20061862 Ver 1_Individual_20061201

INDIVIDUAL PERMITAPPLICATIONAND SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION FOR THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS'
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, 404(8)(1) ANALYSIS, FINDING
OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI), AND STATEMENT OF
FINDINGS
2006 1862
RECEIVED
Shoppes at Bush Hill
Guilford & Randolph County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
Archdale Partners, LLC
530 Huber Park Court
Weldon Springs, MO 63304
Prepared by:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Post Office Box 33068
Raleigh, NC 27636-3068
~~
KimieyHom
and Associates, Inc.
December 2006
~" ~_~s ~..~ ~_ , ~,~ 0 ., , , 3
?~C I ~ill)6
,:rt=r~~; - wry ~ ~r~: i.i~,.,~.iTl`
i'L~Nf.):4 nn~~ ~ :' i+~741,9;;~:ir~ ~ !~R.±"2~H
©Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2006

n\/hjr-~17-
~i~ ~~
~~~ iGmleyHom nF~CEIVED
~ and Associates, Inc.
Project Summary Sheet Q 0 0 g~ 8 g 2
Project Name: Shoppes at Bush Hill
Applicant Name and Address: Archdale Partners, LLC
SAttn: Todd Schneider
530 Huber Park Court
Weldon Sprins?s, MO 63304
Telephone Number: [phone]
Type of Request: ^ Nationwide PCN (NWP # ) ®Individual Permit Application
^ Jurisdictional Determination ^ Other:
Included Attachments: ®Project Plans ®USGS Map ®NRCS Soil Survey
® Agent Authorization ^ Delineation Sketch ®Delineation Survey
® Data Forms (Up & Wet) ®NCDWQ Stream Forms ®USACE Stream Forms
® NCEEP Confirmation ®Aerial Photo ®Site Photos
® Agency Correspondence ®Other:Hydro Report Floodplain Mans Support Document
Check if applicable: ^ CAMA County ^ Trout County ^ Isolated Waters
^ Section 7, ESA ^ Section 106, NHPA ^ EFH
® Mitigation Proposed (® NC EEP ^ On-Site ^ Off-Site ^ Other)
County: Guilford and Randolph Nearest City/Town: Archdale
Waterway: Muddy Creek
H.U.C.: 03030003
Property Size (acres): 156
Site Coordinates (in decimal degrees): 35.9185 °N
River Basin: Cane Fear
USGS Quad Name: Hieh Point East
Approx. Size of Jurisdiction on Site (acres): 3.06
79.9383 °W
Project Location: The proiect site is located within the southeast quadrant of the U S Interstate 85/ N C State Highway 62
interchanee in Archdale. Guilford and Randolph Counties North Carolina
Site Description: The entire proiect site is approximately 156 acres in size The project site is comprised of agricultural
fields separated by several mixed-hardwood forested areas which are eg_ neraliy located along the streams and in low areas
Impact Summary (if applicable): The nroiect as proposed will result in the permanent placement of fill into 1 58 acres of
wetland. 0.54 acres of oven water and 305 linear feet of stream channel including 125 linear feet of perennial stream
channel with indicators of important aquatic function The project will also result in the temporary placement of fill into
0.01 acres of wetland and 21 linear feet of stream channel and the temporary dewatering of 1 93 acres of open water A
detailed descnpt>on of the proposed impacts is included in Section 1 3 of the attached permit application support document
Open Water Wetland Stream Channel
NWP (ac) (ac) Unim ortant A vatic Function Im ortant A vatic Function
#
Temp.
Perm
Tem
Perm Tem Perm. Tem Perm.
. p. . If ac if ac if ac If Ac
IP 1.93 0.54 0.01 1.58 0 0 180 0.02 21 0.01 125 0.02

Total 1.93 0.54 0.01 1.58 0 0 180 0.02 21 0.01 125 0.02
Total Permanent Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 2.16
Kimley-Horn Contact: Beth Reed
P.0 Box 33068
Raleigh, North Carolina
27636.3068
Direct Number: 919-677-2073
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]

2406 1882
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT OMB APPROVAL NU. 0710-0003
(33 CFR 325) Expires December 31, 2004
The Public burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10 hours per response, although the majority of applications should require
5 hours or less. This includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of
infotmation, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of Information
Operations and Reports, 1215 JetTerson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302: and to the Office of Management and Budget,
Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC 20503. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control
number. Please DO NOT RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having
jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403; Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection. Research and
Sanctuaries Act, 33 USC 1413, Section 103. Principal Purpose: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application for a
permit. Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Depanment of Justice and other federal, state, and local government agencies.
Submission of requested information is voluntary, however, if information is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit
be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this
application (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed
activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
(lTE,NS ! THRU 4 TU BE FILLED BY THE CURDS)
1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPL/CANT%
5. APPLICANT'S NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE (an agent is nor required)
Archdale Partners, LLC Beth Reed
Attn: Todd Schneider Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
530 Huber Park Coun Post Office Box 33068
Weldon Springs, MU 63304 Raleigh, NC 27636-3068
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE 10. AGENT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE
a. Residence NA a. Residence NA
b. Business [phone] b. Business [phone]
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
[ hereby authorize Kimley-Flom and Associates. Inc. to actin my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to
furnish, upon request, supplemental in ation in support of this permit application.
~
~
O
APPL[ NT'S SIGNATURE DATE
NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see insnirctiunsl p n
\/^
~ ~ ~~1~
`
{
,
1 I
The Shoppes at Bush Hill r P
RECEIVED
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (ijapplkahlel 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS li~applicablel
Muddy Creek and unnamed tributaries to Muddy Creek 1820 - 1840 Weant Road, F{igh Point, NC 27263
in the Cape Fear River Basin
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Guilford & Randolph North Carolina
COUNTY STATE
16.OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, lF KNOWN (sec instructions)
Coordinates (in decimal degrees) for the center of the site are 35.9185° N, 79.9383° tiV.
17. DIRECTIONS TO TFFE SITE
The project site is located within the southeast quadrant of the U.S. Interstate 85! N.C. State Highway 62 interchange in Archdale, Guilford and
Randolph Counties, North Carotins. From Exit I I I on U,S. Interstate 85, travel east on NC Highway 62 for approximately 400 feet, turn south on to
Weant Road. The site is located on the west side of Weant Road, approximately 1500 feet south of NC Highway 62.
tN(i HUKM 4345, Jul 97 EDITION OF FEB 94 IS OBSELETE (Proponent: CECW-OR)

I R. Nature of Activity (Description q(projeet, rnc•lrrde o!! (eah~res)
The project is a 156-acre mixed-use development, which wilt include the construction of a retail center with two anchor stores, several retail shops,
out-parcels, an office development, two multi-family residential sections, a light industrial development area, along with transportation, parking, and
storrnwater facilities. A detailed description of the project purpose is provided in Section 1.3 of the attached permit application support document.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose q(the pmjec•r. see instructions]
The basic project purpose for the proposed activity is to provide amixed-use development in the Archdale area, in Guilford and Randolph Counties,
North Carolina. The project is necessary to meet the local demand for commercial, retail, and light industrial space in the area. Amore complete
description of the project purpose is provided in Sec[ion 2.0 of the attached permit application support document.
I USE BLOCKS ZO-22 lF DREDGED ANDIOR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED ~
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
The discharge of fill, including earthen material, culverts, and riprap, is required to construct the main access road across the site, parking areas,
building pads, and a utility crossing. The proposed crossing of the perennial stream channel and the pond are necessary to provide transportation
access to high ground portions of the site. The temporary disturbance for the utility crossing is necessary to provide a connection to the city sewer
system located on the opposite side of the stream and adjacent wetland. The placement of fill material into wetlands and intermittent stream channels
is necessary to construct building pads required for development of the site. Because of the type of facility proposed and the extensive grading
required by site conditions, the wetland impacts are unavoidable. The proposed site plan represents the least damaging practicable alternative,
considering both off-site and on-site alternatives. Additionally, mitigation wilt be provided to offset the proposed impact to wetlands. Additional
information, including a detailed alternatives analysis, and measures taken to avoid and minimize impacts, have been included in Section 5.0 of the
attached permit application support document.
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Construction of the site will require the discharge of earthen fill and backfill material, riprap, concrete culverts and wing walls, and the temporary
placement of excavated material within streams, wetlands, and open waters on the project site. The total volume estimated to be discharges is
approximately 35,000 cubic yards of earthen fill, 10 cubic yards of concrete (culverts and wing walls), and 20 cubic yards of riprap (dissipater pads
and slope stabilization).
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled fsee instnrcrionsl
The project as proposed wilt result in the permanent placement of fill. into L58 acres of wetland, U.54 acres of open water, and 305 linear feet of stream
channel, including 1251inear feet of perennial stream channel with indicators of important aquatic function. The project will also result in the
temporary placement of fill into 0.01 acres of wetland and 2l linear feet of stream channel, and the temporary dewatering of 1.93 acres of open water.
The detailed description of the proposed impacts is included in Section 1.3 of the attached permit application support document.
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes No X lF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (if more than can be entered here,
please attach a supplemental list).
Addresses of adjoining property owners arc included in Appendix hl of the attached petntit application support document.
25. List of Other Certifications or ApprovalslDenials Received from other Federal, State, or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
NC Div. of Wa[er Quality 401 Certification To Bc Determined Concurrent with 404 NA NA
NC Div. of Land Quality Scdintcnt and Erosion Control Permit To Bc tktcrmincd Application Pending NA NA
City ofArchdale High Density Development Permit To Be Determined Application Pending NA NA
City oCArchdalc Watershed Protection Permit To Se Determined Application Pending NA NA
City of Archdale Zoning Permit To Be Determined Application Pending NA NA
Guilford County Floodplain Development Permit To Be Determined Application Pending NA NA
'Would include but is not rcstrictcd to zoning, building and flood plain permits
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this
application is complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority undertake the work described herein or am acting as the
duly a zed~ent of th licant, r
5[GNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in block l I has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than S 10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.

INDIVIDUAL PERMIT APPLICA TION SUPPOR TING
DOCUMENTATION
Shoppes at Bush Hill
Guilford & Randolph County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
Archdale Partners, LLC
530 Huber Park Court
Weldon Springs, MO 63304
Prepared by:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Post Office Box 33068
Raleigh, NC 27636-3068
December 1, 2006
©Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2006

Executive Summary
This document is intended to provide supplementary information in support of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers' (USAGE) preparation of the Public Notice, Environmental Assessment, Finding of No
Significant Impact, Statement of Findings, and review and compliance determination according to
the 404(b)(1) guidelines for the proposed Shoppes at Bush Hill mixed-use development, in Archdale,
North Carolina.
Applicant: Archdale Partners, LLC
530 Huber Park Court
Weldon Sprigs, MO 63304
Date of Application: November 22, 2006
Action ID: 200620747
Location: The project site is located within the southeast quadrant of the U.S. Interstate 85/ N.C.
State Highway 62 interchange in Archdale, Guilford and Randolph Counties, North Carolina.
Coordinates (in decimal degrees) for the center of the site are 35.9185° N, 79.9383° W. The project
site contains stream channels and adjacent wetlands that form the headwaters of first order tributaries
that flow into Muddy Creek downstream of the property. Muddy Creek is a tributary to the Cape
Fear River and the Atlantic Ocean.
Existing Site Conditions: The entire project site is approximately 156 acres in size. The project site
is comprised of agricultural fields separated by several mixed-hardwood forested areas, which are
generally located along the streams and in low areas. U.S. Interstate 85 runs along the northwest
boundary of the tract, and land located to the south and east is primarily comprised of moderate to
low density residential subdivisions. The property contains three tributaries totaling 3,826 linear feet
of perennial channel and 574 linear feet of intermittent channel, as well as eleven wetland areas
totaling 3.06 acres in size. The site has three separate watersheds that all drain to unnamed
tributaries to Muddy Creek. One of the perennial stream channels flows through a 2.47-acre pond
that is located near the center of the site.
Applicant's Stated Purpose: The basic project purpose for the proposed activity is to provide a
mixed-use development in the Archdale area, in Guilford and Randolph Counties, North Carolina.
The applicant has stated that the project is necessary to meet the local demands for commercial,
retail, and light industrial space in the area. The proposed project would include two anchor tenants
consisting of a (149,000-square foot Wal-Mart Supercenter and a (140,000-square foot Lowe's
home improvement store, along with several retail shops and out-parcels, 28 acres of light industrial
space, 5-acre office development, and two multi-family residential areas with a combined area of
approximately 16 acres. The applicant has also identified several alternatives that could reduce or
avoid impacts to waters of the U.S.; however, they have provided information to show that these
alternatives are not practicable and would not meet the project purpose and need. While the activities
proposed in the permit have a direct impact on streams and wetlands, the presence of waters of the
U.S. is not central to the primary purpose of the activity. Based on this assessment, the proposed
activities are not water dependent, and less damaging practicable alternatives, which involve no fill
in streams and wetlands, are therefore presumed to be available. A review of alternative
development plans, including those that reduce or avoid impacts to waters of the U.S., is included in
Section 5.0 of this document.
©i^ ~ Ate, Inc.

Project Description: The project is a 156-acre mixed-use development, which would include the
construction of a retail center with two anchor stores, several retail shops, out-parcels, an office
development, two multi-family residential sections, and a light industrial development area, along
with transportation, parking, and stormwater facilities. Development of the site requires the
placement of fill material into wetlands and intermittent streams for the construction of the building
and parking pads for the anchor stores (Wal-Mart and Lowe's), retail spaces, light industrial parcel,
and two of the outlots. Fill would also be required for construction of an east-west access road
through the site connecting Weant Road with Aldridge Road. Perennial stream and open water
impacts are limited to a single perpendicular road crossing of the stream and open water associated
with the access road. Total permanent impacts for the proposed development would be 1.58 acres of
non-riparian wetland, 0.54-acre of open water, 125 linear feet of perennial stream channel, and 180
linear feet of intermittent unimportant channel. Temporary project impacts associated with utility
line excavation and backfill and the dewatering of the open water/pond are 0.01-acre ofnon-riparian
wetland, 21 linear feet of perennial stream channel, and 1.93 acres of open water/pond. Each
proposed jurisdictional impact is detailed in the following table:
Wetland Impacts & Mitigation

Impact Shown
Type of Temporary Permanent
Mitigation
Required
Number Feature on Wetland Type of Impact Impacts Impacts Ratio* Mitigation
Fi e: Acres Acres
Wetland Forested, Utility Line Excavation
1 L 6 Ri arian & Backfill 0.01 0 2:1 0
Wetland Forested Road Crossing
2 I 8 & 9 Non-Ri arian & Parkin Fill 0 0.09 2:1 0.18
Wetland Scrub-Shrub Construction Pad
3 C 12 Non-Ri arian & Parkin Fill 0 0.47 1:1 0.47
Wetland Forested Construction Pad
4 12 0 0.09 2:1 18
0
E Non-Ri arian & Parkin Fill .
Wetland Forested Construction Pad
5 F 12 Non-Ri arian & Parkin Fill 0 0.34 2:1 0.68

6 Wetland
12 Forested Construction Pad
0
0.58
2:1
1
16
G Non-Ri arian & Parkin Fill .
Wetland Forested Construction Pad
7 K 13 Non-Ri arian & Parkin Fill 0 0.01 2:1 0.02
Wetland Im act Totals: 0.01 1.58 2.69
Open Water Impacts
Im act ShO~ T e of Temporary Permanent
Number Feature on Open Water Type of Impact Impacts Impacts
Fi re: Acres Acres
8 Pond 10 Pond Dewatering 1
93 0
for Construction .
9 Pond 10 & pond Road Crossing Fill 0 54
0
11 & Culvert .
O en Water Im act Totals: 1.93 0.54
^~~ IC~y-Flom
~ and Assopates, Inc.

Stream Impacts
Im act
p Shown T e of
~ Temporary Temporary Permanent Permanent

Number Feature on
Stream Type of Impact Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts
Fi e: Feet Acres Feet Acres
10 Stream 6 Perennial, Utility Line Excavation 21 0
01 0 0
7 Im ortant & Backfill .

11 Stream
6 & 7 Perennial Road Crossing Fill
0
0
95
01
0
1 Im ortant & Culvert .
12 Stream 6 Perennial Riprap Dissipater Pad 0 0 30 0.01
1 Im ortant

13 Stream
12 Intermittent Construction Pad
0
0
76
0
01
5 Unim ortant & Parkin Fill .

14 Stream
12 Intermittent Construction Pad
0
0
104
0
01
6 Unim ortant & Parkin Fill .
Perennial Stream Im act Totals: 21 0.01 125 0.02
Intermittent/Unim ortant Stream Im act Totals: 0 0 180 0.02
Total Combined Stream Im act: 21 0.01 305 0.04
Total Loss of Waters of the U.S. Acres : 2.16
Total Tem orar Im act to Waters of the U.S. Acres : 1.95
Impacts rounded up to nearest hundredth of an acre.
*For permanent impacts, as determined by the USACE on April 18, 2006
The applicant proposes to mitigate for permanent impacts to wetlands and stream channels
associated with the project by providing payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP) sufficient for the restoration of 2.69 acres ofnon-riparian wetlands (0.47 acre for
1:1 ratio of emergent/scrub-shrub wetland impact, 2.22 acres for 2:1 ratio of forested wetland
impact) within the Cape Fear River Basin (HUC 03030003). Avoidance and minimization measures
employed during project design reduced permanent stream impacts to less than 150 linear feet. The
design also preserves the majority of the Randleman Stream Buffers with the creation of
approximately 30 acres of common space; therefore, no stream mitigation is proposed.
Other Required Authorizations: Other required authorizations to be obtained prior to construction
of the proposed work include an individua1401 Water Quality Certification from the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), a sediment and erosion control permit from the North
Carolina Division of Land Quality, a High Density Development permit, a Zoning permit, and a
Watershed Protection permit from the City of Archdale, and a Floodplain Development Permit from
Guilford County.
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH): Based upon the location of the project and the minimal impacts
predicted, we believe the proposed project will not adversely impact EFH or associated fisheries
managed by the South Atlantic or Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Councils or the National
Marine Fisheries Service.
©~ ~ ~ A~ es, Irtc.

Cultural Resources: Following consultation with the latest published version of the National
Register of Historic Places, as well as scoping correspondence received from the North Carolina
Deparhnent of Cultural Resources -State Historic Preservation Office (dated 9/1/06), no registered
properties, or properties listed as being eligible for inclusion therein are located within the project
area or will be affected by the proposed work.
Endangered Species: Based upon consultation with the latest North Carolina Natural Heritage
Database, field surveys, the scoping correspondence received from the N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission (dated 8/18/06), and the "no affect" determination letter received from the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (e-mail correspondence dated 10/26/06), no threatened or endangered species
are known to be located in the immediate area of the proposed project. Therefore, we anticipate a
finding of no effect on federally listed endangered or threatened species or their formally designated
critical habitat, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
^~^ arAtes, Inc.

Contents
1.0 Location, Existing Site Conditions, Project Description, Changes to Project .......................... 8
1.1 Location ........................................................................................................................... 8
1.2 Existing Site Conditions .................................................................................................. 8
1.2.1 Land Use .............................................................................................................. 8
1.2.2 Topography .......................................................................................................... 8
1.2.3 Streams and Wetlands .......................................................................................... 9
1.2.4 Soils .................................................................................................................... 11
1.2.5 Vegetation .......................................................................................................... 11
1.2.6 Protected Species and Habitat ............................................................................ 11
1.2.7 Historical and/or Archaeological Sites .............................................................. 11
1.2.8 Regulated Floodplain ......................................................................................... 12
1.3 Project Description ......................................................................................................... 12
2.0 Project Purpose ....................................................................................................................... 14
3.0 Scope of Analysis :.................................................................................................................. 14
4.0 Other Federal, State, and Local Authorizations Obtained or Required and Pending ............. 14
4.1 State water quality certification (401) ............................................................................ 14
4.2 Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Consistency Determination ................................... 15
4.3 Sediment and Erosion Control Permit ........................................................................... 15
4.4 City of Archdale Permits ............................................................................................... 15
4.5 Floodplain Development Permit .................................................................................... 15
5.0 Alternatives [33 CFR 320.4(b)(4), 40 CFR 230.10] :.............................................................. 15
5.1 Avoidance (No action, uplands, and availability of other sites) :................................... 15
5.1.1 No Action/Upland-Only Alternative .................................................................. 17
5.1.2 Off-Site Alternatives .......................................................................................... 18
5.1.3 Preferred (Proposed) Alternative ....................................................................... 19
5.2 Minimization (modified project designs, etc.) ............................................................... 20
5.2.1 On-Site Alternatives ........................................................................................... 20
5.2.2 On-Site Minimization of Unavoidable Impacts ................................................. 22
5.3 Conclusions of Alternatives Analysis ............................................................................ 23
6.0 Evaluation of the 404(b)(1)Guidelines :................................................................................. 23
6.1 Factual determinations ................................................................................................... 23
6.1.1 Physical substrate ............................................................................................... 23
6.1.2 Water circulation, fluctuation, and salinity ........................................................ 24
6.1.3 Suspended particulate/turbidity ......................................................................... 24
6.1.4 Contaminant availability .................................................................................... 24
6.1.5 Aquatic ecosystem effects .................................................................................. 25
6.1.6 Proposed disposal site ........................................................................................ 25
6.1.7 Cumulative effects ............................................................................................. 25
6.1.8 Secondary effects ............................................................................................... 26
7.0 Public Interest Review ............................................................................................................ 27
7.1 Public Interest Factors .................................................................................................... 27
7.1.1 Conservation ...................................................................................................... 27
7.1.2 Economics .......................................................................................................... 28
7.1.3 Aesthetics ........................................................................................................... 28
~ ^ andand A~ssoaates, Inc.

8.0
7.1.4 General environmental concerns (33CFR320.4(p)) .................
7.1.5 Wetlands (33CFR320.4(b)) ......................................................
7.1.6 Historic and cultural resources (33CFR320.4(e)) ....................
7.1.7 Fish and wildlife values (33CFR320.4(c)) ...............................
7.1.8 Flood hazards ...........................................................................
7.1.9 Floodplain values (33CFR320.4(1)) .........................................
7.1.10 Land use ...................................................................................
7.1.11 Navigation (33CFR320.4(0)) ...................................................
7.1.12 Shore erosion and accretion .....................................................
7.1.13 Recreation ................................................................................
7.1.14 Water suPp1Y (33CFR320.4(m)) ..............................................
7.1.15 Water quality (also 33CFR320.4(d)) .......................................
7.1.16 Energy needs (33CFR320.4(n)) ................................................
7.1.17 Safety .......................................................................................
7.1.18 Food and fiber production ........................................................
7.1.19 Mineral needs ............................................................................
7.1.20 Considerations of property ownership .....................................,
7.2 Need for Proposed Project ............................:.......................................
7.3 Alternative Locations ............................................................................
7.4 Permanence of Effects .........................................................................,
7.5 Threatened or Endangered Species .......................................................
7.6 Corps Wetland Policy ...........................................................................
7.7 Cumulative and Secondary Impacts .........................................
.............
7.8 Essential Fisheries Habitat ....................................................................
Conclusions ....................................................................................................
.......................... 28
.......................... 28
, ......................... 29
, ......................... 29
......................... 29
......................... 29
......................... 30
......................... 30
......................... 30
......................... 30
......................... 30
......................... 30
......................... 31
......................... 31
......................... 31
......................... 31
......................... 31
......................... 31
......................... 31
......................... 31
......................... 32
......................... 32
......................... 33
......................... 33
......................... 33
6 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~2,S, II1C.

Figures
Figure l: Vicinity Map
Figure 2: USGS Topographic Map (High Point East Quadrangle)
Figure 3: Soil Survey (Guilford and Randolph County)
Figure 4: Delineation of Waters of the U.S.
Figure 5: Overall Site Plan
Figure 6: Impact 1, 10, 11, and 12 Detail
Figure 7: Impact 11 Cross Section
Figure 8: Impact 2 Detail
Figure 9: Impact 2 Cross Section
Figure 10: Impact 8 and 9 Detail
Figure 11: Impact 8 Cross Section
Figure 12: Impact 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, and 14 Detail
Figure 13: Impact 7 Detail
Figure 14: Residential Area Detail
Appendices
Appendix A: Project Alternatives
Appendix B: Agency Coordination
Appendix C: Wetland and Stream Data Forms
Appendix D: Stormwater/Hydrology Report
Appendix E: Aerial Photograph
Appendix F: Floodplain and Watershed Mapping
Appendix G: Site Photographs
Appendix H: Adjacent Property Owners
Appendix I: Agent Authorization Form
~^ Inc.

1.0 Location, Existing Site Conditions, Project Description,
Changes to Project
1.1 Location
The project site is located within the southeast quadrant of the U.S. Interstate 85/ N.C. State
Highway 62 interchange in Archdale, Guilford and Randolph Counties, North Carolina.
Coordinates (in decimal degrees) for the center of the site are 35.9185° N, 79.9383° W. The
project site contains stream channels and adjacent wetlands that form the headwaters of first
order tributaries that flow into Muddy Creek downstream of the property. Muddy Creek is a
tributary to the Cape Fear River and the Atlantic Ocean. Figure 1 (Vicinity Map) and Figure
2 (USGS Topographic Map) show the project location.
1.2 Existing Site Conditions
The entire project site is approximately 156 acres in size. The project site is comprised of
agricultural fields separated by several mixed-hardwood forested areas, which are generally
located along the streams and in low areas. U.S. Interstate 85 runs along the northwest
boundary of the tract, and land located to the south and east is primarily comprised of
moderate to low density residential subdivisions.
The property contains three tributaries totaling 3,826 linear feet of perennial channel and 574
linear feet of intermittent channel, as well as eleven wetland areas totaling 3.06 acres in size.
The site has two separate watersheds that all drain to unnamed tributaries to Muddy Creek.
One of the perennial stream channels flows through a 2.47-acre pond that is located near the
center of the site. Appendix E shows an aerial photograph of the project site and on-site
photographs are included in Appendix G.
1.2.1 Land Use
Land located adjacent to the project site primarily consists of moderate to low density
residential subdivisions and agricultural fields to the south and east. Interstate 85
forms the northwest project boundary. A gas station is located adjacent to the
northern portion of the site with frontage along the NC Highway 62/Weant Road
intersection, otherwise there are no additional commercial developments in the
southeast quadrant of the I-85/NC Highway 62 interchange. A gas station and hotel
are located in the southwest quadrant of the interchange. A church is located
immediately south of the project site along Weant Road. According to a future land
use map (Appendix A) that reflects Archdale's future growth and zoning, the project
site is located in an area designated as Highway Business to Light Industrial.
1.2.2 Topography
Topographically, the proposed site is located near the upper reaches of three UT's to
Muddy Creek (Streams 1, 2, and 3). The site is located within three separate
watersheds separated by a ridgeline along Weant Road as shown on the figure
included as Appendix F. The larger watershed (Watershed A) located to the west of
Weant Road contains two first-order perennial UTs to Muddy Creek (Streams 1 and
2) which originate off-site. The watershed is bound to the north by NC Highway 62
~Y~
ar>d Assoaates, Inc.

and drains underneath Interstate 85 onto the project site. Approximately 212 acres
drain to the point where the two stream channels confluence and exit the project site;
about 56% of this area is made up of the proposed development site. The second,
smaller watershed located to the east of Weant Road (Watershed B), contains one
first-order intermittent/perennial UT to Muddy Creek (Stream 3). This watershed is
bound to the north by NC Highway 62 at the northern boundary of the project site.
Approximately 25 acres drain to the point where the stream channel exists the project
site; approximately 64 % of this area is made up of the proposed development site.
The third watershed (Watershed C), located in the southern portion of the project site,
originates from a headwater wetland (Wetland K) located at the southern most project
boundary and continues off-site via afirst-order intermittent UT to Muddy Creek.
Approximately 39 acres drain to the point where the intermittent stream confluences
with Muddy Creek; about 51% of this area is made up of the proposed development
site.
The project is located in the central piedmont physiographic region and has a
consistently rolling terrain with moderately steep slopes. The topography of the
project area varies from a high elevation of approximately 840 feet above mean sea
level (MSL) near the northern portions of the site adjacent to NC Highway 62 to a
low of approximately 750 feet MSL where Streams 1 and 2 confluence and exit the
property.
1.2.3 Streams and Wetlands
Figure 4 shows the delineated jurisdictional areas evaluated by Kimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc. (KHA) staff and reviewed by US Army Corps of Engineers
(USAGE) representative Todd Tugwell on April 18, 2006 within the project site. The
project site contains 3.06 acres of jurisdictional wetlands, 2.47 acres of jurisdictional
open water, and 4,4001inear feet of jurisdictional stream (3,8261inear feet perennial
and 5741inear feet intermittent). NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms, USAGE
Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets, and USAGE wetland and upland data forms
are included in Appendix C.
Stream 1 is a perennial channel that originates from a small pond located just off the
site north of Interstate 85. The channel enters the project site through a culvert
underneath I-85. There is a small emergent wetland pocket (Wetland H; 0.05-acre)
located adjacent to the stream as it enters the project site. Wetland H appears to have
been created as a sediment basin possibly during the construction of I-85. The total
length of Stream 1 within the project site is approximately 1,121 linear feet. The
stream received a NCDWQ classification rating of 40, which indicates the stream is
perennial, and a USAGE stream quality assessment worksheet score of 60.
Stream 2 is a perennial channel that originates just off the site, north of Interstate 85.
The channel enters the project site through a culvert underneath I-85 and flows from
north to south across the site. There is a riparian forested wetland (Wetland A; 0.57-
acre) located adjacent to the stream, as well as anon-riparian emergent linear wet
seep (Wetland B; 0.15-acre) which provide additional hydrologic input into the
northern reach of the stream. Approximately 55 linear feet of intermittent
"unimportant" stream channel (Stream 4) discharges from Wetland B into Stream 2.
^~^ azAs~' tes, Inc.

Downstream from Wetland A, Stream 2 discharges into a 2.47-acre open water/pond.
Wetland G (0.58-acre), Wetland F (0.34-acre) and Wetland E (0.09-acre) are non-
riparian forested wetland seeps that emerge from the hillside and discharge into a
scrub-shrub wetland (Wetland C; 0.47-acre) located adjacent to the pond.
Approximately 1041inear feet of intermittent stream channel (Stream 6) is located
immediately upslope of Wetland G. In addition, approximately 761inear feet of
intermittent "unimportant" channel (Stream 5) is located between Wetland F and G.
Stream 2 outlets from the pond via a culvert and continues flowing south/southeast
through the project site until it confluences with Stream 1 near the southern boundary
of the project where the combined channels discharge into Muddy Creek
approximately 175 feet south of the project site. Wetland I (0.12-acre) and Wetland
D (0.01-acre) are non-riparian forested wetland seeps that provide additional
hydrologic input into the southern reach of the stream. The total length of Stream 2
within the subject property is approximately 2,315 linear feet (6741f upstream of the
pond and 1,641 if downstream of the pond). Stream 2 received a NCDWQ
classification rating of 33, which indicates the stream is perennial and a USACE
stream quality assessment worksheet score of 74.
Stream 3 originates from an emergent/scrub-shrub wetland seep (Wetland J; 0.30-
acre) located to the east of Weant Road. The upper reach (approximately 3391inear
feet) of this system was determined to be an intermittent "unimportant" stream by the
USACE as it was lacking aquatic function (habitat and hydrology to support more
than minimal aquatic life). The channel goes sub-terrain near the middle of the site.
Below where the intermittent channel resurfaces, a large headcut is located
downstream. Downstream from the headcut, the channel exhibits perennial aquatic
function. The length of the perennial reach of Stream 3 within the project site is
approximately 3901inear feet. The intermittent reach of Stream 3 received a
NCDWQ classification rating of 25 and a USACE stream quality assessment
worksheet score of 61. The perennial reach of Stream 3 scored a 36 on the NCDWQ
classification and a 58 on the USACE stream quality assessment worksheet.
Wetland K, located near the south-central portion of the site, is anon-riparian
forested seep (0.38-acre) which provides hydrologic input to an unnamed tributary to
Muddy Creek located off-site. Wetland L is a riparian, forested wetland located
outside the project site. These wetland areas were delineated due to the proposed
sewer line that would extend from the project site to an existing off-site sewer line
located in this area.
Wetland A functions as a riparian forested wetland located near the upper portion of a
watershed adjacent to a perennial stream system. The primary function of Wetland A
is flood storage, the treatment of nutrients and sediment, streambank stabilization, and
terrestriaUaquatic habitat. Wetland A is the highest functioning wetland system
within the project site. The balance of the on-site wetlands are a combination of non-
riparian emergent/scrub-shrub (Wetlands B, C, and J) and non-riparian forested
wetlands (Wetlands E,F,G and I) hydraulically driven by groundwater seepage. The
primary function of these systems would be aquatic habitat for amphibian breeding
and groundwater recharge. Both riparian and non-riparian wetland types are common
in the North Carolina piedmont, and have few unique or exceptional qualities.
o_o .~
' ~ ~ and Associates, Inc.

1.2.4 Soils
Most of the soils within the higher elevations of the project site are classified by the
USDA Soil Surveys for Guilford and Randolph Counties as Enon Fine Sandy Loam
and Appling Sandy Loam (Figure 3). These well-drained soils are commonly located
on upland ridges and side slopes as well as interstream divides. This includes the
agricultural fields, forested areas, and the drainage ways along Streams 1 and 3. The
soil located within the drainage way of Stream 2 is classified as Chewacla sandy
loam. This nearly level, somewhat poorly drained soil is commonly located within
the floodplain areas of streams.
1.2.5 Vegetation
Wetlands A, E, F, G, I, and K are forested systems dominated red maple (Ater
rubrum), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera),
and black willow (Salix nigra). Understory and herbaceous species in the forested
wetlands include Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), microstegium (Microstegium
vimineum), and rush (Juncus effuses). With the exception of riparian Wetland, A
which receives surface flow from Stream 2, the remaining non-riparian forested
wetlands receive hydrologic input primarily from groundwater seepage.
Wetlands B, C, D, H, and J are successional scrub-shrub and emergent wetlands
dominated by rush (Juncus effuses), spike rush (Eleocharis spp.), and wax myrtle
(Myrica cerifera). The vegetation in the wetland portions of the project area ranges
from facultative to obligate, suggesting that the soils on the site are regularly
saturated throughout the year, but that they may dry out in the summer months or
during periods of drought.
1.2.6 Protected Species and Habitat
Based upon consultation with the latest North Carolina Natural Heritage Database,
field surveys, the scoping correspondence received from the N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission (dated 8/18106), and the "no affect" determination letter received from
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (e-mail correspondence dated 10/26/06), no
threatened or endangered species are known to be located in the immediate area of the
proposed project. Accordingly, we anticipate a finding of no effect on federally listed
endangered or threatened species or their formally designated critical habitat,
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Copies of the correspondence from
the NCWRC and the USFWS are included in Appendix B.
1.2.7 Historical and/or Archaeological Sites
Following consultation with the latest published version of the National Register of
Historic Places as well as scoping correspondence received from the North Carolina
Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic Preservation Office dated 9/1/06
(included in Appendix B), no registered properties or properties listed as being
eligible for inclusion therein are located within the project area or will be affected by
the proposed work.
" ©~^ Associates, Inc.

1.2.8 Regulated Floodplain
Streams 1 and 2, both unnamed tributaries to Muddy Creek, are within regulated
floodplain within the project site. Stream 3, also an unnamed tributary to Muddy
Creek is not located within a 100-year floodplain. Appendix F includes a map of the
FEMA-designated floodplain through the project site.
1.3 Project Description
The project is a 156-acre mixed-use development, which would include the construction of a
retail center with two anchor stores, several retail shops, out-parcels, an office development,
two multi-family residential sections, a light industrial development area, along with
transportation, parking, and stormwater facilities. The specific sections of the development
plan are identified on the overall site plan, Figure 5. Site preparation would begin with the
mechanized clearing of vegetation from the site and installation of erosion control devices
around the construction site. Development of the site requires the placement of fill material
into wetlands and intermittent streams for the construction of the building and parking pads
for the anchor stores (Wal-Mart and Lowe's), retail spaces, light industrial parcel, and two of
the outlots. Fill would also be required for construction of an east-west access road through
the site connecting Weant Road with Aldridge Road. Perennial stream and open water
impacts are limited to a perpendicular road crossing of the stream and another across the
pond for construction of the east-west access road. Figure 5 shows the overall site plan while
Figures 6 thru 14 show the impact details for each jurisdictional encroachment. Total
permanent impacts for the proposed development would be 1.58 acres ofnon-riparian
wetland, 0.54-acre of open water, 1251inear feet of perennial stream channel, and 180 linear
feet of intermittent unimportant channel. Temporary project impacts associated with utility
line excavation and backfill and the dewatering of the open water/pond are 0.01-acre of non-
riparian wetland, 21 linear feet of perennial stream channel, and 1.93 acres of open
water/pond. Each proposed jurisdictional impact is detailed in Table 1 on the next page.
The applicant proposes to mitigate for permanent impacts to wetlands and stream channels
associated with the project by providing payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (NCEEP) sufficient for the restoration of 2.69 acres ofnon-riparian
wetlands (0.47 acre for 1:1 ratio of emergent/scrub-shrub wetland impact, 2.22 acres for 2:1
ratio of forested wetland impact within the Cape Fear River Basin - HUC 03030003). A
letter from NCEEP that verifies their willingness to accept the proposed mitigation is
included in Appendix B. Avoidance and minimization measures were employed during
project design that reduced permanent stream impacts to less than 1501inear feet; therefore,
no stream mitigation is proposed.
i2 © ~ ICm~y~Hom
~ and Assoaates, Inc.

Table 1: Impact Summary
Wetland Impacts & Mitigation

Impact Shown
Type of Temporary Permanent
Mitigation
Required
Number Feature on Wetland Type of Impact Impacts Impacts Ratio Mitigation
Fi re: Acres Acres

1 Wetland
6 Forested, Utility Line Excavation
L Ri arian &Backfill 0.01 0 2:1 0
2 Wetland 8 & 9 Forested, Road Crossing 0 0
09 2:1 0
18
I Non-Ri arian & Parkin Fill . .

3 Wetland
12 Scrub-Shrub Construction Pad
0
0
47
1:1
0
47
C Non-Ri arian & Parkin Fill . .
4 Wetland 12 Forested, Construction Pad 0 0
09 2:1 0
18
E Non-Ri arian & Parkin Fill . .
5 Wetland 12 Forested, Construction Pad 0 0
34 2:1 0
68
F Non-Ri arian & Parkin Fill . .

6 Wetland
12 Forested Construction Pad
0
0
58
2:1
1
16
G Non-Ri arian & Parkin Fill . .

7 Wetland
13 Forested Construction Pad
0
0
01
2:1
0
02
K Non-Ri arian & Parkin Fill . .
Wetland Im act Totals: 0.01 1.58 2.69
Open Water Impacts
Im act Shown T e of Temporary Permanent
Number Feature on Open Water Type of Impact Impacts Impacts
Fi e: Acres Acres
8 Pond 10 Pond Dewatering 1
93 0
for Construction .
9 Pond 10 & pond Road Crossing Fill 0 54
0
11 & Culvert .
O en Water Im act Totals: 1.93 0.54
Stream Impacts
Im act ShO~ T e of
y Temporary Temporary Permanent Permanent
Number Feature on St
i~eam Type of Impact Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts
Fi e: Feet Acres Feet Acres

10 Stream
6 Perennial, Utility Line Excavation
21
0
01
0
0
7 Im ortant &Backfill .
11 Stream 6 & 7 Perennial Road Crossing Fill 0 0 95 0
01
1 Im ortant & Culvert .
12 Stream 6 Perennial Riprap Dissipater Pad 0 0 30 0
01
1 Im ortant .

13 Stream
12 Intermittent Construction Pad
0
0
76
0
01
5 Unim ortant & Parkin Fill .

14 Stream
12 Intermittent Construction Pad
0
0
104
0
01
6 Unim ortant & Parkin Fill .
Perennial Stream Im act Totals: 21 0.01 125 0.02
Intermittent/iTnim ortant Stream Im act Totals: 0 0 180 0.02
Total Combined Stream Im act: 21 0.01 305 0.04
Impacts are rounded up to nearest hundredth of an acre.
*For permanent impacts, as determined by the USACE on April 18, 2006
~~~ iCutdey~F~Om
13 ~ ~ AS90CI~AS, Inc.

2.0 Project Purpose
The basic project purpose for the proposed activity is to provide amixed-use commercial
development in the Archdale, North Carolina area. The Archdale area is currently underserved by
retail shopping facilities, and the continued development of residential subdivisions around southern
High Point has increased the regional demand for these types of services. The proposed site was
identified following a review of available properties with respect to specific site-selection criteria.
The overall project includes a light industrial complex, an office park, and two small multi-family
residential areas in addition to the commercial retail complex. Alternative sites were identified;
however, none of the off-site alternatives met the require site-selection criteria (see the alternatives
discussion below). The applicant has also evaluated several on-site alternatives that could avoid or
reduce impacts to waters of the U.S., but these alternatives were determined to be impracticable and
unable to meet the project purpose and need.
Discharges into waters of the U.S. associated with the proposed undertaking include activities
intended to access or create usable space (i.e., high ground). This includes the construction of road
crossings required to access high ground and the placement of earthen fill necessary to establish
grade for parking lots and building pads. None of these activities requires siting in a special aquatic
site. Accordingly, the proposed project is not considered water dependent, and less damaging
practicable alternatives, which involve no fill in streams or wetlands, are therefore presumed to be
available. It is also presumed that those alternatives have less adverse impact to the aquatic
ecosystem. A review of the alternate plans, including those that reduce or avoid impacts to waters of
the U.S., is included in Section 5 of this document.
3.0 Scope of Analysis:
The primary financial beneficiary of the proposed work would be the applicant, Archdale Partners,
LCC, a privately owned corporation. Other than the requirement to obtain a Section 404 permit, no
other federal involvement in the proposed work is required. There are no practicable alternatives to
the proposed plans that would further avoid or minimize impacts to waters of the U.S., and the
project would not meet the applicant's purpose and need but for the proposed impacts. Additionally,
the proposed project site contains several stream and wetland systems that divide the property into
several smaller sections of high ground. The primary road system is proposed to cross a stream
channel, a pond, and several wetland areas spaced out across the project site. The bulk of the
proposed impacts would result from the construction of the two anchor stores that cannot be located
to avoid impacts to streams and/or wetlands subject to Section 404 permit requirements.
Accordingly, impacts to waters of the U.S. are essential for the development of the project as a
whole, and the associated scope of analysis extends to the limits of the project (i.e., the entire 156-
acre property).
4.0 Other Federal, State, and Local Authorizations Obtained or
Required and Pending
4.1 State water quality certification (401)
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) 401 certification application is
submitted concurrent to this 404 permit application. DWQ will also review the proposed
plans for compliance with state stormwater requirements.
1a ~~~ andAs ~~, kIC.

4.2 Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Consistency Determination
A North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (DCM) consistency determination/permit
is not required.
4.3 Sediment and Erosion Control Permit
Areas within the City of Archdale require Sediment and Erosion Control Plan approval by
the North Carolina Division of Land Quality prior to any site disturbance occurring. Land
within Guilford County will be reviewed by the state and not by Guilford County because the
City of Archdale will annex the land prior to commencement of the project. This approval is
pending.
4.4 City of Archdale Permits
A High Density Development Permit is required from the City of Archdale prior to
development of the site. The review process for this permit includes an evaluation of the
proposed plans to ensure compliance with the Randleman Buffer Rules, and approval of the
proposed stormwater control measures, including the detention of the first inch rainfall for
sites with up to 70% impervious surfaces. The city also issues a Watershed Protection Permit
and a Zoning Permit if required for any land use changes. All permits from the City of
Archdale will be obtained prior to the commencement of construction on the site.
4.5 Floodplain Development Permit
A Floodplain Development Permit is required from Guilford County for the placement of fill
within the 100-year regulated floodplain. Fill within the FEMA-regulated floodway of a
stream may also require a state review to determine consistency with FEMA regulations, and
the issuance of a Letter of Map Amendment (COMA) or Letter of Map Revision based on fill
(LOMR-F).
5.0 Alternatives [33 CFR 320.4(b)(4), 40 CFR 230.10]:
The purpose of the proposed development is the construction of a mixed-use facility to serve the
Archdale area. As part of the development process, numerous on-site and off-site alternatives were
evaluated. Based on the factors considered below, the applicant has demonstrated there are no off-
site alternatives that would allow Archdale Partners to avoid impacts to waters of the U.S., and the
least damaging practicable alternative has been selected. The applicant has also demonstrated that
alternative on-site plans were considered, along with the environmental consequences of each plan,
and that the proposed alternative represents the minimum amount of impact to aquatic resources
while still meeting the project purpose.
5.1 Avoidance (No action, uplands, and availability of other sites):
As stated in the project purpose, the service area for the proposed development is the City of
Archdale, NC and the immediately adjacent areas, including both Randolph and Guilford
counties. The selection of the Archdale area for the proposed project is due in part by the
type of development proposed, but also by the specific retailers associated with the
development, Wal-Mart and Lowe's. In this case, the project applicant, Archdale Partners, is
working exclusively with these retailers, who are trying to establish a presence in the
Archdale area. Accordingly, the geographic search area for the review of project alternatives
i s ^ ^ If~nley~liom
~ and Assoaates, Inc.

includes the Archdale city limits as well as unincorporated portions of Randolph and
Guilford Counties in the immediate vicinity of the city. The following criteria were used in
the evaluation of potential sites:
Parcel Size - In order to have a viable commercial development, the project site must be
large enough to support two anchor stores, a Wal-Mart Super Center with approximately
149,000 square feet of floor space, and a Lowe's Home Improvement Store with
approximately 140,000 square feet of floor space, along with the required transportation,
parking, utilities, and stormwater facilities. Additionally, to make these types of
commercial ventures financially viable, the project must also support outlots or other
amenities. This is in order to attract consumer traffic, but also because a substantial
portion of the revenue generated by the project results from the sale or lease of outlots.
Ideally, the project should include gas stations, convenience stores, restaurants, or other
amenities that attract highway traffic. This is particularly important for the proposed
project, where a portion of the site patronage would come from the adjacent highway.
For this project, a minimum of 80 acres is required, including 20 to 25 acres for each
anchor store (with parking), and an additiona130 to 40 acres for outlots, access roads,
stormwater ponds, and utilities. Additional acreage allows for the inclusion of other uses,
but is not required.
• Transportation Access -Potential sites must also have convenient transportation access
to the highway corridor and to the local population base. Highway frontage is beneficial
for the development, but the distance on surface roads from the interstate to potential
sites is a critical factor. Consideration must be given to how increased traffic will be
routed to the site, how it will affect the local community, whether the roadways between
the site and the highway system need to be improved (possibly resulting in additional
impacts to streams and wetlands), and if the distance is long enough to discourage
highway traffic from using the site. The Archdale area has two highway interchanges,
exits 111 and 113. The distances to the nearest interstate exits to the north and south of
these exits are 5 miles and 3 miles, respectively. In both cases, the surrounding land is
too rural to support a major retail development. As a result, the property search focused
on sites in close proximity to these exits.
Zoning -Proper zoning is also a necessity for potential sites. The City of Archdale may
be willing to change zoning on some parcels if necessary; however, the proposed use
must still be consistent with the surrounding properties. For example, the city is not
likely to approve a zoning change for a large retail facility in the middle of a residential
area. More importantly, the selected site must be consistent with the city's vision of
future growth. A map that reflects Archdale's future land use plan is attached in
Appendix A.
Access to Utility Services -Access to utilities, particularly water and sewer, is a major
constraint for commercial development on the scale of the proposed project. The City of
Archdale has agreed to provide a connection to their water and sewer system, but the
extent of service is limited. Selection of a project site outside of this area would require
the construction of additional lines, substantially increasing the cost of development and
increasing the potential for additional impacts to streams and wetlands. This is
' 6 ©~ ^ ~ Associates, inc.

particularly true due to the frequency of wetland seeps in the project area, and the
likelihood that additional gravity sewer construction would affect these resources.
• Environmental Constraints -The presence of certain environmental conditions must also
be considered in the site selection process. Wetlands, streams, buffers, protected species,
historical resources, pollution sites, and other site-specific concerns can substantially
affect the usefulness of potential sites.
Availability -Provided that potential development properties meet the aforementioned
criteria, the last obstacle to selection of a site would be whether the property is available.
This is obviously a major impediment to site selection; particularly when the site is an
assemblage of smaller tracts. For the proposed project, potential development sites were
first identified by looking for tracts of suitable size. Smaller tracts that could be
assembled to create a larger tract were included, though this increases the difficulty of the
search due to the effort associated with reaching agreements with numerous individual
landowners, and the chances that one of the owners would choose not to sell. As a result,
the search generally focused on properties that were 25 acres or larger, with the
possibility of including smaller tracts only if they complimented a larger assemblage. A
map entitled Potential Development, which shows the sites that meet this criteria in the
Archdale area, is included in Appendix A.
Potential development sites, including the preferred (proposed) alternative, are discussed
below. The discussion includes an analysis of how well each site meets designated selection
criteria discussed above. An evaluation of potential environmental impacts is also presented
for each alternative (other than the preferred alternative); however, it was not possible to
conduct an on-site review to determine the exact environmental limitations of each site due to
cost, site access, and logistical reasons.
5.1.1 No Action/Upland-Only Alternative
Archdale Partners has considered the no action (i.e. no permit required) alternative,
which would result in the preservation of approximately 1.58 acres of wetland, 0.54
acres of open water/pond, and 305 linear feet of stream channel. While this would be
the least damaging alternative, it is not practicable, and does not support the project
purpose and need. Due to the type of development proposed, sites must support
substantial grading activities required to prepare building footprints, transportation
corridors, parking areas, and utilities. It is preferable to plan the development so that
the retail sites are located near each other. This reduces the number of roads and
parking lots that must be constructed, and provides for more convenient shopping.
Separating the anchors from one another or from the outlots would also lead to a
reduction in the value of the outlots, which is tied to their proximity to the anchor
stores. As a result, the proposed development requires the disturbance of a large,
contiguous area, measuring 50 or more acres in size.
With regard to upland-only alternatives on other sites, the requirement for a large,
graded platform would likely conflict with environmental constraints. Archdale is
located in the central piedmont portion of the state, which typically has dissected
~~ ~~ ^ ~ Assam' tes, Inc.

landscapes with numerous stream systems. Local soils also tend to form numerous
wetland seeps. As a result, it is unlikely that most sites, including the alternatives
identified during the site search, would support a large development without any
impacts to streams or wetlands. On the proposed site, the no action alternative would
require the extensive use of retaining walls to limit the extent of fill and the
construction of bridges to access several portions of the site. This alternative would
also require breaking the retail center into several separate parts and spreading them
across the site. While it may be technically possible to construct the proposed
development without direct impacts to the jurisdictional areas, to do so would
substantially increase the cost of the project, reduce the public and private benefit,
limit economic return, and fail to meet the stated purpose of the project.
5.1.2 Off-Site Alternatives
The alternatives search identified several parcels or groups of parcels within the
Archdale project area that met the acreage requirement. A map, entitled Potential
Development, which depicts undeveloped parcels within the Archdale city limits that
are greater than 25 acres in size is attached as Appendix A. Nine parcels were
determined to be large enough to support the proposed development by themselves.
All but three of those properties, which are discussed later, were located more than
two miles by surface roads from the nearest interstate exits, too far to be considered
as viable candidates. Additionally, this search did not identify any assemblages of
smaller parcels that would be potential alternatives. Several parcels located south of
the proposed project, shown on the map as parcels 18, 28, 33, and 35 could be
combined to create the required acreage, though any combination would not meet
several of the site selection criteria. The properties lack good highway access and
frontage, they would require substantial surface road improvements and rezoning
from residential to business, and the narrow configuration of the properties would not
fit the building pads.
Parcels located just outside the city limits were also considered in the alternatives
analysis. Several large properties are located east of the proposed project site
adjacent to NC Highway 62, but they lack water and sewer service, which terminate
just beyond the intersection of Weant Road and NC 62. These properties also lack
the required zoning and have limited interstate access. The three remaining sites,
identified as numbers 1, 9, and 4, are discussed below:
Parcel Numberl-This 273-acre parcel is located south of NC 62, east of Trinity
Road, and west of Archdale Road. It is bisected by English Farm Road. The site
is separated from Interstate 85 by a smaller wooded tract. The site is within the
City of Archdale, and if both the main parcel and the smaller wooded tract to the
south could be obtained, the site would have interstate frontage; however, neither
Trinity Road nor Archdale Road have exits where they intersect with the
interstate. The nearest access is exit 111, which would require routing traffic for
more than a mile through a residential area. It is also likely that development of
the site would result in environmental impacts equal to the proposed site. There is
a pond and a sizable stream network, including the main branch of Muddy Creek
on the site. Based on frequency of wetland seeps found on the proposed site, it is
18 ~~^ BndAtes,If1C.

also likely that there are numerous wetland areas that would be disturbed by a
large development.
Parcel Number 9 -This site is an 81-acre parcel located south of the proposed
project site. The land is currently in pasture, and there is a pond and several
stream channels that cross much of the site, though the streams are likely to be in
poor condition because of past use of the land. Although the site is fairly close to
the exit 111 via Weant Road, traffic access to the property would be through a
residential area. Utility access to the site is not a constraint, but the land use
planning for the tract is for traditional neighborhood development, not
commercial use. In summary, development of the site would result in impacts to
degraded stream channels, the site is relatively small, and its location severely
limits the development potential for the type of project proposed.
Parcel Number 4 -This site is currently made up of agricultural fields and forest
cover, and is located on the north side of NC 62, several hundred feet west of
Interstate 85. The site could potentially be combined with Parcel 21 on the south
side of NC 62 to provide a total of 180 acres. Together these parcels would meet
the acreage requirements and provide excellent frontage and access to the
interstate. With the exception of the back of parcel 4, the land use plan for the
property is for commercial development, and utility services could be provided by
the city. Because of the potential of these tracts, the owners were contacted.
They stated that they are not willing to sell the land, but did agree to give the
applicant the first right of refusal. Even if the land were available, it is likely the
proposed development would require impacts to streams and wetland comparable
with the impacts on the proposed site. The parcels contain two ponds and several
stream channels. Also these parcels are in close proximity to the proposed site,
and have similar soil and landscape conditions. As a result, there is a high
probability that the wooded portions of the site contain numerous wetland areas, a
possibility supported by the fact that these areas have not been cleared for
agricultural use.
5.1.3 Preferred (Proposed) Alternative
The preferred alternative is the proposed alternative. The site is an assemblage of
tracts, though the bulk of the proposed development was obtained from two large
parcels under a single ownership. Several smaller tracts have been incorporated into
the plan, including a number located along Weant Road. A small residential
subdivision located adjacent to the northeast corner of the site was also considered for
inclusion, but the cost to assemble all of the homes became prohibitive. The
assemblage totals 156 acres, which is more than sufficient size to meet the minimum
requirements of the development. The large site allowed for the addition of a ~27-
acre light industrial complex, a 5-acre office park, and two multi-family residential
sections. With the exception of a minor impact to less than 1/10 acre of wetland,
these non-commercial additions have avoided all impacts to streams and wetlands.
The remaining impacts are all a result of the construction of the commercial center
and the proposed east-west access road. The large size of the property also enabled
~bm
~ 9 ~ Assoaates, Inc.

the site design to avoid perennial stream channels, with the exception of the one
stream crossing required for the access road. As a result, approximately 30 acres of
riparian buffer and 4,095 linear feet of stream channel would be avoided.
The preferred alternative has an ideal location with respect to the interstate. The site
has approximately 4,000 feet of frontage along Interstate 85, providing excellent
visual access between the site and highway traffic. The site is also located within
1,000 feet of the Exit 113 Interchange, which would provide excellent access to the
site with limited road improvements and minimal disturbance to the local community.
The proposed site is categorized as retail to light industrial in the city's land use plan,
and the city has targeted this site as an area for light industrial and commercial
growth. The City of Archdale has also installed sewer and water adjacent to the
property, so that only minimal construction would be necessary to obtain required
utility access. Finally, the owners of the individual parcels within the assemblage
were willing to sell. The proposed site, therefore, meets all of the selection criteria,
and the proposed environmental impacts associated with the development are
comparable with the alternative sites.
5.2 Minimization (modified project designs, etc.)
The applicant has made an effort to avoid and minimize impacts to streams and wetlands on
the project site while still allowing the development to remain financially feasible. As
mentioned above, the proposed development has several components, but the basic project
involves the development of a retail facility, including the construction of two anchor stores
and several outlots. The outlots are necessary to provide the economic return to the
applicant, and to provide the services necessary to create a fully functional retail shopping
center. The addition ofnon-retail components, including residential, office, light industrial,
etc., is necessary because of the size of the proposed site -the additional land cost means that
these components are necessary to the financial feasibility of the project. Additionally, the
City of Archdale has specifically targeted the proposed site as an area to expand light
industrial land use. As a result, the on-site alternatives must include these components. In an
effort to avoid impacts to streams, riparian buffers, and wetlands, the non-retail portions of
the development have been contained almost entirely on high-ground portions of the project
site. The only impacts to waters of the U.S. from these activities would include filling 0.09
acres of wetland for the light industrial complex parking, as depicted on Figure 8.
5.2.1 On-Site Alternatives
The majority of the proposed impact to streams and wetlands would result from
construction of the retail portion of the project (i.e., the Wal-Mart, the Lowe's, and
the outlots). Due to the requirements of the anchor stores, it is not possible to relocate
them in such a way that the impact to wetlands is further minimized. As previously
discussed, the anchor stores would require extensive grading to prepare a pad for the
building and parking. On the proposed site, it is not practical to grade around the
wetland areas. For example, the proposed fill for outlot # 8 is approximately 17 to 20
feet deep, and in order to eliminate impacts to these wetlands, the final grade would
cut back into the surrounding roads and parking areas approximately 40 feet on all
sides, even at a 2:1 slope. This alteration would an unacceptable loss of parking and
20 ~ ~ ^ Associates, Ire.

commercial space on the site, and the cost of using retaining walls to minimize these
slopes would make the project financially impracticable.
The design of the parking lots is another consideration. In order for the parking areas
to be safe and functional, they need to be relatively flat and located as close as
possible to the stores. The buildings should have truck access around the sides and
back of the stores to separate freight trucks from parking traffic. It is also preferable
to keep the outlots in the same area as the anchors because it creates a more
functional shopping experience. Even if the outlots were relocated to other portions
of the site, the grading necessary for the anchors and their associated parking would
likely affect the same amount of wetlands. Because of these factors, it is not
practicable to consider relocating the anchor stores on the site.
The amount of grading is also a limiting factor in the location of the proposed light
industrial complex. The possibility of moving the buildings closer to Interstate 85
was considered, but this option is not practicable due to the extent of earthmoving
that would be necessary to construct a pad for the building and parking.
Alternatively, if the buildings were built on an elevated platform to reduce the
earthwork, the entrance drive to the access road bisecting the site would be too steep.
Another consideration in the arrangement of the site is the location of the roads,
utilities and stormwater. The location of the road through the site was set in an effort
to maximize the use of high ground while avoiding impacts to the streams and buffers
bisecting the site. Stormwater ponds and utility corridors were also located to avoid
impacts to streams, buffers, and wetlands. Because of the size and limited
configurations of this portion of the development, there are no other practicable site
layouts that would result in reduced impacts to streams and wetlands. The following
alternatives were considered in the original site design process:
• The site layout in Appendix A entitled P-9, dated March 6, 2006, proposed to take
the main road across the site and curve it to the north rather than utilize Weant
Road as the primary access into the site. This layout represents an entirely retail
use of the site, eliminating the light industrial use, and residential areas in lieu of
several smaller retail spaces and 18 outlots. In addition to the impacts associated
with the proposed layout, this layout would impact the wetland and stream system
to the east of Weant Road, and the linear wetland northwest of the pond. The
additional impact would have been approximately 0.45 acres of wetland and 795
linear feet of stream channel.
• The alternative site design entitled P-1 in Appendix A, dated March 22, 2006, is
another layout that is strictly retail. This option moves the main access road
slightly to the west, but would still result in substantially increase impacts over
the proposed layout.
The layout in Appendix A entitled CS-3, dated Apri14, 2006, is closer to the
proposed site plan, as it uses Weant Road as a primary access into the site. The
plan includes 15 outlots, additional retail space, and a residential area. This
alternative also avoids most of the impacts to the wetland and stream system to
the east of Weant Road, but compared to the proposed alternative, it would result
21 ^~^ arAs gates, Inc.

in additional impacts to two additional wetland areas totaling 0.24 acres, and a
second stream crossing measuring approximately100 feet in length.
• The alternative design in Appendix A entitled Site Review Concept Plan, dated
September 15, 2006, is closer to the proposed plan, however it includes three
additional stream crossings and two additional outlots adjacent to the interstate
that would require wetland impacts. This plan would result in several hundred
additional feet of stream impact and another 0.15 acre of wetland impact.
5.2.2 On-Site Minimization of Unavoidable Impacts
In addition to modifying the general layout of the site, the applicant has also
implemented the following measures to minimize the unavoidable impacts.
The initial site proposal included several additional outlots, including one located
immediately south of the Lowe's along Weant Road, but the applicant agreed to
eliminate this impact, thereby avoiding 0.37 acres of wetland impact. Unlike the
outlots along the proposed east-west access road, elimination of this outlot did not
cause substantial and unacceptable changes to the parking field. A small wetland
impact (0.01 acres) is still required in this area as a result of the fill slope for the
Lowe's building pad.
• Parking spaces occupy a substantial percentage of the useable space on the site.
In designing the parking, the applicant used the minimum number of spaces per
the City of Archdale standards. The cost of providing deck parking as a measure
to reduce their associated impact would be prohibitively expensive.
• The road crossing of the perennial stream channel was designed with 2:1 fill
slopes and wing walls to limit the extent of impact to the stream. Additionally,
other graded slopes on the site would be designed at a 2:1 slope wherever possible
to reduce the reach of fill.
• The layout of the site minimizes the impact to the Randleman stream buffers,
which would be crossed in only four locations, including three road crossings and
a utility line crossing located off-site. In all cases, the crossings are required to
access high ground.
• The site was designed to reduce impacts to wetlands as much as possible. While
construction of the building pad for the retail area would result in the unavoidable
loss of 1.49 acres of wetland, the riparian wetlands north of the pond and the
headwater wetland upstream of the residential area have been avoided.
• Stormwater management would be provided with the construction of five
stormwater ponds, each serving a separate section of the development. The ponds
would all be built on high ground, outside of the Randleman buffer.
• The access road into the residential area was relocated to cross within a break in
the stream system. This modification eliminated impacts to the stream system
and reduced the impact to the Randleman buffer.
• The overall site plan includes the preservation of approximately 30 acres of
common area. This includes most of the streams and stream buffers on the site.
zz © ~ IC~ley~iom
~ and Assoaates, Inc.

• The main road across the site was designed to cross the pond in order to limit
impacts to streams and wetlands. Additionally, the pond would be drained to
allow construction of the road, but would be refilled following construction to
preserve the open water habitat.
• The utility corridor for the sewer line crossing south of the site would be kept to
the minimum necessary width. At this point in the design, it is not known if the
substrate would allow for boring, so standard open-cut methods have been
proposed; however, if possible the crossing would be bored to eliminate impacts.
5.3 Conclusions of Alternatives Analysis
The applicant has provided information regarding the site selection process, and has
reviewed several sites in the project search area. This analysis demonstrates that there are no
off-site alternatives that would meet the project purpose and need and result in reduced
impacts to waters of the U.S. The applicant has also addressed on-site alternatives, including
a discussion of the limitations to the site design process, such as grading, topography, traffic
flow, etc. The evaluation has also address alternate site configurations and efforts made by
the applicant to minimize impacts to streams and wetlands, and to attempt to locate
unavoidable impacts in areas that support the least aquatic function. After reviewing the
alternatives and the efforts made to avoid and minimize impacts to the aquatic environment,
we believe that the proposed plan represents the least damaging practicable alternative.
6.0 Evaluation of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines:
6.1 Factual determinations
6.1.1 Physical substrate
The site is currently used for agricultural purposes, with forested buffers located
along the streams. The current condition of the streams is somewhat degraded as a
result of past agricultural use of the site. Runoff from the fields has led to some
down-cutting of the streams and loss of in-stream habitat. The stream substrate has
also been impacted by sediment carried in the agricultural runoff. Approximately 95
linear feet of stream channel would be placed into a concrete culvert for the
construction of a road crossing. In this area, the existing substrate within the channel
would be replaced by the culvert bottom. The culvert would be placed below the
streambed if possible, though, to allow upstream sediment to form a more natural
channel bed over time. 0.54 acres of pond bed would also be filled for the
construction of a road across the pond. In this area, the water would be drained
temporarily using pumps and/or the existing drainage structure, then the pond bed
would be excavated to remove unsuitable substrate prior to placing the roadbed fill.
This would be done to ensure that the road would not be compromised by slumpage
or movement of the base fill. The fill would then be revegetated and stabilized with
riprap along the base of the fill to prevent erosion. Additionally, 1.58 acres of
wetland would be filled, primarily for the construction of parking areas. In these
areas, unsuitable substrates would be excavated prior to the placement of clean fill
capable of providing suitable compaction for the parking lot and roads. In all areas
23 ~~~ afK18S, IfIC.

where fill would be placed, the existing elevation would be increased. Although
turbidity rates in the stream below the worksite may temporarily increase during
construction activities, sedimentation and erosion control measures that would be
utilized should limit the displacement of sediment downstream.
6.1.2 Water circulation, fluctuation, and salinity
The proposed project should have no appreciable effect on current, circulation, or
drainage pattern. The drainage pattern of the streams on site has already been
somewhat altered because of the construction of a 2.47-acre pond on the main stream
flowing down the center of the site. Stormwater flowing from the cleared fields has
also led to changes in the dimension and profile of the stream, causing some down-
cutting of the channel. Construction of the roadway across the pond would use
culverts sized to allow the lake levels to remain equalized on both sides of the road.
The watershed where all of the direct impacts are proposed is mostly contained on the
site, so that potential off-site flooding upstream of the filled areas should not be a
concern. The wetland impact is not substantial. The loss of floodwater retention
capacity of the wetlands would be offset by the installation of stormwater detention
basins, such that that the project would not result in a measurable decrease in overall
floodwater retention. In general, the discharge of stormwater from the site would be
regulated to prevent large spikes in volume following most rainfall events. Large
storms that produce in excess of one inch of rain may exceed the storage capacity of
the basins and result in increased flows downstream of the site. Water chemistry may
also be changed somewhat from existing levels. Some increase in pollutant levels
may occur as a result of winter road treatments, leaking automobiles, fertilizers, etc.
Additionally, the increase in impermeable surfaces may result in increase
temperatures in stormwater runoff.
6.1.3 Suspended particulate/turbidity
The existing agricultural fields have led to the transport of excessive sediment into
the riparian areas and stream channels on the site. Stormwater has also caused some
stream bank instability, which resulted in additional sediment load in the stream. As
a result of the project, downstream turbidities would increase temporarily during
construction; however, this would be a short-term impact. The majority of turbidity
increases would likely result from the clearing and construction of upland areas.
Sediment loss would be minimized by the implementation of required sediment and
erosion control measures. Once construction of the site is complete, the soils would
be stabilized and stormwater runoff would be directed to detention basins.
Accordingly, the effects of turbidity resulting from the proposed undertaking are
expected to be temporary and minor.
6.1.4 Contaminant availability
Historically, the site has supported agricultural uses, which included the application
of numerous herbicides and pesticides, as documented by a current owner. Following
construction of the project, the use of these contaminants would be discontinued.
Proposed uses for the site would result in the potential discharge of some pollutants,
including road treatment for winter weather, oil products from automobile engines,
~ ~ ICuNey-Hom
24 ~ ~ ~.

and some fertilizers for landscaping. In general, the level of potential contaminant
introduction to the aquatic systems is low. Contaminants would leave the site in the
initial inch of rainfall, where they would wash to the stormwater detention basins.
Additionally, only suitable earthen material originating on-site, which should be free
of toxic pollutants or contaminants, would be used for construction of the permitted
fills.
6.1.5 Aquatic ecosystem effects
The direct effects due to the placement of fill associated with the project would be a
total loss to the impacted aquatic ecosystem and its functions. The non-riparian
wetland areas would be filled and would no longer provide nutrient filtration,
sediment removal, or stormwater storage, and any aquatic habitat, present within the
wetland area would be lost. The secondary short-term effects expected downstream
would primarily be limited to temporary discharges of sediment during construction.
Even with proper construction and maintenance, sediment control measures do not
eliminate all turbidity in receiving waters, though these effects should be limited to
the duration of site construction and maintenance of required sediment and erosion
control measures.
6.1.6 Proposed disposal site
No disposal sites are required by the proposed plans.
6.1.7 Cumulative effects
For the purposes of assessing cumulative effects that the proposed action may have to
the aquatic environment, it is reasonable to evaluate the effects within the project
boundaries and downstream of the project as it could effect the watershed. The direct
impact of the undertaking includes the loss of 305 linear feet of stream channel,
including 125 linear feet of stream determined to have important aquatic function, as
well as 1.58 acres of wetland. The impacts to these resources would result in a
complete loss of function, including water quality functions (nutrient sequestration,
sediment filtration, etc.), habitat for aquatic and terrestrial species, and hydrology
(flood water attenuation, groundwater recharge, etc.).
The site is located in an area that is still relatively rural, with a mix of low density
residential and agricultural land uses. The proposed project would be the first large-
scale commercial development in the area. The site is located in the headwaters of
the Muddy Creek watershed, which drains an area that includes much of downtown
Archdale, but is predominately rural and agricultural. Current stresses on Muddy
Creek come from high sediment loads and nutrient inputs that come from the constant
tilling of soils, the addition of pesticides and fertilizers, and livestock access to
riparian buffers and the streams themselves. The potential cumulative effects on the
aquatic environment generated by the project would be both temporary and
permanent. The temporary effects would primarily be limited to the increased
sediment load that result from site disturbance. High sediment loads can cause
changes to the channels capacity, potential destabilization of the stream banks, and
loss of aquatic habitat. The potential for sediment discharges would last for the
duration of site construction, though the effects of the sediment may be long lasting.
zs ~~~ ~Assa~aates,irx.

This effect can be moderated by the proper installation and maintenance of erosion
control measures.
The long-term cumulative effects would include the incremental loss of aquatic
function provided by the streams and wetlands on the site, including in-stream and
riparian habitat, sediment and nutrient filtration, stormwater retention, baseflow
maintenance, groundwater recharge, sediment transport, etc. The long-term effects
would also include increases in stormwater flowing off the site. Increased stormwater
can have a substantial effect on a stream system's stability and functional integrity for
miles downstream of a discharge. This effect can also manifest itself over many
years, and is often caused by numerous small changes within a watershed. The
proposed development plan includes the construction of 5 stormwater detention
basins, designed to capture the first inch of every rainfall event within the
contributing basin. These measures can substantially reduce the effect of stormwater
on downstream tributaries. As the watershed is still largely rural, the cumulative
effect of the proposed project and other similar projects is still minimal. Proper
implementation of sediment and erosion control measures and stormwater
management practices, as proposed by the current plans, is the best way to minimize
the cumulative impact of this type of development.
Overall, the anticipated effects of the proposed project would be minimal relative to
similar types of projects in the region, and taken alone, do not present a significant or
imminent threat to the stability and integrity of the aquatic ecosystem within the
watershed. The type of wetland and stream system that would be impacted is not a
particularly unique or high quality resource. By implementing proposed best
management practices, such as the retention of stormwater and the implementation of
sediment and erosion control measures, the effects of the project could be somewhat
reduced. The loss of stream and wetland function would also be replaced by the
proposed mitigation.
Finally, the City of Archdale has also committed to NPDES Phase 2 stormwater
requirements and to the continued enforcement of the Randleman Lake watershed
protection measures. This would aid in the protection of the aquatic environment
from the negative effects of future development projects. A letter from the City of
Archdale that restates their commitment to these measures is included in Appendix B.
Based on all of the available information, the proposed impacts would not contribute
more than minimally to the cumulative impact on aquatic resources in the region
when considered with the incremental changes of similar projects.
6.1.8 Secondary effects
The proposed project is designed to serve the existing community, supplemented by
commercial traffic from Interstate 85. The project is expected to provide an
economic boost to the local community, primarily as a result of tax revenues and job
creation. However, based on the type and number of businesses and jobs created, the
economic benefit is expected to go toward meeting current job demand rather than
driving a substantial increase in regional population growth.
Construction of the proposed project would not require the extension of utilities or
major transportation corridors. The City of Archdale has previously extended water
26 ~~~ ~~~IIC.

and sewer services to the site. Additionally, construction of Interstate 85 by the state
set the stage for development along the highway corridor. When considering these
factors, it is evident that the proposed undertaking is best defined as the secondary
impact associated with the construction of infrastructure, rather than the impetus for
future development. It is likely that adjacent land parcels that are currently farmed or
wooded may become available for development as a result of increased land values,
and because of the increased demand for commercial sites that traditionally follows
the development of a large commercial retail center. It is also possible that additional
impacts to the aquatic environment may be requested for future developments in the
area, most likely as a result of the extension of utilities (i.e., water and sewer
services), and because of construction of new roads. These effects may not be
realized in the near future, because the proposed development has several high
ground parcels nearby, however in the longer term, additional impacts to streams and
wetlands may result from future development.
If this project were not constructed, the reduction in rate of regional development
would only be short-term. The project is located next to the interstate corridor,
making it prime real estate for commercial development. The demand for new
commercial space is increasing in the vicinity of the project site in response to
encroaching suburban sprawl from the High Point area to the north. The Archdale
area has only two highway interchanges to serve the bulk of the community. As a
result, commercial development is focused in these areas. The city has also zoned
these areas specifically to encourage commercial to light industrial development. If
the current undertaking were abandoned, future development proposals would soon
follow.
Based on the factors discussed above, the cumulative effect of the proposed
undertaking does not pose a significant threat the integrity of the aquatic
environment. Additionally, the secondary impacts resulting from the proposed plans
are primarily limited to increased development pressure on neighboring, undeveloped
tracts of land. Based on this estimate, the overall secondary effects on aquatic
resources associated with this project are not more than minimal.
7.0 Public Interest Review
7.1 Public Interest Factors
7.1.1 Conservation
The proposed development does not include the permanent conservation of any
stream or wetland areas on site; however, stream corridors within the project area are
subject to the Randleman Stream Buffers, which extend 100 feet from perennial
streams and 50 feet from intermittent streams. Impacts to the Randleman Buffer have
been limited to three crossings. Additionally, the development plan calls for the
creation of approximately 30 acres of common area, which would include a
substantial portion of the riparian area located on the site. The mitigation payment to
the NCEEP would also be used to restore and preserve stream corridors and wetland
areas elsewhere in the Cape Fear River Basin.
27
^ ~ ^ ~ Asso~dates, Inc.

7.1.2 Economics
The applicant would be the primary beneficiary of the sale of commercial outlots and
lease of retail properties on the site. The project would help meet regional demand
for commercial space (retail, office), light industrial, and multi-family residential
space. It would also provide an overall benefit to the local economy, and would
result in increases in local, state, and federal tax revenues. The development would
also result temporary job opportunities during construction of the facility, and
permanent employment as the businesses hire management and sales staff. The
anticipated cumulative and secondary effects resulting from the proposed
development have been considered in this document and it is not expected that the
project would lead to lead to additional growth-induced impacts.
7.1.3 Aesthetics
The project would be the first major commercial development at the intersection of
N.C. Highway 62 and Interstate 85. The project would generate additional noise and
light relative to the residential and agricultural uses that are currently located in the
vicinity. The City of Archdale has zoned the land adjacent to the two freeway
interchanges that access the downtown area (Exit 111 and Exit 113) for highway
business to light industrial use. As suburban sprawl from High Point encroaches on
the northern side of Archdale, development pressure has been growing, and additional
commercial construction along the I-85 corridor is expected to continue. As a result,
commercial development would not cause disharmony in the aesthetics of the
community or planned future growth of the region.
7.1.4 General environmental concerns (33CFR320.4(p))
The overall impact to the environment as a result of the construction would be
minimal. Temporary increases in sediment, construction noise, traffic levels, etc.,
would be expected during construction of the project. Long-term impacts to
wetlands, streams, and fish and wildlife would primarily result from the loss of
existing aquatic and terrestrial habitat and by changes to the watershed, though these
effects would be somewhat offset by functions provided by stormwater facilities and
by the mitigation offered by the applicant. The proposed plan also avoids impacts to
the majority of the streams and riparian zones located on the site. Consideration was
also given to the environmental justice of the proposed project. Stormwater
generated by the increases in impervious surfaces would be retained on-site,
preventing potential negative impacts to persons living or owning land with the
floodplain downstream of the project. Additionally, the surrounding region is not
occupied any particular minority or ethnic group, so the proposed activity should not
lead to environmental justice concerns.
7.1.5 Wetlands (33CFR320.4(b))
There are a total of 3.06 acres of wetlands on the project site, which have been
delineated and verified. The project would result in the loss of 1.58 acres of
headwater wetland that currently provide some nutrient filtering, sediment removal,
and aquatic habitat. The special aquatic sites that would be disturbed are non-riparian
forested and scrub-shrub wetlands that are not high quality or unique. The functions
is ^~^ ~Ates,Inc.

provided by these areas has also been compromised by on-going agricultural use of
the surrounding fields. The applicant would mitigate for unavoidable impacts to
wetlands by payment into the NCEEP program. Some of the lost wetlands functions,
such as the nutrient and sediment filtering capabilities, would also be replaced by
construction of the on-site treatment facilities.
7.1.6 Historic and cultural resources (33CFR320.4(e))
There are no known or suspected historic or cultural resources located within the
permit area, and no impact to any of these resources would result from the project.
The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) was contacted and verified that no registered properties, or properties
listed as being eligible for inclusion therein are located within the project area or
would be affected by the proposed work. See Appendix B for correspondence from
the SHPO.
7.1.7 Fish and wildlife values (33CFR320.4(c))
The project would not be expected to result in more than minimal permanent adverse
effects to fish or wildlife values. During construction, it is likely that many aquatic
and terrestrial animals would be lost, along with their habitat. The type of habitat on
the site includes open water, forested wetland and upland areas, in-stream and
riparian habitat, and agricultural fields. The proposed plans have only minimal
impacts to the riparian systems, and as a result also avoid impacts to forested areas on
the site in favor of high ground and cleared fields. The US Fish and Wildlife Service
was contacted and has concurred that there are no occurrences of federally listed
species or species of concern in the vicinity of the project site, and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service did not object to issuance of the permit. See Appendix B for
correspondence from the USFWS.
7.1.8 Flood hazards
The project would not be expected to have an impact on the overall hazard of
flooding downstream of the project site. The development would result in increases
to impervious surface within the watershed, but this increase would be offset by the
retention of stormwater originating on-site in five stormwater ponds. Additionally,
the project is located at the upper end of the watershed, so there is minimal risk of
causing flooding upstream of the proposed fill sites.
7.1.9 Floodplain values (33CFR320.4(I))
Pursuant to Executive Order 11988, consideration has been given to the effect of the
proposed project toward reducing the risk of flood loss, minimizing the impact of
floods on human safety, health and welfare, and restoring and preserving the natural
and beneficial values served by floodplains. Portions of the site are located with the
100-year floodplain. A small portion of the floodplain would be filled to allow for
development of the site. Additionally the project would result in the conversion of a
substantial portion of the site to impervious surface. Stormwater generated by the
project would be directed to five detention basins, to be constructed in compliance
with state guidelines for stormwater management. The stormwater basins would be
29 ~~© motes, Inc.

constructed outside of the floodplain. The development plan would also result in the
creation of approximately 30 acres of common area, including the majority of the
floodplain on the site, which would be protected from future development.
Accordingly, the project should not result in measurable impacts to the functions or
value of these areas. See Appendix F for a map of the FEMA-designated floodplain.
7.1.10 Land use
As proposed, the commercial center would result in the conversion of agricultural
land to a mixed-use commercial and residential development. While this is a major
shift in land use, the project would remain consistent with local zoning requirements
and the city's long range planning goals. Additionally, the project is located
immediately adjacent to the interstate corridor where commercial development is
generally anticipated to occur.
7.1.11 Navigation (33CFR320.4(0))
The project is located on anon-navigable waterway. Accordingly, consideration of
the project's effect on navigation is not applicable.
7.1.12 Shore erosion and accretion
There is a pond located on the project site, however the size of the pond is too small
for winds to form erosive wave action. Accordingly, shore erosion and/or accretion is
not expected to occur.
7.1.13 Recreation
The project is intended to provide retail shopping opportunities for the surrounding
community, which maybe considered to be a recreational activity. Otherwise, the
project is not expected to effect regional recreational opportunities.
7.1.14 Water supply (33CFR320.4(m))
The development would draw from local water supply sources, but it is not expected
to add more than minimal demand to the local water supply system. Water and sewer
services have already been provided to the site, so no additional impact from
construction of these utilities is anticipated. Due to the relatively small size of the
project, there should be no appreciable effect to ground water recharge within the
region.
7.1.15 Water quality (also 33CFR320.4(d))
No major impacts to water quality are expected. Temporary increases in turbidity
during construction, loss of nutrient removal capacity of the filled wetlands, and some
discharge of pollutants and nutrients in the runoff could result. It is anticipated that
construction of the stormwater treatment facilities should offset long-term impacts by
removing sediments, nutrients, and other pollutants from treated stormwater, and by
attenuating peak flows downstream. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality is
required to review the proposed plans and provide a state 401 Water Quality
Certification prior to construction of the project.
^ ~ ~ ICanleydiom
30 ~ and ASSOCI~IBS, IIIC.

7.1.16 Energy needs (33CFR320.4(n))
The proposed project would add additional requirements to the local electrical grid.
The additional demand would peak during the summer, when air conditioner use is
greatest. Given the size of the project and type of services provided (i.e, no heavy
industrial sites), the additional load would be minimal relative to local demand.
7.1.17 Safety
The project has been designed in accordance with local traffic safety regulations, and
should not result in result in additional safety concerns. During construction of the
project, all applicable safety standards would be observed.
7.1.18 Food and fiber production
The project site was historically used for the production of agricultural goods, and
existing fields would be converted into anon-agricultural use. Relative to the amount
of agricultural land in the region, the effect of this conversion would be negligible.
7.1.19 Mineral needs
The project has not historically been used for the production of mineral products, so
consideration of mineral needs is not applicable.
7.1.20 Considerations of property ownership
Adjacent landowners may be affected as a result of the proximity of their property to
the project. It is possible that adjacent landowners may experience increased
commercial interest in their property, leading to higher value and resulting tax rate.
However, the use of the land would be consistent with the designated zoning, and the
owner's right to reasonable, private use of their land.
7.2 Need for Proposed Project
The applicant has established a need for the proposed impacts based upon necessity to utilize
available high ground on the site and the economic benefit that they would realize from the
project. The public would benefit from the project through the construction of residential
units, a local retail development, offering shopping, a home improvement center, mini-
storage, restaurants, employment opportunities, and resulting economic benefits.
Specifically, the local, state, and federal economy would benefit substantially from the
increased tax revenues that would be generated, and from the temporary and permanent jobs
that would be created. Furthermore, the applicant would be in a better position to meet
market demand for commercial and residential developments in the area.
7.3 Alternative Locations
See Section 5 for a discussion of alternatives.
7.4 Permanence of Effects
The project benefits to the applicant and public, including the construction and use of the
retail and residential spaces, employment opportunities, and economic benefits to the
applicant and public, are expected to last throughout the life of the development. The
31 ~~~ arxl Ate, InC.

detrimental effects of the project, including the effect of the project on the aquatic
environment (e.g., loss of habitat, water quality degradation, increased stormwater, etc.)
would generally be permanent. Impacts associated with construction of the project, which
may include construction noise, increases in downstream turbidity, and disruptions in traffic
patterns, should only last for the duration of site construction.
7.5 Threatened or Endangered Species
Examination of the list of federally protected species known to occur in Guilford and
Randolph counties indicates the potential presence of the three species listed as either
threatened or endangered occurring in the project vicinity. In Guilford County, the
threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is known to occur. In general, ideal habitat
for the bald eagle in piedmont North Carolina includes large, accessible nesting trees,
preferably conifers, in close proximity to large bodies of open water for foraging. This type
of habitat is not present on the project site, and no nest trees were observed during site
reconnaissance. In Randolph County, the Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas) and
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) are known to occur. Both species are listed
as endangered. The Cape Fear shiner is a fish species that occurs in medium size streams to
small rivers. Accordingly, habitat for the shiner is not present on the project site.
Schweinitz's sunflower is commonly found in sunny to semi-sunny habitats that have
recently been disturbed, including along roadsides, and in power line clearings, old pastures,
woodland openings. Examination of the site did not preclude the presence of suitable habitat
for the Schweinitz's sunflower. Following the initial examination of the site, the USFWS
was consulted and recommended that the site be surveyed for the potential presence of
Schweinitz's sunflower. A similar species of sunflower, identified as Maximillian sunflower
(H. maximilianii) was identified on the project site, however Schweinitz's sunflower was
determined not to be present. Confirmation of this determination was made during an on-site
investigation conducted by a representative of the USFWS on October 1 1, 2006 (Appendix
B). Based upon the above, there are no known occurrences of species listed as threatened or
endangered on the project site.
7.6 Corps Wetland Policy
The project would result in the loss of 1.58 acre of wetland and 305 linear feet of stream
channel (125 linear feet perennial stream and 1801inear feet of intermittent unimportant
channel), along with the functions that are provided by these waters of the U.S. It has been
demonstrated that the proposed plans represent the least damaging practicable alternative.
Much of the functional loss would be replaced with the proposed mitigation, which would
result in the of 2.69 acres ofnon-riparian wetlands (0.47 acre for 1:1 ratio of
emergent/scrub-shrub wetland impact, 2.22 acres for 2:1 ratio of forested wetland impact
within the Cape Fear River Basin - HUC 03030003). Avoidance and minimization measures
employed during project design reduced permanent stream impacts to less than 1501inear
feet; therefore, no stream mitigation is proposed. This functional replacement, when
considered in comparison to the type and extent of the proposed impacts, outweighs the
detrimental effects of the project.
^ ~ ~ IC~ley+bm
32 ~ ~,'~

7.7 Cumulative and Secondary Impacts
See Section 6.1.7 and 6.1.8 for a discussion of Cumulative and Secondary Impacts.
7.8 Essential Fisheries Habitat
The project is located in central piedmont portion of the state. Based on previous
coordination with the USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Essential Fish
Habitat (EFH) is located along coastal areas and major tributaries east of the project site.
Additionally, there are numerous dams across the streams and rivers downstream of the
project site that reduce the extent of the fish habitat. Accordingly, the proposed development
is anticipated to have no impact to designated EFH.
8.0 Conclusions
This document contains a review of possible off-site and on-site alternatives, measures taken to
avoid and minimize impacts to the aquatic environment, and mitigation sufficient to offset the
unavoidable loss of wetland and stream function that would occur as a result of the project.
Based upon the review contained in this document, we believe that the project as proposed
represents the least damaging practicable alternative pursuant to Clean Water Act regulations and
USACE wetlands policy.
33 ~~~ ~1C.

T _.; ~ t° ._..._~ ti t -

~ ~ ,' _. -
~` - -1 ~ ~ 4 • r ~ 1~~
(~ { ~
~-~ ~-~
~,~~ s~~"+ i t -~~ r ~ ~~,,•`'~l %~ ~ 1254
-Rd Bisbee-Dr
1351

~_ BranldY-Rd
ndra•Dr River-Rd-ns

Project Boundary R ..
~ , Q [`
~
, `~ ~ ~'
toss- d ~ 9G.
Kive~ pr ~ W O
/ U

-a cn~h / ~
l
~, ~ y t ~ T:, a v,~ !y
~ ~
~ Oac 1460 d ~ ~a~~R.

0~"^D
ro~ a~,' W`Se-pve o ~ m ~ T o
x \ ~ ~' ~ o
`
ak -Ave rns-Pve
y ,1~-\Ca
~ ea m sha~Ra
dd\ep
5 ~_°~'
e
l
e
~i`
~~
Eth
l.A
v
`~
McWay-Dr ~' / 7~/Co Ave
~uS ~f
odel-Farm-Rd-~ p aSde~P
G Y o E'SPr/in9field-Rd ~ a
~
~
a
I ~
~
d
O ~ ~
~ J7
Q
~
e
Linda-R
~ r ~~ m /G"a-inns~Ave-~~ 1Tulane Dr a~
Fraley-Rd o \ a
¢- C-Necker' d--~ ~ 4019
r
3 E elrnont
Q F
~.Q_ °-' m
~ ~ m c~ ya<yo 62
a' \e\ Pd ~ Art~hur7Ave ~ o ~ h`O,
pa~~ Feld-Avl 1"'-' ~+ a a
`I'I' Y Janice- ve m ~ m .o ? ~'
~ m
~
a
~
Swathmore-Ave m
R
IPh
D
_ m ~_ ', c D o m
c
lay9rownel-Rd ~atiord-Rd Y~ ~ a ~
E i ~ ~
Ede I TI ~ e e E
m I ~' ~ m`
EIIioM•St - 1 FLUnar-D i a ¢7~' pr o~/ ,~
N~ ¢ t bbShot~e ~~ ri
ood-t
A
~l
e
r~ n
~1
chtlale- I o`
ct 9 Clonita-St a an-R ~ ~ c ¢
m
S, J ~ p\~ ~ ~ a Huff-Rd o
Jay~Q N~ D le- t Y Project Boundary
0
1683 y a ~
.~ ~ a
~
gP~ ~
0 9 ° e a
t ~ ~' r-p m I Hillto Ir 1925
~ o ~ m...~y\too A ~ Wo`od-A/vLe~J ` P--
o o~Pa padre•Or ~-L
~' 3182 ra ~~ ~~
G E 0~
9a
3 pv v° •t ~~
~
I
` IOC Qa pon ~ o,° Q ~~P.oole-Ra Y
3141 P` 9e 1854 `° Robe ~, !~ I
0 16~ ~ 1853 trinity R a Robin•Ln 1570 1922 Ganter•L-n
1874 1919
Y 1702 ~
1661 0 1724 ~ ~ L-ane•Dr
d
~_o F-- ~ ~ U y 1984 1927
TonySt ~ ~ f ~ ~ c
~ 1570
~~ 3103 °-3' r /o\ 9?c~o' 1928
rj-Ronnie ale-Rd-2 y ~ a%
1~4~ Ceda guar Rd
a
9
I um 3y
~ ~G ennville-Dr o
1571
O~ y
d7fts ~ v ~ 1588 ~ 1897 iSSO 1932
~ ~ 1746 t j o ~Pd
3133 ~ a (~ o a~ SPe~ce N
s 1846 r•W'ntlerrryl ere_--iCir a c
w
W E
S
1558 1704
pillman Dr -~
1531
v 1564 1004 1780 1781 S
a 3110 1566 Coion 3230 To1b, a c/aR 1528 i 0.25 Oi5 i
1`~a
Mil
°
es
LJ 1~
_
1888.
1557 1888 3113 1801 Jill•Dr
Title Vicinity Map Figure 1
Project Shopper at Bush Hill USACE AID # 200620747
Applicant:
Archdale Partners, LLC
Shopper At Bush Hill Date of Public Notice:
County: Guilford and Randolph
530 Huber Park Court Vicinity Map
Sheet 1 of 14 Waterway: Muddy Creek
Weldon Springs, MO 63304 River Basin: Cape Fear
T:ApnA0L27810DI1 Archtlale Retail DevAIndividual_PermitAI'ICURIiS\f~iel_Vicinity_Map.doc Nrepxrui by Laura Lang G~~ narioveuinc

Tt ~- ~ • ~ t 1 ;~' .
: v, -~
,
~, ~ ~ t
~~
~
_ .
,
~
~
_ .~
~ 1
_
~~
~
~
~
t
~
,
~, q a?
/
j` ~
~ ~
~ Jackson,
' .i
'~ '~~~
~
/ ~;
~:
'
~"'?
~pJ~j ~% r l
- . ."P ~:L~ M e.
\ { ~' .ley •
_._~-
~t~
+
_
.~
`
~ M
.
.
fay ~ ~t ~ ~ i ~ t ~~ ~ V ~ //~ ' • ' f

' '~ ~ ~ _~ •~i~ ~'" ~~,
i ~
3
'
S
l o :
±•
,
. ..
is ;Providrned i

~~ ~ ~ .. ;A r ~ ~• t4 l ~ ° I

' ~ ~ ~ i / ~ - ter. ~.. +_

~ '+::~
~ ~
:' - i i~ Pro
ect B
d
~ ~ ~'~j,
;
,
j
t i,
oun
ary
~ 1
j
~
~ ~ i
~
;
~
~
. ~~ r,
~ ~
.
,
~,CC -
.,'
-_~,~: .r11 0 ~f"' ~ ~_ W, ~:
.
~ ~\~- ` 1
~/r •
~
ua ~•
•~
~
,~
° q
;
~
~ I I , ~ ~ : i%n P
~
~
~
~
~ w
~
+
fly 1
. I r-I , ~ .
~ ~ eJ C' ~ ~ ;~{~ I ;~i
}
'
_
,
a i ~
~~.: ~ ~ Ted±e i "~' P N
~~ 5' ;~
4 ~ _
~
;
~
`
r M ~`~
.` ~
_1 l
r w E

\~
r
~
~
' . ' ~ ~~~-. _ ~ ° ~
~
. `'
~ 0 1,000 2,000 4,000
o ~`~- ~~~ ~ _ _. _ _ Feet

Title USGS Topographic Map (High Point East, NC, 1950, photorevised 1982) Figure 2
Project Shoppes at Bush Hill USAGE AID # 200620747
Applicant: Date of Public Notice:
Archdale Partners, LLC Shoppes At Bush Hill County: Guilford and Randolph
530 Huber Park Court USGS Map Waterway: Muddy Creek
Weldon Springs, MO 63304 Sheet 2 of 14 River Basin: Cape Fear
T:\pn\012781000 Archdale Retail Prepazed by !aura Lang [~~\ .nrartk
Dev\Individual_Pertmt\FIGU RESWrchdale_IP_Figure_Block.doc

T:\pn\012781000 Archdale Retail Prepared by Laura Lang [~~ ~~ ur
Dev\Individual_Permit\FIGURES W rchdale_IP_Figure_Block. doc

Stream 2 Wetland C Wetland G Stream 6
(upstream of pond) 0.47 ac 0.58 ac 104 LF
674 LF
Wetland A
0.57 ac
Wetland J
Wetland B 0.30 ac
0.15 ac

Wetland I - ~ Stream 3
0.12 ac Stream 4 ~~ 729 LF
55 LF Stream 5 /
/ 76 LF
Wetland H
0.05 ac Pond ~ ~,/~-:-,~
2.47 ac ~ ^-'°.1
Wetland F
Stream 1 0.34 ac
1121LF
Wetland E
0.09 ac
Wetland K
0
38
.
ac
Wetland D
Wetland L 0.01 ac
0.31 ac /
Stream 7
Stream 2
N (downstream of pond)
1641LF Legend
W [; ~ Property Boundary
S Pond
S •-•- Intermittent Stream
0 325 650 1,30 Perennial Stream
Wetland
Feet
Title Delineation of Waters of U.S. Map Figure 4
Project Shoppes at Bush Hill USACE AID # 200620747
Applicant: Date of Public Notice:
Archdale Partners, LLC Shoppes At Bush Hill County: Guilford and Randolph
530 Huber Park Court Delineation Map Waterway: Muddy Creek
Weldon Springs, MO 63304 Sheet 4 of 14 River Basin: Cape Fear
T:\pn\012781000 Archdale Retail Prepared by Laura Lang [~~ .,ems ~
Dev\Individual_Pemtit\FIGURES\Archdale_IP_Figure_Block. doc

xc W in. O

I 0 ~~ °y Mrr
Commercial

- ,
0
,,
\
Fi ._
- /
'

'I
l _. . _-
,~

~i W li '
~~ ~, ~
Light Industrial ~,
~

~. ~
_ ~,- ~- ~~. a
1~ f, p u B t

f
I
Office d~~` - ~ - - f ~
~ - -

- - -
`~ _
-
~
_

~ _ ~ _
- ~ ~ ~ `-~ ~~ Figure 14
1 ~
u
r
.
~ law,
Residential
\~
~-°_ _
ure ~,r
..
,. d ~
,
-
- ~ ~
~,
Figure 13
_--~
1....
Figure 6
Residential
N
lr E
S
Title Overall Site Plan Figure 5 of 14
Project Shoppea at Bush Hil t13ACE AID tk 200620747
Applicant:
Date of Public fVotica~
Archdale Partners, LLC Shoppes At Bush Hill County Guilford and Randolph
530 Huber Park Court Overall Site Plan Waterway Muddy Creek
Weldon Springs, MO 63304 Riser Basin: Cape Fear

f t

..~...

i
.~ _ ~ r

-
'
~-_ .~ /
`//

.
V:

, ~ J

y
~ i
f ~\
^
~ ~
1
r
..
'

1
-
.
.. .. ~
~ t y
I't ` ~1
~ ~
~
t
'
t
~ ,
r
i ~ Randl
;
,
- --~
i m ff' ~
~ ~. Stxea Bu ~
i s ~ f
~
Impact Area #11 ~ ~
E
~ '''
~' -

~~~
Stream Disturbance - .
=95 ~LF ~ ~
~, ~ `,
~ ~, ~~ . __
x

- E
_~_ , _-

.~.
y
.}p' FRpIT SETBACK ..,-

_.. ._.
-
.
..,r
Impact Area # ~
Stream Disturbance . ~ ~
~- __ Rip Rap Dissipater
-- =-'`""°="~BU~
~_ _ Pad=30 LF
_
--- ---_
Impact Area #10
Temporary Stream
Disturbance=21 LF
Impact Area #1 ~ ~ .
Temporary Wetland
Disturbance
=0.01 Ac. Wetland
Limits

200'
0 N
100' 2 0'
fl
S
Title Impact 1, 10, t1 and 12 Detail Figure 6 of 14
Project 3hoppea at Buah Hil U3ACE AID ~ 200620747
Applicant:
Shoppes At Bush Hill
Date of Public Notice
Archdale Partners, LLC
530 Huber Park Court Impact 1, 10, 1h and 12 County Guilford and Randolph
Waterways Muddy Creek
Weldon Springs, MO 63304 Detail River Basin= Cape Fear

Proposed
Road Bed

772 _ -~ _ _ _
--- _
-~
772
768 ~-- ~ _ 768
764 ~- '--- ~
,-
- _~ _- -~ ;
- ~ 764
760
760
756 ~ ---~`___ -~ 756
~
_
752 752
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Proposed 8'X8' Existing Ground
Box Culvert
Tttle krpact 11 Croea Section Figure 7 of 14
Project Shoppea at Bush Hil 113ACE AID * 200620747
Applicant
Data of Public Notice
Archdale Partners, LLC Shoppes At Bush Hill County Guilford and Randolph
530 Huber Park Court Impact tt Cross Section Waterway Muddy Creek
Weldon Springs, MO 63304 River Basin: Cape Fear

,% ~~ C
;
Light Industrial Buildings ;%~
,
-'~
~
,,
~`
~
i
i~ ~~`
,~
,~
~~~
Light Industrial Buildings
~~~`<<
-

. ,..
,
~~
t A
2 j ~
I
.
rea #
mpac
Wetland Fill ~'
=0.09 Ac.
~._
,.
~~ `,
~ ~.
~
~
~,
--<< ~ ' /
~~'v ~ .~
'
~
~ i
~~ ~

~~'' .
,
~
.l
Wetland `'
~ Limits !"~
~;
N
200' ~ ~0 100' 00'

S
Title Impact 2 Detail Flpure 8 of 14
Project 3hoppes at Bush Hill 113ACE AID # 200620747
Applicant

Archdale Partners, LLC
530 Huber Park Court

Shopper At Bush Hill
Impact 2 Detail
Date of Public Notice
County Guilford and Randolph
Waterway Muddy Creek
Weldon Springs, MO 63304 River Basin Cape Fear

Proposed
Road Bed
- -
78a - lea
_
780 -~ - ._
- -- 780
_. ~
776 --.` _ ~__ - - -- 776
772 _-
- ~ -- - - - 772
768 _-~ 768
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Existing Ground
Title hnpact 2 Croea Section Figure 9 of 14
Project Shopper at Bueh HMI USAGE AID ~ 200620747
Applicant
Date of Public Notice
Archdale Partners, LLC Shopper At Bush Hill Co~mty~ Guilford and Randolph
530 Huber Park Court Impact 2 Cross Section Waterway Muddy Creek
Weldon Springs, MO 63304 River Baeirn Cape Fear

Impact Arec
Temporary fJewatenng
=1.93 Ac.
~'/
// ~ a w
s ~ ~ ~ ~ a m
Pond ~ '~
Limits
-~ ~
„, Impact Area #9
Open Water k;
Fill=O.54 Ac.
N
200' ~ 0 1 0' 200'
,.._ i S _
Title Impact 8 and 9 DetaN Figure 10 of 14
Project 3hoppes at Bush HiN U3ACE AID # 200620747
AppNcant~
Date of Public Plotice~
Archdale Partners, LLC Shoppes At Bush Hill County Guilford and Randolph
530 Huber Park Court Impact 8 and 9 Detail Waterway Muddy Creek
Weldon Springs, MO 63304 River BaarH Cape Fear

Proposed
Road Bed

796 _ _,
796
792 _ :
~ _ ' _ - ~ 792
_ ~
788 ' _ ---' 788
784 ~ ~ i
_
. s - --
- 784
780
-- ~
- - - - _ ,
- - - - --- _ ~
- - ---- - - - 780
T
_
776 _ _ ~.
~ _. _. 776
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Proposed Existing Ground
8'X8' Box
Culvert
Title Impact 8 Croee Section Figure 11 of 14
f'rojeci 3hoppee at Bush HiM U3ACE AID i 200620747
Applicant
Date of f'ubla Notice
Archdale Partners, LLC Shoppes At Bush Hill Count)r• Guilford and Randolph
530 Huber Pork Court Impact 8 Cross Section Waterway Muddy Creek
Weldon Springs, MO 63304 River Baeir>` Cape Fear

Impact Area #14
Stream Fill=104 LF
(unimportant/intermittent)
WAL ~ MART
Impact Area #6
Wetland Fill=
0.58 Ac.
I '
Impact Area #3r
Wetland Fill
=0.47 Ac.
~~
~--~ ~ ~,.__r..
c~ ,_ ~
~=-~ ~ ~__
~__ '~~ ~ ,
'i ~-
~..
Impact- Area #13
~ Stream Fill= 6 LF I ~~-~ ~F`
~ ~ ~ (unimportant intermittent
_,
i = _ __ ,_ , - - -
_ - - ~-. T
_~ - ~ -~
,
- -
f
~ <~,
i.
~ , ~, } ,_., a,~_ __ ,-
N Impact Area #4
400' Wetland Fill ~ 200' 400'
~- E ( =0.09 Ac.
s
~ ~, ~ ~.__
s z ~ _ __ ,`
___.
~~;
`~,., __ .
~Y _~_
Impact Area #5
Wetland Fill
=0.34 Ac.
Title knpact 3, 4, 5, 6, 13 and 14 Detal (Commercial Area) Figure 12 of 14
Project Shoppea at Bueh HMI USACE AID • 200620747
Applicant
Shoppes At Bush Hill Date of Public Notice
Archdale Partners, LLC 4 5 6 13 and County Guilford and Randolph
530 Huber Park Court Impact 3, Waterway Muddy Creek
Weldon Springs, MO 63304 14 Detail River Basirw Cape Fear

j
I
jj
i
~~
'~
~~~
~ '~' / Impact Area #7
~~~ Wetland Fill
~,
=0.01 Ac.
N
400' 0 200' 400'
E
S
Title Impact 7 Detail (Commercial Area) FfBure 13 of 14
Project Shoppea at f3ueh HiN U3ACE AID i 200620747
Applicant
Date of Public Notice
Archdale Partners, LLC Shoppes At Bush Hill County Guilford and Randolph
530 Huber Park Court Impact 7 Detail Waterway Muddy Creek
Weldon Springs, MO 63304 River f3aeir} Cape Fear

I
Wetland
~ Limits
I
I
.~ 1
`r~___~
`~
~L_ _ _ 1
OUTLOT
-..l B
~ ~_,_ ~
~ ;~•-
c~ ~.' (`
Road Access Through
Non-Jurisdictional
Channel Break
N
400' 0 200' 400'
S
TRIe Reaidetial Area Detail Figure 14 of 14
Projecl t3hoppea at Bush Hip U3ACE AID # 200620747
Applicant:
Date of Pubpc Notice=
Archdale Partners, LLC Shoppea At Bush Hill County Guilford and Randolph
530 Huber Park Court Residetiai Area Detail Waterway Muddy Creek
Weldon Springs, MO 63304 River Baein Cape Fear

--- Traet Rank Acres
Potential Development ~ 1 273.88
4 ~ 2 264.47
3 196.46

~ 4 129.92
s 125.31
i 6 123.54
21 ~
, 7 103.58
~ / 8 88.43
9 81.14
_ - _ ----, 10 73.76
J
43 35

~'
11
63.21
o _ _~
_ 1$: 32 3 12 s8.7a
13 57.72
i
9 1 1$ 14 57.39
. _ ~ 1 15 57.12
9 t6 ss.68
~ ~ 24 44
~ 17 55.67
G, ~
2g 3 40 ~ 18 55.53
26 1 ~ 19 52.90
45 20 51.91
27 ) ~ ~ 21 50.36
'~ i 22 46.26
2
49
~ 2a aa.88

14 11 zs a1.7o
\ 26 40.79
2 25
20 ~ 27 39.75
~
~ ~ 28 39.66
I
4 29 38.13
30 37.95
q 31 35.25
31 /
~ 32 35.07
~
23 33 35.02
34 33.91
i
~ 35 32.84
3
I 36 36 32.62
50 5
2 ~
41 37 31.57
~ 38 30.54
5 ~ ~ 39 30.45
LEGEND 6 lz 40 30.44
~ 41 29.61
16
City Limits
N 43 29.23
~ 44 29.15
ETJ 37 3 22 as z7.9t
W E 46 27.68
Roads ~' a7 2245
38 19 48 27.02
Tracts > 25 Acres S 10 8 a9 z6so
___ 50 26.05
__
46 _ sl z6.oo
Miles I 7
0 0.5 1 2

Draft Future Land Use
~~~~
••
••
P~ •
~~
~~
Legend
~~ ~ City Limits
/~/ Roads
- Highway Business
~ Highway Business to Light Industrial
-General Business
- Heavy Industrial
Light Industrial
Multi-Family
Multi-Family to Neighborhood Business
Multi-Family to Office
,~. Multi-Family to General Business
Off ce
Office to Light Industrial
Offce to Neighborhood Business
® Office to General Business
Single Family
Single Family to Multi-Family
Single Family to Otfice
~ ~ Traditional Neighborhood Development
~ Mixed use
ate: Future Growth Area
- Open Space
0 0.25 O S 1 1 5
Miles
...
A~•
j~~~•
•~~•
~~~
~~~~ •~
•~~~~~•
~~~~~~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
R _ ~~

~~
,~
~~
d
~~
1 z
A
i
a ~~,-
r
i 9~~~r
P J;
~ rn'
I IIv
~ ~ '
I
r. II 0
Ir r ~ ~i
;~. ~~ - _ -r----
I
8 1' ~I
I ~I '>>
II II
I II
II II
II II
I~ II
G~~~ 11
II II
i q
~,~~ II
I \~ li
~ a
~;
I
C I~,
IjO
b
/ ~
/ ~~
~'
05'
D
i
0 G
~ _ ~o .o
/ p ~ ~ ~
i~ y+'~ Q
/ /~
i ; ~ ~ oG
IE

C
wJ:t.
~~~ ~ :~P ~~~~ P ~w ~~ ~~
4N[t OFPfAq%C GV IC°W. iU9R qC Np BJAOA9Y 4lGNCY.
CRYPK#, •h. T,B IOplAA14. NfOPoMipM NAD tlL]E GWHJES
N dGfAL 9fE AGG REOMfD p.E ttl flAPlS, PMIWK, EIC.
° _ 5 6
'I
i ~
II oop G / /
i
II ~ /
I I ~. / ~ ~
I I
O
o n
i ~
° % - ,~ ~~
~/i ~ ~
% ~ Tf~L~ 0 II : ~ ~~
/ ~° , i~ J
~/~ ~ 1
/~
~° ~ ,I
~. ~'C9G+G+~~ra GPI 'a [~ q b~ /
I a
N. ~ " ~ I r . ~ ~~~ a ~~_ o
`~~ I rr~~ r7r~tr r h, ~tl ~
~1 ~ b~ °° ! ' nao
o °n
A D O
~' .,. o i7 ~ I ~}~-~- '> ~~
0
v I~"VIII d
I
-~ etwLc
I ~ ~
j 8 9
ii
I,i
II
I°
U
II
It
OVERALL SITE ANALYSIS
RETAIL A 154,088 S.F.
RETAIL B 153,658 S.F,
RETAIL C 139,410 S.F.
TOTAL 447,156 S.F.
TOTAL PARKING 2,355 SPACES
RATIO 5.26/1,000 S.F.
RETAIL A SITE ANALYSIS
ANCHOR 3 139,410 S.F.
TOTAL PARKING 627 SPACES
,~ RATIO 4.50/1,000 S.F.
r RETAIL B SITE ANALYSIS
WAL-MART 153,658 S.F.
SHOPS 20,000 S.F.
TOTAL 173,658 S.F.
TOTAL PARKING 983 SPACES
RATIO 5.66/1,000 S.F.
Q RETAIL C SITE ANALYSIS
0 MINI-ANCHOR 1 32,965 S.F.
SHOPS 22,000 S.F.
TOTAL 54,965 S.F
~i~ TOTAL PARKING 281 SPACES
~. RATIO 5.11/1,000 S.F.
RETAIL D SITE ANALYSIS
MINI-ANCHOR 2 32,965 S.F.
MINI-ANCHOR 3 32,965 S F.
MINI-ANCHOR 4 32,965 S.F.
SHOPS 28,000 S.F.
THEATER 39,375 S.F
,sa, TOTAL 166,270 S.F.
~~ TOTAL PARKING 1181 SPACES
RATIO 7.10/1,000 S.F.
THEATER SITE ANALYSIS
THEATER 39,375 S.F
TOTAL PARKING 549 SPACES
RATIO 13.94/1,000 S.F.
a op SITE AREA ANALYSIS
RETAIL A 20.13E AC.
RETAL B 28.52E AC.
RETAIL C 22.091 AC.
RETAIL D 27.893 AC.
COMMON AREA 1 - 5 37.66 AC.
LEASE LOT 1.25! AC.
OUiLOT 1 - 18 21.10E AC.
R/W DEDICATION 13.20} AC.
Si,.awE .wwr..o.a,~.~7~.84 AC.
0TIIERAI~_/I ~~
S I I ~ _ P L_r1~.1 V..
GRAPHIC SCALE
N
0
U
01
N
Q
0_;
L
0
ZI
7
O
ZO
w
D
dZ
OW~J
~~z
Q~~~
a
~~OD~p
~OwN
~J~C)
O7~Z
UCDw
F- Z
m~ J(/>O
~Opw~
~d=~~
?SOU ..tL
oK~)-w
a CLQCO~
RENSIONS BY
°~ n LGL
um®~ ADB
are 3 DB 2006
1"= 200'
06-123
9~ ILIHII
P-9
a 9ffl5

1 ;; 2
~~
~~
I~
I~
d
i
A i~
II
I
0 ~~
~\9 ~~I
v. ,,
~ ~..
rn
n I lV ~
i _ I
~ ~~ 4 ~
i!
Z
~~
i
A
>E4
~"
g ~ j iii -:~
~ i ~~
~~ l
I~. II
i' I~ II
^i, p
II olj II
!i 4
II II
~~ II
h
c o, ,
I
i~
C ~~~
I1~
~~
O
b
D
~',
,~/~,
%/
-;
~~~ ~~
~t~
E /~
j
% ,~ o
/ ~ ~
~_
F
G
a~ac,
t?;~s c, w e, raw. wma~a ^ scams c+~. r ,n b,
w;a x.&urxiu c« ~ r~rtt ~ wa rxuswv va~v,
RuY:IA{ F1C.. Tlt 1plIgWL MML4TGV WUD VliSL OM4iE5
K ,mµ sre wsA xmuixm ouE m uov[s, wsowo, nc.
~I
11
n a
n
Ili 9 0
0 n
°o U
i~
0
Feu
~~~~C~N
r~ cr.
r°~~gr'~q
u u u u.iici
R ; o U s
~,O 4 t7
~Zv D 0
J ^ q q
0 t r 0
0 ,. r dq .0
s ~'' Oqy ti~q q-- ':`J
rD ,q r..
0 :, r.
0'
~~ ~.

i..;
0
t
Js °~
i
i~
a
/'
/ li
j n
n
1I
11
1~
II~
~„
,,
O
0
~i ,~` ~/`
~II
~ li ~ ~I`
a e`, o
~ y ,(
jf ~~
~~
p ~,
/~ rl o ~~\
J ~~ ,l
~ o ~r
D
op
e 9
OVERALL SITE ANALYSIS
RETAIL A 154,088 S.F,
RETAIL B 153,658 S.F.
RETAIL C 139,410 S.F.
TOTAL 447,156 S.F.
TOTAL PARKING 2,355 SPACES
RATIO 5.26/1,000 S.F.
RETAIL A SIT E ANALYSIS
ANCHOR 3 139,410 S.F.
TOTAL PARKING 627 SPACES
RATIO
RETAIL B SIT 4.50/1,000 S.F.
E ANALYSIS
WAL-MART 153,658 S.F.
SHOPS 20,000 S.F,
TOTAL 173,658 S.F.
TOTAL PARKING 983 SPACES
AATIO 5,86/1,000 S.F.
RETAIL C SITE ANALYSIS
MINI-ANCHOR t 32,965 S.F.
SHOPS 22,000 S.F.
TOTAL 54,985 5.F.
TOTAL PARKING 281 SPACES
AATID 5.11/1,000 S.F.
RETAIL D SIT E ANALYSIS
MINI-ANCHOR 2 32,965 S.F.
MINI-ANCHOR 3 J2,965 S.F.
MINI-ANCHOR 4 J2,965 S.F.
SHOPS 28,OOD S.F.
THEATER 39,375 S.F.
TOTAL 166,270 S.F.
TOTAL PARKING 1182 SPACES
RATIO 7.10/1,000 S.F.
THEATER SITE ANALYSIS
THEATER 39,375 S.F.
TOTAL PARKING 549 SPACES
RATIO 13.94/1,000 S.F.
SITE AREA ANALYSIS
RETAIL A 20.13! AC.
RETAIL B 28.52} AC.
RETAL C 22.09} AC.
RETAL D 27.891 AC.
COMMDN AREA 1 - 5 37.66} AC,
LEASE LOT 1.251 AC.
OUfLOT 1 - 18 21.tOk AC.
R/W DEDICATION 1J.20f AC.
SfTE AREA
r....P.`~"`s.. 171.84 AC.
a.~.`~~..a
ovERA~~_
SITE P~~`;I~ I
GRAPHIC GCAIE
ten= Ee>ao
N
0)
0
U
0 '.-
N
Q
Q~ . ;'
0
L ° -- `. '
Q1 ; `;
~~
0"
U
}Z
Z
ZO
w
~O
aZ
OW ~ J
U
o~Z
Q~~~
~oa~
D_~~OD
WOWN
~ J ~ U
O~~Z
UC9W
HZ
m~JCnO
~Opw~
~a=~~
do~..W
o`dQm~
REVISNINS BY
°~ ~` LGL
`~" ADB
cae 3 22 2008
~` 1"= 200'
06-123
9r~ ILIBkR
P-1
a s¢rs

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A ~~
I,
!~ I
il
-
l
f."
_.__. ___
~~
B ~.
/ ~ (
~7 / ~ i I
j l I j I
/ ~ ~ j ~
/ I ~ ~

~- /' I I
~ ~ / f
a o ~ Y ~ i
~.y. ~ ~ ~ ~, ~.~
~V
~~
yr
.,,
I
_

c ._ ,..
_'T.s.~ ~ _..~ --___
j T~ ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ ~ ' _.r

d ,..~
1G0i 1 ' \\ j \ ( I ~ T.~~
~~ ".

1 ~_ II ~

i 1
~,~.~

5 ~

~ i I
I
1-
' / 1

~,

~
i I
1~ ~~
_ _.___..---_- _ __-
~
~
/ ~ ~

' I~

BBBB 9

888
au~u ~ remm.a

~ ~ ~ amm_u mmm
...~ i
~ I
n amm~
j
,1
..
~. _ ~
~

~
' _
---
~ ~
° ~
T .,ICI ~ I
~
~
~
axx~ww
i
~ /
/
~ ,_.- - _._~ _ ~
E WINHINtlfe
' ~
I ~
~ olma` u
I ./'`._'
I
i

,i
~~ I I

i ~ ~
~ ~
d
e
~~
~..~.
~~
~
i,
~
~~
~~ i I
.T
i ~~ ~~ _
J
~ ~ p

o G'
~ ~€ ~ L0~~1. ii
~
~ ~ ~
' - ~.

\ z/ / //i '4s r
/.~~~~~~~~/ ~... `LNLLAS AT
/?~~i;/,•r~ ~ CRESCENT 1dISE
CONCE T PLAN #03 ~ ~ ~ ~; ~ ~L ~
~~4 DALD, NC -T P n , I
- _ _ PRELIMINARY DRAWING _ - _ - _ _-
?i arc*ipni Plu~iSuim in9 APRiI 4, 206 GRAPHIC SCALE
N_ _ ~~ I c~uir, Mismuri fi136R
I J( t ~I11 1-I W ifiiwe
~~ I'~ foa ~F RENEW I'URA0.9F5 ONLY
a,
U
z
~~
Z
O
ZU
w
~~
~z
O O J
;_~
WU
~~Z
Q~I~O
U ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~OwN
~JwU
O~oz
~ ~ W
FZ
m~~(n0
~(nQ~~
~~~~W
~ ~
°'O(~ ~
arZQlm~
REVISIONS BY
cxm~o m
a~>E
~~,_ 2W'
SNEE7 XUIBfA
CS-3
ar sxais

-~ ~
`~ .. A '
b
I ~'
.` I / 3`°
~ QO
z
a
•,\ O ~ `
~ v
`` ~` D
~~~ , B
\` ~~~d
~r .
1
1
\ C
I
~ N
ao
U
z
--
~~
r ----!
~_ L _
--
1 ~
1 I
I
I
,_J ~ ..
~~ U
~~
~ X ~~ ~D~ON
r ~~*~~.
~. ~ u ,~
x ~~
~!~
~~~ 2
.~
a „ , \ ~,
eg~p 1 f.~~
\., b ~. 1
c \\ ~~ ~ 9
z
-.~~=--
i~/,
~ ~
~ ~---~ r
:11
~~ n
u ~r-~
wwr~--y
b ~ u ~11
2 ~
~ a° ~ ._~
\ a ~ ~ -,~„
1
~- ~u
• `11`. ~ o----~--~
• ~ ~
1 ~
1 ~ r- ~,
`~, _
1~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ s ti
O
O
1~~
1 ~
1 I
I
~ 1
p"! ~ 1
O~
ao
o' '
-=1 _
I
~ ' • \` \` ~
,~~--
~s `:
•
~ ,~ '~ r,
----~~--
~~~~~ ~~
-- ~~
r.
~ m ~ ~
a
~~~
~~
PO
T"' U
~~~ ~~
w „aa
' A"'~~
~~~~~
a v
i L~ ~LJ
R \~

~~ ~ ~ ~
~~ \l
i
.,~ \ ~~
~~ ~
Ago
~~~
~ ~~\\ '• ~
Q •~~ ~,
• ~_
/~ \~,~a `,\Y
• v ~ ~~
I tot ttt t4~t~ ~At~ ~ Q ~~ ,. ~ ` s
i ~~ ~ ? ~.~ ~~- 3 ~~?~ "~ gig '-~
~ ~ ~~5 5x's X9:9 ! !!3: ' ~ :!: /' AA g~...
~~ giii giieie :iii i EgiEi@ig i g:giii , `~ •.. a~ ~
F- 9 2 ~ ~ ~

~% ~ eSa K a a 4 ~ SR~~ ~ ~ ti t c g • ~~~
~ ii
7 i i
i i ii i i : _
i
if
i i i t i
a Qn GaN
¢ ~ px ¢
g ~
j
7 4 j
t ~ ~~ P ~F~iF ! ~ j
& ~ Y
fit : Xs C ~°° ~
..r
~ 2C•~ ~ ~ a~ ~ 3 5
E 3
i1
+
A a Kb il Kdk d A dKNJ f J dd d ~ Y
i~
a
S ~
$g
~ $ z i ~°° ~
6 ~
+ °.° ° g
4 a. A
C
C
xx
~S i d
- d
- S
- R -
-
=
9
t
t i °
n
8
V/rL rAKk NN Y.d J. l.L a9 Y. N 1 tlYtl
$ i ~, f
o ~ - - - - ~ a ~ ~ peog a8pupld
_ ~ ~~~~~
,~ ~ ,3~ k '3'b
a $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ f 5i g
3 ## as
a~ ~1~~ ~~~~ ~ss~~~ s~ea~aa~~s F ~F~ ~ _~~:~
~,1,t:~ 'il
j ~.
I ,I
~; ~ ~ ~ II 1
`~ ~ ~
~~~.
~
~~
~
/
yl
7i~i" ~/ _ l
1
Il
;~ ~ 2
~ ~
,,
///~ 1
",
•`
t
~.
f ~ 1
' . _, 1
I
O
z ~
® 0
g
~ N
~

O
U ^' 2
~~
8
a ~
~
N ,~ .
~ u
a b
8
~ N ~
^' as
~ •
~.1
a ~ °s ~~
~
t
1
I ~
~ U
1
1 ~
o C/~
` ~
J v ~ r~P

= -
~~

° ~= ;
~
1
1l ~ ~ ~~ ~
y~

S~
p~o~ 3ueaM

o-~~Q IA ~ ~

^o--~ un-Flppf-^U
Y~ u -'Y~ ~
0-U 0----o- ~0
`~' is ~ o
3 a
U--~F-a~~ 'S a
o----o----0
o----
~
n
~ ~ ~., a a
~ D
l
_
_
p~M>OfOi~ W~'] iq ~ti
~r

11-21-'06 13;31 FFOM-DENA EEP 9197152001 T-48© P©2/02 U-979
- ~-~ cos stem
Pr206RAM
November 21, 2006
Todd Schnieder
Archdale Pactners, LLC
530 Huber Park Ct.
'Weldon Springs, MI7 63304
Project: Archdale Retail Development
County: G~uilford/Randolf
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NC EEp) is willing io
accept payment for impacts assoeiatcd with the above referenced project. This letter replaces an earlier one dated Apri120,
2006. Please note that this decision does not assure that the payment will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as
mitigation for project impacts. It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact these agencies to determine if payment to the
NC EEP will be approved.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter. If we have not received a copy of the issued 404
Permit/401 Certification within this time frame, this acceptance vain expire. It is the applicant's responsibility to send
copies of the 404/401/CAMA permits to NC EEP. Once NC EE.P receives a copy of the 404 Permit and/or the 401
Certification an invoice will be issued and payment must be made.
Based on the information supplied by you the impacts that may require compensatory mitigation are summarized in the
following table.
River Basin Wetlands Stream Buffer Buffer
Cataloging (Acres) (Lineaz Feet) Zone 1 Zone 2
Unit
(Sq. P't.)
(Sq. Ft.)
Ri arias Non-Ri arian Coastal Marsh Cold Cool 'Warm
Capc Fear 0 2.2 0 0 0 125 0 0
03030003
Upon receipt of payment, EEP will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation for the permitted impacts
up to a 2:1 mitigation-to-impact ratio, (buffers, Zone 1 at a 3:1 ratio and Zone 2 at a 1.5:1 ratio). The rypc and amount of the
compensatory mitigation will be as specified in the Section 404 Permit and/or 401 Water Quality Certification, and/or
CAMA Permit. The mitigation will be performed in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the N. C.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers dated November 4, 1998.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at [phone].
Sincerely,
' am b Gilmore, PE
Director
cc: Cyndi Karoly, Wetlands/401 Unit
Todd Tugwell, USACB-Raleigh
Daryl Lamb, D~VQ-Winston-Salem
Pilc
t~:~"OVll~L9.,, ~ ~ .,. 1~V'OtL~ Ol~tl~ S~tP,
,,~~~
NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancem®nt Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.ncasp.net

Tugwell, Todd
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 4:06 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd
Subject: Archdale project
Hi Todd
Thanks for your phone call this afternoon.
With regards to Beth Reed's July 25, 2006 letter requesting endangered species information
related to the Archdale Partners, LLC prooposed mixed use development at the intersection
of NC Highway 62 and NC 1162 in Archdale, Guilford and Randolph counties, North Carolina,
this email serves as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) response pursuant to
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
(Act) .
Based on my recommendation that the area be surveyed for Schweinitz's sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzii), Ms. Laura Lang of your staff conducted a survey and found a
questionable sunflower resembling H. schweinitzii.
Ms. Moni Bates and I met Ms. Lang in the field on October 11, 2006 and determined that the
sunflower in question is actually Maximilian's sunflower (H. maximilianii), a species that
is not protected by the Act.
Given the information gathered during our site visit, I believe that the subject project
will have no affect on H. schweinitzii or any other federally listed species.
We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act have been satisfied. We
remind you that obligations under section 7 consultation must be reconsidered if: (1) new
information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or
critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is subsequently
modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or, (3) a new species is
listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions or
comments regarding our response, please contact Mr. Dale W.
Suiter of this office at [phone], Ext. 18 or Dale [e-mail].
Dale Suiter
Endangered Species Biologist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
phone - 919-856-4520 ext. 18
fax - 919-856-4556
email - Dale [e-mail]

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Richard B. Hamilton, Executive Director
18 August 2006
Ms. Beth Reed, Project Manager
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 33068
Raleigh, NC 27636-3068
Subject: Request for Information on a Proposed Mixed-Use Development, Archdale, Guilford and
Randolph Counties, North Carolina.
Dear Ms. Reed:
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
document and we are familiar with the habitat values of the area. Our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661 et seq.) and North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. l 13-131 et seq.).
Archdale Partners, LLC proposes to construct amixed-use development on approximately 160
acres in Archdale. Current land use is agriculture and mixed hardwood forest. The site drains to
unnamed tributaries to Muddy Creek in the Cape Fear River basin.
There are records for the state special concern Greensboro burrowing crayfish (Cambarus
catagius) near in the proposed project site. Although we are not aware of any federally listed aquatic or
terrestrial wildlife species within or adjacent to the project area, we suggest you consult with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service at [phone] regarding potential impacts to federally listed species. The
proposed project site is not located within or adjacent to N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission game
lands.
If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at [phone].
Sincerely,
Shari L. Bryant
Piedmont Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries 1721 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] Fag: [phone]
Z'd SZ9L-6ti~-9EE ~ueRuH '1'S dEE=IO 90 8T end

S ~,
~Y r
_ ~ SEP 0 a ?('('S
~.~~~. iCIIvILEY-H~3~~!
~N1liF~
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation OfSce
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
September 1, 2006
Beth Reed
Kimley-Horn and Associates
PO Box 33068
Raleigh, NC 27636
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
Re: Proposed Mixed-Use Development, Highway 62 and NC 1162, Archdale, Guildford and Randolph
Counties, ER 06-2051
Dear Ms. Reed:
Thank you for your letter of July 25, 2006, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic resources that would be
affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the undertaking as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763, ext. 246. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Peter Sandbeck
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801

f ~=-
or.T ~ 5 ~~~~~
ARCHDALE PLANNINGIZONING DEPARTMEN ~ ;.~ . , t .
307 Balfour Drive
P. O. Box 14068
Archdale, NC 27263
Jeffrey D. Wells, Planning Director
October 19, 2006
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
Supervisor, 401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
NC Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Blvd.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Re: Weant Road/i'dC b2 development site.
Dear Sir/Madam,
The City of Archdale has been working with a development group out of St. Louis
that is interested in developing a 150+/- acre site located along Weant Road and NC
Highway 62 in the southeast quadrant of the Interstate 85/NC 62 interchange. The City
recently adopted a new comprehensive plan. Based on this plan, this proposed site is
designated for highway commercial and/or light industrial development. We understand
that it is the intent of the developer to erect "big box" retail, multi-tenant shopping
centers, and out-parcels for additional commercial uses. These uses are consistent with our
land use designation for the property, and would be regardless of the developer of the site.
Water and sewer service is readily available to a part of the site and has been for
years. As part of our long range Capital Improvements Plan, we are in the process of
extending these lines eastward and southward to support additional development that we
anticipate in the near future. The city is also subject to the new NPDES Phase 2
stormwater requirements. Along with our existing Randleman Lake watershed protection
measures, these additional standards will ensure that the developers of the site will be
responsible for protecting their neighbors from additional burden of stormwater runoff and
to protect the overall water quality of the area by providing appropriate best management
practices.
If you have any questions, please contact the Planning/Zoning Department at 336-431-
9141 _
Respe full ,
~\./
y ells
Planning Director
Phone #: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

USACE Routine Wetland
Determination Data Forms

DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: Archdale Retail Development Date: 3/14/2006
Applicant/Owner:
Archdale Partners, LLC
County: Guilford
NC
Wetland
A
Investigator: Kimley-Horn and Associates (BR) State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
Vegetation
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Acer rubrum Tree FAC
2. Liquidambar styraciflua Tree FAC+
3. Liriodendron tulipifera Tree FACU
4. Ligustrum sinense Shrub FAC
5. Microstegium vimineum Grass FAC+
6.
7.
8.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACU)
Remarks:
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
83%
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: - (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 8 (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 6 (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
No Plot ID:
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY INDICATORS:
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
X Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Suvey Data
x Fac-Neutral Test
Other

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phrase): Chewacla sandy loam Drainage Class: Somewhat poorly drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? (Y/N) Yes
Depth
inches
Horizon Matrix Color
(Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors
(Munsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-4 A 10YR 4/1 loam sand
4-12+ B 10YR 5/1 10YR 6/6 Abundant loam sand

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

DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: Archdale Retail Development Date: 3/14/2006
Applicant/Owner: Archdale Partners, LLC County: Guilford
Investigator: Kimley-Horn and Associates (BR) State: NG
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: B
Vegetation
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Juncus effusus Grass FACW 9.
2. Eleocharis spp. Grass FACW 10.
3. 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
g, 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACU): 100%
Remarks:
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: - (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 8 (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 6 (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY INDICATORS:
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Suvey Data
x Fac-Neutral Test
Other

SOILS
.~ ~ _. ,. _~ ,.. ~ ~..r. ~,.~ ....
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phrase): Chewacla sandy loam Drainage Class: Somewhat poorly drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? (Y/N) Yes
Depth
(inches)
Horizon Matrix Color
Munsell Moist Mottle Colors
Munsell Moist) Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
.Structure, etc.
0-4 A 10YR 4/1 loam sand
4-12+ B 10YR 5/1 10YR 6/6 Abundant loam sand

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

DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: Archdale Retail Development Date: 3/14/2006
Applicant/Owner: Archdale Partners, LLC
County: Guilford
Investigator: Kimley-Morn and Asspciates (BR) State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
Vegetation
Dominant Plant Species
1. Juncus effusus Stratum
Grass
2. Eleocharis spp. Grass
3. Myrica cerifera Shrub
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
No Plot ID
Indicator Dominant Plant Species
FACW 9.
FACW 10.
FAC+ 11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACU): 100%
Remarks:
NC
Wetland
C
Stratum Indicator
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: - (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 8 (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 6 (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
x Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY WDICATORS:
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Suvey Data
x Fac-Neutral Test
Other

SOILS
.._ _ ~ . _ ....,.... . w ., ._
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phrase): Enon fine sandy loam Drainage Class: Well drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Ultic Hapludalfs
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? (Y/N) No
Depth
(inches
Horizon Matrix Color
Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors
Munsell Moist) Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-6 A 10YR 5/2 cla loam
6-12+ B 10YR 5/2 10YR 6/5 Abundant cla loam

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

DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: Archdale Retail Development Date: 3/14/2006
Applicant/Owner: Archdale Partners, LLC
County: Guilford
Investigator: Kimley-Horn and Associates (BR) State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
Vegetation
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Salix nigra Tree OBL
2. Juncus spp. Grass FACW
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACU)
Remarks:
Dominant Plant Species
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
100%
NC
Wetland
D
Stratum Indicator
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: - (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 10 (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 8 (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
No Plot ID:
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY INDICATORS: _
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Suvey Data
Fac-Neutral Test
Other

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phrase): Chewacla sandy loam Drainage Class: Somewhat poorly drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? (Y/N) Yes
Depth
(inches)
Horizon Matrix Color
(Munsell Moist Mottle Colors
(Munsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-8 A 10YR5/2 cla loam
8-12+ B 10YR5/2 10YR4/6 Abundant cla sand

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

DATA FORM
Project/Site:
Applicant/Owner:
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Archdale Retail Development
Archdale Partners, LLC
Investigator: Kimley-Horn and Associates (BR)
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No
Vegetation
Date:
County:
State:
Community ID:
Transect ID:
Plot ID:
3/14/2006
Guilford
NC
Wetland
E
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species
1. Acer rubrum Tree FAC 9.
2. Liquidambar styraciflua Tree FAC+ 10.
3. Liriodendron tulipifera Tree FACU 11.
4. Smilax spp. Vine FAC+ 12.
5. Juncus spp. Herb FACW 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Spe cies that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACU): 100%
Remarks:
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: - (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 8 (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 6 (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY INDICATORS:
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Suvey Data
x Fac-Neutral Test
Other
Stratum Indicator

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phrase): Enon fine sandy loam Drainage Class: Well drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Ultic Hapludalfs
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? (Y/N) No
Depth
(inches
Horizon Matrix Color
Munsell Moist Mottle Colors
Munsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-6 A 10YR 4/1 sand loam
6-12+ B 10YR 5/1 10YR 6/6 Abundant sand loam

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

DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: Archdale Retail Development Date: 3/14/2006
Applicant/Owner: Archdale Partners, LLC
County: Guilford
Investigator: Kimley-Horn and Associates (BR) State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
Vegetation
Dominant Plant Species Stratum
1. Acer rubrum Tree
2. Liquidambar styraciflua Tree
3. Liriodendron tulipifera Tree
4. Ligustrum sinense Shrub
5. Smilax spp. Vine
6.
7.
8.
No Plot ID:
Indicator Dominant Plant Species
FAC 9.
FAC+ 10.
FACU 11.
FAC 12.
FAC+ 13.
14.
15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACU):
Remarks:
100%
NC
Wetland
F
Stratum Indicator
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: - (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 8 (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 6 (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
Inunaatea
x Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY INDICATORS: _
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Suvey Data
x Fac-Neutral Test
Other

SOILS
. ~,., _
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phrase): Enon fine sandy loam Drainage Class: Well drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Ultic Hapludalfs
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? (Y/N) No
Depth
inches
Horizon Matrix Color
(Munsell Moist Mottle Colors
Munsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-6 A 10YR 4/2 cla loam
6-12+ B 10YR 5/2 10YR 6/6 Abundant cla loam

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

DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
ProjectlSite: Archdale Retail Development Date: 3/14/2006
ApplicantlOwner: Archdale Partners, LLC County
Investigator: Kimley-Horn and Associates (BR) State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
No Plot ID:
Vegetation
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Acer rubrum Tree FAC
2. Liquidambar styraciflua Tree FAC+
3. Liriodendron tulipifera Tree FACU
4. Ligustrum sinense Shrub FAC
5. Smilax spp. Vine FAC+
6.
7.
8.
Dominant Plant Species
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACU): 100%
Rpmarkc~
Guilford
NC
Wetland
G
Stratum Indicator
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: - (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 10 (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 6 (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY INDICATORS:
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Suvey Data
x Fac-Neutral Test
Other

SOILS
. __ .... ~.. ~ . ..A.., vri~.
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phrase): Chewacla sandy loam Drainage Class: Somewhat poorly drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? (Y/N) Yes
Depth
inches
Horizon Matrix Color
(Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors
Munsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-4 A 10YR 4/1 loam sand
4-12+ B 10YR 5/1 10YR 6/6 Abundant loam sand

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

DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
ProjectlSite: Archdale Retail Development Date: 3/14/2006
Applicant/Owner:
Archdale Partners, LLC
County: Guilford
Investigator: Kimley-Horn and Associates (BR) State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
Vegetation
No Plot ID
NC
Wetland
H
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Microstegium vimineum Grass FAC+ 9.
2. Juncus spp. Grass FACW 10.
3. 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
g, 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACU): 100%
Remarks:
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: - (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 10 (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 8 (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY INDICATORS:
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
X Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Suvey Data
Fac-Neutral Test
Other

SOILS
_.b .._N.~~..~,.~ . ~..., T:.........,..~..,. ~...... ~,_~.~.~.......:.,~~~..~.A.., .., ._,,,~,~a ~,,~,~a.,..
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phrase): Appling sandy loam Drainage Class: Well drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Hapludults
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? (Y/N) No
Depth
(inches
Horizon Matrix Color
Munsell Moist Mottle Colors
Munsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-6 A 2.5Y5/2 10YR5/8 Abundant cla loam
6-12+ B 2.5Y5/1 7.5YR5/6 Abundant cla sand

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

DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
ProjectlSite: Archdale Retail Development Date: 3/14/2006
Applicant/Owner: Archdale Partners, LLC
County: Guilford
Investigator: Kimley-Horn and Associates (BR) State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: I
Vegetation
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Do minant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Salix nigra Tree OBL 9.
2. Carpinus caroliniana Tree FAC 10.
3. Acer rubrum Tree FAC 11.
4. Juncus spp. Grass FACW 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
g, 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACU): 100%
Remarks:
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: - (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 6 (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 4 (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
Inunaatea
x Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY INDICATORS:
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
X Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Suvey Data
Fac-Neutral Test
Other

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phrase): Appling sandy loam Drainage Class: Well drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Hapludults
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? (Y/N) No
Depth
(inches
Horizon Matrix Color
(Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors
Munsell Moist) Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-10 A 2.5Y5/2 10YR5/6 Abundant cla loam
10-18 B 2.5Y4/1 10YR4/6 Abundant cla sand

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

DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: Archdale Retail Development Date: 3/14/2006
Applicant/Owner: Archdale Partners, LLC
County: Guilford
Investigator: Kimley-Horn and Associates (BR) State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
Vegetation
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Juncus effusus Grass FACW
2. Eleocharis spp. Grass FACW
3. Smilax spp. Vine FAC
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACU)
Remarks:
Dominant Plant Species
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
100%
NC
Wetland
J
Stratum Indicator
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: - (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 8 (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 6 (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
No Plot ID
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
x Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY INDICATORS:
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Suvey Data
x Fac-Neutral Test
Other

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phrase): Enon fine sandy loam Drainage Class: Well drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Ultic Hapludalfs
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? (Y/N) No
Depth
inches
Horizon Matrix Color
(Munsell Moist Mottle Colors
(Munsell Moist Mottle
Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc.
0-4 A 10YR 4/1 loam sand
4-12+ B 10YR 5/1 10YR 6/6 Abundant loam sand

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

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

Community ID: Forested
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Transect ID: W4-10
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Plot ID: K
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Acer rubrum Canopy FAC 9.
2. L~uidambar stvraciflua Canopy FAC+ 10.
3. Carpinus carolineana Canopy FAC 11.
4. Ouercus phellos Sub-Can. FACW- 12.
5. Lonicerajaponica Vine FAC- 13.
6. Phoradendron serotinum Herb NL 14.
7, 15.
g, 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 100%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other x Inundated
_ x Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits
x Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) Secondary Indicators:
x Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0 (in.) x Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Wynott-Enon Drainage Class: Well-drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Hapludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moistl (Munsell Moist) AbundancelContrast Structure, etc.
0-2 A 10 YR 2/1 sandy loam
2-12 B lOYR 4/1 lOYR 5/1 10% sandy clay
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes x No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes x No
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes x No
Remarks:

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

Community ID: Forested
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Transect ID: W2-1
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes luo X Plot ID: L
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. FaQUS grandifolia Canony FAC 9.
2. Acer rubrm Canop,~ FAC 10.
3. Liquidambar styraciflua Canopy FAC+ 11.
4. Ligustrum sinense Shrub FAC 12•
5. Lonicera japonica Vine FAC- 13.
6. Rubus argutus Vine FACU+ 14.
7._Polyginum spp. 15.
g, 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 83%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other _ Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
x Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: NA (in.) Secondary Indicators:
x Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: NA (in.) _Water-Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 10 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Wynott-Enon Drainage Class: Well-drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup):. Typic Hapludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No
Profile Descriation:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle .Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moistl (Munsell Moistl Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-8 A 2.SY 5/3 lOYR 516 10% loam
8-12+ B 2.SY 4/2 lOYR 5/6 60% sandy clay loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes x No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes x No
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes x No
Remarks:

~m+.m.t-.,m... r~.~r~,.~..,m,-=~~,-'r^'n-T'.^=-+'~*'m~~~'""~~„~'~i ^*~..~,, ,m.,.~.-^~n1~~. .,~.~,.~n,~,^r~~l,~,,,F,,, ,^!"P~^'-~"f"°~'r.^,~.,.ar~~~~r~+~^rq. ~m~~r~lrr^iT^r m ~r-^Ir*+
USAGE Stream Quality
Assessment Worksheets

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name:_Archdale Partners, LLC 2. Evaluator's name: _KHA (BAR)
3. Date of evaluation: 3/14/06
5. Name of stream:_UT Muddy Creek (Stream 1)
7. Approximate drainage area:_0.13 sq. mile
9. Length of reach evaluated:
1121 ft.
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.8723
4. Time of evaluation: 8:30am
6. River basin:_Cape Fear
8. Stream order: 1
10. County:_Guilford
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):_Pro e
located in SE quadrant of I-85 and NC 62 interchange. Stream 2.
14. Proposed channel work (if any):_Road crossing
15. Recent weather conditions:
Sunny, 70 degrees F
16. Site conditions at time of visit: clear,
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters
Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Nutrient Sensitive _X_Waters Water Supply Watershed _IV_(I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 75 % Residential 10 % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
15_% Forested % Cleared /Logged % Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 10-feet
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 5-feet
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%} _X Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous _X_Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream
may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score
assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 60 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature,
Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering
the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score
resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or
requirement. Form subject to change -version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet
#
Characteristics Ecore ion Point Ran e
S

Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain core
Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream
1
no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max oints 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 4
2 Evidence of past human alteration

extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max oints 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 5
3 Riparian zone 0- 6 0- 4 0- 5 4
no buffer = 0; Conti onus, wide buffer = max oints
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges

extensive dischar es = 0; no dischar es = max oints 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 4
,.a
'
S Groundwater discharge
0 - 3
0 - 4
0 - 4
4
d no dischar e = 0; s rip s, see s, wetlands, etc. = max oints

6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max oints 0 - 4 0 - 4 0 - 2 1
,~", ~ Entrenchment /floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 1
A. dee 1 entrenched = 0; fre uent floodin = max oints
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0- 6 0- 4 0- 2 0
no wetlands = 0; lar a ad
acent wetlands = max oints)
9 Channel sinuosity 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 2
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max oints
10 Sediment input 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 2
extensive de osition= 0; little or no sediment = max oints
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0 - 4 0 - 5 3
fine, homo enous = 0; lar e, diverse sizes = max oints
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 2
F dee 1 incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max oints
`~ 13 Presence of major bank failures 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5 2
~ severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max oints
~
14 Root depth and density on banks
0 - 3
0 - 4
0 - 5
4
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throu hoot = max oints
~ 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 4
substantial im act ~; no evidence = max oints

16 Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes
0 - 3
0 - 5
0 - 6
4
F no riffles/ri les or ools = 0; well-develo ed = max oints
Q
17 Habitat complexity
0 - 6
0 - 6
0 - 6
4
~ little or no habitat = 0; fre uent, varied habitats = max oints
~
18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0 - 5
0 - 5
0 - 5
5
r no shadin ve elation = 0; continuous Cann = max oints
'
" 19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0 - 4 0 - 4 2
dee I embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0.4 0 - 5 0 - 5 0
~,, (no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints
~ 21 Presence of amphibians 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 0
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints
Q 22 Presence of fish 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 0
~ no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 3
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max oints
Total Points Possible 100 ion too
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 60
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name:_Archdale Partners, LLC
3. Date of evaluation: 3/14/06
2. Evaluator's name: _KHA (BAR)
4. Time of evaluation: 8:30am
5. Name of stream:_UT Muddy Creek (Stream 2) 6. River basin:_Cape Fear_
7. Approximate drainage area:_0.21 sq mile 8. Stream order:_1
9. Length of reach evaluated:_2315 ft.
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
10. County:_Guilford
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
GPS
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): Pro e
located in SE quadrant of I-85 and NC 62 interchange. Stream 1-upstream of large pond.
14. Proposed channel work (if any):_Road crossing
15. Recent weather conditions:
Sunny, 70 degrees F
16. Site conditions at time of visit:_clear,
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive _X_Waters Water Supply Watershed _IV_(I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 75 % Residential 10 % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
15_% Forested % Cleared /Logged % Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 5-feet
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3-feet
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) _X_Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous _X_Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream
may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score
assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 74 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature.
Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering
the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score
resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or
requirement. Form subject to change -version 06/03. To Comment, please ca11919-876-8441 x 26.

Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet
#
Ch
t
i
ti Ecore ion Point Ran e
o
s
arac
er
s
cs
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain c
re

1 Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream
0 - 5
0 - 4
0 - 5
3
no flow or saturation = 0; stron flow = max oints
Z Evidence of past human alteration 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 5
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max oints
3 Riparian zone 0- 6 0- 4 0- 5 2
no buffer = 0; Conti onus, wide buffer = max oints
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 4
extensive dischar es = 0; no dischar es = max oints
,.a
5 Groundwater discharge
0 - 3
0 - 4
0 - 4
4
U no dischar e = 0; s rin s, see s, wetlands, etc. = max oints
~
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0 - 4
0 - 4
0 - 2
4
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max oints
~ ~ Entrenchment /floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 4
Pr dee 1 entrenched = 0; fre uent floodin = max oints
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0- 6 0- 4 0- 2 4
acent wetlands = max oints
no wetlands = 0; lar a ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 2
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max oints
10 Sediment input 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 2
(extensive de osition= 0; little or no sediment = max oints
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0 - 4 0 - 5 2
fine, homo enous = 0; lar e, diverse sizes = max oints
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 4
F (dee I incised = O;stable bed & banks = max oints
'~ 13 Presence of major bank failures 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5 5
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max oints
~
~
14 Root depth and density on banks
0 - 3
0 - 4
0 - 5
4
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throw hoot = max oints
~ 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 4
substantial im act ~; no evidence = max oints
16 Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes 0- 3 0- 5 0- 6 2
no riffles/ri les or ools = 0; well-develo ed = max oints
F
d
l ~ Habitat complexity
0 - 6
0 - 6
0 - 6
3
~ little or no habitat = 0; fre went, varied habitats = max oints
~
18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0 - 5
0 - 5
0 - 5
5
no shadin ve elation = 0; continuous Cann = max oints
'~'
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0 - 4 0 - 4 4
dee I embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0 - 4 0 - 5 0 - 5 2
~„~ no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints
C7 21 Presence of amphibians 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 2
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints
'~
Q
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints
~ 23 Evidence of wildlife use 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 3
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max oints
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 74
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name:~Archdale Partners, LLC
3. Date of evaluation: 3/14/06
2. Evaluator's name: _ICIIA (BAR)
4. Time of evaluation: 8:30am
5. Name of stream:_UT Muddy Creek (Stream 3- intermitt) 6. River basin:_Cape Fear
7. Approximate drainage area:_0.04 sq. mile.
9. Length of reach evaluated:_795 ft.
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
8. Stream order:_1_
10. County:_Guilford
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other GPS
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): Pro e
located in SE quadrant of I-85 and NC 62 interchange. Stream 3-intermitt.
14. Proposed channel work (if any):_Road crossing
15. Recent weather conditions: Sunny, 70 degrees F
16. Site conditions at time of visit:_clear,
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive _X_Waters Water Supply Watershed _IV_(I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _75_ % Residential _10_% Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
_15_% Forested % Cleared /Logged % Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 2-feet 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 1-feet
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) _X_Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous _X_Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream
may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score
assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 61 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature.
Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering
the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score
resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or
requirement. Form subject to change -version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet
#
Ch
i
ti
t Ecore ion Point Ran e
s
arac
er
s
cs
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain core
1 Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 2
no flow or saturation = 0; stron flow = max oints
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 5
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max oints
3 Riparian zone 0- 6 0- 4 0- 5 4
no buffer = 0; Conti uous, wide buffer = max oints
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 4
(extensive dischar es = 0; no dischar es = max oints
,.a
5 Groundwater discharge
0 - 3
0 - 4
0 - 4
4
V no dischar e = 0; s rin s, see s, wetlands, etc. = max oints
~ 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 3
~,, (no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max oints
,7", ~ Entrenchment / tloodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 4
a+ dee I entrenched = 0; fre uent floodin = max oints
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0- 6 0- 4 0- 2 0
no wetlands = 0; lar a ad
acent wetlands = max oints
9 Channel sinuosity 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 I
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max oints
10 Sediment input 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 2
extensive de osition= O; little or no sediment = max oints
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0 - 4 0 - 5 1
fine, homo enous = 0; lar e, diverse sizes = max oints
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 3
H dee I incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max oints
'~ 13 Presence of major bank failures 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5 5
~, severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max oints
~
14 Root depth and density on banks
0 - 3
0 - 4
0 - 5
2
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throu hout = max oints
~ 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 4
(substantial im act =0; no evidence = max oints

16 Presence of riffle-pooVripple-pool complexes
0 - 3
0 - 5
0 - 6
1
no riffles/ri les or ools = 0; well-develo ed = max oints
d
I ~ Habitat complexity
0 - 6
0 - 6
0 - 6
2
~ little or no habitat = 0; fre uent, varied habitats = max oints
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0- 5 0- 5 0- 5 5
no shadin ve etation = 0; continuous Cann = max oints
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0- 4 0- 4 4
dee t embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0 - 4 0 - 5 0 - 5 2
~, no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints
~ 21 Presence of amphibians 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 0
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints

O
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
~ no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 3
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max oints
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 61
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name:_Archdale Partners, LLC
3. Date of evaluation: 3/14/06
5. Name of stream:_UT Muddy Creek (Stream 3- perenn)
7. Approximate drainage area:_0.04 sq mile.
9. Length of reach evaluated:_795ft.
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
2. Evaluator's name: _ICHA (BAR)
4. Time of evaluation: 8:30am
6. River basin:_Cape Fear
8. Stream order
10. County:_Guilford
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
GPS
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): Pro e
located in SE quadrant of I-85 and NC 62 interchange. Stream 3-perennial.
14. Proposed channel work (if any):_Road crossing
15. Recent weather conditions: Sunny, 70 degrees F
16. Site conditions at time of visit: clear,
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section I O Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive _X_Waters Water Supply Watershed _IV_(I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _75_ % Residential _10_% Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
_15_% Forested % Cleared /Logged % Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 10-feet 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 5-feet
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) _X_Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous _X_Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream
may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score
assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 58 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering
the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score
resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or
requirement. Form subject to change -version 06/03. To Comment, please ca11919-876-8441 x 26.

Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet
#
Characteristics Ecore ion Point Ran e
S

Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain core
I Presence of flow /persistent pools iu stream

no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max oints 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 3
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 5
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max oints)
3 Riparian zone 0- 6 0- 4 0- 5 4
no buffer = 0; Conti uous, wide buffer = max oints
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges

extensive dischar es = 0; no dischar es = max oints 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 4
,.a
5 Groundwater discharge
U no dischar e = 0; s rip s, see s, wetlands, etc. = max oints 0 - 3 0 - 4 0 - 4 4
~ 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain

~
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max oints 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 1
x ~ Entrenchment / tloodplain access

a
dee I entrenched = 0; fre uent floodin = max oints 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 I
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands

no wetlands = 0; lar a ad~acent wetlands = max oints) 0- 6 0- 4 0- 2 0
9 Channel sinuosity

extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max oints 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 1
10 Sediment input 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 2
extensive de osition= 0; little or no sediment = max oints
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate *

fine, homo enous = 0; lar e, diverse sizes = max oints NA 0 - 4 0 - 5 3
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening

H
dee I incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max oints 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 2
13 Presence of major bank failures 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5 2
~ (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max oints
d 14 Root depth and density on banks

~
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throu hout = max oints 0 - 3 0 - 4 0 - 5 2
~ 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production

substantial im act =0; no evidence = max oints) 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 4
16 Presence of riffle-pool ripple-pool complexes

~
no riffles/ri les or ools = 0; well-develo ed = max oints) 0 - 3 0 - 5 0 - 6 3
d
1 ~ Habitat complexity
0 - 6
0 - 6
0 - 6
4
~ little or no habitat = 0; fre uent, varied habitats = max oints
~
18 Canopy coverage over streambed

x no shading ve elation = 0; continuous Cann = max oints 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5 5
' 19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0 - 4 0 - 4 1
(dee 1 embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)

~,,,
no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints 0 - 4 0 - 5 0 - 5 4
C7
21 Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints

O
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
~ no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 3
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max oints
Total Points Possible 100 100 loo
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 58
These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name:_Archdale Partners, LLC
2. Evaluator's name: _KIIA (BAR)
3. Date of evaluation: 3/14/06 4. Time of evaluation: 8:30am
5. Name of stream:_UT Muddy Creek (Stream 4-intermitt) 6. River basin:_Cape Fear_
7. Approximate drainage area:_0.21 sq miles.
9. Length of reach evaluated:_55 ft.
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
8. Stream order:_1
10. County:_Guilford
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
GPS
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):_Pro e
located in SE quadrant of I-85 and NC 62 interchange. Stream 4-intermitt.
14. Proposed channel work (if any):_Road crossing
15. Recent weather conditions
Sunny, 70 degrees F
16. Site conditions at time of visit: clear,
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive _X_Waters Water Supply Watershed _IV_(I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _75_ % Residential _10~% Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
_15_% Forested % Cleared /Logged % Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 2-feet 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 2-feet
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) _X_Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous _X_Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream
may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score
assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 33 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering
the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score
resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or
requirement. Form subject to change -version 06/03. To Comment, please ca11919-876-8441 x 26.

Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet
#
Characteristics Ecore ion Point Ran e
S

Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain core
I Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream

no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max oints 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 2
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 2
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max oints)
3 Riparian zone 0- 6 0- 4 0- 5 1
no buffer = 0; Conti onus, wide buffer = max oints
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges

(extensive dischar es = 0; no dischar es = max oints 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 4
,.a
5 Groundwater discharge
0 - 3
0 - 4
0 - 4
4
U no dischar e = 0; s rip s, see s, wetlands, etc. = max oints
~ 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain

~„~
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max oints 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 1
,~, ~ Entrenchment /floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 1
a+ dee 1 entrenched = 0; fre uent floodin = max oints
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0- 6 0- 4 0- 2 0
no wetlands = 0; lar a ad
acent wetlands = max oints
9 Channel sinuosity 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 0
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max oints
10 Sediment input 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 3
extensive de osition= 0; little or no sediment = max oints
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0 - 4 0 - 5 1
fine, homo enous = 0; lar e, diverse sizes = max oints
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 2
F (dee l incised = O;stable bed & banks = max oints
13 Presence of major bank failures 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5 5
~ severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max oints
~
14 Root depth and density on banks
0 - 3
0 - 4
0 - 5
1
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throu hoot = max oints
~ IS Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 2
substantial im act ~; no evidence = max oints)

16 Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes
0 - 3
0 - 5
0 - 6
1
(no riffles/ri les or ools = 0; well-develo ed = max oints
~
17 Habitat complexity
0 - 6
0 - 6
0 - 6
1
~ little or no habitat = 0; fre uent, varied habitats = max oints
~
I8 Canopy coverage over streambed

~ (no shadin ve etation = 0; continuous Cann = max oints 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5 1
'
' 19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0 - 4 0 - 4 1
(dee 1 embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0 - 4 0 - 5 0 - 5 0
,,, no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints
G7 21 Presence of amphibians 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 0
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints
''~
O
22 Presence offish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
~ no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 0
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max oints
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 33
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name:_Archdale Partners, LLC
3. Date of evaluation: 3/14/06
5. Name of stream:_UT Muddy Creek (Stream 5)
7. Approximate drainage area:~0.21 sq. miles-
9. Length of reach evaluated:_76 8.
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
2. Evaluator's name: _I{HA (BAR)
4. Time of evaluation: 8:30am
6. River basin:_Cape Fear
_ 8. Stream order:_1
10. County:_Guilford
12. Subdivision name (if any):_
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other GPS
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): Pro e
located in SE quadrant of I-85 and NC 62 interchange. Stream 5 - intermitt.
14. Proposed channel work (if any):_fill
15. Recent weather conditions: Sunny, 70 degrees F
16. Site conditions at time of visit:_clear,
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known:
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters
Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Nutrient Sensitive _X_Waters Water Supply Watershed _IV_(I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _75_ % Residential _10_% Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
15_% Forested % Cleared /Logged % Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 2-feet
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 2-feet
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) _X_Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous _X_Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream
may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score
assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 68 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature
Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering
the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score
resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or
requirement. Form subject to change -version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet
#
Characteristics Ecore ion Point Ran e
S

Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain core
Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream
1
no flow or saturation = 0; stron flow = max oints 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 2
2 Evidence of past human alteration

(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max oints 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 5
3 Riparian zone 0- 6 0- 4 0- 5 4
no buffer = 0; Conti uous, wide buffer = max oints
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges

extensive dischar es = O;no dischar es = max oints 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 4
,.a
5 Groundwater discharge
U no dischar e = 0; s rin s, see s, wetlands, etc. = max oints 0 - 3 0 - 4 0 - 4 4
~
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max oints 0 - 4 0 - 4 0 - 2 3
,x ~ Entrenchment /floodplain access

a+
dee 1 entrenched = 0; fre uent floodin = max oints 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 4
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands

no wetlands = 0; lar a adjacent wetlands = max oints 0- 6 0- 4 0- 2 3
9 Channel sinuosity

extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max oints 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 2
10 Sediment input 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 4
(extensive de osition= 0; little or no sediment = max oints
1 I Size & diversity of channel bed substrate *

fine, homo enous = 0; lar e, diverse sizes = max oints NA 0 - 4 0 - 5 1
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening

F
(dee 1 incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max oints 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 4
13 Presence of major bank failures 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5 5
~, severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max oints
~
14 Root depth and density on banks
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throw hout = max oints 0 - 3 0 - 4 0 - 5 3
~ 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production

substantial im act =0; no evidence = max oints 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 4
16 Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes 0- 3 0- 5 0- 6 2
F no riffles/ri les or ools = 0; well-develo ed = max oints
~
1 ~ Habitat complexity
0 - 6
0 - 6
0 - 6
3
~ little or no habitat = 0; fre went, varied habitats = max oints
~
18 Canopy coverage over streambed

~ no shadin ve etation = 0; continuous cano = max oints 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5 5
`
' 19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0 - 4 0 - 4 4
dee I embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)

~,,
no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints 0 _ 4 0 - 5 0 - 5 0
C7 21 Presence of amphibians p- 4 0- 4 0- 4 0
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints
O 22 Presence of fish 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 0
~ no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints
23 Evidence of wildlife use

no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max oints 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 2
Total Points Possible 100 l00 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 68
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name:_Archdale Partners, LLC
3. Date of evaluation: 3/14/06
2. Evaluator's name: _ICHA (BAR)
4. Time of evaluation: 8:30am
5. Name of stream:_UT Muddy Creek (Stream 6-intermitt) 6. River basin:_Cape Fear,
7. Approximate drainage area:_0.21 sq miles
9. Length of reach evaluated:_55 ft.
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
8. Stream order: 1
10. County:_Guilford
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
GPS
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): Pro e
located in SE quadrant of I-85 and NC 62 interchange. Stream 6-intermitt.
14. Proposed channel work (if any):_Road crossing
15. Recent weather conditions: Sunny, 70 degrees F
16. Site conditions at time of visit: clear,
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive _X_Waters Water Supply Watershed _IV_(I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:,
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 75 % Residential 10 % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
_15_% Forested
22. Bankfull width:
2-feet
Cleared /Logged % Other ( )
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 2-feet
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) _X Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous _X_Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream
may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score
assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 26 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature,
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering
the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score
resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or
requirement. Form subject to change -version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
Date

Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet
#
Characteristics Ecore ion Point Ran e
S

Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain core
Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream
I
no flow or saturation = 0; stron flow = max oints 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 2
2 Evidence of past human alteration

extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max oints 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 1
3 Riparian zone

no buffer = 0; Conti uous, wide buffer = max oints 0- 6 0- 4 0- 5 1
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges

extensive dischar es = 0; no dischar es = max oints 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 4
.,a
5 Groundwater discharge
d no dischar e = 0; s rin s, see s, wetlands, etc. = max oints 0 - 3 0 - 4 0 - 4 2

6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max oints 0 - 4 0 - 4 0 - 2 0
,-y~, ~ Entrenchment / flaodplain access

a+
dee 1 entrenched = 0; fre uent floodin = max oints 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 1
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0- 6 0- 4 0- 2 0
no wetlands = 0; lar a ad
acent wetlands = max oints
9 Channel sinuosity

extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max oints 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 0
10 Sediment input 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 3
(extensive de osition= 0; little or no sediment = max oints
I l Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0 - 4 0 - 5 1
fine, homo enous = 0; lar e, diverse sizes = max oints
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 1
F dee ly incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max oints
'~ 13 Presence of major bank failures 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5 3
~„~ severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max oints
~
14 Root depth and density on banks
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throw hout = max oints 0 - 3 0 - 4 0 - 5 1
~ 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 2
substantial im act ~; no evidence = max oints
16 Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes 0- 3 0- 5 0- 6 1
E~ no riflles/ri les or ools = 0; well-develo ed = max oints
d
17 Habitat complexity
0 - 6
0 - 6
0 - 6
1
~ little or no habitat = 0; fre went, varied habitats = max oints
~
113 Canopy coverage over streambed

~ no shadin ve elation = 0; continuous Cann = max oints 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5 1
'
' 19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0 - 4 0 - 4 I
dee I embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0 - 4 0 - 5 0 - 5 0
~„ no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints
(~ 21 Presence of amphibians 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 0
~ no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints
~ 22 Presence of fish 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 0
~ (no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 0
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max oints
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 26
These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name:_Archdale Partners, LLC
3. Date of evaluation: 3/14/06
2. Evaluator's name: _ICIIA (AR)
4. Time of evaluation: 8:30am
5. Name of stream:_UT Muddy Creek (Stream 7) 6. River basin:_Cape Fear.
7. Approximate drainage area:_0.13 sq. mile
9. Length of reach evaluated:_1121 ft.
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
8. Stream order: 1
10. County:_Guilford
12. Subdivision name (if any):.
Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
GPS
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): Pro e
located in SE quadrant of I-85 and NC 62 interchange. Stream 7.
14. Proposed channel work (if any):_Road crossing
15. Recent weather conditions: Sunny, 70 degrees F
16. Site conditions at time of visit: clear.
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive _X_Waters Water Supply Watershed _IV_(I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 75 % Residential
_15_% Forested
22. Bankfull width
10-feet
10 % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
Cleared /Logged % Other ( )
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 5-feet
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) _X_Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous _X_Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream
may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score
assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 69 Comments:
Evaluator's Signatu
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering
the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score
resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or
requirement. Form subject to change -version 06/03. To Comment, please ca11919-876-8441 x 26.

Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet
#
Characteristics Ecore ion Point Ran e
S

Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain core
I Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream

no flow or saturation = 0; stron flow = max oints 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 4
2 Evidence of past human alteration

extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max oints 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 5
3 Riparian zone

no buffer = 0; Conti onus, wide buffer = max oints 0- 6 0- 4 0- 5 4
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges

extensive dischar es = 0; no dischar es = max oints 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 4
,.a
5 Groundwater discharge
U no dischar e = 0; s rin s, see s, wetlands, etc. = max oints 0 - 3 0 - 4 0 - 4 4
~ 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain

y
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max oints 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 2
~.i ~ Entrenchment /floodplain access

0.
dee 1 entrenched = 0; fre uent floodin = max oints 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 2
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0- 6 0- 4 0- 2 2
no wetlands = 0; lar a ad
acent wetlands = max oints
9 Channel sinuosity

extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max oints 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 2
10 Sediment input 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 2
extensive de osition= 0; little or no sediment = max oints
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0 - 4 0 - 5 3
fine, homo enous = O; lar e, diverse sizes = max oints
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening

~
dee l incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max oints 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 2
'~ 13 Presence of major bank failures 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5 2
~ severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max oints
~
14 Root depth and density on banks
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throu hoot = max oints 0 - 3 0 - 4 0 - 5 4
~ 15 Impact by agriculture,1ivestock, or timber production 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 4
(substantial im act ~; no evidence = max oints
16 Presence of riffle-pool ripple-pool complexes

E„ ~
no riffles/ri les or ools = 0; well-develo ed = max oints 0 - 3 0 - 5 0 - 6 5
~
17 Habitat complexity
0 - 6
0 - 6
0 - 6
4
~ (little or no habitat = 0; fre uent, varied habitats = max oints
~
18 Canopy coverage over streambed

~ no shadin ve elation = 0; continuous Cann = max oints 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5 5
`
' 19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0 - 4 0 - 4 2
dee I embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0 - 4 0 - 5 0 - 5 2
~,,, no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints
(~ 21 Presence of amphibians 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 2
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints

O
22 Presence offish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
~ no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 3
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max oints
Total Points Possible 100 10o too
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 69
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

NCDWQ Stream Ic~entifcation Forms

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form, Version 3.1
Date: 3/14/2006 Project: Archdale Retail Dev Latitude:
Evaluator: BAR Site: Stream 1 Longitude:
Total Points: 40

Stream is at least intermittent
County: Guilford Other
e.g. Quad Name: High Point East
if z 19 or perennial if t 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 20 ~;~Absent~'jN„,~eak~ aJNoderate~ S~~o g'
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosit 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle- ool se uence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sortin 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3
6. De ositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial de osits 0 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade Control 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valle or draina a wa 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS ma or other documented evidence. No = 0 Yes = 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussion in manual
B H drolo Subtotal = 9.5
14. Groundwater flow/dischar e 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season ~ 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on lants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Or anic debris lines or files (Wrack lines 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. H dric soils redoximorphic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C Biolo Subtotal = 10.5
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21b. Rooted lants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Cra fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Am hibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversit and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous al ae; eri h on 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizin bacteria/fun us 0 0.5 1 1.5
29b. Wetland lants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; sav = 2.0; Other = 0
n Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form, Version 3.1
Date: 3/14/2006 Project: Archdale Retail Dev Latitude:
Evaluator: BAR Site: Stream 2 Longitude:
Total Points: 33
Other

Stream is at least intermittent Guilford
County: Hi h Point East
e.g. Quad Name: g
if Z 19 or perennial if 2 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 18.5 ~Abse~f, ~~'' ~fVlo ~~ , e~, , .o
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosit 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle- ool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sortin 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial de osits 0 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade Control 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valle or draina a wa 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS ma or other documented evidence. No = 0 Yes = 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussion in manual
B_ Hvdroloav Subtotal = 6.5
14. Groundwater flow/dischar e 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- d or growing season 0 1 2
- 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on lants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Or anic debris lines or files Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features) resent? No = 0 Yes =1.5
C. Bioloav Subtotal =
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 °. Rooted lants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Cra fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Am hibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversit and abundance 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous al ae; eri h on 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizin bacteria/fun us 0 0.5 1 1.5
29b. Wetland lants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
One frog observed: one crayfish observed: multiple amphipods

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form, Version 3.1
Date: 3/14/2006 Project: Archdale Retail Dev Latitude:
Evaluator: BAR Site: Stream 3 -Intermit Longitude:
Total Points: 25
Stream is at least intermittent County: Guilford Other High Point East
e.g. Quad Name:
if t 19 or perennial if 2 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 11 `Abserit'~ ' ~?1Neak~~ ''Motleyate#'~izStrgn'g~~;~
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosit 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle- ool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sortin 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3
6. De ositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial de osits 0 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade Control 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valle or drains a wa 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS ma or other documented evidence. No = 0 Yes = 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussion in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal =
14. Groundwater flow/dischar e 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or rowing season 0 1 2
- 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on lants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Or anic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. H dric soils (redoximor hic features) resent? No = 0 Yes =1.5
C. Biology Subtotal =
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 b. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Cra ish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Am hibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversit and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous al ae; eri h on 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizin bacteria/fun us 0 0.5 1 1.5
29b. Wetland lants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
° Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form, Version 3.1
Date: 3/14/2006 Project: Archdale Retail Dev Latitude:
Evaluator: BAR Site: Stream 3 - Pernnial Longitude:
Total Points: 36

Stream is at least intermittent
County: Guilford Other
e.g. Quad Name: High Point East
if t 19 or perennial if Z 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 17.5 ''Absentm ~~~1Neak, _` ~Mode~~afe ~St~orig°
1 a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosit 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle- ool se uence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sortin 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3
6. De ositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial de osits 0 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade Control 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valle or draina a wa 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS ma or other documented evidence. No = 0 Yes = 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussion in manual
B. Hvdrolopv Subtotal = 8.5
14. Groundwater flow/dischar e 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- d or growing season 0 1 2
- 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on lants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Or anic debris lines or files Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. H dric soils (redoximor hic features) present? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biolo Subtotal = 10
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Cra fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Am hibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversit and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous al ae; peri h on 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizin bacteria/fun us 0 0.5 1 1.5
29b. Wetland lants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; sav = z.o; Other = 0
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form, Version 3.1
Date: 3/14/2006 Project: Archdale Retail Dev Latitude:
Evaluator: BAR Site: Stream 4 Longitude:
Total Points: 15.5
Stream is at least intermittent County: Guilford Other High Point East
e.g. Quad Name:
if 2 19 or perennial if z 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 8 :Absenf~; `.`Weak ;Moderate ~St'rorig
1 a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosit 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle- ool se uence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sortin 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3
6. De ositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial de osits 0 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade Control 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valle or draina a wa 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS ma or other documented evidence. No = 0 Yes = 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussion in manual
B. H drolo Subtotal = 5.5
14. Groundwater flowldischar e 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growin season 0 1
- 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on lants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Or anic debris lines or files Wrack lines 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. H dric soils (redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biolo Subtotal =
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 b. Rooted lants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Cra Ish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Am hibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversit and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous al ae; eri h ton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizin bacteria/fun us 0 0.5 1 1.5
29b. Wetland lants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form, Version 3.1
Date: 3/14/2006 Project: Archdale Retail Dev Latitude:
Evaluator: BAR Site: Stream 5 Longitude:
Total Points: 18.5

Stream is at least intermittent
County: Guilford Other
e.g. Quad Name: High Point East
if t 19 or perennial if 2 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 11 'fAbsenf~ ",Weak -~Mode~ater ~Strong~'"'
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosit 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle- ool se uence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sortin 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3
6. De ositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial de osits 0 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade Control 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valle or draina a wa 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS ma or other documented evidence. No = 0 Yes = 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussion in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 5.5
14. Groundwater flow/dischar e 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel --dry or growing season 0 1 2
- 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on lants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Or anic debris lines or files Wrack lines 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features) resent? No = 0 Yes =1.5
C. Biology Subtotal = 2
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 b. Rooted lants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Cra fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Am hibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversit and abundance 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous al ae; eri h on 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizin bacteria/fun us 0 0.5 1 1.5
29b. Wetland lants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form, Version 3.1
Date: 3/14/2006 Project: Archdale Retail Dev Latitude:
Evaluator: BAR Site: Stream 6 Longitude:
Total Points: 13.5
Stream is at least intermittent County: Guilford Other High Point East
e.g. Quad Name:
if 219 or perennial if 2 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 6.5 ~Absent`~ IVeak Mod re ate ~~Str~t
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosit 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle- ool se uence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sortin 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3
6. De ositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial de osits 0 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade Control 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valle or drains a wa 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS ma or other documented evidence. No = 0 Yes = 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussion in manual
B. Hvdroloov Subtotal =
14. Groundwater flow/dischar e 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- d or growin season 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on /ants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Or anic debris lines or files Wrack lines 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. H dric soils (redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biolo Subtotal =
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21b. Rooted /ants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Cra Ish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Am hibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversit and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous al ae; eri h on 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizin bacteria/fun us 0 0.5 1 1.5
29b. Wetland /ants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; s,av = z.o; otner = o
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form, Version 3.1
Date: 11/9/2006 Project: Archdale Retail Dev Latitude: 35°54'50.06"N
Evaluator: AKR Site: Stream 7 Longitude: 79°56'33.36"W
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent County: Guilford Other High Point East
e.g. Quad Name:
if Z 19 or perennial if t 30 45.5
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 25.5 i. Absenf ~,Weak~~ '>Mode~at~$ Stro,li
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosit 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle- ool se uence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sortin 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3
6. De ositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial de osits 0 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. -Grade Control 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valle or draina a wa 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS ma or other documented evidence. No = 0 Yes = 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussion in manual
B. Hvdroloav Subtotal = 11
14. Groundwater flow/dischar e 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 0 1 2 3
-
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on lants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Or anic debris lines or files (Wrack lines 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features) present? No = 0 Yes =1.5
C. Biology Subtotal = 9
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 b. Rooted lants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Cra fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversit and abundance 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous al ae; eri h on 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizin bacteria/fun us 0 0.5 1 1.5
29b. Wetland lants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:

Wolverton 6t. Associates
HYDROLOGY REPORT
SHOPS AT BUSH HILL
ARCHDALE,
GUILFORD & RANDOLPH COUNTIES, NC
W&A Project No. 06-123
November 30, 2006
WOLVERTON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
6745 SUGARLOAF PARKWAY
SUITE 100
DULUTH, GA 30097
(770) 4A-7-8999 PHONE
[phone] FAX
www.wolverton-assoc.com

TAB~~ o~ coNT~~Ts
i . nvTRODUC~rION
2. PRE-DEVELOPED SITE CONDITIONS
3. POST-DEVELOPED STI'E CONDITIONS
4. SI~MMARY
APPENDICES:
APPENDIX A: Drainage Area Maps
• Pre-Development Drainage Map
^ Post-Development Drainage Map
APPENDIX 13: Calculations for Wet Detention Ponds
APPENDIX C: Outlet Control SiruclYU-e Details
APPENDIX D: Culvert Sizing
APPENDIX E: Planting Table
APPENDIX F: Operations and Maintenance Agreement
Walvgrt~-~6tyA ssodates

HYDROLOGY STUDY
ARCHDALE R>~ ['AIL DEVELOPMi~NT, ARCHDALE, NC
1. INTRODLiCTION
Archdale Partners, LLC is proposing to build athree-phased commercial development within the City of
Archdale, North Carolina near the Intersection of Highway 62 and Weant Road. The subject property is
within both Randolph and Guilford Counties. The site is bound by residential. property to the south and
east. It is bound by roadways to the north and west.
The development of Phase I and II will consist of developing the area along Weant Road. Phase I and II will
consist of a 153,000 square foot discount store, a 117,000 square foot home improvement store, 20,000
square feet of retail shops and several outparcels. This development will include buildings, parking lots,
associated utilities and shared stormwater wetland areas.. Stormwater Wetland Area lA is designed to
provide water quality treatment of the Stormwater runoff from the Discount Store and Home Improvement
store sites. Stormwater Wetland Area 2 will provide water quality treatment of the stormwater runoff
from the outlots. The water quality calculations assume that the sites will be fully developed and that no
additional water quality measure will be necessary for these areas.
Phase III of the project will consist of the development of the area between Interstate 85 and the proposed
east-west road. Currently, no formal plan exists for this area. Stormwater Wetland Area 1 B and 1 C will
be designed to provide water quality treatment for Stormwater flows for these areas. Stormwater Wetland
Area 16 will be installed to control flow from the area to be used as a borrow area for the Phase I/II
development. Upon full development, Stormwater Wetland Area IB will be modified as needed to be in
accordance with the design requirements of the City of Archdale. Stormwater Wetland Area 1C wiIl be
installed upon development of Basin 1C in accordance with the design requirements of City of Archdale.
All of the stormwater wetland areas will be designed per the requirements of the NCDNR Stormwater Best
Management Practices, dated April 1999. The wetland areas will include a permanent pool and will be
designed to detain the first one-inch of rainfall foi• a period of time between two and Ave days. Required
Water Quality BMP's will be incorporated into the design of the ponds in order to minimize impacts to
stream and conveyance system.
The study examines the pre-developed and post-developed site hydrology based upon the design
requirements of the City of Archdale and the Randleman Lake Watershed. Currently, the City of Archdale
does not have a written Stormwater ordinance and uses the City of High Point Stormwater ordinance. This
study will show that by using wet detention basins the required 85% total suspended solids removal rate
required will be achieved. Hydraflow Hydrographs 2004- Computer Program with an SCS-Type II
distribution was used for analysis.
2. PRE-DEVELOPED SITE CONDITIONS
Currently the site is partially wooded with dense bush-type vegetation in the non-wooded areas. A
perennial stream bisects the central part of the site. A second stream bisects the east part of the site. The
Wolverton bt, Associates

streams are unnamed tributaries to Muddy Creek. Basin delineation, Study Points 1 and 2, wetland areas
and stream buffer areas are shown on the Predevelopment Drainage Map presented in Appendix A. There
are two drainage basins on the site, referred to as Basin 1 and $asin 2, and an additional basin not included
in the project area, OEl'site 2, which contributes flow to Basin 2. The drainage basin hydraulic parameters
are summarized below.
g~~ i 135.7 65 35.9
Basin 2 20.1 65 29.2
Offsite 2 0.9 68 29.2
3. POST-DEVELOPED SITE CONDITIONS
The site will be developed in three phases. Phase, I and Phase II areas are Iocated along Weant Road.
Phase I and II will consist of a 153,000 square foot discount store, a 117,000 square foot home
improvement store, 20,000 square feet of retail .shops and several outparcels. This development will
include buildings, parking lots, associated utilities and shared detention ponds. Phase III of the project will
consist of the development of the area between Interstate 85 and the proposed east-west road.
Six on-site drainage basins and a single ofl'site basin have been delineated as shown on the Post Development
Drainage Map in Appendix A. Upon development, Basin 1 is divided into Basin lA, which includes the
home improvement store, discount store, and shops, Basin IB which will be a borrow area for Phase I/IT
and further developed in the future, Basin `1 C which will be developed in the future, and $ypass 1 which
includes the creek area, buffer areas and other areas that bypass the detention ponds. Upon development,
Basin 2 is divided into Four outlots, and a possible residential area and Bypass 2 which includes the
creek/buffer area. The drainage basin hydraulic parameters are summarized below.
Wolvec~t~i~&~Associates

The detention ponds will be sized to detain the first one-inch of rainfall that falls on the contributing basin.
Appendix B presents the calculations for wet detention ponds for each basin. Each of the detention ponds
will be designed as a wet pond with forebay, a permanent pool at least 3 feet deep, and a micro pool. The
permanent pool will indude two zones; a 0 to 9-inch zone and a 9 to 18-in zone. The permanent pool
surface area will be at least 70% of the total pool area as shown in Appendix B. A minimum of 1 foot of
freeboard between the settled embankment and the 100-year water surface elevation will be provided. The
information is summarized in Appendix B in the calculations for wet detention ponds for each pond. An
emergency spillway has' been sized to pass higher flows above the runoff from the 1-inch storm. Outlet
control structures are detailed in Appendix C. A table showing wetland plantings is induded in Appendix
E.
4.0 SUMMARY
The plan provides water duality protection for the envisioned development through the use of five extended
detention wetlands. The wetlands are designed per the guidelines in the NCDNR Stormwater Best
Management Practices, dated April 1999. Additional design criteria shown on the Extended Detention
Wetland worksheets were also incorporated.
3
Wolverton•&~Assodates

APPI~I`II7IGES
w'~-~

APPEI`IDIX A
.DRAINAGE AREA MAPS
PREMDEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE MAP
POSTMDEVELOPIVIENT DRAINAGE MAP
~~ ~~

~ _ - ~ ~ isit • ~ ..~

=•t III ,,
BASIN ID AAc A CN (MW.)
BASIN 1 135.7 65 35.9
BASIN 2 20.1 65 29.2
OFFSITE 2 0.9 68 29.2
T-~ ~,,Ir. - --~ ~,
.'' ((~t r•.J~~ i !
~ ,f - j~,.~~ ;;; ;;
. •'~ ~'
, 11 '%./% '' ._ .
t i 1 ,)'OJT / _•!% 1,1 .j
~; _ ., 1(1,x' ~ r I (! ~ ~'',, ,, ~ ~,%. •~' w':: ;;:rjl~,t
\I ~• 1 I apt f~ .1..::` e. f,-.,r ._.... .... .i;}
, ~;I II 7
_.I ,!-~;' ;.till ~~;;, iijjj~t~j~•~,j;'`ill~l'Ij;
r•. ;rl1%`i tl 1+1., `- • ~ i;jifrl`,16'`~~'sl ~',:Y~
~,~~;'yr7,+ ~ 11~i '1 lr !f I~~;11~tF>,:i -1; . ,~,.
:,-/1
~°
f`l
- -: ,.
a~.l.~~' {~ II:~I~~
' r I , I,I,
,I
11,1'•-111
ill ~~ .,/pea

E~1 ~li~`~
•/%111.
i , : I ~~r

i,+~~/ : r!,=;~~iTi ~~ •'`l'•~ti~ ~~~ 1 % ' }' • ij . -ii• i j~;e I 1 I
~:'~., ;,~i~i%':.9~1; •~..Y~^ 'ter '~=)t :r ~,%, i''
r...:;..:,, ,(~.,~;'7 ', ,;l ,f ..Gy+rl ,,r.lrt' 11f`f;/:~_'111`
' ' r• ~ 1 ~:~ •' •"~
I' ~~:. t
, ~~ ~ G:~1 1 ~' ~ 1 1 lfi' i~•' r p ., iil; ill ~,
,•` ~ rr~i~.',~ 1%I/%~ ij/' `.T j; 1, r
rr ~ 17 t~ , ,~~~~,~_ ~ ;,.yam, __ •`_ '
' ~ ~'I .;~/11:kIC,!•, \~\-:' . ~ , ~ » _ ye-'c • /:~ 111
~~ ' t 1~,iJ1f t p f l r, ~ ~1 ~'/%'j~ i i~
~' ~ i ~ f +t i ,:
;, '~~;',
/,i ii f • ~ , ; 1 ,` tel. ,J .' ' i,~\~~•_
- ~ _ ti it rr.il `.x+17'„ + ; f.: ~~L~~~' r ~-rd;;
;s~t~f,_,4~
'; ;;a,.
~~ rtUDY POINT #1
t+ • •\ ,\\
~' -1• ;fit... ` ;i~• \1• 1 k` : .. ' Y:: a ti i .
~ ~ ~ ~ ,~F+„~~''ir '~At~~,~ POINT ~2
-~P= 3 ~ II' '511 ``9~'>L~+
i 4': ~1
~~' ~ ,
I. 1
• ~ ~• I
'~ I i •
` 1 • t
PRE-DEVELOPMENT
DRAINAGE MAP
«T
Wolverton ~• Associates
ConsuBhp Englrroero • LeM 8urveytxs
c Oots: t m~saw.a~lr.xr~.r • a~n.tao . wun a~aoror
7LOnR (/70 µ7-0Vil. FC (T10J N79W0
ted: iS Seala:l'•IO0' ~.~~-~~,ppm
la; 06-725 F1x OB-12Jv20%C

E~
~;
N
fQQ i
U O
pN M
M
2 tip
' Oy
~o
~/
IV
BASIN ID ARc A CN tM,r~i.~
BASIN 1A 55.1 89' 7.0
BASIN 1B 16.7 95 5.0
BASIN 1C 4.1 92 5.0
BYPASS 1 59.8 65 35.9
BASIN 2A 9.7 92 5.0
BASIN 2B 5.5 92 5.0
BYPASS 2 4.9 65 29.2
OFFSITE 2 0.9 68 29.2 ,
t
;;
~t
.IL
i~.;,, ; ,1 ~'. t. C~
' ~ • `~ _
.~ ..ft• ,t t~
.,.• ,. ••~,, ry\,i
J e a ~
i ; ; :,:'~
,~f~' ~'f~ . ~ ,;i

.~'Rwty. Fnrw
~~~
~'r
~.~'r ,, .. ~_ s. .1

`~, t~Y ' ,`,~,,'6p A, . i r t~ ~` ~~S 2
;t ; ' ::~~ ~ SITE 2
.\~. ~',.
,: ,,
'' ~'~' . ; ~ •;;.r• ;
,.
_ ,t
!i• ; '- , , ~ ,•t:' ~ ~ t ; `~ POINT ~2
'' ~• ' % ~ I
~: ; ~' "'~r'~`~`''~=~; ;,~',.~::.~=~~~~ POST-DEVELOPMENT
-'•' DRAINAGE MAP
^ •~
••..- ~ Y~
_=•• Wolverton dt Associates
ConwlDnp Engineer ~ LeiW 3unreyore
Drown: Date: t ~~s eupener-Miwe- • aNr too . Oulul4 o~aip.]eD!)
Y POINT ~1 Chocked: n sae: t'.,oo' ~'~,e~y~~
Job No.: 06-i7S FAa: 06-t43JLDMG

~ 7~ ~~ ~~ NfOR it~l SHONM IS fOR ` ~ i ' / 'r ~ ~ _ .... - --- i'-
I ~: REFERENCE ONLY. ~ - t ` ;Y / "~ j/~ / r~ .~ ~ ~-- ~ ' .. - ~ -•-- -•-
~i
0 AREA W~ T I , . - _._ .__
//•~ ' ~, ~`~) ,'/; ~ ~` ~ / / / / / i ~ ,try 1 9~5^A~ M^ tom'
i ' .<1~~. " . / ! I : I ~, rI' i ~ , ~ ' \ / ' ~ ~ / f /~.KC? : dC(.4~f."JGrI R` .1 :74
I . ! ~ S I i ~ .~' JJ I / X / j / ~ j / A.^ Si3.i~.hrT YQA17 li.~'d!
~ r ~ % ~ / I~,F'/ / i ~• c~ ~° M.t'Al.'+ xaitpJ t,:ucr s9fE
/ ~ / ~ %~,, i //~o ~ • / / / ~ \% / ~a ~ / , ~ Q' ArYw a?E'/t ..~+ 4Pt~l+RErtii
i
I ~ ~
'`~
% ~ r ~ \ ~ LYTY 0~ AiG'.c?.4..~ \\
~ d/~''/ . / m / ! ~ ! i! ' , 1 ~ i ' `` \ ~ ~~ ~~Gc' F.f:~o''~PN CGU.M'
~ ~ ~
/ f~p'~LAI~~1' A5 ~`CAIX.D FBI +~HO1~LC• r
-.~it`t~. r(.O~C! ItJSt}E~AtJi;E~RATE :~!P ~~ ~~ f ~ \ ~` \ \ `~ \
.. Mh9 ~T'~~ P~jNEI_ Nt1F~BER, 273 ~ ,,,, ~; ~.-• --- \ \ \ •~
rF~E~TiVE 61;x: J(Jl.):~ 16, 1f~>S ~ ~, ~
,~ ~ ~
\ \ ~
/ ~ DTENT ON i o ~~ r .~.: ~:~2,., ..
l i Oyu ~ ,; '~ --' ~• \ j i/~ ~\ ~' \~. ~
' ,~ ~ '••` _ -~ ; ' , \ 't ~ ~67~ACRE9` PRA
.~ ~,` y7`` -- "~ t.~.-. '~ .nom ~ ~~:~'^-.~ ''~ ~`._. _ '!
,.--r''._ ~ ~ lam" ,.y r j ' , ' / f `~ ~•\ ~`
-e-r.~^~ --' ~ ,o'er ~ 1 •~f ~`~ ~•~• ..!~ "" -,,,, '~~ ~ \ GRAP$IC JCAT.E _~"' ~~
~ ~ ` _ ,..
---- i ,j , ~ ,.~ ~ _
WOLVERTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ARCHDALE, NC 1/5
JOB No. 06-123 DATE: 11/30/06
06-123Y3.OWC

..: 7 _T
i ;:i+ T I I jJ /Jr/1 ~._~1 iF;re''``'f i` !+ J/ r~.'.i-i`:.~ %ii! r:r.
} `1 ~ ~ 1j, ~•: %~1-tr ~~ i ~ :~r'. ~,. ~ ~ ` /f l •~ ~;. ~f.i =4^ ;~ J/~ ~ Y~ r'~ / ~.
`: 1 _: i" of : i ~ r~ ~ ~M ~;' / ~,,' .,~. • ~ ,/ ~•. ~ ,•,~
r i .% 6i l J i f•
~' ' Yr~ i~ / / ,r
r . ~ t r
~ ,~ ter' ,. ' r ,r / f ~
t!1 T'i ii 'r i /' ,/./~ ~ ~19.'~ / %. r rr ~,~ f i ~ fr
lr,; f ~ .' ~ ,,'"• `~,-/ ' r fjf "~ !r•r~r/may!`/ i% r % ~,'' i .f -'~
{ ~ / %~O ; /r J ice/ rl"r f '" ; .r^~ ~ r ~.,,~;~,r UT
r'.• /i q• _-/"' ri / ~// • /~; r , ~ 26.57 f E$•_
ry: / / ij ~ r~f ;4/ //. ;:/ /~f /~ i/ ~1;
///{{{,,, i t
. r is it ~~ ~ l + ~ ~ _ ~ \ i' ~ •-
r ` ' ~ ~`
~ - ;.
~.. ~ -r: ~. ~'' 1 ~ /1~Y/ifl~- ~1~% ,'re~. r:i ~C~ L'.1,~ ~ Y ~ I
t ~t ~~~j I r'i /'~ i' i' G I
~ C•` t.. ~ `~,a~l_ / ~,/ 1 i~ 1 % i ! r''r i J/ ~'// ~ r ~t.~~ I
,1~
'`ii~1~Y~'I•L~ l i t ~ f-..8 f 51 { ' '; 1 ~~ o'= ~:;. EJ~ j r
~ ; f ~ ~ ~~' ` ~ ~ 11 1 31 i f , 1 l..L-t7f-iiid~•'!'.~^•.°. ~ f
11`111,:, ~~ ;, ~~ ~~ ` ~5,_ ~ ~ , ~i ~•~ i I 1 , ~;:~:~ Gr?IJ ~~/F~r'GRA~HIC SCALE .r- ^ 1'
' } r ~
I`
~ f ~ 1 ~~~ ` ~ 1,1 J~1 ~~; -„-- ~~ 1, _L ;..1 i . ~~ i y _ ~__ _.._.\ . ------ ~ .~_ _ c na r>~r ~ ~ ..
WOIYERTON ANO ASSOCfATES, INC. ARCHDALE, NC 2/5
JOB No. 06-123 GATE: 11/30/06
08-123v3.pWG

~ ~ r ~ ~ %% ~ /r"%' `% ~~ 'rf ;'ice !-• ,' _ ''~-i' ~ ~ ~.~C; % 'Y f
,~ ~ r~ %~%y; 'iii'; r~ ' ~' ~ .`" _ ` , .i ~ ; %' •• • ~!;• ' ' ' ~~ I j ~'~s'~,. S
, l 1
~'~ ~ ,'ir r~;,,:%'~.,, Vii. , ; ~ / 1l~,~~-, Il~.,j ~; ~ ~ 1-.1-~ '
/ 'i / r~ /
' 1~ `~ 1 ~
~!~ ~ / ` ,~ /~' ~ ~' _ ,' 'i `- ,, ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~~` ~ ~ l % , ~ ~~! ~ its (~ ~ 1
r~ ~. FUTURE I 1 I , I ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
/.~ -~-' 0 IC~~.DEVE~OPME~VTi I ~ I , ~ ' ~ ~ I ~ I ;~-,
.~ ~~~ ~ , t~ '~ 4.7 ' t.`A~ES ! ( ~ ~ ~ I I 1 ~ I 1'I ~ 'Z~ ~ ~
,~, ~
1- J ,
1
1 1 ~.-
\~~.ry.~., t, 5i~~j~\~'~ - •...- ' Iiaeh IOOft, ` ~
WOLVERTON AND ASSOCIATES, tNC. ARCHDALE, NC 3/5
JOB No. 06-123 DATE: t 1/30/06
os-~z3va.owc

--~ ,, ,~ ~ spa. ~;.
~ ~ ~'f; .~ 1 t ,ply ti ~} i5 ?~~'r; '".~ ~. ~\~''~`"~a\?' `` ~'f94•-;G~ii_iT~`
t !• i? ~ s J ~`4 lid. I•~ S~ ~~/~j 1/r'i~,~ •\. `~ ,~ a~~..~ ~ `~ ~__...-_.
(i ~ r ~. ~ v.l~'`f ; ~K~ l~..l i t ( I• ~ .-~,\„~ w i'r~. rY~ rl.c
~. ~ ~ i T i i c~ \ 1 ~ \ ~ .~~
i ~y~ \
~ 3.19 t CRES ~ 1 ! i ~`~ t 1 Y ~~ , ll~~~ ~`'~ ti •~` ~ ''`
~ ~ ~ Y ,
j ~ ~
~ ` ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ ` t 1 jt ~ \1 ~
'~ N ~ \ ; \
.
l ` ` _... i~ t.. ,
~ + f ~ u~. -~`"...-~-. i ice. ~ ` ~~, ~ `;~ ~
I~ ~ ~ _ ~ .~ RaP~s~ 1
.~-
,~J
~ ~~-O ~ ~ / 1 _ •~. .rte ~ -„ - _ ~. r"r~,.. ~\ •~' L.~J..ls
a
S ~' ~ I ° ~i'~` ~- 4 I ~ •(aKT .wsr ~° o ~ ~ z.N 7 t ..~~ 1`~~) °~J. ~~ =~B ~~
J t ° t-1 / t
C a.
,.~ ~` f ~ ~ ~ , ~ ° t `~ . C~ NTGF2HURY+~9I~' ..?~ ,.- '~
I ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ` `S~,C'i?ON z
1 ~ ~ ~I ~ ~ ° ' ~,.., - GUIL.,~yn CUUt t1~~Y
WOLVERTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ARCHpALE, NC ~/5
JOB No. 06-123 DATE: 11/30/06
06-123VSAYlC

..
v `i ~ r
MO ~ A~EA~`EAST - x~ `~ ~ ~o ° ,' ~ %'
4 ~~ ~`~a~. r'-ti~..r, o a `. ~~ ~' 1 ' ) € i ~ ! Via, \
'~~ - i ~ ° ~ ° r 1 ! 1
\ ~ .~c~irv •/^:''~ Y'^J ,~ 'x'`• i r ~ o ~ ` ~1 \ TS o \. ( j I ' / .
' ~..o . ~Q ~. ~~{~ ;~. ~ .z• ~ ~~ ° ~F,I~T~I.IRE ~' ,~, t tt I
\ ~ .IC 34-7(Nv-Ok ~...Jr o .p ` I ` ~ ~ f
• ] \ C-Yr.-~.~r -F,Y1b4~lt"T -':h 6 * A(.TttS~ ` ~ ~'^~'' ~ J r ~ '
~ ~ ~ ~ r
~ , ~ ~~ . r
-~' ~ ~ li {r ~ __- PROPOSED ~ - ~ ~ ~,l ~ii ~ ~' ~ .~ ~. \
( ~ '~~\ DETENTfON , ', / ° o ~• ,5
~ ~ ~ \ ~ ' ~\ ~ WETLANDS ~~L.~"" i ~ ~
~ ~~ ~ -- "` ("~lV•SPEIiBLtli?1' F~t7R J~'P ~ B , \ ° °
1,
WOLVERTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
JOB No. 06-123 DATE: 11/30/06 ARCHDALE, NC 5/5
d6-123V3AM/G

APP~1`IDIX B
CAL,CUL,ATIONS ~oR WET DNTto~ PO1~tDS
~~~ ~ ~~

OWQ Projed No.
DMSfON OF WATER QUALITY - 40t EXTENDED DETENTK)N {and POCKET")WETLAND WORKSHEET
L PROJECT INFORMATK)N (please complete the following infom~ation}:
Project Name : Shoos at bush Fillt, Guifford ~ Randoluh Counties, NC
Contact Person: Phone Number: f 1
For projects with multiple basins, specify which basin this worksheet applies to: _yypnan~ ~~ a
Permanent Pool Elevation 776.50 ft. (elevation of the orrfce invert out)
Temporary Pool Elevation 77a.t o ft. (elevation of the outef stnrcture invert in)

Permanent Pool Surface Area 95.286 sq. ft. (water surface area at permanent pool elevation)
Drainage Area _ 56.52 ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin]
impervious Area _ 41.32 ac. (on-site and off-site drain~e to the basin)
Forebay Surface Area 72.940 sq. ft. (at perm~enf pod elevation approximately 159'0)'
Marsh 0"-9" Surface Area 32.697 sq. ft. (~ permanent pool elevation approximately 359'0)'
Marsh 9"-18" Surface Area 36,890 sq. ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 35~)•
Micro Pool Surface Area _ 12,740 sq. ft. {at permanent pool elevation approximately 15°'0)'

Temporary Pool Volume _ 148,499 cu. ft. (volume detained on top of the permanent pool)
SA/DA used _ 3_36 (surface area to drainage area ratio)'
Diameter of Orifice 3.75 in. (draw down orifice diameter)
11. REQUIRED ITEMS CHECKLIST
Initial in the space provided to indicate the following design requirements have been met and supporting documentation is attached. If a
requlremenf has not been met, a(fach an explanation of why. At a minimum, a complete storriwater management plan submittal indudes
a worksheet for-each BMP, design calculations, plans and specfications showing aR BMPs and outlet structure details, a detailed
drainage plan~and a fully executed operation and maintenance agreement. An incomplete submittal package wi(I result in a request for
additional information and will substantially delay fmal review and approval of the project
Ap~ticantsjnitials
X The temporary pool cgntrots runoff from the 1 inch rain.
X The basin side slopes are no steeper than 3:1.
X A planting plan for the marsh areas with plant speaes and densities is provided.
..~ Vegetation above the pemranent pool elevation is specffied.
.X. An emergency drain is provided to drain the basin.
X The temporary pool draws doom in 2 to 5 days.
_ X Sedimenf storage is provided in the pem-anent pool.
X A sediment disposal area is provided.
-x Access is provided for maintenance.
X A site spedtic, signed and notarized operation and maintenance agreement is provided.
~C The drainage area (including any offsite area) is delineated on a site plan.
X Access is provided for maintenance.
X Plan details for the wetland are provided.
X Plan details for the inlet and outlet are provided.
_ X A site spedfic operation and maintenance agreement, signed and notarized by the responsible party is provided (see
htfpJm2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/ncweflands/oandm.doc).
Pocket Wetlands have different design parameters and are only assumed to remove 359'0 TSS -See pp. 99 and 20 of the NC DENR
Stormwater BMP Manual, April 1999.1096 open water, 5096 high marsh, 40°~ low marsh.

Basin Name
Basin Area {ac)
Impervious Area {%)
Pool Depth (ft)
Resulting SA/DA Ratio
Totai Pond Area (ac)
Totai Pond Area (ftz)
Forebay (ft2) (15% of pool area)
Marsh 0-9" (ft2) (35% of pool area)
Marsh 9-18" (ft2) (35% of pool area)
Micropooi (ft2) (15% of pool area)
Temporary Pond Storage Calculation
Runoff =1.0-inch (Rv)(As112) (ft3)
Where: Rv=0.05+1(0.009)
I =Impervious Area (as whole #)
As =Basin area (ft2)
Runoff (ft') _
Elevations (ft)
Top of Berm
Top of Temporary Pool
Top of Permenant Pool
Top of 0"-9" pond
Top of 9"-18" pond
Bottom of 9"-18" pond
Top of Micropooi
Bottom of Micropooi
Wetland 1A
56.52
73.1
3 .
3.36-(from table 1.1 BMP Manual)
1.90
Required Area (ft2) Actual Area (ft2)
82,724
12,409
28,953
28,953
12,409
0.7079
73.1
2,462,011
145,238
95,266
12,939
32,697
36,890
12,740
Actual Voiume (ft')
148,499
780.00
778.10
776.50
776.50
775.75
775.00
773.50
771.00

Pond Report
Ifydraflow Hydrographs by intelisolve Wednesday, Nov 29 2006, 9:0 PM
Pond No. 11 -wetland 1 Q
Pand Data
Pond storage is based on known contour areas. Average end area method used.
Stage !Storage Table
Stage (ft) Elevation (ft) Contour area (stlfry Incr. Storage (cuff) Total storage (tuft)
0.00 776.50 64,405 0 0
0.50 777.00 86,036 42,610 42,610
1.50 778.00 89,336 87,686 130,296
2.50 779.00 92,693 91,015 221,311
3.50 780.00 96,106 94,400 315,710
4.50 781.00 99,575 97,841 413,551
5.50 782.00 102,000 100,788 514,338
Culvert I Orifice Structures
CA] [Bl
Rise (In) = 3.75 0.00
Span (in) = 3.75 0.00
No. Barrels = 1 0
Invert Et. (ft) = 776.50 0.00
Length (ft) = 0.00 0.00
Slope (%) = 0.00 0.00
N Value = .013 .000
Orif. Coeff. = 0.60 0.00
Multi-Stage = n/a No
[~l
0.00
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
.000
0.00
No
IDI
0.00
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
.000
0.00
No Weir Structures
CAl [B] [~l [~l
Crest Len (ft) = 24.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Crest EI. (ft) =778.20 0.00 0.00 0.00
We[r Coeff. = 3.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
Weir Type =Rest - - --
MulttStage No Na No No

>dittration = 0.000 infhr (Contour) Tailwater Elev. = 0.00 ft
Note: CWveriJOArice outflows have been enalyted under inlet and outlet corMrul.
Stage I Storage I Discharge Table
Stage Storage Elevation Civ A Civ B Civ C Civ D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D E>dil Total
ft tuft ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs
0.00 0 776.50 0.00 - - - 0.00 - - --- - 0.00
0.05 4,261 776.55 0.01 - - -- 0.00 - -- - - 0.01
0.10 8,522 776.60 0.02 - - - 0.00 - - - - 0.02
O.i5 12,783 776.65 0.05 - - - 0.00 - - - - 0.05
0.20 17,044 776.70 0.08 - -- - 0.00 - - - - 0.08
0.25 21,305 776.75 0.11 - - - 0.00 - - - - 0.11
0.30 25,566 776.80 0.14 - - - 0.00 - - - - 0.14
0.35 29,827 776.85 0.16 - - - 0.00 - - - --~ 0.16
0.40 34,088 ~ 776.90 0.18 - - - 0.00 - - - -- 0.18
0.45 38,349 776.95 0.20 - - - 0.00 - - - - 0.20
0.50 42,610 777.00 0.22 - - - 0.00 --- - - - 0.22
0.60 51,379 777.10 0.25 - - - 0.00 - - - - 0.25
0.70 60,147 77720 0.27 - - -- 0.00 - - - - 0.27
0.80 68,916 777.30 0.30 - - - 0.00 - - - - 0.30
0.90 77,685 777.40 0.32 - - - 0.00 - - - - 0.32
1.00 86,453 777.50 0.34 - - - 0.00 - - - - 0.34
1.10 95,222 777.60 0.36 - --- - 0.00 - - - - 0.36
1.20 103,991 777.70 0.38 - - - 0.00 - - - - 0.38
1.30 112,759 777.80 0.39 - - - 0.00 - - - - 0.39
1.40 121,528 777.90 ~ 0.41 - - - 0.00 --- - - - 0.41
1.50 130,296 778.00 0.43 - - - 0.00 - - -- - 0.43
1.60 139,398 778.10 0.44 - - - 0.00 - - - - 0.44
1.70 148,499 778.20 0.46 - - - 0.00 - - - - 0.46
1.80 157,601 778.30 0.47 - - - 2.52 - - - --- 3.00
1.90 166,702 778.40 0.49 - - - 7.14 - - - - 7.63
2.00 175,804 778.50 0.50 - - - 13.12 --- - - - 13.62
2.10 184,905 778.60 0.51 - - - 20.21 - - - - 20.72
2.20 194,006 778.70 0.53 - - - 28.24 - - - --- 28.77
230 203,108 778.80 0.54 --- - - 37.12 - - - - 37.66
2.40 212,209 778.90 0.55 -- - -- 46.78 - - - - 47.34
2.50 221,311 779.00 0.57 - - - 57.18 - - - - 57.75
CORl1RUBS OR R6Xf /1a(fe...

wetlat-d 1A
Stage /Storage / Discharge Table
Stage Storage Elevation C(v A
ft cuff ft cfs
2.60 230,751 77'9.10 0,58
2.70 240,191 779.20 0.59
280 249,631 779.30 0.60
2.90 259,071 779.40 0.61
3.00 268,511 779.50 0.62
3.10 277,950 779.60 0.63
3.20 287,390 779.70 0.64
3.30 296,830 779.80 0.65
3.40 306,270 779.90 0.67
3.50 315,710 780.00 0.68
3.60 325,494 780.10 0.69
3.70 335,278 780.20 0.70
3.80 345,062 780.30 0.70
3.90 354,847 780.40 0.71
4.00 364,631 780.50 0.72
4.10 374,415 780.60 0.73
4.20 384,199 780.70 0.74
4.30 393,983 780.80 0.75
4.40 403,767 780.90 0.76
4.50 413,551 781.00 0.77
4.60 423,630 781.10 0.78
4.70 433,708 781.20 0.79
4.80 443,787 781.30 0.80
4.90 453,866 781.40 0.80
5.00 463,945 781.50 0.81
5.10 474,023 781.60 0.82
5.20 484,102 781.70 0.83
5.30 494,181 781.80 0.84
5.40 504,260 781.90 0.85
5.50 514,338 782.00 0.85
...Er-d
Clv B Clv C Civ D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D E~1 TotaE
cfs cfs cfs cis cfs cis cfs cfs cis
- - - 68.23 - - - -- 68.81
- -- - 79.91 - - - - 80.50
- - - 92.19 - - - - 92.79
- - - 105.04 - - - - 105.65
- - - 118.44 - - - - 119.06
- - - 132.37 - - - - 133.00
- - - 146.80 - - - - 147.44
- - - 161.72 - - - - 162.37
- - - 177.11 - - - - 177.77
- - - 193.00 - - - - 193.68
- - - 209.30 - - - - 209.99
- - - 226.04 - - -- - 226.73
- - - 243.20 - - - - 243.90
- - - 260.77 - - - - 261.48
- - - 278.75 - - - - 279.47
- --- - 297.12 - - - - 297.85
- - - 315.88 - -- - - 316:62
- -- - 335.01 - - - -
~ 335.77
- - - 354.52 - -- - - 355.28
- - - 374.45 - - - - 375.22
- - --- 394.68 - - - - 395.46
- - - 415.26 - - - - 416.05
- - - 436.19 - -- - - 436.99
- - - 457.47 - - - - 458.27
- - - 479.07 -- - - - 479.88
- -- --- 501.01 - - - - 501.83
- - - 52327 -- - - - 524.10
- - - 545.85 --- - - - 546.69
- - - 568.74 - - - - 569.59
- - - 592.01 - - - - 592.86

Wader Qualiiy Volume
Basin 'IA
Area = ~~` ~ ` ~ ~: ~~~2 acres = ~G2~6~"~1~99` sf
~...-
%Imp = ---.-- - =~_73:'I,(as a whale number)
WQV = 1.0 (Rv)As/12 (cf)
Where Rv = 0.05 + 10.009. _ ~~' "~~~~~ b7~:~ in
I =Percent Impervious as as a whole number
As = On-site area to be treated (sf)
~;~~ -~x-
WQV = us ;{~t5~~4~'~~ cf
Z:~Documents12006106-1231hydro106-123 Water Quality WorksheetPond 1A.xls

Water Quality Bleeddown Orifice
Basin 1A
A =(WQV, 78.4
Where WQV =water quality volume (cf) = 1~1,,=249~cf
' ~~-~~-:
t =302400 sec (3.5 days)
h =average head on orifice centroid (ft)
h = (~.. 1~7'8~t - ;,r~~~t~;Gv) / 2 - 7 =~~~~~~9~ft
• ~ WQ elev Office inv
''~"~ sq "` ~' ~~ ~ sq inches
A = ~~ ~= h~~S~`7 feet r ~ ~ "~ ~ ,
~~~
Using the formula for area of a cinrle and solving for the diameter,
A = 3.1416 (dia)^2 / 4
dia = (A "4 / 3.1416)^0.5
• e-;a~~~a;~r ,
dia= ;~:~,~~5>inches
Use ~~~~;t~3:'TS~inch piameter Orifice at Inv Elev =~1,~~~~;'
Z_1Documents12006106-1231hydro106-123 Water Quality WorksheetPond 1A.xls

DWQ Project No.
DNISION OF WATER QUALITY - 401 EXTENDED DETENTION (and POCKET`) WETiAND WORKSHEET
I. PROJECT INFORMATION (please complete the following information}:
Project Name : Shoos at Bush HIII. Guilford & Randolph Counties. NC
Contact Person: Phone Number. f }
For projects with multiple basins, spekdfy which basin this worksheet applies to: ~ wPtianA u1 R
Permanent Pool Elevation 765.50 ft. (elevaton of the orrflce invert out)
Temporary Pool Etevaton 787.30 ft (elevation of the outlet structure invert in)
-
Pem~anent Pool Surface Area 31,526 sq. ft. (water surface area at pem~anent pool elevation)
Drainage Area _ 16.7 ac. {on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Impervious Area 14.5 ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Forebay Surface Area 6,739 sq. it. {at permanent pool elevation approximately 159'0)'
Marsh 0 =9" Surface Area 9,944 sq. ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximatety 35%)"
Marsh 9"-18" Surface Area 9,885 sq. ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 35%)'
Micro Poot Surface Area _ 4.958 sq. ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximatety 15%}'

Temporary Pool Volume 51,110 cu. ft, (volume detained on top of the permanent pool)

SAIDA used 3.74 (surface area to drainage area ratio)"
Diameter of Orifice 2.2 rn. (draw down orifice diameter)
11. REQUIRED ITEMS CHECKLIST
Initla( in tite space provided to indicate the following design requirements have been met and supporting documentation is aftached. !f a
requirement has not been met, attach an expfanatlon of why. At a minimum, a complete stonnwater management plan submitt~ includes
a worksheet for each BMP, design calculations, plans and speclflcations showing all BMPs and outlet structure details, a detailed
drainage plan and a fufly executed operation and maintenance agreement. An incomplete submittal package will result in a request for
additional information and will substantially delay final review and approval of the project
Aoaficants Initials
X The temporary pool controls runoff from the 1 inch rain.
_ X The basin side slopes are no steeper than 3:1.
X A planting plan for the marsh areas with plant species and densities is provided.
X Vegetation above the permanent pool elevation is speclfled.
„~ An emergency drain is provided io dr~n the basin.
X The temporary pool draws down ~ 2 to 5 days.
_ X Sediment storage is provided in the pemtanent pool.
X A sediment disposal area is provided.
_ x Access is provided for maintenance.
~, A site speclfrc, signed and notarized operation and maintenance agreement is provided.
~, The drainage area (including any offsite area} is delineated on a life plan.
_ X Access is provided for maintenance.
X Plan details for the wetland are provided.
X Plan details for the inlet and outlet are provided..
X A site speclfic operation and maintenance agreement, signed and nofarized by the responsible parry is provided (see
httpJlh2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/ncvrettands(oandm.doc).
• Pocket Wetlands have different design parameters and are only assumed to remove 35~ TSS - See pp.19and 20 of the NC DENR
Stormwater BMP Manual, Apn11999.10% open water, 50% high marsh, 40% low marsh.

Basin Name
Basin Area {ac)
Impervious Area (%)
Pool Depth (ft}
Resulting SA/DA Ratio
Total Pond Area (ac)
Total Permanent Pool Area (ft2)
Forebay (ft2) (15% of pool area)
Marsh 0-9" (ft~) (35% of pool area)
Marsh 9-18" (ftz) (35% of pool area)
Micropooi (fta) (15% of pool area)
Temporary Pond Storage Calculation
Runoff =1.0-inch (Rv)(As/12) (ft3)
Where: Rv=0.05+1(0.009)
I =Impervious Area (as whole #)
As =Basin area (ftz)
Runoff {ft3} _
Elevations (ft)
Top of Berm
Top of Temporary Pooi
Top of Permenent Pooi
Top of 0"-9" pond
Top of 9"-18" pond
Bottom of 9"-18" pond
Top of Micropooi
Bottam of Micrapool
W®tland 1 B
16.7
87.0%
3
3.74 (from table 1.1 BIVIP Manuat)
0.62
Required Area (ft~} Actual Area (ft2)
27,207 31,526
4,081 6,739
9,522 9,944
9,522 9,885
4,081 4,958
Actual Volume (ft'}
0.8330
87
727,452
50,497 51,110
783.00
787.30
78b.50
785.50
784.75
784.00
782.50
780.00

Pond Report
Hydtaflow Hydrographs 6y Intefisoive
Pond No. 12 -Wetland 1 B
Pond Data
Pond storage is based on known contour areas. Average end area method used.
Wednesday, Nov 29 2006, 9:0 PM
Stage /Storage Table
Stage (fh Elevation (ft) Contour area (stTft) Incr. Storage (cuff) Total storage (cuff)
0.00 785.50 26,073 0 0
2.50 788.00 30,716 70,986 70,986
4.50 790.00 34,685 65,401 136,387
Culvert /Orifice Structures Weir StTtlctures
[A] CBl [~l [DI [AI [Bl [~I [DI
Rise {in) = 2.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crest Len (ft) = 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Span (in) = 2.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crest EI. (ft) = 787.30 0.00 0.00 0.00
No. Barrels = 1 0 0 0 Wetr Coeff. = 3.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
Invert EI. (ft) = 785.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 Weir Type =Red - - -
l.ength (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Multistage No No No No
Slope (%) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
N-Value = .013 .000 .000 .000
Orif. Coeff. = 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00
Multi-Stage = n!a No No No Exfiltration = 0.000 in/hr (Contour) Tallwater Elev. = 0.00 ft
Stage 1 Storage /Discharge Table
Stage Storage Elevation Civ A
ft tuft ft cis
0.00 0 785.50 .0.00
0.25 T,099 785.75 0.05
0.50 14,197 786.00 0.08
0.75 21,296 78625 0.10
1.00 28,395 786.50. 0.12
1.25 35,493 786.75 0.14
1.50 42,592 787.00 0.15
1.75 49,690 787.25 0.16
2.00 56,789 787.50 0.16
225 63,888 787.75 0.19
250 70,986 788.00 0.20
2.70 77,526 788.20 0.21
2.90 84,066 788.40 0.21
3.10 90,607 788.60 0.22
3.30 97,147 ?88.80 0.23
3.50 103,687 789.00 023
3.70 110,227 789.20 0.24
3.90 116,767 789.40 0.25
4.10 123,307 789.60 0.25
4.30 129,847 789.80 0.26
4.50 136,387 790.00 0.27
Note: CulverllOr'Rice outllaws have been anary2ad uMer fnbt and oWet rnrMrd.
Clv 6 Clv C CND Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Exfll Total
cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs tfs cis cfs cfs
- - - 0.00 - -- - - 0.00
- ..... - 0.00 - .._. _.._ - 0.05
- - - 0.00 - - - -- 0.08
- --- - o.oa - - -- -.- a.1o
- -- - 0.00 - - - 0.12
- - - 0.00 - - - - 0,14
- - - 0.00 - - - - 0.15
- - - 0.00 - - - - 0.16
- - - 5.96 - - - - 6.13
- - - 20.11 - - - - 20.29
- - -- 39.01 - - - - 39.20
- - - 56.87 - - - --- 57,07
-- - - 7fi.84 - - - - 77.05
- - - 98.72 - - - - 98.94
- -- - 122.36 - - - - 122.59
- - - 147.63 - - --- - 147.87
- - - 174.44 - - - - 174.68
- - - 202.69 - - - - 20294
- -- - 23233 --- - - - 23258
- - - 263.28 --- - - - 263.54
- - ~ - 295.48 - - - - 295.74

Water Quality Volume
Basin 1B
Area = :;:__:_--~~~`t1_._&70acres = r"~~.~~7 ~ sf
I^~.- . ~~:._
%Imp = .....=~~ '-:=87~° (as a whole number)
WQV =1.0 (Rv)As/12 (cfl
~=~
Where Rv = 0.05 + 1(0.009) _ «;;~aY0~3~3 ~ in
t =Percent Impervious as as a whole number
As = On-site area to be treated (sf)
~i~,:~s~«. hK::::~~-.l~eei:
i~ ~i. ~~ f
WQV r~~;~~ ~~9~ cf
Z\Documents12006106-1231hydro\06-123 Water Quality WorksheetPond 1 B.xls

Water Quality Bteeddown Orifice
Basin 7B
A =(WQV / t) ! (0.6 x (64.4 x h / 2)^0.5)
Where, WQV =water quality volume (cf} = tx~~ z~T3=cf
t =302400 sec (48 hours)
h =average head on orifice centroid (ft)
L~s~:~) / 2 z~a,i ~~a
mrra'.„-. .-. - .: ~1M:-vu.~rrl tft
WQ @l@V oll/lC@ IIIY
A = i~~.~~~A26) sq feet or, x ~ 3•• ~3~~2=sq inches
Using the formula for area of a circle and solving for the diameter,
A = 3.1416 (dia)^214
dia=(A*4/3.1416)^0.5
dia = n ~;~2~1$~inches
t Use ~ .~:z~+;~~ 22' inch piameter orifice at Inv Elev = (785~5~~~i~
Z:tDocuments12006106-1231hydro106-123 Water Quality Worksheetl'ond 1 B.xis

DWQ Project No.
DMS1ON OF WATER QUALfTY - 401 EXTENDED DETENTION {and POCKET`) WETLAND WORKSHEET
1. PROJECT INFORMATION (please complete the following information):
Project Name : Shoos at Bush Hitl. Guilford & Randolph Counties. NC
Contact Person: Phone Number. ( }
For projects with mulfiple basins, specihr which basin this worksheet applies to: lA-pt~anri ~~ r
Permanent Pool Elevation 780.0 ft (elevation of the orifice invert out)
Temporary Poo! Elevation 781.50 ft (elevation of the outlet structure invert in}

Permanent Pool Surface Area 7,661 sq. ft (water surface area at permanent pool elevation)
Drainage Area 4.11 ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Impervious Area 3.49 ac. (on-site and off site drainage to the basin)
Forebay Surface Area 2.130 sq. ft (at permanent pool elevation approximately 15°%)*
Marsh 0'-9' Surfane Area z.2so sq. ft. (at pem-anent pool elevation approximately 35%)*
Marsh 9"-18" Surface Area 2,257 sq. ft. (at pem~anent pool elevation approximately 3590)*
Micro Pool Surface Area 994 sq. ft (at permanent pool elevation approximately 155~)*

Temporary Pool Volume 12,446 cu. ft (volume detained on top of the permanent pool)

SAlOA used 3.55 (surface area to drainage area ratio)*
Diameter of Orifice _ 1.1 in. (draw down orfice diameter)
fl. REQUIRED ITEMS CHECKLIST
Initial in the space provided to indicate the following design requirements have been met and supporting documentation is attached. if a
regUiremenf has not been met, attach an explanaflon of why. At a minimum, a complete stomrwater management plan subm'~ttal indudes
a worksheet for each BMP, design calwlations, plans and specifications showing ap BMPs and outlet structure details, a detailed
drainage plan and a fully executed operation and maintenance agreement. An incomplete subn~ttal package will result in a request for
additional information and will substandaliy delay Gnal review and approval of the project
(~pppcants initials
X The temporary pool controls runoff from the 1 indt rain.
X The basin side slopes are no steeper than 3:1.
X A planting plan for the marsh areas with plant spedes and densities is provided.
X Vegetaf'wn above the permanent pool elevation Is spedfled.
X An emergency drain is provided to drain the basin.
_ X The temporary pod draws down in 2 to 5 days.
X Sediment storage is provided in the permanent pool.
_,~ A sediment disposal area is provided.
X Access is provided for maintenance.
X A site specific, signed and notarized operation and maintenance agreement is provided.
_Zc The drainage area (including any offsite area) is deAneated on a site plan.
X Access is provided for maintenance.
X Pian details for the wetland are provided.
_ X Plan details for the inlet and outlet are provided.
X A site specific operation and maintenance agreement, signed and notarized by the responsible party is provided (see
http:fm2o.ehnr.state.nc,uslncweBands/oandm.doc).
* Pocket Weiiands have different design parameters and are only assumed to remove 35% TSS -See pp.19and 20 of the NC DENR
Stormwater BMP Manual, Apn11999.10°10 open water, 50% high marsh, 40% low marsh.

Basin Name
Basin Area (ac)
Impervious Area (%)
Pool Depth (ft)
Resulting SA/DA Ratio
Total Pond Area (ac)
Total Permanent Pool Area (ft2)
Forebay (ftz) (15% of pool area)
Marsh 0-9" (ft2) (35% of pool area)
Marsh 9-18" (ftz) (35% of pool area)
Micropoof (fta) (15% of pool area)
Temporary Pond Storage Calculation
Runoff =1.0-inch (Rv)(As/12) (ft3)
Where: Rv=0.05+1(0.009)
i =Impervious Area (as whole #)
As =Basin area (ftz}
Runoff (ft') _
Elevations (ft}
Top of Berm
Top of Temporary Pool
Top of Permenant Pool
Top of 0"-9" pond
Top of 9"-18" pond
Bottom of 9"-18" pond
Top of Micropool
Bottom of Micropool
Wetland 1C
4.11
85.0%
3
3.55 (from table 1. 1 BMP Manual)
0.15
Required Area (ftZ) Actaai Area (ft2}
6,356 7,661
. 953 2,130
2,224 2,280
2,224 2,257
953 994
Actual Volume (fts}
0.8150
85 '
179,032
12,159 12,446
784.00 Top of Berm
782.00 Top of Temporary Pooi
780.00 Top of Permenant Pooi
780.00 Top of 0"-9" pond
779.25 Top of 9"-18" pond
778.50 Bottom of 9"-18" pond
777.00 Top of Micropoof
775.00 Bottom of Micropool

Pond Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by intetisolve Wednesday, Nov 29 2006, 10:34 PM
Pond No. 13 -wetland 1C
Pond Data
Pond storage is based on known contour areas. Average end area method used.
Stage t Storage Table
Sfage (TE) Elevation (ft) Contour area (sgft) Incr. Storage (cufq Total storage (cuff)
0.00 780.00 7,628 0 0
1.00 781.00 8,631 8,130 8,130
2.00 782.00 8,636 8,634 16,763
3.00 783.00 10,822 9,729 26,492
4.00 784.00 11,897 11,410 37,902
Culvert / Or~ce Structures
[AI IBl
Rtse (in) = 1.10 0.00
Span (in) = 1.10 0.00
No. Barrels = 1 0
Invert EI. (ft) = 780.00 0.00
Length (ftJ = 0.00 0.00
Slope (%) = OAO O.Ot)
N Value = .013 .000
Orif. Cceff. = 0.60 0.00
Multistage = n/a No
[~l
0.00
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
O.QO
.000
0.00
No
[Dl
0.00
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
.000
0.00
No Welr Structures
IAl IBI [~] ~ Nl
Crest t_en (ft) = 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Crest Ef. (ft) = 781.50 0.00 0.00 0.00
Weir Cceff. = 3.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
Weir Type = Rect - - -
Multistage' = No No No _ No

xrlitration = 0.000 iNhr (Contour) Tallwater Elev. = 0.00 ft
Note: CuFveNOrifioe oudlows Move beeen anelymd uxler Intel and gullet oontroL
Stage /Storage !Discharge Table
Stage Storage Etevatian Civ A Civ B Civ C Clv O Wr A Wr 8 Wr C Wr D Exfif Totat
ft cuff ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cis cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs
0.00 0 780.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 - - - - 0.00
0.10 813 780.10 0.01 - - - 0.00 - - --- - 0.01
0.20 1,626 780.20 0.01 - - 0.00 - - - - 0.01
0.30 2,439 780.30 0.01 - - - 0.00 - - - - 0.01
0.40 3,252 780.40 0.02 - - - 0.00 - - - - 0.02
0.50 4,065 780.50 0.02 - --- - 0.00 - - - - 0.02
0.60 4,878 760.60 0.02 - . - - 0.00 - - - - 0.02
0.70 5,691 780.70 0.02 - - - 0.00 - - - - 0.02
a.so s,so4 76a.ao 0.02 - - - o.oo - - - - a.o2
0.90 7,317 780.90 0.02 - - - 0.00 - - - - 0.02
1.00 8,130 761.00 0.03 - - - 0.00 - - - - 0.03
1.10 8,993 781.10 0.03 - - - 0.00 - - .- - 0.03
1.20 9,856 781.20 0.03 - - - 0.00 - - - - 0.03
1.30 10,720 781.30 0.03 - - - 0.00 - - - - 0.03
1.40 11,583 781.40 0.03 - - - 0.00 - - - - 0.03
1.50 12,446 781.50 0.03 - - - 0.00 - - - - 0.03
1.60 13,310 781.60 0.03 - - - 2.10 - - - - 2.13
1.70 14,173 781.70 0.03 - -- - 5.95 - - - - 5,99
1.80 15,036 781.80 0.03 - - - 10.93 - - - - 10.97
1.90 15,900 781.90 0.04 - - - 16.83 - - - - 16.87
2.00 16,763 782.00 0.04 -- - - 23.55 - - - --- 23.58
2.10 17,736 782.10 0.04 -- - - 30:95 - - - - 30.99
220 18,709 782.20 0.04 - - - 39.00 - - - - 39.04
2.30 19,682 782.30 0.04 - - - 47.65 - - - ~ - 47.69
2.40 20,655 782.40 0.04 - - - 56,85 - - - - 56,90
2.50 21,628 782.50 0.04 - - - 66.59 - - - - 66.63
2.60 22,600 782,60 0.04 - - - 76.82 - - - -- 76.86
2.70 23,573 782.70 0.04 ~ - - -- 87.53 - - - - 87.57
2.80 24,548 782.80 0.04 - - -- 98.69 - - - - 98.74
2.90 25,519 782.90 0.04 - - - 110.30 -- - - - 110.34
3.00 26,492 783.00 0.05 - - - 122.35 - --- - - 122.40
3.10 27,633 783.10 0.05 - - - 134.79 - - - - 134.83
3.20 28,774 783.20 0.05 - - - 147.61 - - - - 147.66
COR17RUeS OR R@Xf P8p@...

wetland iC
Stage /Storage 1 Discharge Table
Stage Storage Elevation CH A Ctv B Giv C Civ D Wr A Wr [3 Wr C Wr D Exttt Totat
Ef tuft R cfs cfs cfs ds cis cts ds cis cfs cfs
3.30 29,915 783.30 0.05 - -- - 160.83 - - - - 160.87
3.40 31,056 783.40 0.05 - - - 174.41 - - - - 174.46
3.50 32,197 783.50 0.05 - - - 188.36 - - - - 188.40
3.60 33,338 783.60 0.05 - - - 202.66 - - - - 202.70
3.70 34,479 783.70 0.05 - - - 217.30 , - - - - 217.35
3.80 35,620 783.8D 0.05 - --- - 232.28 - - - - 232.33
3.90 36,761 783.90 0.05 - - - 247.59 - - - - 247.64
4.00 37,902 784.00 0.05 - - - 263.26 - - - - 263.31
...F~d

Water Quality Volume
Basin 1C
Area = -~'~ ~___- - ~4:'I ~`' acres = ~:90~~ sf
.~5~1 .'. .' .r~.~=
%Imp = ... ~~=}'~~~ ~ ~ ~~ .`:85 (as a whole number)
WQV =1.0 (RvjAs/12 (cfj
Where Rv = 0.05 + I (0.009) _ ~~'~`A3~~~5 in
1=Percent Impervious as as a whole number
As = On-site area to be treated (sf)
ss~f.~,~a -_ .... -~
Z:1Documents12006106-1231hydro\06-123 Water Quality WorksheetPond 1C.xls

Water Quality Bteeddown Orifice
Basin 1C
A =(WQV / t) / (0.6 x (64.4 x h / 2)^0.5)
Where WQV =water quality volume.(cf) _ ~ ~~_
t =302400 sec (3.5 days)
h =average head on orifice centroid (ft)
h = (x<_=~:~s5 - ?<=~'a~~77'8U:0:) / 2 = 0.75 ft
.-- CF.~'-1!~az?s6 Ali-t9e
WQ slay Orifke inv
~,rt.
w~;,~p~ wQ~ sq feet or, :€n~~.~ {3~ . ~,
Vii':.. a'.-. ~a:: :crn.~i::r~3
Using the formula for area of a circle and solving for the diameter,
A = 3.1416 (dia)^214
dia = (A "' 4 / 3.1416)^0.5
V,~ ,i~,,; ..
~' inches
dia = s~~:~;~:~:1fi~12~
Use ~~~;,-=11,inch Diameter Orifice at inv Elev = ~~LLO~~~~~.
Z:\Documents\2006\06-1231hydro106-123 Water Quality WorksheetPond 1 C.xls

DWQ Project No.
DNISION OF WATER QUALITY -401 EXPENDED DETENTION (and POCKET') WETLAND WORKSHEET
I. PROJECT INFORMATION (please complete the foNov~dng information):
Project Name : Shoos at Bush Hill. Guilford & Randolph Counties. NC
Contact Person: Phone Number: ( )
For projects with mulfipie basins, specify which basin this worksheet applies tfl: wPna~~ ~a
Permanent Pool Elevatron 814.50 ft. {elevation of the orifice Invert out)
Temporary Pool Elevation 816.50 ft. (elevation of the outlet structure invert in)

Permanent Pool Surface Area 15,105 sq. ft. (water surface area at permanent pool elevation)
Drainage Area 9.7 ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Impervious Area _ 7.6 ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Forebay Surface Area _ 2.912 sq. ft (at pem~anenf pool elevation approximafely 15°k)*
Marsh 0 =9" Surface Area _ 5.073 sq. fl (at permanent pool elevation approximately 35%)`
Marsh 9"-18" Surface Area 4,873 sq. ft. {at pemtanent pool eleva#ion approximately 35%}*
Micro Pool Surface Area _ 2 9 2 sq. ff. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 15%)*

Temporary Pool Volume 27.935 cu. ft. (volume defained on top of the permanent pool)

SAlDA used 3•~
! (surface area to drainage area ratio}*
Diameter of Orifice 9.5 in. (draw down orifice diameter)
II. REQUIRED ITEMS CHECKLIST
initial in the space provided to indicate the folbwing design requirements have been met and supportlng documentation Is attached. If a
requirement has not been met, attach an explanation of wiry. Af a minimum, a complete stomiwater management plan submitt~ includes
a worksheet for each BMP, design calculations, plans and sper9fications showing all BMPs and outlet structure detals, a detaled
drainage plan and a fully executed operation and maintenance agreement. An incomplete submittal package will result in a request for
additional information and v~ill substantially delay final review and approval of the project
Applicants Initials
X The temporary pool controls runoff from the 1 inch rain.
X The basin side slopes are no steeper than 3:1.
X A planting plan for the marsh areas wlih plant spaces and densities is provided.
X Vegetation above the permanent pool elevation is specified.
X An emergency drain is provided to drain the basin.
X The temporary pool draws down in 2 to S days.
X Sediment storage is provided in the permanent pool.
X A sediment disposal area is provided.
X Access is provided for maintenance.
,~ A site specific, signed and notarized operation and maintenance agreement is provided.
~, The drainage area (including any offsite area} is delineated on a site plan.
X Aa;ess is provided for maintenance.
X Plan details for the wetland are provided.
x Pian details for the filet and outlet are provided.
_ X A site specfic operation and maintenance agreement, signed and notarized by the responsible party is provided (see
htlpJ4r2o.ehnr.state.nc.uslncwetlandslo~dm.doc}.
'pocket Wetlands have different design parameters and are only assumed fA remove 35%TSS -See pp.19 and 20 of the NC DENR
Sformwater BMP Manual, Aptti 1999.10°k open water, 50% high marsh, 40°k low marsh.

Basin Name
Basin Area (ac}
Impervious Arne (%)
Pool Depth (ft)
Resulting SAl17A Ratlo
Total Pond Area (ac)
Total Permanent Pooi Area (ftZ}
Forebay (ft) (15% of pool area)
Marsh 0-9" (ffz} (35°!° of pool area}
Marsh 9-18" (ftz) (35% of pool area}
Micropool (ftz) (15% of pool area)
Temporary Pond Storage Calculation
Runoff =1.0-inch (Rv)(As112) (ft3)
Where: Rv=0.05+1(0.009)
I =Impervious Area (as whole #)
As =Basin area (ftz)
Runoff (ft'} _
Elevations (ft}
Wetland 2A
9.7
78.4%
3
3.36 (from-table 1.1 BMP Manual)
0.33
Required Area (ft2} Actual Area (ft=}
Top of Berm
Tap of Temporary Pooi
Top of Pemtenant Pool ~
Top of 0"-9" pond
Top of 9"-18" pond
Bottom of 9"-18" pond
Top of Micropool
Bottom of Micropool
14,197
2,130
4,969
4,969
2,130
0.7556
78.4
422,532
26,605
819.00
8.16.50
814.50
814.50
813.75
8'(3.00
811.50
809.00
15,105
2,912
5,073
4,973
2,147
Actual Volume (ft'}
27,935

Pond Report
Hydratiow Hydrographs by Inte6solve Wednesday, Nov 29 2006, 9:30 PM
Pond No. 14 -Wetland ZA
Pond Data
Pond storage is based on known contour a reas. Average end area method used.
Stage !Storage Table
Stage (ft) Elevation (ft} Contour area (stet) Incr. Storage (tuft) Totaf storage {tuft}
00 814.50
0 12,282 0 0
.
50 817.00
2 15,653 34,919 34,919
.
4.50 819.Q0 18,604 34,257 69,176
Culvert / Orfice Structures Weir Structures
[AI [B] [Cl [D] LAl CBl [C] [D1
Rise (lny = 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crest Len (ft) =20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Span (in) 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crest EI. (ft) = 816.50 0.00 0.00 0.00
No. Barrels 1 0 0 0 Weir Coeft. = 3.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
Invert EI. (ft) = 814.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 Weir Type =Rest - - -
Length (ft) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Multi-Stage = No No No No
Slope (96) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
N-Value = .013 .000 .000 .000
Orif. Goeff. 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00
Multi-Stage = n/a No No No Exfiftratlon = 0.000 inJlu (Contour) Taiiwater Elev. = 0.00 ft
Nole: GdvefVOrirKe o~Aflows have been enelymd ~rWu inlet and oullel mnlroi.
Stage 1 Storage I Discharge Table
Stage Storage Elevation Clv A Glv B Clv C Clv D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Exfil Total
ft ctrft ft cfs cts cfs cfs cts cfs cis cfs cfs cis
0.00 0 814.50 0.00 - - - 0.00 - - - -
- 0.00
03
0
0.25 3,492 814.75 0.03 - - - 0.00 - - -- .
04
0
0.50 6,984 815.00 0.04 - - - 0.00 - - - - .
0
05
0.75 10,476 815.25 0.05 - - - 0.00 - - - - .
06
0
1.00 13,96$ 815.50 0.06 - - -- 0.00 - - - - .
0
06
125 17,459 815.75 0.06 - - - 0.00 - - - - .
0
07
1.50 20,951 816.00 0.07 - - -- 0.00 - - - - .
0
08
1.75 24,443 81625 0.08 - - - 0.00 - - - - .
0
08
2.00 27,935 Bi6.50 0.08 - - - 0.00 - - - - .
41
8
2.25 31,427 816.75 0.09 - - - 8.33 ~ - - - - .
64
23
2.50 34,919 817.00 0.09 - - - 23.55 - - - - .
39
10
2.70 38,344 817.20 0.10 - - - 39.01 -- - - - .
56
97
2.90 41,770 817.40 O.tO - - - 56.87 - - - - .
76
94
3.10 45,196 817.60 0.10 - - -- 76.84 - - - -
- .
98
83
3.30 48,622 817.80 0.11 - - - 98.72 - - - .
122
47
3.50 52,047 818.00 0.11 - - - 122.36 - - - -
- .
147.74
3.70 55,473 818.20 0.11 - - ---
- , - - 147.63 174
55
3.90 58,899 818.40 0.12 - - --- 174.44 - - - - .
81
202
4.10 62,324 818.60 0.12 - - - 202.69 - - - - .
232
45
4.30 65,750 818.80 0.12 - - - 232.33 - - - - .
263
38
4.50 69,176 819.00 0.12 - - - 263.26 - - - - .

Water Quality Volume
Basin 2A
Area = ~_,:~ - ~ ~~~ ~:7~ acres = ~,:~5~~ sf
%Imp = -=.- .- ,?~8:~t'.(as a whole number)^
WQV =1.0 (Rv)As/12 (cf)
Where Rv = 0.05 + I (0.009) _ ~~, ~~~fi' in
1=Percent Impervious as as a whole number
As = On-site area to be treated (sf)
~: ~.;~
~~~~~.~
WQV = ~~ ,_~ ~26;6~'~~ cf
Y:\Documentst2006106-1231hydro106-123 Water Quality WorksheetPond ZA.xls

Water Quality Bleeddown Orifice
Basin 2A
9.7
A ={WQV r 78.4
"~~:~~-6535' cf
Where, WQV =water quality volume (cf) _ ~~LL„ i„~~,
t =302400 sec (3.5 days)
h =average head on orifice centro_ id (ft)
~.:~ ~
h ° ('~v_r'~.'~~fi~~ - -~~~8~.4.5;~ j / 2 =~~""s.,".-a;ti~.~ ;~~4 ft
h"a9;: •;faa;x .. _ -- siiiii-'_~'x ~: ~,a:i.^.e:r4
WiQ elev Orifice inv
A ~w~~-,{j U 3~-sq feet or ~~~?~:' `~$~s inches
Using the formula for area of a circle and solving for the diameter,
A = 3.1416 (dia)^2 / 4
dia = (A " 4 / 3..1416)^0.5
a~~ ~ --
dia = ~,~~~tn~,~ inches
~~~~
Use ri<:~',?; ~a.:5' inch Diameter Orifice at Inv Elev = ~1~~=~~;~~i
Z1Documents12006106-1231hydro106-123 Water Quality WorksheetPond 2A.xls

DWQ Project No.
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY -401 EXTENDED DETENTION (and POCKET*}WETLAND WORKSHEET
i. PROJECT INFORMATION (please complete the following intomiatan):
Project Name : ; bons at 8 ish Hill. ruilfnrd & Randolph Counties. NC
Contact Pelson: Phone Number. (, )
For projects with multiple basins, spea(y which basin this worksheet applies to: ^Y1L~a~ct#28.
Permanent Pool Elevation 798.50 ft. (elevaton of the orifice invert out)
Temporary Pool Elevation aoo-5 ft. (elevation of the outlet structure invert in)
,
Permanent Pool Surface Area 9A83 sq. ft. (water surface area at permanent pool elevation)
Drainage Area 5.5 ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Impervious Area 4.3 ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Forebay Surface Area _1,857 sq. ft (at permanent pool elevation approximately 15%)'
Marsh 0"-9" Surface Area 2.826 sq. ft. (at pem~anent pool elevation approximately 359'°)*
Marsh 9 =18" Surface Area 2,909 sq. ft. (at pennanent pool elevation approximately 359'o)R
Miao Poot Surface Area _ 1.791 sq, ft (at permanent pool elevation approximately 15%)'

Temporary Pool Volume 15.375 cu. ft (volume detained on lop of the permanent pool)
_
SAlDA used 3.36 (surface area to drainage area ratio}*
Diameter of Orifice 1.2 in. (draw down orifice diameter)
11. REQUIRED fTEMS CHECKLIST
initial in the space provided to indicate the following design requirements have been met and supporting documentation is attached. 1f a
requirement has not been met:< attach an explanation of why. At a minimum, a canpiete stomfwater management plan submittal includes
a worksheet for each BMP, design calculations, plans and speciflcatwns showing all BMPs and outlet shucfure details, a detailed
drainage pion and a fully executed operation and maintenance agreement An incomplete submittal package will result in a request for
additional information and will substantially delay final review and approval of the project
Aaalicants initials
X The temporary pool wntrols runoff from the 1 inch rain.
X The basin side slopes are no steeper than 3:1. .
X A planting plan for the marsh areas with plant speaes and densities is provided.
X Vegetation above the permanent pool elevation is specified.
,~ An emergency drain is provided to drain the basin.
_ X The temporary pool draws down in 2 to 5 days.
X Sediment storage is provided in the permanent pool.
.ZC A sediment disposal area isprovided. -
~, Access is provided for maintenance.
X A site.speciflc, signed and notarized operation and maintenance agreement is provided.
_~ The drainage area (including arty offsite area} is delineated on a site plan.
X Access is provided for maintenance.
X Plan details for the wetland are provided.
Plan details far the inlet and outlet are provided.
X A site specific operation and maintenance agreement, signed and notarized by the responsible party is provided (see
http:/m2o.ehnr.state.nauslncwatiandsloandm.doc}.
* Pocket Wetlands have different design parameters and are only assumed to remove 359'0 TSS -See pp.19and 20 of the NC OENR
Stormwater BMP Manual, April 1999.10% open water, 509'0 high marsh, 40% bw marsh.

Basin Name
Basin Area (ac)
Impervious Area (%)
Pool Depth (ft)
Resulting SA/DA Ratio
Total Pond Area (ac).
Total Permanent Pool Area (ft2)
Forebay (ftz) (15°!° of pool area)
Marsh 0-9" (ftz) (35% of pool area)
Marsh 9-18" (ftz) (35% of pool area)
Micropooi (ft~) (15% of pool area)
Temporary Pond Storage Calculation
Runoff =1.0-inch (Rv)(As/12) (ff3)
Where: Rv=0.05+1(0.009)
I =Impervious Area (as whole #)
As =Basin area (ftz)
Runoff (ft') _
Elevations (ft)
Top of Berm
Top of.Temporary Pool
Top of Permenant Poci
Top of 0"-9" pond
Top of 9"-18" pond
Bottom of 9"-18" pond
Top of Micropooi
Bottom of Micropooi
Wetland 2B
5.5
78.3%
3
3.36 (from table 1. 1 BMP Manual)
0.18
Required Area (ftZ} Actual Area (ff )
8,050 9,083
1,207 1,557
2,817 2,626
2,817 2,909
1,207 1,791
Actual Volume (ft'}
0.7547
78.3
239,580
15,068 - 15,375
$02.00
800.15
798.50
798.50
797.75
797.00
795.50
793.00

Pond Report
Hydratlow Hydrographs by IMelisolve Wednesday, Nov 29 2006, 9:36 PM
Pond No. t5 -wetland 2B
Pond Data
Pond storage is based on known contour areas. Average end area method used.
Stage !Storage Table
Stage (ft) Elevation (ft) Contour area (sgft} incr. Storage (cuff) Total storage (cult)
0.00 T98.50 8,374 0 0
0.50 799.00 8,910 4,321 4,321
1.50 800.00 10,018 9,464 13,785
2.50 801.00 11,181 10,600 24,385
3.50 802,00 12,400 11,791 36,175
Culvert /Orifice Structures Weir Structures
IAl IgI [C] tDl IA] [Bl tCJ tDI
Rise (in) = 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crest Len (ft) = 20.00 0.00 0.00 0,00
Span (In} = 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crest EI. (ft) = 800.15 O.QO 0.00 0.00
No. Barrels = 1 0 0 0 Weir Coeff. = 3.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
Invert Et. (ft} = 798.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 weir Type =Red - - -
Length (ft} = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mu1HStage = No No Na No
Slope (%} = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -
N-Value = .013 .000 .000 .000
Orif. Coeff. = 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mutti~Stage = n/a No No No Exfittration = 0.000 iNhr (Contour) Taitwater Elev. = 0.00 ft
Note: CupretlFOrifice ouNbwa have been analyzed ceder Mdet anG Dole( eonlyd.
Stage /Storage /Discharge Table
Stage Storage Elevation Clv A Clv B Clv C Civ. D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Exfii Total
ft tuft ft cis cfs cis cis cis cis cis cis cis cfs
0.00 0 798.50 0.00 - - - 0.00 - - - _-- 0,00
0.05 432 798.55 0.00 - - - 0.00 - -- -. - 0.00
0.10 .864 798.60 0.01 - - - 0.00 - - - - 0.01
0:15 1,296 798.65 0.01 -- - - 0.00 - - - --- 0.01
0.20 1,728 798.70 0.01 - - - 0.00 - - - - 0.01
0:25 2,161 798.75 0.02 - - - 0.00 - - - - 0.02
0.30 2,593 798.80 0.02 - - - 0.00 - - - -- 0,02
0.35 3,025 798.$5 0.02 - - - 0.00 - - - - 0.02
0.40 3,457 798.90 0.02 - - - 0.00 - - - - 0.02
0.45 3,889 798.95 0.02 - - - 0.00 - - - - 0.02
0.50 4,321 799.00 0.03 - - - 0.00 - - - - 0.03
.0.60 5,267 799.10 0.03 - - - 0.00 - - - - 0.03
0.70 6,214 79920 0.03 - - - 0.00 - - - - 0.03
0.80 T,160 T99.30 0.03 - - - 0.00 - - - - 0.03
0.90 6,107 799.40 0.03 - - - 0.00- - - - - 0.03
i.00 9,053 799.50 0.04 - - - 0.00 --- - - - 0.04
1.10 9,999 799.60 0.04 - - - 0.00 - - -- - 0,04
1.20 10,846 799.70 0.04 - - --- 0.00 - - - - 0.04
1.30 91,892 799.80 0.04 - -- - 0.00 -- - - -- 0.04
1.40 12,839 799.90 0.04 - ~-- --- 0:00 - - - -- 0.04
1.50 13,785 800.00 0.05 -- - - 0.00 - - - --- 0.05
1.60 14,845 800.10 0.05 - - - 0.00 - - - - - 0.05
1.70 15,905 800.20 0.05 - - - 0.74 - - - - 0.79
1,80 16,965 800.30 0.05 - - - 3.87 - - - - 3.92
1.90 18,025 800.40 0.05 - - - 8.32 - - - - 8.37
2.00 19,085 800.50 0.05 - - - 13.78 - - - - 13.83
2.10 20,145 800.60 0.05 -- - - 20.Q9 - --- - - 20.15
2.20 21,205 800.70 0.06 - - - 27.15 - - - - 2721
2.30 22,265 800.80 0.06 - - - 34.88 - - - -- 34.94
2.40 23,325 800.90 0.06 - - - 43.24 - - - -- 43.29
2.50 24,385 801.00 0.06 - - - 52.19 - - - - 5225
2.60 25,564 801.10 0.06 - - - 61.66 - - - -- 61.72
2.70 26,743 801.20 0.06 - - - 71.65 - - - - 71.71
Continues on next page...

wetland 2B
Stage !Storage / Discharge Tabte
Stage Storage Elevation Ctv A
ft coif ft cfs
2.80 27,922 801.30 0.06
290 29,101 801.40 0.06
3.00 30,280 801.50 0.06
3.10 31,459 801.60 0.07
3.20 32,638 801.70 0.07
3.30 33,817 801.80 0.07
3.40 34,996 801.90 0.07
3.50 36,175 80200 0.0T
...Erxl
C(v B Ctv C Ctv D Wr A Wr B
cis cfs cfs cfs cis
- - - 82.12
- - - 93.06 -
- - - 104.45 -
- - - 116.27 -
- - - 128.50 -
- - - 141.13 -
- - - 154.15 -
- - - 167.58 -
Wr C Wr D Exfil
cfs cts cfs
Tofai
cis
8219
93.13
104.51
116.33
128.56
141.20
154.22
167.65

Water Quality Volume
Basin 2B
Area = -_- - _ -
~' ;,5~ acres = ;..; -~
~R2:3~a sf
°klmp = .=;~;~~.~='-78.3'~(as a whole number)
WQV = 1.0 (Rv}As/12 {c~
Where Rv = 0.05 + I (0.009) _ ~3~0,7=in
= Pereent Impervious as as a whole number
As = On-site area to be treated (sf)
,~s~c+~3
wcty = ~~~"~sas~~; cf
Z1Documents12006106-1231hydro\06-923 Water Quality WorksheetPond 26.x1s

Wafer Quality Bleeddown Orifice
Basin 2B
5.5
A =(WQV / t) / (0.6 x (64.4 x h / 2)^0.5)
Where, WQV =water quality volume (cfl = ~~":~~g ~ ~
t =302400 sec (3.5 days)
h =average head on orifice centroid (ft)
;~ -.~ : ~~
h = (sue„~Bpb;Y2~ ~"i :x798:5:) / 2 = ?~~~)`~~y ~_`~Ift
WQ @lBV OIIGCB TRV
'-fig{'~ *-x rc._;,~--e-;--.
A = ~ a~~a ,¢~~ sq feet or, .;~€:;;,~?~ ~~'
Using the formula for area of a circle and solving for the diameter,
A = 3.1416 (dia~`2 / 4
dia = (A ` 4 13.1416)^0.5
dia = ~ ~~~~~1`~~~~~-"t inches
Use ;:,;; ~::;.,„'f2;; inch Diameter Orifice at Inv Elev = ~79,83;„;~7;
Z:1Documentsl2006106-1231hydro106-123 Water Quality WorksheetPond 26.x1s

Hydrograph Summary Report
Hyd.
No. Hydrograph
type
(origin} Peak
flow
(cts) Time
irrterval
(min) Time to
peak
(min) Volume

(tuft) Inflow
hyd(s) Maximum
elevation
(tt) Maximum
storage
(tuft) Hydrograph
description
1 SCS Runoff 269.38 1 736 1,289,798 - ---- - Basin 1 pre (to SP~1)
2 SCS Runoff 45.74 1 732 189,967 - - - Basin 2 pre
3 SCS Runoff 2.77 1 731 11,141 - - - Offsite pre
4 Combine 48.51 1 732 201,108 2, 3 - - sum of fknvs to SP#2
6 SCS Runoff 497.41 1 718 1,141,831 - - -- basin 1a post
7 Reservoir 335.69 1 722 1,027,082 6 780.80 393,942 route pond to
8 SCS Runoff 761.64 1 717 356,842 - - - basin 1b post
9 Reservoir 133.89 1 720 319,841 8 788.89 100,072 route pond 1b
10 SCS Runoff 42.06 1 917 98,556 - --- - basin 1c post
11 Reservoir 39.66 1 719 88,665 10 782.21 18,779 routs pond 1c
13 SCS Runoff 96.95 1 717 219,857 - basin 2a
14 Reservoir 88.48 1 719 198,472 13 817.71 46,999 'route pond 2a
15 SCS Runoff 54.97 1 717 124,661 - - basin 2b
16 Reservoir 51.82 1 719 113,475 15 801.00 24,334 route pond 2b
06-123.gpw Return Period: 100 Year Wednesday, Nov 29 2006, 9:56 PM
Hydraflow Hydrographs by intelisohre

~e ~,~;lir~~'n ~~ jZ
~._
__~~
WalverCon & Associates ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `~
SCALE
SvMtiuAILY OF ~n1 c~'AP.6C~Lts~~a '
~ ..~ ~2~
~ - ~~ ~ ~~~
r
~~ir~ Z ~~
,~
G~ '
~G
Z0, l ~ C
~~1. Z~~ Wit,
3/%~ 1 A- r~os7"

Gov ' ~ g
~ ~ ~~, ~- M rn(
~~i~- = ~"5• f o ClC Gt~~~~~~ C~ G
.~ ~ ~ , c~ M~~ 3 ~ ~~ a G ~ ~ ~ ~D cN = 89.i~
to, r_~ a c C~V = /D
P~~~ l~P ~asT'
~t2~~'C = ! l~,'! a ~ Cc~~C~H'r'~ C~ G.~l~C.
Pj~ ~r ~ ~ ~' pOS~,
~= Z
~ ~ ~M ~~

SHE"~f NO. Z OF
Wolverton &. Associates ~~"~~°~- - °~~
~~o~ ~~
~~ '

P~Vc~v~ ~~~ = !l ~ Z Z aC
~'/~rns ~ 8 ~-
~ D~ ~~bfl`7 /nlD. ~~ P~
~/ W ` C
~~~Nl ~ ~~ b~b ~n~tllovs~ -' 1110 ~S/~ f~Go~

APP1= I~IDIX C
OUTLET CON'T'ROL STRUCTURE DE"R"AILS
~~

EMBANKMENT ELEVAT10Nm782.00
u1
6" :;
EMBANKMENT
SLOPE
24" 4 OUTLET PIPE ~` \~
® 1'!. MIN. ~
ELEV. 770.50 ' \
I ~~ \
-~ ~ I--
STANDARD MANHOLE vnTH
6" CONCRETE PEDESTAL RING AND COVER
REINFORCE W/NO. 4 REBAR ~::. 'i ....j ~~

6 O.C. 80tH WAY$ EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
6" GWEN~NG
'J;•
••;
•~,
', 100-18 WSE 780.80
,
}:. . :
t:
OUTLET CONTROL STRLK:IVRE WAIL REINFORCEMENT,1]4 ~? WATER OUAUIY ORFICE
TO BE LOCATED M EMBANKMENT O 10" EACH WAY Y%{
'.
:.
6" f:.
x f
~ ~ 6'•
EMERGENCY $PII.LWAY ~+;
l
i
:'V ~ ~ i.
l
/
a
~
WATER QUALITY CRFICE _
l 1
~•
~• \
/
'•' \ i
'N 6' OUriET PIPE
GATE VALVE fOR EMERGENCY ORNN DOWN
,~•: .
•
. -
BOTTdA Of MICROPOOI .
-
- • . . .
771.00
FRONT VIEW
CROSS SECTION
24" 0 PVC PIPE PATH HEADWALL
EXTENDMIC INTO M92COPOOL.
OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE -POND 1A
N.T.S.
ORIFICE/WE1R ORtFICE DtA. WEIR LEN.
EVENT INV ELEV. (IN) (FT)
WQ 776.50 3.75
EMERGENCY 77810 24.0
OVERFLOW

24" a OUTLET
O 1'1. MPI.
ELEY.• 779.50
6' CONCRETE
RE1NfORCE W~O. 4 REBAR -
e' o. BOTH WAYS
NT ELEVATION~790.00 OU1LfT CONTROL STRUCTURE

x TO BE LOCATED IN EMBANKMENT

" '~ "~'~' EMERGENCY SPILLWAY

6..
' WATER QUALITY ORFICE
'a: EMBANKMENT
SLOPE
~ ~
` CATS VALVE fOR EMERGENCY GRAIN GOWN

~j ~
~
~
~~ 5'
1 tt ALL
M
Fes-- TO MIRCOPOOL
EXTENDING
CROSSS SECTION
WALL REINFORCEMENT /4
O 10" EACH WAY
BOTTOM Of MICROPOOL
780.00
STANOARO MANHOLE WITH
RING AND COVER
6~ CiPEMNG ERGENCY SPILLWAY
100-YR WSE 788.89
,J
<:
.-. WATER OUAUTY ORf7CE
;~ `/~ `l ~:M:
.•J
'Y cJ' OUTLET PIPE
":
FRONT VIEW
ORIFICE/WEIR ORIFICE OIA. WEIR LEN.
EVENT INV ELEV. (IN) (FT)
WQ 785.50 2.20
EMERGENCY 787 30 20.0
OVERFLOW
OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE -POND 1B
N.T.S.

6" CONCRETE
REINFORCE W/N0. 4 REBAR -
6' 0.C BOTH wAYS
ELEVATION~784.00 OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE
/ TO BE LOCATED. N EMBANKMENT
c0 /
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
6.. .•' _._„rwATER OuALITY ORFlCE
'~ EMBANKMENT
SLOPE
24' a OUTLET PIPE ~ \
0 IS MIN.
ELEV. 714.50 \
.~ \
" 5'--
~•1 i~ ~ ..
CROSS SECTION
VALVE FOR EMERGENCY DRAJN OOWN
24" a PVC PIPE YAM HEADWALL
EX1ENgNC INTO MIRCOPOOI.
WALL REINFORCEMENT ,r{
O t0" EACH WAY
OF MICROPOOL
6"~~v1
STANOARO MANHOLE W11H
7 RING AND COVER
.rf x..
6" ~~~ EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
100-YR WSE •782.21
.:.
<=
,., WATER OUALtTY ORflCE
/~ ~~ f
l t
J
FRONT VIEW
6"
PIPE
ORIftCE/WEIR RIEICE OIA. WEIR LEN.
EVENT INV £LEV. IN) (fT)
wa 7so.oo ~.~
EMERGENCY X82 00 20.0
OVERFLOW
OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE -POND 1C
N.T.S.

ELEVanoN.e~9.oo
6u •`
EMBANKMENT
M1 C
\ AOPE
24' • OUTLET PvPE ~ \ \S

17G MIN, \
ELEV.: 808.50 \

\
5'--
~.'~ ..
CROSS SECTION
OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE
TO 8E LOCATED IN EMBANKMENT
SPRLWAY
TER OVALITY ORFlCE
6" CONCRETE
REINFORCE W/N0. a REBAR -
6" O.C. BOTH WAYS
WALL REINFORCEMENT /4
O s0" EACM waY
E VALE f'OR EMERGENCY GRAIN GOWN
SOTTOM OF MICROPOOL
809.00
24" a PVC PIPE WITH HEAOWALI
_ _ EXTENDING INTO MIRCOPOOL.
sTaNOaRO uANNaE 1NTH
RING ANO COVER
6' OFEMNC "~"`"
,i: ,..
~, 100
k•
3:~
~,~
~~

WATEI

6" t: .x
y
~ ~
6"
~
.+
.
~
~
/ ~ `
~~
1
: ~
y
~
\
f~
y _~: a

FRONT VIEW
ENCY SPILLWAY
YR WSE ~8tZ71
auAUtY aatTGE
PIPE
ORIFICE/WEIR ORIFICE OIA. WEIR LEN.
EVENT INV ELEV. (IN) (f T)
WQ 814.50 1.5
EMERGENCY

OVERfIOW 876.50 20.0
OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE -POND 2A
N.T.S.

ELEVAnoN.aG2.oG
6" r
r.
~ EMBANKMENT
SLOPE
24~ 0 OUTLET PIPE .~ \
O 1% MIN. Y
EIEV.• 79230 \
\
,_ '3 5.
7I.' , i
CROSS SECTION
oun.Er coNraa sraucTUaE
TO BE IOCATEO M EMBANKMENT
CY SPRLwAY
OUAUTY OaflCE
6' CONCRETE
aEINFOaC€ w/NO 4 aEBAR -
6 0. 90TH WAYS
wAU REtNfORCEMENT (4
O 10' EACH WAY
E VALVE FOR EMERGENCY ORMN OO77N
BOTTOM OF MK;ROPOOt
793.00
24' * PVC PIPE WITH HEAOWAII
_ EXTENDING INTO MIRCOPOOL
6"
STANOARO MANHOLE NtTH
RING ANO COVER
=•Y1?.•
6~ ~~~ EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
700-1R WSE •607.00
. ~t
c:
WATER puAUTY ORflCE
:~
i
n;.
~~Lr ~ ~.
/~ ~~
~.
~ ~
5'
FRONT VIEW
ORIFiCE/WEIR RIFICE DIA. WEIR LEN.
EVENT INV ELEV. (IN) (FT)
WO 798.50 1.2
EMERGENCY 800.00 20.0
OVERFLOW
PwE
OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE -POND 2B
N.T.S.

AFP~I\IDIX D
CiUL'SCIwRT SIZII~IC
wotvetcon sc~'

~ ~- x,'70
CHART 8 ? = 5, ~Gj i>n ~~ ~ k'S
____ ~ ~-~ X 8 .~ .
n ~~ r-~
~
t
C
Q
tt sae
soo tt) (z!
~ = 9 {1}
is v
x
,
u.
to eao r,c r tsoz a.73 ds 7 '

7 e
0 100 QB a 15 dclPt
Inlet {}~W FIIA/ i
5 6 T

8

200 D Kf~
(1) t.75 A3
(2) t.e0 8.i
4 i

4 i
5
(3) 2.05 !.1
4
' tC
~
~ 3
_
6
~ ~ °'
y~~
G~
700
i0

~
~

2

6
~
~ .p
\
se .
Z
'
~
z

~ 2
2
~H~y 40 u'
tJ FFF---"'
j
m 4 ~ [7fAMP~1.E ~~ ..w ^"' ,r.-- 71
C
g
~ ~
o /
~/
~.
. t
~ . I~U ~ P~ S
z
~ ° , . . t4D-'''2~
~ ~ ee to t.o /
s / ~ w
_ a p,
~ ACV ~8f
~
/ ~ 10 Hw ^+
es 0.9 6,9 .

~ 1
~,
os
o
/ 6
/ i f,L1Y, SCN~E YVUI6YYAI.I
F'I
Altt: ~ 0.7 0.7
2 q .
p) ao•ieTP
8 RI eo••ndt6• 0.6 0.6

g {s{ dt.
.r ae•q es

Te use.r.N (2) of ~ pteptt
hw4aM~yN «W {1{, tMn o.s os

t w.an~s,an.eenoow,wa
6rd Q•se.eS ar ro•erse ai os
auAeaNl
e.s 0.! 0A
0
8
t .
~ 0.a0 9.85 0.15
HEADWATER DEPTH
~„„p~p„~,~„,~,H,,,,,, POR BOX CULVERTS
WITH INLET CONTROL
48-10
Gvv3t0~et! Gowriy Maand CH4

f ~~~
~} r ~~~ (~~~ 2~~~~
~.-a~
~~~,~5
CHART 8
u
~~~~ ccA
Ufa 3 G'~
C= c~,~-'
~ , -~.~a ~
`-~- --t -- ~ r.
~- ~ bc~
~~ eoo
fioo
10
~ 6'xz'Box QC76cis
Q1B c 7fi tfsfft
J00
~~
~
E - (t} i.76 afi
Zf0
(Zj 1.ff S.f
~sy zos s.1
7
6
0
~'
3
2
1
c+~ m ~ ~v T~ X Cv ~'
~-: f +e
-7 ~f1.(
f ~ f ~`.'' ..!T'~~ L
fi f e (..~tl~.~~ V ~~L
- 5
-4 6
a
a
~s
c'~
~
~~ s
a
~~
~ ~= CQ~'C~ ~ z
_
~~
se ~ ~ z

H fi0
~
~ 5
1 ~ Y 1'T~~
4f ~ C 1.6 t.6
~ ~ ~ t~-`~2
~ ~°~~ ~ 1.f - t ~~
~=
F ~ a
dog AM~d -
YErgvntl ~i1 0.f 1.0 1A
V
/
/ to p'^ -+ ~ of of oe
/ a
. o e s
6
0.7
6 f1V11
WRJGWAJJ.
&~~
0.T
0.T
4 RARE
~ 0.f
(1) 90•te 16•
s
C~1 w•a,ew eo o~s
lsl M'(agmAWq Q.6
Z of 01Gq
es ofi
To tn• miN ~ m p-goJ•d

~ IroNroM~to ueN(1L tlw~
YN t[talOM In44ud N71 tlne4(/~
6 end Q sd•o, arrw•ess ee
l44
wouchud
BUREl1U OF PifeGC RAAp3 JAN.1967
v.s Od a4
of
f,fi a9s 0.35 f.35
HEADWATER DEPTH
FOR BOX CULVERTS
WITH iNLEC CONTROL
48-10
c3winn«e ~omty M~ c~a4

APPI~I~IDIX E
PLAI~ITINC TABU
wo~ lv~rto- n~&~AssocIates

~
~i ~ ~S {
,
3
' ,.fit
.._ >

..r.:.

:r.••r . .::.........,.... 3..._........ ....,...
.. i.:
.J.:

..r .
- , ...........,:.... ...

.a::
r .... ............

.
::c. ::+

• ................::1.

..
............: .
: :..:.....
•:
x3i
:
a:c.:.

a

ri:-
i

i
• ~o" •:1-:
i is i:i:
'
"'

z:.....

.
y~y~~{:: ~.. .......

.:

..... ,.: ..
.;.. .
......
......r.:. ^
•...~ : .....ii3:•

.
.
.•
..
:
. :
.:.:::::::: •i~ :
rt:.

::
•:::.
...:~
..

::t

r •:
i
::[ii ii: i:

.i..

....; .
~1::
.....:~
.
'
'

.
~~~ -
:i
:
f'

:_

i~••
•
• .....

..t

i::

:7::: ~ ::.:::::::::. :..

,

.w~.......
• .. : .. ...

....
...:...
.. ........y.' ..• ::... a.... ......
:/
:

~
i:i .i.:....
:::h
it

-

. -

:A::

...

.:a
:
..1 :..:.::.::::::
'•t.:....
•t : f'
... . .
r
L•

Iris virginica
Blue-flag Iris
#1
"
30 .
..
3-12 inches of water
Peltandra virginica Arrow Arum ~ #1 30" 3-12 inches of water
WETLAND / Pontederia cordata Pickerel Weed #1 30" 3-12 inches of water
AQUATIC PLANTS

(STORMWATER Sa itaria latifolia
g !]uck Potato QT 30" 3-12 inches of water
WETLAND AREA}
Clethra alnifolia Sweet Pepperbush 12"-18" CONT 4" o.c, shallow land
Lobelia cardinalis Cardinal Flower CONT 30" shallow land

APPEI~IDIX F'
OP~RATIOI~IS & MAIIVTI~I~IAI~IGi~
ACREEMI~l~I`T'
WotveztAn 6t, Assoaates

WETLAND DETENTION BASIN OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
The wetland detention basin system is defined as the wetland detention basin,. pretreatment including forebays
and the vegetated filter if one is provided.
Maintenance acfivities shall be performed as follows:
1. After every significant runoff producing rainfall event and at least monthly:
a. Inspect the wetland detention basin system for sediment accumulation, erosion, trash accumulation,
vegetated cover, and general condition.
b. Check and clear the orifice of any obstructions such that drawdown of the temporary pool occurs within
2 to 5 days as designed.
2. Repair eroded areas immediately, re-seed as necessary to maintain good vegetative cover, mow
vegetative cover to maintain a maximum height of six inches, and remove trash as needed.
3. Inspect and repair the collection system (i.e. catch basins, piping, swates, riprap, etc.) quarterly to
maintain proper functioning.
4. Remove accumulated sediment from the wetland detention basin~system semi-annually or when depth is
reduced to 75% of the original design depth (see diagram below). Removed sediment shall be disposed
of in an appropriate manner and shall be handled in a manner that will not adversely impact water quality
(i.e. stockpiling near a wetland detention basin or stream, etc.).
The measuring device used to determine the sediment elevation shall be such that it will give an accurate
depth reading and not readily penetrate info accumulated sediments.
If the elevation of the marsh areas exceed the permanent pool elevation, the sediment should be removed
to design levels. This shall be performed by removing the upper 6 inches of soil and stockpiling it. Then
the marsh area shall be excavated six inches below design elevations. Afterwards the stockpiled soil
should be spread over the marsh surface. The soil should not be stockpiled for more than two weeks.
When the permanent pool depth reads
removed.
feet in the forebay and micro-pool, the sediment shall be
BASIN DIAGRAM
(fit! in the blanks}
Permanent Pool Elevation
Sediment moval EI.
-~
-- ---_
Bottom E vation
FOREBAY
75%
-----Sediment Removal Elevation ------ 75%
MAIN POND
5. Wetland planting densities in the marsh areas should be maintained by replanting bare areas as needed
Wetland plants should be encouraged to grow in the marsh areas.
Page 1 of 2

6. If the basin must be drained for an emergency or to perform maintenance, the flushing of sediment
through the emergency drain shall be minimized to the maximum extent practical.
7. All components of the wetland detention basin system shall be maintained in good working order.
8. Level spreaders or other structures that provide diffuse flow shall be maintained every six months. All
accumulated sediment and debris shall be removed from the structure, and a level elevation shall be
maintained across the entire flow spreading structure. Any down gradien# erosion must be repaired and/or
replanted as necessary.
t acknowledge and agree by my signature below that I am responsible for the performance of the seven
maintenance procedures listed above. t agree to notify DWQ of any problems with the system or prior to any
changes to the system or responsible party.
Thomas K. Walker, Trustee of Thomas R. Walker Trust
Print name: u/t/a dated 3/28/90, as amended
Title: Authorized Member - Archdale Partners, L..L.C.
0 Huber Park Court, Weldon Sprina,~MO 63
Date: x.1/29/20
Note: The legally responsible party. should not be a homeowners association unless more than 50% of the
lots have been sold and a resident of the subdivision has been named the president.
I, Maria EtlincT ,aNotaryPublicfortheStateof Missouri ,
St. Charles Thomas K. Walker, Trustee &
County of , do hereby certify that Autho.ri zed 'M ember, A'rchda7 P
Partners,
personally appeared before me this 29thday of November 2006 ,and acknowledge the due
execution of the forgoing wetland detention basin main#enance requirements. Witness my hand and offical
seal,
~,~iv P~~, taa~a ~n~rc
~. ~ Nove~r~et4,2009
,~,,,, St.LoulaCounty
. ~~ Commisslai ~
SEAL '
My commission expires 11/4/2009
Page 2 of 2

T:\pn\012781000 Archdale Retail DevVndividual_Perrtrit\FIGURES~Archdale_IP_Aerial_Map.doc Prepared by Laura Lang [gin ,„

N
W E
S
0 325 650 1,300
I ~ 1
Feet
- - FLOOD HAZARD DEFINITIONS:
Legend Zone AE

Property Boundary Zones AE corresponds to the 1-percent annual chance floodplains
that are determined in the Flood Insurance Study by detailed

AE methods of analysis.

AEFW _ Zones B, C, and X
Zones B, C, and X are the flood insurance rate zones that

® SHADED X correspond to areas outside the 1-percent annual chance floodplain,
areas of 1-percent annual chance sheet flow flooding where
average depths are less than 1 foot, areas of 1-percent annual
chance stream flooding where the contributing drainage area is less
Source: North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Information System (FMIS) than 1 square mile, or areas protected from the 1-percent annual
http://www.ncfloodmaps.com/ chance flood by levees.
Title FEMA Flood Hazard Map
Project Shoppes at Bush Hill USAGE AID # 200620747
Applicant: Date of Public Notice:
Archdale Partners, LLC Shoppes At Bush Hill County: Guilford and Randolph
530 Huber Park Court Floodplain Map Waterway: Muddy Creek
Weldon Springs, MO 63304 River Basin: Cape Fear
T:\pn\o127810W Archdale Retail DevVndividual_Pemnt\FIGURESWrchdate_IP_FEMA_Map.dce Prepazed by Laura Lang [~~ ~~,~

s ~ ~.
. ~ ~ .. ~, -,:,~ ~~ i° ~ ~ ~~
~} .. ~.
"__ ,~ ~~ .
1 _ t J s l+ ~ ~ i ~ ~ t I~ k ., p ~ 0~.
w Watershed A: e~ _ _.~. '~ ~ ,~,,. ~- ~ ~ ~
~~ 212 ac `~ ' a ,~~ ~
• 119 ac within Project Boundary ~, °' -~' ~'t ,~y~ °eo"
~.~ t ~ .
- f~ ~- ,
• ' ~ ~ ~ '~ -'~` Watershed B:
_ .
~~ c .~" ~ ~~ ~ ~ - ~ ti1_ 25 ac
~ ~~ __ _ _ _ ~ '~.-• 16 ac within Project Boundary
_..
i ~ i t _
~, ~ • t ;r.
I
~~ i t
1 ~ •- ~ • y~ ~, ~~ , ~ , ~ • C
Ir i } z s
~1C I ~ ~ * "~• i
~ / / I b 1 l ~
._ f ~.., ~ ~ I ~„i• ~,,~ •„
1 j j ~ ~, t '~ ~„
. • •~, ~ . • '~~ .d~ ~~ ~ ~ / t ~.,. ~ ~ ~
. q,~_ ~ ~'
e
~ • / {
~.
``
~ ,
,~ _ ~ ~
r ~ f,„ 1
y--'-+ ~ ~ ' ` y h F
,' ~
Watershed C: r ~t~, a,
39 ac ~ ~ '_
•~ ~~ . y 4 i
x 20 ac within Project Boundary al ,i ~ ,~ N
..
_~ ~.
a_ ~ _._.
.f y
* ~ ~ 1 ' ~ ...~~ S
Properly Boundary ~~ _ ,~~~ ~ ; ~ ~` _ a i
>% ; ; ' •~'w ,~:.~`~ ''; ! 0 500 1,000 2,000
Watershed ~ " `~
p ~
~ ' , ` .~, Feet '
' 1
Title Watershed Area Map
Project Shoppes at Bush Hill USACE AID # 200620747
Applicant: Date of Public Notice:
Archdale Partners, LLC Shoppes At Bush Hill County: Guilford and Randolph
530 Huber Park Court Watershed Map Waterway: Muddy Creek
Weldon Springs, MO 63304 River Basin: Cape Fear
T:\pn\012781000 Mchdale Retail Dev\Individual_Pertrot\FIGURESWrchdale_IP_Watershed_Map.doc Prepared by Laura Lang [~~ ,,,gym

Photograph I .Southwest view of project site; note pond in central portion ofi site.
._
~,
Y }
q ~ - bb fl'~ A$ ~,"
u € ,1 r 'oY tglE, a' r,,.'. ~ ~i r+M,p~a mt~
3 ~°~ ~ a-t draw >?q-+x 'Z. ~,'~i E~ ~ ~ R ...
k rcgX f ~s~k~ f ay~ a ~ r'~` p 4iv r K R F ~{ ^e 4,~~?x s~~} c~„4k ~
a'
,k.; ~~' +,~ ,~r1r,~-+'. ~ ~d ~;~ .:~~ ~ ,~~f ~+ y , ttt^ 6°r~`: wii rrr xr~4 c°` „' h:;,.
•' arc K~ ~~~ ~ ~ d a*D,i' '~' t}~'s c'. X93 `c d ~ ym a
~' i; ~ ; Ufa, sg F. ,~~ ~ r ~~ ~, ~' ~ b` 1, ..~
~`.~ _ .{ ~~~~ ~'~6~~~: .Hfr~~i.. ..fir u~, t~~~ W.~L'dra~~'-,`3.,, sYF, aye, r.~+L;r~'~r
,~~,,~~ .is` .ff^'~' `dry t4\~'~°
Photograph 2. Southeast view of project site looking down linear emergent Wetland B into riparian forested Wetland A.
Title Site Photographs Photo Page 1
Project Shoppes at Bush Hill USACE AID # 200620747
Applicant: Date of Public Notice:
Archdale Partners, LLC County: Guilford and Randolph
530 Huber Park Court Shoppes At Bush Hill Waterway: Muddy Creek
Weldon Springs, MO 63304 River Basin: Cape Fear
T:AprAUI'_781000 Archdale Remll DcvAInUiviUoaLPcnniN'ennlt P[epa[ul by f.8UC8 LPnE ~ ~~~ ,,,, ~,~,~.
D~eumavVPhuunlArch~ic IP Phut„ 6hrkdir.

A
-L. - T;

`•.~` '~.
~ i r~h`~ n '~
a lddd~~~...~~~iii~+'~~
~
3~
Y <
. ,a
f. ~~~
t
'y, ; J '~"
i{ .. 'q
~~.
i 1~t ,~f: . N~ L,, iT.~ 55
f, x .~,., ~ Y ~ ~'l
1 ^ ~/ ~~ - ~
.3~ ~, ~3 ~.,t k ~ £
.:~ Y 91 i ~ ~!TN lt'~.~, ~ ~ H y~~{;~ ~~~[q ~i'}l '„!tl }~€t F,,
<
;
~` y~ ~~'/" ~ ~.4F. ~ 1 A ~i , ~ ~"`tl. y~gl~ '~ ~ `{' + 3 wn^R

,
,y ~
~ i ~ wAr ~Yir.~;
le :a
~ ~ ax
~ S YS o
~y
3 ~'J DIY" y~ ~~;.1~1 ~ ~ .a ~
+\'LL~~~ .
/
+<
~
.
y~ ~-~n ,,~y
~, ~~~ ~ ±a cgs` fY ~f: k~ , ~~~ ~~I 'tr~~C ~t 4~tF ~ ~~.
~
1~>• ;, S
~<
~ a .+~ t 3f 1 V4? ~ E ~j
y'
- 1
~~
'°~
_ *.-
_
Photograph 3. N
orth view of emergent/scrub-shrub Wetland J
}}
'Y+:~ ~, `- `"sq, ~ .~ r~+ e \ Tr 1 ~ ~' t ry*~,~~i~ye. 1 °. f~ Y y l ~°~'€ / ~ jjT f ,~ x'~qt
a ~
~
~
~
~c 7` i t~ti >.~~ ~~ f fi w..
~~
~L~ Y "~1Z t ~4 i~ X ~ 1
+~c r "`~,t . ~ ~ z l )4 t
' t~ ~ ia'~ ~ffi,6
~ ; @ F a~ l ~': M S t ~~~ S gv~ ~!` ~ y hle„~• f r F ~ Iy (Yt r ~~y Y~ ~ '
~
'
Y
2
sty
g
x
g
~
~
t 9 r O A
t~
nc
~1~~ 1 ,a ~~~~Y'~l ~ ~ul y~, '. . ~
~ ~t~ ~~ '~~~~ 9 ~ ~,. ~ ~
MjJ : i
'~
~
~
~ ~
~
;
l
a
~~
~
~ ~
~r'
'F
~
~
^C
"
'
,yY
!i
°~ _
d
Y
~ ~1gg
~ 1
{ ,~Q€ } Sm,
``'4y'..
p ~`M ~~ ~ ~:
f ~'j l+~
t ~r !y ~~ 1~ ~<~)),~+ 6 F ,~ ~ 1 J• ~ y,,o ~ , ,ro ` iytp"< r ~ ~ ~ ¢ r~^'
'~ f 4 y ~# "~~ .,T ° ~~ ~; I ~.< 1 ./° 1 I~{TS'1 ~ ~ ~ Y ~ ~ } i, eifl iw~~w_~
~r~' ~ ".. {'~t,~'~H~ .~^ s ~ „~'? "s:-~~ ~ ~~#~e~ ~ ~ ~°~"~ ,fir '~r~.
~~ 4 ,v 5,,:. ~' ,PF ~~,,~x~ `vim ~ Jt'.
`Y
. ~rL.B. M R Pte, P ~T ~ ~ ~ ' ti \ y~
i4F
s
~8
'
~
~
,/
- ~
a. ~~~ ev ~°'il.~ aS'~ e
.,c.5.: ~ ..
4
9
~S ~ Pi ,~ /'i
"f~'
a .,+s ~g

~.
.
r,
r.
~
~G ~~
~ d ~
'
~ ~ ~4~ ~ ~

~
3 ~
~
~
+ r: +.i
'!+ ~
9R
.~+
{tt-
.
4
"
~
g~
t r
~
~
" ~p~
~ia
1~
~
!t
{.;
+3 i
^~ ~'~l~i
' _.~r}~ .. + f~~.G ? y~
~ €flt } t~4. ..Y:~
1
'
~
~
6~ t .,f r~ tp ,
~
f'I~ a ';~ ,~.,+. -•
.a ~
1,E r '~ !1 ,y ?y"r ~. s . t~ '`
„l.
Photograph 4. Northeast view of non-riparian forested Wetland G (typical representation of on-site forested wetlands).
Title Site Photographs Photo Page 2
Project Shopper at Bush Hill USACE AID # 200620747
Applicant: Date of Public Notice:
Archdale Partners, LLC County: Guilford and Randolph
530 Huber Park Court Shopper At Bush Hill Waterway: Muddy Creek
Weldon Springs, MO 63304 River Basin: Cape Fear
'f:\pn\Ill]7MIINNI nrchdulc Kclall Ucv\Individuul_PumilN'ennll Prepared by Laura Lang ~~n ,p ~.~,
ShavminlU'hui~~.ti\:1rcl~~ln1~~ II' Pl~ix~~ 131~x~k.~in'

~-
~
°
~ ~ ::
t
t~ r
~
;
e f
n ~
~
t h `J l~ "v 3
Y
~
`
,~ s ~'
1
I s ~t $ i
~
r F~ ~,.~~ .~Y ~,ry,.' r~ Fy b k
tf
~~~ #'
,
.
!
K ~ \ ~
l
,
.t-~ x
s ' ~ ~ l'A~~ II ~-~ 1..,
Y ~ ` F 4 ~.:
C.s ~ t. ~` ~,~ ~
~
~
,~„ ~'° ~" " [ten . ~ # ~ 1 ~~'"'
~' x,y`~ tr ~
a ~~`,~'~' -~~t p

~ r< - rrS"s~ .s S .~- .-.s..
1~n.~'. 4"P . ~„ i ~S ~ p.

.m p ~ ~ r~ t ~ ~~~t5. ~?' ..'`+
ae :K ~ r' 'A ~S .r. y p ,y. ~P t .

Photograph 5. North view of riparian emergent Wetland H.
~~ 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ 4~ ~:,~ ~~~ ~ r ~

1 7r?~ ° 1 ~
.v
f ~ i~
~E i t
~
~ ~
~
~1
~
~ ~ ~ ,
~
1 ~
r~
~
~
S ~
4+'~Y•k t /'.l ,.z t ,~ ~f1 rl ! ~' r ~ 1 !.; ,t~-~ (.,

j p 1' 9~7
f~ ! 1 y.~ d T.l r~ ~ : V w. yyy.~yh>
. .
~
+
~ 4~~ Rry; µ _~ ~R; _ `t
.
~ Vii. ~~ j
~ ~
.'1 ~~? r ~ ~~ I
(
~
~
P
r
~
,. 1 af.! ~4 .tl Ue
!~t
P ~~ ~y,},`~~~ A
( ~.f ~~ .Ai ~'R ~P 1
.
1(.~ y~T
_K ~'i
F v
I
~~j .,

~~~ ~ „ t~ ~ ~ .y~ _ ~ a y _~
,
I~Y ~ y. ~
l .,~wr t' ~W
~
~ ~Y'
I
~ ~"
~'~„
~;~ ~ ~' ,f ~ ~,,r, ~ u ,

~
l
;
~~r
~~
t~ u4 ~ ~~~y. ~~ ~-
'- }r ~
~y aC
"
•
a
q ,. ~ i~Ey,~t, 'a ~..
n
it
Photograph 6. East view of non-riparian Forested Wetand F.
Title Site Photographs Photo Page 3
Project Shoppes at Bush Hill USACE AID # 200620747
Applicant: Date of Public Notice:
Archdale Partners, LLC County: Guilford and Randolph
530 Huber Park Court Shoppes At Bush Hill Waterway: Muddy Creek
Weldon Springs, MO 63304 River Basin: Cape Fear
'I':\pn\01?78 pN10 Archdale Retail Ucv\IndividunLPCrmiN'ermll Prepared by Laura L.xng ~~~ .,p, ~,re,
Ui~cwnauAPhumsVArehdale IP Phutu Hhxk.d~w

p~ y,~ ~r~~
x. ~ ,•

~~ ~~ '~
~ ~ ~
~~k7 $'~
f
4
f
~
.f "
~'
'~
t

- h l ~ u
a_

-
• -
P
;~ -
~~ ,ter ~~
y

~
~ tx W ~.. 4.
T
4h~

~
Fem.- ~„ _ t,;ar
~~ ~+` ,dr,
~ .: t "dam ~
~~`~''~ ~ ,. -. ~,~
a
r4C?

j ~ ~as v

4 .. ~ _

Photograph 7. Southwest view of pcrennial Stream 2 (downstream ol~ pond).

~ ~ ~ ,~~ ~ ~ r t , ,l
.~N
_
~ ~ r;z ~. ~r
~
y

` ...
,
~
h I ~ ~ tr~~N~y~(i,E_.
~. ~4-., ~~~ k e ~A1 y.'rl~~ ~
. ',Z ~ ~'~ ~~'3~."~"i, 7
~. 1~~~
w~. ~ /]~ ~ ~~
3~ .. ~. ,~

~ ~ ~ ~ r '
~~ ~ ~
1 d
~;~~ ibY "^%:~y, ~-fiy~~~ yyyy~~P,~~3k ,t~ rye ~ ~a ~~J '•7'~~ 4'))"~'`1yy1lN' ~4 ~.r .
f ~ .`~ T T ..~ a A ~~2T ~v ,j. 1 ~ h a:.~Nrr7~~M~ .
Photograph 8. Northwest view of perennial Stream 1.
Title Site Photographs Photo Page 4
Project Shoppes at Bush Hill USACE AID # 200620747
Applicant: Date of Public Notice:
Archdale Partners, LLC County: Guilford and Randolph
530 Huber Park Court Shoppes At Bush Hill Waterway: Muddy Creek
Weldon Springs, MO 63304 River Basin: Cape Fear
T:rpmU~27ri~IX~ Arenohi~ aecdi o~~~i^ai~ir~~,a_P~milnNe~~4i Prepnrui by Laura Lang [~~ ,„"'"ryie',,,,.,,,k
o~w~m~~u~n~,n,,~~na~i~ iN i~n~m, ~snxk.a~x

Guilford County
Keun P. Jon, Nan Soon Jon and Jeson Chi
P. O. Box 321
Jamestown, NC 27282
CNS Inc.
P. O. Box 321
Jamestown, NC 27282
Coastal Business Partners
1771 NC 62 West
Archdale, NC 27263
Fred and Aileen Ravis
1763 NC 62 West
High Point, NC 27263
Diep Thanh and Mary Khai
7002 Bluewood Court
High Point, NC 27263
Clarence and Fay Thomas
7004 Bluewood Court
High Point, NC 27263-9404
Rufus F. Laws, Jr. and wife, Frances Laws
7006 Bluewood Court
High Point, NC 27263-9404
Robert and Patricia Grant
7008 Bluewood Court
High Point, NC 27263
Laura Auman
7010 Bluewood Court
High Point, NC 27263-9404
Don and Betty Ingram
7011 Bluewood Court
High Point, NC 27263-9404
BTCM: 333350V 1

Clifford Hill
1612 KerseyValley Road
High Point, NC 27263-9412
Wayne Luquer, Sr. and wife, Rebecca
6505 Staffordshire Drive
High Point, NC 27263-9469
Jerry Frazier and wife, Jeanette
6502 Staffordshire Drive
High Point, NC 27263-9469
Charma Reynolds
6418 Staffordshire Drive
High Point, NC 27263
Jack and Betty sue Locklear
1841 Weant Road
High Point, NC 27265
David Harvell
6610 Chadwick Drive
High Point, NC 27263
Richard and Nancy Hayward
6608 Chadwick Drive
High Point, NC 27263-9407
Phillip. and Frances Brown
7100 Chanterelle Drive
High Point, NC 27263-9408
Randolph County
First Church of God in High Point
7009 Weant Road
Archdale, NC 27263
Thomas and Donna Kearnes
7004 Weant Road
Archdale, NC 27263-7951
BTCM: 333350V l

Michael and Janice Wilson
7026 Weant Road
Archdale, NC 27263
Charles and Evelyn Marsh
3409 Longview Drive
Archdale, NC 27263-2433
John and Iva Roland
5814 Appling Road
Archdale, NC 27263
Mary Bogle
3413 Longview Drive
Archdale, NC 27263
Scott and Sherry Palmer
3415 Longview Drive
Archdale, NC 27263
Archdale Pilgrim Holiness Church
7000 Tulane Drive
Archdale, NC 27263
City of Archdale
P. O. Box 14068
Archdale, NC 27263
Todd Prevost
104 Jacob Court
Archdale, NC 27263
Michael and Jill Burgess
201 Simmons Creek Court
Archdale, NC 27263
John and Kimberly Clark
203 Simmons Creek Court
Archdale, NC 27263
Martha and Darrell Bullock
204 Simmons Creek Court
Archdale, NC 27263
BTCM: 333350V1

Christina Jackson
119 Hope Valley Road
Archdale, NC 27263
Christopher and Ginger Crites
123 Hope Valley Drive
Archdale, NC 27263
Kenny and Shayland Edwards
125 Hope Valley Road
Archdale, NC 27263
Donald and Mary Grafton
127 Hope Valley Road
Archdale, NC 27263
BTCM: 333350V I

Getter of Authorization
Archdale Partners, LGC, authorizes ICimley-Horn and Associates, Inc, to act as
our Gnuted agent to prepare and coordinate in the application to the U.S. Arn~-y
Carps of Engineers for 404/A~OI permits and jurisdictional determinations
associated with the Archdale cammercialhetail development located in Archdale.
Guilford County, I>Iarth Carolina. Authorization will tc;rnainate an either final
agency action ar upon written notification from either parties involved.
(Signature of ent)
7 ~©
Date
L