20041801 Ver 1_Complete File_20050926

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
September 26, 2005
Mr. Drew Mulhare
Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC
One Ford's Colony Drive
Rocky Mount, NC, 27809
Re: Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, Nash County
DOA Action ID 200421182, DWQ Project No. 20041801
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and AUTHORIZATION CERTIFICATE per the
Tar-Pamlico River Buffer Protection Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0259) with Additional Conditions
APPROVAL of Isolated Wetlands Permit
Dear Mr. Mulhare:
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. 3535 issued to Mr. Drew Mulhare of Ford's Colony at
Rocky Mount, LLC, dated September 26, 2005. Isolated wetlands impacts associated with this project are
covered by the State General Permit for Impacts to Isolated Wetlands and Isolated Waters
(IWGP 100000). This letter shall also act as your approved Authorization Certificate for impacts to the
protected riparian buffers per 15A NCAC 2B .0233. In addition, you should get any other federal, state
or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Solid Waste,
Sediment and Erosion Control, Stormwater, Dam Safety, Non-discharge and Water Supply Watershed
regulations.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
AWK/cbk
Attachments: Certificate of Completion
r Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Sincerely,
( r?, x4
cc: Jean Manuele, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Wilmington District, USACOE
Eric Kulz, DWQ, Raleigh Regional Office
DLR Raleigh Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Todd St. John, Kimley-Horne, P.O. Box 33068, Raleigh, NC, 27636-3068
Jeff Harbour, ESI, 524 New Hope Road, Raleigh, NC, 27610
Filename: 041801FordsColony(Nash)401
401 Oversight/Express Review Permits Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX [phone] / Internet: htta://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
No`s Carolina
Aturally
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Mr. Drew Mulhare, Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC
Page 2 of 7
September 26, 2005
NORTH CAROLINA 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401 Public Laws 92-
500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500 to Mr. Drew Mulhare of Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC
to permanently fill 4.37 acres of wetlands (including 2.19 acres of riparian wetlands, 1.99 acres of non-
riparian wetlands, and 0.19 acre of isolated wetlands) and 1,199 linear feet of stream channel (including 398
linear feet of perennial streams and 801 linear feet of intermittent streams), and to impact 79,122 square feet
of protected riparian buffers and for temporary impacts to 60 feet of perennial streams, 1.01 acres of
wetlands, and 12,632 square feet of protected riparian buffers, 1.21 acres of wetland creation, and 0.02 acre
of open water fill, adjacent to Beech Branch in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin, associated with the
construction of the Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount development in Nash County, North Carolina, pursuant
to an application filed on the 12th day of November of 2004, and in additional correspondence received
April 1, April 12, August 9, September 7, and September 23, 2005.
The application and supporting documentation provides adequate assurance that the proposed work will
not result in a violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the
State of North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate the applicable portions of Sections 301,
302, 303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the application, the
supporting documentation, and conditions hereinafter set forth.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design submitted in the application materials and as
described in the Public Notice. If the project is changed, prior to notification a new application for a new
Certification is required. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of the Certification
and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions of this Certification. Any
new owner must notify the Division and request the Certification be issued in their name. Should wetland
or stream fill be requested in the future, additional compensatory mitigation may be required as described
in 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h) (6) and (7). If any plan revisions from the approved site plan result in a
change in stream or wetland impact or an increase in impervious surfaces, the DWQ shall be notified in
writing and a new application for 401 Certification may be required. For this approval to be valid,
compliance with the conditions listed below is required.
Conditions of Certification:
1. Impacts Approved
The following impacts are hereby approved as long as all of the other specific and general
conditions of this Certification (or Isolated Wetland Permit) are met. No other impacts are
approved including incidental impacts:
Amount Approved (Units) Plan Location or Reference
Stream 1,199 (feet) permanent Final project impacts as listed in
impacts September 7, 2005
(398 feet perennial, correspondence from
801 feet intermittent) Environmental Services, Inc
(also 60 feet perennial
stream temporary impacts)
404 Wetlands 4.18 (acres) permanent Final project impacts as listed in
impacts September 7, 2005
(2.19 acres riparian, plus correspondence from
1.99 acres non-riparian) Environmental Services, Inc
Mr. Drew Mulhare, Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC
Page 3 of 7
September 26, 2005
(also 1.01 acres temporary
impacts)
Isolated Wetlands 0.19 (acre) Final project impacts as listed in
September 7, 2005
correspondence from
Environmental Services, Inc
Tar-Pamlico Buffers 79,122 (square feet) Final project impacts as listed in
permanent impacts September 7, 2005
(also 12,632 square feet correspondence from
temporary impacts) Environmental Services, Inc
Open Water Impacts 1.21 (acres) wetland Ford's Colony Rocky Mount
creation Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Planning Report, April 7, 2005
0.02 (acres) of permanent Correspondence from Kimley-
fill Horn dated September 23, 2005
Sediment and Erosion Control:
2. Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications
governing the proper design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best
Management Practices in order to protect surface waters standards:
a. The erosion and sediment control measures for the project must be designed, installed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina
Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual.
b. The design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and erosion control
measures must be such that they equal, or exceed, the requirements specified in the most
recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Manual. The devices
shall be maintained on all construction sites, borrow sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects,
including contractor-owned or leased borrow pits associated with the project.
c. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be designed, installed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina
Surface Mining Manual.
d. The reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the reclamation in
accordance with the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.
3. No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian areas beyond
the footprint of the impacts depicted in the 404/401Permit Application. All construction activities,
including the design, installation, operation, and maintenance of sediment and erosion control Best
Management Practices, shall be performed so that no violations of state water quality standards,
statutes, or rules occur;
4. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum
extent practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is
unavoidable, they shall be removed and the natural grade restored within six months of the date that
the Division of Land Resources has released the project;
Mr. Drew Mulhare, Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC
Page 4 of 7
September 26, 2005
Continuing Compliance:
Mr. Drew Mulhare and/or Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC, shall conduct construction
activities in a manner consistent with State water quality standards (including any requirements
resulting from compliance with section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act) and any other appropriate
requirements of State law and federal law. If the Division determines that such standards or laws
are not being met (including the failure to sustain a designated or achieved use) or that State or
federal law is being violated, or that further conditions are necessary to assure compliance, the
Division may reevaluate and modify this Certification to include conditions appropriate to assure
compliance with such standards and requirements in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0507(d).
Before modifying the Certification, the Division shall notify Mr. Drew Mulhare and/or Ford's
Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC and the US Army Corps of Engineers, provide public notice in
accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0503 and provide opportunity for public hearing in accordance
with 15A NCAC 211.0504. Any new or revised conditions shall be provided to Mr. Drew
Mulhare and/or Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC in writing, shall be provided to the United
States Army Corps of Engineers for reference in any Permit issued pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act, and shall also become conditions of the 404 Permit for the project;
Mitigation: (Buffers, Streams and Wetlands need details here)
6. Compensatory Mitigation
a. Compensatory Wetland Mitigation
1) Ecosystem Enhancement Program to meet 1:1 wetland restoration/creation ratio
Mitigation must be provided for the proposed impacts to wetlands as specified below. We
understand that you wish to make a payment to the Wetlands Restoration Fund
administered by the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) to meet this mitigation
requirement to meet the 1:1 restoration/creation requirement. This has been determined
by the DWQ to be a suitable method to meet the mitigation requirement. Until the EEP
receives and clears your check (made payable to: DENR - Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Office), no impacts specified in this Authorization Certificate shall occur. The
EEP should be contacted at [phone] if you have any questions concerning
payment into a restoration fund. You must make this payment within 60 days of the date
of this Certification or before impacts approved in this Certification occur, whichever
come first. Otherwise you must notify this Office within three weeks of the date this
Certification of the specific date (before impacts occur) that you will make this payment
for written approval by this Office. For accounting purposes, this Authorization
Certificate authorizes payment into the Wetlands Restoration Fund to meet the
following compensatory mitigation requirement:
2.19 acres riparian and 2.18 acres non-riparian wetland impacts.
2) On site to meet remaining onsite wetland mitigation requirements
A final compensatory wetland mitigation plan must be approved in writing by this Office
before any permanent building associated with the project is occupied for the additional
wetland mitigation proposed in the application and additional information provided to
NCDWQ. Additionally, the compensatory mitigation plan must be completely
constructed and implemented according to the plans approved by this Office within 5
years of this Certification. The mitigation must be maintained according to the approved
Mr. Drew Mulhare, Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC
Page 5 of 7
September 26, 2005
plan and permanently protected by the use of conservation easements or similar
protections. Any repairs or adjustments to the mitigation site must be made according to
the approved plan or must receive written approval from this Office to make the repairs
or adjustments.
b. Compensatory Stream and Buffer Mitigation
The stream and buffer restoration must be constructed, maintained, and monitored
according to the approved plans in the application and modifications to the application
(Stormwater Stream and Mitigation Planning Report, April 7, 2005). Any repairs or
adjustments to the site must be made according to the approved plans or must receive
written approval from this Office to make the repairs or adjustments.
Stream and buffer mitigation must be provided for the proposed impacts as specified
below. Additionally, the compensatory mitigation plan must be completely constructed
and implemented according to the plans approved by this Office by November 15, 2006
or as otherwise approved by this Office in writing. The final mitigation must provide at
least 398 feet of successful perennial stream restoration according to the approved
plans. Additionally, a minimum of 5541 square feet of buffer mitigation is required for
the 2716 square feet of buffer impacts requiring mitigation as part of this stream
restoration project. The mitigation must be maintained according to the approved plan
and permanently protected by the use of conservation easements or similar protections.
Any repairs or adjustments to the mitigation site must be made according to the approved
plan or must receive written approval from this Office to make the repairs or adjustments.
Any significant changes to the plan must be approved by this Office in writing before the
plan is implemented.
In order for this project to be used as compensatory mitigation for other specific projects,
you must obtain written approval from this Office. The request should include the amount
of stream length and buffer area credit requested for accounting purposes. Please specify
DWQ project No. 20041801 when making your request.
If the above stream and buffer restoration project is to be held, performed, and/or
provided by another entity such as but not limited to the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program or a mitigation banker, then the transaction must be approved by this Office in
writing before the transaction occurs. In order to receive written approval for this
transaction, it must be demonstrated to the Division that the mitigation requirements
specified in this Condition shall be completely and uniquely met.
Road CrOSS1nQS:
Culvert Installation
Culverts required for this project shall be installed in such a manner that the original stream profiles
are not altered. Existing stream dimensions (including the cross section dimensions, pattern, and
longitudinal profile) must be maintained above and below locations of each culvert. Culverts shall
be designed and installed to allow for aquatic life movement as well as to prevent head cutting of
the streams. If any of the existing pipes are or become perched, the appropriate stream grade shall
be re-established or, if the pipes installed in a perched manner, the pipes shall be removed and re-
installed correctly.
Mr. Drew Mulhare, Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC
Page 6 of 7
September 26, 2005
The establishment of native, woody vegetation and other soft stream bank stabilization techniques
must be used where practicable instead of rip rap or other bank hardening methods. If rip-rap is
necessary, it shall not be placed in the stream bed, unless specifically approved by the Division of
Water Quality.
Installation of culverts in wetlands must ensure continuity of water movement and be designed to
adequately accommodate high water or flood conditions.
Stormwater Management:
a) Before each development phase that is anticipated to exceed 30% impervious cover, including,
at a minimum, the 7 focus areas (as described in Appendix B and C of the "401 Water Quality
Certification - Stormwater Management Permit Application" dated May 11, 2005) is paved, final,
written stormwater management plans for that phase shall be approved in writing by the Division
of Water Quality's Wetlands Unit. The facilities must be designed to remove 85% TSS as well as
treat nitrogen in the runoff from each area. Also, before any permanent building or other
structure is occupied in each area, the facilities (as approved by the Wetlands Unit) for that area
shall be constructed and operational, and the stormwater management plan for that area (as
approved by the Wetlands Unit) shall be implemented. The structural stormwater practices as
approved by the Wetlands Unit as well as drainage patterns must be maintained in perpetuity. No
changes to the structural stormwater practices shall be made without written authorization from
the Division of Water Quality.
b) Before each development phase that is anticipated to be less than 30% impervious cover and is
outside the 7 focus areas (as described in Appendix H of the "401 Water Quality Certification -
Stormwater Management Permit Application" dated May 11, 2005) is paved, final, written
stormwater management plans for that phase shall be approved in writing by the Division of
Water Quality's Wetlands Unit. The facilities must be designed to provide diffuse flow through
the protected riparian buffers or designed to remove nitrogen and attenuate flow prior to
discharge. Also, before any permanent building or other structure is occupied in each area, the
facilities (as approved by the Wetlands Unit) for that area shall be constructed and operational,
and the stormwater management plan for that area (as approved by the Wetlands Unit) shall be
implemented. The structural stormwater practices as approved by the Wetlands Unit as well as
drainage patterns must be maintained in perpetuity. No changes to the structural stormwater
practices shall be made without written authorization from the Division of Water Quality.
Other conditions:
9. Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of the project, the Applicant shall complete and return the enclosed "Certificate of
Completion" form to notify NCDWQ when all work included in the §401 Certification has been
completed. The responsible party shall complete the attached form and return it to the 401/Wetlands
Unit of the NC Division of Water Quality upon completion of the project. Please send photographs
upstream and downstream of each culvert site to document correct installation along with the
Certificate of Completion form.
Mr. Drew Mulhare, Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC
Page 7 of 7
September 26, 2005
10. Deed Notifications
Deed notifications or similar mechanisms shall be placed on all retained jurisdictional wetlands,
waters and protective buffers in order to assure compliance for future wetland, water and buffer
impact. These mechanisms shall be put in place prior to impacting any wetlands, waters and/or
buffers approved for impact under this Certification Approval and Authorization Certificate. A
sample deed notification can be downloaded from the 401/Wetlands Unit web site at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. The text of the sample deed notification may be modified as
appropriate to suit to this project.
Also, this approval to proceed with your proposed impacts or to conduct impacts to waters as
depicted in your application shall expire upon expiration of the 404 Permit. The Isolated Wetlands
Permit will expire upon the expiration date of IWGP100000 (September 30, 2008) or unless
otherwise rescinded by the Director of the Division of Water Quality.
If this Certification is unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written
request within sixty (60) days following receipt of this Certification. This request must be in the form of a
written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes and filed with the
Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. If
modifications are made to an original Certification, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing on the
modifications upon written request within sixty (60) days following receipt of the Certification. Unless
such demands are made, this Certification shall be final and binding.
This the 26th day of September 2005
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
/-? Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
AWK/cbk
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY _
ILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS /?
P.O. BOX 1890 J J
W?dl
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890 ??//
IN REPLY REFER TO November 15, 2004
Regulatory Branch
Action ID No. 200421182
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Wetland/401 Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Dear Ms. Karoly:
Q???oee?I
NOV 1 7 2004
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER MANCH
Enclosed is the application submitted by Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, for Department of
the Army authorization and a State Water Quality Certification to authorize the proposed
placement of fill into 398 linear feet of perennial stream channel, 1,185 linear feet of intermittent
stream channel that exhibits important aquatic function, and temporarily impact 60 linear feet of
perennial stream channel. The applicant also proposes to fill 2.72 acres of riparian wetlands,
2.21 acres of non-riparian wetlands, and 0.19 acres of isolated wetlands, adjacent to Beech
Branch for the construction of a road network (32 road crossings), 18 hole golf course with
driving range, and sewer line network, associated with the construction of the proposed Ford's
Colony at Rocky Mount (FCRM) residential golf community, in the southwest quadrant of the
intersection of SR 1524 (Battleboro Road) and U.S. Hwy. 301, in Rocky Mount, Nash County,
North Carolina.
We are considering authorizing the proposed activity pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act, and we have determined that a water quality certification is required under the
provisions of Section 401 of the same law. A Department of the Army permit will not be granted
until the certification has been obtained or waived.
In accordance with our administrative regulations, in most cases, 60 days after receipt of a
request for certification is a reasonable time for State action. Therefore, if you have not acted on
the request, or asked for an extension of time, by January 12, 2004, the District Engineer will
deem that waiver has occurred.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Kevin Yates, Raleigh Field Office,
Regulatory Division, telephone [phone], extension 30.
Sincerely,
?06'-ean B. Manuele
Chief, Raleigh Regulatory
Field Office
Enclosure
11/02/2004 TUE 16:38 FAX [phone] RCS
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE. ARMY PERMIT
(33 CFR 32SI
R001/001
]RECEIVED
!NtOV 0 4 2004
pMS AI'PRDVAL No. tldYiO- 003
Expires December 31, 2004
The Public burden for this ooffection of informwtion ht *estimated to average 10 hours par response, although tho majority of applications should rnqulrc
S hours or )ass, This includes the trno for roviewing instructions, sanrohinq 06'tkm data sources, gathering and maintaining the data neodad, and
completing and reviewing the collection of infcui'rlatlon. Send commems regarding title burden estimate or ony other aspect of this collection of
information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of Information
Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway. Suits 1204. Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management rind Budget,
Papcrwotk Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC 20503. Respondonts should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law,
no Person shay be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information it it does not display a currently Valid OMB control
number. Nease Do NOT RETVRN your corm to o'rtlwr of those addresses. Completed appllrrntions must bo submitted to tine Disttlot Engineer Iravlng
jurisdiction over the locarJm of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act, section 10, 33 LISC 403; Clean Water Act, Soolon 404, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection , Rutowch and
Sanohuarios Act, 33 USC 1413, Section 103. Principal Purpose; Information provided on this form will be uacd in cvoiuMing thn npPlication far a
permit Routine Uses: This infarmalivn bray be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal. state, and local government agencies.
Submission of requested Information Is voluntary, however, if Information Is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit
be issued.
One sat of original drawings or good reproducible copi¦e which show the lecatien and character of the proposed activby must be attnehad to this
application (see sarnpro drawings and instructions), and he submitted to Lite Dlabkt Engineer having Julls4crlon over the location of the proposed
activity. An appboetlon that Is not completed In tuff will be returned,
t. APPLICATION NO. 12, FIELD OFFICE CODE 3, DATE RECEIVED 14, DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
5. APPLICANT'S NAME 8. AUTHOR17ED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE ra?epenr k mrroa rear
Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC Mr. Drew Mulhare - RealteC, Inc
ti_ APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
One PQ rd's Colony Drive One Pord's Colony Drive
Rocky Mount, NC 27SOR Williamsburg, VA 23188
?. AP 'S PHONE N S. W FA CggF t0_ AG NE S, W REA CODE
a, Residence a_ RoWdence
b. 9tr-lnass b. B-1- 757-258-4230
-Ll. STATEMENT OF AUTHOrJZATION
I hereby a Ihorizm, Drew Mulhare of Realtec. Inc to act ire My behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to
furnish, upon request, supplemantar in;grmatlon in support of this permit spplieatlon.
V
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE
2/D
NAME. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12 PROJECT NAME OFI TITLE F.wA rw;*.w
ford's Colony at Rocky Mount
13. NAME OF WAIERSODY_ IF KNOWN df.. trbw
Beech Branch
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS !.?sp #r bkj
one Ford's Colony Drive
Rocky Motu2t, NC 27809
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Nash North Carolina
COUN STATE I
10. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN, &.wbwYaAN*/ 1
Wept of, Highway 301; Northwest of NC Weslyan College; Sough of the Town of Battleboro
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
Frond Raleigh: US 64 Nast to Highway 301 North in Rocky Mount. Travel. 301 north to NC
Weslyan College. Property lies to the north of the college and to the west of Highway 301.
CNG FORM. 4345, Jurv E ITION OF FER 94 IS OBSOLETE, lpropohiiTr CECWTORI
18. Nature of Activity (Descripunn o/ project, indude an fcatures)
Activity includes unavoidable wetland and stream impacts resulting from the construction of
the road system within the community and also from the construction of the golf course.
Impacts have been avoided and minimized where practicable. Riparian and non-riparian
wetlands will be affected as well as perennial and intermittent stream channels.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructionsi
The purpose of the project is to develop the subject property as a residential golf course
community serving primarily out-of-state retirees.
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
The allow for roadway construction and golr course construction
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Tvoe in Cubic Yards
Clean, fill material . Cubic yards ± ?I) ('? 5 EJ'?I E
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions) I , 7 S oc,
Riparian wetland fill=a.7,Zac Non-riparian wetland fill=o?.a) ac wetland clearing=Mac
Perennial stream impact=1118 ft Intermittent stream impact=11 $ ft
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes Q No 0 IF YES. DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be entered here,
please attach a supplemental list).
Adjacent property owners are provided on the attached list.
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL" IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
USACOE wetland 200121182 9-14-04
review
Would include but is not restricted to zonino. 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 autho ' to under ake the work described herein or am acting as the
duly authorized agent o plicant.
??ry 111 281ZOC4 fC'1 'r-1 /
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE %dQTURE OF AGENT DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed`4ctivity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
E12@190W[21
NOV 17 2004
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
Action ID No. 20042 1 1 82 November 12, 2004
PUBLIC NOTICE 6 1 _ FV
Ford's Colony at Rock Mount, One Ford's Colony Drive, Rocky Mount, NC 27809, has
applied for a Department of the Army (DA) permit TO FILL 398 LINEAR FEET OF
PERRENIAL STREAM CHANNEL, 1,185 LINEAR FEET OF INTERMITTENT STREAM
CHANNEL THAT EXHIBITS IMPORTANT AQUATIC FUNCTION, AND TEMPORARILY
IMPACT 60 LINEAR FEET OF PERRENIAL STREAM CHANNEL. THE APPLICANT
ALSO PROPOSES TO FILL 2.72 ACRES OF RIPARIAN WETLANDS, 2.21 ACRES OF
NON-RIPARIAN WETLANDS, AND 0.19 ACRES OF ISOLATED WETLANDS,
ADJACENT TO BEECH BRANCH, FOR THE COSTRUCTION OF A ROAD NETWORK (32
ROAD CROSSINGS), 18 HOLE GOLF COURSE WITH DRIVING RANGE, AND SEWER
LINE NETWORK, ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED
FORD'S COLONY AT ROCKY MOUNT (FCRM) RESIDENTIAL GOLF COMMUNITY.
SPECIFICALLY, THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF
THE INTERSECTION OF SR 1524 (BATTLEBORO ROAD) AND U.S. HIGHWAY 301, IN
ROCKY MOUNT, NASH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. Please reference Action ID
199103070.
The following description of the work is taken from data provided by the applicant. The
applicant was previously authorized on September 15, 1993, for a Department of the Army
Permit to discharge 1.14 acres of fill into wetlands associated with development of the Belmont
Farms subdivision. FCRM proposes to adjoin the existing Belmont Farms subdivision. Plans
submitted with the application show the proposed placement of fill material into waters of the
United States subject to our regulatory authority pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
The road infrastructure designed for FCRM includes 32 road crossings, impacting
jurisdictional waters of the United States, including wetlands. The primary road serves as the
main transportation corridor, with the other proposed roads diverging off the main corridor to
serve the residential areas, amenities, golf course, and clubhouse as shown on the attached plans.
A total of 1.6 acres of riparian wetlands, 1.0 acre of non-riparian wetlands, and 0.19 acre of
isolated wetlands would be impacted by road construction. In addition, the transportation
infrastructure would impact 348 linear feet of perennial stream and 620 linear feet of intermittent
stream channel, which exhibits important aquatic function, would be impacted by the proposed
road infrastructure.
40
Jurisdictional impacts associated with the development of the golf course would involve
the filling of a total of 1.12 acres of riparian wetlands and 1.21 acres of non-riparian wetlands for
golf course and driving range construction. An additional 0.68 acre of wetlands would be
mechanically landcleared, with the stumps removed and another 0.85 acre of wetlands would be
cleared of the woody vegetation, yet the stumps would be left undisturbed to allow for play over
these impacted wetland areas. Mechanically cleared areas would be allowed to re-vegetate with
low-growing wetland vegetation, which would routinely be maintained by either hand or mowing
to keep it at the proper height for golfing. Furthermore, a total of 717 linear feet of stream
channel would be impacted not only from the construction of the golf course, but also the
practice range at FCRM. Of the 717 linear feet of stream channel to be impacted by the proposed
project, 50 linear feet of perennial stream and 565 linear feet of intermittent stream channel
would facilitate construction of the golf course and driving range, with the remaining 82 linear
feet of perennial stream channel and 20 linear feet of intermittent stream channel to be bridged
for the construction of cart paths.
Finally, the proposed sewerline installation would impact 0.25 acre of wetland and 60
linear feet of perennial stream channel would be temporarily impacted via mechanized
landclearing, excavation, and subsequent backfilling. Plans showing the work are included with
the Public Notice. Please note that all intenmittent streams have been identified as exhibiting
important aquatic function.
Currently, there is no lot fill associated with this proposal. The applicant proposes to place
any remaining lots with wetlands into open space for community use.
The current use of the 1,150-acre project area consists of woodland, agricultural land, a 9-
acre pond and an 83-acre lake. The periphery of the property is existing agricultural land, with
little evidence of any prior converted cropland. A large portion of the interior of the property
consists of a mature upper coastal plain hardwood/pine forest along the inter-stream divides
between the first and second order tributaries of Beech Branch. The remainder of the property is
pond, lake, and alluvial forest found along the headwaters and flood plains associated with Beech
Branch. Belmont Farms subdivision lies adjacent to the proposed 1,150-acre residential and golf
course development 1,150-acre tract.
The applicant is currently creating a mitigation proposal to offset impacts associated with
the proposed FCRM development. The mitigation proposal will be placed on public notice, upon
submittal.
The State of North Carolina will review this public notice to determine the need for the
applicant to obtain any required State authorization. No Department of the Army (DA) permit
will be issued until the coordinated State viewpoint on the proposal has been received and
reviewed by this agency, nor will a DA permit be issued until the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality (NCDWQ) has determined the applicability of a Water Quality Certificate as
required by PL 92-500.
2
This application is being considered pursuant to Section 404 ofthe Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344). Any person may request, in writing within the comment period specified in the
notice, that a public hearing be held to consider this application. Requests for public hearing
shall state, with particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.
The District Engineer has consulted the latest published version of the National Register of
Historic Places for the presence or absence of registered properties, or properties listed as being
eligible for inclusion therein. Based on the best available evidence, it has been determined that
no sites within the vicinity of the project are registered or listed as being eligible for inclusion in
the Register. Examination of the National Register of Historic Places constitutes the extent of
cultural resource investigations by the District Engineer, and he is otherwise unaware of the
presence of other such resources. Presently, unknown archeological, scientific, prehistorical, or
historical data may be lost or destroyed by work under the requested permit.
The District Engineer, based on available information, is not aware that the proposed
activity will affect species, or their critical habitat, designated as endangered or threatened
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable
impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity and its intended use on the public
interest. Evaluation of the probable impacts, which the proposed activity may have on the public
interest, requires a careful weighing of all those factors, which become relevant in each particular
case. The benefits, which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal, must be
balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. The decision whether to authorize a
proposal, and if so the conditions under which it will be allowed to occur, are therefore
determined by the outcome of the general balancing process. That decision should reflect the
national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. All factors, which
may be relevant to the proposal, must be considered including the cumulative effects thereof.
Among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands,
cultural values, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards and flood plain values (in accordance with
Executive Order 11988), land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water
supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral
needs, considerations of property ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people.
For activities involving the placement of dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States,
a permit will be denied if the discharge that would be authorized by such permit would not
comply with the Environmental Protection Agencys 404(b)(1) guidelines. Subject to the
preceding sentence and any other applicable guidelines or criteria, a permit will be granted unless
the District Engineer determines that it would be contrary to the public interest.
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State and local
agencies and officials; Indian Tribes and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate
the impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps of
Engineers to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this proposal.
To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic
properties, water quality, general environmental effects and the other public interest factors listed
above. Comments are used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine
the overall public interest of the proposed activity.
Generally, the decision whether to issue this Department of the Army (DA) permit
modification will not be made until the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)
issues, denies, or waives State certification required by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The
NCDWQ considers whether or not the proposed activity will comply with Sections 301, 302,
306, and 307 of the Clean Water Act. The application and this public notice for the Department
of the Army (DA) permit serves as application to the NCDWQ for certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be reviewed at the
offices of the Wetlands /401 Unit, North Carolina DENR, Division of Water Quality, 2321
Crabtree Boulevard, Raleigh, North Carolina. Copies of such materials will be furnished to any
person requesting copies upon payment of reproduction costs.
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application for Clean Water Act
certification should do so in writing delivered to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ), Wetlands/401 Unit, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-
1650, on or before January 12, 2005, Attention: Ms. Cyndi Karoly.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will be received in
this office, Attention: Mr. Kevin Yates, until 4:15 p.m., December 13, 2004, or telephone (919)
876-8441, extension 30.
4
R04006.01 /location.dwg
Al, N

° A : • /;::
m
c ? p Substation
?, p
e
2 :
A
em.. q „

9

41 16

'/?\ ems.,'. ._\ .ri=- 1 ,\ '?.,_-?.. %\_'•.
ell / p% `? \?- , , "'• ° i
_? ?•'?1' / Project Boundary
_ I ::4p,_
l b
? ? ? ? • , ? ..? \ B' `???- IM iii,
?? . •`???_ ,120-.
f? J
Ip .
°. flav(S Cam
77
%
160

See additional map .'
?c for proposed layout
in this location

1000 0 1000 2000
Feet `
) M.
Source: USGS Digital Raster Graphics, J
?I Drake Quadrangle (1963)
i? ! 11

)I'
J;

oeyfi b
_ N
\ j •? ?? ? I .. ?u ? 130^ II
????. i1??1 111 i .' _ .1,•,1?
131
INA - -
LEG
Project Location Map Figure: 1
Environmental Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount Project: ER04094
Services, Inc. Drake, Nash County, North Carolina Date: October 2004
v
FAQ-1,
N
cls tt?.
I ti? a r?8 t. r
N
TTt( ?p?. ?? /
- f
N, 3
wsn NUB
Gr8 >?^ 'c > w O
?+' ?• 9 t p( NAB. U, QO
Nc. cut e
NaC ?. walt'r
y o
BoB NO ?i r
a
Ra NoA rC Jr y
;e
B Rb
A NuB t , Y G
•V t,?12 X?"r; oq y
NoA P
Ur
0 p
*?i
J:
O A. B NoA
N 't, r NcA NoA
R
I?! ?. R :i< 2 A •.? J
/r t
,
Nob ?lv y, Ra « f+
.. _ ` 'NUB :.§ y
B°B See additional map t. t? fr
NoA for proposed layout °A d? a
NoB \ -,.. Ram ?-
?' 1\ in this location
n ?Cr ° r L; J , ?' p °A' GoA Ra W
+cr #
SL. NoB GrC ?lOB \' \..
GoA Ra ? f
NoA
0
s
Q
V +
4u F3 ,1 NOB
Soil Mapping Units R' ivoA C] Project Boundary
. r,
Bb Bibb loam
BoB Bonneau loamy sand, 0-4% slopes G rC
GoA Goldsboro fine sandy loam loam,i 0 1000 2000 Feet
0-2% slopes y8 .?r0. 0 0.25 0.50 Km
GrC Gritney sandy loam, 6-10% slopes
NaC Nankin sandy loam, 2-10% slopes Source USDA Soil Survey of
Ra Rains fine sandy loam J c Nash County, NC, 1989
N°B
r? l
-? Soils Map Figure'. 2
Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount Project. ER04094
Environmental Drake, Nash County, North Carolina
Services, Inc. Date: October 2004
,? rs

-10
u?

D
OD OD OD Oo OD O GL ZA ? W W N i t0 OO O V1 A .{+. W N i i C
Z ;17
O O
G) ((D ? C7
0 z ?.
0*3
?jy / <N71 A Q N g@@@@ O O7 @@@ O se see see e n O fn B -G
C
z CD

.1
G) 47 v7
Q CD n ? O

c
G) G)
0 GyG) G) c?
?
IF T
I
3=
m ?
o
CD
-0
-„
Z
co n N
Q -4
A
Y/
i n 4G
i i
W W N i C!
1
W N c cc
W
Q! cn c CA

N
/
/??
VI
W i
a T W Q
.
?
CD
n
ii
(fl
& O /^
J
co y' W W W i O CCD O m
cr
v C)

a it
r
O
s
06
O
C)
u
i
a'
•/.

0
0
O
C!?
CD
n
C
V -
C
C
K
O O
L

O
0 ?
Apo; -?
O
O
od
(Do
.?? ry O°- (?QO
W W?,? V
cn ?^ w < r
• U (/? W <
?0 r
C n
7

Q ?
L1 J I/
U
.

o

o. o
l7v

? I I
I
yh?_

j V

0

u
\\ a ,
d \

I
? a
a
11
o.
0
Q •?
,o 00
0
e - ?'O O
O CV
O

O O

Z

?

m

m

m

o

o

o

m

M

m

-
r

LL
co
r

L
m

r

.L
m

F."
,O
y CIUL
O

cl)

,4
Co

m

'ct Ln

pp

Cn M

j
co

a

U-
co
CL 93 1 T C?

O
_
ca
Cu

+'"z-

V

h

S

O ce M w 0:

C c 0 CO
ct? Z7 , co
' ?Vti
S to
a' a?VO
S ao

E fn
C ?
coma
w ? M
} O U
ui U) 6
U Z
CU C
000
00000
`' r' ?"
N NON N N N N N®
®M
M

Oo
? U
r

f
-I -I -i

m CCD
v 7 a
-n
;'Z'
m
D v
C
m AD cn
(w i+ CD
Jug
'CIO T ?
l?
i
Environmental
Services, Inc.
Wetland and Stream Location
Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount
Nash County, North Carolina
Figure: 3
Project: ER04094
Date: October 2004
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount
Summary of Project Impacts
Table 4. Wetland and Stream Impact Summary for FCRM.
Elg@fRygl
NOV 17 2004
WETLANDS AND ATSTORMWATERIBRANCH
Riparian Non- Wetland Isolated Perennial Intermittent
Wetland Riparian Clearing Wetland Stream Stream
Fill (ac) Wetland (ac) Fill (ac) Impact (ft) Impact (ft)
Fill (ac)
Road Crossings 1.6 1.0 0.19 398 * 620
Golf Course 1.12 1.21 1.53 0 132 ** 585 **
Sewer Line 0.25 60 ***
Totals 2.72 2.21 1.78 0.19 590 1205
Amount Requiring 2.72 2.21 1.78 To be 398 1185
Mitigation determined
Amount Not 192 20
Requiring
Mitigation
* 50 linear feet will be spanned and should not require mitigation.
* * 82 feet of perennial and 20 feet of intermittent channel to be bridged
***Stream impacts from sewer crossings are temporary; mitigation not required.
Roadway Wetland Impact Summary - The roadway system designed for FCRM includes thirty-two
(32) jurisdictional area crossings. The primary spine road serves as the main transportation corridor
from which the other roads diverge to serve the residential areas. A total of 1.6 acres of riparian
wetlands and 1.0 acre of non-riparian wetlands will be impacted by road construction. Approximately
0.19 acre of isolated wetlands will also be affected by road construction. The largest individual
wetland impact is 0.32 acre and the smallest is approximately 0.01 acre. Approximately 1.9 acres of
the impacts are to PF01 wetlands, 0.7 acre to PF01/4 wetlands, and 0.1 acre to PSS1 wetlands.
Roadway Stream Impact Summary - Approximately 1,018 linear feet of stream channel and 0.05
acre of open water will be affected as a result of the 32 road crossings associated with the FCRM
project. The stream impacts comprise 620 feet of intermittent stream and 398 feet of perennial stream.
All of the intermittent stream footage that is proposed for impact has been deemed important by
ACOE. Approximately 50 feet of perennial total will be completely spanned through bridging and no
direct in-water impacts will result. The 0.05-acre of surface water associated with Belmont Lake will
also be completely spanned.
1
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
Golf Course Impact Minimization
Impacts from Original Plan
Wetland fill +/-3.56 acres
Wetland clear/stump +/-1.11 acres
Wetland clear/leave stumps +/-3.02 acres
Stream impact +/-2450 feet (through direct impact or clearing vegetation)
Riparian buffer impact +/- 7 acres
Impacts from Current Plan
Wetland fill 2.33 acres
Wetland clear/stump 0.68 acres
Wetland clear/leave stumps 0.85 acres
Stream impact 717 feet
Riparian buffer impact 18,677 feet'
Golf Course Wetland Impact Summary - Wetland impacts associated with the golf course consist
of fill, clear and remove stumps, and clear and leave stumps. A total of 1.12 acres of riparian wetlands
and 1.21 acres of non-riparian wetlands will be filled by golf course construction. Approximately
0.68 acres of wetlands will be cleared and the stumps will be removed and 0.85 acres will be cleared
and the stumps will be left in the ground. These areas that are cleared will be allowed to revegetated
with low-growing wetland vegetation that may be routinely maintained by hand clearing to keep it at
the proper height.
Golf. Course Stream Impact Summary - Approximately 717 linear feet of stream channel will be
affected as a result of the golf course and practice range at FCRM. The stream impacts comprise 585
feet of intermittent stream and 132 feet of perennial stream. All of the intermittent stream footage that
is proposed for impact has been deemed important by ACOE. Approximately 82 feet of the perennial
stream total and 20 feet of intermittent channel will be spanned through cart path bridging and no
direct in-water impacts will result. Mitigation will be required for 50 feet of perennial channel and
the 565 feet of intermittent channel.
2
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
Table 3a. Sewer Line Impacts at FCRM.
Sewer
Crossing Temporary
Riparian
Wetland
Impacts (ac) Temporary
Non-Riparian
Wetland
Impacts (ac) Temporary
Perennial
Stream
Impacts (ft) Temporary
Intermittent
Stream
Impacts (ft) Zone 1
Buffer
Impacts
(ft2) Zone 2
Buffer
Impacts
(ft2)
SC1 30 2764 1215
SC2 0.01 30 2066 1229
SC3 0.20 30 1812 1208
SC4 0.01
SC5 0.03
SC6 0.01
Totals 0.21 0.05 60 0 6642 3652
Table 4a. Riparian Buffer Impacts at FCRM. These impacts result from road crossings, cart
path crossings, dam reconstruction, and sewer line crossings.
Road
Crossing
# Zone 1
Impact
ftz Zone 2
Impact
ftz Hole
# Zone 1
Impact
ftz Zone 2
Impact
ftz Sewer
Crossing
# Zone 1
Impact
ftz Zone 2
Impact
ftz
2* 677 2039 3 1800 600 1 2764 1215
3 3060 2040 5 4046 1159 2 2066 1229
9 4140 2760 9 2324 1545 3 1812 1208
12 3600 2400 16** 3000 2000
14 2625 3938 18 1320 880
17 5241 4602
18 3660 2440
20 7080 4720
26 1920 1280
28 3480 2320
30 3000 2000
31 3060 2040
32 3000 2000
33 3000 2000

Total (ftz) 47,543 36,579 12,493 6,184 6,642 3,652
Total (ac) 1.09 0.84 0.29 0.14 0.15 0.08
*Buffer mitigation required for Road Crossing 2.
* * Stream buffer below dam will be affected by dam reconstruction.
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
Table 4b. Riparian Puffer Impacts Resulting from Wetland Restoration/Creation.
Hole No. Zone 1 Pond Buffer
Impact (ftZ) Zone 2 Pond Buffer
Impact (ftZ) Total
6 25,500 17,000 42,500
16 21,000 14,000 35,000
18 15,000 10,000 25,000
Total 61,500 41,000 102,500
Mitigation will be required for the following:
• 2.72 acres of riparian wetland fill
• 2.21 acres of non-riparian wetland fill
• 1.78 acres of wetland clearing (i.e. conversion from forested to herbaceous)
• 398 feet of perennial channel
• 1,185 feet of intermittent channel
• 2,716 ft' of riparian buffer
Table 5. Federal Protected Species for Nash County, North Carolina
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Habitat
Present Biological
Conclusion
Red-cockaded
woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered No No Effect
Dwarf wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered Yes Unresolved
Tar spinymussel Elliptio steinstansana Endangered Yes Unresolved
Conclusion - The FCRM project has been designed to be environmentally sensitive while maintaining
the applicant's basic purpose and need. Wetland impacts consist of 4.93 acres of fill and 1.78 acres of
wetland clearing. Stream impacts total approximately 1795 linear feet. The compensatory mitigation
plan will help offset unavoidable impacts. Approximately 76 acres of riparian and non-riparian
wetlands may be available for preservation. Wildlife enhancement techniques will be implemented
into the overall site development and wildlife corridors will be maintained in undisturbed portions of
the property. It is the team's desire to meet or exceed all state and federal regulatory requirements in
order to construct an environmentally sensitive and world-class golf community.
4
Modified Environmental Assessment
for
FORD'S COLONY AT ROCKY MOUNT
NASH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for:
Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount
One Ford's Colony Lane
Rocky Mount, NC 27809
And
Realtec, Inc.
Prepared by:
Environmental Services, Inc.
McBride Hess Design Group
David Johnson Golf Design
Stocks Engineering
Kimley-Horn
WK Dickson
November 2004
Table of Contents
1.0 Project Description
1.1 Agency Coordination and Applications
2.0 Purpose and Need
2.1 Economic Impact
3.0 Alternatives Analysis
3.1 No Action Alternative
3.2 Preferred Alternative
3.3 Site History
4.0 Environmental Setting
4.1 Physiographic, Topography, Geology, Land Use
4.2 Soils
4.3 Water Resources
5.0 Biological Resources
5.1 Plant Communities
5.2 Wildlife
Page
1
1
2
4
5
5
7
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
0 Cultural Resources
6 1z
.
0 Jurisdictional Issues
7 12
.
1 Jurisdictional Wetlands
7 12
.
7. 1.1 Riparian Areas 13

7.2 Isolated Wetlands 14

3 Cowardin Classification
7 14
.
1 Wetland Values and Functions
3
7 15
.
.
4 Stream Types and Characteristics
7 16
.
1 Stream Importance
4
7 17
.
.
5 Riparian Buffers
7 17
.
0 Jurisdictional Impacts
8 18
.
1 Roadway Infrastructure
8 18
.
ii
Table of Contents-Continued
Page
8.1.1 Summary of Wetland Impacts from Roadways 27
S. 1.2 Surface Water Impacts from Roadways 28
8.2 Golf Course and Practice Range 29
8.2.1 Summary of Wetland Impacts from Golf 37
8.2.2 Summary of Surface Water Impacts from Golf 38
8.3 Sewer Line Impacts 39
8.4 Isolated Wetland Impacts 39
8.5 Riparian Buffer Impacts 40
9.0 Mitigation 43

9.1 Mitigation Procedure 44
9.2 Compensatory Mitigation Plan 45
9.3 Additional Mitigation Activities 45
10.0 Protected Species 46
10.1 Federal Protected Species 46
10.2 Federal Species of Concern 49
10.3 State-Listed Species 50
11.0 Environmental and Public Interest Factors 50
11.1 Physical/Chemical Characteristics and Changes 50
11.2 Biological Characteristics and Changes 51
11.3 Human Use Characteristics and Impacts 51
11.4 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts 53
12.0 Conclusion 53
13.0 References 54
14.0 Figures 56

iii
List of Tables
Road Crossing Impact Details
Table 1 20
.
Golf Course Impact Details
Table 2 32
.
Sewer Line Impacts
Table 3a 39
.
Summary Impact Table
Table 3b 40
.
arian Buffer Impacts
Ri
Table 4a 43
p
.
Pond Buffer Impact
Table 4b 43
.
Federal Protected Species
Table 5 47
.
Table 6. Federal Species of Concern 49
Appendices
Appendix I. Economic Analysis
Appendix II. GIS Site Search for Alternate Sites
Appendix III. History of the Belmont Property
Appendix IV. Wetland and Stream Delineation Plats and Riparian Buffer Map
Appendix V. Wetland Functional Assessment Sheets and Stream Assessment Sheets
Appendix VI. Original Golf Course Design (David Johnson Golf Design)
Appendix VII.5tormwater Quality (provided by WK Dickson)
IV
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FOR
FORD'S COLONY at ROCKY MOUNT
NASH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
As Part of the
SECTION 404 and 401 PERMIT APPLICATION
November 2004
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Ford's Colony proposes to develop an approximately 1150-acre parcel of land located north of
US 64 and west of US 301 near North Carolina Wesleyan College in Nash County, North
Carolina (Figure 1). The proposed development plan includes the construction of an 18-hole
championship quality golf course and residential development. The project's primary team
members include:
• Ford's Colony of Rocky Mount, LLC - applicant
¦ Drew Mulhare of RealTec, Inc. - authorized agent
¦ Bill Roeder of Belmont Farms -project manager and quality control
¦ Mike Stocks, PE of Stocks Engineering PA -civil engineer and project manager
¦ David Johnson of David Johnson Golf Design - golf course design
¦ Tim Hess of McBride Hess Design Group - land planning and project manager
¦ Jeff Harbour of Environmental Services, Inc. - wetlands, T&E, archaeology, 404 permit
¦ Michael Ellison of WK Dickson - stormwater BMPs and mitigation plan
¦ Todd St. John and Harlan Britt of Kimley-Horn - riparian buffers and 401 certification
The proposed Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount (FCRM) project has met with approval from local
and state government officials. The golf and residential community will cater to retirees from all
over the country; however most will likely relocate from northern states. Total build out of the
proposed project has an 8 to 10 year span and the total number of residential units will approach
1,500.
1.1 Agency Coordination and Applications
Ford's Colony is submitting an Individual Permit application to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (ACOE) requesting authorization to permanently impact 4.93 acres of jurisdictional
wetlands and 1,673 linear feet of stream channel pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
of 1972 (33 USC 1344). Direct impacts to approximately 132 feet of stream channel will be
avoided through bridging. Sewer crossings will temporarily impact 60 linear feet of stream
channel. Additionally, 1.78 acres of wetlands are proposed for temporary impact and/or clearing
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
(i.e. wetland conversion). This action will also require water quality certification from the State
of North Carolina through the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) (NCGS 143-
215) pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Approval from DWQ is also being sought
for proposed riparian buffer impacts pursuant to the Tar-Pamlico Riparian Buffer Rule.
The purpose of this document is to provide an evaluation of three general criteria which will be
considered as part of the permit process: 1) the relative extent of the public and private need for
the proposed activity; 2) the practicability of using reasonable alternative locations and methods
to accomplish the objective of the proposed activity; and 3) the extent of the effects which the
proposed activity is likely to have on the public and private uses to which the area is suited,
including environmental impacts. This document is intended for use by ACOE and DWQ as the
basis for determining the applicant's compliance with the Section 404 (b) (1) guidelines and other
Section 404 permitting requirements, and Section 401 water quality certification.
Pre-applications meetings have been held with the ACOE and DWQ. An initial ACOE meeting
was held with Mr. Kevin Yates of the Raleigh Regulatory Field Office on June 28, 2004. Mr.
Yates also conducted site investigations on June 23 and August 3, 2004 in order to verify the
wetland delineation and review potential impact areas. The DWQ pre-application meeting was
held with Ms. Cyndi Karoly on June 24, 2004. Meetings were held with DWQ representative Mr.
Bob Zarzecki on August 2 and September 23, 2004 to discuss the potential riparian buffer
impacts. Additional onsite meetings were held with Michael Horan of DWQ on June 14, August
10, and September 1, 2004 in order to investigate several riparian buffer issues.
Subsequent to these meetings, substantial changes were made to the site plans to address
avoidance and minimization issues and to address Riparian Buffer Rule requirements.
2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED
The overall purpose of the project is to provide a championship quality golf course and a
residential community capable of attracting retired and semi-retired citizens from primarily the
eastern seaboard. The project's location is conducive to an attractive retirement destination
because of several factors. These include, but may not be limited to:
¦ Proximity to the coast and the mountains
¦ Accessibility from Interstate 95, US 64 and US 301
¦ Within 50 miles of an international airport (RDU)
¦ Within 50 miles of world-class health care (Raleigh-Durham area)
¦ Reasonably mild winters
¦ Reasonable cost of living
Ford's Colony has developed similar golf and residential communities in other areas such as
Atlanta, GA; Boone, NC; and Williamsburg, VA. Information on these other communities is
available from the applicant upon request.
2
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
The proposed golf course has been designed to allow for championship play as well as allowing
for beginners and novices. The proposed project will balance economic factors (such as ensuring
reasonable return on investment, employment opportunities, and tax revenues) with
environmental factors such as minimizing impacts and providing compensatory mitigation for
unavoidable wetland and surface water impacts by preserving on-site wetland and streams,
providing open space, providing on-site mitigation through wetland/stream enhancement or
restoration and through stormwater management practices. Payment into the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program and Tar-Pamlico River Riparian Buffer Mitigation Fund may
also be necessary to supplement the proposed on-site mitigation plan.
Market research has been conducted by the applicant and it has been determined that there is
desire and need in this area for such a development. Currently, most retirees who choose to
relocate to North Carolina either end up residing at the coast or in the mountains. Few
developments of this caliber are located in the upper Coastal Plain or Piedmont. Certain criteria
are necessary in order to develop a project of this magnitude. These specific needs include, but
may not be limited to:
¦ Large, contiguous tract of land (900 acre minimum)
¦ Accessibility from major highways
¦ Water and sewer service
¦ Water for golf course irrigation
¦ Areas for greenspace
¦ Minimal environmental concerns based on overall property size
¦ Quality medical centers nearby
¦ Cultural attractions nearby
¦ Local government acceptance
The aesthetic value of the natural resources that occur on the property offer market appeal and are
a major source of market value.
2.1 Economic Impact
Nash County is currently experiencing a period of economic depression. There is a tremendous
need for economic improvement in Nash County due to recent plant closings, the decrease in the
historically significant tobacco market, and overall company downsizing. The economic impact
to the region will be immediate in terms of providing jobs and local revenue. Rocky Mount and
Nash County government have expressed their desire for this project. State government officials
have also indicated that this is a desirable project for the region as a whole. It is believed that the
benefits derived from the project will greatly improve the quality of life for citizens of Nash
County, Rocky Mount, and the surrounding areas by bringing an influx of revenue, and the
potential for new businesses catering to the residents of FCRM. The possibility of championship
golf play is also a major economic factor in the overall development plan.
3
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
A detailed economic analysis has been prepared by the development team and is included in
Appendix I. This data shows the economic value of this project on the economy of Nash County
and Rocky Mount.
3.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Headquarters of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (HQUSACE) guidance from 22 April 1986
requires that alternatives be practicable to the applicant and that the purpose and need for the
project must be the applicant's purpose and need. This guidance also states that project purpose
is to be viewed from the applicant's perspective rather than only from the broad, public
perspective. The essential point of the HQUSACE policy guidance of 22 April 1986 is that under
the Section 404 (b)(1) Guidelines, an alternative must be available to the applicant to be a
practicable alternative. Pursuant to 40 CFR 230.10(a)(2) practicable alternatives are those
alternatives that are "available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost,
existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purpose". The preamble to the 404(b)
Guidelines states, "if an alleged alternative is unreasonably expensive to the applicant, the
alternative is not practicable". Section 40 CFR 230.10 (a) of the Guidelines state that " no
discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the
proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as
the alternative does not have other significant environmental consequences".
ESI conducted a GIS-based site search within a 15-mile radius of the project study area in order
to detennine if any properties meeting all of the applicant's development criteria were present.
The GIS search identified two properties that meet some of the necessary criteria (Appendix H-
Figure 1). Figures and supplemental information from DWQ (2004a) is provided in Appendix
H. None of the sites met the applicant's purpose and need.
The first site (Parcel ID 30802) is approximately 902 acres and is located in the northwest corner
of Nash County (Appendix H-Figure 2). This site contains numerous stream channels including
tributaries to Tumbling Run and Gideon Swamp. Both stream systems have a Best Usage
Classification of C; NSW. Class C classification protects freshwaters for secondary recreational
activities, fishing and propagation and survival of aquatic life. This is the minimum classification
for all freshwater (DEM 1992). The supplemental NSW indicates Nutrient Sensitive Waters that
are subject to growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation requiring limitations on nutrient
input. The configuration of the site and the presence of several constriction points throughout the
property make-pit undesirable from a golf course and residential development perspective. The
numerous streams and wetlands and the amount of intact forest would likely require considerable
environmental impacts. The site is not easily accessed through the primary roads and it is too far
from a highly developed area where water and sewer services can be easily provided.
Additionally, there do not appear to be any on-site lakes or ponds that could provide irrigation
opportunities. Creating new lakes "on-line" with the onsite streams is not a desirable activity due
to the riparian buffer rules and other environmental regulations. This site is not conducive to the
type of project that the Ford's Colony team envisions.
4
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
The second site (Parcel ID 30789) is located near I-95 in northeastern Nash County. This site is
approximately 1042 acres and lies adjacent to Fishing Creek and Beaverdam Swamp (Appendix
II-Figure 3). Both Fishing Creek and Beaverdam Swamp have a Best Usage Classification of
WS-IV; NSW. This indicates that they both serve as a Water Supply for a Highly Developed
(WS-IV) area and they are both Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW). Developing this site has the
potential for negative environmental impacts due to the two Water Supply streams along the north
and west boundaries. The property also contains a significant amount of jurisdictional wetlands
based on the current National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and county soil mapping.
Although the site is near I-95, it is too far north of Rocky Mount to be able to utilize the
comprehensive water and sewer services. This site is not conducive to the type of development
that the Ford's Colony team envisions. Additionally, ESI has discovered that this parcel is being
currently in the negotiation stages for an undisclosed type of utilization
3.1 No Action Alternative
A "No Action" alternative is here considered to be one that avoids all wetland and surface water
impacts. Due to the constraints dictated by site topography and land-grading requirements, this
project cannot be downsized or shifted to avoid all jurisdictional areas and still satisfy project
purpose and need. Additionally, due to the necessary area needed for a development such as this,
it has proven to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to locate a different site where no
jurisdictional areas occur.
A "No Action" decision at this location would result in negative economic impacts to Ford's
Colony, shareholders, and Nash County as a whole. The fact that this site has a history of
disturbance from previous agriculture, livestock activities, and silviculture also leads to the
conclusion that utilizing this site would be more appropriate than attempting this venture on an
undisturbed property. The "No Action" alternative is not capable of achieving the basic purpose
and need of the proposed project and, therefore, is not a reasonable alternative.
3.2 Preferred Alternative (Proposed Site)
Belmont Farms was proposed for development back in the 1970s. An 18-hole golf course as well
as significant residential development was part of one of the Master Plans. The entire project, as
originally designed, was never developed. The existing development along the southern shore of
Belmont Lake was initiated in 1993 and consists of Wood's Walk, Chimney Hill and Lake
Pointe.
In 2003, Realtec, Inc. contacted the owner of the Belmont Farms property to determine if they
might be interested in developing a joint venture to develop the subject property. Recently,
Realtec, Inc. purchased additional land in order to avoid some significant wetland, stream and
buffer impacts. The additional land also allowed for more open space and greenspace that will be
preserved while allowing the designers to avoid and minimize significant environmental impacts.
5
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
manner: forest/wetland-63%; surface water-1%; urban-3%; cultivated crop-27; pasture/managed
herbaceous-5% (DWQ 2004b).
4.2 Soils
Existing soils mapping in the Soil Survey of Nash County, North Carolina (USDA 1989) shows
that the project site contains numerous soil-mapping units (Figure 2). These are combined into
two associations. The Norfolk-Rains soil association, which is nearly level to gently sloping,
well-drained and poorly drained soils that have a loamy or clayey subsoil; on uplands. The other
is Rains-Norfolk-Goldsboro which is nearly level to gently sloping, poorly drained, well drained,
and moderately well drained soils that have a loamy or clayey subsoil: on uplands. Please refer to
Figure 2 for the detailed soils map.
4.3 Water Resources
Two major cataloging systems are used in North Carolina to identify surface water drainage
areas: one developed by USGS and the other by DWQ. The project site is located within the
USGS hydrologic unit 03020101 (Seaber et al. 1987). The DWQ system places the site in sub-
basin 030302 of the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. The Stream Index Number (SIN) of Beech Branch
is 28-75-(1). The major tributaries of the Tar-Pamlico River in this sub-basin include Tar River,
Sapony Creek, Sandy Creek, Swift Creek, and Stony Creek (DWQ 2003).
The property contains Beech Branch and several of its UTs. These UTs consist of first and
second order streams. The southeastern boundary of the project study area is an UT to Compass
Creek. ESI has witnessed that that all sections of these streams do not flow year round. ESI
mapped the majority of the on-site streams in May and June 2004, (Figure 3). Approximately
19,827 linear feet of delineated and GPS-mapped streams occur on the site, not including Beech
Branch or UT Compass Creek. Portions of Beech Branch and UT Compass Creek were not
delineated or mapped because they form part of the project boundary, which has previously been
surveyed. Jurisdictional delineation plats are also provided in Appendix IV. These plats show
the wetlands and streams in greater detail.
Beech Branch from its source to US 301 is assigned a Best Usage Classification of B,NSW.
Class B waters are freshwaters that are protected for primary recreation which includes
swimming on a frequent or organized basis and includes all Class C uses. The supplemental
NSW indicates Nutrient Sensitive Waters that are subject to growth of microscopic or
macroscopic vegetation requiring limitations on nutrient input. Class C classification protects
freshwaters for secondary recreational activities, fishing and propagation and survival of aquatic
life (DEM 1992).
As mentioned earlier, Beech Branch was dammed in the 1970s to create Belmont Lake. Belmont
Lake is approximately 80 acres in size. The other large lake is located in the northeast quadrant
of the property and comprises approximately 7.6 acres. Two additional small ponds occur on the
8
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
site and appear to have been created for agricultural use many years ago. These two ponds are
located in the western half of the site adjacent to existing agriculture fields.
Water quality is assessed by DWQ through several programs, including benthic macro-
invertebrate monitoring, fish community structure, and aquatic toxicity monitoring. One fish
community station was monitored in 2002 along Beech Branch downstream from the project site.
Currently Beech Branch has a use support rating of `Not Rated,' because criteria for assigning
bio-classifications to fish community samples has not been developed for coastal plain streams.
DWQ continues to monitor Beech Branch, assessing changes in the fish community that may be
related to land-disturbing activities. Best Management Practices (BMP's) are recommended for
the Beech Branch watershed. As of 2004, there are 3 known point-source discharges along Beech
Branch, all downstream of the project study area (DWQ 2004b). No bio-classifications were
found for Compass Creek, it was not part of the monitored waters within subbasin 03-03-02.
5.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
5.1 Plant Communities
Distribution and composition of plant communities throughout the project study area reflect
landscape-level variations in topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land use
practices. When appropriate, the plant community names have been adopted and modified from
the NHP classification system (Schafale and Weakley 1990) and the descriptions written to
reflect local variations within the project study area. Six plant communities were identified
within the project study area: mixed hardwood/pine forest, successional land, bottomland
hardwood forest, coastal plain small stream swamp, agricultural land, and maintained/disturbed
lands. Scientific nomenclature typically follows Radford et. al. (1968).
Mixed Hardwood/Pine Forest -Tree species in this community include American beech (Fagus
grandifolia), red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and loblolly pine
(Pinus taeda). Groundcover species consist of common greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia), giant
cane (Arundinaria gigantea), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia) and Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia). This community type consists of both jurisdictional wetlands and
non jurisdictional, upland areas.
Successional Land -The successional land within the project study area consists of previously
disturbed land that is no longer maintained and has revegetated with young, disturbance-oriented
species. These areas include such species as young loblolly pine, sweetgum, persimmon
(Diospyros virginiana), black cherry (Prunus serotina), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinesense),
pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), and blackberry (Rubus spp.). There are several old fields
near the center of the property that have been fallow for many years and have revegetated with
successional species.
9
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
Bottomland Hardwood Forest -These plant communities are typically located landward of
abandoned or relict natural levee deposits, point bar ridges, and other relatively high parts of the
floodplain associated with rivers or streams (Schafale and Weakley 1990). The dominant tree
and shrub species include red maple, sweetgum, green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), water oak
(Quercus nigra), and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). Groundcover species consist of
lizard tail (Saururus cernuus), softrush (Juncus effusus), netted chain fern (Woodwardia
areolata), spotted touch-me-not (Impatiens capensis), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea)
and common greenbriar.
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp - The coastal plain small stream swamp conununities in
the project study area are located within the active floodplain of small first and second order
streams as well as the larger Beech Branch. These communities flood on an irregular basis and
most plant life is adapted to seasonal flooding and extended periods of soil saturation. Dominant
vegetation includes red maple, sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), ironwood (Carpinus
caroliniana), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), green ash, tulip poplar, fetterbush (Lyonia lucida),
giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), spotted touch-me-not, and lizard tail.
Agricultural Land - Existing agricultural land consists primarily of soybeans and some cotton.
These areas are located high in the landscape and offer good drainage. Evidence of prior-
converted cropland is not readily visible.
Maintained/Disturbed Land -These areas result from previous human disturbances and include
areas subject to periodic mowing and other maintenance activities. The existing roads, powerline
and sewer easements, and housing are included in this category. Species documented in the
disturbed/maintained areas include Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), blackberry,
lespedeza (Lespedeza spp.), and broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus). Various grasses are also
present in this community type.
5.2 Wildlife
The location of the project site is in a generally rural setting with agriculture and single-family
homes and farms scattered throughout, on the north side of Rocky Mount. Wildlife occurring in
the project study area will typically be those species that are adapted to fragmented landscapes.
Impacts to wildlife will likely be temporary displacement. However, wildlife corridors will
remain after construction in the form of the preserved greenspace, which will include both
wetlands and uplands.
Terrestrial Wildlife
The project site is known to contain both game and non-game species. Resources used to
research species distributions and habitat requirements include text by Webster et al. (1985) and
Martof et al. (1980).
10
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
Common mammals known or expected to occur on-site include: white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus), grey fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), Eastern chipmunk (Tarnias striatus), raccoon
(Procyon lotor), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and
grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis).
Avian species observed on-site include species commonly occurring in forested and disturbed
areas of the region. These species include: common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), turkey
vulture (Cathartes aura), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo
jamaicensis), American kestral (Falco sparverius), eastern screech owl (Otus asio), great horned
owl (Bubo virginianus), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), bobwhite quail (Colinus
virginianus), wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), pileated
woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), carolina chickadee (Parus
carolinensis), tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor), American robin (Turdus migratorius),
northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), hooded warbler (Wilsonia citrina) and field sparrow
(Spizella pusilla).
Reptilian species known or expected to occur on-site include: eastern box turtle (Terrapene
carolina carolina), green anole (Anolis carolinensis), fence lizard (Sceloporus undulates), six
lined racerunner (Cnemidophorus sexlineatus), five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), ground
skink (Scincella lateralis), eastern garder snake (Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis), southern ringneck
snake (Diadophis punctatus), eastern worm snake (Carphophis amoenus amoenus), and northern
black racer (Coluber constrictor constrictor).
Aquatic Wildlife
Aquatic avian species observed on-site include the belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon), great egret
(Ardea alba), blue heron (Ardea herodias), wood duck (Aix sponsa), and mallard (Anas
platyrhynchos).
Amphibian species observed or expected to occur on site include species commonly occurring in
small streams, ponds, and wet forests. These species include: oak toad (Bufo quercicus),
fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousii fowleri), marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum), two-lined
salamander (Eurycea cirrigera), two-toed amphiuma (Amphiuma means), and red-spotted newt
(Notophthalmus viridescens viridescens).
Common freshwater fish species known or expected to occur onsite include species commonly
occurring in creeks, small streams, ponds and impoundments. These species include: bluegill
(Lepomis macrochirus), eastern silvery minnow (Hybognathus regius), brown bullhead
(Ameiurus nebulosus), pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus), yellow perch (Perca flavescens),
warmouth (Lepomis gulosus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), and sawcheek darter
(Etheostoma serrifer).
II
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
6.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES
The term "cultural resources" refers to prehistoric or historic archaeological sites.. structures, or
artifact deposits over 50 years old. "Significant" cultural resources are those sites that are eligible
or potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Evaluations for
cultural resources are required whenever a Section 404 permit application is submitted to ACOE.
Evaluations of site significance are made with reference to the eligibility criteria of the National
Register (33 CFR 60) and in consultation with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO).
In a letter dated 25 June 2004, ESI coordinated with the SHPO to determine if the SHPO had any
comments on the proposed project under Section 106. In a letter dated 3 August 2004, the SHPO
stated that the project will have an adverse effect on the National Register-listed Dr. Franklin Hart
Farm and requested additional information on the proposed development. The SHPO also
recommended an archaeological survey of the project area.
Representatives of ESI, Realtec, and Stocks Engineering met with the ACOE on 12 October
2004. The purpose of the meeting was to determine the exact nature of the permit area,
specifically to determine how much of the project will be subject to Section 106. In the meeting,
the ACOE defined the entire project area as the permit area. ESI met with Renee Gledhill-Earley
and John Mintz of the SETO on 2 November 2004 to discuss cultural resource issues for the
FCRM permit area. The specific topics discussed were the Dr. Hart Farm and the survey strategy
for an archaeological survey.
Results of the SHPO coordination and the pending archaeological survey will be submitted to
ACOE under separate cover.
7.0 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
7.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires regulation of discharges into "waters of the
United States." Although the principal administrative agency of the CWA is the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the ACOE has major responsibility for implementation, permitting,
and enforcement of provisions of the Act. The ACOE regulatory program is defined in 33 CFR
320-330.
Water bodies such as rivers, lakes and streams are subject to jurisdictional consideration under
the Section 404 program. However, by regulation, wetlands are also considered "waters of the
United States." Wetlands have been described as:
Those areas that are inundated or saturated by groundwater at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
12
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas. [33 CFR
328.3(b) (1986)]
The ACOE requires the presence of three parameters (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and
evidence of jurisdictional hydrology) in support of a jurisdictional detennination.
ESI delineated the onsite wetlands between April - June 2004 pursuant to current methodology
outlined in the 1987 Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (DOA 1987).
Streams and surface waters were delineated pursuant to ACOE and DWQ criteria. ACOE data
forms and subsequent GPS mapping have been provided to Kevin Yates of the ACOE-Raleigh
Regulatory Field Office. Mr. Yates reviewed the delineation effort on several occasions: June 23
and August 3, 2004. In a letter dated 14 September 2004, Mr. Yates indicated that the
"Jurisdictional Wetlands and Surface Waters, Belmont Farms (Sheets 1 and 2), Nash County,
North Carolina" are suitable for permitting purposes. These two sheets are provided in Appendix
]IV.
Wetland and stream boundaries were marked with sequentially numbered wetland survey tape
(pink/black striped and blue tape). Flagging was tied to vegetation in a manner so as to make it as
permanent as possible to facilitate follow-up surveys as required prior to construction. To
facilitate planning, the jurisdictional boundaries have been mapped using a TrimbleTM Pro-XR
GPS receiver and TSC1 data logger with Asset Survey software. This software included a data
dictionary specifically developed by ESI for this project. All ".ssf' files were differentially
corrected using base station data.
Figure 3 depict the jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters occurring in the project study area
at a smaller scale than the maps provided in Appendix 1V.
7.1.1 Riparian Areas
The majority of the jurisdictional wetlands within the boundaries of FCRM can be characterized
as riparian wetlands. Riparian areas, including wetlands, are transitional between terrestrial and
aquatic ecosystems and are distinguished by gradients in biophysical conditions, ecological
processes, and biota. They are areas through which surface and subsurface hydrology connect
water bodies with the adjacent uplands. They include portions or terrestrial ecosystems that
influence exchanges of energy and matter with aquatic ecosystems (National Research Council
2002). Riparian areas are adjacent to perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams and lakes.
Because riparian areas occupy a gradient in the landscape, they can include both wetland and
upland habitat. It is this gradient and the diverse biogeochemical processes that occur in riparian
areas that make them so important to the overall health of aquatic ecosystems. Riparian areas
also serve as a filter between developed uplands and low-lying floodplains and swamps, thus
reducing the amount of pollutants and contamination entering surface waters.
The most significant riparian areas occurring on the FCRM site are those associated with Beech
Branch and UT of Compass Creek. These are the two primary surface water systems that traverse
13
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
the property. Beech Branch and its associated riparian areas have been historically affected by
the construction of Belmont Lake. As a result of damming Beech Branch, wetland areas have
expanded outwards in most locations to a point where site topography inhibits further landward
migration. This wetland expansion reduces the "gradient" between terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems, which is what defines riparian areas. Unavoidable impacts to riparian areas as a
result of the FCRM project must occur to make the project feasible and to meet the applicant's
purpose and need. However, impacts to these riparian areas, especially wetlands, have been
minimized as much as practicable through redesign.
FCRM realizes the importance on the on-site riparian areas and how future residents of FCRM
view them as desirable community attributes. Therefore, FCRM is dedicated to preserving all
remaining riparian areas that are not being affected by project construction. It is anticipated that
the remaining riparian areas will be placed under a conservation mechanism that will allow these
areas to remain natural in perpetuity. The preserved riparian areas will serve as important
wildlife corridors linking FCRM internally and with other off-site properties. FCRM envisions
an educational nature trail system in the future that may also utilize the greenspace provided by
the preserved riparian areas.
Proper management of the preserved riparian areas will be an ongoing activity within FCRM.
Reduction in nutrient and sediment loading and enhancing wildlife habitat is a major statewide
goal in North Carolina (National Research Council 2002). Best Management practices (BMPs)
are the primary protection mechanism for the protection of riparian areas. However, certain river
basins in North Carolina also have regulations, which limit the type and amount of development
that can occur in a certain portion of a riparian area. These riparian buffer regulations (rules) are
discussed in later sections.
7.2 Isolated Wetlands
Isolated wetlands are not currently regulated by ACOE. ACOE verified that there are five
isolated wetlands in the project study area (Wetlands 4,5,37,38, and 55). These isolated wetlands
were reviewed by ACOE during the course of several site visits and they are labeled as isolated
on Figure 3 and on Sheets 1 & 2 in Appendix IV. In North Carolina, the DWQ administers the
Section 401 Water Quality Certification process and has adopted rules under 15A NCAC 02H
.1300 - .1305 that regulate discharges to the isolated wetlands that ACOE no longer regulates.
Impacts to isolated wetlands of greater or equal to 0.33 acre east of I-95 require written
notification to and approval by DWQ. Impacts to less than 0.33 acre of isolated wetlands east of
I-95 is considered to be permitted by DWQ and formal notification is not required. However, on
a project of this size, DWQ retains discretionary authority to require a formal permit application.
7.3 Cowardin Classification for Wetlands and Deepwater Habitat
Wetland and deepwater habitat types existing on the FCRM site based on Cowardin et al. (1979)
consist of the following: palustrine forested (PFO), palustrine shrub-scrub (PSS), palustrine
emergent (PEM), palustrine unconsolidated bottom (PUB), lacustrine, limnetic, unconsolidated
bottom (LUB).
14
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
Palustrine systems are defined by Cowardin et al. (1979) as all non-tidal wetlands dominated by
trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses or lichens, and all such wetlands that occur
in tidal areas where the salinity due to ocean-derived salts is below 0.5 parts per thousand (ppt).
The palustrine wetlands within the project study area include areas dominated by trees, shrubs,
and areas dominated by herbaceous species, thus the PFO, PSS, and PEM designations.
Palustrine systems may also include wetlands that lack the above vegetation patterns, such as
PUB, but that have all of the following four characteristics: (1) area less than 20 acres; (2) active
wave-formed or bedrock shoreline features lacking; (3) water depth in the deepest part of basin
less than 6.6 feet at low water; and (4) salinity due to ocean-derived salts less than 0.5 ppt
(Cowardin et al. 1979). Portions of the lakes and ponds that are less than 20 acres can be
considered PUB.
The majority of the on-site jurisdictional wetlands consist of PFO wetlands comprised of mixed
hardwood forest, wet pine/hardwood flats, and small stream swamp forest. PSS wetlands are
dominated by woody vegetation averaging 20 feet tall or less. This wetland type is found within
portions of the on-site easements and in the area north of Red Oak-Battleboro Road. The PEM
wetlands are found primarily within the powerline and sewer easements. The 7.6-acre lake and
the two small agriculture ponds can be characterized as PUB wetlands due to their size and
dependant upon the water depth.
Lacustrine systems include wetlands and deepwater habitats with all of the following
characteristics: (1) situated in a topographic depression or damned river or stream channel; (2)
lacking trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses or lichens with greater than 30%
areal coverage; and (3) total area exceeds 8 ha (20 acres). The lacustrine system is bounded by
upland or wetlands. Lacustrine systems formed by damning a river or stream is bounded by a
contour approximating the normal spillway elevation or normal pool elevation, except where the
palustrine wetland extends landward of that boundary (Cowardin et al. 1979). Belmont Lake is
the only lacustrine system located on the subject property due to its size (>20ac).
During the field investigation and delineation effort; the PFO, PSS, and PEM wetlands were also
classified as either riparian or non-riparian based on their position in the landscape. Adjacent
streams, through periodic overbank flooding, influence the hydrology of riparian wetlands.
Overbank flooding does not typically influence the hydrology of non-riparian wetlands.
Proposed wetland impacts described in Section 8.0 are divided into riparian and non-riparian
impacts.
7.3.1 Wetland Values and Functions
ESI conducted functional assessments in 38 wetland areas where either roadway or golf course
impacts are likely. The functional assessment methodology is a modified version of the Hydro-
geomorphic Method developed by ESI to evaluate large wetland systems impacted by
transportation projects. The methodology involves assessing the following primary wetland
criteria: hydrology, biogeochemical, plant habitat, and animal habitat. There are at least two, and
15
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
as many as five, variables under each of these criteria that are given a numerical value from 0.0 to
1.0 depending on the evaluator's professional judgment. The highest possible score is 41, with
the higher score indicating a higher fimctional value relative to other wetlands in the project study
area. Appendix V contains copies of blank data forms that identify the criteria and variables
used to assess the functional value of a wetland system. Tables 1 & 2 contain the scores for
specific wetland impact areas
The highest functional value scores result from those wetlands that contain a mature canopy with
a midstoiy and groundcover layer, have available water storage capabilities such as those riparian
systems with functioning floodplains, and those wetland systems that provide wildlife habitat and
travel corridors.
7.4 Stream Types and Characteristics
On-site stream channels consist of 1St order intermittent streams up to 3rd and 4d' order perennial
stream channels. Beech Branch is the primary perennial stream channel occurring on the
property with numerous unnamed tributaries (UTs) converging with Beech Branch.
ESI delineated and GPS mapped all of the streams that contained a well-defined channel with the
exception of those streams that serve as property boundaries. Please refer to Figure 3 and/or
Appendix IV for maps depicting the delineated streams. Stream channels were approximated in
those areas where a channel was known to occur but could not be delineated due to flooded,
braided, or undefined bed/bank conditions. Both DWQ and ACOE data forms were completed
for all delineated streams and are available upon request should they be needed during the
permitting process. Table 1 & 2 contains the DWQ and ACOE stream scores for selected stream
segments. These segments can be identified on the Jurisdictional Wetlands and Surface Waters
Sheets 1&2 located in Appendix IV and represent typical stream reaches that occur throughout
the project study area. Blank copies of both the DWQ and ACOE stream data forms are included
in Appendix V.
Stream characteristics were evaluated for use in classifying the stream channels according to
Rosgen (1996). The classification stratifies streams into comparable groups based on pattern,
dimension, profile, and substrate characteristics. Primary components of the classification
include degree of entrenchment, width/depth ratio, sinuosity, channel slope, and streambed
substrate composition. Approximately 19,800 linear feet of stream channel was GPS mapped in
the project study area. Level 1 Stream characterizations were performed on the streams proposed
for impact by ESI staff trained in Applied River Morphology classification techniques.
The on-site stream channels that were evaluated can be classified as one of the following stream
types based on Rosgen (1996): C, E, F, and G.
• "C" type streams have a low gradient, meandering point bar, riffle/pool channels with broad,
well defined floodplains and a high width/depth ratio (i. e. wide/shallow). "C" type streams
are slightly entrenched with well-defined meandering channels.
16
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
• "E" type streams have low gradient, meandering riffle/pool channels with low width/depth
ratios (i. e. narrow/deep). These stream types are highly sinuous with stable, well-vegetated
banks and developed floodplains. "B" type streams are considered to be efficient and stable
streams.
• "F" type streams are gently sloped, relatively wide and shallow, highly entrenched channel
with moderate sinuosity. "F" type channels are characterized by a lack of a developed
floodplain, a meandering channel, and terraces consisting of abandoned floodplains.
Y "G" type streams are moderately to gently sloped, relatively deep and narrow, highly
entrenched, moderately to highly sinuous channel. "G" type channels are characterized by
the lack of a developed floodplain, a meandering channel, and terraces consisting of
abandoned floodplains.
7.4.1 Stream Importance
To aid in alternative analyses and to help determine stream mitigation requirements, the ACOE
designates streams as either important or unimportant. Streams that have perennial flow,
associated wetlands, significant aquatic fauna, or associated Threatened and Endangered species
are generally considered to be important and impacts to these streams would require mitigation.
Intermittent streams may be considered important if the associated wetlands, significant aquatic
fauna, or Threatened and Endangered species criteria are met. Streams designated as unimportant
do not typically require mitigation. Unimportant streams tend to be very small intermittent
channels with undefined bed and bank or excavated ditches that have captured groundwater flow.
ACOE has designated one on-site stream channel (upper reach of S31) as Unimportant because it
is a man-made ditch that has captured groundwater flow and upland runoff from an agriculture
field. This unimportant channel is depicted in Figure 3 and Appendix IV.
7.5 Riparian Buffers
The project study area is within the Tar-Pamlico River Drainage Basin and some jurisdictional
surface waters are may be subject to the Tar-Pamlico River Riparian Buffer Rule (Rule). The
Rule applies to a 50-ft wide riparian buffer directly adjacent to some surface waters in the Tar-
Pamlico River Drainage Basin. This includes intermittent streams, perennial streams, lakes, „
ponds, and estuaries that are depicted on either the most recent version of USGS topographic
maps or county soil survey maps, but does not include jurisdictional wetlands (non-surface
waters) regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Beech Branch, UT Compass Creek,
and several tributaries to these receiving waters are subject to the Rule. Belmont Lake, the lake
located downstream of Wetland 29 and the pond located downstream of Wetland 64 are all
subject to the Rule. Onsite meetings were held with Michael Horan of DWQ on June 14, August
10, and September 1, 2004 in order to investigate several riparian buffer issues. A map depicting
those streams and surface waters subject to the Rule is provided as Appendix IV. DWQ will be
17
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
the agency responsible for reviewing unavoidable riparian buffer impacts resulting from FCRM.
Riparian buffer impacts are described in Section 8.0.
8.0 JURISDICTIONAL EWACTS
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1344), a pen-nit will be
required from the ACOE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United
States." Section 401 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1341) requires each state to certify that state water
quality standards will not be violated for activities which: 1) involve issuance of a federal permit
or license; or 2) require discharges to "waters of the United States." The use of a Section 404
permit requires the prior issuance of the 401 certification. Therefore, the applicant must also
apply to DWQ for 401 certification. This process is typically handled as a joint permit
application to both the ACOE, and DWQ.
The FCRM project will entail unavoidable impacts to riparian and non-riparian PFO, PSS, and
PEM wetlands. Wetland impacts will result from road crossings, golf course fairway
construction, and driving range construction. The types of wetland impacts consist of clear/fill,
clear/remove stumps, clear/leave stumps, and hand clear vegetation. Wetland fill is being
proposed only in those areas where the other types of impacts cannot be used due to safety or
engineering reasons. Wetland impacts associated with road crossings will be filled. Certain
fairway impacts must also be filled to provide for a playable golf course. The FCRM project will
also entail unavoidable impacts to intermittent and perennial stream channels, LUB and PUB
wetlands. Stream impacts will result from road crossings, golf course fairway construction, and
driving range construction.
Residential Lots
No jurisdictional wetland or stream impacts will result from residential lot development. Those
areas that contain wetlands adjacent to lots will be preserved as open space by FCRM. FCRM
will not allow any wetland fill for residential lots.
8.1 Roadway Infrastructure
To develop the FCRM community it was determined that the best and most appropriate location
for the main entrance road should be off of Highway 301. The site for the entrance was chosen
because of the existing traffic light at this location. The club site was chosen to be just to the
north of the entrance to provide easy access to patrons. The road alignment defined the
remainder of the site design in that efforts were made to avoid the buffered streams and wetland
impacts where practicable throughout the project study area. The road network is based on the
concept of a collector road (spine road) running throughout the community with community pods
feeding off of it. To insure access to the golf course and adequate entrances for health, safety,
and welfare of the residents, numerous entrances have been designed into the plan. One entrance
is the existing entrance off of Bishops Road, which serves the southern portions of the
community. The second is to the north off of Red Oak-Battleboro Road, which serves the
northern portion of the community. The third entrance is a fire entrance to the west, and the final
and main entrance is off of Highway 301. This 301 entrance will be the main entrance to the
18
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
community. It was chosen for its ease of access into this community off of this main corridor into
and out of Rocky Mount. Additionally, there is an existing traffic light at this location.
Avoidance and Nfinimization
The appropriate roadway design is critical to allow the remainder of the project study area to be
properly planned and designed. The design team believes that the roadway design presented in
this permit application and report represents the most practicable and least environmentally
damaging alternative while still maintaining the applicant's purpose and need. Completely
avoiding wetland and stream impacts from road crossings is not possible on this property. There
are 83+ acres of on-site wetland, 19,800 feet of stream channel, and 91+ acres of open water
within the boundaries of FCRM. The position of the wetlands and streams in the landscape makes
it virtually impossible to avoid any jurisdictional impacts. The design team has made tremendous
efforts to reduce the amount of unavoidable impacts to wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers.
Road alignments have been modified where feasible. Additionally, the applicant has purchased
additional land in order to reduce the environmental impacts in the vicinity of Wetland 29 and
Stream 11. Without this additional land, the necessary road system would have crossed Wetland
29, which is a relatively high quality system. Crossings have been designed to cross wetlands at
their narrowest point in most instances. Road Crossing 7 has been eliminated completely from
the proposed development plan.
Roadway Impacts
A summary of the road impacts as provided by McBride Hess Design Group and ESI is provided
in this section. The individual roadway impact graphics are provided as Figures 4a-4bb in
Section 13. The individual roadway impact graphics referenced to the roadway impact Key Map
(Figure 4) and the large-scale color key map provided in Appendix IV. Roadway wetland
impacts are labeled as R-Wl, R-W2, etc., and roadway stream impacts are labeled as R-S1, R-S2,
etc. Impacts are also referenced back to the original wetland and stream delineation numbers that
are also provided on the delineation plats in Appendix IV. Details of individual roadway impacts
are provided in Table 1. Typical cross-sections of the proposed culverted crossings are provided
in Section 14 along with the other road impact figures.
Roadway Crossing 1
The main road was routed to the north to avoid Belmont Lake. Its path is parallel to the buffered
stream (S6), which flows into Belmont Lake. The road alignment at this point traverses to the
east of the stream until it reaches the upper end of the buffered stream. The road provides access
to the club site, which is to the northeast. The club's location was chosen for ease of access from
this road and Highway 301. The club location is set so that there is ease of access to the Driving
Range and the first tee box. This is most important for control of golf play. Therefore, the road
was routed to pass between the golf tee box and the stream and its buffer. The buffer is only
slightly encroached upon. As a consequence of avoiding the stream and allowing golf to play
directly from the back of the club, the wetland impact (R-W1) shown is necessary. The split
road, which increases the impact, is necessary for traffic reasons because it is just past the
gatehouse
19
(y bs) ?
pannba?{ r co
u0pe6!1!A co
N N
N
N
?
o
(1bs) 1oedw I
rn
o
0
o
W
N
o
O
N
o
N
0
N
0
O
0
V'
0
O
0
O O
r
(? co
O IT
O to
I-- O
V co
O O
(D V r N co 0 0 0 0 O
E Ja}ing Z auoZ N N N N M V N N N N N N M
m
m
...
N

(14-bs);0edwl 0 0 0
v o 0
oo 0
N 0
oo 0
o 0
(D 0
0 0
0
m
O v o
co N
(D N co
(D
(
o O W d' O O O O
m
CL Ja no auoZ
.4 O M V' M N u) n r M M M co M .a.

N u? to r- co
O
'
N
M
V
#;oedw) LL LL LL LL LL m LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
Ja}4ng peon m
? m
o m
0 m
0 m
0 m
0 m
0 m
0 m
o m
? m
o m
? m
o
0

ams
LO
LO 06 oc)
weaJls D
Ma
O
°N
m
N
N
N
N
N
'O
N W
>
m
aJ00S weaJls h M N oo V
m m ro cu
3004 v u) m to n
( o

(0e)
o a
JaleM uad0 °
. ° m
0
(13 ) loedwi

weaJls

m

i
O

rn
N
M
O
O
N E
1uallpialul n (D m >
luelJodwi
(4) loedwl a?
N 0 o rn o
:
rn
E weaJls (D

(o Lo

o

M
(D

-
leluuaJad
N ?

# uolleaup(]
m
cl)
_ N
(n
N
N
o0
M
V-

O

N
M C
weaJls U) w cn
cl) U) U) cn cn cn u? c c v
N O O N
U) O
c # loedwl 04 Lo (DD m o N ? ?2
o Mpeo? i) ai 19 v OD in i $$ ?
0_ Of o_ ? o' o_ o _ o_
weaJls
m

.ads(
O cO <5
O 0 0 0 0 0
L 0
LL 0
LL 0
LL 0
LL 0
LL 0
LL -
O 0
LL 6
O 0
LL 0
ULL uJ
fn o
LL. O
LL o
LL o
LL
m PULIROM a ,
a a a U)
a LL
a a LL
a LL
a LL
a LL
a. L
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a s
LL
C
O (14-0) aJ00s
W
CO
M
a0
M
co
I-
Q)
M
m
m
co
eD
N
a0
co
W
eD
co
h
O
N
M
N
°D a

O
U luawssass 0
04 r ? 04 op n
e M r
? 0 d N
04 m
- 0
N 0
N N N ? O
? N N N N ?
? 0
N leuo!;Dung O O
m
1 (02) N m
L
a? -
0
o ;elOSi

11H Pa °
o
o w
o
N m 0 (D
10.) ILI r- N O 0 W u) u)
0 (D d' M O m U
Q c
p m
uepedu-uoN o 0 0 - o 0
0 0
0 0 N
0 0
0 0
0 . N m o
0 0 0 0 0 0
m -o w m
cu 'NO (oe) 0) u) O O I? W N N N o o o (D '
4° E a
ueuedlZ
1 { o o E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° 0 0 0 0 . m _
. ..
p
3 a
i m T
- d 0 - s
C ? 3: #uogeaullaa O h h (O m v N M N ?- O CO
a
vv
n
n M
n co
n It
c
D co
n
n
? M
n M
L
n M
n N
? N
co i (D (D
n (D
n m
N m w
c N
o `
L
o PUeIlaM I > > > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ' ' > >
> >
> N
-O m w to
> ? c
c
c
CJ
#;Oedw
l
(„N
M
d
'u7
(D
a
0
m
o
?
N
M
?
u1
fD
h
[0
0
0
N

N
N
N
M
N
'7
N
LO
N
(D
N
I-
N
o0
N
O
N
u)
m

7

0 ul
(C e M e 0 > > >
> > > > >
> >
>
o "I CL o_ Of of 0' 0' Q o of O' G: x o o_
o 0
.
0.
0.
0_
?
o_
O:
o_
o_
o_
o_
o
puepaM o
io
E
u
u
# bulssoJO
u)
(D
h
co
m
°
N
M
'?Y
u)
(D
f?
N
O
O
N
M
N
V
N
u)
N
(D
N
h
N
W
N
N
N
O
M _

M
N
M
M
M M
N
(n o
N 0
V
O
LL
(n
(n
T PeOa N M V N N N * a
m a
2D
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
location. No other options were looked at for this crossing because of the need for access to the
golf tee from the club and the desire to avoid the stream impact. Impacts to Wetland 10 (W10)
have been minimized as much as practicable. This impact is to a PF01/4 non-riparian wetland.
Refer to Table 1 for impact details.
Roadway Crossing 2
Stream and wetland impacts are necessary to provide access around the community with a
collector road. This roadway impact was designed so as to minimize the environmental impact.
This collector road must be installed to provide secured access to the residents. This impact
location was chosen because it was deemed the least environmentally significant area in the
stream channel. At this location the stream has little or no vegetation surrounding it because it is
passing under a 60' right of way for a major overhead power line. The crossing location allows
for the golf hole as well as the road to pass under the power lines without conflict to the existing
power poles. There is stream impact; buffer impact and wetland impact at this location but the
impact to the vegetation is minimal. Impacts to W7 and S2a have been minimized as much as
practicable. This crossing will be piped and filled. This impact is to a PSSI riparian wetland.
Refer to Table 1 for impact details.
Roadway Crossing 3
Wetland and stream impacts will result from Roadway Crossing 3. The purpose of roadway
crossing 3 is to provide access to the areas north of the second and first holes. Access had to be
provided between Holes 1 and 2. Additional access was provided to the north of Hole 2, but
both are required to for safety purposes. Hole number 1 has been routed to avoid a stream and
buffer impact. To minimize excessive drive time between holes, Hole number two's tee box is
located within 400 feet of the number one green. In accordance to PGA guidelines any distance
over 600 feet is deemed excessive. Note that there are numerous locations on this golf course
where drive distances are excessive and therefore wherever possible the drive distances have been
kept to within PGA guidelines. This location is one such distance. To minimize wetland
disturbance on hole number 2 the tee box has been moved away from the buffered stream.
However this crossing is necessary to allow access to the north. It has been designed as far up on
the stream as possible yet still allowing for curve radii that meet the City of Rocky Mount
standards. Impacts to W7 and S3 have been minimized as much as practicable. The crossing will
be piped and filled. This impact is to a PF01/4 riparian wetland. Refer to Table 1 for impact
details.
Roadway Crossing 4
Wetland impacts will result from Roadway Crossing 4. The road alignment in this area was
designed to allow for golf home sites to back up to the golf course. At this location there is a
wetland impact but no stream impact. If the road were moved further south, the wetland impact
would decrease, however, a stream impact would then result also. Impacts to streams have been
avoided on this crossing and the wetland impact has been minimized. This impact is to a PF01/4
non-riparian wetland. The crossing will be filled. Refer to Table 1 for impact details.
21
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
Roadway Crossing 5
Wetland impact will result from Roadway Crossing 5. The least environmentally sensitive area in
this wetland system appears to be under the existing power line. Access to the lots east of the
power line is necessary. The cul-de-sac was placed under the power line to maxiinize lot layout.
Impacts to Wetland 9 (W9) have been minimized. This impact is to a PSSI non-riparian wetland.
This area will be filled. Refer to Table 1 for impact details.
Roadway Crossing 6
Wetland 4 (W4) has been verified as an isolated wetland by the ACOE. Portions of this wetland
are proposed for fill to allow for street construction north of Red Oak-Battleboro Road. ACOE
does not currently regulate discharges to isolated wetlands. DWQ is currently responsible for
regulating impacts to isolated wetlands. This impact is to a PFO1 non-riparian wetland. Refer to
Table 1 for impact details.
Road Crossing 7
Road Crossing 7 has been eliminated from the FCRM development plan.
Road Crossing 8
Various areas of impact were investigated for this crossing. Because of city requirements for
road intersection alignments and the design criteria for neo-traditional community development,
this intersection must be developed as shown. It is envisioned that a trail system will be built
along the back of the lots to the east of Wetland 2 (W2) as an amenity to the community.
Additionally, it is envisioned that a park will be built in the area marked open space. This impact
will be piped and filled. These impacts are to PF0I/4 non-riparian wetlands. Refer to Table 1
for impact details.
Road Crossing 9
Wetland 3 (W3) will be affected by roadway crossings. Two access points are required for safety
purposes. Road Crossing 9 involves a wetland crossing and a stream crossing. Shifting the
crossing to the south would meet minimum radii criteria and shifting the crossing to the north
would place the road directly adjacent to the northern boundary of the project study area. The
lots, which are presently shown to the east, will not be platted in the buffer as per the
development guidelines. The impact will be piped and filled. This impact is to a PFOl riparian
wetland. Refer to Table 1 for impact details.
Road Crossing 10 &11
Road Crossings 10 and 11 continue the connectivity along the north property boundary and will
affect Wetland 1 (W1) and Wetland 2 (W2). This crossing location was chosen to because it
took advantage of the existing farm road crossing and minimized wetland impacts. Being that the
farm road has already impacted the connectivity of W1 and W2, it was deemed the most
appropriate location for the access point. These impacts are to PF01 riparian wetlands. The
impact will be piped and filled. Refer to Table 1 for impact details.
22
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
Road Crossing 12
This crossing is on the main collector road for the community. Various locations were
investigated for this road crossing. Upon design of the community it was determined that three
elements needed to cross or touch this tributary (S11); the P hole, the 16''' hole and a road
crossing. Impacts to Wetland 29 (W29) originally exceeded one acre under the original design
plan. Avoidance and minimization opportunities were investigated and in June 2004, 210 acres
were purchased to the west to allow for a more open development plan and to avoid and minimize
jurisdictional impacts. The necessary golf course routing became the driving force for the
location of Hole 16 and Road Crossing 12. Hole 3 has to be in close proximity to Hole 4, which
is now on newly purchased land. Hole 3 now stops short of impacting any jurisdictional areas.
Road Crossing 12 was shifted to the northwest with the purchase of the additional land. This
allowed the potential impacts in W29 to be avoided. Currently, only a stream crossing of SI I is
proposed. Refer to Table 1 for impact details.
Road Crossing 13
A small finger of Wetland 25 (W25) will be affected by Road Crossing 13 in order to avoid a
larger wetland impact to the northeast. In order to preserve the wetlands to the northeast the
access to this area of the community must run along this ridgeline. The road splits between the
15th fairway and the 16'h tee. The area located to the southwest of this impact will be left as open
space to allow access from the 15`h fairway to the 16'b tee. This impact is to a PF01 non-riparian
wetland. The impact will be piped and filled. Refer to Table 1 for impact details.
Road Crossing 14
These two peninsulas were created in 1978 to allow access from the southern side of the lake to
the northern side of the lake. Ford's Colony will use the existing peninsulas to provide access as
originally intended in 1978. There are jurisdictional impacts at this crossing location, but no
other option for crossing the lake exists that would incur a smaller impact. This crossing, along
with Crossings 18 & 19, are being required by the City of Rocky Mount for safety issues. This
crossing will also serve as access for golf carts from Hole 13 to Hole 14. The crossing will be
designed as a clear span structure with bench seats at the ends of the peninsulas, which will allow
for movement of aquatic life and small boat traffic from the main lake to the small lake. The
design of the clear span will be designed so as ii not impact or restrict normal water flows. The
sides of the peninsulas will be formed with concrete sides and a stone/brick look veneer as
necessary to provide adequate road width. This crossing cannot be completely avoided and
jurisdictional impacts at this crossing have been minimized as much as practicable. In addition to
the open water (LUB) that will be spanned, this impact is to a PFO1 riparian wetland. Refer to
Table 1 for impact details.
Road Crossing 15
This crossing is necessary for the completion of the collector road. This location was chosen to
minimize the impact to Wetland 47 (W47). Shifting to the north would incur a greater impact and
23
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
reinforced and that a water level control structure is built. The ability to control the water level
will improve downstream water quality. Currently the water sheet flows across a low spot along
the southern edge of the dam and is causing severe erosion. Improving the dam will involve a
0.19-acre impact to Wetland 25 (W25) and a 50-foot stream impact to Stream 12 (S12).
Approximately 5000 ft' of the buffer to S12 will be affected by new dam construction, but should
be exempt. Because the hole plays across the edge of the pond there will be a buffer impact of
700 feet along the northeast edge of the pond resulting in created or restored wetlands. The
location and routing of this hole routing is essential to the flow of the golf course as there is no
other way to get back to the north side of the pond/wetlands without greater environmental
impact. This particular hole has been redesigned several times; however, the need to reconstruct
the existing dam is the primary reason for the unavoidable impacts. W19 is a PFO 1 riparian
wetland and S 12 is a perennial stream. Details of individual golf course impacts are provided in
Table 2.
Hole 17
There is no wetland, stream, or buffer impact associated with Hole 17.
In an attempt to create a golf course that measures at least 7,000 yards from the back tees, and
because it is best to have longer holes towards the end of the course, the original routing for Hole
17 proposed that the green be 150 feet closer to the existing power lines. This original design
would have caused an impact to Wetland 8 (W8). By redesigning additional yardage on other
holes, the design team was able to move the green and entire golf hole out of W8. The design
team completely avoided wetland impact by redesigning this and other holes. Details of
individual golf course impacts are provided in Table 2.
Hole 18
As is the case with the first hole, the finishing hole is the best opportunity to leave a memorable
impression on the golfer. Nearly all-great golf courses (such as the TPC at Sawgrass, Pebble
Beach, etc) have spectacular closing holes and the setting of Hole 18 at FCRM has great potential
by being located along the northern edge of Belmont Lake. The preferred alignment for the 18`h
hole has the golfer standing on the tees and seeing the entire hole stretch out in front of him/her,
with Belmont Lake playing along the entire right side. The hole would be the site of high drama.
The downside of the original scenario is that the buffer impact was too great.
The current design proposes a compromise. The tee shot will still play across a neck of the pond,
requiring clearing and stumping (no fill) 0.32 acres of Wetland 22 (W22) and 500 feet of pond
buffer impact resulting in wetland creation or restoration. Additional portions of the buffer along
the 18th fairway will be converted into created or restored wetlands to enhance the existing
wetlands adjacent to Belmont Lake. W22 is a PFO1 riparian wetland.
Additionally there will be two, 20' stream buffer impacts for golf cart bridges. One will be
between the tees and the fairway and the impacts associated with this cart path crossing are
accounted for under Sewer Crossing 1 (SCI). The other cart path crossing is between the green
36
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
and the clubhouse and crosses Stream 6 (S6). The bridged crossing will span approximately 22
feet of S6, which is perennial. This crossing will also affect 2200 ft2 of buffer along S6. Details
of individual golf course impacts are provided in Table 2.
Practice Range
The typical practice range occupies a larger chunk of land (450' x 1200') than any other feature
on a golf course. Finding an area this large on the site without wetlands was nearly impossible.
After discussing many options, the team selected a location in the northwest corner of the site. It
satisfies many of the requirements for a successful range in that it is located near the clubhouse, it
is easily accessible and partially in view of drive-by traffic on US 301. The practice range at
FCRM is vital to the financial success of the golf course. We anticipate that it will attract a great
deal of play; people who do not have time to play a full round of golf but want to practice, parents
bringing their children to the range to teach them how to play, and players warming up before a
round on the course.
Constructing the practice range as proposed will impact 0.56 acre of Wetlands 12, 13, and 14
(W12, W13, W14). These wetlands run through the center of the range and will have to be
cleared and filled to make the practice range work. It is not an option to have a practice range
with a wetland in the middle as hundreds of balls would be lost each day and replacing the balls
would be too costly. W12, W13, and W14 are PFO1 riparian wetlands. The practice range will
also impact approximately 565 feet of Stream 5 (S5). This is the largest stream impact resulting
from golf course construction' however it is unavoidable for the practicable construction of a
driving range and practice area. S5 is an intermittent channel. Details of individual golf course
impacts are provided in Table 2.
Shifting the practice range to the north would cross the project boundary and shifting to the south
would encroach onto the multi-family use portion of the development. There are no practicable
alternatives for the practice range when the necessary criteria are taken into account.
8.2.1 Summary of Wetland Impacts from the Golf Course
Wetland impacts associated with the golf course consist of fill, clear and remove stumps, and
clear and leave stumps. A total of 1.12 acres of riparian wetlands and 1.21 acres of non-riparian
wetlands will be filled by golf course construction. Approximately 0.68 acres of wetlands will be
cleared and the stumps will be removed and 0.85 acres will be cleared and the stumps will beleft
in the ground. These areas that are cleared will be allowed to revegetated with low-growing
wetland vegetation that may be routinely maintained by hand clearing to keep it at the proper
height.
The functional assessment provides a numerical score for wetlands ranging from 0-41. Those
wetlands with scores of 20 or higher represent the medium to high quality wetlands. Wetlands
with scores less than 20 represent lower quality wetlands that may have been previously affected
by anthropogenic activity. Some non-riparian wetlands scored higher than some areas of riparian
wetlands depending on the condition of the assessed area. Approximately 2.36 acres of impact
37
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
are proposed for wetlands that scored 20 or greater as compared to approximately 1.5 acres of
impact proposed for wetlands that scored less than 20.
Compensatory mitigation will be required for filling the 1.12 acres of riparian and 1.21 acres of
non-riparian wetlands. Mitigation will also be required for those forested wetland areas that are
cleared and converted to low-growing herbaceous wetlands, however the mitigation ratios for this
wetland conversion will typically be lower. No impacts to isolated wetlands result from golf
course construction.
The individual wetland impacts resulting from the golf course are depicted in graphics provided
in Figures Sa-5w. The impact areas have been labeled according to the Golf Course Key Sheet
(Figure 5) and the large-scale plan in Appendix IV. Table 2 contains the wetland impact data
for the golf course. Each impact area is labeled according to the key map and color site plan.
Additional information includes: riparian or non-riparian, impact size, impact type, and wetland
type (PFO, PSS, PEM).
8.2.2 Summary of Surface Water Impacts from the Golf Course
Approximately 717 linear feet of stream channel will be affected as a result of the golf course and
practice range at FCRM. The stream impacts comprise 585 feet of intennittent stream and 132
feet of perennial stream. All of the intermittent stream footage that is proposed for impact has
been deemed important by ACOE. Approximately 82 feet of the perennial stream total and 20
feet of intermittent channel will be spanned through cart path bridging and no direct in-water
impacts will result. Mitigation will be required for 50 feet of perennial channel and the 565 feet
of intermittent channel. The golf cart bridges will be elevated above the bankfull elevation of
each crossed stream to avoid a damming effect under heavy flow. Typical cross-sections of the
cart path bridges are included in Section 14 with the other golf impact figures.
The average ACOE score for these streams that are proposed for impact is as follows: intermittent
= 50.5 ; perennial = 59.3. The average DWQ score for those streams that are proposed for impact
are as follow: intermittent = 22.5; perennial = 29.1. These scores indicate a slightly higher
functional value for the on-site perennial streams; however, the intermittent channels are also
important to the overall aquatic ecosystem. The primary differences between the on-site
perennial and intermittent streams as related to these quantitative scores are floodplain
development, in-stream habitat, and hydrologic source and hydroperiod.
The individual surface water impacts resulting from golf course construction are depicted in
graphics provided in Figures 5a-5w. The impact areas have been labeled according to the Golf
Course Key Sheet (Figure 5) and the large-scale plan in Appendix IV. Table 2 contains the
surface water impact data for the golf course. Each impact area is labeled according to the key
map and color site plan. Additional information in the table includes stream type, impact amount,
and buffers.
38
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
8.3 Sewer Line Impacts
Sanitary sewer service for FCRM is to be provided by the City of Rocky Mount. Stocks
Engineering, PA is responsible for designing the master sewer layout for FCRM. The sewer
system has been designed to take full advantage of the site's existing topography and anticipated
infrastructure (i.e. roads). The main truck of the sewer system will closely follow the spine road
and ancillary roads throughout FCRM. This sewer system will serve FCRM; however, it will
ultimately become a City of Rocky Mount outfall line that will serve the region north of FCRM.
The design team has identified six potential wetland crossings resulting from construction of the
sewer system. The anticipated jurisdictional impacts resulting from these crossings are depicted
in Figure 6 and 6a - 6f. Sewer impacts are detailed in Table 3a. The sewer line will be installed
at a depth of 18 - 20 feet below the ground surface in most locations. Because of this depth, a
wider maintenance easement is necessary. During construction, the necessary easement will be
30 feet wide. After construction, the maintained easement will be 20 feet wide. The easement
will be allowed to revegetated with low-growing herbaceous species, however woody species
must be maintained and not allowed to grow within the easement.
Table 3a. Sewer Line Impacts at FCRM.
Sewer
Crossing Temporary
Riparian
Wetland
Impacts (ac) Temporary
Non-Riparian
Wetland
Impacts (ac) Temporary
Perennial
Stream
Impacts (ft) Temporary
Intermittent
Stream
Impacts (ft) Zone 1
Buffer
Impacts
(ft2) Zone 2
Buffer
Impacts
(ftz)
SCl 30 2764 1215
SC2 0.01 30 2066 1229
SC3 0.20 30 1812 1208
SC4 0.01
SC5 0.03
SC6 0.01
Totals 0.21 0.05 60 0 6642 3652
8.4 Isolated Wetland Impacts
Approximately 0.19 acre of isolated wetland impacts will result from construction of the road
system throughout FCRM. The isolated wetland impacts associated with this project are depicted
in Figure 4 and 4a-4bb. No isolated wetland impacts result from golf course construction.
Impacts to less than 0.33 acre of isolated wetlands east of I-95 are deemed permitted in
accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.1305(b) and do not require written approval from DWQ as long
as all conditions of 15A NCAC 2H.1305 (b) are followed. These conditions include:
Appropriate erosion and sediment control practices that equal or exceed those required bu
the NC Division of Land Resources or their local delegated program for the
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act should be in full compliance with all
specifications....
39
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
2. All erosion and sediment control practices placed in isolated wetlands or isolated
classified surface waters must be removed and the original grade restored within two
months after the Division of Land Resources or local delegated program determines that
the land-disturbing project is complete...
3. Live or fresh concrete shall not come into contact with surface water until the concrete
has hardened...
4. Measures shall be taken to ensure that the hydrology of any remaining isolated wetland or
isolated classified surface waters is not affected by the discharge.
However, DWQ retains discretionary authority to review these isolated wetland impacts since the
total project impacts exceed 1/3 acre. Mitigation for the isolated wetland impacts may also be
required under their discretionary authority due to the project's size.
All wetland and stream impacts resulting from the road crossings, golf course, and sewer line are
summarized in Table 3b.
Table 3b. Wetland and Stream Impact Summary for FCRM.
Riparian Non- Wetland Isolated Perennial Intermittent
Wetland Riparian Clearing Wetland Stream Stream Impact
Fill (ac) Wetland (ac) Fill (ac) Impact (ft)
Fill (ac) (ft)
Road 1.6 1.0 0.19 398 * 620
Crossings
Golf Course 1.12 1.21 1.53 0 132 ** 585 **
Sewer Line 0.25 60
Totals 2.72 2.21 1.78 0.19 590 1205
Amount 2.72 2.21 1.78 To be 398 1185
Requiring determined
Mitigation
Amount Not 192 20
Requiring
1
Mitigation
* 50 linear teet will be spannea ana snouia noL requuc nilag kill.
* * 82 feet of perennial and 20 feet of intermittent to be bridged
***Stream impacts from sewer crossings are temporary; mitigation not required.
8.5 Riparian Buffer Impacts
The existence and extent of buffered streams were established from the 1:24,000 USGS
topographic map, the most recent version of the NRCS Soil Survey, and by field visits conducted
by Mike Horan of DWQ's Raleigh Regional Office. Impacts to the buffers were avoided and
40
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
minimized along with the impacts to wetlands and streams as described in the avoidance and
minimization narrative discussion of Sections 8.1 and 8.2.
Most of the proposed impacts to the riparian buffers are from road crossings. None of the road
crossing impacts exceed 150 feet of stream or 1/3 acre of buffer. There are also proposed impacts
from cart path crossings and utility crossings. Cart path crossings will be perpendicular. Road
crossings that impact 40 linear feet or less of riparian buffer are Exempt from the Rule. Road
crossings that impact greater than 40 linear feet but equal to or less than 150 linear feet or one-
third of an acre of riparian buffer are Allowable. Mitigation is anticipated only for Road Crossing
2.
All utility impacts will be from perpendicular crossings or will remain outside of Zone 1 of the
buffer. Perpendicular crossings that disturb equal to or less than 40 linear feet of riparian buffer
with a maintenance corridor equal to or less than 10 feet in width are Exempt. Perpendicular
crossings that disturb 40 linear feet or less of riparian buffer but have a maintenance corridor
greater than 10 feet in width are Allowable. No mitigation is anticipated for these impacts.
The original golf course plan for this project proposed riparian buffer impacts exceeding 5,000
linear feet. A copy of one of the original golf course plans is provided in Appendix VI. The
team's initial meeting with Mr. Bob Zarzecki of DWQ indicated that considerable avoidance and
minimization of buffer impacts should be demonstrated in order to have a plan that is permittable.
Specifically, buffer impacts proposed at Holes 16 and 18 were not permittable as originally
designed. The team has redesigned the golf course at least twice since the initial meeting in order
to reduce and/or eliminate certain riparian buffer impacts, including Holes 16 and 18. However,
certain impacts to these buffers are unavoidable and necessary for playability and safety. Mr.
Harlan Britt and Mr. Todd St. John of Kimley-Horn met with DWQ once again on September 28,
2008 to review a new set of plans for the golf course. Holes 16 and 18 were specifically
discussed and the current plan for Holes 16 and 18 was received favorably by DWQ during that
meeting.
At Holes 6, 16, and 18, the team has proposed creating and restoring wetlands that will either
result in direct impacts in the buffer or relocation of existing buffers.
• Hole 6 - There is an existing linear pond with no adjacent forest vegetation. The
proposal is to create a marsh wetland around this feature. It is anticipated that the
buffer will remain in approximately the same location, and that the wetland will
extend beyond the buffer limits as shown in the plans.
• Hole 16 - A marsh wetland will be extended into the pond adjacent to the green.
This will require fill in the pond. It is anticipated the buffer will begin at the rooted
herbaceous vegetation and extend landward, thereby replacing the existing buffer.
Additional impacts to the buffer will occur through the reconstruction of the existing
dam.
41
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
• Hole 18 - In the area adjacent to the tees, it is proposed that wetland and stream
restoration be conducted in the finger of the lake between the proposed tee and
landing area. According to the NRCS soil survey the area beneath the water as well
as the proposed landing area contain Bibb soils. A marsh wetland with herbaceous
vegetation is proposed for the area directly between the tee and landing areas. This
will establish a new buffer lake-ward on both sides as shown in the plans. The
wetland adjacent to the area in which the stream will be reestablished will be planted
with swamp forest wetland species such as bald cypress, swamp tupelo, and green
ash. Additionally, a stormwater wetland will be established outside of the new
proposed buffer in the landing area as shown in an area that is currently upland.
Another marsh wetland with herbaceous species will be created adjacent to the green,
establishing a new buffer lake-ward of the existing buffer.
The remainder of the impacts will be from dam construction/maintenance and wetland
creation/restoration. Wetland creation/restoration with riparian buffer is an exempt activity.
Table 4a summarizes all of the buffer impacts resulting from road crossings, golf course
construction, and the ser line crossings. Table 4b summarizes impacts to pond buffers from the
golf course.
42
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
Table 4a. Riparian Buffer Impacts at FCRM. These impacts result from road crossings,
..o,-t nath rrnQ6naa_ dnm reenn%truction. and sewer line crossings.
Road
Crossing
# Zone 1
Impact
ftZ Zone 2
Impact
ft2 Hole
# Zone 1
Impact
ft2 Zone 2
Impact
ft2 Sewer
Crossing
# Zone 1
Impact
ftZ Zone 2
Impact
ftZ
2* 677 2039 3 1800 600 1 2764 1215
3 3060 2040 5 4046 1159 2 2066 1229
9 4140 2760 9 2324 1545 3 1812 1208
12 3600 2400 16** 3000 2000
14 2625 3938 18 1320 880
17 5241 4602
18 3660 2440
20 7080 4720
26 1920 1280
28 3480 2320
30 3000 2000
31 3060 2040
32 3000 2000
33 3000 2000

Total-ftZ 47,543 36,579 12,493 6,184 6,642 3,652
Total-ac 1.09 0.84 0.29 0.14 0.15 0.08
*Butfer mitigation required for Koaa Lrossmg G. Mreaui UUllUl UGlUW ualll CLJ_iVA.LGU UY Ualll
reconstruction.
TahlP 4h_ Riparian Buffer Impacts Resultine from Wetland Restoration/Creation.
Hole No. Zone 1 Pond Buffer
Impact (ftZ) Zone 2 Pond Buffer
Impact (ft) Total
6 25,500 17,000 42,500
16 21,000 14,000 35,000
18 15,000 105000 25,000
Total 61,500 41,000 102,500
9.0 MITIGATION
Mitigation has been defined in NEPA regulations to include efforts which: a) avoid; b) minimize;
c) rectify; d) reduce or eliminate; or e) compensate for adverse impacts to the environment [40
CFR 1508.20 (a-e)]. Mitigation of wetland impacts is recommended in accordance with Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines of the CWA (40 CFR 230), FHWA step-down procedures (23 CFR 777.1 et
seq.), mitigation policy mandates articulated in the USACE/EPA Memorandum of Agreement
43
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
(MOA), Executive Order 11990 (42 FR 26961) (1977), and USFWS mitigation policy directives
(46 FR 7644-7663) (1981).
Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, the USACE/EPA MOA, and Executive Order 11990, stress
avoidance and minimization as primary considerations for protection of wetlands. Practicable
alternatives analysis must be fully evaluated before compensatory mitigation can be discussed.
USFWS policy also emphasizes avoidance and minimization. However, for unavoidable losses,
the USFWS recommends that mitigation efforts be based on the value and scarcity of the habitat
at risk.
ACOE has a wetlands policy based on "no net loss" of function, and generally requires mitigation
to offset wetland impacts greater than 1/10 acre and perennial stream channel impacts greater
than 300 linear feet.
9.1 Mitigation Procedure
Avoidance -Jurisdictional stream and wetland areas are present within the project study area.
During the planning and design phase of a project, efforts should be made to avoid impacts to the
greatest extent practicable. It may not be possible to avoid all impacts to jurisdictional areas, due
to design constraints. The FCRM design team has gone to great lengths to avoid wetland, stream,
and buffer impacts where practicable. Certain unavoidable impacts are necessary to fulfill the
applicant's purpose and need. Details of how certain jurisdictional impacts have been avoided
have been provided in Sections 8.1 and 8.2. Additional land was purchased by the applicant to
avoid certain impacts. Residential lots were also removed from certain areas to avoid
jurisdictional impacts.
Minimization - The design team has minimized jurisdictional impacts to wetlands, streams, and
buffers. Road crossings have been designed to meet City of Rocky Mount and NCDOT criteria.
Fill slopes have been designed to minimize the amount of fill needed at wetland crossings.
Wetlands are being crossed at their narrowest points as safety and engineering practices allow.
Bottomless culverts will be used to minimize the impact to aquatic life at stream crossings.
Roads are crossing streams in a perpendicular manner as safety and engineering practices allow.
Bridges are proposed over the Belmont Lake and Beech Branch crossing east of the dam. Cart
paths will utilize bridges to cross stream channels in order to avoid and minimize direct impacts
to the aquatic ecosystems. Construction of the golf course is also promoting impact minimization
by proposing that some wetlands be cleared and not filled. In most cases, these cleared wetlands
will be allowed to revegetate or will be planted with low-growing herbaceous vegetation. This
herbaceous vegetation will be maintained by hand as necessary. This practice of clearing a
forested wetland, but not filling it, is a good alternative to filling in the wetland completely. The
resulting herbaceous wetland, although not a mature forested system, will still be a very
beneficial aquatic ecosystem. Desirable wildlife habitat and water quality improvement should
result from these converted wetland systems.
44
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
Compensatory Mitigation - The applicant is proposing a variety of compensatory mitigation
measures to offset the unavoidable loss of jurisdictional areas resulting from construction of
FCRM.
9.2 Compensatory Mitigation Plan
Mitigation will be required for the following impact amounts:
• 2.72 acres of riparian wetland fill
• 2.21 acres of non-riparian wetland fill
• 1.78 acres of wetland clearing (i.e. conversion from forested to herbaceous)
• 398 feet of perennial channel
• 1,185 feet of intermittent channel
• 2,716 ftZ of riparian buffer
WK Dickson is preparing the Compensatory Mitigation Plan for FCRM. This plan will be
submitted to the ACOE under separate cover.
9.3 Additional Mitigation Activities
Storm-Water Management
FCRM is planning to use environmentally sound storm-water management throughout the
proposed project site. The current plan for controlling storm-water and pollution runoff from the
developed portion of the site includes the use of sand filters, bio-retention areas, grassed swales,
wet or dry detention basins, and possibly other infiltration devices. It is the goal of FCRM to
meet or exceed the 85% removal of total suspended solids (TSS) from the proposed development
as outlined by the Stormwater Best Management Practices published by NCDENR. However,
due to the extensive design costs involved with producing a formal storm-water plan for the
subject site, we are proposing that DWQ issue the 401 Certification, subject to the approval of the
formal storm-water plan to be submitted under separate cover by the FCRM team. A properly
constructed stormwater management system will serve to replace some of the functions lost
through the unavoidable impacts. However, at a minimum the following will be provided
(Kimley-Horn 2004):
• For areas of development that exceed 30% such as multi-family areas, the club house
area, and maintenance area, 85% TSS removal will be provided using methods
appropriate for NSW waters.
• All other unfiltered stormwater runoff will be made to flow in a diffuse manner through
protected buffers or will be treated for at least 85% nitrogen removal before discharging
through a vegetated buffer.
Refer to Appendix VII for a discussion on the stormwater management practices to be
implemented by FCRM during and after construction.
45
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
Wildlife Habitat Enhancement
Several wildlife enhancement activities are being investigated and will likely be incorporated into
the final FCRM development plan. The project site currently provides wildlife habitat for various
terrestrial and aquatic game and non-game species. Specific wildlife enhancement activities that
are envisioned for the FCRM community include, but may not be limited to, the following:
• Green space and conservation areas that will serve as wildlife corridors
• Providing osprey nesting platforms along Belmont Lake
• Placing nesting boxes for wood ducks in suitable habitat areas
• Maintaining some edge habitat along preservation and mitigation areas
Natural and anthropogenic disturbances always result in some degree of habitat fragmentation.
There is a general agreement that a wildlife corridor is a somewhat linear area of natural
vegetation that connects larger areas of natural vegetation (Hudson 1991). These corridors are
intended for transitional use and need not contain all the habitat elements necessary for long-term
wildlife survival or reproduction. However, many times the larger corridors do contain the
necessary elements for the entire life cycle of certain species. The overall FCRM development
plan will utilize greenspace and the undisturbed forested wetlands and uplands as wildlife
corridors. Edge habitat will be maintained through the preservation of stream buffers and other
riparian areas. Additionally, we anticipate that the wetland mitigation activities will also enhance
wildlife habitat on the site.
Sedimentation Control
Comprehensive erosion and sediment control practices will be applied throughout the project to
protect aquatic resources. Each lot will have an approved erosion and sedimentation control plan
prior to construction. For mass grading, construction of roads, and other infrastructure, control
measures may including: use of on-site mulch, triangular silt dikes in ditches, appropriate fabric
and matting in ditches, prompt stabilization of disturbed areas, multiple baffles in sediment
basins, flashboard risers, and Faircloth skimmers (Kimley-Horn 2004).
Forest Conservation
The mature forests at FCRM are a special asset to the project. Properly managed. Existing trees
can provide an aesthetic to both the golf course and the neighborhood. Several techniques have
demonstrated effectiveness for both individual specimen trees and larger stands, such as: serious
tree protection devises, aeration wells, protect critical root zones, proper root pruning, and deed
restriction/covenants (Kimley-Horn 2004).
10.0 PROTECTED SPECIES
10.1 Federal Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or officially Proposed
(P) for such listing, receive protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 US 1531 et
seq.) as amended. The most recent list prepared by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
46
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
(USFWS) is dated January 29, 2003. This list indicates that three endangered species have ranges
considered to extend into Nash County. Table 5 lists these three species. Records held by the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NIP) were reviewed by ESI in August 2004 to
determine if any federal protected species have been documented from the project study area or
the surrounding vicinity.
Table 5. Federal Protected Species for Nash County, North Carolina
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Habitat
Present Biological
Conclusion
Red-cockaded
woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered No No Effect
Dwarf wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered Yes Unresolved
Tar spinymussel Elliptio steinstansana Endangered Yes Unresolved
Red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) - The red-cockaded woodpecker is 7 to 8.5 inches long, has
a black head, prominent white cheek patch, and a black-and-white barred back. Males often have
red markings (cockades) behind the eye, but the cockades may be absent or difficult to see (Potter
et al. 1980). Primary habitat consists of mature to over-mature southern pine forests dominated
by loblolly, long-leaf (P. palustris), slash (P. elliotii), and pond (P. serotina) pines (Henry 1989).
Primary nest sites for RCWs include open pine stands greater than 60 years of age with little or
no mid-story development. Nest cavity trees tend to occur in clusters, which are referred to as
colonies (USFWS 2003). Optimal foraging habitat is comprised of open pine stands with large
pines 60 years old or greater, low densities of small or medium pines, sparse or no hardwood
midstory, and various species of bunchgrass for groundcover (FWS 2003). However, open pine
or pine/mixed hardwood stands over 30 years of age are considered potential foraging habitat
(Henry 1989). Pine flatwoods or pine-dominated savannas, which have been maintained by
frequent natural fires, serve as ideal nesting and foraging sites for this woodpecker. Development
of a thick understory may result in abandonment of cavity trees. The woodpecker drills holes into
the bark around the cavity entrance, resulting in a shiny, resinous buildup around the entrance that
allows for easy detection of active nest trees (Henry 1989).
A review of NET records revealed one (1) red-cockaded woodpecker element occurrence (EO)
that was last observed in January 1979. The location of this EO is near Milepost 144 on the east
side of I-95, approximately 1 mile south of Battleboro. This location is approximately 2.0 miles
from FCRM.
ESI biologists conducted a detailed habitat assessment of the FCRM site in August 2004.
Suitable nesting and foraging habitat does not occur within the project study area. Areas of
mixed hardwood/pine forest are largely dominated by hardwood species such as red maple,
47
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
American beech, tulip poplar, and sweetgum. These areas also contain a dense understory and a
developed hardwood midstory. A few areas of mixed hardwood/pine forest are dominated by
loblolly pine; however, these areas also have a developed midstory. The lack of true pine forest
and the presence of a developed midstory within the pine/hardwood forest eliminate the FCRM
site as potentially suitable nesting and foraging habitat for the RCW.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Dwarf wedgemussel - The dwarf wedgemussel rarely exceeds 1.5 in (3.8 cm) in length. The
outer shell is brown or yellowish brown with faint green rays, and the nacre is bluish or silvery
white. The shells of the females are somewhat wider than those of males. This species typically
inhabits streams with moderate flow velocities and substrates varying in texture from gravel and
coarse sand to mud with little silt deposition (USFWS 1993). It is generally found in association
with other mussels but is never very numerous. As with other mussel species, the dwarf
wedgemussel has suffered from excess siltation in streams and rivers and from the toxic effects of
various pollutants entering waterways.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
Tar spinymussel - The Tar spinymussel is a small, sub rhomboidal mussel that grows to
approximately 2.5 in (6.4 cm) in length. The external shell of the adult is smooth, orange-brown
to dark brown, and ornamented by one or two rows of short spines [to 0.2 in (0.5 cm) long]. The
shell is thicker on the anterior end and thinner on the posterior end. Preferred habitat of the Tar
spinymussel includes relatively fast-flowing, well-oxygenated, circum-neutral water over a silt-
free, non-compacted, gravel/coarse sand substrate (USFWS 1992). NET records indicate that the
Tar spinymussel has been documented in Swift Creek near NC 48 and I-95 as recently as June 26,
2004. This site is approximately 2.5-3.0 miles from FCRM.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
Environmental Services, Inc., (ESI) has completed a potential habitat assessment for the federal
Endangered dwarf wedgemussel and Tar spinymussel for two reaches of Beech Branch and its
tributaries located on the FCRM property. The first reach investigated is approximately 500 feet
in length and is located on the eastern side of the subject property, extending from US 301
upstream to the dam located on Beech Branch. The channel in this reach is approximately 8 feet
wide with well-defined pools and riffles that are 4 feet and 1 foot in depth, respectively. The
substrate in this reach consists primarily of silt and sand with mats of decomposing organic
material in deeper pools. Streambanks within this reach were generally stable and forested with a
closed canopy and prevalent herbaceous vegetation. Root mats and submerged logs are common
within the stream channel.
The second reach investigated is approximately 5,000 feet in length and is located on the western
side of the subject property and extends from the just above the headwaters of Belmont Lake
upstream to the western property boundary. The channel in this reach varies from a wide shallow
channel to a narrow and deep channel in response to changes in slope and sediment input from
48
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
surrounding agricultural areas. The wide shallow portions of the channel are generally 6 feet
wide with riffles less than 1 foot in depth and pools 3 feet in depth. These portions are
experiencing heavy sedimentation and have a substrate dominated by unconsolidated silt and
sand. The narrow and deep portions of the channel are more similar to conditions observed
below the dam. The channel is generally 8 feet wide with pools 4 to 6 feet in depth and riffles
less than 1 foot deep. These portions of the channel have undercut banks, extensive submerged
root mats, and a substrate dominated by sand with some gravel. Streambanks within this reach
range from generally stable to very unstable and are forested. Jurisdictional wetlands are located
adjacent to the streambanks for much of this reach.
The results of these stream assessments indicate that the reach below the dam on Belmont Lake
represents potential habitat for both mussel species. The reach upstream on the lake is a much
more impaired system that has been affected by siltation, unstable stream banks, and primarily by
the downstream damming of Beech Branch to form Belmont Lake. A species-specific survey for
both the dwarf wedgemussel and the Tar spinymussel is currently being coordinated by ESI and
will be completed by the end of November 2004. The main access road for FCRM will cross
Beech Branch just below the dam. Streamside vegetation will be cleared for this crossing. A
survey is being conducted to determine the presence or absence of these two mussel species in
this reach of Beech Branch due to the potential effect on the system from the removal of
streamside vegetation. The results of the species-specific survey will be submitted to the ACOE
and USFWS upon completion.
10.2 Federal Species of Concern
The 29 January 2003 USFWS list also includes a category of species designated as "Federal
Species of Concern" (FSC). The FSC designation provides no federal protection under the ESA
for the species listed. However, these species are listed because they may attain federally
protected status in the future. The presence of potential habitat within the project study area has
been evaluated in Table 6 for the FSC species listed for Nash County.
Table 6. Federal Species of Concern (FSC) (29 January 2003 USFWS list).
Common Name Scientific Name State
Designation A Potential Habitat
Pinewoods shiner Lythrurus matutinus SR YES
"Carolina" madtom Noturus furiosus pop. 2 SR (PT) YES
Yellow lance Elliptio lanceolata E YES
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni E YES
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa E YES
Green floater Lasmigona subviridis E YES
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria dana SR NO
Sandhills bog lily Lilium pyrophilum SR-L NO
Carolina least trillium Trillium pusillum var. pusillum E NO
49
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
A E-Endangered, SR-Significantly Rare, L-The range of the species is limited to N.C. and adjacent states,
T-Threatened, PT-Proposed Threatened. Updated April 2003 (NCNB? 2003).
B Proposed habitat based extensively on Amoroso and Finnegan (2002), LeGrand et al. (2001), and other
literature previously cited.
c Historic record
NIP records indicate that the yellow lance, Atlantic pigtoe, and yellow lampmussel (all
freshwater mussels) have been documented with 2.0 miles of the FCRM site; specifically between
SR 1003, I-95, and NC 48. Potential habitat occurs on the FCRM site, primarily below the
Belmont Lake dam. No special protection is afforded to these species at the present time.
10.3 State-listed Species
Species of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and plants with the North Carolina status of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), and Special Concern (SC) receive limited protection under the
North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant
Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202.12 et seq.). State listed species that have been documented
within 3.0 miles of FCRM and that receive limited protection include: Neuse River waterdog
(Necturus lewisi), triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata), yellow lance (Elliptio lanceolata),
Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa), creeper (Strophitus
undulates), notched rainbow (Villosa constricta), a mayfly (Macdunnoa brunnea). All of these
state listed species were documented in Swift Creek near NC 48 and I-95. Swift Creek is in a
separate watershed than Beech Branch. None were documented on the FCRM site. Beech
Branch does represent potential habitat for some of these species; however, only the federal
species are afforded any protection as it relates to this project.
11.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC INTEREST FACTORS
11.1 Physical/Chemical Characteristics and Anticipated Changes
Substrate -Earthmoving will occur on the FCRM site; however, no significant changes to the
general substrate are anticipated other than what is necessary for construction and landscaping.
Currents, Circulation, or Drainage Patterns - Wetland and stream impacts are proposed;
however, no significant changes to the overall circulation and drainage of the FCRM site are
anticipated.
Suspended Particulates and Turbidity - The approved Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan
will be strictly enforced to maintain state water quality standards during construction.
Water Quality - Overall water quality on the FCRM site are expected to increase as a result of a
comprehensive stormwater management plan and wetland mitigation areas. Downstream water
quality will not be affected by FCRM due to the state-of-the-art stormwater and bioretention
practices that will be implemented during site development. Improvements to overall water
quality are discussed in Appendix VII.
50
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
Flood Control Functions -Alterations to the site will not result in a reduction of flood control
functions.
Storm, Wave and Erosion Buffers - No Applicable
Aquifer Recharge - Preliminary assessments indicate that the FCRM project will not have an
effect on aquifer recharge.
Baseflow - Preliminary assessments indicate that the FCRM project will not have an effect on
baseflow.
11.2 Biological Characteristics and Anticipated Changes
Special Aquatic Sites - Certain unavoidable impacts to wetlands and streams will result from
this project; however, impacts have been minimized as much as practicable.
Habitat for Fish and Other Aquatic Organisms - No significant habitat degradation is
anticipated as a result of the FCRM project. Appropriate culverts and pipes will be used for road
crossings that allow for aquatic life passage. Typical profiles of the culverts to be used are
included in Section 14 with the road impact graphics.
Wildlife Habitat - No significant habitat degradation is anticipated as a result of the FCRM
project. Fragmentation will occur; however, those species occurring on the site are adaptable to
fragmented landscapes. Wildlife corridors and open space will be left undisturbed throughout the
FCRM project.
Endangered or Threatened Species - Protected species issued have been addressed in this
report.
11.3 Human Use Characteristics and Impacts
Existing and Potential Water Supplies - FCRM should have no effect of existing or potential
water supplies.
Recreational or Commercial Fisheries - No effect.
Other Water Related Recreation - No effect.
Aesthetics of Aquatic Ecosystem - No effect.
51
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
Parks, National and Historic Properties, etc. - ESI is coordinating with SHPO regarding the
Hart Farm property located on the western boundary of FCRM. Additional information on this
issue is forthcoming.
Traffic/Transportation Patterns - The design team does not anticipate any issues with traffic
resulting from FCRM.
Energy Consumption/Generation - No effect.
Navigation - No effect.
Safety - No effect.
Air Quality - No effect.
Noise - No effect.
Historic Properties - There is one historic property (Hart Farm) associated with the FCRM site.
ESI archaeologists are consulting with SETO regarding this historic property.
Land Use Classification - The design team and applicant have dealt with zoning issues.
Economics - FCRM will provide a major economic lift to the Nash County and Rocky Mount
area through the construction process and the newly created tax base. This information is
provided in Appendix I.
Property Values - Property values in the vicinity may increase as a result of the project;
unknown at this time.
Regional Growth - FCRM is not intended as driver of regional growth. It is intended to service
the retiree community who choose not to relocate to Florida.
Tax Revenues - The project will provide tax revenue as shown in Appendix I.
Employment - The project will provide employment as shown in Appendix I.
Public Facilities - Not applicable.
Business Activity - Not applicable.
Prime and Unique Farmland - No effect.
Food and Fiber Production - No effect.
52
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
Water Quantity - No effect.
Mineral Needs - No effect.
Consideration of Private Property - No effect.
Community Cohesion - FCRM will not impact existing community cohesion.
Community Growth and Development - FCRM will not affect future community growth and
development.
Relocations - No relocations are anticipated.
Recreation - Not applicable.
11.4 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
The FCRM design team has not identified any significant secondary and cumulative impact
possibilities associated with this project. Cumulative wetland impacts amount to approximately
6.7 acres out of a total of 83.3 acres on the site. The remaining +/- 76 acres will be left
undisturbed and may be placed under a conservation mechanism. The FCRM project is not
intended to be a driver of new development. The project vicinity currently has many of the
necessary amenities such as food and shopping. Downstream water quality is expected to
improve as a result of this project because of the numerous stormwater BMPs that will be
constructed.
12.0 CONCLUSION
The FCRM project has been designed to be environmentally sensitive while maintaining the
applicant's basic purpose and need. Wetland impacts consist of 4.93 acres of fill and 1.78 acres
of wetland clearing. Stream impacts total approximately 1795 linear feet. The compensatory
mitigation plan will help offset unavoidable impacts. Approximately 76 acres of riparian and
non-riparian wetlands may be available for preservation. Wildlife enhancement techniques will be
implemented into the overall site development and wildlife corridors will be maintained in
undisturbed portions of the property. It is the team's desire to meet or exceed all state and federal
regulatory requirements in order to construct an environmentally sensitive and world-class golf
community.
53
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
13.0 REFERENCES
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Goblet, and E.T. Laroe. 1979. Classification of Wetland and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USFWS/OBS
79/31. U. S. Department of Interior. 131 pp.
Henry, V. G. 1989. Guidelines for Preparation of Biological Assessments and Evaluations for
the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region,
Atlanta, Georgia. 13pp.
Horton, J.W. and V.A. Zullo. 1991. The Geology of the Carolinas. The University of Temlessee
Press, Knoxville, TN. 406 pp.
Husdon, Wendy E. 1991. Landscape Linkages and Biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
196 pp.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2004. Environmental Design Approach. Raleigh, NC. 2 pp.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison 111. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles
of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
264 pp.
National Research Council. 2002. Riparian Areas - Functions and Strategies for Management.
National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. 428 pp.
[NCDEM] North Carolina Division of Environmental Management. 1992. Administrative Code
Section: 15A NCAC 2B .0100 - Procedures for Assignment of Water Quality Standards
and 15A NCAC 2B .0200 - Classifications and Water Quality StandardsApplicable to
Surface Waters of North Carolina. N.C. Department of Environmental, Health and
Natural Resources (DENHR), Raleigh. 34 pp.
[NCDWQ] North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2003. Basinwide Assessment Report-Tar
River Basin. N.C. Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
201 pp.
[NCDWQ] North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2004a. North Carolina Waterbodies
Listed by County. N.C. Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
http//h2o enr state nc us/bims/reports/basinsandwaterbodies/Nash.pdf.
Accessed in August 2004.
[NCDWQ] North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2004b. 2004 Tar-Pamlico Basinwide
Water Quality Plan. N.C. Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
54
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
178 pp + appendices. http://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/basinwide/tWam draft dec2003.htm1.
Accessed in August 2004.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 408 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Inc., Pogosa Springs, CO.
365 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation; NC Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Raleigh, NC. 325 pp.
Seaber, P.R., F.P. Kapinos and G.L. Knapp. 1987. Hydrologic Unit Maps. US Geological
Survey - Supply Paper 2294.
[USDA] United States Department of Agriculture. 1989. Natural Resources Conservation
Service. Soil Survey of Nash County, North Carolina. 127 pp.
[USFWS] Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Tar Spinymussel Recovery Plan: First Revision.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta,
GA. 34 pp.
[USFWS] U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Dwarf Wedge Mussel Recovery Plan. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Hadley, MA. 52 pp
[USGS] United States Geological Survey. 1963. Drake, NC 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and
Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery plan for the red-cockaded
Woodpecker (Picoides borealis): second revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Atlanta, GA. 296pp.
55
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
14.0 FIGURES
Figure 1: Location Map
Figure 2: Soils Map
Figure 3: Wetlands and Streams
Figure 4: Road Crossing Key Map
Figures 4a-4bb: Individual Road Crossing Impact Maps
Figure 5: Golf Course Impact Key Map
Figures 5a-5w: Individual Golf Course Impact Maps
Figure 6: Sewer Line Crossing Key Map
Figures 6a -6£ Individual Sewer Line Impact Maps
56
C-
4
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
524 S. NEW HOPE ROAD
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27610
919-212-1760 • FAX [phone]
www.esmc.cc
October 11, 2005
Cyndi Karoly
NC Division of Water Quality
401 /Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Re: Fords Colony at Rocky Mount
DWQ Project No. 20041801
Cyndi:
G?{ -I201

Environmental Services, Inc., (ESI) is submitting this information on behalf of Ford's
Colony at Rocky Mount (FCRM). The golf cart crossing between Hole 18 and the Club
House parking lot has been slightly revised so that it no longer crosses a stream channel.
This change reduces impacts to important stream channels by 22 feet.
The revised path will have a 20-foot wide easement through the buffer, however the
actual clearing limits will be approximately 10 feet wide based on information provided
by FCRM. This reduces buffer impacts by approximately 1,200 square feet when
compared to the original crossing proposed in the application.
Please note that I have included two figures; one from the original application and the
new cart path figure provided by the FCRM team. The team assumes that this minor
revision is acceptable to the DWQ since impacts are being reduced. Please call me if you
have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
Jeff Harbour
Senior Project Manager
Enclosures
Cc: Chuck Thompson
Mike Stocks
PD R@[N0WF.
5
O C T 1 3 2005
DENR - WATER QUALITY
,NETLANDS AND STQRMWATER BRANCH?
JACKSONVILLE 0 ST. AUGUSTINE 0 COCOA 0 JUPITER • DESTIN • SAVANNAH • ATLANTA 0 RALEIGH 0 CHARLOTTE 9 ASHEVILLE

ISO I S COLON JT
A T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T
Hole No. 18
Wetland Impact No. Amount (ac)
Stream Impact No. G-S7 Amount (ft) 22
Buffer Impact No. G-BF5 Amount (ft2) 2200
iT-I0 J QI S®n 7
'
'S:
694 Cooledge Avenue
Atlanta, Georgia 30306
404.873.3558 (o)
404.873.3559 (fl
scale: V= 200'-0'
N
Buff
TMp
'lone
0-1RoI : z
cY
Ecosystem
PROGRAM
September 21, 2005 Corrected p
Jeff Harbour
Environmental Services, Inc. D
524 S. New Hope Road SF? 2 7 1005
Raleigh, NC 27610 DEN
WET R' WATER UALI
Project: Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount County: Nash ?O STAIR
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NC EEP) is willing to
accept payment for impacts associated with the above referenced project. Please note that this decision does not assure that
the payment will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts. It is the responsibility of the
applicant to contact these agencies to determine if payment to the 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 will expire. It is the applicant's responsibility to send
copies of the 404/401/CAMA permits to NC EEP. Once NC EEP 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) (Linear Feet) Zone 1 Zone 2
Unit (Sq. Ft.) (Sq. Ft.)
Riparian Non-Riparian Coastal Marsh Cold Cool Warm
Tar-Pamlico 2.75 2.45 0 0 0 1,199 0 0
03020101
Upon receipt of payment, EEP will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation for the permitted impacts
up to a 2:1 ratio, (buffers, Zone 1 at a 3:1 ratio and Zone 2 at a 1.5:1 ratio). The type and amount of the compensatory
mitigation will be as specified in the Section 404 Permit and/or 401 Water Quality Certification, and/or CAMA Permit. The
mitigation will be performed in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the N. C. Department of
Environment and Natural Resources and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers dated November 4, 1998.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Carol Shaw at [phone].
Sincerely,
illiam D. Gilmore, PE
Director
cc: Cyndi Karoly, Wetlands/401 Unit
Andrea Wade, USACE - Raleigh
Eric Kulz, DWQ Regional Office - Raleigh
File
RestD?rr2?... ... Prot", oar .ftate ? E
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 91 9-71 5-0476 / www.nceep.net
jj
•..
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
524 S. NEW HOPE ROAD
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27610
919-212-1760 • FAX [phone]
www.esmc.cc
September 7, 2005
Ms. Jean Manuele
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
Re: Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount
Nash County, NC
ACOE Action ID. 200421182
Jean:

r N 7 I ?I

Environmental Services, Inc., (ESI) is submitting this information on behalf of Ford's Colony at
Rocky Mount (FCRM). It is my understanding that you have requested a final impact summary
documenting the changes that have occurred since the original application was submitted in
November 2004. The original impacts were highlighted in the summary sheet provided with the
original application package. Subsequent revisions have been documented in letters to the ACOE
dated 28 March 2005 and 4 August 2005 (see attached copies). This letter documents the
currently proposed impacts resulting from the project. I have included several maps depicting the
most recent revisions.
The following list documents the current project impacts proposed under the FCRM Section 404
application.
• Riparian wetland impact - 2.19 ac (road crossings & golf course): Riparian impacts
in the original application were 2.72 ac. The 28 March 2005 revision reduced riparian
impacts by 0.53 ac. Remaining riparian impacts total 2.19 ac, which is a decrease from
the original application and public notice.
• Non-riparian wetland impact - 1.99 ac (road crossings & golf course): Non-riparian
impacts in the original application were 2.21 ac (1 ac for roads and 1.21 ac for golf
course). Road Crossing 25 and 33 have been removed from the site plan resulting in an
impact reduction of 0.22 ac. Remaining non-riparian impacts total 1.99 ac, which is a
decrease from the original permit application and public notice.
Wetland clearing - 1.01 ac (golf course and sewer line crossings): Wetland clearing
impacts in the original application was 1.78 ac. Wetland clearing associated with Hole
13 has removed, thus reducing impacts by 0.85 ac. Three sewer line crossings have been
added since the original application resulting in an additional 0.08 ac of temporary
impact. Total impacts resulting from wetland clearing and temporary wetland impacts
total 1.01 ac, which is a decrease from the original permit application and public notice.
JACKSONVILLE 0 ST. AUGUSTINE 0 COCOA 0 JUPITER 0 DESTIN 0 SAVANNAH • ATLANTA 0 RALEIGH 0 CHARLOTTE • ASHEVILLE
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
• Isolated wetland fill - 0.19 ac: No change since original application.
• Perennial stream impact - 398 linear feet: Perennial stream impacts in the original
application were 590 linear feet. Approximately 192 linear ft does not require mitigation
due to 60 ft being temporarily affected by sewer line crossings and 132 ft being spanned.
There has been no change in the perennial stream impacts since the original permit
application and public notice.
• Intermittent stream impact - 801 linear feet: Intermittent impacts in the original
application were 1205 linear ft. This was reduced by a total of 384 ft pursuant to the
March 28, 2005 revision resulting in 821 ft of impact. Of this amount, 20 ft will be
bridged and does not require mitigation resulting in 801 linear feet, which is a decrease
from the original permit application and public notice.
• Riparian buffer impacts resulting from the golf course remain unchanged at 18, 677 ft2
(0.43 ac). Riparian buffer impacts from road crossings have decreased by 0.11 ac
resulting in a total impact of 79, 122 ft2 (1.82 ac). Temporary riparian buffer impacts
from sewer crossings have increased by 0.05 ac resulting in a total of 12, 632 ft2 (0.29
ac).
Overall, both wetland and stream impacts have been reduced since the original application
submittal. Perennial stream and isolated wetland impacts have remained unchanged. The
attached maps depict the most recent changes including: Sewer Line Crossings 7-9, Hole 13,
Road Crossings 25 and 33. Previous changes were submitted to ACOE on 28 March 2005 and 4
August 2005. Road Crossings 36 and 37 described in the 28 March revision have since been
removed from the site plan. I trust this information will help you with final permit preparation.
Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions. As always, thank you for your
assistance on this project.
Sincerely,
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
Jeff Harbour, PWS
Director of Ecology
Attachments
Cc: Cyndi Karoly - NCDWQ
Mike Stocks
Tim Hess
Drew Mulhare
a°
0
E
O
U
N
N
N
L
O
'C
L
U
E
Rrn
v
L
E
•
rn
N
9
cn
m

O
O
0
N
cq
a1
?I
O
a
O
U
O
w
Z
O
? w
Y
Y
U
O
H
Q
U
w
w
W
w
W
}a}
z F-
a. 0- n
FORD'S COLONY
A T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T

IMPACT NUMBER 7 WETLAND IMPACT AREA
IMPACT TYPE SEWER IMPACT BUFFER 1 IMPACT AREA
BUFFER 2 IMPACT AREA
0.02 acres
NA
NA
Stocks Engineering, P.A.
O Civil Engineering • Hydrology/ Hydraulics
Land Planning and Development
0
scale: 1'=100'-T
1073 Bullard Court • Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 • 919.954.8200 (o) • 919.954.8299 (f) 9 [e-mail]
° I E
FORD'S COLONY\\
A T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T Stocks Engineering, P.A.
IMPACT NUMBER 9 WETLAND IMPACT AREA 0.03 acres Civil Engineering • Hydrology/ Hydraulics
Land Planning and Development
IMPACT TYPE SEWER IMPACT BUFFER 1 IMPACT AREA 0.02 acres D
BUFFER 2 IMPACT AREA 0.03 acres 0
3 9
25
\? 40 - \
V, 4
4
45
44
Trash Pic 42
- \ - \ ,
43
1, -k
98
we ' ?s _ ; 5 48
` BMP / 97 Buff Re,,,1 = . 9'?4
N. ffer o e-'1,20l?F ?
J
?- 1-?. r ?-111%. "A
96
` \`\/ir 137 rr?`
130 ??rr 95 BMP
129 94
ILI e
131 93 ?
28 L - _ _ \ < ri\? -- ---
\ r
n w w
1 I 32 j ? ?? \ ?'crr 92
r=-- g
611 L 133 i 91
---__?
1 1 134 1 1 139--
L
5 ? --__ 90 r
scale: I'm I DO'-0'
1073 Bullard Court • Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 • 919.954.8200 (o) • 919.954.8299 (1] [e-mail]
v bb
C7 ?
H
Z

0I
O Z
O CI
01
w

'
} a
o
Y ?

U
w
ww
L5 a-
z F-

O U
QQ
? Q
?f
0
4a
,
C- j 1Y. 4
i.-
,
11
j
,
??- -.?a X00

1
f,1
)f
.??•, I ? It ' (? /??
,
s
FORD'S COLONY NOTE: Impact # 25 removed from calculations. Area no longer deliniated as wetland McBride
A T R O C K Y M O U N T as per Jean Manuale / Corps of engineers representative ( June 2005 Hess
Design
IMPACT NUMBER 25 WETLAND IMPACT AREA 0.19 acres Group, P.A.
IMPACT TYPE ROAD CROSSING BUFFER IMPACT AREA NA Landscape Architecture
Campus Planning
STREAM IMPACT AREA NA 0 Land Planning
31
r 94 3A \ \
,4.
95
96
V ^ l'.
84 ?._
2 86
/ 4,
3 _- 85
i.. 4" 84
\\'7
scale: V =1OV-0'
1073 Bullard Court • Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 • 919.954.8200 (o) • 919.954.8299 (f) • [e-mail]
FORD'S COLONY NOTE: Impact # 33 is no longer needed. McBride
A T R O C K Y M O U N T Road removed from design. Hess
Design
IMPACT NUMBER 33 WETLAND IMPACT AREA 0.03 Group, P.A.
IMPACT TYPE ROAD CROSSING BUFFER IMPACT AREA 0.11 acres 0 Landscapekchitecture
Campus Planning
STREAM IMPACT AREA NA 0 Land Planning
r-
C--' 1
-?. 1 ?1 1 1
VIA, i 13
14
15
1 W 16 ,1,
17
18
\\ °?
107
20 21
/ 106 BMP
105
\ / / \ - ?•
04
103
101 I1 ?- ..
114 j? v .,,? ?`? 1 I / 1 1?=?, .?
/ 11 I1
100 11 99 1
115 J L 98
\ 116.
scale: 1, =10OW
1073 Bullard Court • Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 • 919.954.8200 (o) • 919.954.8299 (f) • [e-mail]
4
N_
II
y V ¢ J y ' ?}}
ri rJ'
\1 i
C
r I
41
? PP?i
f.r V
m /
,o
J a a
y ?
I
tl f+ h
}
MTH
"?y t
I W
`?-
J
M j
?? ?
r-
v ui v ''? C ? v 1 j
z xv,
1
a.? I
41
7
CO)
C) 0
Y
T \ ? O
v C.7
T? Y
V1 V
LU
^ w LIJ
LU
z ¢
O ~ ~ ~
?T F- Q Q Q
CL EL n
FORD'S COLONY
A T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T
HOLE NUMBER 13
IMPACT NUMBER 13 and 14
IMPACT TYPE GOLF COURSE
IMPACT AREA 0.07 acres
ohnson
`. -1 x,
694 Cooledge Avenue
NOTE: Impact # 13 removed from calculations. Atlanta, Georgia 30306
404.873.3558 (o)
Area no longer delineated as wetland 404.873.3559 (fl
as per Jean Manuale / Corps of engineers
representative / June 2005
scale: 1'= 200'-0"
?' I1arc1 28 2005 *
Mr. Kevin Yates O f??
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
Re: Addendum to Section 404 Application
Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount
Nash County, North Carolina
Kevin:
Environmental Services, Inc., (ESI) is submitting the enclosed information on behalf of Ford's
Colony at Rocky Mount (FCRM). Recent acquisition of an additional parcel of land along the
northern boundary of the original FCRM site has allowed the design team to reconfigure the
proposed clubhouse, chipping green, and driving range. This redesign has reduced overall
jurisdictional wetland impacts by approximately 0.53 acres and stream impacts by approximately
384 linear feet. A breakdown of these reductions is provided below along with the minimal
amount of new impact resulting from acquiring this new parcel.
Jurisdictional Impacts at Original Driving Range Location
Wetlands 12, 13, & 14: 0.56 acres of fill
Stream 5: 565 linear feet of impact
Jurisdictional Impacts at New Driving Range Clubhouse and Chipping Green Location
0.026 acre of wetland fill
181 linear feet of non-buffered stream impact
These new impacts are depicted on the attached maps as Road Crossings 34, 35, 36, & 37. There
is an overall reduction in wetland and stream impacts at FCRM in the amounts of 0.53 acres of
wetlands and 3 84 linear feet of stream.
ESI is respectfully requesting that ACOE incorporate this information into the Section 404
application as an addendum and include it in the pending mitigation plan public notice. Please
call me if you have any questions or comments regarding this submittal.
Sincerely,
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
Jeff Harbour
Senior Project Manager
Attachments
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
524 S. NEW HOPE ROAD
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27610
919-212-1760 • FAX [phone]
www.esinc.cc
August 4, 2005
Jean Manuele
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
Re: Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount
Action ID. 200421182
Jean:
Environmental Services, Inc., (ESI) is submitting the enclosed information on behalf of
Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount (FCRM). This submittal documents the recent changes
that have occurred at FCRM with regard to the road crossing that was removed from
jurisdiction and two additional sewer line crossings that have been included in the site
development plan.
As you are aware, wetlands associated with Road Crossing 25 were removed from Corps
of Engineers (COE) jurisdiction during a previous site inspection. Removal of this
impact resulted in a 0.19-acre reduction in non-riparian wetland impacts. Stocks
Engineering has determined that two additional sewer line crossings are necessary at
FCRM. These two additional crossings (Sewer Impact 7 & 8) are shown on the attached
drawings. The crossings will result in 0.02 acre of impact to Wetland 53 and 0.03 acre of
impact to Wetland 67. Both impacts will involve temporary disturbance to non-riparian
wetland areas. Therefore, overall non-riparian wetland impacts have been reduced by
0.14.
The list below outlines the progression of Section 404 wetland impacts from the original
permit application through this current submittal to COE.
• November 2004 - Original application submitted to Kevin Yates of COE with the
following wetland impacts: 2.72 ac riparian and 2.21 ac non-riparian. These
amounts were in the original public notice.
• March 2005 - Addendum to the original application submitted to Kevin Yates
documenting a 0.53-ac reduction in riparian wetland impacts and a 384-foot
reduction in stream impacts (copy attached).
JACKSONVILLE 0 ST. AUGUSTINE 0 COCOA • JUPITER • DESTIN • SAVANNAH • ATLANTA • RALEIGH 0 CHARLOTTE • ASHEVILLE
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
• June 2005 - Road Crossing 25 revised to show no jurisdictional impact resulting
in a reduction of non-riparian wetland impact by 0.19 ac.
• August 2005 - Two new sewer line crossings resulting in 0.05 ac of non-riparian
impact. Please refer to attached drawings.
Based on these revisions, current wetland impacts requested under the FCRM Section
404 application include 2.19 ac of riparian impact and 2.07 ac of non-riparian impact.
Stream impacts have not changed since the March 2005 addendum submitted to Kevin
Yates.
Please call me if you have any questions or comments regarding this minor revision to
the FCRM plan. As always, thank you for your assistance on this project.
Sincerely,
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
Gu
Jeff Harbour, PWS
Senior Project Manager
Enclosure
FORD'S COLONY
A T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T
IMPACT NUMBER 7 WETLAND IMPACT AREA 0.02 acres
IMPACT TYPE SEWER IMPACT BUFFER 1 IMPACT AREA NA
BUFFER 2 IMPACT AREA NA

r

Stocks Engineering, P.A.
Civil Engineering • Hydrology/ Hydraulics
EA Land Planning and Development
0
scale: 1'=100'-(r
1073 Bullard Court • Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 • 919.954.8200 (o) • 919.954.8299 (0 • [e-mail]
FORD'S COLONY
A T ROC KY M O U N T Stocks Engineering, P.A.

IMPACT NUMBER
8 WETLAND IMPACT AREA 0.03 acres E meedng • Hydrologyl Hydraulics
Civil
dNannirgand?eveloPment
IMPACT TYPE SEWER IMPACT BUFFER 1 IMPACT AREA NA
BUFFER 2 IMPACT AREA NA
1
I % C1
\ \
A, I
? r \ \?,-?. \\ / `?i it ?
?-? BMP
1 7T6
scale- 1' = l W-T
1073 Bullard Court • Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 • 919.954.8200 (o) • 919.954.8299 (f) • [e-mail]
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
524 S. NEW HOPE ROAD
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27610
919-212-1760 • FAX [phone]
www.esinc.cc
August 4, 2005
Jean Manuele
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
Re: Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount
Action Ill. 200421182
Jean:
Environmental Services, Inc., (ESI) is submitting the enclosed information on behalf of
Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount (FCRM). This submittal documents the recent changes
that have occurred at FCRM with regard to the road crossing that was removed from
jurisdiction and two additional sewer line crossings that have been included in the site
development plan.
As you are aware, wetlands associated with Road Crossing 25 were removed from Corps
of Engineers (COE) jurisdiction during a previous site inspection. Removal of this
impact resulted in a 0.19-acre reduction in non-riparian wetland impacts. Stocks
Engineering has determined that two additional sewer line crossings are necessary at
FCRM. These two additional crossings (Sewer Impact 7 & 8) are shown on the attached
drawings. The crossings will result in 0.02 acre of impact to Wetland 53 and 0.03 acre of
impact to Wetland 67. Both impacts will involve temporary disturbance to non-riparian
wetland areas. Therefore, overall non-riparian wetland impacts have been reduced by
0.14.
The list below outlines the progression of Section 404 wetland impacts from the original
permit application through this current submittal to COE.
• November 2004 - Original application submitted to Kevin Yates of COE with the
following wetland impacts: 2.72 ac riparian and 2.21 ac non-riparian. These
amounts were in the original public notice.
• March 2005 - Addendum to the original application submitted to Kevin Yates
documenting a 0.53-ac reduction in riparian wetland impacts and a 384-foot
reduction in stream impacts (copy attached).
JACKSONVILLE • ST. AUGUSTINE 0 COCOA 0 JUPITER 9 DESTIN 0 SAVANNAH • ATLANTA 9 RALEIGH 0 CHARLOTTE • ASHEVILLE
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
• June 2005 - Road Crossing 25 revised to show no jurisdictional impact resulting
in a reduction of non-riparian wetland impact by 0.19 ac.
• August 2005 - Two new sewer line crossings resulting in 0.05 ac of non-riparian
impact. Please refer to attached drawings.
Based on these revisions, current wetland impacts requested under the FCRM Section
404 application include 2.19 ac of riparian impact and 2.07 ac of non-riparian impact.
Stream impacts have not changed since the March 2005 addendum submitted to Kevin
Yates.
Please call me if you have any questions or comments regarding this minor revision to
the FCRM plan. As always, thank you for your assistance on this project.
Sincerely,
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
Jeff Harbour, PWS
Senior Project Manager
Enclosure
FORD'S COLONY
A T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T
IMPACT NUMBER 7 WETLAND IMPACT AREA
IMPACT TYPE SEWER IMPACT BUFFER 1 IMPACT AREA
BUFFER 2 IMPACT AREA
0.02 acres
NA
NA
Stocks Engineering, P.A.
civil Engineering • Hydrology/ Hydraulics
Land Planning and Development
0
scale: V= 100'-T
1073 Bullard Court • Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 * 919.954.8200 (o) • 919.954.8299 (f) • [e-mail]
FORD'S COLONY
A T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T
Stocks Engineering, P.A.
IMPACT NUMBER 8 WETLAND IMPACT AREA 0.03 acres civil Engineering • Hydrology/ Hydraulics
Land Planning and Development
IMPACT TYPE SEWER IMPACT BUFFER 1 IMPACT AREA NA
BUFFER 2 IMPACT AREA NA
i
' -777n'
.
r
41
:•
i
-- -
87 - I
ti
BMP?
scale: 1' =100'-0'
1073 Bullard Court 9 Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 • 919.954.8200 (o) • 919.954.8299 (f) • [e-mail]
March 28, 2005
Mr. Kevin Yates COPY
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
Re: Addendum to Section 404 Application
Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount
Nash County, North Carolina
Kevin:
Environmental Services, Inc., (ESI) is submitting the enclosed information on behalf of Ford's
Colony at Rocky Mount (FCRM). Recent acquisition of an additional parcel of land along the
northern boundary of the original FCRM site has allowed the design team to reconfigure the
proposed clubhouse, chipping green, and driving range. This redesign has reduced overall
jurisdictional wetland impacts by approximately 0.53 acres and stream impacts by approximately
384 linear feet. A breakdown of these reductions is provided below along with the minimal
amount of new impact resulting from acquiring this new parcel.
Jurisdictional Impacts at Original Driving Range Location
Wetlands 12, 13, & 14: 0.56 acres of fill
Stream 5: 565 linear feet of impact
Jurisdictional Impacts at New Driving Range, Clubhouse, and Chipping Green Location
0.026 acre of wetland fill
181 linear feet of non-buffered stream impact
These new impacts are depicted on the attached maps as Road Crossings 34, 35, 36, & 37. There
is an overall reduction in wetland and stream impacts at FCRM in the amounts of 0.53 acres of
wetlands and 384 linear feet of stream.
ESI is respectfully requesting that ACOE incorporate this information into the Section 404
application as an addendum and include it in the pending mitigation plan public notice. Please
call me if you have any questions or comments regarding this submittal.
Sincerely,
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
Jeff Harbour
Senior Project Manager
Attachments
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
524 New Hope Road
Raleigh, NC 27610
919-212-1760 / Facsimile 919-212-1707
www.esinc.cc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Cyndi Karoly
FROM: Jeff Harbour
DATE: August 4, 2005
R0@R19w[MD0
A U G .9 ?`05
WEN WATER (UALITY
RE: Fords Colony DWQ#04-1801
Attached is a letter I have submitted to the Corps documenting a minor change on the Ford's
Colony at Rocky Mount plan. I am submitting this same information to you in the event it may
be needed for the pending Section 401 certification.
DEPARTMENT OF THEARMY -1L E Copy
Wilmington District, Corp. Engineer
Pon Office Box 18990
Wilmington, N= Carolina 28402-1890
Action 9) No. 200421182 N-b. 12, 2004
PUBLIC NOTICE
Ford's Colony at Rock Moup4 One Ford's Colony Drive, Rocky Mount. NC 27809, has
applied for a Department ofthe Many (DA) permit TO FILL 398 LINEAR FEET OF
PERRENIAL STREAM CHANNEL. 1,185 LINEAR FEET OF INTERMITTENT STREAM
CHANNEL THAT EXHIBITS IMPORTANT AQUATIC FUNCTION, AND TEMPORARILY
IMPACT 60 LINEAR FEET OF PERREMAL STREAM CHANNEL. THE APPLICANT
ALSO PROPOSES TO FILL 2.72 ACRES OF RIPARIAN WETLANDS, 2.21 ACRES OF
NON-RPARIAN WETLANDS, AND 0.19 ACRES OF ISOLATED WETLANDS,
ADJACENT TO BEECH BRANCH, FOR THE COSTRUCf1ON OF A ROAD NETWORK (32
ROAD CROSSINGS), 19 HOLE GOLF COURSE WITH DRIVING RANGE, AND SEWER
LIKE NETWORK, ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED
FORD'S COLONY AT ROCKY MOUNT (FCRM) RESIDENTIAL GOLF COMMUNITY.
SPECIFICALLY, THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF
THE 04TERSECTION OF SR 1534 (BATTLEBORO ROAD) AND U.S. HIGHWAY 301, IN
ROCKY MOUNT, NASH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. Please reference Action 0)
199103070.
The following description of the work is Ukm f doe provided by the applicant. The
applicant was Previously w0mrized on September 15, 1993, fur a Department ofthe Amy
Permit to discharge 1.14 area of fill into wetlands associated with development of the Bchrom
Farms subdivision. FCRM Proposes to djoin the existing Belmont Farms subdmium. Plana
submitted with the application show the proposed placement of rill macsial into warm of the
United State subject to our regulatoryauthority pursuant to Section 404 of the Cl- Winer Ad.
The mad inbatmt,mre designed for FCRM includes 32 ..it -ingk inspecting
juriadictiorW water of tht, United States, including wetlands. The primary toad s- as the
rosin tran"ohnion enmdor, with the other proposed roads diverging utfthe main condor to
rve the residents] """"'tics, golfcoure, and clubhouse, a Dawn on the utschcd plain.
A mW of 1.6 amen ofriparim wetlands, 1.0 nest, of non-riparian wetlands, and 0.19 aoce of
imined wdl.=would be impacted by road construction. In addition, the ttensponation
infiastmcture would impact 349 linear feet ofpcresmW atrcam and 620lineer fed of intenmitond
ahem clumnal, which exhibits important aquatic function, would be impacted by the proposed
rota inframucturc.
[)EC 0 71004
.-M 0
Juriadiclies s) impacts asmciated with the drvelopmem of the golf course would involve
the filling ofa taut of 1.12 awes of ripni. wetlands and 1.21 acres ofnon-riparian wdads for
golf-rem addrivmg range annroamn. A. additional 0.68 acre ofwalards would be
mahaniW ly landcleared, with the stumps removed and another 0.85 rare of walada would be
=leered of the woody vegetation, ya the stumps would be left undisturbed in allow for play over
these impacted wetland news. Mechanically cleared areas would be dbwd to re-vegetate with
low-growing wetted vegetation, which would routinely be maintained by either hand or mowing
takeep 11 atthe proper height for golfing. Funherrnere, • wW of 717 linear feet of strew
channel would be impacted net only hen the construction of the golfcaune, but aim the
practice range at FCRM. Ofthe 717 Imear feet of mew channel a be impacted by the proposed
project, 501inear fat of perennial stream and 565 linen fed of immninmt stream channel
would facilitate comttucttun of the golf course and driving range, with the remaining 82 linear
feel ofpermruid stream channel seed 20limur fm of internittut mum channel to be bridged
for the construction ofean paths.
Finally, the proposed se valin , installation would impact 0.25 ace of wetland and 60
linen feet ofperannua meatn chancel would be temporarily impacted via mechndzd
landelearing, ucavation, and subsequent bmkfilling. Plans showing the week tae included with
the Public Notice. Plum ate that all intermittent streams have been idmlifted as exhibiting
important aquasic Nnction.
Currently, there is no lot fit associated with this proposal. The applicant proposes to place
my remaining lots with wetlands into open apace for community sta.
The-luaemfthe1,150-acrep jmtaaaamislsofwoodland,agricultunllad,a9-
sere pad ad m 83-acre lake. The pctiphayof the property is existing agricultural I" with
little evidence ofnty prior convened emplad. Alargeponionmftheirneriorofthepropeny
amity ofa mount upper metal plain hardwood/pine forest along the ima-strew divides
between the first and second order tt{butariec of Beech Branch. The reanainderof the properly is
pond, lake, and alluvial fora! found along the headwaters ad nod plains associated with Beech
Branch. Belmom Farm subdivision fin adjacent to the proposed 1,150-ma residential and golf
munedevelopmm11,150-aca Tram.
The applicant is currently creating a mitigation proposal tan offset impacts associated with
the proposed FCRM dcvelopmml. The mitigation pnopmal will be placed on public notice, upon
mbmitW.
The State of North Carolina will review this public notice ta determine the need fa the
applium taabtaln any requiraa Stata mthonzWon. NoMpanmemoftMArmy(DA)pamil
will be issued until Use coordinated Suite viewpoint on the pmposal has been received ntd
iewd by this agency, nor will • DA permit be issued until the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality (NCDWQ) has determined the applicability ofa Water Quality Cartifncale as
required by PL 92-500.
This pplidi iee is being comideral ponwm to Section 404 of the Clean We= Act (33
U.S.C. 1344). My pence coy request, in writing within the comment period specified in the
entice, that a public hearing be held to consider this application. Requests for public hearing
shall mate, with particularity, the resaons for holding a public hearing.
The District Engined has consulted the lateen published version ofthe National Register of
Historic Places for the preeenee or absence of registered properties, or properties lined n being
eligible for inclusion therein. Bated on den best available evidence, it he been determined the
no sites within the vicinity of the project are registered or listed u being eligible for incluaine
in
the Regiser. Examination ofthe National Register of Himoric Places eaatimla the extent of
coltunl resource investigations by the District Engineer, and he is otherwise uruware ofthe
prererce ofother such resources. Presently, unknown archeological, scientific, prehistorical, or
historical data may be Joe or destroyed by work under the requested permit.
The District Engineer, based on available information, is not aware that the proposed
activity will affect species, or their di ical habitat, designated as endangemd or threatened
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an walwtion of the probable
impacta, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity and its intended use on it. public
interest. Evaluation of the probable impacts, which the proposed activity may have on the public
internal, requires a cualbl weighing of W those factors, which became relevant in each particular
e. The bemfits, which reasonably may be expected to accrue f the proposal, most be
6al.nrced against its .-..bly f seeable devimenb. The decision whether to audmon.c a
proposal, and ifs the conditions under which u will be allowed to occur, ate therefore
determined by the outcome ofthe geode balancing process That decision should reflect the
nmionul cancan for both protection and utilisation cf impW- resat.. All factors, which
maybe relevant to the propose, most be considered including the cumulative effecr thereof.
Among it- are comserveion, economics, acsthctics, gm end environmental coeaems, wetlands,
culture values, gent and wildlife values, flood huards and flood plain values (in accordance with
Extensive Order 11988), lad use, navigation, dare aeaire and accretion, recreation, went
supply and -ad-, wenur quality, energy nesda, safely, flood and fiber production, mineral
necds, conaidermfas of property ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people.
For activities involving the placement ofdmdged or fill materials in water of den United Ste.,
a permit will be denied ifthe discharge the would be authorized by such permit would not
comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's 404(6)(1) guidelines. Subject to the
preceding sentence and any other applicable guidelines or criteria, a permit will be granted unleu
the District Engineer determines that it would be contrary to the public interest.
The Corps of Engineer is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State and local
agencies and officials; Indian Tribes and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate
the impacts oflhia prop..d activity. Any --I. received will be considered by the Corp. of
Engineers to determine whdha to issue, modify. condition or deny a permit far this proposal.
To make this decision, comments arc used to asmrs impacts on endangered species, historic
properties, water quality, general mviromnrntsl effects and the other public interest 1we ra listed
above. Comments are used in the preparation clan Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or
m
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Ad
(NEPA). C.-was art alan used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine
the overall public interest ofthe proposed activity.
Generally, the decision whether to issue this Department ormc Army (DA) portrait
modification will net be made until the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)
inum, denies, or waives Stale verification required by Swim 401 of me Clem Water Act The
NCDWQ considers whether or not the proposed activity will comply with Swim. 301, 302,
306, and 307 cf the Clean Water Ad. The appli aum and this public notiu for the Deparmem
of the Army (DA) permit roves u applicant- to the NCDWQ for certification.
Additional m1mas uu, regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be reviewed st the
offices of the Welland. 1401 Unit. North Carolina DENR, Division of Water Quality, 2321
Cost.- B ndevard, Raleigh, North Carolina. Copies f ..h materials will be fumiahed to any
person requesting spies upon payment of reproduction costs.
All persona desiring to make comments regarding the application for Clean Water Ad
unification should do so in writing delivered to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ), W.1.0,4011 Unit, 1650 Marl Service Center, Raleigh, None Carolina, 27699-
1650, on or before January 12, 2005, Attention: Ms. Cyndi Karoly.
Written comments per inert to the proposed work, car outlined above, will be received in
this office, Attention: Mr. Kevin Y., until 4:15 p.m., December 13.20M, or telephone (919)
876-9441, extension 30.
.J
t
i
K P It
_ tee t? s ,,? ? .
f
.>y
` '/--`-4N t•"•n i F <f CW7','47=MOUnt
0
•
0
y :� �� « �
���...
\ «�� ,
�»»a: » .
« <�
.
. .�
{
y . «. a.�
°«� � � \� w� - 6 +�
� w § ?
© m
� �
.\���
§
.� :,g
� ©�
.. . �
� T\ «�
<ta� � \ «» � ^
� �
\°�
.\<\�
°« ^ ��� C
� \� \� \�
<w�
��
y~� :��
K.: r.� 2\�
? © © ® « <® �.
... .,
m ?� z / y�,{� . «
�� \ \/\: «?� <� ?
. v..y
`� �.-»2a°�
� a> , .
. �»�ƒ�`� �
`. »
�? � ~�»
° �� % f6 ? \� \\.
. .
�
2 a� y
>
/\ƒ \ \
� � \
°� � \
® \ \� ^»\ \ 2�� �
.
w<� 2 . »
�
»°^
� �
\ \
� ^
� ^�
� � \\�
d\
�
� \� ,� � 2 �
� � :
\ �
.
\� \\� /
°dam |
..©
�_� :
>22 \s. .
� y « : G:� . � :_� � . a
��
��..
��'\2 2, \§�

•
V
o ?
F
1 E
}_Y t
?4
i I
F
,
-
Wet and ana Stwfn Loat<on
e mm i.? Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount
, 177
Nash County, North Ca*olina
A Z ?i
41
r
t. , , , z
1
i

?eV

rr i
Y .
p f .:
??F, i

T a 0? a a Y ?r a '
_
3
n
ppp g
?JK
y

4 ? v.

t' (

, .. 8$ e
g ,P? ?

s

t
i?
{E
r P
4 [
a s
f I? S'frh
r
_ ........
proposed scwer Cross rp
t mores Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount !
sew »e, ???, Nash County North Ca!onna
e
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN RLPLY REFPR TO February 17, 2005
Regulatory Division
Action ID 20042 1 1 82
Mr. Drew Mulhare
Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC
One Ford's Colony Drive
Rocky Mount, NC 27809
R19@_,1[20WNRr2:3@
FEB 2 3 2005
WETLANDS AND STTORMWA R?9RAWH
Dear Mr. Mulhare:
Reference our December 22, 2004, meeting with your agents (Jeff Harbour-
Environmental Services, Inc., Mike Stocks-Stocks Engineering, Harlan Britt-Kimley-
Horn, Todd St. John-Kimley-Horn, Michael Ellison-WK Dickson, Tim Hess-Mcbride
Hess) Cyndi Karoly-NC Division of Water Quality, Bob Zarzeki-NC Division of Water
Quality, Mike Horan-NC Division of Water Quality, and myself regarding your
mitigation proposal -to offset unavoidable jurisdictional impacts to waters of the United
States subject to our regulatory authority pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
associated with your proposed residential-golf community known as Ford's Colony at
Rocky Mount (FCRM). The project is located on a 1,150-acre tract in the southwest
quadrant of the intersection of SR 1524 (Battleboro Road) and U.S. Highway 301, in
Rocky Mount, Nash County, North Carolina.
During this meeting, we informed you that you would need to include in your
mitigation proposal some form of financial assurances for any mitigation that you
perform. Therefore, we find it necessary to require financial assurances for this project
due to the fact that Mr. Robert Gorham, an individual associated with your development
group, has not yet provided adequate mitigation for a project permitted in 1994. In order
to minimize the risk associated with a similar failure on this project, we believe that it is
necessary to require financial assurances to insure that appropriate and successful
mitigation is achieved on the Ford's Colony project. The compensatory mitigation plan
should identify the party responsible for providing and managing any financial
assurances and contingency funds set aside for remedial measures to ensure mitigation
success. This includes identifying the party that will provide for long-term management
and protection of the mitigation project. This party must not be affiliated with Ford's
Colony, and must be approved by the Corps before potential issuance of permit.
Financial assurances will be commensurate with the level of impact and the level of
compensatory mitigation required (i.e., comparable to payment required by EEP).
Financial assurances may be in the form of performance bonds, irrevocable trusts, escrow
accounts, casualty insurance, letters of credit, legislatively 'enacted dedicated funds for
r
1
government operated banks or other approved instruments. Such assurances may be
phased out or reduced once the project has been demonstrated functionally mature and
self-sustaining in accordance with the success criteria. In the submittal of your final
mitigation plan, you should propose a method of financial assurances to ensure mitigation
success, which our office will review to determine if the mitigation proposal is complete.
The following method.of deriving an appropriate amount of financial assurance to
compensate for the project is provided for your guidance. However, you may wish to
utilize any available methodology, but please be reminded, it must be determined to be
suitable to satisfy our concerns prior to potential issuance of a DA permit. One method is
to arrive at an estimate of the cost of doing the mitigation work and obtaining a
performance bond(s), irrevocable letter of credit, or escrow agreement in that amount for
that purpose. Such considerations include, but are not limited to, site design; topographic
and boundary surveys; purchase, installation and maintenance of hydrology monitoring
devices; sediment and erosion control; grading; re-grading contingency (+30% of grading
cost); planting; replanting contingency (+30% of planting cost); control and/or
eradication of undesirable plant species; control of herbivory; measures to control access
and human impacts; As-Built surveys; five years of monitoring; land acquisition and/or
easement acquisition and preparation costs.
In addition, the Corps will require that Ford's Colony make full payment into the.
EEP to offset impacts not satisfied by-the proposed mitigation performed by the
applicant, before or.concurrently with issuance of any permit: We also request that you
identify a holder of the conservation easement for on-site areas proposed as mitigation,
which include preservation, restoration, and enhancement areas.
The information listed above is needed in order to process your application.
Should you have any further questions related to this project or wish to set up a meeting,
please contact me at 919-876-8441, Extension 30.
Sincerely,
Kevin Yates
Regulatory Specialist
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
cc:
ir
Jeff Harbour
Environmental Services, Inc.
524 New Hope Road
Raleigh, NC 27610
Todd St. John
Kimley-Horn
3001 Weston Parkway
Cary, NC 27513
Cyndi Karoly
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
or

From: "Michael Ellison" <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 14:37:55 -0400
To: <[e-mail]>
CC: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, "Mike Stocks"
<[e-mail]>, "Tim S. Hess" <[e-mail]>, "Drew Mulhare"
<[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, "Daniel Ingram"
<dingram@wkdickson. com>
Hey Jean-
Attached is a summary of our meeting a few weeks ago at Fords Colony. Please call me if we're missing
something or there are any other documents that might facilitate your analysis.
We will do everything we can to support your process.
Thanks,
Michael Ellison
WK Dickson -- Raleigh Office
919-782-0495
Stream and Wetland
Content-Description: Mitigation - Ford's
Stream and Wetland Mitigation - Ford's Colony.doc Colony.doc
Content-Type: application/msword
Content-Encoding: base64
1 of 1 9/13/2005 9:48 AM
OF

community infrastructure consultants
6 September 2005
Memo to: Ms. Jean Manuele
RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
From: Michael Ellison
RE: Stream and wetland mitigation
DA Action ID No. 200421 182
This memorandum is intended to summarize discussions and concurrences from
the meeting at the Fords Colony Rocky Mount office on 26 August 2005.
Attendees were: Jean Manuele, Rick Ford, Drew Mulhare, Debbie Edwards, Chuck
Thompson, Tim Hess, Mike Stocks and Michael Ellison. A walking tour of the
proposed stream restoration area was conducted after the office meeting.
A general project overview and summary discussions of the 404/401 permitting
process and related issues were provided to bring Debbie Edwards of DWQ up to
speed on the project. Specific items discussed included:
• potential success of the proposed stream restoration
• mitigation ratios
• utility of wetland creation as mitigation component
• buffer impacts
• status of stormwater component of 401 application
• NC EEP interest in the main mitigation area.
Issues related to mitigation for permitted stream and wetland impacts were
discussed. The ratios presented in the Public Notice were confirmed, though Jean
Manuele will also confirm with EPA. A small modification may be required by EPA
but the process will not be delayed. The most efficient means of meeting both
USACE and DWQ mitigation requirements entails the following steps:
1. Fords Colony will pay the fee-in-lieu of mitigation for all wetland
fill at a 1:1 ratio; and,
2. Additional wetland mitigation requirements will be accomplished
by the wetland enhancement and preservation practices described
3101 John Humphries Wynd
Raleigh, NC 27612
Tel. 919.7$2.0495
Fax [phone]
www.wkdickson.com
North Carolina 9 South Carolina • Georgia • Florida

Stream and Wetland Mitigation
DA Action ID No. 200421 182
6 September 2005
Page 2 of 3
in the Stream and Wetland Mitigation Planning Report dated 7 April
2005; and,
3. Fords Colony may demonstrate wetland restoration and/or
enhancement based on results of ground water monitoring in the
vicinity of the incised stream and pond near golf hole 6. Additional
soils investigations will be needed in the pond area; and,
4. The proposed restoration of the unnamed tributary should be
pursued to accomplish mitigation required for stream impacts. As
an alternative to Fords Colony completing this stream mitigation
project, the EEP could take over all final design, implementation
and monitoring through a procedure that allows EEP to apply the
dollar value of conservation easements toward fees-in-lieu of
mitigation. If an agreement cannot be reached with EEP, Fords
Colony can complete the work as previously planned, and reserve
payment of the fee-in-lieu of stream mitigation as last resort. If
Fords Colony decides to complete the work on its own, design
plans of at least the 80% completion level shall be submitted to
USACE as soon as practicable.
5. It is acceptable for construction of the main stream and wetland
mitigation work (near golf hole 6) to be scheduled to coincide with
2006-2007 planting season.
6. Jean Manuele will complete the 401 permit by September 22, 2005.
Drew Mulhare will pickup the permit in Raleigh and drive to
Wilmington for signatures so the effective date can be the same
day.
7. Debbie Edwards will coordinate with Cyndi Karoly to complete the
404 permit within this timeframe so the USACOE can issue the 401.
Jean Manuele will also follow up with Cyndi Karoly.
Fords Colony Rocky Mount is committed to implementing these steps in a timely
manner. We hope to complete additional soils investigations and install
monitoring wells within the next few weeks and expect to resolve EEP's potential
involvement in the overall mitigation plan within a couple months.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have any questions or require
additional documentation to support the permitting process.
Off
Stream and Wetland Mitigation
DA Action ID No. 200421 182
6 September 2005
Page 3 of 3
Distribution: Drew Mulhare
Debbie Edwards
Tim Hess
Mike Stocks
Todd Stjohn
Cyndi Karoly
RE: MEMORANDUM
Subject: RE: MEMORANDUM
From: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:15:45 -0400
To: <[e-mail]>
Cyndi,
I noted that Amanda had some comments related to creating the wetlands
in the ponds to create carry-overs for two of the fairways that you, I
and Bob discussed in our meeting with the USACE and that Tom Reeder had
apparently "bought into" subsequent to that meeting (back in December).
Do we need to discuss or are we still good with that (or do you even
know what I'm talking about)?
thanks,
Todd
-----Original Message-----
From: Cyndi Karoly [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 2:37 PM
To: St John, Todd
Subject: MEMORANDUM
I of 1 6/24/2005 9:51 AM

c n n ;ro
?? ? J 333
tF ,
9E
80 y Q - Z s
t.- r
?. _
b ? h
Imo- ` ' ? ?
J ?a
V, k#
?, .ter ? ?, C' ? `? r." ° • '?, T ? ty
y r f 41
440
,, G u
??rvawr - - . ?r
I L (5 01VT U?;
APR 1 8 ?305
?ttarros ANa s1'oH??wnTER s?rlch ? ` A ,I/
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL WDICKSON
community infrastructure consultants
3101 John Humphries Wynd Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 919.782.0495 tel. [phone] fax
TO: Ms. Cyndi Karoly
NCDWQ-Wetlands/401 Unit
1650 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
ATTENTION: Ms. Cvndi Karolv
I DATE: Aril 13, 2005
RE: Ford's Colon Rock Mount
We are sending via: ? Overnight ® Regular Mail ? Pick-up ? Hand Delivered
The following items: ? Correspondence ? Plans ? Specifications ® Other as listed below:
COPIES I DATE I NO. I DESCRIPTION
1 I 04-13-05 Ford's Colony Rocky Mount Mitigation Planning Report Addendum I
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
? For Approval ? As Requested ? Approved as Submitted ? Returned for Corrections
? For Your Use ® For Review and Comment ? Approved as Noted ? Forward to Subcontractor
REMARKS:
Please include this document in your review of the "Modified Environmental Assessment for Ford's
Colony at Rocky Mount" submitted in November 2004. Feel free to contact Michael Ellison if you have
anv auestions.
COPY TO:
SIGNED
l ?-?LQ
?^ ??
'? / ? `>
O
Ford's Colony Rocky Mount
Mitigation Plan
ADDENDUM NO. 1
UNDESIGNATED WETLAND AREAS
Wetland areas not addressed in the mitigation plan will be protected through restrictions
listed on deed documents. All wetlands that are not included in deeded parcels will be
conveyed to the Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount Homeowners' Association. Both the Plat
and the Deed of Conveyance will have the following sentences:
"Areas designated on the plats as wetlands are regulated by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and the North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources. Any development or construction that may
directly impact these designated areas must have authorization from the
USACOE and NCDENR, as well as architectural and/or site plan approval
from the Ford's Colony Environmental Control Committee, prior to any
applicable development or construction."
Lots that include areas that are designated as wetlands within the lot boundaries will have
an "environmental protective easement" reflected on the subdivision plat and recorded
• along with the lots. In addition, each subdivision is registered with the Office of Interstate
Land Sales in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD Statement).
The HUD Statement will list each lot in the subdivision that has easements restricting the
use of the lot. Prior to the execution of a purchase contract for a lot, the customer is given
a copy of the applicable HUD Statement. A statement similar to the one below will specify
how easements are disclosed and where easements for wetlands are located.
RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF YOUR LOT
Restrictive Covenants
Declarations of Protective Covenants have been filed in the Clerk's Office of the
Circuit Court for Nash County, North Carolina, with respect to each of Sections I, and IL
Significant provisions of the Protective Covenants include: (i) limitations upon the use of
lots other than as single-family residences; (ii) the minimum allowable floor area with
respect to various units within the subdivision; (iii) setback requirements; (iv) requirements
that construction of improvements be completed within twelve months of their commence-
ment; (v) prohibitions against signs, including "for sale" signs; (vi) provisions respecting the
Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount Environmental Control Committee, and its right to approve
or disapprove plans for the construction of improvements upon lots; (vii) provisions
regarding the Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount Homeowners Association and assessments to
be made by it; and (viii) descriptions of easements affecting the subdivision. The Protective
Covenants for Section II contain provisions similar to those contained in covenants relating
to other sections of Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, but they also contain very specific
• restrictions relating to the type of house that can be built on lots in these sections and how
the house must be sited and landscaped. Moreover, the Protective Covenants in Section II
Ford's Colony Rocky Mount 42
Mitigation Plan
Ford's Colony Rocky Mount
Mitigation Plan
0 are somewhat more restrictive as to building and landscaping requirements than are the
covenants related to some of the other sections. Accordingly, anyone contemplating
purchasing a lot in Section II should review these covenants very carefully. A complete
copy of the restrictions applicable to all sections within the development is available upon
req uest.
Easements
As set forth in the Declaration of Protective Covenants, and unless specifically
stated otherwise in the Supplemental Declaration of Protective Covenants for a particular
Section, and/or as limited by setback lines as shown on the recorded plat of subdivision,
each of the lots within the subdivision is subject to the following easements: (i) utility
easements running ten feet along the inside of side lot lines and 25 feet along the inside of
the front and rear lot lines, (ii) a slope and drainage easement running 25 feet along the
inside of all lot lines which are coincident with street right-of-way lines, and ten feet along
the inside of side lot lines, and (iii) encroachment easements of as much as six feet. The
City of Rocky Mount requires an easement of 5 feet along the inside of all lot lines in the
subdivision for the purpose of installing and maintaining underground utility lines, wires,
pipes, conduits, and other infrastructure and support items as determined by the City.
In addition, the lots listed below are subject to the following specific easements:
• Mots 35 Block A, 8 Block B, and 1 and 9 Block C, Section I; and Lots 1, 8, 22, 26,
33, 34, 42, 44, 47, 48, 55, 57, 60, 71, 75, 86, 91, 93, 95, 97, and 101 in
Section II are subject to sight distance easements which prohibit visual
obstructions including landscaping, fences and other structures.
2)Lots 18, 23 and 24 Block A; and lots 1,4,5, and 6 Block C in Section I, and Lots 6,
8, 18, 22, 26, 42, 43, 56, 57, 71, 72, 73, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, and 101 in Section
II, are subject to drainage and utility easements;
3)Lots 18 and 19 in Section II are subject to a Tar-Pamlico Basin buffer easement
whichs prohibit the construction of improvements and the clearing of vegetation
and trees within the buffer area.
As all of the lots are sufficiently large to provide adequate building sites, these
easements and rights-of-way should have no affect on your building or lot use plans.
However, the Protective Covenants contain building set-back lines and will affect where
your house can be located and the maximum size of the foundation footprint. The
subdivision is not subject to any flood control or flowage easements.
Impacts to wetlands and streams are regulated by the U.S. Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers (USACOE) and the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (NCDENR). The developer has applied to USACOE and NCDENR for
permits to fill or otherwise impact certain areas on the property affecting the proposed golf
course and main loop road serving the development. Environmental permits are not
required to develop Sections I and II of the development and access thereto. However, the
. master land plan for the golf course and main loop road do depend on the USACOE 401
and NCDENR 401 permits. If the environmental permits are not granted as applied for, the
developer will be required to amend the master land plan and submit such amended
Ford's Colony Rocky Mount 43
Mitigation Plan
Ford's Colony Rocky Mount
Mitigation Plan
• master land plan to the City of Rocky Mount forapproval, and resubmit to the USACOE
and NCDENR as necessary for any environmental permits as may be required.
The current applications for the 404 and 401 permits contain certain proffers of
mitigation for proposed impacts, including fifty-foot wide buffers on all wetlands and
streams. Some lots in Section II are affected by the buffers. The buffers are designated on
the plats of subdivision and are recorded in the Nash County land records. You are not
permitted to construct improvements or remove trees and vegetation in wetlands, streams
or buffers without a permit from the USACOE and NCDENR.
•
•
Ford's Colony Rocky Mount 44
Mitigation Plan
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
524 S. NEW HOPE ROAD
RALEIGH. NORTH CAROLINA 27610
919-212-1760 • FAX [phone]
March 28, 2005
www.esinc.cc
Ms. Cyndi Karoly -u'
N.C. Division of Water Quality
Wetlands/401 Unitu
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Re: Addendum to Section 401 Application DWQ# 04-1801
Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount
Nash County, North Carolina
Cyndi:
r:
Environmental Services, Inc., (ESI) is submitting the enclosed information on behalf of Ford's Colony at
Rocky Mount (FCRM). Recent acquisition of an additional parcel of land along the northern boundary of
the original FCRM site has allowed the design team to reconfigure the proposed clubhouse, chipping green,
and driving range. This redesign has reduced overall jurisdictional wetland impacts by approximately 0.53
acres and important stream channel impacts by approximately 384 linear feet. A breakdown of these
reductions is provided below along with the minimal amount of new impact resulting from acquiring this
new parcel.
Jurisdictional Impacts at Original Driving Range Location
Wetlands 12, 13, & 14: 0.56 acres of fill
Stream 5: 565 linear feet of impact
Jurisdictional Impacts at New Driving Range, Clubhouse, and Chipping Green Location
0.026 acre of wetland fill
181 linear feet of non-buffered stream impact
These new impacts are depicted on the attached maps as Road Crossings 34, 35, 36, & 37. There is an
overall reduction in wetland and stream impacts at FCRM in the amounts of 0.53 acres of wetlands and 384
linear feet of important stream channel. Stream 5 is not subject to riparian buffers, as it is not mapped on
either USGS or county soil survey mapping.
ESI is respectfully requesting that DWQ incorporate this information into the Section 401 application as an
\
addendum. The applicant is in the process of completing the proposed mitigation plan for this project. The J
plan will be submitted to the agencies for review and comment and ACOE intends to put the plan out on an
additional public notice. Pursuant to your letter dated 11 January 2005, it is our hope that DWQ will
consider the application complete upon review of the proposed mitigation plan and after ACOE's second
public notice period. Please call me if you have any questions or comments regarding this submittal.
Sincerely,
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
eeffffarbour
Senior Project Manager
Attachments

JACKSONVILLE • ST. AUGUSTINE • COCOA 0 JUPITER 0 DESTIN 0 SAVANNAH • ATLANTA • RALEIGH 0 CHARLOTTE
Q-I w a
E
o
C7
i

J\ a 1(`tiS/ a i

Z

Z
N

O
O
?
Y
U
?

O m
w
n.
z
F- ¢
H F- H
U U U

a d a-
:5- :

:i

a •
fi
04` ,
a INN
a
? 4 l
7 7-V
::,. d l/ / J t t 4
? ® t L L
4 J `'
' a t t •
, t
a
. I \\. \ ?'' gar . ' ``
Y l
rl L _
t' r
r j
l t, r y
L _ 1 F ?}r11
r'
1 irl ? t
t' 4
, -?1, - rl t e a a
t 4` ,
/, t r L
L L '? l ? ? - Q 4
Ilkl
r.:'l: f / ' b r• t '? t
- ? L
a
' L t a ?
6 r, 1,
F t t
'. r• L t Q a
\ r. -° t 1 J o a
• ! t t t ? ? ` a
a t
rr
L
t t t l
? t t L
t p tw t\ l L l0 L ? t.!
? l
t { i t L
?t O ra t l '\? _
t t t 4o t ? i
L L '• L t 0 L ? ?t 4
'. L L t L l ?t A L °fl I-? e
t
,zs.e
x \
135.3 r??1,?\ X373
X RE /133.1 1 _
.6 X "" VV
6.4 WILLIAMS
35.5 x DB Ipp1 PG 779
x / x ?3tp
x 130 31.2 (n
? x
S8 5'33"E o
-..--
EIA
2031.51 L4
NOO'05'50"E ??yh1\ x GROUND NCGS BATTLE I" 3
78.17 I 32.6 N = 836045.49 ri
x ?° e = 23657C9p3 x3p.7
a v, x
om° m M
N 00
??,n.,I mram
132.7
(? = O x 131.5 R
131,2 X O 0
I L
133.2 x 132.4 li
4106
T.EIA IS 2.10' I ?3 cQ /11. x ?
p
N75°q8
m em 130
c', Q x
n1 120.9 _ 130.7
x
I0- I x265
133.4
d X x EIP IS
I? - I? 30 ?- 1v, 29,9 201'
x x EAST
ATH z OF
OVER. a
o x
Q° (w) x24.6
--? V7 O 123.3 _
??? • ZI x ??
HP-- G- J I C? 121.3
x Q 69.2 A N K FENCE ` OU
EIP I I L
DB 13 P L HONE TOWE
EAS X29.1
BA S
OF PL S x19'6 DB 501 G
_ '48' 50.0 X27.3 0
?- IP I z.6
Wnn
120.9
X
COP ?.' E 98.33 v?
oe 0 E ?
R L U
/ TIP D
E ? D ET, ) 73
No Ni
04
O 120-
/
X128.7 12 \\\???
can w F ?\ ?
-n? •ni \ I y \? IP D.Q 8 G 1351 25.3
w II o
w
?r wQ \ I IP
127,4 12.6 I HE E
l (n = 7
c) EN IP
N ?- L 126.5 ~ r? X
x W L.?
O Z Z W, 11,3 () O
x GE
~
C I PIN FA I DB P
''2 ° 3 1 S. F W
e.6 I I x
1 IA
L
^1EIP I x -
_ ?I O ENT
o 27,4 12

,27.2
x \
a
0
^'? o
I x26.7 `
I25.o J Y72 2
x
123.1
x
/ // r/G \ \\\'- ? 3 ^ x06.4'
CRPATE0
__.l--?,` % yV1tET 102.7
x
CLQ-ads
x
4
,? t a
r.
1p1,6
x
103.2
X
'
x 126.3 \1

171.4
111.1
x
x

? , 99.4
X
C
B?
a
?
N
cd
U

?rn

•rl N
NcV
O?
?
H N

Z
00 N
0
.
Al
. 0
0
9
C
? -

q

VFW
a
Z
J
O
O
Q
L)
U

O 2
?
r l
V O
z
V1 zZ
O

0
Y
U
?
?T . O
SHEET
1
OF
1
DATE
03.11.05
woi7'ssNapu(pWUn bpyw . (}) 66Z9*VS6'6L6 • (o) OOZ8'V96'6L6 • SWE eu110e0 4PON'yblalea . }1noo pielln8 £LOL
&Mt =.t .alms
I / W / I y Z-20 L
J
g- l0l• I
I-
?
s?

0 x
1 / ?I
DAUUBld Pual
64uueld sndweZ)
ajN-l!4ojV adenspusl
•V•d `duo o
u2is3Q
SSOH
TI LL
efu
ens;

t
1
t7 M,
fJ \ \
V38V loddV911NV3HiS
VMJV lob'dVT 213ddn8 JNISSMID CIVN 3d ki lob'dVdl
VlJVloddVdl®NOf113M K 2DaNnN1OVdNI
1Nnow k>ioou 1V
w00'ssayapugow@n 6pyw . (}) 66Z8M&M • (o) 00ZTV96'6W • MR eul10e0 LWON `y6lalea pnoo piellne £L06
&Do =j :alms
-
? m
m = - `
m \
m
m m
m
m \
V
O
m
m
ID' m
m -
41 41 4, 41
-
---- ---- ----
?S
V l 0, ` -
m
m m
m I i
'o ? d 8 L D
10011
I o _o m m
\ X P
i
buiuueld pue? JI 69 Vl3 ]V i0VdNl NVI2US
duiuueia sndwe3
0imoellpiv gdeuspue vide ln'ddNl b3ddne JNISSO210 adO2l 3d),1 ! 0VdNl
.V.d `dnojo od 900,0 V18V iOVdNI ONV13M s? ?3snm i0VdNl
alsaQ
I Ai A n IAI 1 m n n m 1 w
A N0100 A.Jl AY t<Od
woo•ssegeppgow@n 6pgw 66ZOIG6'666 • (o) OON8 96'666 • ME ewiae0 WON `y6lalej linoo pielln8 £L06
&.OOI =.L :areas
T T T -',
------- - g s
-- yI 0 6
T
Q
O
BALI ?,?j
H }
I
dI:]-
0 a 1
IN
O'
buiuue d oue
6uiuue d sndweo
Wnpayiyajy adempue ,
ui?tSO(j
X108
A31
m
n
O
01
T ?' G G
0? , Zx",x
m
T?
?T
?T \
T
T T
T
T T T
-01
T ff
T
o?
! XT
?i 69 V32Jd lOVdNl Wb' aS
r; e/u 113dd i0VdH ?13JJM JNISSO?IO GVO2l 3d1li lOddNi
e/u V38V iOddWl ONVli3M 9£ ;d 6 83onnN lOddWl
AN 010D SI(I QOJ
FORD'S COLONY
A T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T
IMPACT NUMBERS 37 WETLAND IMPACT AREA
IMPACT TYPE ROAD CROSSING BUFFER IMPACT AREA
STREAM IMPACT AREA
0.02 Ac.
na
n(a
1
McBride
Hess
Design
Group, P.A.
Landscape Architecture
Campus Planning
Land Planning
scale: 1' = 1QV4r
1073 Bullard Court • Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 • 919.954.8200 (o) • 919.954.8299 (fl 9 [e-mail]
imap://bob.zarzecki%40dwq. [e-mail]:143/fe...
a-
Subject: Comments re: 404 permit application- Ford's Colony
From: "Heather Jacobs" <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:15:50 -0500
To: <[e-mail]>
CC: <bob. zarzecki @ncmail. net>
Attached are comments re: 404 permit application for the Ford's Colony
retirement community, to be located in Rocky Mount. I will also send hard
copies to be mailed out today (Friday, December 10). Thank you for the
opportunity to comment.
Heather Jacobs
Pamlico-Tar Riverkeeper
PO Box 1854
Washington, NC 27889
Office: 252-946-7211
Fax: [phone]
Cell: 252-402-5644
www.ptrf.org
1 of 1 12/13/2004 8:36 AM
?0? W ArFRQ Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
r North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
January 11, 2005
DWQ Project # 04-1801
Nash County
Page 1 of 2
CERTIFIED MAIL: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC
c/o: Realtec, Inc.
Attn: Mr. Drew Mulhare
One Ford's Colony Drive
Williamsburg, VA 23188
Subject Property: Ford's Colony, One Ford's Colony Dr., Hwy 301, Rocky Mount, NC 27809
Beech Branch [03-03-02, 28-75-(1), B NSW]
REQUEST FOR MORE INFORMATION
Dear Mr. Mulhare:
On November 5, 2004, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) received your application dated November
2, 2004 to impact 398 feet of perennial stream (permanent impacts), 60 feet of perennial stream
(temporary impacts), 185 feet of intermittent stream, 2.72 acres of riparian wetlands, 2.21 acres of non-
riparian wetlands, 0.19 acres of isolated wetlands, and approximately 4.94 acres (2.59 acres for roads, etc.
and 2.35 acres for restoration/creation sites) of protected riparian buffers to allow for the construction of
roads, an 18-hole golf course, driving range, and sewer system at the subject property.
The DWQ has determined that your application was incomplete and/or provided inaccurate information
as discussed below. The DWQ will require additional information in order to process your application to
impact protected wetland, streams and/or buffers on the subject property. Therefore, unless we receive
the additional information requested below, we will have to move toward denial of your application as
required by 15A NCAC 21-1.0506 and 2B .0259(8) and will place this project on hold as incomplete until
we receive this additional information. Please provide the following information so that we may continue
to review your project.
Additional Information Requested:
Public Notice - The DWQ does not consider your application complete until after we have received
the Public Notice from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and can not make a decision on
your application until after the comment period ends. The Public Notice dated November 12, 2004
was received by the DWQ on December 7, 2004. In addition, the USACE has informed the DWQ
that a second Public Notice will be sent out once the final mitigation plan is received by the
USACE. As such, the DWQ does not consider your application complete at this time and will not
decide on the Water Quality Certification until after the comment period of the second Public
Notice ends. We understand that the comment period for the second Public Notice will last for 15
days. As of the date of this letter, the USACE has not sent out this second Public Notice.
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
N"os?eh Carolina
Aukrallb,
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount
Page 2 of 2
January 11, 2005
2. Stream and Wetland Restoration/Creation Areas - The DWQ has decided that we have the
authority under 15A NCAC 2H.0506 and 2B .0259(8) to decide to either approve or deny your
conceptual proposal to raise the current lake bottom and create wetlands near golf course Hole # 16
and to raise the lake bottom and restore the stream and wetlands near Hole #18. Please provide
complete restoration/creation plans for these areas including (but not limited to) detailed design
plans with existing site elevations and post-construction site elevations, the elevation of the normal
water level of the lake, detailed natural channel designs for the proposed stream restoration,
planting plans, detailed plans of the sills or other structures that will be used to prevent sloughing of
the new fill material into the lake, and a schedule and construction sequencing. Please be sure to
provide the area of lake bottom that will be filled and converted to wetlands and stream.
Mitigation Plan - During our meeting on December 22, 2004, several mitigation options were
proposed to the agencies. Please provide a final mitigation plan. The final mitigation plan shall
include at least a 1:1 ratio of the area of impacted wetlands to the area of either restored or created
wetlands. Based on the numbers provided within your application, this would require at least 4.93
acres of either restored or created wetlands. Also, the plan must include compensatory stream
mitigation at a 1:1 ratio for all impacted perennial streams.
As stated above, please be aware that the DWQ does not consider your application complete at this time
and will not decide on the Water Quality Certification until after the comment period of the second Public
Notice ends. Please provide the additional information listed above prior to the end of the comment
period of the second Public Notice. Your application will remain on hold until this information is
received by the DWQ.
This letter only addresses the application review and does not authorize any impacts to wetlands, waters
or protected buffers. Please be aware that any impacts requested within your application are not
authorized (at this time) by the DWQ. Please call me at 919-733-9721 if you have any questions
regarding or would like to set up a meeting to discuss this matter.
Sincerely,
Cy di Karoly,
DWQ, Wetlands / 401 Unit
CBK/bz
cc: Todd St. John, Kimley-Horn, 3001 Weston Parkway, Cary, NC 27513
Jeff Harbour, Environmental Services, Inc., 524 South New Hope Road, Raleigh, NC 27610
Mike Horan, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
File Copy
Central Files
Filename: 041801
December 10, 2004
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
Re: Comments on Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount 404 permit application
Dear Mr. Yates,
The Pamlico-Tar River Foundation (PTRF) is a grassroots environmental organization whose
mission is to protect and improve the Tar-Pamlico River, its estuaries and watershed. We are
writing to you to express our concern over the amount of proposed stream and wetland fill
impacts that will occur from the construction of the Ford's Colony retirement community, to be
located in Rocky Mount.
The Environmental Protection Agency's 404(b)(1) guidelines Section 230.10 "allows permit
issuance for only the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative." Furthermore "no
discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the
proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as
the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences (40 CFR
230.10(a))." It continues to state that "an alternative is practicable if it is available and capable
of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of
the overall project purposes" (40 CFR 230.10(a)(2)). It is our understanding, that the
development has reduced its dredge and fill impacts by almost one half from its original plans
and that no lot fill will impact wetlands. While PTRF appreciates these efforts, it also must be
demonstrated by the applicant that no further impacts can practicably be avoided or minimized.
Beech Branch is a Class B, NSW water from its source to Highway 301. Class B waters are used
for primary recreation and other uses suitable for Class C, which are waters protected for
secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and
survival....(emphasis added)." Under State Administrative Code 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (1)
Best Usage of Waters. Aquatic life propagation and maintenance of biological integrity... (2)
Conditions Related to Best Usage. The waters shall be suitable for aquatic life propagation and
maintenance of biological integrity...; sources of water pollution which preclude any of these
uses on either a short-term basis shall be considered to be violating a water quality standard." Of
concern is the application to fill 398 linear feet of perennial stream channel and 1,185 linear feet
of intermittent stream channel, both of which serve important hydrologic and aquatic habitat
functions. Furthermore, it is our understanding that these stream sections exhibit good bed and
bank characteristics, as well as a contiguous buffer, including mature forest stands and some
bottomland hardwood wetlands. It is extremely important that cumulative and downstream
effects be evaluated to determine whether this fill activity will violate water quality standards,
such as the 50 NTU turbidity standard, the fecal coliform standard for Class B waters, and the
dissolved oxygen standard for non-trout waters. The cumulative impacts include the construction
activity, as well as the development of natural land to impervious surfaces (stormwater impacts),

construction and long-term maintenance of an 18 hole golf course, increased recreational use of
Beech Branch and Belmont Lake, and the impending Rocky Mount Northern Connector from SR
1604 to US 301 which may be located near the Ford's Colony development and potentially in the
Beech Branch watershed.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this permit application. We urge the Corps and
Ford's Colony to avoid and minimize impacts as much as possible. We further encourage the
development to implement low impact development designs in order to maintain as much as
possible the pre-construction hydrologic characteristics and integrity of the area.
Sincerely,
Heather Jacobs
Pamlico-Tar Riverkeeper®
Pamlico-Tar River Foundation
cc: Bob Zarcecki, DWQ
.A

Pamlico Tar River Foundation
Zc vacation • Ac Vnxc? • )Za5e r-A.
December 10, 2004 R19@[90W[9@
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office DEC 1 4 2004
US Army Corps of Engineers DENR - WATER QUALITY
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120 'NETLANDSANDSTORMWATER W)o
Raleigh, NC 27615
Re: Comments on Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount 404 permit application
Dear Mr. Yates,
The Pamlico-Tar River Foundation (PTRF) is a grassroots environmental organization whose
mission is to protect and improve the Tar-Pamlico River, its estuaries and watershed. We are
writing to you to express our concern over the amount of proposed stream and wetland fill
impacts that will occur from the construction of the Ford's Colony retirement community, to be
located in Rocky Mount.
The Environmental Protection Agency's 404(b)(1) guidelines Section 230.10 "allows permit
issuance for only the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative." Furthermore "no
discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the
proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as
the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences (40 CFR
230.10(a))." It continues to state that "an alternative is practicable if it is available and capable
of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of
the overall project purposes" (40 CFR 230.10(a)(2)). It is our understanding, that the
development has reduced its dredge and fill impacts by almost one half from its original plans
and that no lot fill will impact wetlands. While PTRF appreciates these efforts, it also must be
demonstrated by the applicant that no further impacts can practicably be avoided or minimized.
Beech Branch is a Class B, NSW water from its source to highway 301. Class B waters are used
for primary recreation and other uses suitable for Class C, which are waters protected for
secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and
survival.... (emphasis added)." Under State Administrative Code 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (1)
Best Usage of Waters. Aquatic life propagation and maintenance of biological integrity... (2)
Conditions Related to Best Usage. The waters shall be suitable for aquatic life propagation and
maintenance of biological integrity...; sources of water pollution which preclude any of these
uses on either a short-term basis shall be considered to be violating a water quality standard." Of
concern is the application to fill 398 linear feet of perennial stream channel and 1,185 linear feet
of intermittent stream channel, both of which serve important hydrologic and aquatic habitat
functions. Furthermore, it is our understanding that these stream sections exhibit good bed and
"T ie Voice for t6ie Rit>er Since ITY1"
P.O. Box 1854 • Washington, NC 27889 • 252-946-7211 • Fax [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail] • Website: http://www.ptrf.org
0 Printed on recycled paper
t
bank characteristics, as well as a contiguous buffer, including mature forest stands and some
bottomland hardwood wetlands. It is extremely important that cumulative and downstream
effects be evaluated to determine whether this fill activity will violate water quality standards,
such as the 50 NTU turbidity standard, the fecal coliform standard for Class B waters, and the
dissolved oxygen standard for non-trout waters. The cumulative impacts include the construction
activity, as well as the development of natural land to impervious surfaces (stormwater impacts),
construction and long-term maintenance of an 18 hole golf course, increased recreational use of
Beech Branch and Belmont Lake, and the impending Rocky Mount Northern Connector from SR
1604 to US 301 which may be located near the Ford's Colony development and potentially in the
Beech Branch watershed.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this permit application. We urge the Corps and
Ford's Colony to avoid and minimize impacts as much as possible. We further encourage the
development to implement low impact development designs in order to maintain as much as
possible the pre-construction hydrologic characteristics and integrity of the area.
Sincerely,
Heather Jacobs
Pamlico-Tar Riverkeeper®
Pamlico-Tar River Foundation
cc: Bob Zarcecki, DWQ
Ford's Colony 04-1801
Subject: Ford's Colony 04-1801
From: Bob Zarzecki <bob.zarzeckiC ncmail.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 10:05:21 -0500
To: Cyndi Karoly <Cyndi.KarolyC NCMail.Net>
Cyndi,
Have you received a Public Notice for this project? It was received
on 11/5/04 and didn't make it to triage until 12/7/04 (this is a
problem). It's an IP that if they designed it per our
pre-application meetings would just barely avoid the need for a
Major Variance. I found it in triage Tuesday and immediately sent
it to the RRO for comments. The Pubic Notice has already gone out
and the comment period ends shortly. I printed off a copy of the
Public Notice from the Corps' web site, but Kevin Yates said that
they sent a "full public notice" to us with additional information.
I'm reviewing the project and would like to see the "full" public
notice. I've already received a call from the Tar River Foundation
on this one. There may be a request for a public hearing, but I
haven't received one yet. I'm not sure that one is warranted, even
if we do receive a request. We need to get something out to the
applicant before the holidays.
- Bob
1 of 1 12/10/2004 11:39 AM
Triage C
Date: I? o` Projet't Name:
To: ? ARO Kevin Barnett
? FRO Ken Averitte
? MRO Alan Johnson
RRO Mike Horan
? rTc.lC.? Iz
Li I
heck List
DWQ#: © gAYQ1
County: Mhq
? WaRO Tom Steffens and Kyle Barnes
? WiRO Noelle Lutheran
? WSRO Daryl Lamb
From: & Telephone : (919)
733 - ? -?R (a
The file attached is being forwarded to lour for your evaluation.
Please call if you need as ,'stance.
? Stream length impacted
? Stream determination
? Wetland determination and distance to blue-line surface waters on USFW topo maps
A.Minimization/avoidance is
Buffer Rules (Meuse, T -Pamlico, atawba, Randleman)
? Pond fill
? Mitigation Ratios
? Ditching
? Are the stream and or wetland mitigation sites available and viable?
Check drawings for accuracy
the application consistent with pre-application meetings?
? Cumulative impact concern
Comments:
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
524 S. NEW HOPE ROAD
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27610
919-212-1760 • FAX [phone]
November 5, 2004 www.esmc.cc
Mr. John Dorney
NC Division of Water Quality 0 ,4 1 8 0 1
401 /Wetlands Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604 I31 # ;' aI
NO V 0 5- 2004
Re: Individual 401 Certification Request for
Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount t -' 'WATER QUALITY
Nash County, NC 'n" MATER BRANCH
John:
Environmental Services, Inc., (ESI) is submitting this 401 Certification application on
behalf of the applicant, Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount. This project consists of an
approximately 1100-acre residential golf community adjacent to Beech Branch north of
the City of Rocky Mount. The applicant and the project team have met with Division of
Water Quality staff on several occasions; most recently with Mr. Bob Zarzecki on 28
October 2004. We also met with Ms. Cyndi Karoly earlier in the year.
Proposed impacts consist of the following: 2.72 ac if riparian wetland fill; 2.21 ac of
non-riparian wetland fill; 1.78 ac of wetland clearing; 0.19 ac of isolated wetland fill; 398
ft of perennial stream impact; and 1185 ft of intermittent stream impact. There are also
riparian buffer impacts associated with the project; however, only 2716 ft2 will require
mitigation.
The application fee of $475.00 is also enclosed with this submittal along with a modified
Environmental Assessment report. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any
questions or comments.
Sincerely,
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
f1f Jeff Harbour, PWS
Senior Project Manager
Enclosures
JACKSONVILLE 0 ST. AUGUSTINE 0 COCOA 0 JUPITER • DESTIN • SAVANNAH • ATLANTA • RALEIGH • CHARLOTTE
Modified Environmental Assessment
for
FORD'S COLONY AT ROCKY MOUNT
NASH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for:
Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount
One Ford's Colony Lane
Rocky Mount, NC 27809
And
Realtec, Inc.
Prepared by:
Environmental Services, Inc.
McBride Hess Design Group
David Johnson Golf Design
Stocks Engineering
r..
04 18Q l
Kimley-Horn
WK Dickson
November 2004
11/02/2004 TUE 16:38 FAX [phone] RCS
•
•
?A
041801
WETL.AN. DS k10 S `OROKER BRANCH
APPLICATION I'OR DEPARTMENT OF THE. ARMY PERMIT Ones APPROVAL No. 0710-0003
(33 BFR 3261 Expires December 31, 2004
Thu Public burden for this oolleation of information k sestimnted to average 10 hours per response. although the majority cf appiieatians should Mquirc
5 hours. or less, Thla inr"ludos the teno for rovicwing instmerions, sonrehin5 cXWiing dnto sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and
complcting end revlewlpg the collection of infotm;Ailon. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collactlon ul
information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of Information
Opatations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davie Highway. Suite 1204. Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Manogoment and Budget,
Papcrwo?k Reduction Project 10710-0003), Washington, DC 20503. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law,
no person shall be subject to any penalty for faiTmg to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control
number. Please DO NOT RETURN your corm to aithor of those addresses Completed appllantionz must be submitted to the Disulot Engititpr having
jurisdiction over the ioeadon of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authorities: Wvers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USS 403; Clean Water Act, Sentlon 404, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection , ReeaarCh and
Sanotua6m Act, 33 USC 1413, Section 103. Principal Purpose: Information provided on this form will be rracd in evolunting the nppGcation,far a
permit. Routine Uses: This information may ba shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and local government agencies.
Submission of requested information Is voluntary, however, if Information is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit
be issued.
One sat of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must ha attaahad to this
applicstlon Esee sahtpro drawings Ind instructlonx) and be wbm;aed to the District Engineer havIng )urlWictlon over the loe:adon of die proposed
activity. An epplkation that Is not completed In full will be returned,
?- 1••"-. Jy f HRLl4 D
AY HF CORPS)
OF F/ZLFD
1- APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE: RECEIVED 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
5. APPLICANT'S NAME S. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE rmeu«uz norrogw?ea
Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount, LLC Mr. Drew Mulhdre - Realtec, Inc
ti. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 0, AGENT'S ADDRESS
One board's Colony Drive One Ford's Coiony Drive
Rocky Mount, NC 27809 Williamsburg, VA 231813
7. AP T'S PHONE N S. W FA c,Of>E 10- AG r NE S. WIA- REA CODE
a, Aesidence a. Swidence
b. Business b. 6uslnem 757-258-4230
11 STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, Drew Mulhare of Realtec. Xnc to set in my behalf at my agent in the prori=ing of this application and to
furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of thin permit application
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE
NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE F.wR riueriww
raid's Colony at Rocky mount
13, NAME of WATEIft300Y. IF KNOWN Nnn,vewN I 14. PAOJLCT STREET ADDRESS 1reppfra64N
Beech Branch one Pord's Colony Drive
Rocky Mount, NC 27909
15. LOCATION of PROJECT
Nash North Carolina
COU STATE
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS. IF KNOWN, amokirnrcrw*1 ilk
Wept of Highway 301; Northwest of WC Weslyan College; South of the 'Down of Battleboro
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
• Frota Raleigh: US 64 East to Highway 301 North in Rocky Mount. Travel. 301 north to NC
WeSlyan ColLegE. Property lies to the norL-h of the college and to the went of Highway 301.
Jul E ITION Of TrP 9 t IS OBSOLETE, (Proponent-. CECW'ORI
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
Activity includes unavoidable wetland and stream impacts resulting from the construction of
the road system within the community and also from the construction of the golf course.
• Impacts have been avoided and minimized where practicable. Riparian and non-riparian
wetlands will be affected as well as perennial and intermittent stream channels.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reeson or purpose of the project, see instructions)
The purpose of the project is to develop the subject property as a residential golf course
community serving primarily out-of-state retirees.
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
The allow for roadway construction and golf course construction
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each TVDe in Cubic Yards
Clean, fill material. Cubic yards ± ?`J'- jQ °/ds
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (seeinsrrucaons)
Riparian wetland fill=0.7,Z ac Non-riparian wetland fill=a?. oOi ac Wetland clearing=4r7P ac
Perennial stream impact=39$ ft Intermittent stream impact=ji S ft
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes = No 0 IF YES. DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be entered here,
please attach a supplemental list).
Adjacent property owners are provided on the attached list.
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL* IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
USACOE wetland 200121182 9-14-04
review
Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building and flood plain permits
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this a placation. I certify that the information in this
application is complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the autho ' to and rake the work described herein or am acting as the
duly au thorizednt o 'tplicant.
&::?? SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE TURE OF AGENT DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed'dctivity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
• knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
• Feud's Colony at Rocky Mount
Summary of Project Impacts
Table 4. Wetland and Stream Impact Summary for FCRM.
Riparian Non- Wetland Isolated Perennial Intermittent
Wetland Riparian Clearing Wetland Stream Stream
Fill (ac) Wetland (ac) Fill (ac) Impact (ft) Impact (ft)
Fill (ac)
Road Crossings 1.6 1.0 0.19 398 * 620
Golf Course 1.12 1.21 1.53 0 132 **
- 585 **
Sewer Line 0.25 co ***
Totals 2.72 2.21 1.78 0.19 590 1205
Amount Requiring 2.72 2.21 1.78 To be 398 1185
Mitigation determined
Amount Not 192 20
Requiring
Mitigation
• * 50 linear feet will be spanned and should not require mitigation.
* * 82 feet of perennial and 20 feet of intermittent channel to be bridged
***Stream impacts from sewer crossings are temporary; mitigation not required.
Roadway Wetland Impact Summary - The roadway system designed for FCRM includes thirty-two
(32) jurisdictional area crossings. The primary spine road serves as the main transportation corridor
from which the other roads diverge to serve the residential areas. A total of 1.6 acres of riparian
wetlands and 1.0 acre of non-riparian wetlands will be impacted by road construction. Approximately
0.19 acre of isolated wetlands will also be affected by road construction. The largest individual
wetland impact is 0.32 acre and the smallest is approximately 0.01 acre. Approximately 1.9 acres of
the impacts are to PFO1 wetlands, 0.7 acre to PF01/4 wetlands, and 0.1 acre to PSS1 wetlands.
Roadway Stream Impact Summary - Approximately 1,018 linear feet of stream channel and 0.05
acre of open water will be affected as a result of the 32 road crossings associated with the FCRM
project. The stream impacts comprise 620 feet of intermittent stream and 398 feet of perennial stream.
All of the intermittent stream footage that is proposed for impact has been deemed important by
ACOE. Approximately 50 feet of perennial total will be completely spanned through bridging and no
direct in-water impacts will result. The 0.05-acre of surface water associated with Belmont Lake will
also be completely spanned.
I
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
•
Golf Course Impact Minimizatnon
Impacts from Orip-inal Plan
Wetland fill +/-3.56 acres
Wetland clear/stump +/-1.1 1 acres
Wetland clear/leave stumps +/-3.02 acres
Stream impact +/-2450 feet (through direct impact or clearing vegetation)
Riparian buffer impact +/- 7 acres
Impacts from Current Plan
Wetland fill 2.33 acres
Wetland clear/stump 0.68 acres
Wetland clear/leave stumps 0.85 acres
Stream impact 717 feet
Riparian buffer impact 18,677 feet2
Golf Course Wetland Impact Summary - Wetland impacts associated with the golf course consist
of fill, clear and remove stumps, and clear and leave stumps. A total of 1.12 acres of riparian wetlands
and 1.21 acres of non-riparian wetlands will be filled by golf course construction. Approximately
0.68 acres of wetlands will be cleared and the stumps will be removed and 0.85 acres will be cleared
• and the stumps will be left in the ground. These areas that are cleared will be allowed to revegetated
with low-growing wetland vegetation that may be routinely maintained by hand clearing to keep it at
the proper height.
Golf, Course Stream Impact Summary - Approximately 717 linear feet of stream channel will be
affected as a result of the golf course and practice range at FCRM. The stream impacts comprise 585
feet of intermittent stream and 132 feet of perennial stream. All of the intermittent stream footage that
is proposed for impact has been deemed important by ACOE. Approximately 82 feet of the perennial
stream total and 20 feet of intermittent channel will be spanned through cart path bridging and no
direct in-water impacts will result. Mitigation will be required for 50 feet of perennial channel and
the 565 feet of intermittent channel.
•
2
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.

rr m 'i Q.?o, NAM- AmrnnnnPtq n t 1FCRM
Sewer
Crossing Temporary
Riparian
Wetland
Impacts (ac) Temporary
Non-Riparian
Wetland
Impacts (ac) Temporary
Perennial
Stream
Impacts (ft) Temporary
Intermittent
Stream
Impacts (ft) FBi Zone 2
Buffer
Impacts
(ft2)
SC 1 30 2764 1215
SC2 0.01 30 2066 1229
9C3 0.20 30 1812 1208
SC4 0.01
SC5 0.03
SC6 0.01
Totals 0.21 0.05 60 0 6642 3652
Table 4a. Riparian Buffer Impacts at FCRM. These impacts result from road crossings, cart
path crossings, dam reconstruction, and sewer line crossings.
Road
Crossing
# Zone 1
Impact
ft2 Zone 2
Impact
ft2 Hole
# Zone 1
Impact
ft2 Zone 2
Impact
ft2 Sewer
Crossing
# Zone 1
Impact
ft2 Zone 2
Impact
ft2
2* 677 2039 3 1800 600 1 2764 1215
3 3060 2040 5 4046 1159 2 2066 1229
9 4140 2760 9 2324 1545 3 1812 1208
12 3600 2400 16** 3000 2000
14 2625 3938 18 1320 880
17 5241 4602
18 3660 2440
20 7080 4720
26 1920 1280
28 3480 2320
30 3000 2000
31 3060 2040
32 3000 2000

33
00
30
2000

Total (ft) 47,543 36,579 12,493 6,184 6,642 3,652
Total (ac) 1.09 0.84 0.29 0.14 0.15 0.08
*Buffer mitigation required for Road Crossing 2.
0 * * Stream buffer below dam will be affected by dam reconstruction.
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
•
Table 41b. Riparian Buffer Impacts (Resulting from Welland (Restoration/Creation.
No.
;;7 Zone I Pond Buffer
Impact (ftZ) Zone 2 Pond Buffer
Impact (ftZ) Total
6 25,500 17,000 42,500
16 21,000 14,000 35,000
18 15,000 10,000 25,000
Total 61,500 41,000 102,500
Mitigation will be required for the following:
• 2.72 acres of riparian wetland fill
• 2.21 acres of non-riparian wetland fill
• 1.78 acres of wetland clearing (i.e. conversion from forested to herbaceous)
• 398 feet of perennial channel
• 1,185 feet of intermittent channel
• 2,716 ft' of riparian buffer
•
•
T.,r.lp s Vadoral PrnfPvfPd gnPriev for Nash County. North Carolina
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Habitat
Present Biological
Conclusion
Red-cockaded
woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered No No Effect
Dwarf wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered Yes Unresolved
Tar spinymussel Elliptio steinstansana Endangered Yes Unresolved
Conclusion - The FCRM project has been designed to be environmentally sensitive while maintaining
the applicant's basic purpose and need. Wetland impacts consist of 4.93 acres of fill and 1.78 acres of
wetland clearing. Stream impacts total approximately 1795 linear feet. The compensatory mitigation
plan will help offset unavoidable impacts. Approximately 76 acres of riparian and non-riparian
wetlands may be available for preservation. Wildlife enhancement techniques will be implemented
into the overall site development and wildlife corridors will be maintained in undisturbed portions of
the property. It is the team's desire to meet or exceed all state and federal regulatory requirements in
order to construct an environmentally sensitive and world-class golf community.
4
• Modified Environmental Assessment
for
FORD'S COLONY AT ROCKY MOUNT
NASH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for:
Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount
One Ford's Colony Lane
Rocky Mount, NC 27809
And
Realtec, Inc.
0
Prepared by:
Environmental Services, Inc.
McBride Hess Design Group
David Johnson Golf Design
Stocks Engineering
Kimley-Horn
WK Dickson
November 2004
•
Table of Contents
Page
0 Project Description
1 1
.
Coordination and Applications
enc
1 A
1 1
y
g
.
ose and Need
0 Pur
2 2
p
.
1 Economic Impact
2 3
.
0 Alternatives Analysis
3 4
.
1 No Action Alternative
3 5
.
2 Preferred Alternative
3 5
.
3 Site History
3 7
.
4.0 Environmental Setting 7
Land Use
Geology
ography
To
hic
ra
io
1 Ph
4 7
,
,
p
,
p
g
ys
.
2 Soils
4 8
.
3 Water Resources
4 8
.
• 9
ical Resources
0 Biolo
5
g
.
1 Plant Communities
5 9
.
5.2 Wildlife 1
0 Cultural Resources
6 1
.
0 Jurisdictional Issues
7 12
.
1 Jurisdictional Wetlands
7 12
.
1 Riparian Areas
1
7 13
.
.
2 Isolated Wetlands
7 14
.
3 Cowardin Classification
7 14
.
1 Wetland Values and Functions
3
7 15
.
.
4 Stream Types and Characteristics
7 16
.
1 Stream Importance
4
7 17
.
.
5 Riparian Buffers
7 17
.
0 Jurisdictional Impacts
8 18
.
1 Roadway Infrastructure
8 18
•
.
11
•
Table of Contents-Continued
Page
8. 1.1 Summary of Wetland Impacts from Roadways 27
8.1.2 Surface Water Impacts from Roadways 28
8.2 Golf Course and Practice Range 29
8.2.1 Summary of Wetland Impacts from Golf 37
8.2.2 Summary of Surface Water Impacts from Golf 38
8.3 Sewer Line Impacts 39
8.4 Isolated Wetland Impacts 39
8.5 Riparian Buffer Impacts 40
9.0 Mitigation 43
ation Procedure
1 Miti
9 44
g
.
Mitigation Plan
ensator
m
2 C
9 45
y
o
p
.
3 Additional Mitigation Activities
9 45
.
ecies
0 Protected S
10 46
p
.
• 46
1 Federal Protected Species
10
.
ecies of Concern
2 Federal S
10 49
p
.
3 State-Listed Species
10 50
.
ental and Public Interest Factors
i
0 E
11 50
ronm
nv
.
l/Chemical Characteristics and Changes
i
1 Ph
11 50
ca
ys
.
ical Characteristics and Changes
2 Biolo
11 51
g
.
3 Human Use Characteristics and Impacts
11 51
.
and Cumulative Impacts
4 Secondar
11 53
y
.
12.0 Conclusion 53
0 References
13 54
.
14.0 Figures 56
•
iii

List of Tables
Impact Details
d Crossin
R
1
bl 20
g
oa
e
.
Ta
act Details
lf Course Im
G
2
bl 32
p
o
.
e
Ta
Sewer Line Impacts
3
bl
T 39
a.
e
a
act Table
Im
Summar
3b
bl
T 40
p
y
.
e
a
arian Buffer Impacts
Ri
4
bl
T 43
p
a.
e
a
Pond Buffer Impact
4b
bl
T 43
.
e
a
deral Protected Species
F
5
bl
T 47
e
e
.
a
Table 6. Federal Species of Concern 49
•
Appendices
Appendix I. Economic Analysis
Appendix 11. GIS Site Search for Alternate Sites
Appendix 111. History of the Belmont Property
Appendix IV. Wetland and Stream Delineation Plats and Riparian Buffer Map
Appendix V. Wetland Functional Assessment Sheets and Stream Assessment Sheets
Appendix VI. Original Golf Course Design (David Johnson Golf Design)
Appendix VII. Stormwater Quality (provided by WK Dickson)

iv
0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FOR
FORD'S COLONY at ROCKY MOUNT
NASH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
As Part of the
SECTION 404 and 401 PERMIT APPLICATION
November 2004
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Ford's Colony proposes to develop an approximately 1150-acre parcel of land located north of
US 64 and west of US 301 near North Carolina Wesleyan College in Nash County, North
Carolina (Figure 1). The proposed development plan includes the construction of an 18-hole
championship quality golf course and residential development. The project's primary team
members include:
• Ford's Colony of Rocky Mount, LLC - applicant
¦ Drew Mulhare of RealTec, Inc. - authorized agent
¦ Bill Roeder of Belmont Farms - project manager and quality control
¦ Mike Stocks, PE of Stocks Engineering PA -civil engineer and project manager
¦ David Johnson of David Johnson Golf Design - golf course design
¦ Tim Hess of McBride Hess Design Group - land planning and project manager
¦ Jeff Harbour of Environmental Services, Inc. - wetlands, T&E, archaeology, 404 permit
¦ Michael Ellison of WK Dickson - stormwater BMPs and mitigation plan
¦ Todd St. John and Harlan Britt of Kimley-Horn - riparian buffers and 401 certification
The proposed Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount (FCRM) project has met with approval from local
and state government officials. The golf and residential community will cater to retirees from all
over the country; however most will likely relocate from northern states. Total build out of the
proposed project has an 8 to 10 year span and the total number of residential units will approach
1,500.
1.1 Agency Coordination and Applications
Ford's Colony is submitting an Individual Permit application to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (ACOE) requesting authorization to permanently impact 4.93 acres of jurisdictional
wetlands and 1,673 linear feet of stream channel pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
• of 1972 (33 USC 1344). Direct impacts to approximately 132 feet of stream channel will be
avoided through bridging. Sewer crossings will temporarily impact 60 linear feet of stream
channel. Additionally, 1.78 acres of wetlands are proposed for temporary impact and/or clearing
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
• (i. e. wetland conversion). This action will also require water quality certification from the State
of North Carolina through the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) (NCGS 143-
215) pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Approval from DWQ is also being sought
for proposed riparian buffer impacts pursuant to the Tar-Pamlico Riparian Buffer Rule.
The purpose of this document is to provide an evaluation of three general criteria which will be
considered as part of the permit process: 1) the relative extent of the public and private need for
the proposed activity; 2) the practicability of using reasonable alternative locations and methods
to accomplish the objective of the proposed activity; and 3) the extent of the effects which the
proposed activity is likely to have on the public and private uses to which the area is suited,
including environmental impacts. This document is intended for use by ACOE and DWQ as the
basis for determining the applicant's compliance with the Section 404 (b) (1) guidelines and other
Section 404 permitting requirements, and Section 401 water quality certification.
Pre-applications meetings have been held with the ACOE and DWQ. An initial ACOE meeting
was held with Mr. Kevin Yates of the Raleigh Regulatory Field Office on June 28, 2004. Mr.
Yates also conducted site investigations on June 23 and August 3, 2004 in order to verify the
wetland delineation and review potential impact areas. The DWQ pre-application meeting was
held with Ms. Cyndi Karoly on June 24, 2004. Meetings were held with DWQ representative Mr.
Bob Zarzecki on August 2 and September 23, 2004 to discuss the potential riparian buffer
impacts. Additional onsite meetings were held with Michael Horan of DWQ on June 14, August
10, and September 1, 2004 in order to investigate several riparian buffer issues.
Subsequent to these meetings, substantial changes were made to the site plans to address
avoidance and minimization issues and to address Riparian Buffer Rule requirements.
2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED
The overall purpose of the project is to provide a championship quality golf course and a
residential community capable of attracting retired and semi-retired citizens from primarily the
eastern seaboard. The project's location is conducive to an attractive retirement destination
because of several factors. These include, but may not be limited to:
¦ Proximity to the coast and the mountains
Accessibility from Interstate 95, US 64 and US 301
¦ Within 50 miles of an international airport (RDU)
¦ Within 50 miles of world-class health care (Raleigh-Durham area)
¦ Reasonably mild winters
¦ Reasonable cost of living
Ford's Colony has developed similar golf and residential communities in other areas such as
• Atlanta, GA; Boone, NC; and Williamsburg, VA. Information on these other con m mities is
available from the applicant upon request.
2
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
• The proposed golf course has been designed to allow for championship play as well as allowing
for beginners and novices. The proposed project will balance economic factors (such as ensuring
reasonable return on investment, employment opportunities, and tax revenues) with
environmental factors such as minimizing impacts and providing compensatory mitigation for
unavoidable wetland and surface water impacts by preserving on-site wetland and streams,
providing open space, providing on-site mitigation through wetland/stream enhancement or
restoration and through stormwater management practices. Payment into the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program and Tar-Pamlico River Riparian Buffer Mitigation Fund may
also be necessary to supplement the proposed on-site mitigation plan.
Market research has been conducted by the applicant and it has been determined that there is
desire and need un this area for such a development. Currently, most retirees who choose to
relocate to North Carolina either end up residing at the coast or in the mountains. Few
developments of this caliber are located in the upper Coastal Plain or Piedmont. Certain criteria
are necessary in order to develop a project of this magnitude. These specific needs include, but
may not be limited to:
¦ Large, contiguous tract of land (900 acre minimum)
¦ Accessibility from major highways
¦ Water and sewer service
¦ Water for golf course irrigation
• Areas for greenspace
¦ Minimal environmental concerns based on overall property size
¦ Quality medical centers nearby
¦ Cultural attractions nearby
¦ Local government acceptance
The aesthetic value of the natural resources that occur on the property offer market appeal and are
a major source of market value.
2.1 Economic Impact
Nash County is currently experiencing a period of economic depression. There is a tremendous
need for economic improvement in Nash County due to recent plant closings, the decrease in the
historically significant tobacco market, and overall company downsizing. The economic impact
to the region will be immediate in terms of providing jobs and local revenue. Rocky Mount and
Nash County government have expressed their desire for this project. State government officials
have also indicated that this is a desirable project for the region as a whole. It is believed that the
benefits derived from the project will greatly improve the quality of life for citizens of Nash
County, Rocky Mount, and the surrounding areas by bringing an influx of revenue, and the
potential for new businesses catering to the residents of FCRM. The possibility of championship
0 golf play is also a major economic factor in the overall development plan.
3
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
A detailed economic analysis has been prepared by the development team and is included in
Appendix 1. This data shows the economic value of this project on the economy of Nash County
and Rocky Mount.
3.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Headquarters of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (HQUSACE) guidance from 22 April 1986
requires that alternatives be practicable to the applicant and that the purpose and need for the
project must be the applicant's purpose and need. This guidance also states that project purpose
is to be viewed from the applicant's perspective rather than only from the broad, public
perspective. The essential point of the HQUSACE policy guidance of 22 April 1986 is that under
the Section 404 (b)(1) Guidelines, an alternative must be available to the applicant to be a
practicable alternative. Pursuant to 40 CFR 230.10(a)(2) practicable alternatives are those
alternatives that are "available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost,
existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purpose". The preamble to the 404(b)
Guidelines states, "if an alleged alternative is unreasonably expensive to the applicant, the
alternative is not practicable". Section 40 CFR 230.10 (a) of the Guidelines state that " no
discharge of dredged or fill material shall be pennitted if there is a practicable alternative to the
proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as
the alternative does not have other significant environmental consequences".
• ESI conducted a GIS-based site search within a 15-mile radius of the project study area in order
to determine if any properties meeting all of the applicant's development criteria were present.
The GIS search identified two properties that meet some of the necessary criteria (Appendix 1I-
Figure 1). Figures and supplemental information from DWQ (2004a) is provided in Appendix
H. None of the sites met the applicant's purpose and need.
The first site (Parcel ID 30802) is approximately 902 acres and is located in the northwest corner
of Nash County (Appendix II-Figure 2). This site contains numerous stream channels including
tributaries to Tumbling Run and Gideon Swamp. Both stream systems have a Best Usage
Classification of C; NSW. Class C classification protects freshwaters for secondary recreational
activities, fishing and propagation and survival of aquatic life. This is the minimum classification
for all freshwater (DEM 1992). The supplemental NSW indicates Nutrient Sensitive Waters that
are subject to growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation requiring limitations on nutrient
input. The configuration of the site and the presence of several constriction points throughout the
property make it undesirable from a golf course and residential development perspective. The
numerous streams and wetlands and the amount of intact forest would likely require considerable
environmental impacts. The site is not easily accessed through the primary roads and it is too far
from a highly developed area where water and sewer services can be easily provided.
Additionally, there do not appear to be any on-site lakes or ponds that could provide irrigation
• opportunities. Creating new lakes "on-line" with the onsite strearns is not a desirable activity due
to the riparian buffer rules and other environmental regulations. This site is not conducive to the
type of project that the Ford's Colony team envisions.
4
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
• The second site (Parcel ID 30789) is located near 1-95 in northeastern Nash County. This site is
approximately 1042 acres and lies adjacent to Fishing Creek and Beaverdam Swamp (Appendix
H-Figure 3). Both Fishing Creek and Beaverdam Swamp have a Best Usage Classification of
WS_1Y, NSW. This indicates that they both serve as a Water Supply for a Highly Developed
(WS-M area and they are both Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW). Developing this site has the
potential for negative environmental impacts due to the two Water Supply streams along the north
and west boundaries. The property also contains a significant amount of jurisdictional wetlands
based on the current National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and county soil mapping.
Although the site is near I-95, it is too far north of Rocky Mount to be able to utilize the
comprehensive water and sewer services. This site is not conducive to the type of development
that the Ford's Colony team envisions. Additionally, ESI has discovered that this parcel is being
currently in the negotiation stages for an undisclosed type of utilization
3.1 No Action Alternative
A "No Action" alternative is here considered to be one that avoids all wetland and surface water
impacts. Due to the constraints dictated by site topography and land-grading requirements, this
project cannot be downsized or shifted to avoid all jurisdictional areas and still satisfy project
purpose and need. Additionally, due to the necessary area needed for a development such as this,
• it has proven to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to locate a different site where no
jurisdictional areas occur.
A "No Action" decision at this location would result in negative economic impacts to Ford's
Colony, shareholders, and Nash County as a whole. The fact that this site has a history of
disturbance from previous agriculture, livestock activities, and silviculture also leads to the
conclusion that utilizing this site would be more appropriate than attempting this venture on an
undisturbed property. The "No Action" alternative is not capable of achieving the basic purpose
and need of the proposed project and, therefore, is not a reasonable alternative.
3.2 Preferred Alternative (Proposed Site)
Belmont Fanns was proposed for development back in the 1970s. An 18-hole golf course as well
as significant residential development was part of one of the Master Plans. The entire project, as
originally designed, was never developed. The existing development along the southern shore of
Belmont Lake was initiated in 1993 and consists of Wood's Walk, Chimney Hill and Lake
Pointe.
In 2003, Realtec, Inc. contacted the owner of the Belmont Farms property to determine if they
might be interested in developing a joint venture to develop the subject property. Recently,
• Realtec, Inc. purchased additional land in order to avoid some significant wetland, stream and
buffer impacts. The additional land also allowed for more open space and greenspace that will be
preserved while allowing the designers to avoid and minimize significant environmental impacts.
5
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
• The current scenario involves Realtec, Inc. developing the property as FCRM. The following
information lists the primary reasons that Realtec, Inc. has chosen the Belmont Farms site for the
FCRM project.
Economic
1. The property owner wants to see the land developed and utilized.
2. There is existing zoning attached to the land, which allows for site development and this
works with the development position of Realtec, Inc. Zoning for 6 units per acre was
approved by the City of Rocky Mount in 1998.
3. The original 800 acres of land was under a single ownership. Previously zoned land
equaling 800 acres, under a single ownership, and with a willing landowner is difficult at
best to find.
4. The City of Rocky Mount wants this development to occur and has provided a grant to
the developers to encourage development of the property.
5. Nash County also wants this development and has also provided a grant to the
developers.
6. The Governor of North Carolina is in favor of this project because of the benefit to the
community.
• Marketability
1. The site is in close proximity to I-95. Realtec's strongest market share are to individuals
in the 45-65 age range who live in the Northeastern US from Ohio to New York and also
retired individuals who desire to move out of Florida and return to a more temperate
climate. The vast majority of those in the Northeast use the I-95 travel corridor, which
allows for easy access.
2. The site works into the market position, which Realtec, Inc. strives to come into. The site
is in a state of stagnation in that no development occurred onsite between 1978-1998.
The lake was constructed in 1978 and the existing Belmont Farms residential area was
developed in 1998.
3. Realtec, Inc. has found that a number of their existing and perspective homeowners are
looking to move a little further south and desire to be in closer proximity to a major
north/south corridor as compared to their current location in Williamsburg.
Environmental
1. The topography of the site is gently rolling and is well suited to development.
2. Some areas of the site are flat and open, which lend the land to higher density
development.
3. The existing Belmont Lake is a tremendous asset to the project. A lake such as Belmont
Lake would be extremely difficult to construct today due to cost and the current
environmental regulations including the Tar-Pamlico Riparian Buffer Rule.
4. The site has no hazardous issues hindering development.
5. There are no protected species issues associated with this site.
6
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
0 3.3 Site History
Appendix M contains some detailed descriptions of the history of the Belmont Farms property
from the 1800s through present day. Various maps, surveys, site plans, and graphics are also
provided that documents the previous activities occurring on portions of the original Belmont
Farms property.
4.0 EldVIRONMIENTAL SETTING
This section presents existing environmental conditions of the proposed project site and discusses
environmental impacts anticipated as a result of the proposed project. The Ford's Colony site has
been visited numerous tunes by ESI personnel from May through October 2004 to evaluate
existing conditions and to document physical and biological resources.
The site is located adjacent to NC Highway 301. Total size of the site is approximately 1,100
acres. The golf course, single-family housing community, and clubhouse are proposed in and
around natural communities to avoid and minimize environmental impacts.
4.1 Physiographic, Topography, Geology, and Land Use
• The Ford's Colony site is located in the southeast quadrant of the United States Geological
Survey (USGS) Drake, NC 7.5-minute topographic map (USGS 1963). More specifically, the
site is located west of US 301 just south of Battleboro, NC near the North Carolina Wesleyan
College in Nash County (Figure 1). Beech Branch flows west to east through the site and was
dammed in 1973 to form Belmont Lake.
Topographically, Nash County lies on the physiographic boundary between the piedmont and
coastal plain of North Carolina. The project site is in the coastal plain of Nash County. The
project site contains agricultural fields, broad flat uplands, gentle sloping floodplains, and flat
stream terraces around Beech Branch. Elevations on the site range from a low of approximately
92 feet above mean sea level (MSL) along Beech Branch to a high of approximately 140 feet
above MSL in an agricultural field. Several small streams originate on the site and provide
surface drainage into Beech Branch.
The project site is located in the Yorktown Formation and Duplin Formation of the Coastal Plain
physiographic region. The Yorktown Formation consists of fossiliferous clay with varying
amounts of fine-grained sand. The Duplin Formation consists of a shelly, medium-to coarse-
grained sand, sandy marl, and limestone. (Horton & Zullo 1991).
. The total area within subbasin 030202 is 663 square miles (miz). Land area is 663 mil and water
area is 9 mil respectively. Land use in subbasin 030302 can be characterized in the following
7
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
. manner: forest/wetland-63%; surface water-1%; urban-3%; cultivated crop-27; pasture/managed
herbaceous-5% (DWQ 2004b).
4.2 Soils
Existing soils mapping in the Soil Survey of Nash County, North Carolina (USDA 1989) shows
that the project site contains numerous soil-mapping units (Figure 2). These are combined into
two associations. The Norfolk-Rains soil association, which is nearly level to gently sloping,
well-drained and poorly drained soils that have a loamy or clayey subsoil; on uplands. The other
is Rains-Norfolk-Goldsboro which is nearly level to gently sloping, poorly drained, well drained,
and moderately well drained soils that have a loamy or clayey subsoil: on uplands. Please refer to
Figure 2 for the detailed soils map.
4.3 Water Resources
Two major cataloging systems are used in North Carolina to identify surface water drainage
areas: one developed by USGS and the other by DWQ. The project site is located within the
USGS hydrologic unit 03020101 (Seaber et al. 1987). The DWQ system places the site in sub-
basin 030302 of the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. The Stream Index Number (SIN) of Beech Branch
is 28-75-(1). The major tributaries of the Tar-Pamlico River in this sub-basin include Tar River,
Sapony Creek, Sandy Creek, Swift Creek, and Stony Creek (DWQ 2003).
The property contains Beech Branch and several of its UTs. These UTs consist of first and
second order streams. The southeastern boundary of the project study area is an UT to Compass
Creek. ESI has witnessed that that all sections of these streams do not flow year round. ESI
mapped the majority of the on-site streams in May and June 2004, (Figure 3). Approximately
19,827 linear feet of delineated and GPS-mapped streams occur on the site, not including Beech
Branch or UT Compass Creek. Portions of Beech Branch and UT Compass Creek were not
delineated or mapped because they form part of the project boundary, which has previously been
surveyed. Jurisdictional delineation plats are also provided in Appendix N. These plats show
the wetlands and streams in greater detail.
Beech Branch from its source to US 301 is assigned a Best Usage Classification of B,NSW.
Class B waters are freshwaters that are protected for primary recreation which includes
swimming on a frequent or organized basis and includes all Class C uses. The supplemental
NSW indicates Nutrient Sensitive Waters that are subject to growth of microscopic or
macroscopic vegetation requiring limitations on nutrient input. Class C classification protects
freshwaters for secondary recreational activities, fishing and propagation and survival of aquatic
life (DEM 1992).
is As mentioned earlier, Beech Branch was dammed in the 1970s to create Belmont Lake. Belmont
Lake is approximately 80 acres in size. The other large lake is located in the northeast quadrant
of the property and comprises approximately 7.6 acres. Two additional small ponds occur on the
8
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
• site and appear to have been created for agricultural use many years ago. These two ponds are
located in the western half of the site adjacent to existing agriculture fields.
Water quality is assessed by DWQ through several programs, including benthic macro-
invertebrate monitoring, fish conununity structure, and aquatic toxicity monitoring. One fish
community station was monitored in 2002 along Beech Branch downstream from the project site.
Currently Beech Branch has a use support rating of `Not Rated,' because criteria for assigning
bio-classifications to fish community samples has not been developed for coastal plain streams.
DWQ continues to monitor Beech Branch, assessing changes in the fish community that may be
related to land-disturbing activities. Best Management Practices (BMP's) are recommended for
the Beech Branch watershed. As of 2004, there are 3 known point-source discharges along Beech
Branch, all downstream of the project study area (DWQ 2004b). No bio-classifications were
found for Compass Creels, it was not part of the monitored waters within subbasin 03-03-02.
5.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
5.1 Plant Communities
Distribution and composition of plant communities throughout the project study area reflect
landscape-level variations in topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land use
practices. When appropriate, the plant community names have been adopted and modified from
the NHP classification system (Schafale and Weakley 1990) and the descriptions written to
reflect local variations within the project study area. Six plant communities were identified
within the project study area: mixed hardwood/pine forest, successional land, bottomland
hardwood forest, coastal plain small stream swamp, agricultural land, and maintained/disturbed
lands. Scientific nomenclature typically follows Radford et. al. (1968).
Mixed Hardwood/Pine Forest -Tree species in this community include American beech (Fagus
grandifolia), red maple (Ater rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and loblolly pine
(Pinus taeda). Groundcover species consist of common greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia), giant
cane (Arundinaria gigantea), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia) and Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia). This community type consists of both jurisdictional wetlands and
non jurisdictional, upland areas.
Successional Land -The successional land within the project study area consists of previously
disturbed land that is no longer maintained and has revegetated with young, disturbance-oriented
species. These areas include such species as young loblolly pine, sweetgum, persimmon
(Diospyros virginiana), black cherry (Prunus serotina), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinesense),
pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), and blackberry (Rubus spp.). There are several old fields
near the center of the property that have been fallow for many years and have revegetated with
• successional species.
9
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
. Bottomland Hardwood Forest -These plant communities are typically located landward of
abandoned or relict natural levee deposits, point bar ridges, and other relatively high parts of the
floodplain associated with rivers or streams (Schafale and Weakley 1990). The dominant tree
and shrub species include red maple, sweetgum, green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), water oak
(Quercus nigra), and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). Groundcover species consist of
lizard tail (Saururus cernuus), softrush (Juncus effusus), netted chain fens (Woodwardia
areolata), spotted touch-me-not (Impatiens capensis), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea)
and common greenbriar.
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp - The coastal plain small stream swamp communities in
the project study area are located within the active floodplam of small first and second order
streams as well as the larger Beech Branch. These communities flood on an irregular basis and
most plant life is adapted to seasonal flooding and extended periods of soil saturation. Dominant
vegetation includes red maple, sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), ironwood (Carpinus
caroliniana), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), green ash, tulip poplar, fetterbush (Lyonia lucida),
giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), spotted touch-me-not, and lizard tail.
Agricultural Land - Existing agricultural land consists primarily of soybeans and some cotton.
These areas are located high in the landscape and offer good drainage. Evidence of prior-
converted cropland is not readily visible.
• Maintained/Disturbed Land -These areas result from previous human disturbances and include
areas subject to periodic mowing and other maintenance activities. The existing roads, powerline
and sewer easements, and housing are included in this category. Species documented in the
disturbed/maintained areas include Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), blackberry,
lespedeza (Lespedeza spp.), and broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus). Various grasses are also
present in this community type.
5.2 Wildlife
The location of the project site is in a generally rural setting with agriculture and single-family
homes and farms scattered throughout, on the north side of Rocky Mount. Wildlife occurring in
the project study area will typically be those species that are adapted to fragmented landscapes.
Impacts to wildlife will likely be temporary displacement. However, wildlife corridors will
remain after construction in the form of the preserved greenspace, which will include both
wetlands and uplands.
Terrestrial Wildlife
The project site is known to contain both game and non-game species. Resources used to
research species distributions and habitat requirements include text by Webster et al. (1985) and
• Martof et al. (1980).
10
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
is Common mammals known or expected to occur on-site include: white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus), grey fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), Eastern chipmunk, (Tainias striatus), raccoon
(Procyon lotor), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and
grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis).
Avian species observed on-site include species commonly occurring in forested and disturbed
areas of the region. These species include: common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), turkey
vulture (Cathartes aura), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo
jamaicensis), American kestral (Falco sparverius), eastern screech owl (Otus asio), great horned
owl (Bubo virginianus), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), bobwhite quail (Colinus
virginianus), wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), pileated
woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), carolina chickadee (Parus
carolinensis), tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor), American robin (Turdus migratorius),
northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), hooded warbler (Wilsonia citrina) and field sparrow
(Spizella pusilla).
Reptilian species known or expected to occur on-site include: eastern box turtle (Terrapene
carolina carolina), green anole (Anolis carolinensis), fence lizard (Sceloporus undulates), six
lined racerunner (Cnemidophorus sexlineatus), five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), ground
skink (Scincella lateralis), eastern garder snake (Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis), southern ringneck
snake (Diadophis punctatus), eastern worm snake (Carphophis amoenus amoenus), and northern
black racer (Coluber constrictor constrictor).
Aquatic Wildlife
Aquatic avian species observed on-site include the belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon), great egret
(Ardea alba), blue heron (Ardea herodias), wood duck (Aix sponsa), and mallard (Anas
platyrhynchos).
Amphibian species observed or expected to occur on site include species commonly occurring in
small streams, ponds, and wet forests. These species include: oak toad (Bufo quercicus),
fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousii fowleri), marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum), two-lined
salamander (Eurycea cirrigera), two-toed amphiuma (Amphiuma means), and red-spotted newt
(Notophthalmus viridescens viridescens).
Common freshwater fish species known or expected to occur onsite include species commonly
occurring in creeks, small streams, ponds and impoundments. These species include: bluegill
(Lepomis macrochirus), eastern silvery minnow (Hybognathus regius), brown bullhead
(Ameiurus nebulosus), pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus), yellow perch (Perca flavescens),
warmouth (Lepomis gulosus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), and sawcheek darter
(Etheostoma serrifer).
r?
11
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
0 6.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES
The term "cultural resources" refers to prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, structures, or
artifact deposits over 50 years old. "Significant" cultural resources are those sites that are eligible
or potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Evaluations for
cultural resources are required whenever a Section 404 permit application is submitted to ACOE.
Evaluations of site significance are made with reference to the eligibility criteria of the National
Register (33 CFR 60) and in consultation with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO).
h1 a letter dated 25 June 2004, EST coordinated with the SHPO to detennine if the SHPO had any
comments on the proposed project under Section 106. In a letter dated 3 August 2004, the SHPO
stated that the project will have an adverse effect on the National Register-listed Dr. Franklin Hart
Farm and requested additional information on the proposed development. The SHPO also
recommended an archaeological survey of the project area.
Representatives of EST, Realtec, and Stocks Engineering met with the ACOE on 12 October
2004. The purpose of the meeting was to determine the exact nature of the permit area,
specifically to detennine how much of the project will be subject to Section 106. In the meeting,
the ACOE defined the entire project area as the permit area. EST met with Renee Gledhill-Earley
• and John Mintz of the SETO on 2 November 2004 to discuss cultural resource issues for the
FCRM permit area. The specific topics discussed were the Dr. Hart Farm and the survey strategy
for an archaeological survey.
Results of the SHPO coordination and the pending archaeological survey will be submitted to
ACOE under separate cover.
7.0 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
7.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires regulation of discharges into "waters of the
United States." Although the principal administrative agency of the CWA is the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the ACOE has major responsibility for implementation, permitting,
and enforcement of provisions of the Act. The ACOE regulatory program is defined in 33 CFR
320-330.
Water bodies such as rivers, lakes and streams are subject to jurisdictional consideration under
the Section 404 program. However, by regulation, wetlands are also considered "waters of the
United States." Wetlands have been described as:
Those areas that are inundated or saturated by groundwater at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
12
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas. [33 CFR
328.3(b) (1986)]
The ALOE requires the presence of three parameters (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and
evidence of jurisdictional hydrology) in support of a jurisdictional determination.
ESI delineated the onsite wetlands between April - June 2004 pursuant to current methodology
outlined in the 1987 Ariny Corps of Engineers PVetland Delineation Manual (DOA 1987).
Streams and surface waters were delineated pursuant to ACOE and DWQ criteria. ACOE data
forms and subsequent GPS snapping have been provided to Kevin Yates of the ACOE-Raleigh
Regulatory Field Office. Mr. Yates reviewed the delineation effort on several occasions: June 23
and August 3, 2004. In a letter dated 14 September 2004, Mr. Yates indicated that the
"Jurisdictional Wetlands and Surface Waters, Behnont Farms (Sheets 1 and 2), Nash County,
North Carolina" are suitable for permitting purposes. These two sheets are provided in Appendix
IV.
Wetland and stream boundaries were marked with sequentially numbered wetland survey tape
(pink/ lack striped and blue tape). Flagging was tied to vegetation in a manner so as to make it as
permanent as possible to facilitate follow-up surveys as required prior to construction. To
facilitate planning, the jurisdictional boundaries have been mapped using a TrhnbleTM Pro-XR
• GPS receiver and TSC1 data logger with Asset Survey software. This software included a data
dictionary specifically developed by ESI for this project. All ".ssf' files were differentially
corrected using base station data.
)Figure 3 depict the jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters occurring in the project study area
at a smaller scale than the maps provided in Appendix IV.
7.1.1 Riparian Areas
The majority of the jurisdictional wetlands within the boundaries of FCRM can be characterized
as riparian wetlands. Riparian areas, including wetlands, are transitional between terrestrial and
aquatic ecosystems and are distinguished by gradients in biophysical conditions, ecological
processes, and biota. They are areas through which surface and subsurface hydrology connect
water bodies with the adjacent uplands. They include portions or terrestrial ecosystems that
influence exchanges of energy and matter with aquatic ecosystems (National Research Council
2002). Riparian areas are adjacent to perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams and lakes.
Because riparian areas occupy a gradient in the landscape, they can include both wetland and
upland habitat. It is this gradient and the diverse biogeochemical processes that occur in riparian
areas that make them so important to the overall health of aquatic ecosystems. Riparian areas
also serve as a filter between developed uplands and low-lying floodplains and swamps, thus
reducing the amount of pollutants and contamination entering surface waters.
• The most significant riparian areas occurring on the FCRM site are those associated with Beech
Branch and UT of Compass Creek. These are the two primary surface water systems that traverse
13
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
the property. Beech Branch and its associated riparian areas have been historically affected by
the construction of Belmont Lake. As a result of damming Beech Branch, wetland areas have
expanded outwards in most locations to a point where site topography inhibits fiirther landward
migration. This wetland expansion reduces the "gradient" between terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems, which is what defines riparian areas. Unavoidable impacts to riparian areas as a
result of the FCRM project insist occur to make the project feasible and to meet the applicant's
purpose and need. However, impacts to these riparian areas, especially wetlands, have been
minimized as much as practicable through redesign.
FCRM realizes the importance on the on-site riparian areas and how future residents of FCRM
view them as desirable community attributes. Therefore, FCRM is dedicated to preserving all
remaining riparian areas that are not being affected by project construction. It is anticipated that
the remaining riparian areas will be placed under a conservation mechanism that will allow these
areas to remain natural in perpetuity. The preserved riparian areas will serve as important
wildlife corridors linking FCRM internally and with other off-site properties. FCRM envisions
an educational nature trail system in the future that may also utilize the greenspace provided by
the preserved riparian areas.
Proper management of the preserved riparian areas will be an ongoing activity within FORM.
Reduction in nutrient and sediment loading and enhancing wildlife habitat is a major statewide
goal in North Carolina (National Research Council 2002). Best Management practices (BMPs)
are the primary protection mechanism for the protection of riparian areas. However, certain river
basins in North Carolina also have regulations, which limit the type and amount of development
that can occur in a certain portion of a riparian area. These riparian buffer regulations (rules) are
discussed in later sections.
7.2 Isolated Wetlands
Isolated wetlands are not currently regulated by ACOE. ACOE verified that there are five
isolated wetlands in the project study area (Wetlands 4,5,37,38, and 55). These isolated wetlands
were reviewed by ACOE during the course of several site visits and they are labeled as isolated
on Figure 3 and on Sheets 1 & 2 in Appendix IV. I11 North Carolina, the DWQ administers the
Section 401 Water Quality Certification process and has adopted rules under 15A NCAC 02H
.1300 - .1305 that regulate discharges to the isolated wetlands that ACOE no longer regulates.
Impacts to isolated wetlands of greater or equal to 0.33 acre east of I-95 require written
notification to and approval by DWQ. Impacts to less than 0.33 acre of isolated wetlands east of
1-95 is considered to be permitted by DWQ and forinal notification is not required. However, on
a project of this size, DWQ retains discretionary authority to require a formal permit application.
7.3 Cowardin Classification for Wetlands and Deepwater Habitat
Wetland and deepwater habitat types existing on the FCRM site based on Cowardin et al. (1979)
• consist of the following: palustrine forested (PFO), palustrine shrub-scrub (PSS), palustrine
emergent (PEM), palustrine unconsolidated bottom (PUB), lacustrine, limnetic, unconsolidated
bottom (LUB).
14
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
• Palustrine systems are defined by Cowardin et al. (1979) as all non-tidal wetlands dominated by
trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses or lichens, and all such wetlands that occur
in tidal areas where the salinity clue to ocean-derived salts is below 0.5 parts per thousand (ppt).
The palustrine wetlands within the project study area include areas dominated by trees, shrubs,
and areas dominated by herbaceous species, thus the PFO, PSS, and PEM designations.
Palustrine systems may also include wetlands that lack the above vegetation patterns, such as
PUB, but that have all of the following four characteristics: (1) area less than 20 acres; (2) active
wave-formed or bedrock shoreline features lacking; (3) water depth in the deepest part of basin
less than 6.6 feet at low water; and (4) salinity due to ocean-derived salts less than 0.5 ppt
(Cowardin et al. 1979). Portions of the lakes and ponds that are less than 20 acres can be
considered PUB.
The majority of the on-site jurisdictional wetlands consist of PFO wetlands comprised of mixed
hardwood forest, wet pine/hardwood flats, and small stream swamp forest. PSS wetlands are
dominated by woody vegetation averaging 20 feet tall or less. This wetland type is found within
portions of the on-site easements and in the area north of Red Oak-Battleboro Road. The PEM
wetlands are found primarily within the powerline and sewer easements. The 7.6-acre lake and
the two small agriculture ponds can be characterized as PUB wetlands due to their size and
dependant upon the water depth.
Lacustrine systems include wetlands and deepwater habitats with all of the following
characteristics: (1) situated in a topographic depression or damned river or stream channel; (2)
lacking trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses or lichens with greater than 30%
areal coverage; and (3) total area exceeds 8 ha (20 acres). The lacustrine system is bounded by
upland or wetlands. Lacustrine systems formed by damning a river or stream is bounded by a
contour approximating the normal spillway elevation or normal pool elevation, except where the
palustrine wetland extends landward of that boundary (Cowardin et al. 1979). Belmont Lake is
the only lacustrine system located on the subject property due to its size (>20ac).
During the field investigation and delineation effort; the PFO, PSS, and PEM wetlands were also
classified as either riparian or non-riparian based on their position in the landscape. Adjacent
streams, through periodic overbank flooding, influence the hydrology of riparian wetlands.
Overbank flooding does not typically influence the hydrology of non-riparian wetlands.
Proposed wetland impacts described in Section 8.0 are divided into riparian and non-riparian
impacts.
7.3.1 Wetland Values and Functions
ESI conducted functional assessments in 38 wetland areas where either roadway or golf course
impacts are likely. The functional assessment methodology is a modified version of the Hydro-
geomorphic Method developed by ESI to evaluate large wetland systems impacted by
transportation projects. The methodology involves assessing the following primary wetland
criteria: hydrology, biogeochemical, plant habitat, and animal habitat. There are at least two, and
15
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
• as many as five, variables under each of these criteria that are given a numerical value from 0.0 to
1.0 depending on the evaluator's professional judgment. The highest possible score is 41, with
the higher score indicating a higher functional value relative to other wetlands in the project study
area. Appendix V contains copies of blank data forms that identify the criteria and variables
used to assess the functional value of a wetland system. Tables 1 & 2 contain the scores for
specific wetland impact areas
The highest functional value scores result from those wetlands that contain a mature canopy with
a midstoiy and groundcover layer, have available water storage capabilities such as those riparian
systems with functioning floodplains, and those wetland systems that provide wildlife habitat and
travel corridors.
7,4 Stream Types and Characteristics
On-site stream channels consist of 1St order intermittent streams up to 3rd and 4th order perennial
stream channels. Beech Branch is the primary perennial stream channel occurring on the
property with numerous unnamed tributaries (UTs) converging with Beech Branch.
ESI delineated and GPS mapped all of the streams that contained a well-defined channel with the
exception of those streams that serve as property boundaries. Please refer to Figure 3 and/or
Appendix IV for maps depicting the delineated streams. Stream channels were approximated in
• those areas where a channel was known to occur but could not be delineated due to flooded,
braided, or undefined bed/bank conditions. Both DWQ and ACOE data forms were completed
for all delineated streams and are available upon request should they be needed during the
permitting process. Table 1 & 2 contains the DWQ and ACOE stream scores for selected stream
segments. These segments can be identified on the Jurisdictional Wetlands and Surface Waters
Sheets 1&2 located in Appendix N and represent typical stream reaches that occur throughout
the project study area. Blank copies of both the DWQ and ACOE stream data forms are included
in Appendix V.
Stream characteristics were evaluated for use in classifying the stream channels according to
Rosgen (1996). The classification stratifies streams into comparable groups based on pattern,
dimension, profile, and substrate characteristics. Primary components of the classification
include degree of entrenchment, width/depth ratio, sinuosity, channel slope, and streambed
substrate composition. Approximately 19,800 linear feet of stream channel was GPS mapped in
the project study area. Level 1 Stream characterizations were performed on the streams proposed
for impact by ESI staff trained in Applied River Morphology classification techniques.
The on-site stream channels that were evaluated can be classified as one of the following stream
types based on Rosgen (1996): C, E, F, and G.
• . "C" type streams have a low gradient, meandering point bar, riffle/pool channels with broad,
well defined floodplains and a high width/depth ratio (i. e. wide/shallow). "C" type streams
are slightly entrenched with well-defined meandering channels.
16
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
"E" type streams have low gradient, meandering riffle/pool channels with low width/depth
® ratios (i.e. narrow/deep). These stream types are highly sinuous with stable, well-vegetated
banks and developed floodplains. "E" type streams are considered to be efficient and stable
streams.
® "F" type streams are gently sloped, relatively wide and shallow, highly entrenched channel
with moderate sinuosity. "F" type channels are characterized by a lack of a developed
floodplain, a meandering channel, and terraces consisting of abandoned floodplains.
® "G" type streams are moderately to gently sloped, relatively deep and narrow, highly
entrenched, moderately to highly sinuous channel. "G" type channels are characterized by
the lack of a developed floodplain, a meandering channel, and terraces consisting of
abandoned floodplains.
7.4.1 Stream Importance
To aid in alternative analyses and to help determine stream mitigation requirements, the ACOE
designates streams as either important or unimportant. Streams that have perennial flow,
associated wetlands, significant aquatic fauna, or associated Threatened and Endangered species
are generally considered to be important and impacts to these streams would require mitigation.
is Intermittent streams may be considered important if the associated wetlands, significant aquatic
fauna, or Threatened and Endangered species criteria are met. Streams designated as unimportant
do not typically require mitigation. Unimportant streams tend to be very small intermittent
channels with undefined bed and bank or excavated ditches that have captured groundwater flow.
ACOE has designated one on-site stream channel (upper reach of S31) as Unimportant because it
is a man-made ditch that has captured groundwater flow and upland runoff from an agriculture
field. This unimportant channel is depicted in Figure 3 and Appendix IV.
7.5 Riparian Buffers
The project study area is within the Tar-Pamlico River Drainage Basin and some jurisdictional
surface waters are may be subject to the Tar-Pamlico River Riparian Buffer Rule (Rule). The
Rule applies to a 50-ft wide riparian buffer directly adjacent to some surface waters in the Tar-
Pamlico River Drainage Basin. This includes intermittent streams, perennial streams, lakes,
ponds, and estuaries that are depicted on either the most recent version of USGS topographic
maps or county soil survey maps, but does not include jurisdictional wetlands (non-surface
waters) regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Beech Branch, UT Compass Creek,
and several tributaries to these receiving waters are subject to the Rule. Belmont Lance, the lake
located downstream of Wetland 29 and the pond located downstream of Wetland 64 are all
subject to the Rule. Onsite meetings were held with Michael Horan of DWQ on June 14, August
10, and September 1, 2004 in order to investigate several riparian buffer issues. A map depicting
• those streams and surface waters subject to the Rule is provided as Appendix IV. DWQ will be
17
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
• the agency responsible for reviewing unavoidable riparian buffer impacts resulting from FCRM.
Riparian buffer impacts are described in Section 8.0.
8.0 0UMSDICTIONAL MPACTS
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1344), a pen-nit will be
required from the ACOE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United
States." Section 401 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1341) requires each state to certify that state water
quality standards will not be violated for activities which: 1) involve issuance of a federal permit
or license; or 2) require discharges to "waters of the United States. The use of a Section 404
Permit requires the prior issuance of the 401 certification. Therefore, the applicant must also
apply to DWQ for 401 certification. This process is typically handled as a joint permit
application to both the ACOE, and DWQ.
The FCRM project will entail unavoidable impacts to riparian and non-riparian PFO, PSS, and
PEM wetlands. Wetland impacts will result from road crossings, golf course fairway
construction, and driving range construction. The types of wetland impacts consist of clear/fill,
clear/remove stumps, clear/leave stumps, and hand clear vegetation. Wetland fill is being
proposed only in those areas where the other types of impacts cannot be used due to safety or
engineering reasons. Wetland impacts associated with road crossings will be filled. Certain
fairway impacts must also be filled to provide for a playable golf course. The FCRM project will
• also entail unavoidable impacts to intermittent and perennial stream chaimels, LUB and PUB
wetlands. Stream impacts will result from road crossings, golf course fairway construction, and
driving range construction.
Residential Lots
No jurisdictional wetland or stream impacts will result from residential lot development. Those
areas that contain wetlands adjacent to lots will be preserved as open space by FCRM. FCRM
will not allow any wetland fill for residential lots.
8.1 Roadway Infrastructure
To develop the FCRM community it was determined that the best and most appropriate location
for the main entrance road should be off of Highway 301. The site for the entrance was chosen
because of the existing traffic light at this location. The club site was chosen to be just to the
north of the entrance to provide easy access to patrons. The road alignment defined the
remainder of the site design in that efforts were made to avoid the buffered streams and wetland
impacts where practicable throughout the project study area. The road network is based on the
concept of a collector road (spine road) running throughout the community with community pods
feeding off of it. To insure access to the golf course and adequate entrances for health, safety,
and welfare of the residents, numerous entrances have been designed into the plan. One entrance
is the existing entrance off of Bishops Road, which serves the southern portions of the
community. The second is to the north off of Red Oak-Battleboro Road, which serves the
northern portion of the community. The third entrance is a fire entrance to the west, and the final
and main entrance is off of Highway 301. This 301 entrance will be the main entrance to the
18
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
• community. It was chosen for its ease of access into this community off of this main corridor into
and out of Rocky Mount. Additionally, there is an existing traffic light at this location.
Avoidance and Minimization
The appropriate roadway design is critical to allow the remainder of the project study area to be
properly planned and designed. The design team believes that the roadway design presented in
this permit application and report represents the most practicable and least enviromnentally
damaging alternative while still maintaining the applicant's purpose and need. Completely
avoiding wetland and stream impacts from road crossings is not possible on this property. There
are 83+ acres of on-site wetland, 19,800 feet of stream channel, and 91+ acres of open water
within the boundaries of FCRM. The position of the wetlands and streams in the landscape makes
it virtually impossible to avoid any jurisdictional impacts. The design team has made tremendous
efforts to reduce the amount of unavoidable impacts to wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers.
Road alignments have been modified where feasible. Additionally, the applicant has purchased
additional land in order to reduce the environmental impacts in the vicinity of Wetland 29 and
Stream 11. Without this additional land, the necessary road system would have crossed Wetland
29, which is a relatively high quality system. Crossings have been designed to cross wetlands at
their narrowest point in most instances. Road Crossing 7 has been eliminated completely from
the proposed development plan.
• Roadway Impacts
A summary of the road impacts as provided by McBride Hess Design Group and ESI is provided
in this section. The individual roadway impact graphics are provided as Figures 4a-4bb in
Section 13. The individual roadway impact graphics referenced to the roadway impact Key Map
(Figure 4) and the large-scale color key map provided in Appendix IV. Roadway wetland
impacts are labeled as R-W1, R-W2, etc., and roadway stream impacts are labeled as R-S1, R- S2,
etc. Impacts are also referenced back to the original wetland and stream delineation numbers that
are also provided on the delineation plats in Appendix IV. Details of individual roadway impacts
are provided in Table 1. Typical cross-sections of the proposed culverted crossings are provided
in Section 14 along with the other road impact figures.
Roadway Crossing 1
The main road was routed to the north to avoid Belmont Lake. Its path is parallel to the buffered
stream (S6), which flows into Belmont Lake. The road alignment at this point traverses to the
east of the stream until it reaches the upper end of the buffered stream. The road provides access
to the club site, which is to the northeast. The club's location was chosen for ease of access from
this road and Highway 301. The club location is set so that there is ease of access to the Driving
Range and the first tee box. This is most important for control of golf play. Therefore, the road
was routed to pass between the golf tee box and the stream and its buffer. The buffer is only
slightly encroached upon. As a consequence of avoiding the stream and allowing golf to play
directly from the back of the club, the wetland impact (R-W1) shown is necessary. The split
road, which increases the impact, is necessary for traffic reasons because it is just past the
gatehouse
19
•
•
•

( ll' bs) r
'

pai!nba?j r c
?
N
uo!le6!l!W N
;n

m
(l?'bS) lOedLLIJ
M
C) CD CD
O
m
V
N 0
co 0
m 0
C)
0 0
It
0 0
0 0
0
CO
E )a}ing d auoZ N N N N M V N It N N N N N CO
m
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
N oedw
b
' r ° V O N d' COO 00 N co O O O O `n
S) l
l
(
l}
O
N
N
LO
co
Or O
i M co M co M
d'
m )al}ng l auoZ 7 M

° r T M d'
loedwl LL L` N CO l?l LL to LL co LL
m LL LL LL LL LL
# m m m m m m m m co m
o co co cc °
°
)9}ln9 peoL! D o: w o: a! G o o o o 0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
a

WOOS
L7
Cn ?
r
rn ?
O ?
?o CO
CV U

weeds OMO
N
N N
N
m
co

aJ00s weeils
r
M
N
co O
co
W
U) m
-6
-
DOOV m o

(oe) .
o 0

° 0
c
jaleM uad0 0
(4) loedwl m
weans

- rn M m e 0

N
m
luall!wialul co U )
7 O
lueliodwl - - - - - - - - -
w (l}) loedw l co rn o : ro
E wea)lS E °
CO LO O
,n Cl )

d le!uuaaad
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- °
••
VJ

-

-

-

-

-

-
N °
N °
N ro
N
r U ) C O m N c o M O N m
# uo!leau!la0
N ro
c o _
i N
U
)
cl
i
N
in
i
ni
n? co
m 6 6
weeils u im n U
)
U
)
c
N
U
) 7 N
°
c # loedw l
u
? c
D
r
c
o
rn O N M V CO N

/?e MPEOZ
{
U
) N
V
(
U
) U
)
U
)
U
)
U
) U
) U
) U)
U
) U) `
p o D o D o G G G
T weal s ro

0
ad?l
i
?
?
u
O
0
0
0
0
-0
0-
0-
-0
-0
0-
-
0

6

0

6

0

0

w

o

O

LL

O n
11
,
O n
u)
O
O
v) u
O L
L
LL L
L
L
L L
L L
L L
L L
L L
L L
L L
L
L
L
L
L

L

i. L L L L LL
ue a
p llM LL LL L L
I
L I _
L C
LL L C L I L a a a a a mI L a ? a ? a ao a a a s LL
a- a- a- C L LL
C
M
°
a W7-0) moos
m
?
ao
M
a
oc
hc
o
r
rn
?
M
rn
rnc
oe
.
o
r
No
?
o
me
oo
0
M
t c
r
o
c N
o N
co

o
U luawssaSSt/ O
c' r
r r N c0
c- CO oo v c
r v
N m
r o
N o
N N N o
t - N N N ?
N r

c O
N !euo!lounj a
o
7 i U

LL
(oe)
4
1
- rn

°
'OD
o MA palelosl O ° w °
O N D
C 1 O N
>
N (oe)ll!. 0 0 ° o 0 0 0 N o o °? N U
Q ° aro
ueuedu-uON co 0 o D o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m
O O U D .- ro
o
N 'NO (oe) 0) U') >
O V O O N oo m O N
C)
r
O
?
r
M
O
[O
N

`
a
Ue1Jed!?1
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
°
0

t
0
0
0 O
m
N
II!?
rn m
C
# not}eaul!a0
O
r
co
rn
V'
N
M
N
r'
i
N
V
'?t
CO
CO
to
m
(D
m
Lo
LO
C!')
CO
d'
M
O
U-)
LO
N
N
v
C
0
puellaM
?
O
ro
w
o
N
o m ? + c c
#loedwl N co V U? m co rn CD N M V LO CD r_ w rn o N
N M
N d
N ?
N m
N
N Do
N rn
N w
w >
3 w
O
c o (empeo? o

?
tr
?
o:
o'
cr
a'
o'
o
0
o
G
?
0
o
CC
?
D
o_
?
0_
w
0_
0_
o!

0
F- ?

° a -

) m

a m

a

a
puepaM ° m E u n
m # 6u!ssa0
-
N
M
?t
BO
O

-
oo
rn
O
?
N
M
V
?O
(fl
r
oo
rn
N
O
N

N
N
N
M
N
d'
N
CO
N
C0
N
r
N
o0
N
rn
N
O
M

M
N
M
M
M M
N
(
C
n °
n
s o
oO
L
U
L U
)
)
p e 0? c . t as
h
aD
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
• location. No other options were looked at for this crossing because of the need for access to the
golf tee from the club and the desire to avoid the stream impact. Impacts to Wetland 10 (W10)
have been minnnized as much as practicable. This impact is to a PF01/4 non-riparian wetland.
Refer to TWe 1 for impact details.
Roadway Crossing 2
Stream and wetland impacts are necessary to provide access around the community with a
collector road. This roadway impact was designed so as to minimize the environmental impact.
This collector road must be installed to provide secured access to the residents. This impact
location was chosen because it was deemed the least enviromnentally significant area in the
stream channel. At this location the stream has little or no vegetation surrounding it because it is
passing under a 60' right of way for a major overhead power line. The crossing location allows
for the golf hole as well as the road to pass under the power lines without conflict to the existing
power poles. There is stream impact; buffer impact and wetland impact at this location but the
impact to the vegetation is minimal. Impacts to W7 and S2a have been minimized as much as
practicable. This crossing will be piped and filled. This impact is to a PSSI riparian wetland.
Refer to Table 1 for impact details.
Roadway Crossing 3
Wetland and strearn impacts will result from Roadway Crossing 3. The purpose of roadway
• crossing 3 is to provide access to the areas north of the second and first holes. Access had to be
provided between Holes 1 and 2. Additional access was provided to the north of Hole 2, but
both are required to for safety purposes. Hole number 1 has been routed to avoid a stream and
buffer impact. To minimize excessive drive time between holes, Hole number two's tee box is
located within 400 feet of the number one green. In accordance to PGA guidelines any distance
over 600 feet is deemed excessive. Note that there are numerous locations on this golf course
where drive distances are excessive and therefore wherever possible the drive distances have been
kept to within PGA guidelines. This location is one such distance. To minimize wetland
disturbance on hole number 2 the tee box has been moved away from the buffered stream.
However this crossing is necessary to allow access to the north. It has been designed as far up on
the stream as possible yet still allowing for curve radii that meet the City of Rocky Mount
standards. Impacts to W7 and S3 have been minimized as much as practicable. The crossing will
be piped and filled. This impact is to a PF01/4 riparian wetland. Refer to Table 1 for impact
details.
Roadway Crossing 4
Wetland impacts will result from Roadway Crossing 4. The road alignment in this area was
designed to allow for golf home sites to back up to the golf course. At this location there is a
wetland impact but no stream impact. If the road were moved further south, the wetland impact
• would decrease, however, a stream impact would then result also. Impacts to streams have been
avoided on this crossing and the wetland impact has been minimized. This impact is to a PF01/4
non-riparian wetland. The crossing will be filled. Refer to Table 1 for impact details.
21
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
0
Roadway Crossing 5
Wetland impact will result from Roadway Crossing 5. The least environmentally sensitive area in
this wetland system appears to be under the existing power lute. Access to the lots east of the
power line is necessary. The cul-de-sac was placed under the power line to maximize lot layout.
Impacts to Wetland 9 (W9) have been minimized. This impact is to a PSSI non-riparian wetland.
This area will be filled. Refer to Table I for impact details.
Roadway Crossing 6
Wetland 4 (W4) has been verified as an isolated wetland by the ACOE. Portions of this wetland
are proposed for fill to allow for street construction north of Red Oak-Battleboro Road. ACOE
does not currently regulate discharges to isolated wetlands. DWQ is currently responsible for
regulating impacts to isolated wetlands. This impact is to a PFOI non-riparian wetland. Refer to
Table 1 for impact details.
Road Crossing 7
Road Crossing 7 has been eliminated from the FCRM development plan.
Road Crossing 8
Various areas of impact were investigated for this crossing. Because of city requirements for
road intersection alignments and the design criteria for neo-traditional community development,
this intersection must be developed as shown. It is envisioned that a trail system will be built
along the back of the lots to the east of Wetland 2 (W2) as an amenity to the community.
Additionally, it is envisioned that a park will be built in the area marked open space. This impact
will be piped and filled. These impacts are to PFO1/4 non-riparian wetlands. Refer to Table 1
for impact details.
Road Crossing 9
Wetland 3 (W3) will be affected by roadway crossings. Two access points are required for safety
purposes. Road Crossing 9 involves a wetland crossing and a stream crossing. Shifting the
crossing to the south would meet minimum radii criteria and shifting the crossing to the north
would place the road directly adjacent to the northern boundary of the project study area. The
lots, which are presently shown to the east, will not be platted in the buffer as per the
development guidelines. The impact will be piped and filled. This impact is to a PFOI riparian
wetland. Refer to Table 1 for impact details.
Road Crossing 10 & 11
Road Crossings 10 and 11 continue the connectivity along the north property boundary and will
affect Wetland 1 (WI) and Wetland 2 (W2). This crossing location was chosen to because it
took advantage of the existing farm road crossing and minimized wetland impacts. Being that the
• farm road has already impacted the connectivity of Wl and W2, it was deemed the most
appropriate location for the access point. These impacts are to PFOI riparian wetlands. The
impact will be piped and filled. Refer to Table 1 for impact details.
22
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
E
Road Crossing 12
This crossing is on the main collector road for the community. Various locations were
investigated for this road crossing. Upon design of the community it was determined that three
elements needed to cross or touch this tributary (S11); the P hole, the 16"' hole and a road
crossing. Impacts to Wetland 29 (W29) originally exceeded one acre under the original design
plan. Avoidance and minimization opportunities were investigated and in June 2004, 210 acres
were purchased to the west to allow for a more open development plan and to avoid and minimize
jurisdictional impacts. The necessary golf course routing became the driving force for the
location of Hole 16 and Road Crossing 12. Hole 3 has to be in close proximity to Hole 4, which
is now on newly purchased land. Hole 3 now stops short of impacting any jurisdictional areas.
Road Crossing 12 was shifted to the northwest with the purchase of the additional land. This
allowed the potential impacts in W29 to be avoided. Currently, only a stream crossing of SI I is
proposed. Refer to Table 1 for impact details.
Road Crossing 13
A small finger of Wetland 25 (W25) will be affected by Road Crossing 13 in order to avoid a
larger wetland impact to the northeast. In order to preserve the wetlands to the northeast the
access to this area of the community must run along this ridgeline. The road splits between the
• 15"' fairway and the 16'h tee. The area located to the southwest of this impact will be left as open
space to allow access from the 15"' fairway to the 16th tee. This impact is to a PF01 non-riparian
wetland. The impact will be piped and filled. Refer to Table 1 for impact details.
Road Crossing 14
These two peninsulas were created in 1978 to allow access from the southern side of the lake to
the northern side of the lake. Ford's Colony will use the existing peninsulas to provide access as
originally intended in 1978. There are jurisdictional impacts at this crossing location, but no
other option for crossing the lake exists that would incur a smaller impact. This crossing, along
with Crossings 18 & 19, are being required by the City of Rocky Mount for safety issues. This
crossing will also serve as access for golf carts from Hole 13 to Hole 14. The crossing will be
designed as a clear span structure with bench seats at the ends of the peninsulas, which will allow
for movement of aquatic life and small boat traffic from the main lake to the small lake. The
design of the clear span will be designed so as to not impact or restrict normal water flows. The
sides of the peninsulas will be formed with concrete sides and a stone/brick look veneer as
necessary to provide adequate road width. This crossing cannot be completely avoided and
jurisdictional impacts at this crossing have been minimized as much as practicable. In addition to
the open water (LUB) that will be spanned, this impact is to a PF01 riparian wetland. Refer to
Table 1 for impact details.
• Road Crossing 15
This crossing is necessary for the completion of the collector road. This location was chosen to
minimize the impact to Wetland 47 (W47). Shifting to the north would incur a greater impact and
23
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
• shifting to the south would put the road surface closer to the lake and it would still impact
wetlands. This crossing cannot be completely avoided and the design minimizes impact to W47.
This impact is to a PFO1 non-riparian wetland. The impact will be piped and filled. Refer to
Table 1 for impact details.
Road Crossing 16 & 17
Various options were looked at for this wetland (W51) and stream (S23, S24) crossing, however
this location was deemed the most appropriate because it uses the narrowest point of the wetland,
while still allowing the designer to meet maximum curvature guidelines. Had the road been
moved to the north it would have affected a greater amount of wetlands to the cast as it
approached the curve. Shifting to the south would have affected and even greater amount of
wetlands. This wetland crossing cannot be completely avoided and the designer has
demonstrated minimization of jurisdictional impacts. The wetland to be impacted is a PFOl non-
riparian wetland. The stream channels (S23,S24) are intermittent. These crossings will be piped
and filled. Refer to Table 1 for impact details.
Road Crossing 18 & 19
The collector road must cross over this wetland (W53) and stream system (S25) for health, safety,
and welfare issues. The road alignment through this area is designed to be at the minimum
curvature for the collector road. Shifting the crossing to the southeast would incur a greater
• impact to this wetland system. Shifting to the northwest is not possible because of adjacent
property boundary. Additional land has already been purchased so the curve could be designed to
minimize jurisdictional impacts. Completely avoiding this crossing is not possible and the
designer has minimized the impact amount as much as is practicable while maintaining a safe
roadway. W53 is one of the higher quality wetlands on the subject property. This wetland
impact is to a PFOl riparian wetland; however, a portion of W53 is non-riparian where Road
Crossing 19 occurs. This bottomland hardwood system serves as the floodplain for Beech
Branch. S25 is a perennial stream. These impacts will be piped and filled. Refer to Table 1 for
impact details.
Road Crossing 20
Road Crossing 20 utilizes an area that has previously been used for a farm equipment crossing
connecting two agriculture fields. A small portion of Wetland 64 (W64) and Stream 29b (S29b)
will be affected by this crossing. Shifting the crossing either to the west or to the east would
incur greater jurisdictional impacts due to existing wetlands. This location represents the least
damaging alternative for Road Crossing 20. The curvature of this crossing is the maximum
allowed by the City of Rocky Mount. This impact is to a PF01 riparian wetland and the stream
channel is perennial. The impact will be piped and filled. The 25-year storm will pass under the
road. The 50-year or greater storm will pass over the road. Refer to Table 1 for impact details.
Road Crossing 21
Road Crossing 21 will impact a portion of Wetland 56 (W56). The proposed location of this
impact is determined by the need for a 100-foot tangent between these two reverse curves.
24
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
i Shifting this crossing to the north would reduce the amount of wetland impact slightly, but it
would not allow for the maximum 100-foot tangent between curves. It would also reduce the
number of usable lots in this area based on the current lot layout. Shifting the crossing to the
south would incur greater wetland impact and not meet the 100-foot maximum tangent
requirement. The impact is to a PF01/4 non-riparian wetland. The impact will be piped and
filled. Refer to Table 1 for impact details.
Road Crossing 22
Road Crossing 22 was designed to allow access to this area of the community. A small portion of
Wetland 53 (W53) will be affected by the crossing. The crossing location site was chosen with
minimal jurisdictional impact in mind. Shifting the crossing to the east would incur greater
wetland impact. Shifting the crossing to the west would disrupt the lot layout of this particular
area. The impact has been minimized as much as is practicable for this location. A previous
version of this crossing would have impacted 0.07 acre. The current impact is 0.03 acre. The
impact is to a PFO1 non-riparian wetland. The impact will be piped and filled. Refer to Table 1
for impact details.
Road Crossing 23
Certain jurisdictional impacts in this area were unavoidable because of the need to coordinate
between the golf course routing and the road alignment through this area of the Ford's Colony
community. Road Crossing 23 will affect a portion of Wetland 53 (W53) and Stream S22b
(S22b). This crossing location was chosen in order to achieve the proper road aligmnent, golf
course routing, and proper curvatures. It was determined that the impact of the golf course on
various wetland areas was less than certain road impacts because certain golf impacts can be
managed so as to keep wetland vegetation intact. Road Crossing 23 does not cross W53 at its
narrowest point, however, shifting to that narrowest point would cause a greater wetland impact
for Wetland Crossing 25, which is also on W53. This particular crossing will impact a portion of
W53 that can be classified as a PF01/4 riparian wetland. S22b is an intermittent channel at this
location. The impact will be piped and filled. Refer to Table 1 for impact details.
Road Crossing 24
Wetland 53 (W53) will be affected by this crossing at this location because it is an area of
minimal impact and the area allows for the minimum curvature. Access from the east was not
practicable due to the location of Hole 13. Hole 13 can not be shortened to allow roadway access
because it needs to be as close the bridge structure as possible to allow for access to Hole 14,
which is already approximately 1500 feet away. This impact cam7ot be avoided and has been
minimized as much as is practicable while still maintaining the project's purpose and need. This
particular crossing will impact a portion of W53 that can be classified as a PFOlnon-riparian
wetland. The impact will be piped and filled. Refer to Table 1 for impact details.
• Road Crossing 25
Necessary road curvatures dictated the location of this impact. It is located in an area of minimal
irnpact in Wetland 53 (W53) based on the remainder of the proposed activities in this area.
25
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
• Shifting the crossing to the southwest or to the northeast would incur greater impacts to W53.
Straightening of this road was investigated, however the wetland impact amount would have
moved an equivalent area from Road Crossing 23 to Road Crossing 25. This particular crossing
will impact a portion of W53 that can be classified as a PF01 non-riparian wetland. The impact
will be piped and filled. Refer to Table IL for impact details.
Road Crossing 26
The existing Belmont Fanns Parkway must be realigned to allow for a `T' intersection with the
new collector road. The curvature of the road is a continuation of the existing curve. As a
consequence, the upper reaches of an intermittent stream (S 18) are affected along with a small
area of Wetland 42 (W42). This stream only exists at the site shown and is at the outlet of an
existing pipe under Belmont Farms Parkway. The small stream channel reverts to sheet flow as
W42 moves toward the lake and then becomes redefined approximately 200 feet downstream.
This impact is to a PSS1 riparian wetland. The impact will be piped and filled. Refer to Table f
for impact details.
Upstream of the S18 iinpact is a long pipe that begins along the north side of the athletic facility.
DWQ has reviewed this upstream segment of this stream and determined it to be ephemeral and
not subject to the buffer rule.
. Road Crossing 27
Wetland 38 (W38) has been verified as an isolated wetland by ACOE. Road Crossing 27 will
impact a portion of W38. Shifting this crossing to the north would place the road too close to the
lake and lots would be lost. Shifting to the south would place the road along the property
boundary. This impact is to a PF01 non-riparian wetland. The wetland will be filled. Refer to
Table 1 for impact details.
Road Crossing 28 & 29
These impacts are necessary to provide access from the existing Belmont Farms community to
the clubhouse site. Both impacts are stream crossings: Stream 13 (S13) and Stream 14 (S14).
Road Crossing 28 is a stream and buffer crossing and Road Crossing 29 is a stream crossing.
Both streams are mapped as intermittent channels but appear to actually be perennial due
primarily to increased runoff from upstream commercial development and Highway 301. S13
handles drainage from an existing BMP built behind the frontage lots along Highway 301. This
BMP was constructed for the Food Lion shopping center runoff. Additionally, S13 receives
water from the farm ditches to the southeast and the playing fields of North Carolina Wesleyan
College. S14 receives runoff from Highway 301 and the roadside ditches from the properties on
the east side of Highway 301. Portions of S13 and S14 will be piped and filled as a result of
Road Crossings 28 and 29. Refer to Table 1 for impact details.
• Road Crossing 30
Road Crossing 30 is necessary to allow for connectivity from the older portions of the community
to the clubhouse site. This is a gated community and control will be placed at the end of this road
26
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
• where it ineets the entrance road off of Highway 301. Comlectivity behind the gatehouse is a
requirement of the developer and also required by the City of Rocky Mount for safety issues. A
portion of Wetland 16 (W16) and Stream 9 (9) will be affected by this crossing. This crossing
will be handled sinnilar to Road Crossing 14; an open span bridge structure with bench seat and
bulklieading. Impacts to S9 (Beech Branch) will result from shading and clearing of streamside
vegetation. No actual in-water work is anticipated. Avoiding these jurisdictional impacts is not
possible because of the colmectivity requirement; however, the impacts to the wetlands have been
minimized. This impact is to a PFO1 riparian wetland. S9 is a perennial channel. Refer to Table
1 for impact details.
Road Crossing 31
This crossing is necessary to allow access to the small development area to the north of the
crossing. The stream (S32) and buffer impact is at the upper most reaches of the intennittent
stream and a BMP site is proposed to treat any runoff prior to it reaching the stream. Note the
preservation strip to the southeast of this crossing along the wetland and drainage corridor. A
stormwater feature, as verified by ACOE and DWQ, occurs in this drainage corridor and
converges with S32 below the proposed impact area. This impact will be piped and filled. Refer
to Table 1 for impact details.
Road Crossing 32
• Road Crossing 32 will affect Wetland 56 (W56) and an unflagged intermittent channel along the
southern boundary of FCRM. This crossing is intended to allow access to a 50-acre parcel
currently located south of FCRM. This parcel may become part of the overall FCRM site
development plan. A depiction of this 50-acre parcel is included in Appendix IV. This impact
will be piped and filled. Refer to Table 1 for impact details.
Road Crossing 33
Road Crossing 32 will affect Wetland 56 (W56) and an unflagged intermittent channel along the
southern boundary of FCRM. This crossing is intended to allow access to a 50-acre parcel
currently located south of FCRM. This parcel may become part of the overall FCRM site
development plan. A depiction of this 50-acre parcel is included in Appendix IV. This impact
will be piped and filled. Refer to Table 1 for impact details.
8.1.1 Summary of the Wetland Impacts from Roadways
The roadway system designed for FCRM includes thirty-two (32) jurisdictional area crossings
(Crossing 7 eliminated). The primary spine road serves as the main transportation corridor from
which the other roads diverge to serve the residential areas. A total of 1.6 acres of riparian
wetlands and 1.0 acre of non-riparian wetlands will be impacted by road construction.
Approximately 0.19 acre of isolated wetlands will also be affected by road construction. The
largest individual wetland impact is 0.32 acre and the smallest is approximately 0.01 acre.
• Approxunately 1.9 acres of the impacts are to PFOI wetlands, 0.7 acre to PF01/4 wetlands, and
0.1 acre to PSS1 wetlands.
27
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
The fiinctional assessment provides a numerical score for wetlands ranging from 0-41. Those
wetlands with scores of 20 or higher represent the medium to high quality wetlands. Wetlands
with scores less than 20 represent lower quality wetlands that may have been previously affected
by anthropogenic activity. Some non-riparian wetlands scored higher than some areas of riparian
wetlands depending on the condition of the assessed area. Non-riparian wetlands and isolated
wetlands are valuable for as water quality filters, water storage areas, nutrient sinks, and as
terrestrial and aquatic wildlife habitat. Approximately 1.7 acres of impact are proposed for
wetlands that scored 20 or greater as compared to approximately 0.9 acres of impact proposed for
wetlands that scored less than 20.
Compensatory mitigation will be required for impacts to the 1.6 acres of riparian and 1.0 acres of
non-riparian wetlands. Mitigation may not be required for the 0.19 acre of isolated wetland
impact pursuant to current ACOE and DWQ guidelines. ACOE does not regulate impacts to
isolated wetlands. DWQ requires mitigation for isolated wetlands when the impacts meet or
exceed 1/3 acre east of I-95. The individual wetland impacts resulting from the road construction
are depicted in graphics provided in Figures 4a-4bb. The impact areas have been labeled
according to the Road Crossing Key Sheet (Figure 4) and the large-scale plan in Appendix IV.
Table 1 contains the wetland impact data for the road crossings. Each impact area is labeled
according to the key map and color site plan. Additional information includes: riparian or non-
riparian, impact size, and wetland type (PFO, PSS, PEM).
•
5.1.2 Surface Water Impacts from Roadways
Approximately 1,018 linear feet of stream channel and 0.05 acre of open water will be affected as
a result of the 33 road crossings associated with the FCRM project. The stream impacts comprise
620 feet of intermittent stream and 398 feet of perennial stream. All of the intermittent stream
footage that is proposed for impact has been deemed important by ACOE. Approximately 50 feet
of perennial total will be completely spanned through bridging and no direct in-water impacts will
result. The 0.05-acre of surface water associated with Belmont Lake will also be completely
spanned. Mitigation will be required for 348 feet of perennial channel and 620 feet of
intermittent channel.
The average ACOE score for these streams that are proposed for impact is as follows: intermittent
= 52.8; perennial = 59.3. The average DWQ score for those streams that are proposed for impact
are as follow: intermittent = 20.3; perennial = 28.5. These scores indicate a slightly higher
functional value for the on-site perennial streams; however, the intermittent channels are also
important to the overall aquatic ecosystem. The primary differences between the on-site
perennial and intermittent streams as related to these quantitative scores are floodplain
development, in-stream habitat, and hydrologic source and hydroperiod.
The individual surface water impacts resulting from the road construction are depicted in graphics
• provided in Figures 4a-4bb. The impact areas have been labeled according to the Road Crossing
Key Sheet (Figure 4) and the large-scale plan in Appendix IV. Table 1 contains the surface
water impact data for the road crossings. Each impact area is labeled according to the key map
28
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
• and color site plan. Additional information in the table includes stream type, impact amount, and
buffers. Typical culvert details are provided in Section 14.
8,2 Golf Course and Practice Range
Successful golf courses share common traits. They are challenging, yet fair and playable for
golfers of all abilities. They are aesthetically pleasing and picturesque. They are sensitive to the
environment; minimizing earthwork and impacts to wetlands, streams and ponds. The goal for
the design of the FCRM Golf Course is to score high marks in each of these aspects.
To make a golf course playable and fair for beginners, juniors and senior golfers, "forced carries"
must be minimized. A "forced carry" is defined as when a golfer has no other choice than to fly
the ball in the air over a hazard (such as a sand bunker, pond, or wetland) to get to the green.
Since many beginners, juniors and seniors have trouble getting the ball airborne, these "forced
carries" must be minimized. Otherwise the challenge will become unfair; players will loose a
number of balls, become frustrated, and not enjoy the golf course. As a rule of thumb, players
from the most forward tees should not be required to hit the ball more than 30-50 yards in the air.
Players using the second forward tees should not be forced to carry the ball more than 80-100
yards. These short, forced carries are acceptable on tee shots where the players can use a tee to
help get the ball airborne. But on approach shots, where the ball is hit directly from the ground, it
is best to eliminate forced carries completely and allow the golfer to hit the ball across the ground
• to get to the target. Players should never be required to hit the ball over trees.
When a proposed project site has a significant amount of forested wetlands, reducing the forced
carries while keeping wetland and buffer immpacts to a minimum is challenging. For marketing
purposes we need to construct a golf course that measures at least 7,000 yards from the back tees.
With today's technology, courses under 7,000 yards are considered short and are often less
appealing to some of the better players. To achieve this length and make the course playable,
certain jurisdictional impacts are unavoidable.
Avoidance and Minimization
in the process of routing the golf course the design team went to great lengths to avoid impacts
where practicable and minimize the unavoidable impacts on wetlands, streams, and buffers. One
method used to minimize the amount of wetland fill associated with golf course constriction is to
clear wetland areas and leave them to revegetated with low-growing wetland plants. This
eliminates the need to fill an area while eliminating the flyover obstacle (i. e. trees). The current
golf course design has three types of wetland impacts: clear and fill, clear and remove stumps,
clear and leave stumps. Clear and fill along with clear and remove stumps both constitute a
jurisdictional wetland impact because of discharge of material into a water of the United States.
Clearing and leaving the stumps is a type of wetland conversion and should not be considered a
discharge into waters of the United States assuming the soil surface is left undisturbed. Impacts
resulting from clearing and leaving the stumps can be quantified as it relates to wetland
conversion and compensatory mitigation can be assessed on wetland conversion, if it is a
significant amount.
29
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
• Several golf course designs have been created and discussed among the team and also with the
regulatory agencies.
original Golf Course Design
Appendix V1 contains one of the earlier golf course designs along with the anticipated impacts.
This early plan was presented to ACOE during a meeting on 28 June 2004 and to DWQ on 24
June 2004. Both agencies indicated that there were numerous opportunities to avoid and
minimize jurisdictional impacts. The proposed wetland and stream impacts depicted on previous
golf course designs were as follows:
Impacts from Original Plan
Wetland fill +/-3.56 acres
Wetland clear/stump +/-1.11 acres
Wetland clear/leave stumps +/-3.02 acres
Stream impact +/-2450 feet (through direct impact or clearing of streamside
vegetation)
Riparian buffer impact +/-6100 feet
The total amount of discharge to Section 404 wetlands under this plan is 4.67 acres (includes
wetland/clear stumps). The overall wetland and stream impacts were considerably greater under
this earlier design, and early meetings with both ACOE and DWQ revealed additional
opportunities to avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts, particularly to streams. The design
team took the agency comments very seriously and set out immediately to redesign the golf
course so that jurisdictional impacts could be reduced and/or completely eliminated in some
areas.
Current Golf Course Design
The current golf course design represents 3 to 4 months of intensive design and redesign to
develop a championship quality golf course that is both playable to the average golfer and
challenging to the more experienced golfer. David Johnson Golf Design has designed this course
to integrate with the natural beauty of the FCRM property. Large forested tracts are being left
undisturbed adjacent to many of the fairways and greens. Natural wetland areas and water
hazards are being utilized in the current design and add to the natural setting of the golf course.
Impacts from Current Plan
Wetland fill 2.33 acres
Wetland clear/stump 0.68 acres
Wetland clear/leave stumps 0.85 acres
Stream impact 717 feet
. Riparian buffer impact 18,677 feet
30
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
The total amount of discharge to Section 404 wetlands under this plan is 3.63 acres (includes
wetland/clear stomps). This is the most current plan and is what is proposed in this permit
application. Wetland fill has been reduced by approximately 0.8 acre; wetland clearing has been
reduced by approximately 2.5 acres. Stream impacts have been reduced by approximately 1,733
feet. Riparian buffer impacts have been reduced by over 6 acres from the original golf course
plan.
Golf Course Impacts
The following is a hole-by-hole account of the proposed wetland and buffer impacts for the
FCRM Golf Course. All of the proposed impacts are either to make the course fair and playable
for golfers of all abilities or to address safety concerns.
A summary of the golf course impacts as provided by David Johnson Golf Design, McBride Hess
Design Group, and ESI is provided in this section. The individual golf course impact graphics are
provided as Figures 5a-5s in Section 13 along with typical details of the proposed cart path
bridges. The individual golf course impact graphics referenced to the golf course impact Key
Map (Figure 5) and the large-scale color key map provided in Appendix IV. Golf course
impacts are labeled as G-W 1, G-W2, etc., and golf course stream impacts are labeled as G-S 1, G-
S2, etc. Buffer impacts are labeled as G-BFI, G-BF2, etc. Impacts are also referenced back to
the original wetland and stream delineation numbers that are also provided on the delineation
plats in Appendix IV. Details of individual golf course impacts are provided in Table 2.
Hole 1
The first hole on a golf course is typically one of the easier holes on the course in which the
player is allowed a chance to warm up and settle their nerves. It is critical to make a good first
impression on the golfer and not get them frustrated early on. Therefore, it is imperative to give
the players the option of playing the entire hole along the ground. To do so, we propose to clear
and stump (no fill) 0.15 acres of Wetland 10 (W 10) in front of the tees. A wetland seed mix will
be used to revegetate this area with lower growing wetland vegetation that will not obstruct long
views. A bridge crossing over Wetland 7 (W7) will be necessary for golf carts to cross from 91
green to #2 tee. This bridge crossing will have a 0.05-acre wetland impact to W7 and 20 feet to
Stream S2a (S2a) will be bridged. W10 can be described as a PF01 non-riparian wetland. W7 is
a PF01 riparian wetland. S2a is an intermittent channel that is not buffered at the proposed
crossing location. Details of individual golf course impacts are provided in Table 2.
Hole 2
A portion of W7 is proposed for fill in order to construct Hole 2. The team proposes clearing and
filling 0.42 acres of W7 in front of the tees for several reasons. First, if the wetlands remain, they
will obscure part of the landing area for the tee shot, resulting in a safety hazard. The team does
not want a golfer unknowingly hitting a shot into other golfers. Second, the carry over the
wetlands would be 210 yards for the back tee players, which is a longer carry than should be
required. Shifting Hole 2 to the north is not practicable due to the proposed road location. A
31
C?
•
•
O 0 0 0
(•11'bs);oedwi o
0 °
0 °
0 o
Ja}1ne Z auoZ °

m
Ja4ne 6 auoZ N N r °
dw
'b 0 00
s);Oe
m ()j
1 o r
Ja11ne z auoZ o
N co
DD

0 M

('Ij'bS);oedwl 0 0
0

M
N rn

fA Ja1;ne l auoZ
c o
v
N O N
A
'C
nl #
LL N
LL
L M
L LL
m LL

m
;oedwl Ja1ne m m m
7
D

C7 (
asmos;loo
D
C
D
C
C

aJ00s
M
N 0
N
weal;S DM0 co
N N O
° O
a
E C)
m m
WOOS weal;s OD

o rn

LO
a

300V d u?
a (1)
'
n
(1l) joedwl
LO
LO o

weal;S (o 00
o
°
;ua;;Iwla;ul N E
6 n

;ue}lodwl a
c

(4) joedwi

*o

0
CL m
r_
Ip weal;S N N N N
121uuaJad a
(on) # uol;eaullaa m
c
i N W N

i N co m C a
weaJ}s l
U) uJ U) n U )

o >
m

#;oedwl
N
Cl)
V'
? c (D

asJnoO
1

C7

C7

C7

C7 N

?

a)
1100 weal;s 5
U

e O 0 ? 0 ? 0 0 0 0 0LL OLL 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 E U)
i;aM
pu CL a e a u a s a- a- a LL l
a u
o a O a o o o
LL a o_ a _ ?
wro) woos m r M M m m CO CO OD r V O N N
C C
j

O ;uawssassV O

N N f? O O

r

N

N

N

N

N ? OD
d
'
N
N
N
p
C
j
? 12uo1;oun3 a
L I I
sdwn;s LO

W
m
V
0 anew/12910 0 0

>.
ueu2dla uoN
w

O
M v

O n .

N
p
O -dwn;s/J2a,s ro 0 0 ° d .
C ?
U p
7
C 6 a
N ueuedla a a
° dwn;S/12910 0 o N a
O N q O
LL
p
(0e) lll3 CNI (WO
W M
S
O
O _
N ? L N
m
N
- uelJedlJ-uON o 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
N p
N -
O
(oe ) ?n I? ` r rn co
o m
co N

r

3 z 0
U
y
r 1113 U21Jedl}
J
o
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
-
cu C
° d

E
m
# uo1}2au11aa
PUellaM
ee
N
't
LO LO -It
LO m co
Lo "T 0) ?2 ?2

m
o
U

o

N N N N
C
0
#Ioedwl N Co V L
O
co
I-
m W
O r
N
M V
U)
(D m m -CO
N N C
c
m N

U)

cn
b100Puel;aM (7 (D ( D R

C7 ?(7
?
C7
c?
(?
(
?
~

•N
?
U
?
Q
°? II
N
N #910 r M
N V ' u?
m m m l m w O
r NIMIq Lo LO CO rnl IA l 0 ?
asJno011o
o
, a

3a
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
. wetland seed mix will be used to revegetate this area with lower growing wetland vegetation that
will not obstruct long views. In this particular location W7 can be described as a PF01/4 non-
riparian wetland. Details of individual golf course impacts are provided in Table 2.
Hole 3
Earlier designs for Hole 3 had it playing either across the wetlands (east to west) or across a
finger of the existing pond in a more north-south orientation. These designs would have had
more natural beauty and would have been closer to the next tee (which is very important to the
flow and pace of play on a golf course). However, these alternate designs would have had a
much greater enviromnental impact on wetlands and stream buffers. The original Hole 3 design
would have caused 0.05 acre of fill and 0.78 acre of clearing and leaving stumps. The currently
proposed Hole 3 design has only a 0.07 acre impact to Wetland 29 (W29) resulting from a bridge
crossing, which is necessary for golf carts to get from #3 green to 44 tee. This cart path will
bridge 20 feet of stream (S 11) and its buffer. No portion of Hole 3 will encroach into W29. W29
is a PFO1 riparian wetland. S 11 is a perennial channel. Avoidance and minimization has been
demonstrated on Hole 3. A new 1.05-acre pond is proposed to create design interest on this short
hole. Details of individual golf course impacts are provided in Table 2.
Hole 4
Two small wetland fingers that are part of Wetland 47 (W47) encroach into the second leg of
• Hole 4. Due to the surrounding roadway design, no practicable alternatives exist for Hole 4 that
would completely eliminate the need for this wetland impact. Approximately 0.16 acre of
wetland impact is proposed in the form of fill to facilitate the construction of Hole 4 and to allow
I
for playability and visibility (safety). W47 can be described as a PF01/4 non-riparian wetland.
Details of individual golf course impacts are provided in Table 2.
Hole 5
The current design for Hole 5 will fill 0.13 acre of Wetland 53 (W53) for fairway construction.
This fill area is just short of the landing area and is in a high play zone so it is important to clear
and fill this area to make it playable. Earlier versions of Hole 5 had the hole turning slightly to
the left, with the green across the floodplain of Beech Branch After debating the merits of
having a more dramatic hole with an all-or-nothing carry, it was decided that the wetland impact
was excessive and the proposed impacts were too severe. The hole was shortened drastically to
minimize wetland impacts. A bridge crossing over W53 will be necessary for golf carts to cross
from #5 green to 46 tee. This bridge crossing will have a 0.12-acre wetland impact to W53.
Twenty (20) feet of Stream 25 (S25) will be bridged. The bridge will also incur a 20-foot buffer
impact. W53 is a PF01 riparian wetland and S25 is a perennial stream (Beech Branch). Details
of individual golf course impacts are provided in Table 2.
Hole 6
• The primary feature on Hole 6 is an old man-made irrigation pond. The pond is approximately
0.8 acres in size and is located in a natural drainage way of a UT of Beech Branch. The design
proposes creating 3.58 acres of wetlands along the northern edge of the pond. There will not be
33
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
• any grading along the southern edge of the existing pond. The existing pond does have a riparian
buffer and approximately 850 ft of pond buffer will be affected in creating the new wetlands.
This particular buffer is vegetated primarily with herbaceous vegetation with patchy trees and
existing pasture.
Hole 7
Hole 7 has been designed to avoid all jurisdictional wetland and stream impacts.
Hole 8
No wetland impacts will result from the construction of Hole 8.
Hole 9
Hole 9 has been redesigned to avoid all jurisdictional wetland and stream impacts. A bridge
across Stream S29b (S29b) will be necessary for golf carts to cross from #8 green to 49 tee. This
bridge crossing will span 20 feet of S29b and 20 feet of the riparian buffer. S29b is a perennial
channel. Details of individual golf course impacts are provided in Table 2.
Hole 10
Hole 10 has been redesigned to avoid all jurisdictional wetland and stream impacts. A previous
design of Hole 10 included 0.24 acre of impact to Wetland 56 (W56). The team redesigned this
hole to avoid impacts to Wetlands 55 (W55) and W56.
Hole 11
It is necessary to fill 0.18 acres of Wetland 54 (W54) in the teeing area to create the proper width
and playing angle for a dogleg right hole. Shifting the hole to the east or west would either incur
additional wetland impacts or impact the roadway design. W54 is a PFO1 non-riparian wetland
A new 2.10-acre lake will also be created entirely within uplands between Hole #11 and Hole
412. The pond will have strategic, aesthetic and ecological value and will not affect any
wetlands. A littoral shelf can be constructed around the perimeter of the pond and can be planted
with desirable aquatic species. The littoral shelf will be maintained as a herbaceous wetland and
will help compensate for on-site impacts. Details of individual golf course impacts are provided
in Table 2.
Hole 12
Approximately 0.37 acre of fill to Wetland 53 (W53) is necessary in front of the 12th green for
playability. It is not reasonable to ask players to fly a shot over a wetland that guards the front of
a green on a long par four hole. The design team feels this impact is necessary in order to give the
players the option of hitting a low shot into the green. Avoiding this wetland impact would
require straightening the hole, which is not a practicable alternative in this instance. Shifting to
the west would incur greater impact and shifting to the east would impact the roadway design. At
• this location, W53 is a PF01/4 non-riparian wetland. Hole 12 affects no streams or buffers.
Details of individual golf course impacts are provided in Table 2.
34
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
is Hole 13
Approximately 0.85 acre of Wetland 53 (W53) will be cleared in front of the teeing area on Hole
13. The design proposes only clearing the wetland and stumps will be left in the ground. A
wetland seed mix will be used to revegetate this area with lower growing wetland vegetation that
will not obstruct long views. Completely avoided this impact to W53 is not practicable and the
team has minimized the impact amount from an original 2.2-acre impact to the currently proposed
0.85-acre impact. Impact minimization has been demonstrated. In this location W53 is a PFO1
non-riparian wetland.
Just left of the landing area is an additional 0.06-acre wetland impact to Wetland 43 (W43). W43
is in a high play area and will be cleared and filled for playability. W43 is a PFOI non-riparian
wetland. Details of individual golf course impacts are provided in Table 2.
Hole 14
The original plan for the fourteenth hole was to have it run along the northern edge of Belmont
Lake, just after the bridge. This would be a spectacular setting for a hole, perched above the lake
and in closer proximity to the thirteenth green. However, the potential riparian buffer impact
would have been excessive at close to 1,000 feet. To lessen the environmental impact, Hole 14
was shifted north. The setting is less spectacular and the hole is much farther from the 13th hole,
• but environmental impact is much less. Wetland impacts associated with Hole 14 include
clearing and stumping (no fill) 0.06 acre of Wetland 49 (W49) in front of the tees and clearing
and filling 0.01 acre of W49 for a cart path/culvert crossing. The design demonstrates substantial
avoidance and minimization at Hole 14. The wetland impact is at the narrowest point and
shifting north or south would incur greater wetland impacts. W49 is a PFO1/4 non-riparian
wetland. No stream or buffer impacts will result from Hole 14. Details of individual golf course
impacts are provided in Table 2.
Hole 15
There are three small, proposed wetland impacts on Hole 15. Impacts associated with Hole 15
include clearing and stumping (no fill) 0.10 acre of Wetland 32 (W32) in front of the tees and
filling 0.01 acre for a cart path/culvert crossing in the same area. To create enough room for the
green, the design also proposes an additional 0.05-acre of clearing and stumping (no fill) to the
upper portion of W32. A wetland seed mix will be used to revegetate this area with lower
growing wetland vegetation that will not obstruct long views. Shifting Hole 15 to the west would
incur greater wetland impacts. The design team has minimized wetland impacts at Hole 15 as
much as practicable. W32 is a PFO1/4 non-riparian wetland. Details of individual golf course
impacts are provided in Table 2.
Hole 16
• The sixteenth is another hole that has the potential to be visually stunning and is an opportunity to
improve downstream water quality. The existing man-made pond does not have a water level
control structure and the stability of the dam is questionable. It is mandatory that the dam be
35
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
• reinforced and that a water level control structure is built. The ability to control the water level
will improve downstream water quality. Currently the water sheet flows across a low spot along
the southern edge of the dam and is causing severe erosion. Improving the dam will involve a
0.19-acre impact to Wetland 25 (W25) and a 50-foot stream impact to Stream 12 (S12).
Approximately 5000 ft' of the buffer to S12 will be affected by new dam construction, but should
be exempt. Because the hole plays across the edge of the pond there will be a buffer impact of
700 feet along the northeast edge of the pond resulting in created or restored wetlands. The
location and routing of this hole routing is essential to the flow of the golf course as there is no
other way to get back to the north side of the pond/wetlands without greater enviromnental
impact. This particular hole has been redesigned several times; however, the need to reconstruct
the existing dam is the primary reason for the unavoidable impacts. W19 is a PFOI riparian
wetland and S12 is a perem7ial stream. Details of individual golf course impacts are provided in
Table 2.
Hole 17
There is no wetland, stream, or buffer impact associated with Hole 17.
In an attempt to create a golf course that measures at least 7,000 yards from the back tees, and
because it is best to have longer holes towards the end of the course, the original routing for Hole
17 proposed that the green be 150 feet closer to the existing power lines. This original design
would have caused an impact to Wetland 8 (W8). By redesigning additional yardage on other
• holes, the design team was able to move the green and entire golf hole out of W8. The design
team completely avoided wetland impact by redesigning this and other holes. Details of
individual golf course impacts are provided in Table 2.
Hole 18
As is the case with the first hole, the finishing hole is the best opportunity to leave a memorable
impression on the golfer. Nearly all-great golf courses (such as the TPC at Sawgrass, Pebble
Beach, etc) have spectacular closing holes and the setting of Hole 18 at FCRM has great potential
by being located along the northern edge of Belmont Lake. The preferred alignment for the 18th
hole has the golfer standing on the tees and seeing the entire hole stretch out in front of him/her,
with Belmont Lake playing along the entire right side. The hole would be the site of high drama.
The downside of the original scenario is that the buffer impact was too great.
The current design proposes a compromise. The tee shot will still play across a neck of the pond,
requiring clearing and stumping (no fill) 0.32 acres of Wetland 22 (W22) and 500 feet of pond
buffer impact resulting in wetland creation or restoration. Additional portions of the buffer along
the 18th fairway will be converted into created or restored wetlands to enhance the existing
wetlands adjacent to Belmont Lake. W22 is a PFO1 riparian wetland.
Additionally there will be two, 20' stream buffer impacts for golf cart bridges. One will be
• between the tees and the fairway and the impacts associated with this cart path crossing are
accounted for under Sewer Crossing 1 (SCI). The other cart path crossing is between the green
36
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
• and the clubhouse and crosses Stream 6 (S6). The bridged crossing will span approximately 22
feet of S6, which is perennial. This crossing will also affect 2200 ft2 of buffer along S6. Details
of individual golf course impacts are provided in Table 2.
]Practice Range
The typical practice range occupies a larger chunk of land (450' x 1200') than any other feature
on a golf course. Finding an area this large on the site without wetlands was nearly impossible.
After discussing many options, the team selected a location in the northwest corner of the site. It
satisfies many of the requirements for a successful range in that it is located near the clubhouse, it
is easily accessible and partially in view of drive-by traffic on US 301. The practice range at
FCRM is vital to the financial success of the golf course. We anticipate that it will attract a great
deal of play; people who do not have time to play a fall round of golf but want to practice, parents
bringing their children to the range to teach them how to play, and players warming up before a
round on the course.
Constructing the practice range as proposed will impact 0.56 acre of Wetlands 12, 13, and 14
(W12, W13, W14). These wetlands run through the center of the range and will have to be
cleared and filled to make the practice range work. It is not an option to have a practice range
with a wetland in the middle as hundreds of balls would be lost each day and replacing the balls
would be too costly. W12, W13, and W14 are PFO 1 riparian wetlands. The practice range will
. also impact approximately 565 feet of Stream 5 (S5). This is the largest stream impact resulting
from golf course construction' however it is unavoidable for the practicable construction of a
driving range and practice area. S5 is an intermittent channel. Details of individual golf course
impacts are provided in Table 2.
Shifting the practice range to the north would cross the project boundary and shifting to the south
would encroach onto the multi-family use portion of the development. There are no practicable
alternatives for the practice range when the necessary criteria are taken into account.
8.2.1 Summary of Wetland Impacts from the Golf Course
Wetland impacts associated with the golf course consist of fill, clear and remove stumps, and
clear and leave stumps. A total of 1.12 acres of riparian wetlands and 1.21 acres of non-riparian
wetlands will be filled by golf course construction. Approximately 0.68 acres of wetlands will be
cleared and the stumps will be removed and 0.85 acres will be cleared and the stumps will be left
in the ground. These areas that are cleared will be allowed to revegetated with low-growing
wetland vegetation that may be routinely maintained by hand clearing to keep it at the proper
height.
The functional assessment provides a numerical score for wetlands ranging from 0-41. Those
wetlands with scores of 20 or higher represent the medium to high quality wetlands. Wetlands
• with scores less than 20 represent lower quality wetlands that may have been previously affected
by anthropogenic activity. Some non-riparian wetlands scored higher than some areas of riparian
wetlands depending on the condition of the assessed area. Approximately 2.36 acres of impact
37
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
. are proposed for wetlands that scored 20 or greater as compared to approximately 1.5 acres of
impact proposed for wetlands that scored less than 20.
Compensatory mitigation will be required for filling the 1.12 acres of riparian and 1.21 acres of
non-riparian wetlands. Mitigation will also be required for those forested wetland areas that are
cleared and converted to low-growing herbaceous wetlands, however the mitigation ratios for this
wetland conversion will typically be lower. No impacts to isolated wetlands result from golf
course construction.
The individual wetland impacts resulting from the golf course are depicted in graphics provided
in Figures 5a-5w. The impact areas have been labeled according to the Golf Course Key Sheet
(Figure 5) and the large-scale plan in Appendix IV. Table 2 contains the wetland impact data
for the golf course. Each impact area is labeled according to the key map and color site plan.
Additional information includes: riparian or non-riparian, impact size, impact type, and wetland
type (PFO, PSS, PEM).
8.2.2 Summary of Surface Water Impacts from the Golf Course
Approximately 717 linear feet of stream channel will be affected as a result of the golf course and
practice range at FCRM. The stream impacts comprise 585 feet of intermittent stream and 132
feet of perennial stream. All of the intermittent stream footage that is proposed for impact has
been deemed important by ACOE. Approximately 82 feet of the perennial stream total and 20
feet of intermittent channel will be spanned through cart path bridging and no direct in-water
impacts will result. Mitigation will be required for 50 feet of perennial channel and the 565 feet
of intermittent channel. The golf cart bridges will be elevated above the bankfall elevation of
each crossed stream to avoid a damming effect under heavy flow. Typical cross-sections of the
cart path bridges are included in Section 14 with the other golf impact figures.
The average ACOE score for these streams that are proposed for impact is as follows: intermittent
= 50.5 ; perennial = 59.3. The average DWQ score for those streams that are proposed for impact
are as follow: intermittent = 22.5; perennial = 29.1. These scores indicate a slightly higher
functional value for the on-site perennial streams; however, the intermittent channels are also
important to the overall aquatic ecosystem. The primary differences between the on-site
perennial and intermittent streams as related to these quantitative scores are floodplain
development, in-stream habitat, and hydrologic source and hydroperiod.
The individual surface water impacts resulting from golf course construction are depicted in
graphics provided in Figures 5a-5w. The impact areas have been labeled according to the Golf
Course Key Sheet (Figure 5) and the large-scale plan in Appendix IV. Table 2 contains the
surface water impact data for the golf course. Each impact area is labeled according to the key
map and color site plan. Additional information in the table includes stream type, impact amount,
• and buffers.
38
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
8.3 Sewer Dine Impacts
Sanitary sewer service for FCRM is to be provided by the City of Rocky Mount. Stocks
Engineering, PA is responsible for designing the master sewer layout for FCRM. The sewer
system has been designed to take full advantage of the site's existing topography and anticipated
infrastructure (i.e. roads). The main truck of the sewer system will closely follow the spine road
and ancillary roads throughout FCRM. This sewer system will serve FCRM; however, it will
ultimately become a City of Rocky Mount outfall line that will serve the region north of FCRM.
The design team has identified six potential wetland crossings resulting from construction of the
sewer system. The anticipated jurisdictional impacts resulting from these crossings are depicted
in Figure 6 and 6a - 6f. Sewer impacts are detailed in Table 3a. The sewer line will be installed
at a depth of 18 - 20 feet below the ground surface in most locations. Because of this depth, a
wider maintenance easement is necessary. During construction, the necessary easement will be
30 feet wide. After construction, the maintained easement will be 20 feet wide. The easement
will be allowed to revegetated with low-growing herbaceous species, however woody species
must be maintained and not allowed to grow within the easement.
m ¦. ¦ _ _ CY..?..._. T :..., 1-- +. at Ti ("RM.
•
lama -.
Sewer
Crossing ,....... ?._.__ ----r
Temporary
Riparian
Wetland
impacts (ac) ----- ---
Temporary
Non-Riparian
Wetland
Impacts (ac)
Temporary
Perennial
Stream
Impacts (ft)
Temporary
Intennittent
Stream
Impacts (ft)
Zone 1
Buffer
Impacts
(ft7)
Zone 2
Buffer
Impacts
(ft2)
SCl 30 2764 1215
SC2 0.01 30 2066 1229
SO 0.20 30 1812 1208
SC4 0.01
SC5 0.03
SC6 0.01
Totals 0.21 0.05 60 0 6642 3652
8.4 Isolated Wetland Impacts
Approximately 0.19 acre of isolated wetland impacts will result from construction of the road
system throughout FCRM. The isolated wetland impacts associated with this project are depicted
in Figure 4 and 4a-4bb. No isolated wetland impacts result from golf course construction.
Impacts to less than 0.33 acre of isolated wetlands east of I-95 are deemed permitted in
accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.1305(b) and do not require written approval from DWQ as long
as all conditions of 15A NCAC 2H .1305 (b) are followed. These conditions include:
1. Appropriate erosion and sediment control practices that equal or exceed those required bu
the NC Division of Land Resources or their local delegated program for the
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act should be in full compliance with all
specifications....
39
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
2. All erosion and sediment control practices placed in isolated wetlands or isolated
classified surface waters must be removed and the original grade restored within two
months after the Division of Land Resources or local delegated program determines that
the land-disturbing project is complete...
3. Live or fresh concrete shall not come into contact with surface water until the concrete
has hardened...
4. Measures shall be taken to ensure that the hydrology of any remaining isolated wetland or
isolated classified surface waters is not affected by the discharge.
However, DWQ retains discretionary authority to review these isolated wetland impacts since the
total project impacts exceed 1/3 acre. Mitigation for the isolated wetland impacts may also be
required under their discretionary authority due to the project's size.
All wetland and stream impacts resulting from the road crossings, golf course, and sewer line are
summarized in Table 3b.
•
Table 3b. Wetland and Stream Impact Summary for FCRM.
Riparian Non- Wetland Isolated Perennial Intermittent
Wetland Riparian Clearing Wetland Stream Stream Impact
Fill (ac) Wetland (ac) Fill (ac) Impact (ft)
Fill (ac) (ft)
Road 1.6 1.0 0.19 398 * 620
Crossings
Golf Course 1.12 1.21 1.53 0 132 ** 585 **
Sewer Line
0.25
60 ***
Totals 2.72 2.21 1.78 0.19 590 1205
Amount 2.72 2.21 1.78 To be 398 1185
Requiring determined
Mitigation

Amount Not
192
20
7
Requiring
Mitigation
* 50 linear feet will be spanned and should not require mrtrgau011.
** 82 feet of perennial and 20 feet of intermittent to be bridged
***Stream impacts from sewer crossings are temporary; mitigation not required.
8.5 Riparian Buffer Impacts
The existence and extent of buffered streams were established from the 1:24,000 USGS
• topographic map, the most recent version of the NRCS Soil Survey, and by field visits conducted
by Mike Horan of DWQ's Raleigh Regional Office. Impacts to the buffers were avoided and
40
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
minimized along with the impacts to wetlands and streams as described in the avoidance and
minimization narrative discussion of Sections 8.1 and 8.2.
Most of the proposed impacts to the riparian buffers are from road crossings. None of the road
crossing impacts exceed 150 feet of stream or 1/3 acre of buffer. There are also proposed impacts
from cart path crossings and utility crossings. Cart path crossings will be perpendicular. Road
crossings that impact 40 linear feet or less of riparian buffer are Exempt from the Rule. Road
crossings that impact greater than 40 linear feet but equal to or less than 150 linear feet or one-
third of an acre of riparian buffer are Allowable. Mitigation is anticipated only for Road Crossing
2.
All utility impacts will be from perpendicular crossings or will remain outside of Zone 1 of the
buffer. Perpendicular crossings that disturb equal to or less than 40 linear feet of riparian buffer
with a maintenance corridor equal to or less than 10 feet in width are Exempt. Perpendicular
crossings that disturb 40 linear feet or less of riparian buffer but have a maintenance corridor
greater than 10 feet in width are Allowable. No mitigation is anticipated for these impacts.
The original golf course plan for this project proposed riparian buffer impacts exceeding 5,000
linear feet. A copy of one of the original golf course plans is provided in Appendix VT. The
team's initial meeting with Mr. Bob Zarzecki of DWQ indicated that considerable avoidance and
• minimization of buffer impacts should be demonstrated in order to have a plan that is permittable.
Specifically, buffer impacts proposed at Holes 16 and 18 were not permittable as originally
designed. The team has redesigned the golf course at least twice since the initial meeting in order
to reduce and/or eliminate certain riparian buffer impacts, including Holes 16 and 18. However,
certain impacts to these buffers are unavoidable and necessary for playability and safety. Mr.
Harlan Britt and Mr. Todd St. John of Kimley-Horn met with DWQ once again on September 28,
2008 to review a new set of plans for the golf course. Holes 16 and 18 were specifically
discussed and the current plan for Holes 16 and 18 was received favorably by DWQ during that
meeting.
At Holes 6, 16, and 18, the team has proposed creating and restoring wetlands that will either
result in direct impacts in the buffer or relocation of existing buffers.
• Hole 6 - There is an existing linear pond with no adjacent forest vegetation. The
proposal is to create a marsh wetland around this feature. It is anticipated that the
buffer will remain in approximately the same location, and that the wetland will
extend beyond the buffer limits as shown in the plans.
• Hole 16 - A marsh wetland will be extended into the pond adjacent to the green.
This will require fill in the pond. It is anticipated the buffer will begin at the rooted
herbaceous vegetation and extend landward, thereby replacing the existing buffer.
Additional impacts to the buffer will occur through the reconstruction of the existing
dam.
41
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
a Hole 18 - In the area adjacent to the tees, it is proposed that wetland and stream
restoration be conducted in the finger of the lake between the proposed tee and
landing area. According to the MRCS soil survey the area beneath the water as well
as the proposed landing area contain Bibb soils. A marsh wetland with herbaceous
vegetation is proposed for the area directly between the tee and landing areas. This
will establish a new buffer lake-ward on both sides as shown in the plans. The
wetland adjacent to the area in which the stream will be reestablished will be planted
with swamp forest wetland species such as bald cypress, swamp tupelo, and green
ash. Additionally, a stormwater wetland will be established outside of the new
proposed buffer in the landing area as shown in an area that is currently upland.
Another marsh wetland with herbaceous species will be created adjacent to the green,
establishing a new buffer lake-ward of the existing buffer.
The remainder of the impacts will be from dam construction/maintenance and wetland
creation/restoration. Wetland creation/restoration with riparian buffer is an exempt activity.
Table 4a summarizes all of the buffer impacts resulting from road crossings, golf course
construction, and the ser line crossings. Table 4b summarizes impacts to pond buffers from the
golf course.
•
•
42
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
Table 4a. Riparian Buffer Impacts at IFCRM. These impacts result from road crossings,
Aa_ _ ,]m,.m, mnaAn•nn?1FnRAit9 annd G,,waer line crossings.

Road
Crossing
# Zone 1
Impact
ft2 Zone 2
Impact
ft2 hole
# Zone 1
Impact
ft2 Zone 2
Impact
ft2 Sewer
Crossing
# Zone 1
Impact
ft2 Zone 2
Impact
ft2
2* 677 2039 3 1800 600 1 2764 1215
3 3060 2040 5 4046 1159 2 2066 1229
9 4140 2760 9 2324 1545 3 1812 1208
12 3600 2400 16** 3000 2000
14 2625 3938 18 1320 880
17 5241 4602
18 3660 2440
20 7080 4720
26 1920 1280
28 3480 2320
30 3000 2000
31 3060 2040
32 3000 2000

33
-
3000
-------------
2000

Total-fF 47,543 36,579 12,493 6,184 6,642 3,652
Total-ac 1.09 0.84 0.29 0.14 0.15 0.08
*Buffer mitigation required for xoaa urossm ?. ?u? it ?ull?l ???•. ?u.. ?? ?? - __
reconstruction.
.. ?, A1. -D. _,.;.,,, R.,ffnr Tmnarta Requiting, from Wetland Restoration/Creation.
Hole No. Zone 1 Pond Buffer
Impact (ftZ) Zone 2 Pond Buffer
Impact (ft2) Total
6 25,500 17,000 42,500
16 21,000 14,000 35,000
18 15,000 10,000 25,000
Total 61,500 413000 102,500
9.0 MITIGATION
Mitigation has been defined in NEPA regulations to include efforts which: a) avoid; b) minimize;
c) rectify; d) reduce or eliminate; or e) compensate for adverse impacts to the environment [40
• CFR 1508.20 (a-e)]. Mitigation of wetland impacts is recommended in accordance with Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines of the CWA (40 CFR 230), FHWA step-down procedures (23 CFR 777.1 et
seq.), mitigation policy mandates articulated in the USACE/EPA Memorandum of Agreement
43
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
• (MOA), Executive Order 11990 (42 FR 26961) (1977), and USFWS mitigation policy directives
(46 FR 7644-7663) (1981).
Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, the USACE/EPA MOA, and Executive Order 11990, stress
avoidance and minimization as primary considerations for protection of wetlands. Practicable
alternatives analysis must be fully evaluated before compensatory mitigation can be discussed.
USFWS policy also emphasizes avoidance and minimization. However, for unavoidable losses,
the USFWS recommends that mitigation efforts be based on the value and scarcity of the habitat
at risk.
ACOE has a wetlands policy based on "no net loss" of function, and generally requires mitigation
to offset wetland impacts greater than 1/10 acre and perennial stream channel impacts greater
than 300 linear feet.
9.1 Mitigation Procedure
Avoidance -Jurisdictional stream and wetland areas are present within the project study area.
During the planning and design phase of a project, efforts should be made to avoid impacts to the
greatest extent practicable. It may not be possible to avoid all impacts to jurisdictional areas, due
to design constraints. The FCRM design team has gone to great lengths to avoid wetland, stream,
and buffer impacts where practicable. Certain unavoidable impacts are necessary to fulfill the
applicant's purpose and need. Details of how certain jurisdictional impacts have been avoided
have been provided in Sections 8.1 and 8.2. Additional land was purchased by the applicant to
avoid certain impacts. Residential lots were also removed from certain areas to avoid
jurisdictional impacts.
Minimization - The design team has minimized jurisdictional impacts to wetlands, streams, and
buffers. Road crossings have been designed to meet City of Rocky Mount and NCDOT criteria.
Fill slopes have been designed to minimize the amount of fill needed at wetland crossings.
Wetlands are being crossed at their narrowest points as safety and engineering practices allow.
Bottomless culverts will be used to minimize the impact to aquatic life at stream crossings.
Roads are crossing streams in a perpendicular manner as safety and engineering practices allow.
Bridges are proposed over the Belmont Lake and Beech Branch crossing east of the dam. Cart
paths will utilize bridges to cross stream channels in order to avoid and minimize direct impacts
to the aquatic ecosystems. Construction of the golf course is also promoting impact minimization
by proposing that some wetlands be cleared and not filled. In most cases, these cleared wetlands
will be allowed to revegetate or will be planted with low-growing herbaceous vegetation. This
herbaceous vegetation will be maintained by hand as necessary. This practice of clearing a
forested wetland, but not filling it, is a good alternative to filling in the wetland completely. The
resulting herbaceous wetland, although not a mature forested system, will still be a very
. beneficial aquatic ecosystem. Desirable wildlife habitat and water quality improvement should
result from these converted wetland systems.
44
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
• Compensatory Mitigation - The applicant is proposing a variety of compensatory mitigation
measures to offset the unavoidable loss of jurisdictional areas resulting from construction of
FCRM.
9.2 Compensatory Mitigation Plan
Mitigation will be required for the following impact amounts:
® 2.72 acres of riparian wetland fill
• 2.21 acres of non-riparian wetland fill
• 1.78 acres of wetland clearing (i.e. conversion from forested to herbaceous)
• 398 feet of perennial channel
• 1,185 feet of intermittent channel
• 2,716 ft2 of riparian buffer
WK Dickson is preparing the Compensatory Mitigation Plan for FCRM. This plan will be
submitted to the ACOE under separate cover.
9.3 Additional Mitigation Activities
Storm-Water Management
FCRM is planning to use environmentally sound storm-water management throughout the
! proposed project site. The current plan for controlling storm-water and pollution runoff from the
developed portion of the site includes the use of sand filters, bio-retention areas, grassed swales,
wet or dry detention basins, and possibly other infiltration devices. It is the goal of FCRM to
meet or exceed the 85% removal of total suspended solids (TSS) from the proposed development
as outlined by the Stormwater Best Management Practices published by NCDENR. However,
due to the extensive design costs involved with producing a formal storm-water plan for the
subject site, we are proposing that DWQ issue the 401 Certification, subject to the approval of the
formal storm-water plan to be submitted under separate cover by the FCRM team. A properly
constructed stormwater management system will serve to replace some of the functions lost
through the unavoidable impacts. However, at a minimum the following will be provided
(Kimley-Horn 2004):
• For areas of development that exceed 30% such as multi-family areas, the club house
area, and maintenance area, 85% TSS removal will be provided using methods
appropriate for NSW waters.
• All other unfiltered stormwater runoff will be made to flow in a diffuse manner through
protected buffers or will be treated for at least 85% nitrogen removal before discharging
through a vegetated buffer.
Refer to Appendix VII for a discussion on the stormwater management practices to be
implemented by FCRM during and after construction.
•
45
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
• Wildlife Habitat Enhancement
Several wildlife enhancement activities are being investigated and will likely be incorporated into
the final FCRM development plan. The project site currently provides wildlife habitat for various
terrestrial and aquatic game and non-game species. Specific wildlife enhancement activities that
are envisioned for the FCRM community include, but may not be 1nnited to, the following:
® Green space and conservation areas that will serve as wildlife corridors
® Providing osprey nesting platforms along Belmont Lake
® Placing nesting boxes for wood ducks in suitable habitat areas
® Maintaining some edge habitat along preservation and mitigation areas
Natural and anthropogenic disturbances always result in some degree of habitat fragmentation.
There is a general agreement that a wildlife corridor is a somewhat linear area of natural
vegetation that comiects larger areas of natural vegetation (Hudson 1991). These corridors are
intended for transitional use and need not contain all the habitat elements necessary for long-term
wildlife survival or reproduction. However, many times the larger corridors do contain the
necessary elements for the entire life cycle of certain species. The overall FCRM development
plan will utilize greenspace and the undisturbed forested wetlands and uplands as wildlife
corridors. Edge habitat will be maintained through the preservation of stream buffers and other
riparian areas. Additionally, we anticipate that the wetland mitigation activities will also enhance
wildlife habitat on the site.
•
Sedimentation Control
Comprehensive erosion and sediment control practices will be applied throughout the project to
protect aquatic resources. Each lot will have an approved erosion and sedimentation control plan
prior to construction. For mass grading, construction of roads, and other infrastructure, control
measures may including: use of on-site mulch, triangular silt dikes in ditches, appropriate fabric
and matting in ditches, prompt stabilization of disturbed areas, multiple baffles in sediment
basins, flashboard risers, and Faircloth skimmers (Kimley-Horn 2004).
Forest Conservation
The mature forests at FCRM are a special asset to the project. Properly managect. t;xtstmg trees
can provide an aesthetic to both the golf course and the neighborhood. Several techniques have
demonstrated effectiveness for both individual specimen trees and larger stands, such as: serious
tree protection devises, aeration wells, protect critical root zones, proper root pruning, and deed
restriction/covenants (Kimley-Horn 2004).
10.0 PROTECTED SPECIES
10.1 Federal Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or officially Proposed
is (P) for such listing, receive protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 US 1531 et
seq.) as amended. The most recent list prepared by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
46
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
• (USFWS) is dated January 29, 2003. This list indicates that three endangered species have ranges
considered to extend into Nash County. Table 5 lists these three species. Records held by the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NIP) were reviewed by ESI in August 2004 to
determine if any federal protected species have been documented from the project study area or
the surrounding vicinity.
3 ?__ r- XTmnb. t?rnmin+v N nritha Carofna
A aQDne 0. r vur'l aia x a "
Common Name au.u,a-r...,g...,..<e.,,
Scientific Name
Federal Status
Habitat
Present
Biological
Conclusion
Red-cockaded Picoides borealis Endangered No No Effect
woodpecker
Dwarf wedgemussel
Alasmidonta heterodon
Endangered
Yes
Unresolved
Tar spinymussel Elliptio steinstansana Endangered Yes Unresolved
Red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) - The red-cockaded woodpecker is 7 to 8.5 inches long, has
a black head, prominent white cheek patch, and a black-and-white barred back. Males often have
red markings (cockades) behind the eye, but the cockades may be absent or difficult to see (Potter
et al. 1980). Primary habitat consists of mature to over-mature southern pine forests dominated
by loblolly, long-leaf (P. palustris), slash (P. elliotii), and pond (P. serotina) pines (Henry 1989).
Primary nest sites for RCWs include open pine stands greater than 60 years of age with little or
no mid-story development. Nest cavity trees tend to occur in clusters, which are referred to as
colonies (USFWS 2003). Optimal foraging habitat is comprised of open pine stands with large
pines 60 years old or greater, low densities of small or medium pines, sparse or no hardwood
midstory, and various species of bunchgrass for groundcover (FWS 2003). However, open pine
or pine/mixed hardwood stands over 30 years of age are considered potential foraging habitat
(Henry 1989). Pine flatwoods or pine-dominated savannas, which have been maintained by
frequent natural fires, serve as ideal nesting and foraging sites for this woodpecker. Development
of a thick understory may result in abandonment of cavity trees. The woodpecker drills holes into
the bark around the cavity entrance, resulting in a shiny, resinous buildup around the entrance that
allows for easy detection of active nest trees (Henry 1989).
A review of NET records revealed one (1) red-cockaded woodpecker element occurrence (EO)
that was last observed in January 1979. The location of this EO is near Milepost 144 on the east
side of I-95, approximately 1 mile south of Battleboro. This location is approximately 2.0 miles
from FCRM.
ESI biologists conducted a detailed habitat assessment of the FCRM site in August 2004.
• Suitable nesting and foraging habitat does not occur within the project study area. Areas of
mixed hardwood/pine forest are largely dominated by hardwood species such as red maple,
47
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
• American beech, tulip poplar, and sweetgum. These areas also contain a dense understoiy and a
developed hardwood midstory. A few areas of mixed hardwood/pine forest are dominated by
loblolly pine; however, these areas also have a developed midstory. The lack of true pine forest
and the presence of a developed midstory within the pine/hardwood forest eliminate the FCRM
site as potentially suitable nesting and foraging habitat for the RCW.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Dwarf wedgemuussel - The dwarf wedgemussel rarely exceeds 1.5 in (3.8 cm) in length. The
outer shell is brown or yellowish brown with faint green rays, and the nacre is bluish or silvery
white. The shells of the females are somewhat wider than those of males. This species typically
inhabits streams with moderate flow velocities and substrates varying in texture from gravel and
coarse sand to mud with little silt deposition (USFWS 1993). It is generally found in association
with other mussels but is never very numerous. As with other mussel species, the dwarf
wedgemussel has suffered from excess siltation in streams and rivers and from the toxic effects of
various pollutants entering waterways.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
Tar spinymussel - The Tar spinymussel is a small, sub rhomboidal mussel that grows to
approximately 2.5 in (6.4 cm) in length. The external shell of the adult is smooth, orange-brown
• to dark brown, and ornamented by one or two rows of short spines [to 0.2 in (0.5 cm) long]. The
shell is thicker on the anterior end and thinner on the posterior end. Preferred habitat of the Tar
spinymussel includes relatively fast-flowing, well-oxygenated, circum-neutral water over a silt-
free, non-compacted, gravel/coarse sand substrate (USFWS 1992). NIT records indicate that the
Tar spinymussel has been documented in Swift Creek near NC 48 and I-95 as recently as June 26,
2004. This site is approximately 2.5-3.0 miles from FCRM.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
Environmental Services, Inc., (ESI) has completed a potential habitat assessment for the federal
Endangered dwarf wedgemussel and Tar spinymussel for two reaches of Beech Branch and its
tributaries located on the FCRM property. The first reach investigated is approximately 500 feet
in length and is located on the eastern side of the subject property, extending from US 301
upstream to the dam located on Beech Branch. The channel in this reach is approximately 8 feet
wide with well-defined pools and riffles that are 4 feet and 1 foot in depth, respectively. The
substrate in this reach consists primarily of silt and sand with mats of decomposing organic
material in deeper pools. Streambanks within this reach were generally stable and forested with a
closed canopy and prevalent herbaceous vegetation. Root mats and submerged logs are common
within the stream channel.
The second reach investigated is approximately 5,000 feet in length and is located on the western
. side of the subject property and extends from the just above the headwaters of Belmont Lake
upstream to the western property boundary. The channel in this reach varies from a wide shallow
channel to a narrow and deep channel in response to changes in slope and sediment input from
48
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
• surrounding agricultural areas. The wide shallow portions of the channel are generally 6 feet
wide with riffles less than 1 foot in depth and pools 3 feet in depth. These portions are
experiencing heavy sedimentation and have a substrate dominated by unconsolidated silt and
sand. The narrow and deep portions of the channel are more similar to conditions observed
below the dam. The channel is generally 8 feet wide with pools 4 to 6 feet in depth and riffles
less than 1 foot deep. These portions of the chamiel have undercut banks, extensive submerged
root mats, and a substrate dominated by sand with some gravel. Streambanks within this reach
range from generally stable to very unstable and are forested. Jurisdictional wetlands are located
adjacent to the streambanks for much of this reach.
The results of these stream assessments indicate that the reach below the dam on Belmont Lake
represents potential habitat for both mussel species. The reach upstream on the lake is a much
more impaired system that has been affected by siltation, unstable stream banks, and priunarily by
the downstream damming of Beech Branch to form Belmont Lake. A species-specific survey for
both the dwarf wedgemussel and the Tar spinymussel is currently being coordinated by ESI and
will be completed by the end of November 2004. The main access road for FCRM will cross
Beech Branch just below the dam. Streamside vegetation will be cleared for this crossing. A
survey is being conducted to determine the presence or absence of these two mussel species in
this reach of Beech Branch due to the potential effect on the system from the removal of
streamside vegetation. The results of the species-specific survey will be submitted to the ACOE
• and USFWS upon completion.
10.2 Federal Species of Concern
The 29 January 2003 USFWS list also includes a category of species designated as "Federal
Species of Concern(FSC). The FSC designation provides no federal protection under the ESA
for the species listed. However, these species are listed because they may attain federally
protected status in the future. The presence of potential habitat within the project study area has
been evaluated in Table 6 for the FSC species listed for Nash County.
Table 6. Federal Species of Concern (FSC) (29 January 2003 USFWS list).
•
Common Name Scientific Name State A
Designation Potential Habitat
Pinewoods shiner Lythrurus matutinus SR YES
"Carolina" madtom Noturus furiosus pop. 2 SR (PT) YES
Yellow lance Elliptio lanceolata E YES
Atlantic pigtoe
Yellow lampmussel
Green floater Fusconaia masoni
Lampsilis carioca
Lasmigona subviridis E
E
E YES
YES
YES
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria diana SR NO
Sandhills bog lily Lilium pyrophilum SR-L NO
Carolina least trillium Trillium pusillum var. pusillum E NO
49
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
• A E-Endangered, SR-Significantly Rare, L-The range of the species is limited to N.C. and adjacent states,
T-Threatened, PT-Proposed Threatened. Updated April 2003 (NCNHP 2003).
B Proposed habitat based extensively on Amoroso and Finnegan (2002), LeGrand et al. (2001), and other
literature previously cited.
c Historic record
NIP records indicate that the yellow lance, Atlantic pigtoe, and yellow lampmussel (all
freshwater mussels) have been documented with 2.0 miles of the FCRM site; specifically between
SR 1003, I-95, and NC 48. Potential habitat occurs on the FCRM site, primarily below the
Belmont Lake dam. No special protection is afforded to these species at the present time.
10.3 State-listed Species
Species of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and plants with the North Carolina status of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), and Special Concern (SC) receive limited protection under the
North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant
Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202.12 et seq.). State listed species that have been documented
within 3.0 miles of FCRM and that receive limited protection include: Neuse River waterdog
(Necturus lewisi), triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata), yellow lance (Elliptio lanceolata),
Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis carioca), creeper (Strophitus
undulates), notched rainbow (Villosa constricta), a mayfly (Macdunnoa brunnea). All of these
state listed species were documented in Swift Creek near NC 48 and I-95. Swift Creek is in a
separate watershed than Beech Branch. None were documented on the FCRM site. Beech
Branch does represent potential habitat for some of these species; however, only the federal
species are afforded any protection as it relates to this project.
11.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC INTEREST FACTORS
11.1 Physical/Chemical Characteristics and Anticipated Changes
Substrate -Earthmoving will occur on the FCRM site; however, no significant changes to the
general substrate are anticipated other than what is necessary for construction and landscaping.
Currents, Circulation, or Drainage Patterns - Wetland and stream impacts are proposed;
however, no significant changes to the overall circulation and drainage of the FCRM site are
anticipated.
Suspended Particulates and Turbidity - The approved Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan
will be strictly enforced to maintain state water quality standards during construction.
Water Quality - Overall water quality on the FCRM site are expected to increase as a result of a
comprehensive stormwater management plan and wetland mitigation areas. Downstream water
quality will not be affected by FCRM due to the state-of-the-art stormwater and bioretention
practices that will be implemented during site development. Improvements to overall water
quality are discussed in Appendix VII.
50
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
0 Flood Control Functions -Alterations to the site will not result in a reduction of flood control
functions.
Storm, Wave and Erosion Buffers -No Applicable
Aquifer Recharge - Preliminary assessments indicate that the FCRM project will not have an
effect on aquifer recharge.
Raseflow - Preliminary assessments indicate that the FCRM project will not have an effect on
baseflow.
11.2 Biological Characteristics and Anticipated Changes
Special Aquatic Sites - Certain unavoidable impacts to wetlands and streams will result from
this project; however, impacts have been minimized as much as practicable.
Habitat for Fish and Other Aquatic Organisms - No significant habitat degradation is
anticipated as a result of the FCRM project. Appropriate culverts and pipes will be used for road
crossings that allow for aquatic life passage. Typical profiles of the culverts to be used are
included in Section 14 with the road impact graphics.
Wildlife Habitat - No significant habitat degradation is anticipated as a result of the FCRM
project. Fragmentation will occur; however, those species occurring on the site are adaptable to
fragmented landscapes. Wildlife corridors and open space will be left undisturbed throughout the
FCRM project.
Endangered or Threatened Species - Protected species issued have been addressed in this
report.
11.3 Human Use Characteristics and Impacts
Existing and Potential Water Supplies - FCRM should have no effect of existing or potential
water supplies.
Recreational or Commercial Fisheries - No effect.
Other Water Related Recreation - No effect.
Aesthetics of Aquatic Ecosystem - No effect.
LJ
51
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
• Parks, National and Historic Properties, etc. - ESI is coordinating with SHPO regarding the
Hart Farm property located on the western boundary of FCRM. Additional information on this
issue is forthcoming.
Traffic/Transportation Patterns - The design team does not anticipate any issues with traffic
resulting from FCRM.
Energy Consumption/Generation - No effect.
Navigation - No effect.
Safety -No effect.
Air Quality - No effect.
Noise - No effect.
Historic Properties - There is one historic property (Hart Farm) associated with the FCRM site.
ESI archaeologists are consulting with SHPO regarding this historic property.
• Land Use Classification - The design team and applicant have dealt with zoning issues.
Economics - FCRM will provide a major economic lift to the Nash County and Rocky Mount
area through the construction process and the newly created tax base. This information is
provided in Appendix I.
Property Values - Property values in the vicinity may increase as a result of the project;
unknown at this time.
Regional Growth - FCRM is not untended as driver of regional growth. It is intended to service
the retiree community who choose not to relocate to Florida.
Tax Revenues - The project will provide tax revenue as shown in Appendix I.
Employment - The project will provide employment as shown in Appendix I.
Public Facilities - Not applicable.
Business Activity - Not applicable.
• Prime and Unique Farmland - No effect.
Food and Fiber Production - No effect.
52
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
•
Water Quantity -No effect.
Mineral Needs - No effect.
Consideration of Private Property - No effect.
Community Cohesion - FCRM will not impact existing community cohesion.
Community Growth and Development - FCRM will not affect future community growth and
development.
Relocations - No relocations are anticipated.
Recreation - Not applicable.
11.4 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
The FCRM design team has not identified any significant secondary and cumulative impact
possibilities associated with this project. Cumulative wetland impacts amount to approximately
6.7 acres out of a total of 83.3 acres on the site. The remaining +/- 76 acres will be left
undisturbed and may be placed under a conservation mechanism. The FCRM project is not
intended to be a driver of new development. The project vicinity currently has many of the
necessary amenities such as food and shopping. Downstream water quality is expected to
improve as a result of this project because of the numerous stormwater BMPs that will be
constructed.
12.0 CONCLUSION
The FCRM project has been designed to be environmentally sensitive while maintaining the
applicant's basic purpose and need. Wetland impacts consist of 4.93 acres of fill and 1.78 acres
of wetland clearing. Stream impacts total approximately 1795 linear feet. The compensatory
mitigation plan will help offset unavoidable impacts. Approximately 76 acres of riparian and
non-riparian wetlands may be available for preservation. Wildlife enhancement techniques will be
implemented into the overall site development and wildlife corridors will be maintained in
undisturbed portions of the property. It is the team's desire to meet or exceed all state and federal
regulatory requirements in order to construct an environmentally sensitive and world-class golf
community.
•
53
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
• 13.0 R1EF ER ENCIES
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Goblet, and E.T. Laroe. 1979. Classification of Wetland and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USFWS/OBS
79/31. U. S. Department of Interior. 131 pp.
Henry, V. G. 1989. Guidelines for Preparation of Biological Assessments and Evaluations for
the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region,
Atlanta, Georgia. l3pp.
Horton, J.W. and V.A. Zullo. 1991. The Geology of the Carolinas. The University of Tennessee
Press, Knoxville, TN. 406 pp.
Husdon, Wendy E. 1991. Landscape Linkages and Biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
196 pp.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2004. Environmental Design Approach. Raleigh, NC. 2 pp.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison M. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles
of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
264 pp.
National Research Council. 2002. Riparian Areas - Functions and Strategies for Management.
National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. 428 pp.
[NCDEM] North Carolina Division of Environmental Management. 1992. Administrative Code
Section: 15A NCAC 2B .0100 - Procedures for Assignment of Water Quality Standards
and 15A NCAC 2B .0200 - Classifications and Water Quality StandardsApplicable to
Surface Waters of North Carolina. N.C. Department of Environmental, Health and
Natural Resources (DENHR), Raleigh. 34 pp.
[NCDWQ] North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2003. Basinwide Assessment Report-Tar
River Basin. N.C. Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
201 pp.
[NCDWQ] North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2004a. North Carolina Waterbodies
Listed by County. N.C. Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
http•//h2o enr state nc us/bims/reports/basinsandwaterbodies/Nash.pdf.
Accessed in August 2004.
• [NCDWQ] North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2004b. 2004 Tar-Pamlico Basinwide
Water Quality Plan. N.C. Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
54
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
• 178 pp + appendices. http://l12o.ei-ir.state.lic.us/basinwide/tarpam draft dec2003.11mil.
Accessed in August 2004.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 408 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Inc., Pogosa Springs, CO.
365 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation; NC Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Raleigh, NC. 325 pp.
Seaber, P.R., F.P. Kapinos and G.L. Knapp. 1987. Hydrologic Unit Maps. US Geological
Survey - Supply Paper 2294.
[USDA] United States Department of Agriculture. 1989. Natural Resources Conservation
Service. Soil Survey of Nash County, North Carolina. 127 pp.
[USFWS] Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Tar Spinymussel Recovery Plan: First Revision.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta,
GA. 34 pp.
[USFWS] U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Dwarf Wedge Mussel Recovery Plan. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Hadley, MA. 52 pp
[USGS] United States Geological Survey. 1963. Drake, NC 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and
Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery plan for the red-cockaded
Woodpecker (Picoides borealis): second revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Atlanta, GA. 296pp.
•
55
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
0 g4.® FIGS
Figure 1: Location Map
Figure 2: Soils Map
Figure 3: Wetlands and Streams
Figure 4: Road Crossing Key Map
Figures 4a-4bb: Individual Road Crossing Impact Maps
Figure 5: Golf Course Impact Key Map
Figures 5a-5w: Individual Golf Course Impact Maps
Figure 6: Sewer Line Crossing Key Map
Figures 6a -6f: Individual Sewer Line Impact Maps
is
•
56
!lC ni I--- ;-, A...

10
•
I ? `'. -lL1 ? 11 r
i \
it
t i ?
-- i II - 11 i
/j - ?? I4 II II ` Ili 11 - II i II
N a, ?= --==r n; If ?4{u r 11 ii Substation
x er
If it
If SWIt It
n %? • t B
II I -,g ''
'? A. x •11<
X11 a7 I °
19
r
! 30 ,
it it
II a • ° 11 t? Qavis Cem ' - " -
a -.
w _ Project Boundary
n4 'r _
- it
1 n u II. - o
• -
J/V
¢? - - E fl ??nJl , II c% 160 % -
• J Illl / _.. ?? _
P 11l
••x \ n _ ? ?- ,, i , Ire ? / r /'? _.
cem. A.
- - 1r
j` 127 Jrj'o__ 7?
.
u
N- r r - .-
A
136 '
II
See additional map
for proposed layout ao j 131
- 134
-?-L' in this location _
- r
NORTH CAROLINA
it ESLEYAN COLLEG
1 I li/ \ j?' i 1 i 135 ?? \..
1000 0 1000 2000 131
v
Feet ?
- - II
Source: USGS Digital Raster Graphics,
Drake Quadrangle (1963) /, -
a,
Project Location Map Figure: 1
Environmental Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount Project: ER04094
Services, Inc. Drake, Nash County, North Carolina Date: October 2004
o,?Es
•
•
•
N: A
N _
Ra ??
Ra cor
u Ra
j Ra

J GoA b
-;A

t Ra
?anA ,
?? ., tip Noti
. rlcA ??
/?i1 J GrB
\ 6rB L: " ? ?? VB
\ Ra
o f
2
? C 6A NoA Ra Ra
,
v
PiuU
NnA
Nn3 r
` e
G L
s } Ur
, GrC ?
?
N
4 VVV .
P
Ra r,? !s ?_ 4? ? NoA , ? ?
/ NiC1 f• p

? J
cur ana r'nr
J d ulr>? & th„r - - fir
N,c,A
GrC
?b
n Fa Grc x Bb 8b
? ' Nr,l3? 1 m Grp
N"m
?q r
No

8

v ?
No
t3uR
Noll
s
L
Ra
4 y-w
F
GrC f , ?:
GrC
Ra Bb ? Bb
NoC3

Notl$?
irn
r?r '
l
Cl
x
Go
n Ra , q
Y< t .:
r
:?
?u_ ??7?•
' Re., J ? GrC.
NOB Ra
S

GoA
3#
NoA
3
?-
Ra . 8b
NoA
-
'?
' GOA
j
'
i•
' Ra A a? s
Ra
r Ra
b?
I yy O
r Bus U,
NoB g
, R,
.
? NuB? ' °(V
B0B
See additional map
GOA.. Ra
NoA for proposed layout A a
N,.a
in this location Ra
NoF3', .,...,, r GoA
p? GoA ft ?] a r
NoB
IN U NoB 2 \
(GrEl
m
w, r
NoA "° r<

.... Nog
r. ,. NUB Bb : GrC" NoB
SOII Mapping Units
o Ra i" NoA
. Project Boundary
Bb Bibb loam GrC
BoB Bonneau loamy sand, 0-4% slopes
GoA Goldsboro fine sandy loam loam, GrB 0 1000 2000 Feet
0-2% slopes
uf3
'^
70
0 0.25 0.50 Km
GrC Gritneysandy loam, 6-10%slop es
NaC Nankin sandy loam, 2-10% slopes f; ?\0 b Source: USDA Soil Survey of
Ra Rains fine sandy loam 1
?a Nash County, NC, 1989
N o E3
Soils Map Figure: 2
Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount Project: ER04094
Environmental Drake, Nash County, North Carolina
?s Es, Services, Inc. Date: October 2004
b00Z aago}oo :ale(]
b6017083 :309fad
c :aan6id
euiloaeO 4PON `Alunoo yseN
4unow Alpo pe Auojo3 s,p.ioj
uoiJe001 weeils pue puelleM
'Oul `sa3ina9g s3
jejugwuoainu3 K

u
m o L
C N Q7
N+1
` (^?,
L
U
a)
Q O Y
u_
_0 cu
E
(u 'O
N C
> ? d
- N f0
4.1 4-
0 O O
?z?

M n E
C7
CC3

ct
O
P4
A
O o
N
cl N
O
W j
O
0
Z LL a 0

O
O

O vi
O U

T \
v }
T
?
v 1 Y C N
LU U)
O

O
?
r
PT
h+-? Q
FOFJ)'S COLONY
A T R O C K Y M 0 U N T
•
Road Crossing No. 1
Wetland Impact No. R-W 1
Stream Impact No.
Buffer Impact No.
WETLAND IMPACT AREA 0.07 acres
BUFFER IMPACT AREA NA -EM
STREAM IMPACT AREA NA

y yv Hess
Design
Group, F.A.
Landscape Architaft's
Campus Planning
Land Planning
- ? l
i
?l
\
I
7•- ?.
•

V
/
x :.,.
I ?
? \ fr
t
,

't

scale: i'v iw a
1073 Bullard Court • Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 • 919.954.8200 (o) • 919.954.8299 (f) • mhdg@rncbddehess.=n
q00.
FORD'S COLONY
A T R O C K Y M O U N T
•
•
•
Road Crossing No. 2
Wetland Impact No. R-W2
Stream Impact No. R-S1
Buffer Impact No. R-BF1
WETLAND IMPACT AREA 0.09 acres
BUFFER IMPACT AREA 0.0-1 aC.
STREAM IMPACT AREA 61 If
mess
Design
Group,P.A.
Landscape Archlteciure
Campus Planning
Land Planning V1 "I
125. /
R. F1
W /
\ \ R 127
x
O R.5 t //
/ "Y y
110.7 w. W
X /
/ .I. X p/
0 '4'
107.3
w X
5.5,
8w wW,
12
x
117.6
X
1 I. 1
1073 Bullard Court • Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 • 919.954.8200 (o) • 919.954.8299 (f) • [e-mail] scale: 1°= Boa o^
'? b
FORD'S COLONY
A T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T

1101
A
Road Crossing No. 3
Wetland Impact No. R-W3
Stream Impact No. R-S2

Buffer Impact No. WETLAND IMPACT AREA 0.05 acres
BUFFER IMPACT AREA 0.12 acres
R-BF2 STREAM IMPACT AREA 51 If

Design
Group,P.A.
Landscape Architecture
Campus Planning
Land Planning

132.
X
I
i
i
I
? I
131.7
X
S n /
y Jv `? ? ? _ y y
_ y\ y y
1 /
I
X 12 i.7 X 125.
I ?
I I ?
i
- ,.=,W-W
1073 Bullard Court • Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 • 919.954.8200 (o) • 919.954.8299 (f) • [e-mail]
C
FORD'S COLONY
T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N
"low Road Crossing No. 4
Wetland Impact No. R-W4
Stream Impact No.
Buffer Impact No.
WETLAND IMPACT AREA 0.02 acres
BUFFER IMPACT AREA NA i
STREAM IMPACT AREA NA
McBride
Hess
Design
Group, P.A.
Landscape Architecture
Campus Planning
Land Planning
scale: r =1UU-u-
1073 Bullard Court • Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 • 919.954.8200 (o) • 919.954.8299 (f) • [e-mail]
Hd
FORD'S COLONY
I& T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T
Road Crossing No. 5
Wetland Impact No. R-W5
Stream Impact No.
Buffer Impact No.
McBride
Hess
Design
WETLAND IMPACT AREA 0.05 acres ® Group, P.A.
BUFFER IMPACT AREA NA ® Landscape Architecture
STREAM IMPACT AREA NA ® Campus Plannng
Land Planning
scale: V = l w-0"
1073 Bullard Court • Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 • 919.954.8200 (o) • 919.954.8299 (f) • [e-mail]
l e-
FORD'S COLONY
7 T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T
Road Crossing No. 6 WETLAND IMPACT AREA
Wetland Im act No. R-W6 BUFFER IMPACT AREA
Stream Impact No. -
Buffer Impact No. STREAM IMPACT AREA
40
•
0.07 acres
NA
NA
McBride
Hess
Design
Group, P.A.
Landscape Archlteclure
Campus Planning
Land Planning
-- I I I I /
I - - 139_31
I I -
I I _
i
137 5 138
Ix x
I I
i
- - OPEN
? I SPACE ' - t d Wetian6 _
I W ?
I
' 137.9 y 137.1 i
-- -- x
I I I I I I
I I
_ 138. I I ? 36.8I
I , ?- - ? Bryn--€?O
I / \
x ?
I 36.6
I U
I i
I
? I I
i I
scale: 1' =100'-0"
1073 Bullard Court • Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 • 919.954.8200 (o) • 919.954.8299 (? • [e-mail]
I
7
FORD°S COLONY
*A T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T
Road Crossing No. 8 WETLAND IMPACT AREA
Wetland Impact No. RR--W88 BUFFER IMPACT AREA NA
Stream Impact No.
Buffer Im act No. STREAM IMPACT AREA NA
0
•
McBride
Hess
Design
Group, P.A.
Landscape Archlteclure
Campus Planning
Land Planning
q, ZV
/
3 .\7 / \ w w w w w
w w w w w w
w w \
i \ w w w 1 VV2
? / w w w wX •? w w
i
w w w w ?
' \ w w
?/ w w
w SPACE w
w
.4 \ fY
I P i'
w -
\ I _
w
\
\ w
I 1 \ w \ ? ,
1 w /
I
w
I I 1 \ \
1 \ \ w w \
w w
I I w w
6.18 I \ /? w w w
\ w w w w w
_ ? ? w w w w
P
1073 Bullard Court • Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 a 919.954.8200 (o) • 919.954.8299 (fl • [e-mail]
?-I I
FORD'S COLONY
I1 T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T
Road Crossing No. 9
Wetland Impact No. R-W9
Stream Impact No. R-S3
Buffer Impact No. R-BF3
WETLAND IMPACT AREA
BUFFER IMPACT AREA
0.14 acres
0.24 acres
STREAM IMPACT AREA 69 If
McBride
Hess
Design
® Group, P.A.
® Landscape Architecture
Campus Planning
Land Planning
1073 Bullard Court • Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 • 919.954.8200 (o) • 919.954.8299 (f) • [e-mail]
scale: 1' = IW4r
Ll h
FORD'S COLONY
ft T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T
Road Crossing No. 10 & 11
Wetland Impact No. R-W10, R-W11
Stream Impact No.
Buffer Impact No.
0.11 acres
NA
00 If

McBride
Hess
Design
Group, P.A.
Landscape Architachue
Campus Planning
Land Planning
1073 Bullard Court • Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 • 919.954.8200 (o) • 919.954.8299 (f) • [e-mail]
WETLAND IMPACT AREA
BUFFER IMPACT AREA
STREAM IMPACT AREA
scale: 1' =10cr-0'
ll
FORD'S COLONY
& T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T
Road Crossing No. 12
Wetland Impact No.
Stream Impact No. R-S4
Buffer Impact No. R-BF4
WETLAND IMPACT AREA
BUFFER IMPACT AREA
STREAM IMPACT AREA
NA
0.14 acres
60 If
McBride
Hess
Design
RM Group, P.A.
® Landscape Architecture
® Campus Planning
Land Planning
scale: 1"= 100'-0"
1073 Bullard Court • Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 • 919.954.8200 (o) • 919.954.8299 (f) • [e-mail]
l /
J

FORD'S COLONY
T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T
Road Crossing No. 13
Wetland Impact No. R-W12
Stream Impact No.
Buffer Impact No.
WETLAND IMPACT AREA
BUFFER IMPACT AREA
STREAM IMPACT AREA
McBride
Hess
Design
0.05 acres ® Group, P.A.
NA ® Landscape Architecture
Campus Planning
NA Land Planning
1073 Bullard Court • Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 • 919.954.8200 (o) • 919.954.8299 (f) • [e-mail]
H k
7
FORD'S COLONY
I K U U N T M U U IN I
Road Crossing No. 14
Wetland Impact No. R-W 13
Stream Impact No.
Buffer Impact No. R-BF5
McBride
Hess
Design
WETLAND IMPACT AREA 0.27 acres ® Group, P.A.
BUFFER IMPACT AREA 0.57 acres ® Landscape ArchiteckiTe

STREAM IMPACT AREA NA Campus Planning
Land Planning
scale! 1, = 1W-g°
1073 Bullard Court • Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 • 919.954.8200 (o) • 919.954.8299(f) • [e-mail]
l/
7
FORD'S COLONY
w T R O C K Y M O U N T
Road Crossing No. 15
Wetland Impact No. R-W 14
Stream Impact No.

Buffer Impact No. WETLAND IMPACT AREA 0.05 acres
BUFFER IMPACT AREA NA
STREAM IMPACT AREA NA

McBride
Hess
Design
Group, P.A.
Landscape Architecture
Campus Planning
Land Planning
u
CJ
scale: 1" =100'-0"
1073 Bullard Court • Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 • 919.954.8200 (o) • 919.954.8299 (f) 1, [e-mail]
HM
7
FORD'S COLONY
Aft T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T
Road Crossing No. 16 & 17
Wetland Impact No. R-W15, R-W16
Stream Impact No. R-S5
Buffer Impact No. R-BF6
WETLAND IMPACT AREA 0.19 acres
BUFFER IMPACT AREA 0.22 acres
STREAM IMPACT AREA 165 If
McBride
Hess
Design
Group, P.A.
Landscape Archlteclure
Campus Planning
Land Planning
scale: 1" = 1uu,4r
1073 Bullard Court • Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 • 919.954.8200 (o) • 919.954.8299 (f) • [e-mail]
L1 r,
7
FORD'S COLONY
T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T
WETLAND IMPACT AREA
Road Crossing NoMR-BF7
Buffer Impact No. McBride
Wetland Impact NR-W 18 BUFFER IMPACT AREA
Stream Impact NoSTREAM IMPACT AREA
Hess
Design
48 acres ® Group, P.A.
0.
0.14 acres ® LandscapeArchiteclure
Campus PlannN
61 If Land Planning
1073 Bullard Court • Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 • 919.954.8200 (o) • 919.954.8299 (f) • [e-mail]
q
scale: 1' = 1 W'-u
7
FORD'S COLONY

I K U U K Y M U U IV I
Road Crossing No. 20
Wetland Impact No. R-W 19
Stream Impact No. R-S7
Buffer Impact No. R-BF8
WETLAND IMPACT AREA 0.02 acres
BUFFER IMPACT AREA 0.24 acres
STREAM IMPACT AREA 118 If
McBride
Hess
Design
Group, P.A.
Landscape Architecture
Campus Planning
Land Planning
scale: V= I W-O"
1073 Bullard Court • Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 • 919.954.8200 (o) • 919.954.8299 (f) • [e-mail]
H P
7
FORD'S COLONY
T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T
Road Cr 21
Impact
Wetland R-W20
L
Stream I
Buffer I McBride

Hess
Design
WETLAND IMPACT AREA 0.24 acres ® Group, P.A.
BUFFER IMPACT AREA NA ® Landscape Architecture

STREAM IMPACT AREA NA Campus Planning

Land Planning
scale: 1" =100'-0"
1073 Bullard Court • Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 • 919.954.8200 (o) • 919.954.8299 (f) • [e-mail]
yR
7
FORD°S COLONY
U N T
P T R O C R Y M 0
Road Crossing No. 22
Wetland Impact No. R-W21
Stream Impact No.
Buffer Impact No.
WETLAND IMPACT AREA 0.03 acres
BUFFER IMPACT AREA NA
STREAM IMPACT AREA NA
McBride
Hess
Design
Group, P.A.
Landscape Architecture
Campus Planning
Land Planning
scale! V t 1w-O'
1073 Bullard Court • Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 • 919.954.8200 (o) • 919.954.8299 (f) • [e-mail]
yr
FORD'S COLONY
T R 0 C K Y M O U N T
Road Crossing No. 23
Wetland Impact No. R-W22
Stream Im act No. R-S8
Buffer Impact No.
WETLAND IMPACT AREA 0.20 acres
BUFFER IMPACT AREA NA
STREAM IMPACT AREA 91 If
McBride
Hess
Design
Group, P.A.
Landscape Architecture
Campus Planning
Land Planning
1073 Bullard Court • Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 • 919.954.8200 (o) • 919.954.8299 (f) • [e-mail]
scale: 1" = 100'-0'
q 5

FORD'S COLONY
T R O C K Y M O U N
Road Crossing No. 24
Wetland Impact No. R-W23
Stream Impact No.
Buffer Impact No.
WETLAND IMPACT AREA 0.05 acres
BUFFER IMPACT AREA
STREAM IMPACT AREA
NA
NA
McBride
Hess
Design
® Group, P.A.
® Landscape Architecture
® Campus Planning
Land Planning
scale: V =1 w4r
1073 Bullard Court • Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 • 919.954.8200 (o) • 919.954.8299 (t) • [e-mail]
q +
FORD'S COLONY
T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N'
Road Crossing No. 25
Wetland Impact No. R-W24
Stream Impact No.
Buffer Impact No.
McBride
Hess
Design
Group, P.A.
Landscape Architecture
® Campus Planning
Land Planning
1073 Bullard Court • Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 • 919.954.8200 (o) • 919.954.8299 (t) • [e-mail]
scale: 1"z 1W-g"
H L4
WETLAND IMPACT AREA
BUFFER IMPACT AREA
0.19 acres
NA
STREAM IMPACT AREA NA
FORD'S COLONY
T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T
Road Crossing No. 26
Wetland Impact No. R-W25
Stream Impact No. R-S9
Buffer Impact No. R-13179
WETLAND IMPACT AREA
BUFFER IMPACT AREA
STREAM IMPACT AREA
McBride
Hess
Design
0.01 acres ® Group, P.A.
0.21 acres Landscape Architech re
Campus Planning
32 If ® Land Planning
1073 Bullard Court • Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 • 919.954.8200 (o) • 919.954.8299 (f) • [e-mail]
9 V
FORD'S COLONY
T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N'
Road Crossing No. 27
Wetland Impact No. R-W26
Stream Impact No.
Buffer Impact No.
WETLAND IMPACT AREA
BUFFER IMPACT AREA
STREAM IMPACT AREA
0.12 acres
NA
NA
McBride
Hess
Design
® Group, P.A.
® Landscape Architecture
® Campus Planning
Land Planning
scale: I"= 1 W'-0"
1073 Bullard Court • Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 • 919.954.8200 (o) • 919.954.8299 (fl • [e-mail]
q w
FORD'S COLONY

R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T
Road Crossing No. 28 & 29
Wetland Impact No.
Stream Impact No. R-S10, R-SI I
Buffer Impact No. R-BF 10
NA
0.13 acres
109 If
McBride
Hess
Design
® Group, P.A.
Landscape Architecture
Campus Planning
Land Planning
scale: 1" =I W-(r
1073 Bullard Court • Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 • 919.954.8200 (o) • 919.954.8299 (f) • [e-mail]
yx
WETLAND IMPACT AREA
BUFFER IMPACT AREA
STREAM IMPACT AREA
7
FORD'S COLONY
&A T R O C K Y M O U N T
Road Crossing No. 30
Wetland Impact No. R-W27
Stream Impact No. R-S12
Buffer Impact No. R-BF 1 I
•
4
WETLAND IMPACT AREA
BUFFER IMPACT AREA
STREAM IMPACT AREA
Flo
Hess
Design
Group, P.A.
Landscape Architecture
Campus Planning
Land Planning
w %
w w 9w2.9 ?
w wX w w w ?`??
-W15 11, w w
w w w wX 1 .9w w
w w w w w w w
\ w w w w w w • ,,?
.\\ w w w w w w
w\ w w w w w S?
w w\`` w w w w w
w w w w w w w
w w w w w w
w w
w w w w w
w w w w w w
w w w w w w w wadi, w w
?l?r w Jw
w ?
?y/ ? 9.7 w w
w w w w w
w w w w w w / ?
w w w w w
w 89. w / I
X
w w w w
VV'17
w w w
w
w /
w w 92.
X
w ?
J

9
X
I
301
94.8
X
9 6 X 1IL
C'4-
AL
95
• X
scale: 1'= 100'-0'
1073 Bullard Court • Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 • 919.954.8200 (o) • 919.954.8299 (f) • [e-mail]
0.07 acres
0.13 acres
50 If
H y
7
FORD'S COLONY
qw- T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T
V Crossing No. 31 WETLAND IMPACT AREA
nd Impact No. BUFFER IMPACT AREA
m Im act No. R-S13 r Impact No. R-BF 12 STREAM IMPACT AREA
ES
McBride
Hess
Design
Group, P.A.
Landscape Architecture
Campus Planning
Land Planning

•
•
W.E.
136.86
a
v-
\ I y
1 60

P
l
\ w
BNIP

1 !
1 I
1 `

1 R- 6F f
134.9
1
'
R•S13 '
1

137.1 \
? X

/I

l-?

scale: r = tar-u
1073 Bullard Court * Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 • 919.954.8200 (o) • 919.954.8299(f • [e-mail]
NA
0.12 acres
Ll .7
7
FORD'S COLONY
M T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T
MPF Road Crossing No. 32
Wetland Impact No. W-W28
Stream Impact No. R-S14
Buffer Impact No. R-BF 13
WETLAND IMPACT AREA 0.11 acres
BUFFER IMPACT AREA 0.11 acres
STREAM IMPACT AREA 50 ff NA
McBride
Hess
Design
Group, P.A.
Landscape Architecture
Campus Planning
Land Planning
scale: 1'= 1001-0'
1073 Bullard Court • Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 • 919.954.8200 (o) • 919.954.8299 (f) • [e-mail]
q a0.
7
FORD'S COLONY
Aj T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T
IMF Road Crossing No. 33
Wetland Impact No. R-W29
Stream Impact No. R-S 15
Buffer Impact No. R-BF 14
WETLAND IMPACT AREA 0.03
BUFFER IMPACT AREA 0.11 acres ' ?>
STREAM IMPACT AREA NA
McBride
Hess
Design
Group,P.A.
Landscape Architecture
Campus Planning
Land Planning
1073 Bullard Court • Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 • 919.954.8200 (o) • 919.954.8299 (f • [e-mail]
scale: 1' = 100'-0'
'1 66
R/W
8 LF W/6' FES-+
R/W
J
a
32 LF RCP -
a
r
24" ROLL CURB
J
a
U
a
r
R/W
R/W
mI
co
b
8 LF W/6' FES--
I 6' I
PLAN VIEW
NOT TO SCALE
TOP OF CURB

EX. GROUND
RC"
BURY INVERT OF --
PIPE NOT TO EXCEED
20% OF PIPE DIAMETER or 1' it diameter less than 4'
PROFILE VIEW
NOT TO SCALE
SINGLE PIPE ROADWAY CROSSING
NOT TO SCALE
R/W
8 LF W/6' FES-•
R/W
24" RO LL CURB
J
Q
S2 J
Q
32 LF RCP -
a r
- - -
M
M - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3
\ - - -
o:
ro
N 0
'a
R/W
PLAN VIEW
NOT TO SCALE
TOP OF CURB
BASE FLOW/LOW ?-
FLOW CULVERT
X j
O w
c
d C
as
Qm
BURY INVERT OF --
PIPE NOT TO EXCEED
20% OF PIPE diameter or 1' if diomter less than 4'
PROFILE VIEW
NOT TO SCALE
R/W
STORM FLOW/HIGH
FLOW CULVERT
EX. GROUND
MULTIPLE PIPE ROADWAY CROSSING
NOT TO SCALE
•
•
0
U "
¢R
M
f?•?M M
~0000
C, 0
O? ? Y
Q?
0
.A
;- o

+IVI
0
c? v

a?

o
U

O
O
O

n
i
01
o

LU
? 0

? E

?` O

T
T
LL
mi
N
LL
m O

M
LL
m 00
p eD C N
Q

o
N
t, V) 0 ++
-omm T
3? M nl t0
3v,333 M
cn0 m
c?
3
3? r
3 r
3 r
3 r
3 r
3 N r (7 ~ O
`??3
rn o

CL

o
?.v c CL
°
E

?

?c7t?c?c?
.o

t?

D

?

?

?

?

?

?

c
V
Cc
0000000
00 o
T •- r
t?D
!- ?f N N N N N N
/
x O U
>Z o n
C cn E
0 0
Z T T N M u? CO O! T
T N
T M
T M
T
T us
T
T t0 00 ao w ao 00
T T T T T T Q
TO
Q

5
O C
am T
a
,o
O N
C
O p?
•O N
a?
0
•
•
•
FORD'S COLONY
A T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T
Hole No. I
Wetland Impact No. G-WI, G-W2 Amount (ac) 0.20
Stream Impact No. G-S I Amount (ft) 20
Buffer Impact No. Amount (ft2)
5a
,D?°'T,n4d ohns®n
694 Cooledge Avenue
Atlanta, Georgia 30306
404.873.3558 (o)
404.873.3559 (f)
scale: 1" = 200'-0"
sq
FORD'S COLONY
•A T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T
Hole No. 2
Wetland Impact No. G-W3 Amount (ac) 0.42
Stream Impact No. Amount (ft)
Buffer Impact No. Amount (ft 2)
cD v ?,ohnson
PSjgj-
694 Cooledge Avenue
Atlanta, Georgia 30306
404.873.3558 (o)
404.873.3559 (f)

133.6 ? ? ?\
I \ I 1 1

•

x 11
0
35.9
2. J/
x ?
I
1
scale: 1"=2W-0
?b
FORD'S COLONY
A T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T
•
Hole No. 3
Wetland Impact No. G-W4 Amount (ac) 0.07
Stream Impact No. G-S2 Amount (ft) 20
Buffer Impact No. G-BFI Amount (ft) 2400
r vM lohmon
S] gil
694 Cooledge Avenue
Atlanta, Georgia 30306
404.873.3558 (o)
404.873.3559 (fl
133.6
x

A\`
•

NI
X 114.
SPACE
z \
•
scale: 1"
5 ?,
FORD'S COLONY
A T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T
•
Hole No. 4
Wetland Impact No. G-W5 Amount (ac) 0.16
Stream Impact No. Amount (ft)
Buffer Impact No. Amount (ftz)
D v-?-,ohnson
O _._ esign, °
694 Cooledge Avenue ,
Atlanta, Georgia 30306
404.873.3558 (o)
404.873.3559 (f)
130.8 \
136.9 1411
x x
El
135.5 \ 0
EIS 4
X
EP
129.4
El i
138
E ?
131,& W W T>`
x y y / 1
X 128,.9
W W W 133. \
x - - /
132.2
X \
w ?
X 30.9
\ ?r
29.1 \
3.6
_ X
7 1272
X
\ 21.4
X
126
X \
/ 12 ? X
X I\
2
0 1
X
,. a
•
A
(I]JI2
scale: 1":
d
FORD'S COLONY
?A T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T
Hole No. 5
Wetland Impact No. G-W6, G-W7 Amount (ac) 0.25
Stream Impact No. G-S3 Amount (ft) 20
Buffer Impact No. G-BF2 Amount (412) 5208
oD Vc?Rhnson _
P A.
694 Cooledge Avenue
Atlanta, Georgia 30306
404.873.3558 (o)
404.873.3559 (fl
W
\ W * W PEN -W511
SPAC . .. 7
W W is y ?
? _ `_ ? W 1 11 ? 1 x
?\ ,J W y W? W y W 126.71 1 \ /
,2C
1171
X /
•
•
LL W 1'
,Wy?WW? W°? I
y? WSW W W.W 10018W W W WW
yW? ?.?
yy460 -
W110-7 y
?i .? \ W J y, W W -- -y- y W X . W. W W y
w/W W`.? WWWWW
f W
y?W x
I
yW ./ I

/
i
17.7 /
x
/\ x
\119.1 N
X ?
s1crale: 1" _
V f-
FORD'S COLONY
•A T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T
•
•
Hole No. 6
Wetland Impact No. Amount (ac) 0
Stream Impact No. Amount (ft) 0
Wetland Creation Amount (ac) 3.67
.v_id :Johnson
694 Cooledge Avenue
Atlanta, Georgia 30306
404.873.3558 (o)
404.873.3559 (fl
w
w w
s ,
^s
`- \\
,. ? J w J w w? ww ?'\
y \
--- - 7
? 1 J w w w +. w •?? `?
I, .? ,21. ??'• v A ,w w
121,
\ i ? \
\ \ \ x \' \ w \ w w \\\
27.1
NZ
'?\ ; ? ' , / ?''?,./ '- ?_ ? a: 1, ? i •? ? ?? \\ ?w ..? .? yv.?:
w
r-M
.. CR.t TUD
yk?
i w w t w. ; ?/??"-'??\I 1-1 ' ? \.\\ ._w? ? w w1 U wow •?• Z?.....? w w? y
\\ -? I '
VV6
- o ±?
\•?\? A- -? ?((? ?.
rte- ?' '• ' ??? ' \ ???!?,? - ' ? /?? ? ?,?' /
'o
scale: 1"= 200'-0"
1
FORD'S COLONY
•A T R O C K Y M O U N T
Hole No.
Wetland Impact No. EAAmount (ac) 0
Stream Impact No. (ft) 0
Buffer Impact No. (112) 0
Uohnson
694 Cooledge Avenue
Atlanta, Georgia 30306
404.873.3558 (o)
404.873.3559 (?
Ii I \ 21. W
OPEN '
1 IW ? /
_ W \ y 106.9
1 V'3971 \ 1? W
128.7 y1.y
/ x
1379 /
\
140.5 / s/P
x
20
1392
GQx 131.3 W?
\\ aVV^ '
/? GUS'/1 x E
SP
\ 131 8

Ax%A/

/ 132,9 / x
\ /
\
/ 131-2 \
X

13 .8
EI Px tg \

3 / / \
y . y ? \ 9.4

y
W
t220
7C
/
/
J
•
\
/ / .
/ J

/

W W
W
.
\ i .5
/ X
?? y W
?rJ . 17i0.8W. W S W W + /
y . W y y W y y \
?? y y W° y . y y y y W y y W ` W /
y
y W y ?6 a
2D.7 12
W Y y/ y W 1 h .? y W
y y y
' y y? W i
. W64'
Y W a

W W
118.9 yyW y yy /

\ W
?"g
FORD'S COLONY
?A T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T
Hole No. 8
Wetland Impact No. Amount (ac)
Stream Impact No. Amount (ft)
Buffer Impact No. Amount (ft)
M-,D ? johnson
?-c
TIC
694 Cooledge Avenue
Atlanta, Georgia 30306
404.873.3558 (o)
404.873.3559 (fl
•
•
scale: i =.
7
F®"'S COLONY
07T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T
Hole No. 9
Wetland Impact No. Amount (ac) 0
Stream Impact No. G-S4 Amount (ft) 20
Buffer Impact No. G-BF3 Amount (ft) 3869
.,Da _ Oohnson
VCJJ J.." 694 Cooledge Avenue
Atlanta, Georgia 30306
404.873.3558 (o)
404.873.3559 (fl
scale: 1' = 200'-0"
S11
FORD'S COLONY
?A T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T
Hole No. 10
E
Wetland Impact No. Amount
(ac) 0
Stream Impact No. Amount (ft) 0
Buffer Impact No. Amount (112) 0
,1R*d,;jqhnsqn??? R C
694 Cooledge Avenue
Atlanta, Georgia 30306
404.873.3558 (o)
404.873.3559 (fl
/
l V\
?7 1
Q } V \? / 134.7 1 Ilf •? A
I
\ r t \ / ?'\_ \ ,if 139.4 \1
0.7
•
•
k'
O\ ; x x
/ V
? j (? sala d Wetter I _ ?
7 138.6 1 I
f '
y.. ? w w w w w 7 w w -? I
\ w -wwW5&ww5w° _-
w \ \ e w w w w 137.9 w 1
Y `\
ww ? ? ? wwwwwwwwww ?_ .."1 t\ 7.? f! \ I
w w w 137.3
xi°37.1
133.5
--- -- 37.1
136.6
r, 1( \
38.9 / ?\ w w w ?, ... \
scale: 1'= 200'-0"
?J
FORD'S COLONY
0A T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T
Hole No. I 1
Wetland Impact No. G-W8 Amount (ac) 0.18
Stream Impact No. Amount (ft)
Buffer Impact No. Amount (ft2)
.-,D .v Johnson
_
esTp
5 T I- C
694 Cooledge Avenue
Atlanta, Georgia 30306
404.873.3558 (o)
404.873.3559 (D
139-4 I x 36.4
138,
\ I
sola d Wetla , y
140-2
W W 1 I W W W W W W W
W W5 W
.4 _
\ ` 1
x \
•
I 137.6 \
•
•
X
W ( 137.2 137_2
1371 137.6
x x
Y 136.9
X
/ l
1 \ x 1 _3
3 y '
X
y
BMP 137.9 1 1
1 ? 1
1 1 ? ?
scaia: i = n
f5 k
FOLD'S COLONY
•A T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T
Hole No. 12
Wetland Impact No. G-W9 Amount (ac) 0.37
Stream Impact No. Amount (ft)
Buffer Impact No. Amount (ft2)
d johnson
° LLC
694 Cooledge Avenue
Atlanta, Georgia 30306
404.873.3558 (o)
404.873.3559 (fl
140.2 y I° y W .. y W W
129.3
\W ?
73
r
137.6
X
i
3?.2
X
1371 137.6 „f 8 4
X .,..V X
-. ..,... / 1 Q

scale: r I=
f
FORD'S COLONY
•A T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T
?,ohmon 1) T-LC
es] arj?
694 Cooledge Avenue
Atlanta, Georgia 30306
404.873.3558 (o)
404.873.3559 (0
i
k\k ?.7

•
? I 6
4
i
Hole No. 13
Wetland Impact No. G-W 10, G-W 11 Amount (ac) 0.91
Stream Impact No. Amount (ft)
Buffer Impact No. Amount (ftz)
scale: i = -
s n,
FORD'S COLONY
A T
1w
•
•
R O C K Y M 0 U N T
Hole No. 14
Wetland Impact No. G-W 12 Amount (ac) 0.07
Stream Impact No. Amount (ft)
Buffer Impact No. Amount (ftz)
p-.,D v4Vohnson
694 Cooledge Avenue
Atlanta, Georgia 30306
404.873.3558 (o)
404.873.3559 (fl
scale: r = zw-v

FORD'S COLONY
A T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T
'?^yj'' D''??ig[vt{c---oh?rygns'[?'o?(•nryp !.
694694 Cooledgee Avenue
Atlanta, Georgia 30306
404.873.3558 (o)
404.873.3559 (f)
f ? W y W / /
y W toz.? W W25 . x i d2? W /
I W WWW?,W ?WW / /
i ,? l W ?' W y y
X / m y ? ? 99
P
A
•
Hole No. 15
Wetland Impact No. G-W 13 Amount (ac) 0.16
Stream Impact No. Amount (ft)
Buffer Impact No. Amount (ft)
scale: 1"= 209-0"
Sb
FORD'S COLONY
•A T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T
•
•
Hole No. 16
Wetland Impact No. G-W 14 Amount (ac) 0.19
Stream Impact No. G-S5 Amount (ft) 50
Buffer Impact No. G-BF4 Amount (ft) 5000
d?ohnson
_ e s I 1'_
694 Cooledge Avenue
Atlanta, Georgia 30306
404.873.3558 (o)
404.873.3559 (fl
X 14,6

5
f
/ T

i

109.8
f
W y y W W , ..?i ?, .
1 G ?.? W LL• toW.> W Wv?r2 ° ,12.2
X.
t `a -dam
W y ?
I jr (`
3
\ f 5.3
27-5
scale: V= zw-
SP
FORD'S COLONY
?A T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T
Hole No. 17
Wetland Impact No. Amount (ac) 0
Stream Impact No. Amount (ft) 0
Buffer Impact No. Amount (ft') 0
X4q, fohnson
,Dg,-1
?s EJC
694 Cooledge Avenue
Atlanta, Georgia 30306
404.873.3558 (o)
404.873.3559 (fl
r....?nm -... -- . _ _._
v Iz -----
/ 135.2 J 132. 131.7
?- \ X ! I X X
12 .7 X 125,
X
A
? J

L?
¦/ / \
y x
a$ W
W
-W
710

Scale: 1" = 2UU-U'
5 '
FORD'S COLONY
•A T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T
0
Hole No. 18
Wetland Impact No. Amount (ac) PO
Stream Impact No. Amount (ft)
Wetland Creation Amount (ac) 0.89
0
--,D,-y4d,,Tohn8gn
es' 9' 694 Cooledge Avenue
Atlanta, Georgia 30306
404.873.3558 (o)
404.873.3559 (fl
Sr-
F® °S COLONY
0A
•
•
R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T
Hole No. 18
Wetland Impact No. G-W 15 Amount (ac) 0.32
Stream Impact No. G-S7 Amount (ft) 22
Buffer Impact No. G-BF5 Amount (ft') 2200
,D2v4d- Johmon = .
?: .
694 Cooledge Avenue
Atlanta, Georgia 30306
404.873.3558 (o)
404.873.3559 (f)
JS
F® °S COLONY
?A T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T
Hole No. 18
Wetland Impact No.
Stream Impact No.
Buffer Impact No. j
•

?.--ylid-.Jolmson
S_ :
k?
694 Cooledge Avenue
Atlanta, Georgia 30306
404.873.3558 (o)
See SC-1 'sewer err'sS;nj 404.873.3559 (fl
STREAM IMPACT 0.00 If (See Sewer Impact)
BUFFER IMPACT 0.00 acres (see sewer impact)
S?
FORD'S COLONY
0 A T
•

R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T
18
o. G-W 15 Amount (ac) 0.32

I
W
t
G-S7 Amount (ft) 22
lmpactt Amount (ftz) 2200
.-,David. Johnson
694 Cooledge Avenue
Atlanta, Georgia 30306
404.873.3558 (o)
404.873.3559 (fl
5u
F® 'S COLONY
AT R O C K Y M O U N T
Hole No. nAmiount Wetland Impact No. W(ac)O.41
Stream Impact No. Wetland Creation •

•
.-- Dovid- ohn6®n
s.`
694 Cooledge Avenue
Atlanta, Georgia 30306
404.873.3558 (o)
404.873.3559 (fl
Sv
FO °S COLONY
?A T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N 7
•
•
Hole No.
Wetland Impact No. 17-19
j Amount (ac) 0.56
Stream Impact No. G-S8 Amount ($) 565
Buffer Impact No. Amount (tV)
-D n4d Johnson
694 Cooledge Avenue
Atlanta, Georgia 30306
404.873.3558 (o)
404.873.3559 (fl
5w
SUIUUSjd B;IS uioossagaP119$P [!-3
66Z8'4S6'616 :al!-!S`OOZ9'g56'616 :auogdalel,
axnpoj!go.I1? advospusq 9I9LZ 1WHOAD'WON OR" `UnOD PRIM £LOI
VNnoavO HISON •iNnow A)ioos

•vr•d `dno.zo uBisaQ ssaH apiagaW lkxoloo SQ?a03
N O
O
o
rn o
v a
0 T-
o C N U
O 0 V- H . V
co p
N G. .2 Z
O O
a
C7 U X v, 0,
(D z
V) (D (D N x-
YQ N XX o co 'c (D
H
?m -or
aw I~ > 0)'o
U0CD 75.S :: mtj m cu o CD m W
EL C7 mO HO' L.
_
}OLu 4) . 2 a
F- LL J \ v F- ?D _ w
a
J -i C [?
I
W LU
Lu w Q
LLJ Phi
W LU
m 3
O j N
=MM
V-0 N0 Q 0 V
306 0 N0606co
Oo M tQ r.. -CO .- m c LL O
co m 3 Z
C (A U o _
CL; ' T o o
CD M
a? m m _ - U
N w?
.6 r
m
CL .- XIC -0 Con
m
(D a.
>
N co . o
_ m m ?,m E U
m
(a cc (a
?
Cr)
w U°
Y Q It
UaW
-0 0
?LL?
0 0
aim m? a? = a? - '
0 0 - 3 m e v N o 's N '3 o c i o E 'o
caws, w (D -5 0 M c CLO ?Go E ?•3? o a 04 -0 0W mN_EON 0.8 .4N D O Zp?.0? cmm=WmNU' C !,
_ E >? - o
o (a2 a?ih ? mtm. ? ca 3 m? ? E ? ?w-°' W ?O ti ? 3Ut:'_? m a m ?
?- c'c5 c ° c m? ?'? ?.o v, c M > m ?? mw o? o> = o - CL m o 16 E (D.0
E C rn ami ? m c •0 o N O ca k; - 0 E c 'a 0
._ m•v m n? N ? m ?? 3?' ? c_ ?p rn? m
C Lt O m O 0.0 to c 03,2•?m C? m O H 0'm' U
- &E'0U m
? C: m?ESL>,o=?'? ?=mVo0? ? _ E y?•° `°??Lc"° cfC
0) 9 . 8 m E >'a 15 c
c m e o•-? m r c 3 o c c 'c? c _ cc m m u,- uo c M 4) m Cc
_ c
N- 3 o'E,..v?.c °t m.mcu. ?O•v mQ 16 2H v, O m m - m
fo
O _ ?LL E Z:t 3ao¢ 8¢o
suiuueld alls --'ssagapugouQBpgw :lp--3
66Z8.456'616:al!wsn OOZB•p56.6I6:-100101
amlaalt a adEaspuE-I 519LZ eulluluz) guorl Walird unoo palluE £LOI VNI10M H1210N •1Nnovi knob
/?

-V-,l `dno.z? u2isaQ SSOH OP!J93w
A1?I0'IO0 Sawa N
• N O C
J
w
co w ? W
o uk O0 w
LL
o- aC
o. z LL Z
g o g
_ W
3
W N
...
? t
( W ... C J
J 6'
W U) 'r w
(~ N s
2 c ! < 2
LL
o
o z i ?
?.
• _ ? , FEE ? ?
! ? U
l? O U
' E
o 3 .o
o
o ? z
a _ o
U (-
U °
c
U U U ^u
Q
W
W
Cl) ~
co
L 0 0 W
0 D LL
N W W ° W
? CV
2 Z '
g ? g
w w
_ O
ca 06 co ca U
06
Q U) 00 ?
(1 o) a) U) U) Q to
6 -6 -6 F-
2 2 2 0 O
2. _
O c c c O 0)
? C
LL tai) N ? C N
O O O v0i W O
U U U
- - U L U
'n.
I

ti00Zjago}oo :9;e4 euiloaeO WON `Alunoo yseN 'our `saoinJag
'V60v08D :;oafad 4unow ApoN 4e Auoloo s,p.io.1 leluewuoainu3
9 :ajn6id s6uissoao aaMaS pasodoad
? I
L LL
c O y
C N N
I 7 m ?
C m C o
L
m Cc
p?
3: 6 aO y ?
°o
C C cu u
O O Q , oo
0 U U'9'OU o
X C
.? N y a o
m N 3 N
O 'C C
Q DLO U) CO
I
v, ? o 0
N
C ?W
y Cl)
Ln _ o
_ v
0 o m Y 1
N,£ l
d 9
\i
NN
1_-
`- ' U
mm?,;
cl)
05
N / N
N s
3 p
ID R
v
t? / o
n 0) CO
,n { r? in ; 1
ij
N N
N j
U
O N O
OL o)
?N O
cn,
s
1 _O
J?3 y m°??)
I
I
• oMp•aaMas m4nq/Divi760ti0a3
FORD'S COLONY
A T ROC K Y M Q U N T `
Stocks Engineering, P.A.
• IMPACTNUMBER SC- 1 WETIAND IMPACT AREA NA ! "_1 Civil Engineering• HydrdogylHydrads
IMPACT TYPE SEWER IMAPCT BUFFERa IMPACT AREA p, p 3 aC land Planning and ©avedopnent
BUFFER I IMPACT AREA a c- v;)

•
w
•
?.
01
f,, CREIATEQ -? - -
WETLAND.- -'
,tw
V.
4

?r w\, Y\/' /1 /'V^ \, ,A 'r./\' ?` Y / J / J'\/' r /41 r';' 1 4/l 4/\,5 /?? ;_I / ?~'
, .. .. , ,;'`?^,?'\.•'•?v^.;\r'J_?v'.,,?,,-..,1r•?•??v ^..^?Jti.%. ??ti,^:r.r^•.i \.'•.: \: .r?r,,
j ;
,, J?.^., ?\r.. ,r•J^..r. .? .r?'.^.. .n„ :?.:'...n..?r\J?..h .n?•l^\.'?.r?•u'•.J?..^?,, : •.r..?.^.,•„hr•.:?.w? _ -
i?
fffft \7?
i
t j ? r r?
scale. 1`= IW-V
1073 Bullard Court + Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 * 919.954.8200 (o) = 919.954.8299 (f) * [e-mail]
(00.
FORD'S COLONY
A T R D G K Y MOUNT Stocks Engineering, P.A.
OIMPACTNUMBER :5L- 2 WETLAND IMPACT AREA 0.01 acres [ Civil Engineering- Hydrdcgy Rffi ks
Lend Plaimmg and Devatoprnerd
IMPACT TYPE SEWER IMPACT BUFFERcIMPACT AREA p, R3 ac- 0
BUFFER I IMPACT AREA p,(7So,, CD
r?
` f a,M1 ?
41
w
t Vi 8
r' ' .? w w
J ? ? w \^ w w
ttt i
i W" w J .v w
t
? f
{ r"
t j
?.1
rr i
1
A r ,
y
31- /r
VV8
l
I _tt
W ? -
t f'

,? Ir w" v 1w
22 r. ti . ti r

1073 Bullard Court • Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 • 919.954.8200 (o) • 919.954.8299 (f) + [e-mail] way. r_ 1W-W
(0 6
FORD'S COLONY
A T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T Stocks Engineering, P.A.
OIMPACTNUMBER a C ° 3 WETLAND IMPACT AREA 0.20 acres [7] CiA[Engineedng- Hydraiogy Hydrai.
Land Planning and Davd?n?ent
IMPACT TYPE SEWER IMPACT BUFFERA IMPACT AREA 0, 03 tw ' 7771 BUFFER ', IMPACT AREA 0.04 at, -
•
•
.- t
r/l ? ,?` jr + ' w
?- Jew „r w e+ ? \ ???,_ l ?. ,Fr? ? ? /l ?• ? y ? ?/
x
w wi w F w y
s ,
w y^ w w w
;
w v
r /
'41 '41
w w w w ?w.- w w w W w ??,d .y w lc-`'" w`V w// I I ??
w W V w y Y w 1 w w fif / w w W w w L /
w •Y '`rV 25, fi w w w 'L w- w , /`
w w 'v 'v w w v- w w w w w w w i
41 '41 J+ w 'V 'V 'V J? W' yt?h..?.;{" w W K' w W w ? 1
W w
IV IV IV
\ _ rte' +? ?` V`
11,
1
? w
a
w w w
w w w / A j w
w BMP
w
C
3
J
1073 Bullard Court • Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 • 919,954.8200 (o) • 919.954.8299 (f) [e-mail]
c
FORD'S COLONY
A T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T Stocks Engineering, P.A.
OIMPACTNUMBER 'ZC-' 4 WETLAND IMPACT AREA 0.01 acres A CMI Engineering- HydralogylPfydravim
Land Planning and Devdoprrient
IMPACT TYPE SEWER IMPACT BUFFER 1 IMPACT AREA NA
BUFFER 2 IMPACT AREA NA
•
•
J '
1
BLIP'
,r
r
i
ff
r t `ti i t
? f
pp?(e ' L W W I ?I'
4'" __ fit \ '•, - , ? • ?' / '+ !./ , ^v'. ?,
'n r
\\ / ? 11 // ..?? may, ? f v' `y .
1
,
, ?t __ _ A ?? ? .rv??-•!?-?.^?.:-? f+, f w^.-.:•„-'v-.,-?.,, n? 'rte ?.
F .__ ?? ? } '? /+, ? .,"? ? r , ? ? /vim. ?'u
? I h, ? ' ..ns'• n ,ter`. r h r -/+ r';^/??'r ;
i t• 1 1' "^' ,.'V`,r v1+'v^.%•.S•.N ./`„ J`,r'?..^.. .., ?. ?•, r'? ?.^1V'?
Kate: 1 1WV
1073 Bullard Court • Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 • 919.954.8200 (o) • 919.954.8299 (f) • [e-mail]
(,O d
FORD'S COLONY
A T R 0 C K Y M 0 U N T Stocks Engineering, P.A.
• IMPACT NUMBER 5 C - 5 WETLAND IMPACT AREA 0.03 acres Civil Engineering- wydMcgyf ydralm
Land Planning and Deveicprnerrt
IMPACTTYPE SEWER IMPACT BUFFER 1 IMPACT AREA NA O
BUFFER 2 IMPACT AREA NA
;i
i

•

41
k
i 1
?,
•

,j
C2
tl
t

?77//''
scale: I'= 1W-T
1073 Bullard Court • Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 • 919.954.8200 (o) • 919.954.8299 (t) • mhdg@mcbddehess com
lO p-
FORD'S COLONY
A T R. 0 C K Y M 0 U N T
IMPACT NUMBER S C ° 6 WETLAND IMPACT AREA
IMPACT TYPE SEWER IMPACT BUFFER 1 IMPACT AREA
BUFFER 2 IMPACT AREA
0.01 acres
NA
NA
Stocks Engineering, P.A.
Civil Engineering- Hydrdo#y dmfim
Land Plamting and Development

•
v . w . , -.?+,r . ,. ,,-??. ?. _ yr ,A
h.`.r 4'L V h/l . ` i, `. ?. .r. ^/??' lr' ,. '? v ?... \r'?/?/" \r+. \, 'J\.\"'l?•.J'•. ./'• ,f" ?•,?
? F .'w.?\ \, •J" V ? r \ h"' F*.." J /,,.` . ,r f` \:'w,r 'V r' f J 'v .n< .r '\.^. "^.r. 'w ./ '?. ,. `?., r ?7"*C`\-'
.. l ? T? ..^,./' 1. ?f? ? .?.' r?r4'\ .`'?.. A `\r^ ,r\l• r V'V'" "v".?rV'v"?.-'\/`. '}.. V fvr4'V" r?+^
t, /' ?' `r ^?/?. 1 ^./. '?/ \' ? ,^? vhrl "?I ,`v\/ 1h,.^._.na1^t . hr ,/V'.O N'•: ?`.,
.. .. t!? ??. '? .^„v", r r ,, ..! .? .,r . w - /v",.rY'•t`. •'..^J ! ?` v \?\.' ?L.r ;rt , \: v^?... ?. .? ? ? .. ..r'v 4 ?r
1c. h. ?,.-'\.h r 'h.. .,1. ? ,1..w .+W -,,,•?,, \!- r+ r `\ h v^.,r.?••r?........, J' r ?v^ ; ?V ?`? ?, .,. v •,?\ '\r .. ./V j .r,.^'-•.
v r • r? ,? r `.,r\r,..•^.; ,r \ r ? ??, r r r . \ \ h .
!`.. I? '+ J U^v'?A 'J \ ?v^ r h%` • '?r\f .r?..'\/? .. v w w/ ?'?? ?` 4 `w"? .' .?\\. /w/ ?\.
f : ? ? l'\? /' ' ii. - ? 4 ,./? ?. ,r, f:"\,r".. n,/".,'"J, ?n !\ 1J \ ?,n t r^.. ? A,
.. ?. J'J "V ,r^.,/ II( /L'? ./'•. ^'4 •. '? ^. •./? ?L"., v ./\. ., ? /?'\.r\""? r v'4 ? '.f !' ? N / /'4%\. .. 'w.r•? J', .. /'... ?.. ?1'. ', r
•
r/.
scale: 1' =1 W-0
1073 Bullard Court • Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 - 919.954.8200(o) • 919.954.8299 (f) • [e-mail]
l0 -F
•
•
0
•
Appendix I
Economic Analysis of the
Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount Project
Prepared by
Realtec, Inc. and Bill Roeder
C
8/3/04
• Economic Impact of Realtec on Rocky Mount
•
Rea ltee
5yr 10yr
1) People & Income
- Jobs - People on site 130 200
- Direct Project Payroll (Annual) $2,584,010 (I) $3,975,400
- Jobs - New Houses Construction Jobs ? ?
- New Houses Construction Payroll (Annual) $13,500,000 (3) $13,500,000 (3)
- Total Payroll Added (Annual) $16,084,010 $17,475,400
- Retirees - Households (Cumulative) 250 (4) 800 (5)
- Spendable Income: Estimate (Annual) (Cumulative) $25,000,000 (6) $80,000,000
2) New Construction (Cumulative)
- Infrastructure Construction by Realtec
- Streets, Utilities, Landscaping, et. al. $9,075,000 (8) $16,600,000 (8)
- Golf Course, Clubhouse and Dining Facilities $6,000,000 (9) $6,000,000 (9)
-New Houses Constructed by Owners $75,000,000 (10) $240,000,000 (11)
-Total New Construction $90,075,000 $262,600,000
3) Added Tax Base (Cumulative) $141,500,000 (12) $342,500,000 (13)
4) Added Tax Revenue (Annual)
- City $707,500 (14) $1,712,500 (15)
- County $933,900 (14) $2,260,500 (15)
Total City and County $1,641,400 $3,973,000
5) Added Utility Revenue for City (Annual)
- 250 homes $1,250,000 (16)
- 800 homes $4,000,000 (17)
6) Added Personal Net Worth for Area: Estimate (Cumulative) $250,000,000 (18) $ 800,000,000 (19)

Economic Impact of Realtec on Rocky Mount (Cont'd)
• Footnotes
(1) 130 employees at an average salary of $19, 877 per year = $2, 584, 010 per year (unadjusted for cost of living increases).
(2) 200 employees at an average salary of $19, 877 per year = $3,975,400 per year (unadjusted for cost of living increases).
(3) 100 houses constructed per year at $300, 000 per house, less $30, 000 profit per house = $270,000 cost. With labor being
about 50% of the cost, $270,000x 50% _ $135,000 labor per house. $135, 000 x 100 houses per year= $13,500, 000.
(4) 100 houses constructed on average per year multiplied by 2.5 years of home construction in first five year period of project
= 250 households.
(5) Development to include approximately 800 total lots = 800 total households.
(6) 250 households, estimating an average annual retirement income of $100, 000 per household (unadjusted for cost of living
increases) _ $25, 000, 000 per year.
(7) 800 households, estimating an average annual retirement income of $100, 000 per household (unadjusted for cost of living
increases) _ $80, 000, 000 per year.
(8) New construction (Cumulative)
Streets, Utilities and Landscaping 5 years 10 years
Spine roads $2,625,000 $3,150,000
Sections 1-3 $4,050,000 $4,050,000
Sections 4-5 $600,000 $2,700,000
Sections 6-8 $4,050,000
Landscaping -front gate $250,000 $250,000
Subtotal $7,525,000 $14,200,000
Other
Front entrance and security but $300,000 $400,000
Project maintenance facility $500,000 $500,000
Engineering - general project $100,000 $100,000
Wetlands - engineering and mitigation $150,000 $150,000
Walking trails $250,000
Racquet club upgrade $200,000
Engineering, Sections 1-8 $500,000 $800,000
Subtotal $1,550,000 $2,400,000
Total Streets, Utilities, Landscaping, et. al. $9,075,000 $16,600,000
(9) Golf Course = $3,000,000plus Clubhouse/Dining Room = $3,000,000 = $6,000,000.
(10) 250 houses at $300,000 per house = $75,000,000.
(11) 800 houses at $300, 000 per house = $240,000,000.
(12) 250 houses at an average of $300, 000 per house = $75, 000, 000 plus 500 lots at an average of $120, 000 per lot
_ $60,000,000 plus $6,500,000 for the construction of the clubhouse/sales office, golf course and project maintenance
facility = $141,500,000.
(13) 800 houses at an average of $300, 000 per house = $240, 000, 000 plus 800 lots at an average of $120, 000 per lot
_ $96, 000, 000 plus $6,500, 000 for the construction of the clubhouse/sales office, golf course and project maintenance
facility = $342,500,000.
(14) 250 houses at an average of $300, 000 per house = $75, 000, 000 plus 500 lots at an average of $120, 000 per lot
_ $60, 000, 000 plus $6,500, 000 for the construction of the clubhouse/sales office, golf course and project maintenance
facility = $141,500,000. City tax rate of $0.50 per $100 of value = $707,500 per year. County tax rate of $0.66 per
$100 of value = $933,900 per year.
(15) 800 homes total at an average of $420, 000 per home ($120, 000 per lot, $300, 000 per house) = $336, 000, 000 plus
$6,500,000 for the construction of the clubhouse/sales office, golf course and project maintenance facility=
$34Z500,000. City tax rate of $0.50 per $100 of value= $1, 712, 500 per year. County tax rate of $0.66 per $100
of value = $2,260,500 per year.
(16) Utilities costs estimated to be approximately $5, 000 per year for the average 3, 000 square foot home. (Rocky Mount
Planning Department estimated the average annual utility expense for a $300, 000 home to be $350 to $450 per month,
or $4,200 to $5,400 per year.) 250 homes x say $5, 000 per year average utility expense = $1,250, 000.
(17) Utilities costs estimated to be approximately $5, 000 per year for the average 3, 000 square foot home. (Rocky Mount
Planning Department estimated the average annual utility expense for a $300,000 home to be $350 to $450 per month,
or $4,200 to $5,400 per year.) 800 homes x say $5, 000 per year average utility expense = $4, 000, 000.
(18) 250 households with an estimated average net worth of $1,000,000 per household = $250,000,000.
(19) 800 households with an estimated average net worth of $1, 000, 000 per household = $800, 000, 000.
8/3/04
r 1
U
0
0
•
Appendix II
GIS-Site Search Results for the
Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount Project
Prepared by
ESI
•
0
Name of Stream Description Curr. Class Date Prop. Class Basin Stream Index #
Compass Creek From source to Tar C;NSW 01/01/90 Tar-Pamlico 28- 72
River
Horn Beam Swamp From source to C;NSW 01/01/90 Tar-Pamlico 28- 72- 1
Compass Creek
Beech Branch From source to U.S. B;NSW 01/01/90 Tar-Pamlico 28- 75- (1)
Hwy. 301
Beech Branch From U.S. Hwy. 301 to C;NSW 01/01/90 Tar-Pamlico 28- 75- (2)
Falling Run
Swift Creek From source to Nash C;ORW,NSW 06/01/04 Tar-Pamlico 28- 78- (0.5)
County SR 1003
Sandy Creek From N.C. Hwy. 561 to C;NSW:+ 06/01/04 Tar-Pamlico 28- 78- 1-(14)
Nash County 1004
Shelley Branch From source to Sandy C;NSW:+ 06/01/04 Tar-Pamlico 28- 78- 1-16
Creek
Sandy Creek From N.C. Hwy. 561 to C;NSW 01/01/90 C;NSW:+ Tar-Pamlico 28- 78- 1-(14)
Swift Creek
Red Bud Creek From source to Sandy C;NSW:+ 06/01/04 Tar-Pamlico 28- 78- 1-17
Creek
Tumbling Run From source to Sandy C;NSW:+ 06/01/04 Tar-Pamlico 28- 78- 1-18
Creek
Terry Branch From source to Tumbling C;NSW:+ 06/01/04 Tar-Pamlico 28- 78- 1-18-1
Run
P
li
28-
78
-1-18-2
Jumping Run From source to Tumbling C;NSW:+ 06/01/04 am
co
Tar-
Run
Sandy Creek From Nash County 1004 C;ORW,NSW 06/01/04 Tar-Pamlico 28 -78 -1-(19)
to Swift Creek
Gideon Swamp From source to Swift C;NSW:+ 06/01/04 Tar-Pamlico 28 -78 -2
Creek
Swift Creek From Nash County SR C;NSW 01101190 Tar-Pamlico 28 -78 -(2.5)
1003 to a point 1.4
miles upstream of
Edgecombe County SR
1409
Flat Rock Branch From source to Swift C;NSW 10/24/03 Tar-Pamlico 28 -78 -3
Creek
Mill Pond Branch From source to Flat C;NSW 10/24/03 Tar-Pamlico 28 -78 -3-1
Rock Branch
Giles Branch From source to Swift C;NSW 10/24/03 Tar-Pamlico 28 -78 -4
Creek
Lane Swamp From source to Swift C;NSW 10/24/03 Tar-Pamlico 28 -78 -5
Creek
Fishing Creek From Shocco Creek to WS-V;NSW 08/03/92 Tar-Pamlico 28 -79 -(21)
Little Fishing Creek
• White Oak Swamp From source to C;NSW 08/03/92 Tar-Pamlico 28 -79 -23
Fishinq Creek
Page 7 of 8
Name of Stream Description Curr. Class Date Prop. Class Basin Stream Index #
Crooked Swamp From source to C;NSW 08/03/92 Tar-Pamlico 28-79- 24
Fishing Creek
Fishing Creek From Little Fishing WS-IV;NSW 08/03/92 Tar-Pamlico 28- 79- (25.5)
Creek to a point 0.6
mile upstream of
Enfield Raw Water
Supply Intake
Beaverdam Swamp From source to WS-IV;NSW 08/03/92 Tar-Pamlico 28- 79- 27
Fishing Creek
Black Swamp From source to WS-IV;NSW 08/03/92 Tar-Pamlico 28- 79- 27-1
Beaverdam Swamp
Race Prong From source to Black WS-IV;NSW 08/03/92 Tar-Pamlico 28- 79- 27-1-1
Swamp
Pine Log Branch From source to WS-IV;NSW 08/03/92 Tar-Pamlico 28- 79- 27-2
Beaverdam Swamp
Fishing Creek From Enfield Raw C;NSW 01/01/90 Tar-Pamlico 28- 79- (29)
Water Supply Intake
to a point 1.7 miles
downstream of Beech
Swamp
Cokey Swamp From source to Town C;NSW 01/01/90 Tar-Pamlico 28 -83 -3
Creek
Swift Creek From source to a C;NSW 01/01/90 Tar-Pamlico 28 -78 -(0.5)
point 1.4 miles
upstream of Edgecombe
County SR 1409
11
Page 8 of 8
N
Parcel 30789.,.
Essex king o Enfield
Centerville
Parcel 30802
r: ..
r a ke
Justice /+,, stall ?:: Red
4a 1± L J ?
m
L- Project Study Area
%
_di
artseas
?Y '
Bunn east - ._ Spn Rpe , N Wile
.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 --
Miles
Source: Nash County Tax Department and
CGIA BasmPro 3 r. "-
Projection and GCS: Stale Plane NAD27,
North Carolina, HIPS 3200 (feel) ---
A
Y
777 IS
mstea Crossroads
Legend
Parcels > 450 acres 1'? Primary Roads
Parcels > 900 acres O'er Interstate Highway
r? 15 Mile Project Buffer 24K Quad Lines
;
Major Hydrography 0 County Boundary
3-"
n >Vafh Founta
County Key Figure: 1
Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount Project: ER04094
Environmental Nash County, North Carolina
Services, Inc. Date: Sept. 2004
•
Appendix III
History of the Belmont Property
Compiled by Mr. Bill Roeder
•
0
William Roeder
9/9/2004
• The History of the Belmont ProgedX
The name Bellemonte (also spelled Belmont, Belle Mont and Belle Monte), which has
existed since at least the 1855 plat map, reflects the planter class's penchant for giving
their homes picturesque or romantic titles. Local historian Dr. Margaret Bale has
suggested that it is possible that the original owner of the property, Dr. John F. Bellamy,
might have preferred Bellemonte over other evocative labels because the two names -
Bellamy and Bellemonte - sound so much alike.
In 1918, Joseph Clinch Bellamy, the sole surviving son of Dr. Bellamy, as well as the
owner/occupant of Bellemonte at the time, sold the property to M.C. Braswell, a major
landowner and merchant in the locality. The land was later passed down to the Braswell
heirs.
Various development ideas regarding the Belmont property were discussed among the
owners throughout the 1960s. In the early-1970s the City of Rocky Mount needed to
provide sewer service to the outlying area of Goldrock, NC and wanted to utilize Beech
Branch, which passes through Belmont, as the sewer outfall line as it was the lowest
available draw. As discussions between the City and the Belmont owners progressed,
several development decisions were made. As an example, construction of the dam that
created the ±80-acre Belmont Lake was completed in 1973.
• On May 16, 1973 (revised March 5, 1974), the Office of M.L. Gay, Jr., a civil
engineering firm in Rocky Mount, NC, produced a map of "Belmont Farm" that
described the metes and bounds of the entire "967-acre property."
On April 19, 1974 John A. Edwards & Company, an engineering and planning firm from
Raleigh, NC, submitted to the owners a series of sketch plans for a portion of the
Belmont property. These included "Preliminary Lot Layout," "Preliminary Paving &
Drainage," "Preliminary Water Layout," and "Preliminary Sewer Layout" drawings.
On June 24, 1974 an agreement was reached between the owners and the City providing
for the design and construction of the sewer collection line that crossed a portion of the
Behnont property. (That Agreement was subsequently amended on November 13, 1978
and September 11, 1979.)
By the mid-1970s, the owners of Belmont had conceived of a 1,600 unit Planned Unit
Development ("PUD") on the "1,054-acre property." Approximately $500,000 was
invested in the construction of physical infrastructure, including the lake and a racquet
club, as well as various planning and consulting fees. Baldwin Associates, Inc, of
Atlanta, GA, a landscape architecture and site-planning firm, was retained to perform a
site analysis. Included in their report were six maps detailing the site's "Vegetation,"
"Topography," "Slope Analysis," "Climatology," "Evaluation of Natural Conditions" as
well as an "Aerial Photograph," in addition to the "Development Plan,"
0
William Roeder
9/9/2004
a commercial property with a strip-mall and outparcels. This shopping center is called
"Belmont Village Square."
On March 22, 2001 the "Belmont Farms Racquet & Fitness Club," which included the
business as well as the property and facilities, was sold to Albert Eugene Brice's `Brice
Ventures, LLC."
On February 20, 2002, an 8.065 tract in the eastern portion of the Belmont property was
sold to Mr. Danny Ray Peele's "Progressive Development Partnership of Wilson Nash,
L.L.C.," a Sims, NC-based corporation. The project is titled "Wesleyan Village
Subdivision." As a part of this sale, the purchaser agreed "to submit for approval to the
Architectural Control Committee for approval a detailed Plot plan which will include 1)
the layout of the streets, 2) the location of all dwellings, buildings, improvements, walls,
fences, driveways, piers, bulkheads, storage buildings and all structures thereon, and 3) a
detailed landscape plan." (The owners approved the initial "Site Plan," which detailed 50
lots, on June 14, 2002.) In addition, the property is subject to annexation to Belmont
Farms as contained in ARTICLE X, Annexation of Additional Properties, Section (c) in
the Declaration of Master Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Belmont Farms, a
Planned Community. To date, only limited clearing and improvements have been made;
no structures have been constructed.
On March 25, 2002, 2.76 acres near the center of the Belmont property was sold to
• Patrick W. Lamm's "Patrick W. Lamm & Co., LLC," a Rocky Mount, NC-based
corporation, to build nine two-story townhomes that front onto Belmont Lake. His project
is titled "Water's Edge at Belmont Farms." A 0.184-acre portion of the common area
near the dock/gazebo was mistakenly conveyed in the original transaction and was
deeded back to the owners by Mr. Lamm on June 10, 2004. As part of the sale, it is
understood that the "Water's Edge at Belmont Homeowner's Association, Inc." will be a
sub-Association of "Belmont Farms Community Services Association, Inc."
In May 2002 an additional 10.27 adjacent acres, directly to the south of the original
property they acquired, was sold to the "Church on the Rise, Inc."
In July 2003 the owners again met with Dick Ford of "Realtec, Inc." in Williamsburg,
VA. Dick was enthusiastic to learn that the potential of the project was still intact and
immediately began to discuss the prospects for forming a joint venture to proceed with
the development. Later in 2003 Bob Gorham, one of the three remaining Braswell heirs,
purchased the balance of the property from the family and assumed sole control of the
Belmont property. The partnership then came together between he and Dick that has
resulted in "Ford's Colony Rocky Mount."
In mid-2004 two tracts of land adjacent to the Belmont property were acquired by the
partnership. A 127.71-acre portion of the "Dr. Franklin Hart Farm (Hidden Path)"
property owned by Martha. Courser was purchased on July 8, 2004. An 80.06-acre portion
of Frank Philips farm was purchased on August 6, 2004.
3
•
•
•

N

? <eePe. a?.
•
P a
I•I?F
I
. :f ? . ? !?• Sle
^ ` __.. flip ial
IPI'
' I,`
X
1
- NiFt !
g
1 rylYli'N

x +S xn

,q

y4 r? ?+ e!•ii•i

S ?lP6

or a m s '
a oo f f' PL
f ,41e•Y laa
•.4o Y Po' A4'?
f IY a!'N a
9 i1•!9N IOn'.! '
i'b`IldG ae' ^? ?,
?98elfYl Ibm'
!1G ..
!Y W Y !i1' fi'N ?
I ?
4,y
l
? aiP! k[lmpE, 9cl.o
It Pw %
ii
t I ? . 4fN ? n
m 4-7
•:I4•H ??V 1 e I Y
h G?lTth'
M9 P O F
??. yn W! y Fsd .lrtr ads o W N 50 by
"'4: T R n 3 W E L. L u_ a5
'J?yxh.- y -/ f+tu,e'b? N.i 1 M -a Hry N V.1A 0-1-Y MT., W'
f /
ll.y 61111b
_ ''i 0wya'i9 oFF ce• or M L Gr Y JA., .
Lr ?n '{:_ \ GIB L En41 G60.
J r. '.z EE,?- _ Ra Pnv M-T, N,c.
??.} ''345 A}„ 'Y •1
. -4 .. i; l_?iY£.ti I?hi?;?i?4_x,t 4.•3,?'?1`e ?Lkird..I k,.....?,s _,.??...5?_3?.•:?f. f>_ .+,.g._.?a.?r...a......_...,,.Wn....,__?..f._,.,_.+.«.-?

6 ?.
A 1 ?_? ; a
I. S 1?' I I l ? ?/
v''r Yy r ,. 1 1 ti
o 00
/ i ?d'
rRY{ .fit :: '? I I o,. o
TT o ? E,
&a i ?ig k2 I '• ? _ 1 ? ? i
?-
.n.l
0
0
0
•
•
0
•
I
e.
o v.

R,
BRYAN DiEVELOPMENT..
BELMON ' F
ROCKY MOUNT, NORTH
ENVIRODYNAMICS, INC. C
ARCHITECTURE I PLANNING / LANDSCAPE ARCH.
m 488,2' ?.
i
leo '
L
J
}» ..?
Mai
?C
W-
Cocr.

s

W
i
i
cr.
b
Sim.

!E
_ _ _ __ _
,-.-. ? . 99
? ??? ? ??
y
C<L
Lmu-
Fr,
w
x _ t
a A
Iti
r.`
0 o
...?'
? ? to
t!3 '
F^ x Fs x x .?.-?.
Ul)
t t"1
•
1 a
a k
0_
w
>
uj o d
solo"
Y? R .llti ? ?, n.
}'. LU 0ob i
? '?3Ty, ? 4? .tP ss
S
{ ? ? kVy
y? ? ? t' [ ..y?, .t.', ? ^n a 9c ? ? ? "'? ?' . T Ni t "'? 0 - A?'. '£_
2: Au
a
O
CE
U z s

Q At
Lu
3

O Z .? UJ
p .
OWN . m

k4, S s
z
i
fi
40.

United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Outional Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Seotion number 8 Page 3
While BelleoDnte Plantation was therefore the home or birthplace of three physicians, nothing is known
of 0'r. John F. Bellamly's medical career. However, surviving records reveal that he ranked among the area's
leading planters. His estate record, for example, shows that he opened 101 slaves--no other Nash resident
on the eve of the Civil War owned w re. At the time of his death. Bellamy possessed a sawmill, two cotton
gins that d produced a stockpile of 5000 bushels of cotton seed in 1846, 275 hogs, 17 horses, and 50, head
of cattle.- In addition to his farming and medical careers, Bellamy was also justice of the peace in Nash
County between 1818 and 1826, and was described by his son Joseph as. the "financial manager" for the construc-
tion of several miles oYhe Wilmington and Weldon Railroad, which was built through a corner of the planta-
tion in the early ]Ms. Bellamy's son, John Thomas, inherited the Bellemonte tract in 1846 and maintained
a thriving operation based on slave labor until the Civil War.. The 1850 slave schedule shows that John
Thomas Bellamy possessed 39 slaves, while the agricultural census for the same year recorded that the
Bellemonte heir owned $1,400 worth of 11vestock and that the plantation yielded 140 pounds of wool, '12.tons
of hay, and 25 hales of ginned cotton.
The name Bellemonte (also spelled Belle Mont and Belle Monte). which has existed since at least the
J1855aac plat map, reflects the planter class's penchant for giving their homes picturesque or e-omantic titles.
eed, in northern Nash County before the Civil War there existed plantations with namees such as Woodlawn
Hilliard), The Meeadows (Robert C. Hilliard), Black Jack (.John Hilliard), Oak F%est (Reverend
liam Bellamy), stonewall (Bennett Bunn), and Rose Hill (Nathan and George Boddie). It is not known
y Dr. Bellamy selected the name Bellemonte. The dwelling did not stand on a clearly defined rise of
land, or `mount," but the French terse does have a certain cache, and evokes an image of refinement. Moreover,
as local historian t l?fargaret Battle suggests, 8ej'amy might have preferd Bellemonte over other evocative
labels because the two manses--Bellamy and B11 monte--sound so such alike.
In 1918, Joseph Clinch Bellamy. the sole surviving son -as well as the owner/occupant of Bellemonte
at the time, sold the property to H. C. Bra-swell. Braswell was a major Irdowner and merchant in the 16cality,
and occupied a handsome Neo-Classical Revival home in nearby 84ttleboro. He, therefore, did not occupy
Bellemonte, but rather rented the house to'tenant:kvh0 farmed the land. Tenant-occupied for much of the
20th century,
Bellemwete has stood vacant for about the last decade. New ownership by 4esleyan College
promises a new beginning for this handsome antebellum -plantation house.
NOTES
1. Survey and Planning Unit, "National Register Nomination for Black .lack," Raleigh: North Carol.i.na.Division
of Archives and History, 1974; and ?lEational Register Nomination for The Meadows," Raleigh: N6v.th Carolina
Division of Archives and History, 1473. I
2. Richard I- Mattson,. The History and ArOi;tecture of Nash County north Carolina (Nashville, north Carolina:
Hash County Planning Department, 1987), pp. 18-39.
;3. For a discussion of the plantation society that developed around Hilliardston and across northern clash
County, see Richard L. Mattson, The listor..y and Architecture of Nash County, North Carolina (Rashville,
North Carolina: Mash County Planning Department, 1987), pp. 13=19, for a broader discussion that explores
the plantation society in North Carolina, see }ugh T? Lefler, The History of North Carolina (New York.-
Lewis Historical Publishing Company, Inc., 1973), pp. 411-430; Lefler defines the North Carolina gentry
before the Civil War as those owning. Pore than 20 slaves, see pp. 412-413.
c:
•
•
wyz
?:' / / ?'?'---vj?`•? ? fa?`t-• ?'? a ?T? - g° ?; .:i o? a
01
14
s o Z g ? l ._ ?? ?} t
?? - a? /?'.. ?2? w / T'3a' ?..- ?_-. ? ?` ?.-- ?•- `- ? c? ?i( /mss, ? F;?'? ^i
1 / fr `\??? /111111 / ax f -:...oo / ga Af??,? W
?i (1 . ?I I I ?a SAL j? •;? ?,,? ' ?
r \ aQ / j?1C // o 14
_..?.?-• •l \, 11 ? ?y ? /? ._.
?. ?. \
OR z
f w
iL---J \
i
i
f.lJ
0f°
/ j
{
C C
- enc,suwr w?„<y:,cues wm' v n.,?r}h? Y
E
•

A.A

b ?..

as Qao??aQaQa?n J
?a a?a?ooooo®®? Z?e
?????
??
?Q
a?a ova
?PoP ? aapa5o???Qa
aaa aa?a? a
®??a?aaa®2®N2N 2- _9
d
m

CTC????Gg2gg2?zgg?®OoC-?o?ogQ
?oaaIac?oooo?r??r?c????

P?fI????IIJ ??®PPPP?P PPP ~?
?
?
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 't g
g
£ 6^
p?
0000000000000000000
g?
r
Z!!
mail, 0 1 111
Cl)
LL
C?
OZ
ao
42
2J
MW
_I m
C?
Q
PHASE 1
June 28, 1994
Builder's Price
20,000 each
MINIMUM HEATED SQUARE FEET

1,750 SQFT
jd
•b nf'1
Prices are subject to change without notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CALL ERNEST BRIDGERS AT 977-7946.
BELMONT
FARMS
PARKWAY
Wood's Walk Lots $21,040 each
IPPIWE 1
June 28, 1994
500,504 Chimney.Hi.ll way $30,000
501,612,613 Chimney Hill Way 30,750
108,109,112 Chimney Hill Court 30,750
608,609,616 Chimney'Hill. Way 31,500
104,105 Chimney Hill Court 31,500
505,508,600,601,604,605,617,620,621,624 Chimney Hill Way 32,250
Prices are subject to change without notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMAT
2,100 SQFT
CALL ERNEST BRIDGERS AT 977-7946.
BELMC NT FARMb FAKKVVAII
n r^
MINIMUM HEATED SQUARE FEET
RPH
PHASE 1
June 28, 1994
500,504 Chimney Hill Way $30,000
501,612,613 Chimney Hill way 30,750
r 30,750
108,109,112 Chimney Hill Court
608,609,616 Chimney Hill Way 31,500
104,105 Chimney Hill Court 31,500
505 508 600 601 604 605 617 620 621 624 Chimney Hill Way 32,250
----------- BUILDER PRICES ----------_--
PRICE 1 LOT 2 - 4 LOTS 5 + LOTS
$32,250 $30,500 $29,750 $29,UOO prices
31,500 29,900 29,100 28,350 are subject to change
30,750 29,200 28,450 27,675 without notice.
30,000 28,500 27,750 27,000
BELMONT FARMS PARKWAY

C VA
N 11
l?6,
I/?.1? SSdL t?
j.A Y-A
IM
FOR FURTHER INFORMAT

spy MINIMUM HEATED SQUARE FEET
M
2,100 SQFT
CALL ERNEST BRIDGERS AT 977-7946.
PORP
PHASE I
June 28, 1994
Wood's Walk Lots $21,000 each
Builder's Price
20,000 each
MINIMUM HEATED SQUARE FEET 11750 SQFT

np?
q? Q
JAA
Prices are subject to change without notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CALL ERNEST HRIDGERS AT 977-7946.
BEONT
FARMS
PARKWAY
C7
PHASE I
June 28, 1994
(LAKE FRONT)
3100 LakePointe Trail
3104 LakePointe Trail
3108 LakePointe Trail
3112 LakePointe Trail
3116 LakePointe Trail
3120 LakePointe Trail
3124 LakePointe Trail
Prices and incentives are subject to change without notice.
•
2,400 SQFT
PRICE
$53,000
53,000
53,000
53,000
51,000
52,000
53,000
53,000
"FAST START" Incentive: If the foundation for your new home is
complete within 90 days after the deed transfer and the home is
"dried in" to include windows and doors being set within 180 days
after the deed transfer, you will receive a incentive rebate of 10%
of your contract purchase price.
MINIKUM HEATED SQUARE FEET
BELMONT LAKE
PARK
O

id
M o'
173.47 1
PRICE (LAKE VIEW)
$80,000 3101 LakePointe Trail
72,000 3105 LakePointe Trail
750000 3109 LakePointe Trail
78,000 3113 LakePointe Trail
75,000 3117 LakePointe Trail
75,000 3121 LakePointe Trail
78,000 3125 LakePointe Trail
3129 LakePointe Trail
173, a? 14? ?q A
y
1 V'
4-i r (9)
, EM
A
4%
Z-A
10
J \`
a1
&
I s»

1-A
y Im
a "

0
Im
216.37
?-1
M M
718.14 's
ti
Sal
y EM
r-?
ti
MM
BELMONT ? •
FARMS
PARKWAY 267.37
go RT
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CALL ERNEST BRIDGERS AT 977-7946.
Welcome to Belmont
Farm's Village Views! We are
excited to bring you our pre-
mier issue. Belmont Farms
was in the planning stages for
more than three years and it
was well worth the wait!
Ernest Bridgers, Project
Manager for Belmont Farms
is pleased with the results.
"Everyone involved in the
.planning of Belmont Farms
was committed to quality
and being.-environmentally
sensitive. When you obtain
that kind of commitment
from the city government
staff, land planners, engi-
neers, state permitting agen-
cies, water and sewage con-
tractors and everyone in-
volved, you can just feel that
you are part of something
special, Well, Belmont
Farms is special and it is ex-
citing to be part of it. Ev-
eryone in Rocky Mount
should be proud of the re-
sults and thankful that we
have the kind of people lo-
cally who have the ability
and the willingness to use a
beautiful piece of land so
well. The community of
Belmont Farms and
Wesleyan College make great
partners! This area is des-
tined to become the most
beautiful growth area in
continued on page 3
Belmont Farms Profile

Everyone notices the beautiful landscaping
throughout Belmont Farms. The responsibility for this
lies with Todd Smith, Director of Landscaping. Todd
has been very busy since moving here from Georgia
two years ago. Todd and his wife Tracy and two chil-
dren Matthew, 6, and Kelsie, 6 months, relocated from
the Atlanta area and currently live in Battleboro. Be-
tween spending time with his family and his responsi-
bilities at Belmont, Todd still finds time to volunteer
with the Battleboro Fire Department. Along with gar-
dening, Todd's hobbies include hunting and fishing.
At times, you can catch him on Belmont Lake with
his son and a fishing pole, trying his hand at catching
one of the many types of fish that inhabit the lake.
Todd's knowledge of plants, trees, and the wildlife
of the area have made him indispensable in planning
the gardens, yards, and natural areas you see through-
out Belmont Farms. "I've tried to follow nature's lead
and keep the landscaping as natural as possible, while
providing color and a habitat for the birds and wild-
life," replied Todd when asked about his job at
continued on page 2
Extra! Extra! Village Views Goes To Press
Todd Smith, "sprucing up the entrance."
*Sap, oni Creek Stoneworks. ......
The Southern Appalachian mountain region has
nurtured and produced many fine craftspeople. Andy
Brown, a local stonemason, acknowledges the influence
that mountains and mountain people had on his growth
and direction in life. "I've always been a back-to-the-
lander," he smiles, "and the mountains around Boone
seemed the appropriate place to go to college and find
my niche." It is here, too, where he first discovered his
fascination with stone and stonework.
"I needed a job and wanted to learn something that I
could always earn a living at if my college degree didn't
pay off financially," he says. "I met Tom Gingrich, the
premiere stonemason in North Carolina and beyond,
and I mixed his mud and hauled his rocks. I attribute
my fastidious attention to detail and artistic development
to him. When I lay a stone fireplace, I want my client's
eye to be caught by a certain rock or stylistic distinction
and then be involuntarily woven throughout the stone-
work. Hopefully, when a person looks at my work., they
don't just see a mass of rocks, but a masterpiece in-
stone.
Brown has returned to his home, Rocky Mount, and
established his own business, Saponi Creek Stoneworks.
"I live near this creek and I wanted a rustic sounding, old
traditional name synonymous with the Tar River area. I
like it. It sounds like a name from several hundred years
ago," he remarks.
Indeed, at Saponi Creek Stoneworks, things haven't
charmed much in the past few centuries. Qther_than
ii'C
{
Timeless tradition at Belmont Farms
full bloom, I know it will all tions you have.
be beautiful."
this, and the rewards are timeless.
Andy's truck, he doesn't rely on much modern technol-
ogy. Armed solely with a few iron age tools and the
sweat off their brow, Brown and his helper built all the
Belmont Farms signage.
"I get great satisfaction knowing that the skills and
technologies we employ everyday are the very same ones
that built castles in Europe, pyramids in Central
America, and those 200 year old chimneys and retaining
walls that complement the landscape of Appalachia. I
am amazed at the longevity of these structures and awed
at the beauty inherent in them. I hope our projects
enjoy the same renown."
History and its traditions have played a dominate
role in the make up of Saponi Creek Stoneworks. The
future is important to Brown as well. "Stone masonry is
a dying trade. I would like to teach it several more
people. There is a basic goodness to hard work such as
odmont mow- wz&, - Okvo eo- soey&&Y
*Belmont Farms Villa%e Views
continued from page 1
Rocky Mount tbwn," said Bridgers when asked about "his"
community.
Penny Beddow, Director of Marketing for Belmont
Farms, reports that more than twenty-five lots have already
been sold and that some of Rocky Mount's best contrac-
tors are building homes in three villages - Wood's Walk,
Chimney Hill, and LakePointe. With spring on the way, it
looks to be a busy and exciting year in Belmont Farms!
Visit us at our Sales Office and let us know what you
think of Rocky Mounts finest and most prestigious com-
munity.
Bridgers' Cooking Corner:
a Y
1(
• .a• a
• o 4=0
0
Office Hours
Our office hours will change during the Spring
and Summer months.
Monday: 11:00 - 7:00
Tuesday: Closed
Wednesday: Closed
Thursday: 11:00 - 7:00
Friday: 11:00-7:00
Saturday: 12:00 - 6:00
Sunday: 12:00 - 6:00
•
977-7946
We would also be glad to meet you by
Please call the office.
Seafood Thermidor
by Ernie....
1 lb. Shrimp
6 oz. King Crab Meat (imitation works, but lie
about it)
1 lb. Bay Scallops (can be deleted if desired)
Can Crab Meat (can be deleted if desired)
1 Tbsp. Parsley
4 oz. Can Mushroom Stems & Pieces (drained)
1 /4 C. Butter or Margarine
1/4 C. All-purpose Flour
1 tsp. Worcestershire Sauce
1/2 tsp. Dry Mustard
1 /4 tsp. Salt
1 /4 tsp. White Pepper
1 C. Whipping Cream
2/3 C. Half-and-Half
(12/3 C. of Milk can be substituted for above 2
ingredients, if desired)
1/3 C. Nash County Apple Brandy or Sherry
Cheddar Cheese, grated
Paprika
Saute mushrooms in butter about 5 minutes.
Blend in flour and seasonings. Add milk gradu-
ally and cook until thick, stirring constantly. Add
shrimp, scallops, crab, and other desired seafood
and cook, stirring, until shrimp turn pink. Add
brandy or sherry. Pour mixture into individual
serving bowls. Add grated cheddar cheese and
paprika on top. Bake at 400° for 10-15 mutes
or until cheese browns. Serves 3 large people or 4
small people.
Ernest Bridgers, Rocky Mount
Winter is Over!! Belmont Farms had an extremely busy Fall and Winter, and we are
Woking forward to a great Spring! After getting a late start in the fall of 1994, we
survived the wet and icy winter in top form. Sales have been great! The Village of
Woods Walk has our first completed home, and is now occupied. Many other homes
are under construction. Visit our community and see all the activity for yourself,
Those of us who work in Belmont Farms can't wait to see all the azaleas and daffodils
blooming. It should be quite a sight.
0•0•••••••••0••••f000.0...00...•.0..•••0••e•0••••••••••••••0•e0•••••
Belmont Farms Racquet eT' Swim Club
We are pleased to introduce Mr. Albert E. Brice
(Albie) as the Manager and Head Tennis Professional at
Belmont Farms Racquet and Swim Club. Albie comes to
us from Benvenue Country Club where he taught tennis
professionally for the past four years.
With him, Albie brings a great deal of experience in
teaching adults and children of all ages and abilities.
Albie said he is looking forward to, "offering you
endless possibilities to have fun. Whether you are being
pampered while lying around the pool, watching your
.child swim in his or her first swim meet, enjoying a
grilled cheeseburger while listening to a combo at the
snack bar, or catching a tennis clinic on a nice summer
evening, I want you to experience service and fun like
you never experienced before."
Contact Albie for more information on the facilities,
scheduled programs and activities, and membership.
Belmont Racquet & Swim Club
446-3014
Belmont Farms
P .O. Box 7965
Rocky Mount, NC 27804
[phone]
0
BELMONT FARMS
P.O. Box 912 - Rocky Mount, N. C. 27802 • [phone]
The Villages
of Belmont:
Lake Pointe
open 1994
Chimney Hill
open 1994
Wood's Walk
open 1994
Bridle Creek
Sedgefield
Cornwall
Hunter's Ridge
• eek
C
P
bbl
e
e
r
Lake Forest
Water's Edge
Cobblestone
Bayberry
Woodbriar
Chestnut Ridge
Saddlebrook
Quail Run
Stonebridge
Peppermill
Heatherwood
Foxridge
Shadowood
Hill Creek
Page 14
Belmont Farms Property
Brochure
July 31,1"6
Conceptual Master Plan - Phase
As part of its strategic planning process the owners obtained a conceptual master plan
identified as Phase I of Belmont Fangs, from Turnbull Design Group, PA of Charlotte.
The conceptual master plan (next page) is enclosed for information. The owners have not
tried to obtain the City of Rocky Mount's approval of the conceptual master plan. While
the owners believe the conceptual master plan generally meets the requirements of the
PUDCU zoning and special use permit, the owners make no representations or warranties
about the feasibility of obtaining the City of Rocky Mount's approval of the conceptual
master plan. The buyer is encouraged to perform their own due diligence.
Page 17
Belmont Farms Property
Brochure
July 31,19%
History of Belmont Farms Community
The owners held title to a 1,000 acre tract of land at US 301 and Bishop Road next to
North Carolina Wesleyan College for many years. The City of Rocky Mount extended a
regional severer outfall through the property in the early 1970's. Subsequently the owners
constructed eighty-four acre lake and a racquet and swim club.
The property owners formed Belmont Fauns Partners to develop their property. In July
1993 they obtained zoning for a planned unit development. After completing engimeering,
the owners, started development in November M. They constructed a lake front sales
center and lot sales began in August M.
By October 1994 Belmont Farms Partners developed sixty-six acres into fifty-three lots in
three villages:
1. Woods Walls
• House Price Range - $140,000 to $160,000
• 2. Chimney Hill House Price Range
• House Price Range - $230,000 to $250,000
3. LakePointe
• House Price Range - $280,000 to $600,000
Home buyers purchased and occupied twenty homes from November 1994 through June
1996.
Forty lots have been sold through July 1996 resulting in the sell-out of two of three
villages.
Home Owners Association
As required by the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, all hone buyers automatically
become members of the Belmont Community Services Association. The 1996 Belmont
Community Services Association dues are currently $25.00 per month.
.7
Page 20
Belmont Farms Property
Brochure
July 31,1996
Zoning
On July 12,1993, the Rocky Mount City Council adopted PUDCU zoning and a
conditional use permit for the owner's property subject to the following condition:
"Development of the revised PUDCU shall be consistent with the revised Belmont Farms
Sketch Plan submitted by Errol J. Warren, Jr. and approved by the Technical Review
Committee and. Planning Board June 9, 1993.' A copy of the Sketch Plan is enclosed (next
page). At the time the Sketch Plan was approved the owner presented various street design
concepts to the City Planning Staff. However, it is the owner's understanding these
design concepts are not a part of the zoning and special use permit conditions. The City
Planning Department has said that it will not allow houses to front on the Belmont Farms
Parkway road or for house driveways to connect directly to the parkway. Copies of the
street design concepts will be furnished, upon request, to an interested buyer.
The owners have not tried to obtain the City of Rocky Mount's approval of the
conceptual master plan included m this property brochure. While the owners believe the
conceptual master plan generally meets the requirements of the PUDCU zoning and
• special use permit the owner makes no representations or warranties about the feasibility
of obtaining the City of Rocky Mount's approval of the conceptual master plan. Buyers
are encouraged to perform their own due diligence and to determine the zoning conditions
affecting the development of Belmont Farris and whether or not the City of Rocky
Mount will approve the owner's conceptual master plan or any master plan desired by the
buyer.
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
The owner has subjected the first phases of development to recorded Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions. The owner contemplates subjecting future development to
similar covenants, conditions and restrictions. The covenants, conditions and restrictions
include a requirement for architectuual control and architectural approval by the declarant
until the responsibility is passed to the homeowners association.
11
•
•
09 f t'A"4610 SCll
rg
I 4C / ,

'd V
¢ r'

T , d,;r?St
Pill- ?-
i ? raWO

d V y c r> ''
-o an
d3uumr ILh ?gH..un»» u5 ° 04-i 111 ?t//ff.. \ /]r/? JI S
J Y a r I ? X ?? l 7 / 1 / •' i 1
cl)
w H n W W q p v.?o ?? \ 1 f'`
?T.? ? a o ? v a w¢ ? I W
C? t-? 3 ra co r? c, x? a a I I 1 ?.? a. I `, ? w 2 0
-4

o

-Y 21

?K
CA ?

n L
J
U
21
o _
R I

!
O ?i C---I o 3 m ?

IO(l. ??-?1?7tN`\} Imo.. t2
es
It 111.1/.,-
'.O? r3?? ?/ W I 1 ?( ??
? i
? mac„
s 7 f: i i , Sri/ W-
_ L
uuu J u? u u ci
? ?elr

•
•
C
C)

? U 7Q
C

_
O
(n cr _j

C
CO
W U_ cc
?U

o J uio
J
O
C
U

O Q
ga:
O
cn
J
Q
`

J LIJ
LLi o
CL
Z Z T
Z Z

y CO U Z J O O
O-O ¢ LL
w ?? a
O
cc T
~
w
> ¢N ¢¢ cA UU
_ Nwr
n a ¢
w ¢ W J d } ?- J IL U
w

cc .
w
H p Z- Z W Qz a Ir p p Z¢ 00

:
of r z U Z z <z >- UJ LL
w d
Q
O O O a W U) w
¢
¢ t= W E ~
W ¢- Q Z
C7
0
Z
3' W M J
ZJ
ZJ
€ I
Z w
= } d J
Q a a
0. j C7 F rA a F F- W W W W
000. a.
M (L
~
=} s
F- (
jJ
w
¢2 (7 ? Q J
Q a Q Q
0
W Z »
J ?O (LO Z CC F ¢ [c¢UUUU
J
Q a <
o o a c
w¢
2 W 0 Z
Z 0 fA a W Q F- ` (j) co m U)
a
a. C7 cc (D CC
f'
!-F NZ ?Ua 000 W<
ao
>
0 >d Q
00 w Z
W
W W Z W W CO Z LLa ZZZ zZ2
0 t= 0 a!= < < LL '0 O ¢ d Q ¢ '
=sa a
U ca J (1) u) U)o()05w 2U0 d UUJJJJ
C? c6 4 L6 (j6 .j r,: 00' CY)'
7 cm
N f0 a Q Q Q
-? J J J W?
I d
V)
W
f?
Q
Cc O CC
Z
W
co
5¢
Bgl
ill`; _% ?•.!I
--- IF ' ' li ' I• I II
' sp i I ?' I d `?
/ I E _2
q x a?
0.
I 1 III ` i ? I? U
1 S I I{ Irp it Ili
I I I I 1 I, ? IV I
I 1 I I f I ?'? ? Ir
I I I ?j? kI ,t III F
c8 i 111 III !I III
i II
ig 1 1
I I ?I ? ! t I
I i FS a, '1
:kL I °g I I? ? ? o tT'
AEI ; I ? , I
L------ J ! .I it
r?• i??. '.? r------- laili ° 'I it
F- I
F•- ::? I ? I l1iil; 12 II
•?\ ??\? II'UIItlifffff?ITN i ?q i '?is1 I I I
I? I I
.I.; ?IU { e° 1 a l ?I .I
_J I,I 1 I
W, HINA
I ?T ?U IIIIIIn ' I r
r r I j
I J'DI1-111111111111U Ii J i I j
- ----- - - = -
AVELAQ
I
ms's§e at;5?? a Ys. ? ?? g 0 g
8
kuaa EEag° ? yyy° F ag'k?iE?
Will ???9 now
2? g ay Willl iila now
Y 79? Y ?u Y ? °k E?a g'Y?aY
o g ag 8 $°a a ??.°e s? ° . °4e a s a•g;
1112N.-M41 HIE"RI Q.eao Resi RSeRl 0.8,.g, eq iqg lsggb,
34?g gK C ?' g° iQ?*
Y E d3CYsi s: ee EY gP ? d?
.U B EY Y m M - H
ase6`"?a gY3 ; sg ? RA ?°?
NMI,? 2121. °e i51:e €s.sa? ?a?aY aa?g?a.e?Yga,a E,15: i"a:aa:???i
Nei
c.
vi
® 0 Y
E
Y
iiii 3 k
U x Jug
6
3§1 £
? zg ?y
Ns I `c ne .
u4x
g 3' '? 2b i3gEg A s@°
r?
LJ
uea6S a3e1gA 7aam?ag
' r YNI70nb.7 lit LYON 'A!N?OJ MSblJ ? rc
f rn
f-5tr. ;ZSZ} 3N'ONd3l?1 y 51J3MI}LN NS r05 ?i h'/IOYY AhOGd C:Oi1 cOF,S1E S NM ^IH $/1 MhLS 3:,bw INON OZ9 Sli3N-LIdVd
uu] s-u6j3bv;pc.ro S:+lt?lk/d 1 9J(b' Cl q ry 'YOkV7? -9d®7-9 -9 'V-d -S31Vr.WSSV kV9 MOVW-9t, VnOS .9f)V771A -LNokv7-gG
?gry5 559 I J 3 l i I ?;jF Fp1 0fit.
L$ fi 5 fi n ° 1
s JJ2 \ S 6 SO l3 6 C•
11
$ 8 B g s 5 ? I I ? J a°JF
21 L -2
?3?a£s'3?,s aa?sa I ? =I
3a??°a a ? -Esse ' ga
£ y?° b' S ? ? a § sp Ya ) I a ."s" ? i S 'o°, E , a I ? I:ro V I
e S _ E I s Zos
=may
yy S R 5 $$
??#°}?§?? y$ Io 3 a5Sd6 E _B?ako `I?:? E9 ; J, GI p '.
V €a_, s .s S 1 - a<< f ., ? v ° 4 ° ° ° 9 ;I I i, c ?I 4) .
' g.Z ?6' s a t ` - I- a I
os € ?+cs ?s oa E?a? ;?n?4° Qb ?\` r ?l
SE?
? oL SD v 2 jC ? L 55 W '6.'? ? I
W ?w` '°5 W 1!I. ?u ?i
9f°. ? n 3 _ ?Y 5S ' a It x ,J
ipE56r'yfi a
; 1 HiEQe? I .' v Iu ?ESSEde 6 I }- .I
£lQ 6a 5B- 05 I! °_fr'S§o .. +69.'32'E 3aao"
'. nv `°a II _ 6' 17 E 16 5 q
aYass°J' ? ?gfi °a:8? ? ? Isa.oo s w' ? - - ?J
?sa ar.S SEY .,7 $I?: tr ??.a .'s i 3la ..
I R ^? I I I'? T t?:?? z I
F fr ?_ J I hoc -
?aa2
a s 45- t W k? ?3
s J : Lyc ga 8 ? I ? $a _ 6; '. / - i \,. r I Iii
2 e.c F ? 5 ?I y {I'
N 9 I _??•_? p'ssr 'asra
;
fr a
?® r ?(£a ?a xl.. .Sf t61 Y: .".oz 65N --- '
? •° aG
Z v v v v s LYIS/ lV!' ROAD SA 1545 W ]7I {Y
?6Fs66
•
•
C
0
cc
E
0
C
N
cn
R°
>
?E
E
a €?
O
O
N
0
C >
Cd 0
7 ?
Q
G Q
3E
66
t
w Q
•s Z
e w 41
CL
Q? ? Q •Q ?
CL C
%
M Z
mmi
c
N
L
m
of
O
Q
Q
E
N
CL

I E E
R I
bF
I h`
i
L
Q
00
L- L.
0 0
00
00
O O
L- L
W W N
m
70 -0
_C
0 co
,
C O O
O ? 'O
Q
70 O U
m E E E
c C
U?mco(
I I I I I
N co V €O
L -C L L L
co co co co co
°s fi? I frG ? Fe I I 6a :°?$ ? ° Fc"6E
aF { I a°'°
fib,-.$^?i _ 3s'?? I i°?•, i #°? s€E ?i? f ?e g "ss `E?
qnu
€R I ? ?af? ? ???s r Ens: ,Eo?te ? ?• jL s ???????
•

o'a k
a
n:
C6 9
3 ? ? o
Q €g ?
Q w ? ?
Q ? ? Y
Q €g?
?Q
E
i
Yi ` Fs • ? s YS ° 3
is yy
?
.
s
U { ? ?? z
R`a e
.
I "
xEZ2?
a
_-
g Eg
!
" _

t
I yR 6kSk f5 a Y?{as
L t ? ",. jE `-`. :5 ?"
B6
E P
f
_,
C r Yefi_° %? n3 .' ?.
:Y } iFt= [a F.
_ s ,E .@ y?c
• E
? !
f1R
a ?
°
?
B $?
-E
?Se
^"" °
°
?
•` Y
i?
g f.
n2
e
i.
? .
; D
F
3E ? ye
I [
: 3
E
4? •=
•?
C
.U Egy 2}; 1 Py
i
y
6y?YJ? G
?t E ?
x6 ? O
4
°?
?§ " ?%'z
?
?
5
a
?
j
y
s (
AC^`iF^s =?aS X.2 t;
9
? •_ ;
"
°
k 5 E) i x5o ° N:i 2? E
A55
t
§

I y°2Rl', Sae k2#2, ?G ?? :_
pF i<
-3
F `
? F?RP
iF •€ E
?
iY
?F
,
6R
46
i
M?
W
Q
0
N
0
J
U? 8
??z?

•
Appendix IV
Wetland and Stream Delineation Plats
Riparian Buffer Map
•
0
•
Appendix V
Wetland Functional Value Example Data Forms
and
ACOE and DWQ Stream Data Forms
Prepared by
ESI
•
0
•
•
•
w
w
Z
H
a
z
w
2
cn
U)
w
(n
U)
Q
J
z
O_
H
U
Z
LL
Z
J
w

' I I
c
0
N O
U a
J ?
C C
ro N
m - O

I
+

I
+I
I
+I
I
I ? I - I I + +

+ + + I I I I
I
+
I
n I
+
I
u I
+
I
11
+

u I
I
+
I I
u I
+
I
11
+
I
11
+
I
n
+
I
u
+I

u
+

n
X >-•
U + +
? +
- I- ?: -
+ J
_ + + + + +
U U ±U [L U) > U

mUC? -YYY OCC ?w

Q w LL d Q
U)

N

- w
C co

:3 4-

O
a
C E

U
U
Q
•

O C 0
o O
E m Q1

C ?
U
O 0)
? Co 0-+,
E O
U"
° cn
D
ro
L o :3
o U c U
+,U) U•L ro ro

V) L
ro
Q,. ?
ro a?
N
ro
'C: 0
cn vi
U O
.
C

CD C ro X
ro L 'L
°
' L
L
) C

E
ro
0
U ro +, rnw
m E O C 1
?
U U
ro U) Q
Q E
ro L ro ro C a? C O ` o
:3 U) E 0 CO
3 C:

.2
(D 0 u
a C: S
m
= T
In C,
O E >-

o
O > ++
C

ia
= -

CO ca
L ca m O O C cc ++ C C E ++ C C7
a C C m
T >O c m+ E +% cn
0 0 0 0 L
O
E CCc co 'Co ' 'c a 0

>
=?Jw zmm
L'
•
F-
LU
W
U)
}
W
Y
F-
z
w
U)
w
a
a
z
O
F-
U
z
LL

m
0
U
U)
L
o?
O
O
O
U
m
m

'c
lr
u
• WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT
Dynamic Surface Water Storage
A. Freq. of flooding
B. Average depth
C. Surface roughness
D. Vegetation roughness
Long-term Surface Water Storage
E. Presence of water
C. Topographic relief
Energy Dissipation
F. Reduction flow velocity
G. Freq. of surface water with velocity
C. Surface roughness
Nutrient Cycling
H. Net prim. prod. (potential)
1. Detrital turnover (floor debris)
Removal of Elements and Compounds (long-term accum. of elements from incoming water)
J. Overbank flooding (from wetland)
K. Riparian transport (from uplands, overland flow and groundwater discharge)
1. Microbial activity
H. Vegetation sink
C. Topographic relief
Retention of Inorganic Particulates
J. Freq. of flooding from wetlands
• K. Overland flow from uplands
C. Surface roughness
L. Retained sediments
Organic Carbon Export
J. Freq. of flooding (from wetland)
K. Riparian transport (from upland)
M. Surface connection with wetland
1. Organic matter (detrital turnover)
Maintain Characteristic Plant Community (dynamics and structure)
Species composition list (no measurement)
N. Saplings of canopy species
0. Canopy cover
P. Tree density/basal area (indicator of maturity)
Maintain Characteristic Detrital Biomass
Q. Standing dead trees
R. Abundance of down and dead trees
S. Logs in several stages of decomposition
T. Fine woody debris in stream channels
Spatial Habitat Structure
Q. Density of standing dead trees
U. Abundance of nest cavities
V. Strata
W. Vegetation patchiness
X. Canopy gaps (maturity)
Maintain Interspersion and Connectivity
. A. Freq. of flooding
E. Duration of flooding
C. Surface roughness
M. Hydraulic connections
Y. Vegetated corridors (up and wet, up and down)
•
•

V1
z
O
H
Z
Li-
W
0L
F -
z
W
5
N
W
un
Q
J
a
z
O
U
z
U-
a
z
J
W

ui
O
+
U
(O
v-
(0
U
_O
O
C
M
U
U)
O_
L
O
.n
O
O
7
RS
+L-+
.Q
C
cn
C
U
U
U
C
..C
O
L
O
+-
(n
N
Q)
L
fn
C
..C
O)
C
O
N
U
O
L
VJ
O
m
c?
m
c
m
O
O_
c
c
U)
r-
0
i-+
a)
U
O
C
a?
L
7
C
U)
O U
O U)
U O
O U
O
O Q
-fl C
O
co 4?
>
(B M
U
N L
M N
E
O
L
v- C
O -0
C C
C U
O E
E C
co O
4- `=
O >
U C
L
N O
O
fn
C
++ U
U •L
7 +O C
co ?
E 3
Q. L
Z
? 4-
C O
U

C •-'
C O
a) ?

O C •?
U) C
O '?
C
a)
Q

(E C .
O
- N
N c
E U) N N 'a
O U C
_
0) IO U )
L
U U C E >
E C +' U) " "6 U

O

Q O U
O
U ?
"O

C
ca C
?
O ? O
>
0 O U
} L O
L/I N
>
O p C U L
>
?
(D r..
O cu
U
C
cO a' U L
O
ca co o
O N >? U)
3:
(D

> U

? L `+--
M U
N
O O
c
6 O +
- O
N
-O c U ?
cu
C +, U N +-? .C
C ?p O F 7 U U

O
+ +? C
L
C L C O?? U
O
N ~
E m O O m
co U C C>
U
U U O L L-0
m
E C
° > B t+ m
3
?
O .
c
U a) N U (n U co
U O U O) O) O) O)
+' C 000000
L
O
O C
O L
> E U c.=NC7?
O
O U D U U U U
L
:3 a)
U
C w w U U N
U m m m m m
~ ? -a QUUUUU
o

` m t'
a) U
Q cc
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
• ,,g, STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET m
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name:-
3. Date of evaluation:
5. Name of
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated:
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
2. Evaluator's name:-
4. Time of evaluation:-
6. River basin:
8. Stream order:
10. County:
12. Subdivision name (if
_ 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):
14. Proposed channel work (if
15. Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time of
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
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
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential
% Forested
22. Bankfull
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
_% Commercial _% Industrial % Agricultural
_% Cleared / Logged _% Other
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight -Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Mate
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.
•
•
0
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
1. Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong is
1) Is There A Head Cut Present
In Channel? 0 0.5 1 1.5
2) Is There A Grade Control
Point in Channel? 0 0.5 1 1.5
3) Does Topography Indicate A .
Natural Drainage Way? 0 0.5 1 1.5
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGICAL INDICATOR POINTS:
II.
Absent Weak Moderate
1) Is This Year's (or Last's)
Leaflitter Present Inn Channel? 1.5 1 0.5 0
2) Is Sediment On Plants (or
Debris) Present? 0 0.5 1 1.5
3) Are Wrack Lines Present? 0 0.5 1 1.5
4) Is Water In Channel And >48
hrs Since Last Known Rain? 0 0.5 1 1.5
Note: If Ditch Indicated in 99 Above Skip This Step And #5 Below
5) Is There Water In Channel
During Dry Conditions (or in 0 0.5 1 1.5
Growing Season)?
6) Are Hydric Soils Present In Yes=1.5 No=O
Sides of Channel or Headcut?
SECONDARY HYDROLOGICAL INDICATOR POINTS:
III. Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Are Fish Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
'M A- A -hihinncPresent? 0 1 I-)
1.:)
4) Are Crayfish Present? 0 D 1 '.'
5) Are Macrobenthos Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
6) Are Iron Oxidizing
Bacteria/Fungus Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
7) Is Filimentous Algae Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
R) Are Wetland Plants in Sreambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly UPL
*Note: If Total Absence of All Plants
in Streambed As noted above skip this 2 1 .75 .5 0
step UNLESS SAV Present*
SECONDARY BIOLOGICAL INDICATOR PINTS:
TOTAL SECONDARY INDICATOR POINTS:
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary=
(If Greater Than or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is
At Least Intermittent)
\\NT_SERVER\SYS\ADMIMA1AT \NCDWQ Stream Classification Form.doe •
•
Appendix VI
Original Golf Course Design
For FCRM
Prepared by
David Johnson Golf Design, LLC
McBride Hess Design Group, PA

0
•
Appendix VII
Stormwater Quality
•
U
FORDS COLONY AT ROCKY MOUNT
• STORMWATER QUALITY DESIGN APPROACH
Introduction
Ford's Colony at Rocky Mount is a nexus of opportunities, where economic growth and
environmental stewardship can succeed together. There is substantial demand in the
marketplace for the quality of life and recreation that this site will offer if the property's
environmental values are conserved. While the aesthetic value of these resources offer market
appeal, the owners understand that what potential buyers see is the result of interconnected
environmental functions. In other words, the environmental values at Ford's Colony are a major
source of the market values: clean water sells, but streams and ponds stained with sediments or
covered with algae do not. The owners are committed to developing this special mixture of
forests, fields and waters within the context of the site's ecological functions and values.
To protect their investment, the owners have charged the design team with developing land use
products that conserve and enhance their environmental principal. As a result, watershed
conservation is an integral component of the design process-- not an afterthought. Ford's Colony
could meet the letter of stormwater quantity control regulations with large retention basins
scattered across the site, but this traditional approach is not likely to sustain the riparian forests
and wetlands for the long term. A variety of innovative and sophisticated design techniques will
be implemented across the site to protect water quality, sustain riparian woodlands, and
• conserve groundwater recharge to protect wetland hydrology and baseflow in streams.
Stormwater Quality
Stormwater runoff from impervious areas and managed landscapes is typically a source of water
quality impairment caused by development. At the Ford's Colony project, the efficiencies of
treating contaminated runoff close to the source will be realized. Advanced stormwater
treatment practices (STP's) are proposed for nearly 100 locations across the site as shown on the
Conceptual Stormwater Quality Map. Stormwater treatment practices (aka BMP's) for this
project will include:
• grassed swales
• engineered swales (wet and dry)
• bioretention
• extended detention wetlands
• pocket wetlands
• rain gardens
• infiltration trenches and basins
STP's shall be designed and sized to treat the first 1 inch of runoff, which transports the highest
pollutant concentrations. Conceptual design plans and DWQ worksheets are provided in this
section for the four focus areas of the project which will result in higher impervious surface.
These focus areas include the golf course maintenance facility, clubhouse and commercial
center, and two multi-family residential areas. All collected runoff, including that from
• roadways and any appurtenant impervious surfaces, shall be discharged via level spreaders to
Stormwater Quality Page 1
ensure diffuse surface flow to buffers. If diffuse flow cannot be achieved, nutrient removal will
be accomplished by treatment systems.
Another stormwater treatment design concept presented herein is for an engineered Swale to
treat runoff from part of a spine road, residential area and golf fairway. This Swale will typically
drain to an infiltration area adjacent to wetlands, with surface overflow capacity going to a level
spreader. Combining stormwater management techniques in this manner will likely occur at
several locations across the project in a holistic effort to conserve both water quality and
wetland hydrology.
•
•
Stormwater Quality Page 2
0
a
O
w
D
a
a
.14

u
0
a?
o?
o?
w?
a
6 11
10 11
P
z
oa,
1IOO M/ Il?r?®p M11 'lOYOW 71l p MON iLL '11?J00 fW(µ WWOLLIW YO ? ? 4101f000
N 10 fYd110D 7l? pNN N O mVR? iIMEW 1TI '?? ?0 ? IOOpO 'll'? DOV+00
0 9 0
DWQ Project
• DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY - BIORETENTION AREA WORKSHEET
1. PROJECT INFORMATION (please complete the following information):
Project Name : roii p 5 CoL',N q
Contact Person: Mt CHASU ELI-1$orl Phone Number. (,tg) -+82-0495
For projects with multiple basins, specify which basin this worksheet applies to: C wBUo.,?.t ( P
Permanent Pool Elevation L um> ft. (elevation of the orifice invert out)
Temporary Pool Elevation # TgD ft. (elevation of the outlet structure invert in)
Bioretention Surface Area 3'160 9Il sq. ft.
Drainage Area ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Impervious Area ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Rational C Coefficient 0,21
Size % -7, 0 © % (either 5%a in w/sand under drain or 7% in w/o)
Inlet Velocity * -1713P fps
Inlet flow depth ? -rap in
Depth to Ground Water • -rap ft.
Planting Soil Infiltration Rate ` 'r6D in./hr. (the soil layer down to 4 feet)
In-Situ Soil Infiltration Rate 0, L., - in./hr. (the soil layer below 4 feet or below the sand bed)
REQUIRED ITEMS CHECKLIST
Initial in the space provided to indicate the following design requirements have been met and supporting documentation is attached. If a
10 requirement has not been met, attach an explanation of why. At a minimum, a complete stormwater management plan submittal includes
a worksheet for each BMP, design calculations, plans and specifications showing all BMPs and outlet structure details, a detailed
drainage plan and a fully executed operation and maintenance agreement. An incomplete submittal package will result in a request for
additional information and will substantially delay final review and approval of the project.
Aoolicants Initials
1'_? C No vertical sand bed is proposed
Fc The bioretention area is at least 40 feet by 15 feet.
Sheet flow is provided at inlet.
Water table depth is greater than 6 feet.
F G Minimum of 6" ponding is provided.
F C. The ponded area will draw down in less than 4 days.
Planting soil infiltration rate is greater than 0.52 in/hr.
Fc- The in-situ soil infiltration rate is greater than 0.2 in/hr.
A planting plan with species and densities is provided.
r?C Mulch layer is specified in plans.
Planting soil meets minimum soil specifications (NCDENR Stormwater Best Management
Practices Manual, April 1999)
FC. Plan details for the bioretention area provided.
Plan details for the inlet and outlet are provided.
An operation and maintenance agreement signed and notarized by the responsible party is provided.
Please note that underdrains beneath the planting soil are acceptable in the Piedmont and Mountains
't- -co 5e,
DE-rE2rn, r? ?p
•
DRAFT
•

•
U
cd

b
0

z o

C
a
O ? Q
U ?
C7 ?
z ?
?
N o
•?
o
0

? °o CD
WW U o r,:
O

O U

z
o ?,

ago
a
M

bA N
? ? II

•? N

cd
it cd Q+

a" ? • ? M

00 00
6 00 ?

U lrl O1v
u
?.

?
O
w ? O O

00
? 4?
r N O? r••I
O
C"

d' N l?
°
CIS

b
U
?

o ?
x a a ?
O 00 00
--0 0
?0
0
X0
?aaa
w
?

o ,
' w -X N
0 -K
? -k 0 -k

?r

w
0
? yr .••? N
00

M
?
U

DWQ Project N
0 DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY - BIORETENTION AREA WORKSHEET
I. PROJECT INFORMATION (please complete the following information):
Project Name : Fazd s Co,l„','?
Contact Person: M tcNAGL E L1_1$0 l Phone Number: (%9) -+92_-0495
For projects with multiple basins, specify which basin this worksheet applies to: H oTEL_
Permanent Pool Elevation " T6o ft. (elevation of the orifice invert out)
Temporary Pool Elevation s T$D ft. (elevation of the outlet structure invert in)
Bioretention Surface Area 1526. 2to sq. ft.
Drainage Area 01 71 ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Impervious Area 10'(50 ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Rational C Coefficient X0.'71
Size % -7 ,oo % (either 5% in w/sand under drain or 7% in w/o)
Inlet Velocity + T61> fps
Inlet flow depth -rgp in
Depth to Ground Water 't13P ft.
Planting Soil Infiltration Rate 1 'f6D in./hr. (the soil layer down to 4 feet)
In-Situ Soil Infiltration Rate r;, 6- Z. 0 in./hr. (the soil layer below 4 feet or below the sand bed)
II. REQUIRED ITEMS CHECKLIST
Initial in the space provided to indicate the following design requirements have been met and supporting documentation is attached. If a
requirement has not been met, attach an explanation of why. At a minimum, a complete stormwater management plan submittal includes
a worksheet for each BMP, design calculations, plans and specifications showing all BMPs and outlet structure details, a detailed
drainage plan and a fully executed operation and maintenance agreement. An incomplete submittal package will result in a request for
additional information and will substantially delay final review and approval of the project.
Aoolicants Initials
•
Fc No vertical sand bed is proposed
F'C The bioretention area is at least 40 feet by 15 feet.
Sheet flow is provided at inlet.
Water table depth is greater than 6 feet.
FG Minimum of 6" ponding is provided.
F c- The ponded area will draw down in less than 4 days.
Planting soil infiltration rate is greater than 0.52 in/hr.
Fc_ The in-situ soil infiltration rate is greater than 0.2 in/hr.
A planting plan with species and densities is provided.
rrC Mulch layer is specified in plans.
Planting soil meets minimum soil specifications (NCDENR Stormwater Best Management
Practices Manual, April 1999)
FL. Plan details for the bioretention area provided.
Plan details for the inlet and outlet are provided.
An operation and maintenance agreement signed and notarized by the responsible party is provided.
Please note that underdrains beneath the planting soil are acceptable in the Piedmont and Mountains
x- '(o 66 DE-Tt;2MirtCp
DRAFT

U
cd

? b
b
cl
y
O
3
z 0
O ?
b

cd Cd
y
a
? ?
Q a
O
U
C7
z
o 0
°
? x o •

z°
O U

z?
°

?a

unn

bA N
? ? II

,? ? cx o

3 ? ? N

..w
?i
? cd
U

Q 00

?
O

H ? O
O
O
.k ? M 00

U
?
v (01, N
C
O ? O O

E w a;
00 r
C ? N

N M

cd
r-? c

b
?,!
° y

a a; o H
O ?
C7
x ? u v
C? GC
? ? o 0
?rzaa

0

w
0
0
? 0

N
DWQ Project
0 DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY - 401 EXTENDED DETENTION (and POCKET*) WETLAND WORKSHEET
1. PROJECT INFORMATION (please complete the following information):
Project Name : ag:c s CoLow
Contact Person: M,C, Art- C4 L.1s6? Phone Number: (919 ) -4 SZ- 04 95
For projects with multiple basins, specify which basin this worksheet applies to: C"m 5?-rF,
Permanent Pool Elevation Tf3p ft. (elevation of the orifice invert out)
Temporary Pool Elevation ; j "C¢D ft. (elevation of the outlet structure invert in)
Permanent Pool Surface Area 192S 1 .''`f sq. ft. (water surface area at permanent pool elevation)
Drainage Area 11,3(o - ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Impervious Area 7. cl 6 ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Forebay Surface Area 0213-7-72 sq. ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 15%)*
Marsh 0"-9" Surface Area 4966.00 sq. ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 35%)*
Marsh 9"-18" Surface Area 88.00 sq. ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 35%)*
Micro Pool Surface Area 2 t 37.77- sq. ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 15%)*
Temporary Pool Volume 9601411 p`2 cu. ft. (volume detained on top of the permanent pool)
SA/DA used 2 - gs (surface area to drainage area ratio)*
Diameter of Orifice !Z.00 in. (draw down orifice diameter)
II. REQUIRED ITEMS CHECKLIST
Initial in the space provided to indicate the following design requirements have been met and supporting documentation is attached. If a
requirement has not been met, attach an explanation of why. At a minimum, a complete stormwater management plan submittal includes
a worksheet for each BMP, design calculations, plans and specifications showing all BMPs and outlet structure details, a detailed
drainage plan and a fully executed operation and maintenance agreement. An incomplete submittal package will result in a request for
additional information and will substantially delay final review and approval of the project
Applicants Initials
Fc. The temporary pool controls runoff from the 1 inch rain.
fC The basin side slopes are no steeper than 3:1.
A planting plan for the marsh areas with plant species and densities is provided.
Vegetation above the permanent pool elevation is specified.
An emergency drain is provided to drain the basin.
FL The temporary pool draws down in 2 to 5 days.
Sediment storage is provided in the permanent pool.
A sediment disposal area is provided.
Access is provided for maintenance.
A site specific, signed and notarized operation and maintenance agreement is provided.
PC The drainage area (including any offsite area) is delineated on a site plan.
Access is provided for maintenance.
F? Plan details for the wetland are provided.
Plan details for the inlet and outlet are provided.
A site specific operation and maintenance agreement, signed and notarized by the responsible party is provided (see
hftp://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/oandm.doc).
* Pocket Wetlands have different design parameters and are only assumed to remove 35% TSS - See pp. 19 and 20 of the NC DENR
Stormwater BMP Manual, April 1999. 10% open water, 50% high marsh, 40% low marsh.
? to g6 P?'r?ZMiN?P
DRAFT
•

0

aA

b

0

? a
? F

Q

W U
a
o

U

d
? o

v ?
o o
Qi A

c
c
C
C
C

0
O 00

00
0
O

M 0

O
p N p M M
l? 00
^

o C o c Q

Cd U U cd
°

rn p
o O
0 O
0 p
p 00
00
C) - M N N

Z
d
C

`d o

° 00
O
°
a? o ? 0 i Cd
o ?

1-
0

Q 0
cd
Q 0
\
r?

U ^
_
U
° M

C ?o O °
Cd O N "" N

O Cn
C
.
N. ^ O

O ? U A H o -?
U
U
a
c?
3
a
N
11 Q
o

?b -6
a
Q U U U Q U U U
a
F., (mod as C
000 p
PLO Cd
D cl
U 03
O
z F
z
w

i *

PLI
Q
cd
ol
C6
V"

W tz?
g
-"

U
F a+
d
T: ,i
2 "
4 00
?O
~
o
W A o ,-,
a N
a

? F

o

O
?
A

o

a C") coo c) O > > o

W+ 0
x 0
x °
? o

i
C
W?
a
cd
o
N
O
F
C
-o
a?
-b
U
u
,4 +c?
U U ? U U
U U U U
U U 4? ? ?
M N N

VV) .-r
M O
O V1
O
M
.
-+
N ? N

o
? d
c
?
o ?
> 0 0
w w w
M
CA
cn
b 7? ':1 -0

C4 +C4 lc?
U
U U U
_ _ '
U U U U

CS' Cf
CO C6 rA
N O O N
ll- O O l-
r- 00 00 r--
M 00 00 M

N V? ? N
z
0

O

a C's

y V

a
d Ln
00
W ?

U
? rn
-
- o

o
C\ °
p.

U

DWQ Project No
0 DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY - 401 EXTENDED DETENTION (and POCKET*) WETLAND WORKSHEET
1. PROJECT INFORMATION (please complete the following information):
Project Name : aa-p s CoLO?'A''
Contact Person: Mk A4A9` L;?' oil Phone Number: ( 919 1 SZ- 04 95
For projects with multiple basins, specify which basin this worksheet applies to: Muu-t-rA,,,tL.* A2ssA
Permanent Pool Elevation x-k 1 sp ft. (elevation of the orifice invert out)
Temporary Pool Elevation 4.4 'Cgj?' ft. (elevation of the outlet structure invert in)
Permanent Pool Surface Area 2G4-1.05 sq. ft. (water surface area at permanent pool elevation)
Drainage Area 2? , I I ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Impervious Area I , LI Q ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Forebay Surface Area 9q 7, 0 G sq. ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 15%)*
Marsh 0"-9" Surface Area G26 .4-7 sq. ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 35%)*
Marsh 9"-18" Surface Area Ct 2- (- . `t 7 sq. ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 35%)*
Micro Pool Surface Area 391, nV sq. ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 15%)*
Temporary Pool Volume 7-013, 32- cu. ft. (volume detained on top of the permanent pool)
SAIDA used 2 ,BOB (surface area to drainage area ratio)*
Diameter of Orifice 2,00 in. (draw down orifice diameter)
II. REQUIRED ITEMS CHECKLIST
Initial in the space provided to indicate the following design requirements have been met and supporting documentation is attached. If a
requirement has not been met, attach an explanation of why, At a minimum, a complete stormwater management plan submittal includes
a worksheet for each BMP, design calculations, plans and specifications showing all BMPs and outlet structure details, a detailed
drainage plan and a fully executed operation and maintenance agreement. An incomplete submittal package will result in a request for
additional information and will substantially delay final review and approval of the project
Applicants Initials
rc- The temporary pool controls runoff from the 1 inch rain.
?c The basin side slopes are no steeper than 3:1.
A planting plan for the marsh areas with plant species and densities is provided.
Vegetation above the permanent pool elevation is specified.
An emergency drain is provided to drain the basin.
FL The temporary pool draws down in 2 to 5 days.
Sediment storage is provided in the permanent pool.
A sediment disposal area is provided.
Access is provided for maintenance.
A site specific, signed and notarized operation and maintenance agreement is provided.
Fc The drainage area (including any offsite area) is delineated on a site plan.
Access is provided for maintenance.
Plan details for the wetland are provided.
Plan details for the inlet and outlet are provided.
A site specific operation and maintenance agreement, signed and notarized by the responsible party is provided (see
http://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/oandm.doc).
* Pocket Wetlands have different design parameters and are only assumed to remove 35% TSS - See pp. 19 and 20 of the NC DENR
Stormwater BMP Manual, April 1999. 10% open water, 50% high marsh, 40% low marsh.

•
DRAFT
•
A-A
0

O ?
A
?w
c
w?
? U
a?
?a

0
O
G
in
e

O 00

00
a
O "o

M 0

O
p N p M M
t? 00

\ v? \ vs Q
b
U
a
-?
cd

u U u u u
N

Cd N

? U ,5.''
U ?••,
U
CN U
cd

r- 00

V
0
O
o
0
O
0
o
0
00
00
N -? p -+ M N N

? ce

o
y ° w
? o '00
Cd a
° ° t
U
? ?' a d
41

0 C's > °
0
A ?-. ? r1! ? ? vs
Q Q -
. .
?? U
O 00
O N M
co

V1
? t..h

O ?' U A E=

U
U
a
a?
a
vi
a?
a
D
N
a U N N
O cd cd Cd
Q U U U
UUU
z
w
z
;mow
Lr
h
O 'fit
o
U ri ri
?a
H
O ^
0
H

•o ?
O
O
O
O -?
o Cd
o -?
o
u u
"'Cy "L7 't3
U N U
a 1d C4 cd
O U U U
pO.,000
H
z
w
N
w •? U
a
w
O N
d00
00?
A?oNr-,
w
a
a
r~
0
w
o>?AU N ~
O
O 0
?l o O
O > o
0 0 o
O

N

U

O
H

a?
b

U

u

U U U U
?
3
U U U

U 4a
U
JF (
cud W

o
0 ?
0 o

o
H d w d d
c c c
? ° w °
w d w
i
c
W?
a
0
O?
CA
cn
b 'C1 b b

? 14 ll? +C?
U U U U

Cd Cd Cd m
U U U U

C CS" a• Ul

o It Itt O

rn N N C?
M O? O? M
z
0

o
a

U
? U
`? cCi
? -
a
W c
d

Cd U :z

W o?

U
C/)
- 0

>,
o
c? o
p.
Id o
I
C's

U
ti w° ?
X11 p r ?1y?? 1Y? N ptlp aLLy/?W p?1p0p'0?A'?yltl?'OT??gY r'GN'9D ?R
, b STIR >rl ?D N?Igpl? YIIY 111' 91 '00 IOOOpp ri ?j?ry?p
DWQ Project No.
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY - BIORETENTION AREA WORKSHEET
1. PROJECT INFORMATION (please complete the following information):
Project Name : l?a1zo s Co,1,N Y
Contact Person: MtCNAGI, 6Lj_i$oA Phone Number. (9t9) -+82-0495
For projects with multiple basins, specify which basin this worksheet applies to: rt??r ?- FaM??-t Aet A *? 1
Permanent Pool Elevation
Temporary Pool Elevation
" T8? ft.
(elevation of the orifice invert out)
(elevation of the outlet structure invert in)
Bioretention Surface Area
Drainage Area
Impervious Area
Rational C Coefficient
Size %
Inlet Velocity
Inlet flow depth
Depth to Ground Water
Planting Soil Infiltration Rate
In-Situ Soil Infiltration Rate
II. REQUIRED ITEMS CHECKLIST
10"76q 9?; sq.ft.
5101 ac.
Lb ? ' ac.
01-7(
7,0C) %
+ Tt3c> fps
-rap in
TaP ft.
i 'f6D in./hr
(on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
(on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
(either 5% in w/sand under drain or 7% in w/o)
(the soil layer down to 4 feet)
011 Z:© in./hr. (the soil layer below 4 feet or below the sand bed)
Initial in the space provided to indicate the following design requirements have been met and supporting documentation is attached. If a
• requirement has not been met, attach an explanation of why. At a minimum, a complete stormwater management plan submittal includes
a worksheet for each BMP, design calculations, plans and specifications showing all BMPs and outlet structure details, a detailed
drainage plan and a fully executed operation and maintenance agreement. An incomplete submittal package will result in a request for
additional information and will substantially delay final review and approval of the project.
ADDlicants Initials
1'c No vertical sand bed is proposed
VC The bioretention area is at least 40 feet by 15 feet.
Sheet flow is provided at inlet.
Water table depth is greater than 6 feet.
F c. Minimum of 6" ponding is provided.
E c- The ponded area will draw down in less than 4 days.
Planting soil infiltration rate is greater than 0.52 in/hr.
f cC The in-situ soil infiltration rate is greater than 0.2 in/hr.
A planting plan with species and densities is provided.
rrC Mulch layer is specified in plans.
Planting soil meets minimum soil specifications (NCDENR Stormwater Best Management
Practices Manual, April 1999)
Fc_ Plan details for the bioretention area provided.
Plan details for the inlet and outlet are provided.
An operation and maintenance agreement signed and notarized by the responsible party is provided.
Please note that underdrains beneath the planting soil are acceptable in the Piedmont and Mountains
•
•
•
U
cd
O
kn ^c7

0
3
z
O
o
c 3
O ¢? Q
V >,
z?
00
°\o
0
CA ? O O

O
O U
z ?.
o
H?
c
°
U os
0 0
as a ?.
?

a
M

C\
oc

?' r3

to
N
? ? II

N
.,
r
c?
U
it «? Q+
M
CN -s

00
kn

V M `° en

U
?
v ? N
O W O O
:i

a
N 00 O

? N 00
--? N

N

a

a o N
b ?
o ?
? o
O 00 00
0 0
h

O (fj

^? a
con
? N
a

O ? ? M

DWQ Project No.
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY - 401 EXTENDED DETENTION (and POCKET*) WETLAND WORKSHEET
1. PROJECT INFORMATION (please complete the following information):
Project Name : alb s Ccx-o w
Contact Person: M«., AEl^ Fu L-isa? Phone Number: ( 919 ) I SZ- 04 95
For projects with multiple basins, specify which basin this worksheet applies to: Auuit- FAm,L-e AeCA .41L
Permanent Pool Elevation Tr3D ft. (elevation of the orifice invert out)
Temporary Pool Elevation T¢j;> ft. (elevation of the outlet structure invert in)
Permanent Pool Surface Area '7 (, 02 9 L sq. ft. (water surface area at permanent pool elevation)
Drainage Area 6, ,C> (" ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Impervious Area L4,2-4 ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Forebay Surface Area l 140 . -3`7 sq. ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 15%)*
Marsh 0"-9" Surface Area C, (p0 • f31 sq. ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 35%)*
Marsh 9"-18" Surface Area Z G (6 C) .155 sq. ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 35%)*
Micro Pool Surface Area _1 i 'I 0 ? '2:-1 sq. ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 15%)*
Temporary Pool Volume 14 61 5 3.50 cu. ft. (volume detained on top of the permanent pool)
SAIDA used 2_'68 (surface area to drainage area ratio)*
Diameter of Orifice 2,00 in. (draw down orifice diameter)
II. REQUIRED ITEMS CHECKLIST
• Initial in the space provided to indicate the following design requirements have been met and supporting documentation is attached. If a
requirement has not been met, attach an explanation of why. At a minimum, a complete stormwater management plan submittal includes
a worksheet for each BMP, design calculations, plans and specifications showing all BMPs and outlet structure details, a detailed
drainage plan and a fully executed operation and maintenance agreement. An incomplete submittal package will result in a request for
additional information and will substantially delay final review and approval of the project
Applicants Initials
FL- The temporary pool controls runoff from the 1 inch rain.
The basin side slopes are no steeper than 3:1.
A planting plan for the marsh areas with plant species and densities is provided.
Vegetation above the permanent pool elevation is specified.
An emergency drain is provided to drain the basin.
F? The temporary pool draws down in 2 to 5 days.
Sediment storage is provided in the permanent pool.
A sediment disposal area is provided.
Access is provided for maintenance.
A site specific, signed and notarized operation and maintenance agreement is provided.
Pc The drainage area (including any offsite area) is delineated on a site plan.
Access is provided for maintenance.
FC_ Plan details for the wetland are provided.
Plan details for the inlet and outlet are provided.
A site specific operation and maintenance agreement, signed and notarized by the responsible party is provided (see
http://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/oandm.doc).
* Pocket Wetlands have different design parameters and are only assumed to remove 35% TSS - See pp. 19 and 20 of the NC DENR
Stormwater BMP Manual, April 1999. 10% open water, 50% high marsh, 40% low marsh.
to gE. V&-Tt M19 P
? DRAFT
CJ
1]
•
0
bA
CCS
C rv
O ?
a
a w
7a
o q
r?+ o W
? w d
? w z
U FBI
O O
? a A

a
0
O
G
i.
c
e
0 0
p
O oo
00 p
O "O
M O
O
p
t` N p
00 m M
w

o ? o vi A

a)

w
co
a) U a)
4?
a) cd
L"

O N O O h
p p o
o
p M k cV

a. Cd

ro a?
Q
0
°
o

~ o ?
?

v, 0
0 0
O ?, o
'+

o ,

U
L: C C?
a) O a
in,
,
d

?

d
.
. 14-

A ? o ? d o v?

U

pO 00
°°
O N

ci

N
U
U
a
a?
c?
C4
0
v7
u,
a>
z
.o ?
? o
C
O
0
C) -d
+?
o
o c
II ?
O
'C b 'C
a) U d]
C
I U U U
I m Cd Cd
u U U
I
I
I
I . ? U 4N
I
I
I
I O
kf)
00 ? C"
o C
I ?
I
i
1
I
I
o
1 > > O
>~
0 0 o
Cd
a?
d
'o
a)
rn
03
O
H
-b
U
'C 'C b 'C3
4U
cqj
U U ? U U
m C Cd w
u U U U

U
U a)
4? ?
cod
N
M O [?
0
0
N
O
O
C)
00 M O r,
N

o a d d

Q U U
Ln

CZ 65
H ? w ? >1

? w0 d w° w0
0
a
O
d
as
O
kr)
i

U U U U

U U U U
w w w ?+

rn ti rn rn

M 00 00 M
O o o O

? N N
z
0

O Cd

d C? ? ? ;
t

d ? - - o

-M
En
U

'T) b b
? a) a) N
U U U
H 11 Cd Cd
U U U
DWQ Project No
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY - 401 EXTENDED DETENTION (and POCKET*) WETLAND WORKSHEET
1. PROJECT INFORMATION (please complete the following information):
Project Name : aczt s COLO?a`f
Contact Person: MCJIArsL u?iL156h? Phone Number: ( 99) SZ o4 95
For projects with multiple basins, specify which basin this worksheet applies to: mLAxi - Farnluc ky-gA 3
Permanent Pool Elevation
Temporary Pool Elevation
-?? Tr3D ft.
(elevation of the orifice invert out)
(elevation of the outlet structure invert in)
Permanent Pool Surface Area
Drainage Area
Impervious Area
Forebay Surface Area
Marsh 0"-9" Surface Area
Marsh 9"-18" Surface Area
Micro Pool Surface Area
Temporary Pool Volume
5!4n-7,02 sq. ft.
?t 3 c ac.
02 ac.
€311 . 0!3 sq. ft.
IS(I z. qL sq. ft.
jgW-2 ,4b sq. ft.
13 11.05 sq. ft.
1016313 , EI D cu. ft.
(water surface area at permanent pool elevation)
(on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
(on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
(at permanent pool elevation approximately 15%)*
(at permanent pool elevation approximately 35%)*
(at permanent pool elevation approximately 35%)*
(at permanent pool elevation approximately 15%)*
(volume detained on top of the permanent pool)
SAIDA used 2= 8? (surface area to drainage area ratio)*
Diameter of Orifice S .0o in. (draw down orifice diameter)
II. REQUIRED ITEMS CHECKLIST
Initial in the space provided to indicate the following design requirements have been met and supporting documentation is attached. If a
requirement has not been met, attach an explanation of why. At a minimum, a complete stormwater management plan submittal includes
a worksheet for each BMP, design calculations, plans and specifications showing all BMPs and outlet structure details, a detailed
drainage plan and a fully executed operation and maintenance agreement. An incomplete submittal package will result in a request for
additional information and will substantially delay final review and approval of the project
Applicants Initials
FL The temporary pool controls runoff from the 1 inch rain.
IFC- The basin side slopes are no steeper than 3:1.
A planting plan for the marsh areas with plant species and densities is provided.
Vegetation above the permanent pool elevation is specified.
An emergency drain is provided to drain the basin.
FC- The temporary pool draws down in 2 to 5 days.
Sediment storage is provided in the permanent pool.
A sediment disposal area is provided.
Access is provided for maintenance.
A site specific, signed and notarized operation and maintenance agreement is provided.
fiC The drainage area (including any offsite area) is delineated on a site plan.
Access is provided for maintenance.
F?-- Plan details for the wetland are provided.
Plan details for the inlet and outlet are provided.
A site specific operation and maintenance agreement, signed and notarized by the responsible party is provided (see
http://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/oandm.doc).
* Pocket Wetlands have different design parameters and are only assumed to remove 35% TSS - See pp. 19 and 20 of the NC DENR
Stormwater BMP Manual, April 1999. 10% open water, 50% high marsh, 40% low marsh.
AFT
r1
U
L1
•
0
C?
O ?
r?i ?+ W
Gd ? F"
^d (s,
a
w ? H
c
c ? z
a?
? w A

0
O
R
i,
HQ-+
C
0 0
p0 000 0 00 m OO
p
r- N p
00 M M

0 ? 0 ? A
T3
N
L" cd
U
Ski iUi SUr U a cd
0
N C) O O p 00
M O C> O O p 00
M p r M N

.. r n
-? A .
o 0
0
00
o

C) U i o

U
_
03
U ;
O
? b
U V)
C) g
O M N

N O
_

Cd
O ? U gH o b
,
u
?
O
,l
b "C? 'L7 '? "C b
a U N N U N
l U
l
c? c?
Q U U U Q U U U
?I M Cd m Q m cd Cd
F., 0 0 0 p., 0 0 0
z H
z
w
z
; mo w .
u
u 0"
cr U
a cd ?

N
U
N
C N O 00
Q,
C9
? O
li
?
oMO
rn
w O ? o
o
? A O ? -,

CA F'

o

? O o w

A C4
W ?

U U " o

E :5 ;5 O
ll J
o

O O O

a3
0
N
O
f?
a?
-n
U
N U N U
U U U U
m ctj Cd Cd
U U U U

U
U 4.1
44i N
? Cy
?
0

N M
M O O
N M O ?
? N
00

C cd cd
L

o 'o :3 ;J
? a U) U)
° d w
C
? a L'7

° ? c° w°
IC
i

C? C
U U U U

m Cd Cd cri
u U U U
CH

o v o

? ?
r,
00 00 00
0
0
0
z
0

o Cd

Cd (1)

a
n
00 C
W o o
U rn
-

?,
o
c? o
p

DWQ Project
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY • BIORETENTION AREA WORKSHEET
1. PROJECT INFORMATION (please complete the following information):
Project Name : raz o s Cr>s„4 Y
Contact Person: M, cHAGL- E,, ,4o,y Phone Number. (9t9) '+82-0495
For projects with multiple basins, specify which basin this worksheet applies to: _ Myi ri - FAwnt-Y AP_aA *A
Permanent Pool Elevation " 161 ft. (elevation of the orifice invert out)
Temporary Pool Elevation Ar TSD ft. (elevation of the outlet structure invert in)
Bioretention Surface Area E(o%. 67 sq. ft.
Drainage Area 2.6. ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Impervious Area 2.7-S ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Rational C Coefficient 0.71
Size % -7,00 % (either 5% in w/sand under drain or 7% in w/o)
Inlet Velocity " TBD fps
Inlet flow depth ? -rap in
Depth to Ground Water • Tap ft.
Planting Soil Infiltration Rate j -rsp in./hr. (the soil layer down to 4 feet)
In-Situ Soil Infiltration Rate o. rp - Z. O in./hr. (the soil layer below 4 feet or below the sand bed)
II. REQUIRED ITEMS CHECKLIST
Initial in the space provided to indicate the following design requirements have been met and supporting documentation is attached. If a
0 requirement has not been met, attach an explanation of why. At a minimum, a complete stormwater management plan submittal includes
a worksheet for each BMP, design calculations, plans and specifications showing all BMPs and outlet structure details, a detailed
drainage plan and a fully executed operation and maintenance agreement. An incomplete submittal package will result in a request for
additional information and will substantially delay final review and approval of the project.
Applicants Initials
FC No vertical sand bed is proposed
FC The bioretention area is at least 40 feet by 15 feet.
Sheet flow is provided at inlet.
Water table depth is greater than 6 feet.
F G Minimum of 6" ponding is provided.
F: C_ The ponded area will draw down in less than 4 days.
Planting soil infiltration rate is greater than 0.52 in/hr.
f: C- The in-situ soil infiltration rate is greater than 0.2 in/hr.
A planting plan with species and densities is provided.
rrL Mulch layer is specified in plans.
Planting soil meets minimum soil specifications (NCDENR Stormwater Best Management
Practices Manual, April 1999)
F? Plan details for the bioretention area provided.
Plan details for the inlet and outlet are provided.
An operation and maintenance agreement signed and notarized by the responsible party is provided.
Please note that underdrains beneath the planting soil are acceptable in the Piedmont and Mountains
-19, To 5 E DF,'CEZMi t4 ep

DRAFT
•
U
C?
? -d
..fl
b

v? 0
3
O
E?
a to
C 3

zCIS
ZZ
p O
O o
O
O O
p
°
z
O v

0
N
cd
l
as a,

a
O
^O ^ M

bA N
? a II

«S
N

O ?

k
N ? 0

-k
?
tn 0
0
M
00
U
?

p ? O O

a

000
N 0
O
M O
M
O" 000
O d
00 M .-i
ri

a
a; O E?

itr

00

.Sr

w
° 4
00 ° 4r N

V
t
i
?.e?op., w. q??.,ux?ea . Wwwun?.u-so iw'?giu um}yGp"mrTeW n ? am
M a fYm10D? ID ?1 b?YL11100Wp ? (U?O11?TM 'JM "00 • p '1A'O y
s ,?
DWQ Project No
• DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY - BIORETENTION AREA WORKSHEET
1. PROJECT INFORMATION (please complete the following information):
Project Name : Fa?zo s Cou:'m q
Contact Person: M %CNAGL- E LL_i $oA Phone Number: (9t9) -+92--0495
For projects with multiple basins, specify which basin this worksheet applies to: Frzo,1Ec-r MA,W-r0'nMA1VCE Ay.EA
Permanent Pool Elevation
Temporary Pool Elevation
Bioretention Surface Area
Drainage Area
Impervious Area
Rational C Coefficient
Size %
t Tsc> ft.
'` T5D ft.
v oo g • i ( sq. ft.
4,0!? ac.
3 :48 ac.
C? "R 0
`TOo %
(elevation of the orifice invert out)
(elevation of the outlet structure invert in)
(on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
(on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
(either 5% in w/sand under drain or 7% in w/o)
Inlet Velocity TI31> fps
Inlet flow depth + -fsD in
Depth to Ground Water • Tap ft.
Planting Soil Infiltration Rate 1 -r6D in./hr. (the soil layer down to 4 feet)
In-Situ Soil Infiltration Rate 0, (?v -Z, o in./hr. (the soil layer below 4 feet or below the sand bed)
II. REQUIRED ITEMS CHECKLIST
Initial in the space provided to indicate the following design requirements have been met and supporting documentation is attached. If a
0 requirement has not been met, attach an explanation of why. At a minimum, a complete stormwater management plan submittal includes
a worksheet for each BMP, design calculations, plans and specifications showing all BMPs and outlet structure details, a detailed
drainage plan and a fully executed operation and maintenance agreement. An incomplete submittal package will result in a request for
additional information and will substantially delay final review and approval of the project.
ADDlicants Initials
•
FC No vertical sand bed is proposed
FC The bioretention area is at least 40 feet by 15 feet.
Sheet flow is provided at inlet.
Water table depth is greater than 6 feet.
Fc Minimum of 6" ponding is provided.
F C_ The ponded area will draw down in less than 4 days.
Planting soil infiltration rate is greater than 0.52 in/hr.
FC_ The in-situ soil infiltration rate is greater than 0.2 in/hr.
A planting plan with species and densities is provided.
rr-C Mulch layer is specified in plans.
Planting soil meets minimum soil specifications (NCDENR Stormwater Best Management
Practices Manual, April 1999)
F? Plan details for the bioretention area provided.
Plan details for the inlet and outlet are provided.
An operation and maintenance agreement signed and notarized by the responsible party is provided.
Please note that underdrains beneath the planting soil are acceptable in the Piedmont and Mountains
x To 56 PE,-rF_ZMirlEp
DRAFT

U
as
O -?
,n
-o

0
3
z
O C
b

(~ bb

N
U cd

•?
?
3
O ? Q
V ?
cq
z

0.4 0

CO

z°
O v
cn
r~
?
0
U C,3
0i
a
as a,

o0
a o

bA N
? II

+ p
?

^r

U

°
a

N O M
Q?
N Oo O^

U
?

?
O
w Pro O O

a
d' ? O

r

U
++

a
a 01 1 C^
O ?
O 000 ONO
-+ O O
??oo
?aaa

rv

a ?"

O
a a ? ? ?: o

a ?,

V
00
i
0 0 0
wsropr ww mi gw?•w?noa 7uWn Mieao w npyu?tap+opo ?y?°0D•mr'cw a -MI?p1y-fro ?'"`xa?n
M p flId1E0? ID !'1 q rM01L?lYg1A?'m`lOq tlld? 1M 91 b0?x000Op '1M'? •O Y?CPN?I?OD
DWQ Project No.
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY - 401 EXTENDED DETENTION (and POCKET*) WETLAND WORKSHEET
1. PROJECT INFORMATION (please complete the following information):
Project Name : FMC p s Cot_01-1`f
Contact Person: M% k A LP-L- t iso? Phone Number: ( 919) '4 SZ- 04 95
For projects with multiple basins, specify which basin this worksheet applies to: Mu??.-FA?,ur ALZ-F^ 14"
Permanent Pool Elevation x i sD ft. (elevation of the orifice invert out)
Temporary Pool Elevation " 'rgv ft. (elevation of the outlet structure invert in)
Permanent Pool Surface Area 4 9SO.94 sq. ft. (water surface area at permanent pool elevation)
Drainage Area 3 , 1?? ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Impervious Area 2,-70 ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Forebay Surface Area -7?_9 ,. SQL sq. ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 15%)*
Marsh 0"-9" Surface Area i Iii 0.69 sq. ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 35%)*
Marsh 9"-18" Surface Area I bqo .69 sq. ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 35%)*
Micro Pool Surface Area 72 L{, SJ? sq. ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 15%)*
Temporary Pool Volume cu. ft. (volume detained on top of the permanent pool)
SA/DA used 2, ab (surface area to drainage area ratio)*
Diameter of Orifice 2 :oQ in. (draw down orifice diameter)
II. REQUIRED ITEMS CHEC KLIST
Initial in the space provided to indicate the following design requirements have been met and supporting documentation is attached. If a
requirement has not been met, attach an explanation of why. At a minimum, a complete stormwater management plan submittal includes
a worksheet for each BMP, design calculations, plans and specifications showing all BMPs and outlet structure details, a detailed
drainage plan and a fully executed operation and maintenance agreement. An incomplete submittal package will result in a request for
additional information and will substantially delay final review and approval of the project
ADDlicants Initials
FC_ The temporary pool controls runoff from the 1 inch rain.
The basin side slopes are no steeper than 3:1.
A planting plan for the marsh areas with plant species and densities is provided.
Vegetation above the permanent pool elevation is specified.
An emergency drain is provided to drain the basin.
F? The temporary pool draws down in 2 to 5 days.
Sediment storage is provided in the permanent pool.
A sediment disposal area is provided.
Access is provided for maintenance.
A site specific, signed and notarized operation and maintenance agreement is provided.
r__ C_ The drainage area (including any offsite area) is delineated on a site plan.
Access is provided for maintenance.
T:i-- Plan details for the wetland are provided.
Plan details for the inlet and outlet are provided.
A site specific operation and maintenance agreement, signed and notarized by the responsible party is provided (see
http://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/oandm.doc).
* Pocket Wetlands have different design parameters and are only assumed to remove 35% TSS - See pp. 19 and 20 of the NC DENR
Stormwater BMP Manual, April 1999.10% open water, 50% high marsh, 40% low marsh.
?" to gE ?"?G?ZM?NtP
0
DRAFT
[-I
9

i•i
0
3
C?
O ?
r~+ ? V
A '' E
Q
? w a
a
W ? F
?' a a
? o
a"
o •o
? a A
1-I F-1 u 1...1 u
CC
O
O
d
C
H
e
O
O 00 M O
p N p
00 M M
in. ?

v? o v? A
N
C4
_U
U

Cd
co N
4+
O. cd
L.'
0 0
kr) C> C) O O
000
0
M N O '-+ M N N

cz

? o
0 00
° ° tj?

.. C13
o pC ,

cad ?? O
CA

Cd "D 00 M
O cV N

Q

O ? v A H

N
U
U
n
0
n
N
v
0
y
ll
a ?
Q U U U
000
z
z
0
H
O 000 ?
H
O ^
°
H
e0i
z

O cd
O
0
O
O
O -°
+?
o?
o ?
II ?
u
'C3 TS 'Cy
N N U
O U U U
-W -
gL4uu0
z
w
U
W•? U 4a
0.1
O
00
O O\
a C
O
a
C
U
m
O
o
a o 0 0.
O > > o
ry ° o 0
i-y
O
U
Cd
O
H
a?
b
0
U
? l?
U U ? U U
C's
U U U
U U C2 C 5"
M
o
0
O N N
a\ O O zi
- M O N

z

v a)
o s?. ? Qy

:s Cd
0
o C4 uo

° w d
c

0 0 0
? w ? w w
i
a
O
aWa
0
0
"C7 "O b "O
't? +C4 14
U U U U
Cd cl cd Cd
u U U U
lt? 14. lt? ct?
C C F
D\
00 00
cd
Cd
? N U
CID ;n
00
C'D
? o rn a
C.?
z
0
d
u
a
Wd
a
W
d
DWQ Project No.
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY - 401 EXTENDED DETENTION (and POCKET*) WETLAND WORKSHEET
1. PROJECT INFORMATION (please complete the following information):
Project Name : a(L-? s CoLOI' -'
Contact Person: Mt .4.+naL- Eit.isot Phone Number: ( 99 ) -4 67--0495
For projects with multiple basins, specify which basin this worksheet applies to: AAoy1- rm«-c AMA W+
Permanent Pool Elevation 4,(- Tsp ft. (elevation of the orifice invert out)
Temporary Pool Elevation jr " T¢fl ft. (elevation of the outlet structure invert in)
Permanent Pool Surface Area ,SO-31. F2 9 sq. ft. (water surface area at permanent pool elevation)
Drainage Area 4, n 1 ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Impervious Area 2,90 ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Forebay Surface Area -7 Lf 7? sq. ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 15%)*
Marsh 0"-9" Surface Area i 1G, i 16 sq. ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 35%)*
Marsh 9"-18" Surface Area )-761- 16 sq. ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 35%)*
Micro Pool Surface Area '7 c;-14 -7 S sq. ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 15%)*
Temporary Pool Volume qQ ©o , -71 cu. ft. (volume detained on top of the permanent pool)
SAIDA used Z , Hg (surface area to drainage area ratio)*
Diameter of Orifice 2•00 in. (draw down orifice diameter)
II. REQUIRED ITEMS CHECKLIST
Initial in the space provided to indicate the following design requirements have been met and supporting documentation is attached. If a
requirement has not been met, attach an explanation of why. At a minimum, a complete stormwater management plan submittal includes
a worksheet for each BMP, design calculations, plans and specifications showing all BMPs and outlet structure details, a detailed
drainage plan and a fully executed operation and maintenance agreement. An incomplete submittal package will result in a request for
additional information and will substantially delay final review and approval of the project
ADDlicants Initials
•
rc- The temporary pool controls runoff from the 1 inch rain.
fc. The basin side slopes are no steeper than 3:1.
A planting plan for the marsh areas with plant species and densities is provided.
Vegetation above the permanent pool elevation is specified.
An emergency drain is provided to drain the basin.
F4L The temporary pool draws down in 2 to 5 days.
Sediment storage is provided in the permanent pool.
A sediment disposal area is provided.
Access is provided for maintenance.
A site specific, signed and notarized operation and maintenance agreement is provided.
f= c. The drainage area (including any offsite area) is delineated on a site plan.
Access is provided for maintenance.
I:,<-- Plan details for the wetland are provided.
Plan details for the inlet and outlet are provided.
A site specific operation and maintenance agreement, signed and notarized by the responsible party is provided (see
http://h2o.ehnr.state,nc.us/ncwetlands/oandm.doc).
* Pocket Wetlands have different design parameters and are only assumed to remove 35% TSS - See pp. 19 and 20 of the NC DENR
Stormwater BMP Manual, April 1999.10% open water, 50% high marsh, 40% low marsh.
to gE 1??'rniNtP
DRAFT
•
•
0
ILM
0
b
?s
a
o r
A ? F
Q
? w a
a
W ?
o
? o W
0 0 ~
v? w 9z

c
C
6C'
C
C
i.
O
FBI
e
0 0

O 00
00
O \,D
M 0
O
p
I? N p
00 M M
w
o ? o ? Q
b
u U u u
c;J cd N
I a . 4
4 U 04 O
o

O
00
pO C>
0 C)
0
000
0
N p '. M N

d
C

-? A o o
°
-'
O w vn
o ?o .°°
0
•° 0
o U N
C's En

o
A ? o w! ? o vs
CIS
U
? o
O
O N N
QH
U
U
H
a
N
N
3
!i
a?
c?
z
r.
o cqj
Q" O
D\ ?
O
O
O ^?
+?
CD
O b
.b .a .b
N O N
C8
Q U U U
Cd __,
a?.,000
Ey
z
w
z
W •? U 4ai
a
00
A C) ~
cp?
w
a
a°
z
C
O > C
AO
p a
O > > o
a3
0
N
O
H
U
cd cd C? It
U U ? U U
cts
U U 4 U U

00
"C
! 00

rn Cl O
O M O V?

Cd 03

a?

0 a

o ,^
v,

H w
CC C'3 C'3

i
O
d
Pa
a
O
i
"C3 b b '?

+C4 +L? C4
U U U U

U U U U

CS' Cs' .

00 00

z
0

O Cd
W

04 N

U U ?

-

00 v?
W

U
?
- o
o
C? o
p,

U

?n w ?5 ?5
N a)
cd Cd Ci
U U U
60 -cl C
.0 U U U
DWQ Project No.
. DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY • 401 EXTENDED DETENTION (and POCKET*) WETLAND WORKSHEET
1. PROJECT INFORMATION (please complete the following info rmation):
Project Name : aa-D s CoLow1'
Contact Person: MICA A c_L,_ Fu isa? Phone Number: ( 919) I SZ- o4 45
For projects with multiple basins, specify which basin this worksheet applies to: Mvc-r - FA"', VK rAe.6A # e

Permanent Pool Elevation x4r TGp ft. (elevation of the orifice invert out)
Temporary Pool Elevation -Cgv ft. (elevation of the outlet structure invert in)
Permanent Pool Surface Area G,2?:?i sq. ft. (water surface area at permanent pool elevation)
Drainage Area ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Impervious Area . ?S 1 ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Forebay Surface Area I O 2,-?, • 75 sq. ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 15%)*
Marsh 0"-9" Surface Area 23 'e, b--,7 sq. ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 35%)*
Marsh 9"-18" Surface Area 2?, 16? ??, . '? Ll sq. ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 35%)*
Micro Pool Surface Area IC) 23 ?S sq. ft. (at permanent pool elevation approximately 15%)*
Temporary Pool Volume 13`i Z• ? S cu. ft. (volume detained on top of the permanent pool)
SAIDA used Z ?L7 (surface area to drainage area ratio)*
Diameter of Orifice Z-00 in. (draw down orifice diameter)
If. REQUIRED ITEMS CHEC KLIST
Initial in the space provided to indicate the following design requirements have been met and supporting documentation is attached. If a
requirement has not been met, attach an explanation of why. At a minimum, a complete stormwater management plan submittal includes
a worksheet for each BMP, design calculations, plans and specifications showing all BMPs and outlet structure details, a detailed
drainage plan and a fully executed operation and maintenance agreement. An incomplete submittal package will result in a request for
additional information and will substantially delay final review and approval of the project
ADDlicants Initials
FL The temporary pool controls runoff from the 1 inch rain.
The basin side slopes are no steeper than 3:1.
A planting plan for the marsh areas with plant species and densities is provided.
Vegetation above the permanent pool elevation is specified.
An emergency drain is provided to drain the basin.
VC The temporary pool draws down in 2 to 5 days.
Sediment storage is provided in the permanent pool.
A sediment disposal area is provided.
Access is provided for maintenance.
A site specific, signed and notarized operation and maintenance agreement is provided.
I-- C_ The drainage area (including any offsite area) is delineated on a site plan.
Access is provided for maintenance.
Plan details for the wetland are provided.
Plan details for the inlet and outlet are provided.
A site specific operation and maintenance agreement, signed and notarized by the responsible party is provided (see
http://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/oandm.doc).
* Pocket Wetlands have different design parameters and are only assumed to remove 35% TSS - See pp. 19 and 20 of the NC DENR
Stormwater BMP Manual, April 1999.10% open water, 50% high marsh, 40% low marsh.
1o gE PF_-Cr 1AeP
11
DRAFT
0
•

0
VJ
C?
?y 00
O ?
y L
a w
w?
?o
a?
? o
? w
L
?A a
u u u u u
Q
CC
O
C
i..
Q?
C
.1 O

C)
O 00

00
0
O ?10

M C)

O
p N p
00 M M
w

o ? o vs A
b
cd
U
U
Cd U
Cd U N cd
0 0

_
0
O
O
0 00
00 0 0 00
V1 M p --i M ? N

-b A o ?

o W)
00

? •? a. ? a' vs d

Cd
A g o ri! d ? vi
Q

,
a -Cd
U
N
O p
00

O N M

N

V ?

O ?' U A H

f-I
in
N
U
a
N
as
a
a,
a?
z
o Cd
0
Q\ ?
O
O
O -b
+
o Cd
o -b
II ?
O
b "d 'C
U U U
> al Cd cd
u U U
a
i
1
a
00 00 t--
N
M
i
i
o
0 0
o
0 0 o
Cd
.ti
O
N
Cd
O
F-+
°
b
U
b "C3 T3 't7
U U ? U U
-U ? 2"--
U A U U
U U CN cod
O
Q\
O O
N
? p M O p
O
N M ••?
?Z

o

cj > o V,
; d w d
F C Cd C
C7
Q) 0)
440 4.40 4-40
i
?•a
O
d
W?
a
O
N
i

U U U U

C?l m Cd Cd
u U U U

C CS" CT' a"

In kn

m 00 00 M
N 00 00 N
O M M O

z
0

H

o Cd
a ? ? cd

c

00
W '7S
o
U c -

o
orn O
p?
Cd
o
°
Qn w
+C? C4
U U U
U U U
U

77777--- x
W
Z_ W

S ? U
x
? ? W
?
\
? m
W

r •-

w Z
O
~

V?
O VI,
p

Z W ? Jew
Z

o Z a4
3 ., wg0
i ?

?
'
g •. a Owr
°
a
Q?

w w? 3
QV ?
wJ
Q':. M Z
? 4Fi
111
z

z
Vz

?z
a
Q UO
wa??
m
z

, ?
?
U
Qw^
' ?? Una
w

W^ n
J
_
O ao
l
V?
wzQQ
mwJ
w
SU
U?
O
wO ?'
a
Qd
O w
WN 'o

4
?z

0
W
oZ
Z<
w
?U
n

W J
?
5

? z
z
I ? g
Q O
Z O
O
?.

(n w
a
N?
a'^ o
v
I z ,ox
7
cr W
;Q,
U
O®p
K V1N
ova
0
w
yv ' ti
Y O
CIwZ
ZHm
Z.., -1
w
a
z
m
W
2
2
?a
1W Z
WO O
W
O; ,
p gZ
I
AI x
<U o
wQ W
?D244
m
I
m
z
O
H
U
W
0
r?
V 1
El
W
U
1-
U
0.
z
w
H
Q
w
F
H
.-7
Q
rN
V
H
Q
3
z?
o`
o z
U Z
^ Z
4J J
O
O?
[a Y
O
z
e
3
W
z
J
a
4
O
E"'I
w
O
m?1
h?l
sxm'u. r o oinasw> n„?s X o«?ru
'?>oi.r. ?w o>? .'Win»o w?o?ovo?nw w i.o-?o'?>. :???? • •
IRW
b? cc
?ym 4Db
_Z ?uu
Z-s
O 5
Y-
_U=
i??deg
y? I r
YYd4?
r
? o^
w? pZ
z ????0 0
W z>OU1_ D!?
Z 3^?Op
o,;?a a °U
?oN O
p w
O ._ C?bt a?- I - ...
a
w
0
a
w
a
a
Lf)
J
W
>
W
J a.
W
H
J
w
0
W
a
LLLJ
W
N
Q >
W 3
w In Y a w J
`- a z =
nW Q a
NN mU Q N
w Z W r
o r wW ?
W ¢p Z K U O z
Ch Z C) Of LJ
U) 7J m V) C?
a? Of W a W
J 'n a a m
w Jo 0 az W
Z
°0 0 ?U
vU m a
za a w
lY U 0
CL a .?.
i
Q // 1
/
/
d01
dll
,Ot \
/?v9i?v
Q
0 Q
J
O a
0 O Z
a° w z0 O
r a a
a 2 U
w W
O ° a (/?
p•
2 ? U•
?y
?? a Q
o ?
? O J rIT?l?
W
Q f-7
w
> O
H?
o,,,r H
Q
co w
co a
rW
h7
W
Lil ? 11 ry1 rIT`lI
1
> 1 W
Z 1
Q 1
J
El
W
U_
l?
¢
0.
z
w
LL)
LLJ
? Q
J
a
d
¢

z
Z
za
o?
Ox
U
Q
O Y
c
x
w
s a?
rya ?'
aw
?¢y x6b
b
6
Zs
0€
Y'
?U
L HIA
V
1nw? wv+ooa uu o}°'.o w .mow"is.w .° 0'x"0
q aVw • ' "ITAO LEI 01 L4l]?A q iM01 ?'i?}m100 • •

d?
a
0
?U
U
gay
a
a
ol
j ?
I
L-i

I

O
Fri ? 3
U
U_
L-Li
,I
z3
'I
Li
a
?;11 V)
.I o
a ?
a ?
w
W J
Q Q
Q
O 1. >-
W Q
d J
w ?` J w
LLJ J a
w
a
?f u < Q
a 0
LLJ
a >
,F[ f o
I
Lo w1
O 1? 1
3
w w
J
> "
> a
> J
a
' w w W
O Vl
? > w
Q }
Q Q O
O ~
w ° a ?-+
o W w
Q
V) 3 w
O
Z W
>Q
3 0
_ fTAO YWi 'OTr. A OI OAAR?9J A lwwt Mf P`? AN?'J6
h ?? flWi ?tq -W?' • qw]p
W? A 4w]??MJ HI?A N?q ?uOfYYVJwA OYY%A Lqw >r>r 'Jr ?'W?I Wt+pO '*? 47? i?OJ
IE
W
U
F- W
QUQ
c? 2
W
W W
? J
E-- ?
Q 3
W ?
x
.-1 W
Q W
ZD z
a
Z
W W
H
3
z
z?
o?
oy
0
U ?.
Q z
x°
or
wv
L,
S b ?,
fi=bg 9;
°
O fi
U_s
g=
?Y?yt ?
The Cape Cod Study
GCM presents the results of a major
scientific field investigation of the effects
of golf turf chemicals on groundwater.
Stuart Z. Cohen
Stospherics Inc.
he scientific community began to
T emphasize the study of nitrates in
groundwater as a result of fertili-
zation in the mid- to late 1970s: The
emphasis on ihestudy and dwater also began
of pesticides in groundwater
mid-1980s,
late in that decade. By
tens of thousands of wells were found
to contain elevated nitrate concentra-
tions and detectable concentrations of
pesticides (USGS,1985; Cohen, et al. ,
1986; U.S. EPA, 1988; Cohen, 1988).
Butfew,-if any, of the data points were
collected from wells associated with the
nation's 13,626 golf courses.
The first comprehensive field inves-
tigation of the effects of turf chemicals
on groundwater was recently com-
pleted on Cape Cod. This article' will
describe that study and discuss its results
in the context of a brief overview of the
water quality issue.
cern about a turf pesticide affecting
groundwater and surface water quality
was published in 1978. Duble et al.
demonstrated that arsenic was lost in
the runoff and root zone leachate of a
turf lysimeter at toxicologically t t
simu-
cant concentrations. The turf p
lated a home lawn - 90 percent Ken-
Key Observations
From The Study
Seven of the tested turf pesti-
cides were never detected.
- No currently registered pesti-
cides were detected at toxicologically
significant concentrations.
- Lower nitrate concentrations
resulted when less nitrogen, slow-
release nitrogen, or both, was used.
Thus, reasonable changes in
management practices can minimize
nitrate concentrations.
tucky bluegrass and 10 percent red
fescue.
(A lysimeter is a device for collecting
soil moisture below the root zone. The
type of lysimeter used most frequently
in turf research has been the gravity or
pan lysimeter, where ceramic plates are
installed below the root zone to collect
leachate. Tile drains under greens are
crude gravity lysimeters. The other type
of lysimeter generally used in pesticide
studies is the suction lysimeter. This
lysimeter is a hollow tube, typically 1
inch by 1 to 4 feet, closed at one end
with a rounded, porous, ceramic cup.
Suction lysimeters are installed through
the turf, and suction is used to sample
pore water that may contain turf chem-
icals leaching to groundwater. The EPA
often requires the use of suction
lysimeters, so you may learn more
about them if a groundwater study is
required at your golf course.)
Continued on p. 28
Background
The earliest paper expressing a con-
i
"MIA
i
i
i
1 26

l In ddroundwate
could be reduced r, ven Tina management p al a hydrogeoogy. ai-
area of vulnerab The study Indicated that most pesticides d concentrations of threaten
tion, the study found that nitrate by lctices.

i
Goff course Management / February 1990
CAPE COD from p. 26
The Genesis Of The
Cape Cod Groundwater Study
In late 1983, significant citizen con-
cems raised the groundwater issue to
the national level. The Board of Health
of the Town of Brewster (Cape Cod,
Mass.) wrote to the EPA about the pro-
posed Captain's Golf Course. The
board asked an intelligent, responsible
question that could be summarized as
follows: "We would like to have a new
golf course, but we would also like to
ensure good quality for drinking water
- are the two compatible?"
Each pesticide was
evaluated for mobility,
persistence and human
and ecological toxicity.
We (at EPA) performed a risk screen-
ing exercise, or risk assessment of the
potential pesticides, establishing a con-
ceptual process that is still used. Infor-
mation on the following parameters was
The Site Of The Study
4rw
F
cape ea s.r
car
• , `? ? ' Eeatwsrd Ho
Borne ? ; Ss.dk6 i'R??i: +__MORrs+E •6:.i.: .? - ? -Psr+'A ; i
e
r t-• I - r Yr?""M'puJN r°Cp
:. ? -. jo.1 ...ter ? ???' _.,?
br
a. , Bass RK-er
a F F,i.o , ; er"ro" r Hyww1@pM G.C.
b ?l G.C.
X m.rtn S-d
Faknouth o 4 s 12 was
G.C.
Kmrws
VWW o . B n tQ 20
The four golf courses that were selected for monitoring were chosen on the basis
of pesticide and fertilizer use, age and hydrogeologic vulnerability.
used to develop a risk assessment,
which is an integrated evaluation of
chemical toxicity and exposure
potential.
The pesticide parameters were:
• Mobility - soil/water distribution
coefficient; water solubility; volatility.
• Persistence - aerobic and anaero-
bic soil metabolism; hydrolysis;
photolysis.
• Human toxicity - chronic health
advisory levels based on acceptable
daily intakes for non-carcinogenic
effects and a one-in-a-million risk level
for cancer incidence.
• Ecological toxicity (for surface
water concerns) - acute lethality data
(LCS. or LDS. values) for the appropri-
ate species, typically rainbow trout, bob-
white quail, daphnia magna and fat-
head minnow. (This parameter was not
28
evaluated for the proposed Brewster
site because of the lack of significant
runoff potential.)
The site parameters were:
• Hydrogeology -- soil type; depth
to groundwater; net aquifer recharge
resulting from precipitation and irriga-
tion; aquifer permeability (hydraulic
conductivity).
• Nearest drinking water well cap-
ture zones.
Why are the principles behind a 1983
assessment being restated in a 1990
article? Because you had better be
aware of these principles if there are any
concerns in your community about the
effect of your golf course on water qual-
ity. You can rely on such technical
experts as university extension profes-
sors and consultants, but you should at
least be familiar with these principles.
Our conclusion surprised us. We
assumed that most pesticides would
pose an unreasonable risk in such vul-
nerable hydrogeology. But after a
thorough evaluation of available data
and use of the Pesticide Root Zone
Model (PRZM), we concluded that only
a few of the pesticides might threaten
groundwater quality (Cohen, 1984).
The Captain's course was built and a
groundwater monitoring program was
instituted, and the course is currently in
operation.
Similar questions were raised when
the Bayberry Golf Course was pro-
posed for construction in West Yar-
Continued on p. 32
Golf Course Management / February 1990
CAPE COD from p. 28
mouth, Cape Cod. Local officials
requested that we conduct another
"paper" groundwater risk assessment.
Concurrently, the Cape Cod Planning
and Economic Development Commis-
sion (CCPEDC) recognized that a good
monitoring study was better than a
paper risk assessment. Thus it submit-
ted a proposal to conduct a ground-
water monitoring study for pesticides
and nitrates on Cape Cod golf courses.
We agreed in principle to the study
design, arranged for the funding and
began installing wells in late 1985.
The Cape Cod Study: Funding,
Design And Methods
The study design and overall project
management were the primary respon-
sibility of CCPEDC, along with the
EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP). All pesticide analyses were per-
formed by the EPA's pesticide lab in
Mississippi, and nitrate analyses were
done by the Barnstable County Health
and Environmental Department lab. All
field work was done by CCPEDC and
a well drilling contractor. More than half
of the field work was supported by
EPA-OPP funds. The U.S. Geological
Survey provided some technical advice
and billed its time to EPA-OPP. Finally,
the study could not have been done
without the participation of the local
superintendents, particularly Ed Nash
and Charles Passios, CGCS.
Initially, the objective was to estimate
the extent of occurrence of pesticides
and nitrates in the surficial aquifer as a
result of their application to all 30 golf
courses on Cape Cod. A statistically
meaningful subsample of golf courses
was to be selected based on hydrogeo-
logic vulnerability and pesticide usage.
However, it quickly became apparent
that we didn't have the budget to study
the five to 10 golf courses that would
be required for this type of study.
Therefore, the following criteria were
used to select the four golf courses most
likely to have groundwater con-
tamination: '
• Hydrogeologic vulnerability.
Pesticide and fertilizer usage.
• Golf course age.
The plan was to conduct a more
extensive study if significant contamina-
tion was found at these courses.
Seven golf courses met the criteria,
No currently
registered pesticides
were detected at
toxicologically significant
concentrations.
and four agreed to participate: the
Falmouth Country Club, the Hyan-
nisport Club, the Eastward Hof Golf
Club and the Bass River Golf Club.
Pesticides were selected based on
their environmental chemistry (Cohen
et at. 1984; Gustafson, 1989) and tox-
icity. In addition, pesticides that had
been used and that could be easily ana-
lyzed were included.
Initially, a total of 16 monitoring wells
were installed at the tees, greens and
fairways of the four golf courses. Sub-
sequently, three additional wells were
installed. Drive-and-wash and hollow
stem auger techniques were used.
Wells were purged and sampled
quarterly by hand for four quarters over
a year and a half. EPA methods 608,
615, 622 and 632 were used to ana-
lyze samples' for organic compounds,
and American Public Health Associa-
tion Standard Method 418-A was used
to analyze samples for nitrates. When
organic compounds were detected,
they were confirmed by an alternative
analytical method.
Results
Seven pesticides were never
detected: mecoprop, siduron, pentach-
lorophenol, anilazine,1prodione, diaq-
zinon and the parent dacthal.
The most frequently detected organic
analytes were technical chlordane and
DCBA. The highly mobile herbicides
dicamba and 2,4-D were detected once
each out of about 70 samples. lsofen-
phos was detected once, and the widely
used fungicide Daconll (chlorothalonil)
was detected twice.
Discussion Of The
Cape Cod Study Results
No currently registered pesticides
were detected at toxicologically signifi-
cant concentrations. Only the banned
Continued on p. 34
Organic Analytes for the Cape Cod Golf Course Study
(Common name/trade name)
Herbicides Fungicides Insecticides
dacthal/DCPA * chlorothalonil /Daconii chlorpyrifos/Dursban
chlordane * * anilazine/Dyrene trichloropyrldinoi
dicamba lprodione/Chipco (Dursban metabolite)
26019 isofenphos/Oftanol
mecoprop/MCPP diazinon
214-D chlordane
2,4-dichlorobenzoic acidt
siduron/Tu persan
pentachlorophenol/PCPtt
Dacthal diacid metabolite included.
* Technical chlordane and heptachlor epoxide.
t Use unknown; suspected Impurity.
tt Specific target pest unknown, but this wood preservative had been for-
mulated as part of an herbicide mixture.

32 Golf Course Management / February 1990
r
CAPE COD fro7n p. 32 products were found. Furthermore, epoxide. (Technical chlordane is a
DCBA was found in two background mixture of chlordane, heptachlor and
chlordane/heptachlor epoxide came wells, upgradient of treated areas. This related chemicals. Heptachlor epoxide
close to or exceeded its health advisory is a mystery that may never be solved. is the oxidized or weathered form of
level (HAL). Dacond was detected at Another mystery is the frequent heptachlor.) Fifteen to 20 years ago,
0.4 ppb, or 20 percent of its HAL (2 detections of chlordane/heptachlor Continued on p. 38
ppb). All other pesticides were detected
at concentrations less than or equal to
5 percent of their HAL. Typical Shallow Monitoring Well
The two biggest surprises were the
occurrences of the most frequently
The two biggest
surprises were
the occurrences of
the most frequently
detected chemicals.
detected chemicals. 2,4-Dichloro-
benzoic acid (DCBA) is not and never
has been a registered pesticide, as far
as we know. It is possibly a breakdown
product of a manufacturing byproduct
of 2,3,5-trichlorobenzoic (TCBA) acid,
but that is not a likely explanation
because neither TCBA nor its reduction
Bentonite
PVC Casing
Grout
PVC Screen`
r y?4 'Fx?
Sand Pack s
r PVC Sattom Plug ? ? £; „?,, ;?; ?? • .
0
Groundwater Organic Analysis Results*
Analyte MDL Bass River Eastward Ho Falmouth Hyannlsport
a T F 6 a T F 6 0 T F 6 0 T F 0
0.96 0.11 -- - 0.12 0.10 022 0.39 t69
TKAM"Mbrdw 0.125 NO (0.49.1.17) ND (118-0.71) ND NO ND NO NO (ND-0.23) NO (X0-0.21( ND (t?0.961 (XO'1.]9)?.22.1.20)
0.06 GAS
t 8115 .110 ND NO (ND-038) ND NO NO ND ND (110-0.22) ND NO 'NO ND ND NO
0.04
pdNpy/18s 0.65 ND ND XD MD NO NO ND ND NO NO ND (NO-0.1) NO NO NO NO
0.10
24-0 0.05 NO NO me (ND-0.21) NO NO ND ND NO NO ND - NO NO NO No
0.16 0.29 0.15
gum c cif 0.20 NO (ND-021) NO ND XD NO NO (110-1-07) Nil (110435) - ND ND ND NO NO
0.07
tllonbt 0.05 NO NO NO ND ND NO (NDO.O6) NO ND NO - NO NO NO NO NO
2,4-lyWoteBmr=ok
ACV (OW)
0.20 0.24
(110-0.4)) 9.38 0.05 1
(110-32) 1110-0-081 (NO-M) 0.14 5.82 0.13
(110-0.24) (ND-4.94) (ND-0.21) 0.89
(1111-3.26)
NO
ND
-
NO
NO 0.13
(110-0.701 He 0.13
010")
0.04 O.OS 0.04 6.07
ilepYtli6r spmddr 0.07 NO (0-07-0.06) NO ND NO ND ND NO ND ND NO NO ND (NO-0.1D) (ND-0.08) (ND-0.16)
0.57
(ypknpMS 0.75 ND NO XD ND NO ND ND ND NO NO NO (No-1.17) HO ND ND NO
3,5.6.7dkslNa
7•ewimed
0.10
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO NO XD
NO
NO
NO
-
XD
NO 0.24
(NO-0.76) NO
NO
er AN mulls to uglL Ave" concentration provided (aasrsnleg NO - K MOL), followed by range In parentheses. Seven opm anatees were never detected.
MDL - method 4eteo11M MadL B - background well. T - be well. F - hinny we1L a - Green we1L
1 Highest OCBA eonceMMbns should be viewed quattlatlvety only. since analytical difficulties were experienced In the Initial sampling round. Subsequent twnesntradons wen InAcalb 2.10 Gob.

34 Golf Course Management / February 1990
CAPE COD from p. 34
chlordane was used as a turf insecticide
for mole crickets (white grubs) and as
a herbicide. Records are insufficient as
to whether and how much chlordane
was used on the golf courses in the
study. There are no indications of sig-
nificant termiticide use in the area. The
real mystery is how the chlordane/
heptachlor epoxide reached • the
groundwater.
Technical chlordane
is persistent, but
it is also immobile
and therefore not
likely to leach ....
VAN=
Technical chlordane is persistent, but
it is also immobile and therefore not
likely to leach to groundwater in the
aqueous phase. In fact, a special anal-
ysis was done that showed chlordane
was bound to aquifer or soil materials
in the suspended phase of the ground-
water samples. This led us to speculate
on the most likely route for the chlor-
dane to reach the aquifer. The two most
likely possibilities seemed to be
preferential flow in the bound phase
through macropores or vertical cross-
contamination during well installation.
Macropores can be solution cavities,
Continued on A. 40
Nitrate-N Groundwater Results*
Golf Course Well 1986 1987-1988 Overall
Average Median Range Average Median Range Average
Bass River ,
B 8.36 8.00 5.60-12.0 6.78 7.00 5.60.7.50 8.02
T 2.21 1.30 0.20-7.00 0.52 0.50 0.10-1.00 1.03
F 3.98 4.00 1.30-6.50 6.16 6.00 4.40-10.00 4.16
G-3
G-2 1.27 1.25 0.10-3.21 4.65 4.80 0.10-9.00 2.79
Eastward Ho
B 0.10- 0.10
X 0.10-0.10 0.10 0.10 ND-0.10 0.10
T 1.81 1.50 0.10.5.00 0.40 0.40 ND-0.80 0.99
F 11.90 13.00 0.10-20.0 4.10 3.20 1.80-10.0 6.66
G 11.26 9.00 2.80-30.0 3A3 3.00 1.40-5.00 6.31
Falmouth
B 0.10 0.10 0.10-0.10 0.10 0.10 ND-0.10 0.10
T 0.74 0,70 0.40.1.80 1.58 1.55 1.10.2.40 1.54
F (not sampled) (2 sam ples - 0.30 and 0.10)
G 2.52 1.50 0.40-6.50 1.40 0.65 0.50.6.00 2.44.
Hyannisport
B 0.11 0.10 0.10-0.20 0.10 0.10 ND-0.10 0.10
T 2.25 2.20 0.80-3.00 1.78 1.50 1.00.4.80 2.24
F 3.46 3.60 0.60-6.00 3.63 2.60 1.40.6.50 3.24
G 7.62 7.50 4.00-10.20 4.36 4.20 1.40-6.50 • - 5.82
Results in mg/l . Detection limit = 0.10 mg/I.
ND = nondetect (0.1 values do refl ect detections)
B = background well. T = tee well. G = green well.
A :Few Facts About Grc
x
17
What ts;groundwater? water monitoring studies
Groundwater. is water found in the y'
s'aturated,zone,The saturated zone,. Where rs groundwater found2 '?.
Is `an aea beneath the ground sur Groundwater underlies ;most of ?
?face where ;ail . pore?.spaces and the United`States 'rlt can'be as shat'=.
cracks are filled with water: '' lowas 3' feet below thesurface:' in
r?600 feet deep !n
aWhat rs'an}aqutfer?. parts of Florida 0
An aquifer rs a geologic formation "shtut sf awai
percent of the tworid's,
'containing groundwater-.Fiat is`capa fiesh,water supply' In contrast,, ice
file of yielding water'to a Well. Typi ash'eat`s/glaciers and-lakes"/reservoirs
cal aquifer types are sand and gravel, make' up 85'perc'ent and'0.5 percent
;fractured rock and karst limestone. of the. Earth's :fresh':water supply,
Often, :.particularly in the 'eastern respectively:
United States, more than one aquifer .
under}ies the ` surface., This is an How does, it rnove? . .
38
i . s
of
flows toward the following discharge z
pointk lakes, streams, the ocean and '
wells Some streams may actuall
recharge `:aquifers dunng ` certain t
times of the year ;
Who consumes`grorinifwater2,, Wry y
P.
One half of the total;United States.;',
population and. 95 percent 'f the
U.S rural population reh
Qrounawlter as?':ltstmAin ?Sniirro."ni
Coif Course Management I February 1990

i
c
i
f{
j
CAPE COD from p. 38
earthworm burrows, decayed root
channels and so on that lie beneath the
ground surface. It has been demons-
rated that water and solutes can travel
rapidly downward through macropores
when the surrounding soil is saturated
after prolonged rainfall or irrigation or
both. Macropore flow is of particular
concern to agricultural researchers
because of the increasing use of conser-
vation tillage, whereby reduced tilling
regimes allow the continued formation
of macropores. Therefore, macropore
flow is one possible route of transport
of chlordane to groundwater, other fac-
tors being equal.
The original plan was to install
monitoring wells with a grout sealant
11(J f s t.
j, rroui dwater,Lr s '?
' _V
.,Water'??*?'S" ;r r=
? a. -b! 'F?1L.. fiK. r'.. ?? FYI •ys,'ia b^{ .ate ?:,•.?.
One word or wok It's certainly. not :;
th`e~in84"'0"1 d"W t. question concern -_
tng groundwater (or ground water);
:but it'isiaii issuethai._has-drawn Its;
share of attention
14,aiithor`of.`thisartcle is a.-firm. ?'
ever.,,, In"ground Suiiter and `can::
produce,dozen I s:of cItations in .sup
port of rnalnng it two words, iriclil
idg a number bf'dichonaries, fechni
ca( glossanes?Ioumak and,reports
#O? jthe other?,•tiand, ,tie style that
this magaiine,has followed for three
.years is groundwater, `and were not
alone in our spelling .. PubU tiond'b
-various i n'stitutes, otherl-magazines
and iot1rnals as ?ll as pnvate'com
;panies.make it`one word
Turning to`the EPA fo'r an answer
faiis4toshed any:=additional light on,
thessue, as the.agency uses both':
spelfmgsn its; publications ,?''
Buf for; our purposes = because
magazind;style`is'based on the pnn
dole Fof 4c6nsistency as; an, aid for
je- ders 43+grou idwater'will continue
Ito ap ear as one word t,
rE` .n x
40
between the surface cement and the
bentonite plug above the well screen.
However, this was not done. Instead,
the well driller followed the standard
practice at that time for that area by
using the native soil obtained during
drilling to backfill that portion of the
annular space. Thus, if the soil con-
tained chlordane and if the integrity of
DCBA was the only
organic chemical detected
in the background wells.
This suggests the
possibility of
an off-site source.
the bentonite plug was somehow com-
promised, contamination directly down
the borehole would be a distinct
possibility.
Both of these possible explanations
of the chlordane results should be con-
sidered in the context of the temporal
trends that were evident. Significant
declines occurred in the pesticide con-
centrations between the first round of
sampling and the second round and
between the second and third rounds.
Between the first and second rounds of
sampling, 14 detections of chemicals in
wells declined, and six increased.
Between the second and third rounds,
10 detections of chemicals in wells
declined, and three increased. In the
last round of sampling, only five wells
contained detectable pesticide concen-
trations. Chlordane was only detected
once - in Hyannisport - in this final
round. These trends are consistent with
the possibility of cross-contamination
during well installation.
It is my opinion that both the macro-
pore flow and cross-contamination
phenomena contributed to the chlor-
dane results but that more of the detec-
tions were due to cross-contamination
than macropore flow from the surface.
This is another mystery that may never
be resolved conclusively.
Some spatial trends in pesticide ana-
lyses were noted as well. Most findings-
of pesticides and related compounds in
groundwater centered on the greens
and tees. All eight green and tee wells
had at least one detection during the
study, whereas only three fairway wells
and two background wells had detec-
tions. The difference is even more
apparent when examining total
individual chemical detections for each
well. Using this approach, the follow-
ing numbers are obtained: green wells
- 12 detections; tee wells -12 detec-
tions; fairway wells - seven detections;
and background wells - two detections
(both were DCBA, the apparent herbi-
cide impurity).
Three conclusions can be drawn from
this assessment:
- Pesticides and related compounds
were found in areas where pesticides
are more intensively applied - the
greens and tees.
- Chemicals that may have leached
to groundwater under greens and tees
do not appear to have migrated exten-
sively to the other wells.
- The mystery compound - DCBA
- was the only organic chemical ever
detected in the background wells. This
suggests the possibility of an off-site
source.
The nitrate results were encouraging.
Although the golf courses definitely
increased nitrate concentrations in
groundwater at several locations, it
appeared that lower nitrate concentra-
tions resulted when less N, slow-release
N - or both - was applied.
The Falmouth course seemed to use
the highest proportion of slow-release
nitrogen fertilizers, and it had the lowest
concentration of nitrate-N in ground-
water. The Eastward Ho! golf course
had the greatest nitrate-N groundwater
concentrations in 1986 and also tended
to apply more water-soluble nitrogen.
When nitrogen application was signifi-
cantly reduced in 1987, groundwater
concentrations of nitrate-N were also
significantly reduced. These trends
cannot be explained by the rainfall data.
The results indicate that reasonable
Continued on p. 42
Golf Course Management! February 1990
CAPE COD from p. 40
.ems
changes in management practices can
minimize contamination in the golf
course environments that.were studied.
They are also generally consistent with
some of the data and principles sum-
marized recently in an excellent review
article by Petrovic (Goff Course
Management, September 1989).
Broader Implications
If we examine the scientific data on
golf courses and groundwater, we find
it is limited, but encouraging. I men-
tioned earlier the findings of Duble, et
al. (1978) regarding arsenic. Gold et al.
(1988) conducted an analogous turf
lysimeter study with 2,4-D and dicamba
on 90 percent Kentucky bluegrass/10
percent fescue plots. Dicamba is mobile
and persistent, and 2,4-D is mobile but
not persisent. (Information on estimat-
ing groundwater contamination poten-
tial based on mobility and persistence
data can be found in Gustafson (1989)
and Cohen, et al. (1984)). Gold et al.
studied leaching of these herbicides at
high and low application rates and low
and overwater irrigation regimes. They
found that 0.4 percent of the 2,4-D was
lost in the root zone leachate - a worst
case scenario for groundwater contami-
nation potential - generating
0.55-0.87 ppb mean concentrations.
If we examine the
scientific data on golf
courses, we find it
limited, but encouraging.
One percent of the dicamba was lost in
the leachate generating 0.26-0.55 ppb
mean concentrations. The health advi-
sory levels for 2,4-D and dicamba are
70 ppb and 200 ppb, respectively.
Therefore, there would be no toxico-
logic concerns for these leachates under
the conditions of this study.
The Florida Department of Environ-
mental Regulation found EDB In
groundwater samples associated with
12 golf courses of 22 sampled. EDB is
a mobile, persistent and toxic soil fumi-
gant nematicide that was banned by the
EPA in 1983. The range of concentra-
tions was 0.03-11.0 ppb, and the
health advisory level less than or equal
to 0.10 ppb. (These data are the sub-
ject of a court case-)
Niemczyk and Krueger (1987)
demonstrated that thatch significantly
retarded the movement of Isazophos
(Triumph) through Ohio turf. (We have
successfully calibrated the Pesticide
Root Zone Model with these data.)
Although other agricultural studies
demonstrate a similar low mass percent
of pesticides leaching through the root
zone, the work by Niemczyk demon-
strates an additional barrier to leaching
found in only the thatch of turfgrass.
There is also limited Information
available on turf, runoff. Again, the
available information is encouraging.
One Superintendent's Observations
. On The Cape Cod Study
Ed Nash
Superintendent of Golf Courses
Town of Yarmouth. Mass.
When the Town of Yarmouth
sought to construct a second
municipal golf course near well
fields, we were asked to show that
the course would not pollute the
town's drinking water. The town's
main concern was our proposed use
of fertilizers and pesticides on the
site.
Available studies were presented
to various town and county agen-
cies, but no information was availa-
ble specifically for Cape Cod. The
available information was generally
viewed as being insufficient to prove
our case.
Realizing that many new golf
courses might never get built without
more local information, the Cape
Cod Turf Managers Association
agreed to participate in a ground-
water monitoring study of our golf
courses.
The EPA, Cape Cod Planning
and Economic Development Com-
mission and the state pesticide board
provided most of the funding for the
study. To get funding from these
groups, proposed projects need to
demonstrate "local interest." The
newspapers provided us with plenty
of speculative, negative coverage so
we had no problem with that. Spe-
cial thanks should be given to my
golf commission at Bass River Golf
Course, superintendents Charlie
Passios, CGCS, and Bob St.
Thomas of Hyannisport GC, Brian
Cowan of Eastward Hol GC and
Bucky Hall of Falmouth GC.
Because of the way that the media
covered the early stages of the study,
we had more than one meeting to
decide whether we wanted to con-
tinue with the study.
Test wells were drilled on greens,
tees and fairways of the four old,
Continued on p. 44
42
Golf Course Management / February 1990
CAPE COD from p. 42
Morton, et al. (1988) conducted a
lysimeter and runoff study with nitrogen
fertilizers. Their Kentucky bluegrass/
fescue plots in Rhode Island had 2 per-
cent to 3 percent slope and sandy loam
soil on both irrigated and non-irrigated
test plots. Overland runoff occurred on
only two storm events during the two
years of monitoring. One -of these
events was generated by rainfall on
frozen ground With snow cover.
Our own calculations done accord-
ing to standard Soil Conservation Serv-
ice methods indicates that runoff
volume from turf should be 0.1 percent
to 65 percent of the runoff volume from
corn, depending on the soil type and
the rainfall intensity.
Conclusion And Recommendations
The limited data available on the
effects of turf chemicals on water qual-
ity are encouraging. The Cape Cod
study was done with one set of chemi-
cals in one type of hydrogeologic set-
ting. More studies like it are needed,
particularly at golf courses that use
nematicides and are located in environ-
ments with shallow, fractured bedrock
aquifers or solution limestone.
It is wrong to assume that most pes-
ticides applied to golf courses will even-
tually show up in groundwater, but it is
equally wrong to assume that the
thatch, the dense plant system and the
bioactive root zone will answer all sur-
face water and groundwater quality
concerns.
It is wrong
to assume that
most pesticides applied
to golf courses
eventually show up
in groundwater.
Golf course superintendents and
others should be aware of the potential
risks of the chemicals they apply. As
always, they should consider the mobil-
ity, persistence and toxicity of pesticides
applied to the golf course. Risk screen-
ing exercises should be done, especially
for golf courses that could conceivably
threaten sensitive water supplies. 0
References
Cohen, S.Z. (U.S. EPA). February 28, 1984. Writ-
ten communication to S. Blauner, Board of Health,
Town of Brewster, Brewster, Mass.
Cohen. S.Z. Testimony before the Senate Commit-
tee on Environment & Public Works, "Hearing on Pes-
ticide Issues," June 10, 1988.
Cohen, S.Z., R.F. Carsel, S.M. Creegar, and C.G.
Enfield. 1984. "Potential for Pesticide Contamination of
Ground Water from Agkultural Uses," in Treatment and
Drsposal of Pesddde Wastes, R.F. Krueger and J.N.
Sieber (eds.), pp. 297-325. American Chemical Soci-
ety, Washington, D.C.
Cohen, S.Z.. C. Eden, and M.N. Lorber. 1956.
"Monitoring Ground Winter for Pesticides," in Eualue-
tran alPestrddesln Ground Woter, W.Y. Gamer, R.C.
Honeycutt, and H.N. Ntgg (eds.), pp. 170-196. Ameri-
can Chemical Society, Washington, D.C.
Duble, R.L, J.C. Thomas, and K.W. Brown. 1976.
"Arsenic Pollution from Underdrainage and Runoff from
Golf Greens," Agron. J. 70: 71-74.
Gold, A.J.. T.G. Morton, W.M. Sullivan, and J.
McClory. Mg. "Leaching of 2,4-D and Dlcamba from
Home Lawns," Water, Air and Soil Poll. v. 37. pp.
121-129.
Gustafson, D. 1989. "Ground Water Ubiquity Score;
A Simple Method for Assessing Pesticide L ewhabi ity,"
J. Enntr+on. Tax. Chem., v. 8. pp. 339357.
Hallberg, G.R. 1986. "Overview of Agricultural
Chemicals In Ground Water," Proceedings of the
Agrkulturotimpactson Ground Wader - AConference.
Omaha, Nebraska, August 11-13. 1986; pp. 1-63,
National Water Well Assoc., Dublin, Ohio.
Morton, T.G.; A J. Gold, and W.M. Sullivan. 1988.
%;fiueoce of Overwatering and Fertilization on Nitrogen
Losses from Home Lawns," J. Enuinon. Quad., v. 17,
pp. 124-130.
Nlemczyk, H.D. and R. Krueger. 1987. "Persistence
and Mobility of Isarophes In Turfgrass Thatch and Soil,"
J. Econ. Entomol., v. 80(8), pp. 950-952.
Petrovic, M. 1989. "Goff Comm Management and
Nitrates in Groundwater," Golf Course Management, v.
57(9), pp. 54-64.
U .S. Environmentaf Protection Agency, 19886. "Pes-
ticides in Ground Water Data Base 1988 interim
Report." Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Fate and Ground Water Branch, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1985. "National Water Sum-
mary 1984 - Hydrologic Events; Selected Water-
Quality Trends and Ground Water Resources," USGS
Water Supply Paper 2275, pp. 93-015. U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office), Washington, D.C.
OBSERVATION from p. 42
sandy soiled golf courses. The idea
was to see how much of the fertilizer
and pesticide we used might be
detected In groundwater directly
below where they were applied. This
would provide us with a worst-case
scenario from which we could decide
whether further studies were
needed.
To me, the most important infor-
mation that the study revealed was
that:
1. The average nitrate level
under fertilized areas of our
four courses is better than the
state drinking water standard.
2. The highest detection of
any currently registered pesti-
cide right under where it was
applied was less than 1/5 of
the material's health guidance
level. In most tests no detec-
tions were made at all.
The town of Yarmouth, after
reviewing preliminary monitoring
data from our study, allowed us to
build our new Bayberry Hills Golf
Course. We have a working ground-
water agreement with the town that
limits and monitors amounts and
types of fertilizers and pesticides on
the site. Because we are near well
fields, we have 20 sampling sites that
are monitored by the state pesticide
board. The course was opened in
1988 and to date the monitoring
results have been excellent.
Five other golf courses on Cape
Cod have gained approval for con-
struction since we Initiated the study,
so I think our work was important
and worthwhile. I'm happy to see
that the use of fertilizers and pesti-
cides on Cape Cod's golf courses
does not pose any significant threat
to our municipal drinking water sup-
plies. After all, I drink the water, too.
44 Golf Course Management/ February qJ