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0,0 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting l,p 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 1.0 D 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1.0 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 1.0 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1.0 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 0.0 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 1.0 D 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0.5 D 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 1,0 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence. 0.0
No = 0
Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B H drology (Subtotal = 5.0
Y
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 1.0
0
1
2
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dr or growing season 1.0 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 0.5 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) p.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? 1.5 No = 0 Yes = 1.5
r' Rinlnnv JSubtntal = F_75
20r. Fibrous roots in channel 2,0 3 2 1 0
21". Rooted plants in channel 2.0 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0.0 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1.0 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 ~'. Wetland plants in streambed 0.75 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.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1

OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
S4 -Perennial Stream 4
~-• .
~, ; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSI~EET , - ~ ~"
1. Applicant's Name: City of High Point. NC 2. Evaluator's Name: Steven BusbeeBrandon Phillips
3. Date of Evaluation: 3-23-06
5. Name of Stream: UT to Rich Fork
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 70 acres
4. Time of Evaluation: 2:45 pm
6. River Basin: Yadkin/Pee-Dee
8. Stream Order: Second
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: SO if 10. County: Guilford
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From High Point take N. Main St. (US 311) north and
turn left onto Hartley Dr Take Hartley Drive to end Go approximately 300 feet to the west down the hill throueh the woods to the
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N 35°59'24.55" W 80°02' 13.9"
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): N/A
14. Recent Weather Conditions: Rain within the past 48 hours clear and cool
15. Site conditions at time of visit: sunny 65 degrees
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES ~O If yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? ~ NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? ~ NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 10 % Residential 10 % Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
75 % Forested ~% Cleared /Logged 5 % Other (Recreational )
21. Bankfull Width: 10-18' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 3-6'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) _Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: Straight X Occasional Bends -Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -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): 55 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date 3 I~~ b
This channel evaluation form is inte ed to be use only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order 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 05/03. To Comment, please ca11919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
S4 -Perennial Stream 4
~,
"' a
:~
-~!
~'
s Coastal .
, t ~~edmonf~
~ i
~,~
,. ~, aY ~,
, ~;;~ ,~ r ~
_
_a ~ .~
"~ , ; ~.
Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream., 0 - 5 0 - 4 ' 0 -~ 3
1 (no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points)
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
3

~' (extensive alteration - 0; no alteration = max points)
~ 3 ~ Riparian zone 0- 6 ` 0- 4 Q -5 3
(no buffer = 0; Conti ous, wide buffer ° max points)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0
5 0- 4 0- 4 2
4 (extensive dischar es = 0; no dischar es = max points) -

5 Groundwater discharge ` D- 3 0- 4 0- 4 2
(no dischar e = 0; sprin s, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)

6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
-=
p-4
0-4
0-2
3
~ (no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
~' ~
Entrenchment ~ floodplain access.
0 . ~
p - 4
0 - 2
2
~~, {deepl entrenched = 0; fre cent floodin = max points)
8 Presence of adj acenf wetlands 0 - 6 0 - 4 -0 - 2 2
{no wetlands = 0; lar e 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 1
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment= max points)

- 11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate ~> 1\T~*~» ^~'
~ 0 _ ~ p -,5 . 3
(fine;homo enous=^0; lar e; divsise saes =max points) ~' ,~ -':~: +. _ ~~~~

12 Evidence of channel inc~s~on or widemng ;-•
,,.
'
0-5
0-4.
'~
-0
5
2
,~~ =~0 stabielied & banks =~max omts)'
(deapl incised ~, . .
,
~'
~3 Presencemf mayor bank failures µ
,- - .. ;r ~
0-5
0-5
-.0 ~
2
{severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)

~:
~~} Root depth and density on banks

(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throe hout = max points)
0-3
0-4
0-~ .
3
~', Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
0-4 _
0-5
4
1~ {substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)

~ Presence of riffle-poollripple-pool complexes
0
3
0 5
0-6
2
t
. 16 pp p - ed = max omts)
{no riffles/ri les or ools - 0; well-develo - -
~:
~.
i7 ~ habitat complexity" ,
0-6
0-6'
0-6 '
3
~~+: {little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)

,~.
18 Canopy coy erag'e over streambed

(no shadin ve etation 0, continuous cano = max points)
0 5
0-~
0-5
3
19 Substrate embeddedness
~ a ` '` *~~
IAA ,
~
~
' ~0 - 4
~ 4 - 4
2
loose structure = max)
{deeply embedded = O; ~~..,~
,
:~
=
20, Presence of stream invertebrates
_
0-4
,,: 0-5
d-5
2

~ (no evidence = 0; common, numerous apes = max points)

~
21 Presence of am hibians °
_ P
0-4
0 4
0-4
2
O {no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max points)
'~~~
2
2 Presence of fish
.
:,.; _ , P , .

0 - 4
4
0 -
0 - 4
1
~
' ~ )
(no evidence= 0;
common; numerous es - mak omts

~-
23 ' ,
Evidence-of wildhfe use ,
0 - 6
0 - 5
0 - 5
3
~ ~
~~~ (no e~-id~nce = 0• abundant evidence ° max points)
t ~:, ,
i~, .wv~~~ r f R ~aIH1 ~ '~ ~~ry+a ~ ClU ~ ~
by ,.
}
~~~,.` ~-`' 5~ !'

~. ~"~F t *¢. +~, ~ s
a3 n"yen ~t' on'#~irst~age~
~~' C~4~
~ `~, ~ .:r_`~ 55
-
~,
~
5 ITT ~.. __ b~
~-. ~.
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 03/23/2006 Project: Hartle Drive Extension t_atituoe: 35°59'24.55" N
Evaluator: S. Busbee/B. Phillips site: Stream 4 Longitude: g0°02'13.90" W
Total Points: Other Perennial UT to Rich Forl<
Stream is at least intermittent 36 00 County: Guilford
if? 79 or erennia! if? 30 e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomor holo (Subtotal = 19.5 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 3,0 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 1,0 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 2.0 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 3.p 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 2,0 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 2.0 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel O,Q 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 2.p 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees p,p 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0.0 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 1,5 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence. 3.0
No = 0
Yes = 3
e Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 7.5
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 1.0 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water inchannel -- dr or growing season 2.0 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1,0 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5 _
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 1,0 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? 1.5 No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal = 9.00
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3.0 3 2 1 0
21 ~. Rooted plants in channel 3.0 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0.0 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0.0 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.0 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed 0.00 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.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
presence of crayfish and salamanders

ATTACHMENT F
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project !Site: Hartley Drive Widening & Extension
Applicant /Owner: Cit~of High Point NC
Investigator: Brandon Phillips C H M M. Steven Busbee, P.W.S Date: 3/23106
County: Davidson
State: NC

ormal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No
D Community ID:
o n
ation)? Yes No X
it
l
i
At Wetland
u
s
ca
yp
Is the site significantly disturbed (
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X
(explain on reverse if needed) Transect ID:WtId BB
Plot ID: DP-1
v~f~FTATInN
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Ligush•um sinense S FAC 9•
2. Lic~uidambm• styraciflua S FAC+ 10.
3. Lonice~•a~onica V FAC- 11
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7 15.
8 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 2/3 or 67%
Remarks:
Greater than 50% of the dominant species are OBL, FACW, or FAC
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"
X No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: -1 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Wetland hydrology indicators are present.

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase):Poindexter and Zion sandy loamy, 8 to 15% slopes Drainage Class: Well Drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup):Fine loamy mixed thermic Typic Hapludalfs 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.
0-5 A l OYR 4/2 lOYR 4/6 many distinct sandy clay loam
5->12 B 2.SY 5/2 lOYR 4/6 many distinct 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: Low chroma matrix with many redox potentials visible
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Within a Wetland? Yes X No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Three criteria of wetlands are present. The DP-1 is representative of a wetland. The wetland is less than
0.1 acre in size and isolated, and may not be considered subject to Section 404.

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project /Site: Hartley Drive Widening~& Extension Date: 3/23/06
Applicant I Owner: Ci of High Point NC County: Guilford
Investigator: Brandon Phillips C.H.M.M., Steven Busbee, P.W.S State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Wetland
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Transect ID:WtIndAA
(explain on reverse if needed) Plot ID: DP-2
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Acer rubrum T/S FAC 9.
2. Liguidambar styraci ua T/S FAC+ 10.
3. Salix nigra S OBL 11.
4. Sci~pus cyperinus H OBL 12.
5. Juiicus ej{usus H FACW+ 13.
6. Nasturtium o~cinale H OBL 14.
7. Carex sp. H VAR 15.
g, 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 6/6 or 100%
Remarks:
Unidentified species of sedge (Carex sp.) not included in percentage calculation, but likely hydrophytic. Variable
(VAR) indicator given. Greater than 50% of the dominant species are OBL, FACW, or FAC.
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"
X No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
x Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0-4 (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Adjacent to stonnwater detention basin

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Wilkes sandy loam, 6 to 10 % slopes Drainage Class: Well drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup):loamy mixed thermic shallow T ypic HapludalfsConfirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No_
Profile Descriution:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-5 A Gley2 lOB 4/1
5-12 B Gley2 l OB 4/1 7.SYR 4/6 Few, distinct 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
x Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Adjacent to stormwater detention basin
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Within a Wetland? Yes X No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Three criteria of wetlands are present. The DP-2 is representative of a wetland.

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project I Site: Hartley Drive Widening & Extension
Applicant /Owner: Cit~f High Point NC Date: 3/23/06
County: Guilford
Investigator: Brandon Phillips C.H.M.M. Steven Busbee, P.W.S. State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Wetland
Transect ID: WtlndF
(explain on reverse if needed) Plot ID: DP-3
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Platanus occidentalis _T FACW- 9.
2. Acer rubrum T FAC 10.
3. Smilax. V VAR 11.
4. Lonicera~onica V FAC- 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7, 15.
g, 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 2/3 or 67%
Remarks:
Unidentified species of briar (Smilax sp.) not included in percentage calculation, but likely hydrophytic. Variable
(VAR) indicator given. Greater than 50% of the dominant species are OBL, FACW, or FAC.
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"
X No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: x Sediment Deposits
x Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0-2 (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Data point is located in ephemeral stream channel which comprises a portion of this wetland.

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Wilkes sand loam, 15 to 45 % slopes Drainage Class: Well drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): loamy mixed therniic shallow Typic HapludalfsConfirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No_
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) AbundancelContrast Structure, etc.
0-8 A SY 5/2 2.SY 5/6 few distinct clay loam
8->12 B l OYR 6/2 lOYR 5/6 many distinct 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:
Low chroma matrix with many redox potentials visible
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Within a Wetland? Yes X
Hydric Soils Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
No
Three criteria of wetlands are present. The DP-3 Is representative of a wetland.

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project I Site: Hartley Drive Widening & Extension Date: 3/28/06
Applicant I Owner: Cit~of High Point, NC County: Guilford
Investigator: Brandon Phillips C.H.M.M. State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Wetland
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Transect ID:Wt1ndGG
(explain on reverse if needed) Plot ID: DP-4
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Platanus occidentalis T FACW- 9.
2. Ub~zus americana T_ FACW 10.
3. Liquidan2bm• styraci ua T/S FAC+ 11.
4. Ca~pinus carolinimia S FAC 12.
5. Vaccinium cory~nbosum S FACW 13.
6. Lo~zicera iaponica V_ FAC- 14.
7. Toxicodendron radicans V FAC 15.
g, 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 6/7 or 85.7%
Remarks:
Greater than 50% of the dominant species are OBL, FACW, or FAC.
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"
X No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) Secondary Indicators:
x Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >24 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Wetland is located adjacent to stream channel.

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Wilkes sandy loam, 15 to 45 % slopes Drainage Class: Well drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): loamy mixed thermic shallow Typic HapludalfsConfirm Mapped Type?Yes_ No~
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure. etc.
0-2 Ao_ l OYR 2/2 l OYR 4/4 few faint sandy silt loam
2-8 A 2.SY 5/3 2.SY 5/4 & 6/2 many distinct silty loam
8-24 B Gleyl SGY 5/1 lOYR 5/8 many distinct (a~12"+ silty 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
x Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Layer of blackened, burned organics at 8"
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Within a Wetland? Yes X No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Three criteria of wetlands are present. The DP-4 is representative of a wetland.

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project /Site: Hartley Drive Wideiung & Extension Date: 3/28/06
Applicant /Owner: City of High Point, NC County: Guilford
Investigator: Brandon Phillips, C.H.M.M. State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Upland
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Transect ID:Wt1ndAA
(explain on reverse if needed) Plot ID: DP-5
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Quercus alba T FACU 9.
2. Quercus rubra T FACU 10.
3. Pinus vi~giniana S UPL 11.
4. Amelmichier arborea S FACU 12.
5. Liquidanlbar s raci ua S FAC+ 13.
6. Fra~aria virginiana H FAC- 14.
7. Festuca sue. H VAR 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 1/6 or 17%
Remarks:
Unidentified species of fescue grass(Festuca sp.) not included in percentage calculation, but unlikely to be
hydrophytic. Variable (VAR) indicator given. Less than 50% of the dominant species are OBL, FACW, or FAC.
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"
X No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >24 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 12 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
DP-5 located on forested hillside.

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Wilkes sandy loam , 6 to 10 % slopes Drainage Class: Well drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): loamy mixed themuc shallow Typic HapludalfsConfirm Mapped Type?Yes_ No_
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-3 A l OYR 2/2 sandy silt loam
3-24 B 2.SY 5/4 sandy silt 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
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colo rs Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No indicators of hydric soil present
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Within a Wetland? Yes
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
No X
One wetland indicator is present. The DP-5 is representative of an upland.

ATTACHMENT G
PHOTOGRAPHS

Hartley Drive Widening and Extension, High Point, NC
Individual Permit Application
Attachment G -Photographs
j-
~, { z ~ r
~ ~, ,
~: ~ ~- 'i ~
.. ...... :L_...... ... ~r.F> ...~. __ _ .a.'K . _. .. .~'rsu . aF ._., x .mil . u _ ....
Photo 1 - A view of the western end of Hartley Drive, in the eastern end of the project
area.
Photo 2 - A view of the intersection of Westover and Shadow Valley Road, in the
westei7l end of the project area.

Hartley Drive Widening and Extension, High Point, NC
Individual Permit Application
Attachment G -Photographs
Photo 3 - A confidence course/picnic area that is located at the Stream 4 bridge crossing,
near the large unnamed tributary to Rich Fork.
Photo 4 - A few footbridges have been built over Stream 4 in the eastern portion of the
project area near the proposed bridge location.

Hartley Drive Widening and Extension, High Point, NC
Individual Permit Application
Attachment G -Photographs
Photo 5 -Another view of Stream 4, an unnamed, perennial tributary to Rich Fork Creek.
Photo 6 -The Palustrine Forested wetland (Wetland GG) located at the base of the slope
in the eastern portion of the project site at the proposed bridge abutment.

Hartley Drive Widening and Extension, High Point, NC
Individual Permit Application
Attachment G -Photographs
Photo 7 - A recently inundated portion of Wetland GG located at the base of the slope in
the eastern portion of the project site.
! ~~..
P<
t [` °
.~
~~ f. + 11~
4! ~ t,
~ ~`b~
F ~
ff /'.
r~ tt'- ~ 1`
r~{1 ~ ~ ~`
~~ ~ a
~. ! ,
,` ~:
r~ :.t
~ ,
~ ~ ,,
/ ( •,
~j.
t
_ a r ~
•~b q
~/ ~ Ti rt
~ _., -`t_
..,~
:t, _ -,
.,:
,~
Photo 8 -The sewer line and unpaved roadway that parallels Stream 4 in the eastei7i
portion of the project site.

Hartley Drive Widening and Extension, High Point, NC
Individual Permit Application
Attachment G -Photographs
Photo 9 -The internzittent stream (Stream 3), downstream of Wetland r and outside the
proposed roadway construction limits.
Photo 10 - A view of Wetland F with the apartment complex off of Ingleside Drive in the
background.

Hartley Drive Widening and Extension, High Point, NC
Individual Permit Application
Attachment G -Photographs
Photo 11 -The perennial Stream 2 in the central portion of the project site in the location
of the 60" RCP discharge point.
Photo 12 - A view of intei7nittent portion of Stream 1 (approximately 1401f to be
relocated for the project) located upstream of the confluence with the perennial Stream 2.

Hartley Drive Widening and Extension, High Point, NC
Individual Permit Application
Attachment G -Photographs
Photo 13 - An upstream view of perennial Stream 2 upstream of the confluence with
Stream 1 along the centerline of the proposed roadway.
.. - '~_-ram- _ `~
.~ - _ i
i... '~- ~ w ' ~'
` x».. ~~:
~.,
Photo 14 -The off site Wetland AA located next to the detention basin on the east side of
Ingleside Drive which will continue to be used for roads%ay stoi~nwater runoff draining to
the south.

ATTACHMENT H
AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE

Bil?i2006 1?: 11
~~ ~
NC STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ~ 917043723393
N0.711
4'n'~ a
r`~~
Micheal ~- ~~, i?~trvetvut
IJFhdh C. Evans, SeaotAry
1C~1'Qy 1, (X~1W, ~ 6GQnI4'[y
August 17, 200b
Bcanden Phillips
3i~}ph Whitehead Associates, Inc
PO 13ox 3562A
Charlotte, NC ZE;235
~iCC dJ11tjGVr~ iifrl Eiibici~y
1~1~15tt41a~~]CZJ RC60RII'Cia
UA'uid Blvo~, l~i-c~1n
Ite: Proposed Hadley brive Widening and Extension, David.san & Guilford Countyes, ER06-7090
Dear Mr. Phillips:
Thank you foryour letter of Aprlll 13,200b, conceszTing the above project. We apologize for our delayed response.
We have conducted a review of the pcopoaed. undertaking and are aware of no historic resources, which
would be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the undertaking as pragosed.
The aUave comments are made pursuant to Section 1Q6 of the National Historic nrese~vati.on Act and the
Advisory Council on I-iistoric Preservation's Regulations for Compliance vritt~ Section 106 codifsed at 36 CCR
Part 800_
Thar. you. for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above con~rrlent,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, envirotunenta! review caardinator, at 919/733763. 1n all futtrr'e
comrtaunication con.ceming this project, please cite the above referenced tracking tlumbeT.
Sincerelg,
Peter SandUeck
North Carolina Deparhuetrt of Cultural Resources
Suite Historic Preservation Ot'fice
Petea ~. 9x~+11.~,-~ AdmirrirCetor.
T.ac~tioh MalUhg tl(lEfe99 Ta?~plfor+dPa~
O.UA,Y~7RATTpN 507 N.81ovncSfeoo~Reloy~rNC a5~7Moi13en+iaeCettter.ItaloiphNC27599.OG17 (919)733C7~3f733.~86i3
gg~pgy~~pN S IS N. B1aux Sttedl, Ttalalgh NC 463 7 Mail Saevim Crnter,l2a{eiOh NC 576~1i6 J 7 C919?i33~654N?'I 5.4801
SURVEY & ~"CAN1v'~QdG S 15 N. Blawu.3neeC RdoiglL NC 46L7 Mail, 9avice Cao`~u, RaWi(~ NC z7ti~i-x617 (919)733d34S>7~s.gsoi

J
.~...-.r
.....~.......r~
~~~~~~
(~fartl~ Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easiev, Gflvemc~r
Apri12~, 2406
Ivl .Jennifer L. Schwaller
Ralph W"hitehead Associates, Inc.
P.D. I3ox 35b24
Charlotte, NC 28235
Subject: Proposed Hartley Drive Widening and Extension
Dear Ms. Sclzwa.lier:
William G. Ross Jr., Secrel:ary
~...
'Che Natural Heritage Program has no record of rare species, significant natural communities, or
significant natural heritage areas at the site nor within a mile of the project area. Although our maps do
not show records of such natural heritage elements in the project area, it does not necessarily mean that
they are not present. It may simply mean that the area has not been surveyed. The use of Natural
Heritage Pro~ratn data should not be substituted for actual field surveys, particularly if the project area
contains suitable habitat for rare species, significant natural communities, or priority natural areas.
You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Program database website at www.ncnhp.org for a listing of "
rare plants and animals and significant natural conununities in the county and on the topographic quad
map. Altcrnat.ively, the NC Center f'or Geographic Information and Analysis {CGIA) provides digital
Natural Heritage data amine on a cost recovery basis. Subscribers can get site specific information on
G.IS layers with Natural Heritage Program rare species occurrences and Significant Natural Heritage
Areas. The CGIA website provides Element Occurrence (E4) ID numbers (instead of species name), and
the data user is then encouraged to contact the Natural Heritage E'rograrri-for detailed information. This
service allows the user to quickly anal efficiently get site specific NHT data without visi#ing the NHP
workroom or waiting for the Information Request to be answered by NHI' staff. For more information
about data formats, pricing structure and ordering procedures, visit
httpa/www.cgia.state.nc.us/cgdb/datalist.hunl, or call CGIA Production Services at [phone].
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 919-715-8697 if you have questions or need further information.
Sincerely,
Ilarry.E. LeGrand, Jr., Z.aologist
Natural Heritage Program
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, Plorth Carolina 27699-16Q1 1~TorthCarolina
Phone: 919-73~-4984 • FAX: [phone] • Internet: w'Nw.enr.state.n+c.us
Aft Fn~ie7 !'k+s!RrFtmihr • dffrrmatnro 6rNnn FmnlnvF~ . St7 n fi.2Clf'+E(~ • tO ac F0~ COIISURiP.( P.7I1AI ,~ati~r~z11U

t7nited States :Department of the Interior
FISH .ANI) WILDLIFE Sl~;l~'~'ICI.
Raleigh Field Otfice
Post Oftrce I3ox 3;'726
i7alzigh, North Carolina 2763f.>-3720
May 23, 2006
Jennifer Schwaller
Ralph Whitehead lhssociates, Inc.
I'.n. Ba?: 35624
Charlotte, NG 28235
Dear Ms. Sehwaller:
Thank you for your April ] 3, 2x06 letter regarding the praposed ~lartley Drive Widening and
Extension, High Point, Guilford anal Davidson. Counties, North Carolina. This letter provides
the U.S. Fish attd Wildlife Service's (Service) response pursuant to section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act, as amended (1.6 U.S.C. 1531 et sey.) (Act).
Based on the infom~ation that you provided, we are unable io determine if federally protected
species are present on the site. We strongly recommend that you consult our web page at
httU://no-es.fv~~~s.~;ov/es for a list of protected species that may occur in Davidson and
t~uil:fo.rd counties. If your project contains suitable habitat for atiy of the federally-listed.
species known to be present within the county, the proposed a.ctian has the potential to
adversely affect these species. As such, we recommend that st~.tti~eys be conducted to
determine tl~e species' presence or absence ~vitltin the project area. The use of North
Carolina Natural Heritage program data. should not be substituted for actual Meld surveys.
Please note that surveys for federally listed plants should be canciucted dtu~ng their optimal
sun~ey windows (httl~:l~'nc-es.fws.gov/plant/plaatt__survey.html).
If you determine that the praposed. action n7ay affect (i.e., lil~ely to adversely affect or not
likely to adversely affect} a federally-protected species, you. should notify this office with
your determination, the results o:l'yaur surveys, stttvey methodologies, and. an analysis of the
effects of the action an listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and
cumulative effects, before conducting any activities that might affeci the species. ICyou
determine that the proposed action will have na effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or
indirect effect} an federally listed species, then you are not required to contact our office Ior
concurrence. However, you should maintaitt a complete record of the assessment, including
steps leading to your detenninatian of effect, the qualified personnel. canducting the
assessrent, habitat conditions, site photographs, anal any other related articles.

Thank you for the opportunity to review t1~is project. If you have any questions or comments
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Dale W. Suitor of this office at (91.9) 856-4520,
Ext. 18 or Dale_Suitcr~~ftivs.gov.
Sincerely,
,°
Pe enjamin
Ecological. Services Supervisor

o~stem
.~;~~~ ~a °e~~~en~
PROGRAM
July 18, 2007
Keith Pugh, P.E.
City of High Point
3301 Stafford Drive
High Point, NC 28208
Project: Hartley Drive Extension and Widening County: Guilford
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is willing to
accept payment for impacts associated with the above referenced project. 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 NCEEP will be approved.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. )f we have not received a copy of
the issued 404 Permit/40~ Certification/CAMA permit within this time frame, this acceptance will expire. It is the
applicant's responsibility to send copies of the permits to NCEEP. Once NCEEP receives a copy of the permit(s) an invoice
will be issued based on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must be made prior to conducting the authorized
work. The amount of the In Lieu Fee to be paid to NCEEP by an applicant is calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and
policies listed at www.nceep.net.
Based on the information supplied by you the impacts that may require compensatory mitigation are summarized in the
followine table.
Yadkin
03040101 Stream (feet) Wetlands (acres) Buffer I
(Sq. Ft.) Buffer II
(Sq. Ft.)
Cold Cool Warm Ri arian Non-Ri arian Coastal Marsh
Impacts 0 0 506 0 0.352 0 0 0
Credits 0 0 1,012 0 0.75 0 0 0
Upon receipt of payment, EEP will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. If the regulatory agencies
require mitigation credits greater than indicated above, and the applicant wants NCEEP to be responsible for the additional
mitigation, the applicant will need to submit a mitigation request to NCEEP for approval prior to permit issuance. 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,
~J.
Wil ' D. Gilmore, PE
Director
cc: Cyndi Karoly, NCDWQ Wetlands/401 Unit
Andy Williams, USACE-Raleigh
Daryl Lamb, NCDWQ-Winston-Salem
Brandon Phillips, agent
File
RP,stDYGK~... F ~ .. PYO~ fur ~tat~

I~CD~~tR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mai! Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1 652 / 91 9-71 5-0476 / www.nceep.net

ATTACHMENT I
WETLAND RATING WORKSHEETS

i
i
Project N e J
County ~~
Name of evaluator
r ~ v ~ Nearest Road ~' ~ n ~ e.
Wetland Area ~ ~ ~ acres Wetland Width feet .
11; ~_ s _ Date i3 0 ~
Wetland Location
on pond or lake
on perennial stream
on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other
Adjacent land use
(within 1~2 mile upstream, up:lape, or radius)
forested/natural vegetarian 3 °
/ agriculture, urban/suburban ~ °
impervious Surface
Dominant vegetation
Soil series (1) ~ ~~-~ (' ~ ~~l ~ v `~'
predominantly organic -humus, muck, (2) ~' Q~a ~ ~ S o«~ d~ ~ ~~
or peat
predominantly mineral -non-sandy (3) S-'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S~~
predominantly sandy
Flooding and wetness
Hydraulic factors
- steep topography
/ ditched or channelized
total wetland width Z 100 feet
semipermaaently to ptraanezrtly
flooded or imindated
seasonally flooded or immdated
,~ intemmien y flooded or temporary
surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
*the rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream charaels
Wetland type (select one)*
Bottomland hardwood forest Pine savanna -
~/ Headwater forest Freshwater marsh
Swamp forest Bog/fzn
Wet flat Ephemeral wetland
Pocosin Caroliaa Bay
Bog forest - ~~
wcigbt
R Water storage ~ x 4.00 = ~ Wetland 6 L}
A Bank/Shoreline stab~ization 3 x 4.00 =1 Z Rating _ I
........ r ..
I'
~' Pollutant removal S * x S.flO =~
I ~ Wildlife habitat ~ x Z.00 = (~ ~~
'~ N Aquatic fife value 3 x 4.00 = j Z :.-
.... .
~ x 1.00 = ~
G R~reation/~ducation ~~~ °`
*Add 1 point if in sensitive ivate:-shed and >10% nonpoint disturbance within I!2 mile upstream,
__-- u~slo~e, or t-aditts _ -

_~
~i

J
i

J
i
i~
i
Proje:,t Name ~ +u ~
County ~ ° r
Name of evaluazor _
~J~~~~
_ VJetlaad Area
;)~,ns
/ ,
Nearest Road ~ /2 ~~ ve_
< i acres Wetland Width ~ ~ °O feet
Date 3 z-3 © 6
Wetland Location
on pond or lake
~ on perennial stream
on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other
soil series w ' 1 K~'-S
predominantly organic -humus, muck,
` or peat
J predominantly mineral -non-sandy
predominantly sandy
Hydraulic factors
steep topography
ditched or channe3ized
~ total wetland width z 100 feet
Adjacent land use
(within 1!2 mile upstream, up:lope, or radius)
f forested/natural vegetation ~ ~
,/ agriculture, urban/suburban ~
impervious surface
Dominant vegetation

Flooding and wetness
semipermaaently to pcr~aneatly
flooded or inundated
scasonaIiy flooded or mimdaxed
~ ;,,r~taniy flooded or temporary
surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland type (select one)*
Battomland hardwood forest Pine ~~
~ Headwater forest Freshwater marsh
Swamp forest ~ Bag/fcn
Wet flat _ Ephemeral wetland
Pocosin Carolina Bay
BOg forest ~~
*the rating system cannot be a lied to salt or brackish marshes or stream charnels
~~
. -3 00 =/Z
x 4
I, j~
A .
Waxer storage
BanklShoreIine stabilization 2 x 4.00 = ~
7' Pollutant removal `~ * x S.dO =~
I Wildlife habitat `~ x 2.00 = $
'd N Aquatic life value z- x 4.00 = ~ .... ~- ~.~
G R~ecreationlEducation ~ x IAO = Z.... r-p
gating ~~
*Add 1 point if in sensitive vyas~ershed and >10% nonpoinz disturbance within lf~. mile upstream,
___ u~sko~e_ or ra~it~s _ _ -~"^

ATTACHMENT J
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING PLANS

CITY OF HIGH POINT
lf~,~~'dl[~~iC~N .~NID 1;r~71f~.1Fi(~1EiID ~L (~~JN°IC~S'
LOCATION: HARTLEY DRIVE FROM US 311 (K MAIN STREET}
TO WESTOVER DRIVE
TYPE OF WORK GRADING, DRAINAGE, PAVING, WIDENING,
SIGNING, PAVEMENT MARKING, GUARDRAIL,
CULVERTS, AND STRUCTURE
,.I,.
__
~~~
0
D
O
U
}
3
N
0
i
0
l
d
0
3
0
0
i
c
`a
a
L
0
x
i
h
c
M.
~,
°oc
N }.
~a
m~
OJ C
~ virwirv wwep ~
-L- STA. TO+51.79
STVI Ralph Whitehead Associates
RIGHT OF WAY PLANS FOR REVIEW 9/1007 P°.aOX~~, CLFARWG ON THIS PROJECT SHAH BE PREFORMED
CHARLOTTE, NC 282355024 TO TB8 LIMITS ESTABLISBED BY AlETHOD H
~~
INCOMPLETE PLANS
ua rcr u~ vwi a/x acao~nar
GRAPHIC SCALES
0
PLANS
0
DESIGN DATA
ADT 2006 = 5,400
ADT 2030 =17,500
DHV = 13 %
D = 55 %
T= 3%'
V = 50 MPH
PROJECT LENGTH
Prepared In fhe Office of: HYDRAULICS ENGINEER
STV /RALPH WHITEHEAD ASSOCIATES
for the Cl1y of Hlph Print
ncs szsnm4txo sPacu~rnnoxs
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
• TTST DUAL
LENGTH OF ROADIYAY PROJECT = 1.396 MI
LENGTH OF STRUCTURES, PROJECT = 0.048 MI
TOTAL LENGTH OF PROJECT = (.444 MI
RIGHT OF A'AY DATE: KEN HERRING, P.E.
Psa3acr arcaa~
P8
ROADA'AY DESIGN
IuYGINEER
LETTING DATE: I STEVE KARNIS, P.E.
Pxo/scr nas:cx ercn~x

RAISED
m
a
cv
a
2'
EXISTING
GROUND
~~~~~

PROIECf REFERENCE N0. SHEET N0.
®sTVrRRIphw>,;r~nP~aA~~1~R
P.O. G01C35824 2287 2
CHARLOTTE, NC 1B73Ei5624 ROADWAY DESIGN PAVENENf DESIGN
ENGINES! ENGINEER

INCOMPLE E PLANS
m NOT ua roR /w ACOUmrimc
10' 12' 11' 8' 8` 12' 12' 10'
5`
SIDEWALK 3' 2'
~
~
0.75'

0.75'

~

~
2'
3' 5`
SIDEWALK
0.02 FLFf ~ 0.02 FGff 0.02 FLfT
_ _ 0.02 FLfT
_ 0.02 FLFT
~ _
0.02 FGFf
~ , '.
,
1
5
T

El Dl

C1 Rl 1 POSE 1 Rl

1
ON N0

~

D1 ~ ~ ~~

~ S
T
.
TYPICAL SECTI
-L- STA. 10+45.16 TO STA. -L- 16+10.20
-L- STA. 19 +14.56 TO STA. -L- 22 + 00.00
-L- 5TA.28+79.77 TO STA.-L- 31+43.17
-L- STA. 33+96.83 TO STA.-L- 65+00.00

R2
la' III
1
70' R2
I I . lo'
z
1
EXISTING
GROUND
(,~1
5' 12'
EXISTING
GROUND
EXISTING
GROUND
~~II I 1'
12' VARIES 0'-22' 12' 12'
PAINTED MEDUW
GRADE W
POINT
D.02 FTifT 0.02 FLfT
U C1 D1
EXISTING PAVEMENT
VARIES 24' TO 30'
TYPICAL SECTION N0. 2
-L- STA. 16+10.20 TO STA-L-19+14.56
-L- STA. 22+00.00 TO STA. -L- 28+79.77
PAVEMENT SCHEDULE
PROP. APPROX. 3 ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE TYPE
C1 59.58, AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 168 LBS. PER S0. YD. IN EACH F1 PROP. APPROX. 6" GRADED AGGREGATE BASE
OF TWO LAYERS,
PROP. APPROX. 1.5 "ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE TYPE
C2
59.56, AT AN AVERAGE RATE DF 168 LBS. PER SD. YD. R1 1'-5" CONCRETE CURB ANO GUTTER.
VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE, TYPE S9.5B
C3 AT AN AVERAGE HATE OF 112 LBS. PER SD. Y0. PEA 1" DEPTH, A2 2'-8" CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
TO BE PLACED IN LAYERS NOT TO EXCEED 2.0" IN DEPTH.
PROP. APPROX. 4 "ASPHALT CONCRETE INTERYEOIATE COURSE,
D1 TYPE I19.OB, AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 456 LBS. PER SD. Y0. S 4" CONCRETE SIOENALK
VAR. DEPTH INTERNEOIATE COURSE, TYPE I19.OB, AT AN AVEMG
p2 RATE OF 114 LBS. PEfl SD. Y0. PER 1" DEPTH, TO BE PLACED T EAATN MATERIAL.
IN LAYERS NOT TO EXCEED 4.0" IN DEPTH.
PROP. APPROX. 8" ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE COURSE, TYPE
E1 825.08, AT AN AVERAGE HATE OF 342 LBS. PER SD. YD. IN U EXISTING PAVEMENT.
EACH OF TWO LAYERS.
VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE COURSE, TYPE B25.OB, AT
Ep AN AVEIIAGE RATE OF 114 LBS. PER S0. YD. PER 1" DEPTH,
TO BE PLACED IN W SEE WEDGING DETAIL
4 FAmNG MYFA1O1f
LAYERS NOT TO EXCEED 5.5" IN DEPTH. ~ I

®STYI Re1PL Y/hitehesd A$SOG101GR
P.D. 807(75524
CHARLOTTE, NC IBZSS524
Te'
dt'~S•
1n~
8' 2' 12' VARIES 0 TO 17.5' 12' 2' B' 12' 6'
PS PAINTED MEDIAN PS
0.5' GRADE t 0.5'
POINT W ^
0.02 FUFf o.02 FGfT
o.Da 08 PE,Fr NIA'
---- -- -- 6:1 4:1
SO 1.1
EXISTING vpy..A~ T El Di Cl U Cl Dl El T
GROUND EXISTING PAVEMENT
VARIES 0' TO 47'
1
TYPICAL SECTION N0. 3
-L- STA. 65+00.00 TO STA. -L- 70+51.49
10'
5' 3`
EXISTING
GROUND
m
v
a
3
0
N
m
n
i
o'
a
T
m
s
A
a
1.
VARIES 26'2'
VARIE513'-16' VARIE513'-16`
GRADE
ii POINT
0.02 FTiFT 0.02 FLPT
,\1
TYPICAL SECTION N0. 4
PAVEMENT SCHEDULE
PROP. APPflOX. 3 "ASPHALT CONCRETE SUflFACE COURSE TYPE
C1 59.58, AT AN AVEAAGE RATE OF 168 LBS. PER 50. YD. IN EACH F1 PROP. APPROX. 6" GRADED AGGREGATE BASE
OF TWO DYERS.
PROP. APPROX. 1.5 "ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE TYPE
C2
S9.SB, AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 168 LBS. PER 80. YD. R1 1'-6" CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER.
VAfl. DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE, TYPE 59.58
C3 AT AN AVERAGE HATE OF 112 LBS. PEA SD. YD. PEfl 1" DEPTH,
" A2 2'•8" CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
TO BE PUCED IN DYERS NDT TD EXCEED 2.D
IN DEPTH.
PROP. APPROX. 4 "ASPHALT CONCRETE INTERMEDIATE COURSE,
D1 TYPE I19.08, AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 456 LBS. PEP 50. YD. 5 4" CONCRETE SIDEMALK
VAfl. DEPTH INTERMEDIATE COURSE, TYPE I19.OB, AT AN AVEAAGE
p2 AATE OF 114 LBS. PEA S0. YD. PEA 1" DEPTH, TO BE PUCED 7 EARTH MATERIAL

IN UYEAS NOT TO EXCEED 4.0" IN DEPTH. .
PROP. APPROX. 8" ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE COURSE, TYPE
E1 825.08, AT AN AVERAGE PATE OF 342 LBS. PER SD. YD. IN U E%ISTING PAVEMENT.
EACH OF TW0 LAYERS.
YAA. DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE COURSE, TYPE B25.OB, AT
E2 AN AVENGE RATE OF 114 LBS. PER S0. YD. PER 1" DEPTH, W SEE WEDGING DETAIL.
TO BE PUCED IN DYERS NOT TO EXCEED 5.5" IN DEPTH.
Yl- (INGLESIDE DRIVE)
STA. 10+48.00 TO 5TA.13+07.74
EXISTING
GROUND
•1

ECf AEF
DIENCE NO. SHEET NG.
p
2207 2A
WAY DESIGN PAVDAENf DESIGN
NGINEE[ ENGINEER
[NCOMPLE E PLANS
m Nm oee raR iw AcauLan~7
EXISTING
GROUND

IXISTING
8'
EXISTING
GROUND
1
ti.~
GROUND 4.1 ~'~
T El Dl Dl El T
-Y2- (WESTOVER DRIVE)
STA. 12 +54.68 TO STA. 16 +08.81
/~

EXISTING 4,T
GROUND i
A'
z4`
A'

PROIE(T RffBtET1CE N0. SHEET N0.
®sTVrN~nwn~~„aA9
OX 35GL4 2287 26
P.O. B
OHMLOTTE NC ~B235u6r 14 ROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINES! PAVFMBIi DESIGN
ENGINEER

INCOMPLE
m Nor T19B PUX E PLANS
iw AcoouTm~T
4' 12' 12' 4'
P5 PS

Gl iii GRADE
POINT Gl
D B o.02 ~ a.az F1-FT, o.o
b'
ii-
U cz
TYPICAL SECTION N0. 7
m
N
a
r
i
3
C)
i
rv
N
i
a
a
m
a
0
N
0
a
2
m
-Y4- [GALLOWAY FARM ROAD)
STA. 10+00.00 TO STA. 11+70.25
4:1
PAVEMENT SCHEDULE
PROP. APPROX. 3 ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE TYPE
C1 S9.5B, AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 168 LBS. PEP S0. YD. IN EACH F1 PROP. APPRD%. 6" GRADED AGGREGATE BASE
OF TNO LAYERS.
PROP. APPROX. 1.5 " ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE TYPE
C2
S9.SB, AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 168 LBS. PER S0. YD. R1 1'-6" CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER.
VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE, TYPE S9.5B
C3 AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 112 LBS. PER S0. YD. PER 1° DEPTH, R2 2'-8" CONCRETE CURB AND
UTTER
TO BE PLACED IN LAYERS NOT TD EXCEED 2.0" IN DEPTH. G
PROP. APPROX. 4 "ASPHALT CONCRETE INTERMEDIATE COURSE,
D1 TYPE I19.OB, AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 458 LBS. PEfl S0. Y0. S 4" CONCRETE SIDENALK
VAR. DEPTH INTERMEDIATE COURSE, TYPE I19.OB, AT AN AYEtiAGE
p2 RATE OF 114 LBS. PER SD. YD. PER 1" DEPTH, TD BE PLACED T EARTH MATERIAL

IN LAYERS NOT TO EXCEED 4.0" IN DEPTH. .
POOP. APPRDX. 8" ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE COURSE,TYPE
E1 B25.OB, AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 342 LBS. PER 80. Y0. IN U EXISTING PAVEMENT.
EACH OF TND LAYERS.
VAfl. DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE DASE COURSE, TYPE B25,OB, AT
E2 AN AVERAGE RATE OF 114 LBS. PER S0. YD. PER 1" DEPTH, N SEE WEDGING DETAIL

TD BE PLACED IN LAYERS NOT TO EXCEED 5.5" IN DEPTH. .

-Y3- (SHADOW VALLEY ROAD)
STA. 12+52,17 TO STA. 15+09.23
~..,.,:~:c;~?~r~~=3gawp-zs:~*~:.:.*,ti~~'~.-6-:-~,.~.~...~~ .r,~:-~~EeeeF---- ..wr:.~-_.;~.`~r:~..--~:.,~.c;:~„~arr .:_1v;,~<~-,~,U`.'=.:3x=~ _.-.,~_,,,;~, „-;max,:
EXISTING
GROUND
4 HOSTING PAYDA9if
TYPICAL SECTION N0. 6

m
v
fV
a
T
F
GROUND /
10'
11.5'
2 5' 3'
SIDEWALK
2' VARIES
0' TO 8
0.02 fGff - -
IXI511NG N~" / /
GROUND
12'
VARI

PROIECf REFE
RENCE N0. SME
E
f N0.
®51~/1IR1111l WhihMad AsvoCiRtcs pp
2L07 ~
E
2
/-~
HIL P.O. BOlE35624
CHARLOTTE, NC 7SZiS5624
ROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER
PAYEIAENf DESIGN
ENGINEER
L

INCOMPLE E PLANS
Ro Nuf o>u roR . ewmurimv
12' VARIES

1 ~
~ i i
----- ------- GRADE ------ ----_}' -'' ---'~\
POINT \

TYPICAL SECTION N0. S ~
Y- (N. MAIN ST.] STA. 6+71.11 TO STA.11+50.00

1 1 ,' ~ ~ i i t
---------- - -- GRADE ------------ - -\
POINT ----~--- \
C1 C3 Cl ~ D1 C1 \
TYPICAL SECTION N0. 9 \
-Y- (N. MAIN ST.] STA. 11+50.00 TO STA. 15+00.00
11.5' 11.5' 12' 12' 2.5` 12' 12' 12'
! 1 ~ ~ i i t
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - aKr - - ~~ - - - \
-
\

TYPICAL SECTION N0. 1Q \
-Y- (N, MAIN ST.] STA. 15+00.00 TO STA. 17+44.53
PAVEMENT SCHEDULE
PROP. APPROX. 3 ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE TYPE
C1 59.58, AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 166 LBS. PER S0. YD. IN EACH F1 PROP. APPRO%. 6" GRADED AGGREGATE BASE
OF TWO LAYERS.
PROP. APPROX. 1.5 "ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE TYPE
C2
59.58, AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 166 LBS. PEA 50. YD. Al i'-6" CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER.
VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE, TYPE S9.SB
C3 AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 112 LBS. PER SO. YD. PER 1" DEPTH,
" A2 2'-8" CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
TO BE PLACED IN LAYERS NOT TO E%CEED 2.0
IN DEPTH.
PROP. APPRO%. 4 "ASPHALT CONCRETE INTERMEDIATE COURSE,
D1 TYPE I19.OB, AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 456 LBS. PER SO. YD. S 4" CONCRETE SIDEWALK
VAR. DEPTN INTERYEDIATE COURSE, TYPE I19.06, AT AN AVERAGE
p2 RATE OF 114 LBS. PER SO. 1'D. PEA 1" DEPTH, TO 8E PLACED T EARTH NATERIAL.
IN LAYERS NOT TO EXCEED 4.0° IN DEPTH.
PROP. APPROX. 8" ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE COURSE, TYPE
E1 825.08, AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 342 L6S. PEP SO. `N. IN U E%ISTING PAVEMENT.
EACH OF TWO LAYERS.
VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE COURSE, TYPE B25.OB, AT
Ep AN AVERAGE RATE OF 114 LBS. PEA S0. YD. PER 1" DEPTH, W SEE WEDGING DETAIL

TO 8E PLACED IN LAYERS NOT TO EXCEED 5.5" IN DEPTH. .
€ WSDNG MYFA1ENf
.Cro:. m"r..; ~ ..... .., ~~. ~.m~

\HighPoint\Roadway\Pro,J\3202_ROWY_PSH4.dgn
tlAN
o~~
N 34 2l' 042' W
_ ~'- N.AIAIN ST. ~ . ~ ~
`~ ~ a
.~~y
* + II
2 N
u ~
l00'RIGNT TURN T R LT TURN +
v
a
it
S ~ N
r YI
r~~ ~ R~
s. gg s.a ~L~
maA ~ ~~ia 3Es
F~
~+~i
°" ~
-~~
J ~ o~
20'WGRE55/EGRESS EASEMENT
~~
m ~~~ ggt~[[
n
E%ISTINO 20' UTILITY EASEMENT
yyQr
O§
na
~S ~
o ~~
~_ m ~_ t m o
~~~ c~
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
~_ ~~~W~
A \ N
~~~ ,~ ~~~N„m~ ~
y. ~ N
m~ s~s ~ ~ ~ ~ v T + ~ ~ m ~ N
O r ~~~~ N~ ee~~~ n
Nm o~~~G mm .~
N O 41 ~ ~~i O .~i ~ ~ .+ art
t~px~p,,~~u ~^~o~~Ir$1 J~
O N ~ S ~ ~ N _ ONO
m~ ~~e+v '~+~ O
N
o N
~$~ ~C~o
N ~-~F ~n
-1
~~ ~ ~m
ro a
P
0
,_~ I
'r~ `~ N lI
f ~!
F
x
1° a
rp$
O miy>~
l5
8/17/99
225'HORlZONTAL SHIfT TAPER

2
r
Z
m
I
s
z
0
__ _____ +
0
N
1Y1 m
Z
U1
° rn n p
N ~
~R
'e ~~
~~ ~~~
~~ % ~ a ~
•O NA
~' ~
~ o
~~~ $„~
m
~~~
~~~~~~i~
~g$~
~* g z , a
~
•~ ~~ ~
~
~ ~ ~
~ m
~ ~~ = V i
~ ~ z
O
a C{1
'
8
d
~~
p~ A ~
4I ~o i L911S
C I I
' I
i
~N
~~ ~~
.~:~.
f
~~
~~::
°~°~
P
Cf

OIJAVE 1
PI STAEl+59Y1
S . Y5~53.E0
~E
~~

®STV! Ralph Whitehead Associates
P.O. HOX 35x24
CENNLOTTE, NC 2a23S5a24
SEE SHEET 10 FOR PROFILE
0 LS ~ W
9iAONt SGYE

PROJECT AEEERENCE NO. SHEET
2287 5
MY SHEET N0.
0lDWAY OESIGN HY[IAAUIIC
ENGNff0. ENGINEER
INCOMPLE E PLANS
m Hm ~ roa /~r AmvnaxEON
0
u
u
C
n
u
s
1
I
m
3i
d
(OWING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
THE BRIDGE AND THE PAVEMENT
Ms-..----- -____~_ __°i
~~
ur-i

CURVE 2
P$! SfB~51~1
3 CtAVF
Pl SfA
~
~
i .
0.64'
pp ~ 1~5 .
50'
R0.14!'
LUME Yhl
srti ~~,
T ~j5'
RS~E ~ NYA~~C~ EXISTING tlIfNE YI-P
Pr sr~ +~
i ~ 6
R0 ~ A~ EXISTING
STV! Ralph Whitehead Assodahs
P.O. BO7(35624
CHARLOTTE, NC 481955674
SEE SHEET 11 FOR HARTLEY DR. PROFILE
SEE SHEET 14 FOR INGLESIDE DR PROFILE
o is so m
F
'.SANITARY SERER AELDCATIDN
SHEET li FDR DETAILS
~'~
11ECT 0.ffERENCE N0. SHEET NO.
2287 6
RW SHEET N0.
OWAY DESIGN HYDRAOLKS
ENGINEER ENGINEER
INCOMPLE E PLANS
DO NOT O881OR /I dO00IlIlT1~A
30'% 30'IXCLHSIVE EASEMENT
NOflTH STATE COMMHNILATIONS
OAAWN FAON
PB:155
~,E, _ PG:26
_
30' % 30' NONE%CWSIVE
i
~C NEASEMENT NORTH STATE LOMWJNICATIONS
W OAAWN FROM
N PBtl55
PG:26
p
O

n
f
2
0
A:
-

W
z
u

o_
i
3
O:
tv
B
nl
m
a

HARTIEY DR. / INGIESIDE DR,
~ ~
~'
-~ 2006 ~
2030
-.- ...,..-,.~^-r"....q'^.srssr---+3~i. ,3~":-:'.-.~c.;...x4lpls'3 `;I.:"':`_!`®}~^'~~: .°,:t'9„~_.vya~~,.....•..~~v~e,~~~r-.:~S~'„=-~~!S~:w•v<m.~~+;v^---~:-~v."ZgIFStiti~,~

Y_PSH7.dgn

~~~ ~~
~~
,,,, ~ „~
~~~
o m
m v~
N O
d m ~~~
~4 lR N n
Fn O
A ~ ~
O ~
T
~.
m
O
S z< N ~
~p ~m~N~
~~ ~~~~
r
~ z
~~ o
~~ ~~
~ {~ ~, V ~
AAATCHLINE -L- STATION 60+00 SEE SHEET 8

HAhTTLEYYY//11 Dk.
75W
2030 ADT
ROJECF REFERENCE N0. SNEEi N0.
2287 8
RPN SNEET N0.
)ADWAY DESIGN HYOgUUCS
ENGINEER ENGINEER
INCOMPLE E PLANS
m Nar o® vest n ecum®nmR
dIAYE 5
P15TJl +8&~7
S : ~'
5~E ~~
RO ~ I:INp7' 8 By
CIIAVE YP-l
PI ST
!S . 9}
T
f CH EXISTING
7A
CIIAVE Y3-I
PI Sr N
g . 0.T Jf
~ACN EXlSTINB
PI ~~~
gay '8!'
.517/'
.150'
`N~ACN EXfSffN6
z
u
a
m
r
a
~
\ I
\~
\
\
~
,
;;~°~~- „=1~ ..,-°,-; ~..~.~ ~,-.4.~s-,~. W.~.H°"=--°'- .>R.~ _ =:b~,s>,~: emu: --
PROP05ED PAVEMENT REMOVAL